April 3, 2007
Morning Roundup: D.C.'s Scariest Home Videos Edition
Good Morning, Washington. It looks like we survived the full moon, a night of Georgetown-less championship basketball and visit by Yoko Ono. It was worth it to enjoy another day of idyllic weather before it all goes to hell. By Friday the region will be back in the 40's with cloudy skies. As the National Park Service pleads with visitors not to touch, climb or even taunt the Cherry Blossoms, let's hope the expensive trees can withstand an Easter-weekend cold snap.
FBI Worked with D.C. Cops to Interrogate Protesters: Today's Post confirms that a secret FBI intelligence unit worked with D.C. police to detain and question more than 20 anti-war protesters in 2002. For over three years MPD and the FBI have denied any such incident took place. District officials said they had no record of the interrogation and that no FBI officials were present when the demonstrators were arrested for trespassing. A landslide of new documents reveal the government's involvement in collecting political intelligence in the District. On April 20, 2002, FBI agents in plain clothes targeted the protesters because of their black garments, apparently the definitive anarchist fashion choice. Then, the people were separated and asked about their political and religious views as well as the names of their friends and associates. Some of the interrogations were videotaped -- not the best way to keep quasi-legal procedures a secret. The police documents surfaced thanks to a lawsuit brought by the protesters claiming their civil rights were violated.
H2OPb: D.C. teachers may have to amend Chemistry textbooks to reflect the poor state of water in their schools. A new round of tests sampling fountains, sinks and coolers in every public school found that 74% of schools had elevated levels of lead in their water. The problem isn't new, but the report, along with its bleak news, comes at a critical time for Mayor Fenty, who takes his hankering for a school takeover to the D.C. Council today. One factor in calls for school reform is the dilapidated condition of many facilities, an issue that school Superintendent Clifford Janey has tried to address, while waiting until this February to tell parents about the lead problem.
Briefly Noted: Oprah coming to D.C. next month... Metrobus involved in multi-vehicle crash... Former D.C. cab driver pleads guilty to conspiring with terrorist group...
This Day in DCist: Last year we examined newpapers' online outposts.
Photo by Flickr user SweetJen34.
|
Speaking of scary, how 'bout those Nats yesterday? It could be a looooong season at RFK.
Speaking of scary, how 'bout those Nats yesterday? It could be a looooong season at RFK.
Speaking of scary, how 'bout those Nats yesterday? It could be a looooong season at RFK.
Speaking of scary, how 'bout those Nats yesterday? It could be a looooong season at RFK.
Oops, sorry about that. The comment form wasn't telling me that my post went through.
Not quite clear on how this detention occurred. Plainclothes FBI agents "isolated" protestors in a parking lot and videotaped them while being questioned? How exactly were they isolated? Didn't the protestors ask for some identification? Seems to me unless you have a badge and gun, you need to back TF up and talk to my lawyer.
And even if the agents were asking questions, which isn't a violation of anyones civil rights (you don't have to answer), did they do it under false pretenses, which I would think IS a violation?
Not sure what's so unclear about the article, ME. A group of protesters, some in black, entered a parking garage to go their vehicle. They were spotted, presumed to be trespassing, and arrested/detained. As far as I can tell from the article, it was FBI agents working with Metro police (all of whom would have been carrying badges, whether or not they all flashed them), and the initial charge (which didn't stick) was trespassing.
Walking up to the group and asking them questions obviously wouldn't be a violation, and it's not what happened here. Detaining them based on the color of their clothing and asking about their political affiliations ... that's less clear.
Monkey - I'm sure the FBI agents identified themselves as such, otherwise none of this would have ever come out. Don't discount the possibility that some self-styled anarchist "freedom fighter" readily accepted an opportunity to face "the man" and spout some bullshit.
So, when presented with a perfect situation to stick it in the face of the symbols of oppression and become martyrs for the cause, do they tell "the man" to shove it? Do they hand out nutsack whompings? Do they clam up? Do they run? No, they just sit there and rat their friends out to the FBI ON VIDEO? There's 20 of them and how many FBI/Metro cops? WTF am I missing here?
Either these guys ARE anarchists (albeit BORF-style suburban anarchists) or the agents need to be handed their asses. If these guys are just a bunch of Good Charlotte fans, well, then everybody involved deserves to be beaten.
Wasn't this settled out-of-court for some sum of money anyway? I vaguely recall a lot of people being pissed that the taxpayers had to foot the bill for Ramsey's sloppiness.
(albeit BORF-style suburban anarchists)
Well there it is.
I don't know one way or the other, I was just throwing out a half-baked theory.
Um, the article indicates that they had a building passkey and authorities were unsure of how it came into their possession. Why isn't this a simple matter of suspicious activity investigation, with sufficient evidence to bring them in for further questioning? Does the "anarchist" angle even have anything to do with it? The article does not state whether they were approached as anarchists, or as exhibiting suspicious behavior.
Does the article say the people actually answered the questions and "rat their friends out?" I thought just said they were questioned; it didn't say how they responded (but perhaps other articles do?). And I'm not sure they were anarchists. Just that the FBI thought that they were based on the black clothes. Which I guess means I am one too because I have a couple of black shirts.
"Does the "anarchist" angle even have anything to do with it?"
Considering the "anarchist angle" appears verbatim in the police notes, I would say yes.
"Intell 53 advises that five members of the anarchist group have entered a parking garage," reads an entry from 5:12 p.m."
""FBI, JOCC advises that an FBI intell team is responding to area of 13th and K/L Streets regarding a report of alleged anarchists in the vicinity," it reads. "There are reportedly 15 anarchists at 13th and K being interviewed. The subjects reportedly had a passkey to a building, but it's unknown how they came to be in possession of it.""
I think it's a safe assumption they were approached 'as anarchists', whatever that might entail.
I'd like to know how these high-school educated DC cops identified these people as "anarchists." I mean exactly what critera were used? Black clothes? Check. Hamburgler masks? Check. Cartoonish round bomb with sparkly fuse? Check. Phat Farm Smash the State teeshirts? Check. Yup, we've got anarchists here. We're goin in!
It's like going to Georgetown and trying to interrogate the "stinking yuppies" or the "metrosexual poseurs." Where do you start?
First of all, since when is anarchist philosophy outside of our constitutional rights? Were they suspected of violence? Or were the only threats BS trespassing and bushie disloyalty?
Second, and more importantly, go to http://wrc.weatherplus.com/wxplocal/index.html for accurate DC weather. NBC4 may have somewhat geeky weathermen personalities, but at least the meteorology is good.
They were clearly identifed as anarchists, whatever that means. My point was to ask whether they were approached simply on that identification, or were they approached because of suspicious behavior that they then used to draw the conclusion that they were anarchists. I'm just confused over this whole scenario, and don't think the article does a very good job of linking the facts here.
This followed on the heels of the seattle wto protests, which followed on the heels of 911. I recall that era as one in which a lot of people paid a lot of lip service to freedom and bravery, but didn't really live up to their own rhetoric. Unfortunately, MPD got caught up in and bought into a lot of those fears.
"I'm just confused over this whole scenario, and don't think the article does a very good job of linking the facts here."
Welcome to The Washington Post Metro Section. The writer could have taken 2 seconds to do a little research. The would have found that the term "anarchism" is pretty fractured, obviously. There is no "anarchist philosphy" but a wide range of conflicting political/social ideologies. The "black bloc" that converges at anti-globalization/anti-war rallies are an ad hoc, decentralized group that mainstream protestors shun. Rightly so, since they're the ones smashing Starbucks and other symbols of capitalist exploitation.
I figure the cops were just labeling anybody who could potentially be a black bloc member "an anarchist." Of course, I have to infer that since the Post writers are about the sloppiest bunch this side of Weekly World News or even frigging Highlights. Jeebus, at least Goofus and Gallant can maintain something resembling a narrative arc.
They were clearly identifed as anarchists, whatever that means. My point was to ask whether they were approached simply on that identification, or were they approached because of suspicious behavior that they then used to draw the conclusion that they were anarchists. I'm just confused over this whole scenario, and don't think the article does a very good job of linking the facts here.
This followed on the heels of the seattle wto protests, which followed on the heels of 911.
Actually, the Seattle WTO protests were in 1999.
Also, the recent successful lawsuit against the MPD regarding protest arrests related to a different incident, also from 2002, where over a hundred people (some of whom were just passing through the protest group on their way to work, or covering it as journalists) were surrounded and arrested in Pershing park with no warning.
I'd like to know how these high-school educated DC cops . . .
Monkey - You disappoint me with this comment, no joke. You strike me as someone who should know how many dumb a$$es there are running around this area with bachelor's (or master's) degrees.
"My point was to ask whether they were approached simply on that identification, or were they approached because of suspicious behavior that they then used to draw the conclusion that they were anarchists."
Based on the notes in the article, my opinion is that they were approached because they were 'anarchists', and 'anarchists' are automatically behaving suspiciously. The article appears to indicate that the group was under surveillance prior to entering the garage. Side note: Why couldn't the Post have put the full log online instead of doing an extremely weak paraphrase?
"don't think the article does a very good job of linking the facts here"
I don't think DC Police or the FBI have been very forthcoming with the facts, since it appears they blew it. However, it would have been nice to have an explanation from the 'anarchists' about how they had a key, instead of the lame "we were just going to get food from our van". Although to be fair it isn't actually clear if the garage was in fact access-controlled. The only mention of a key is in the police log and it is "reportedly". If this is just your standard parking garage, I'm not sure why it would be controlled.