Obama Administration Supports Journalist Arrested For Recording Cops 238
New submitter SplatMan_DK writes "Ars Technica reports that the Obama Administration has filed a brief in support of a Maryland photojournalist who says he was arrested and beaten after he took photographs of the police arresting two other men. The brief by the Justice Department argues that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to photograph the actions of police officers in public places and prohibits police officers from arresting journalists for exercising those rights. Context: 'Garcia says that when Officer Christopher Malouf approached him, Garcia identified himself as a member of the press and held up his hands to show he was only holding a camera. But Malouf "placed Mr. Garcia in a choke hold and dragged him across the street to his police cruiser," where he "subjected him to verbal and physical abuse." According to Garcia's complaint, Malouf "forcibly dragged Mr. Garcia across the street, throwing him to the ground along the way, inflicting significant injuries." Garcia says Malouf "kicked his right foot out from under him, causing Mr. Garcia to hit his head on the police cruiser while falling to the ground." Garcia claims that Malouf took the video card from Garcia's camera and put it in his pocket. The card was never returned. Garcia was charged with disorderly conduct. In December 2011, a judge found Garcia not guilty.'"
The card was never returned. (Score:5, Insightful)
When a lowly citizen destroys evidence, it's a crime.
Support? (Score:5, Insightful)
Support is not writing a brief. Support is indicting the officers in question for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law [fbi.gov]. These officers deserve the same treatment Obama's DOJ gave Aaron Swartz.
Enough is enough! (Score:5, Insightful)
The officers should be charged with theft and assault. They should also be fired.
Re:A sudden attack of reason (Score:2, Insightful)
While he made the Administration's position clear, the fact that they would even consider doing this should appall and outrage every citizen of this nation.
Re:The card was never returned. (Score:4, Insightful)
When a lowly citizen kidnaps and beats a reporter, strong-arm robs them of an expensive camera, and then commits perjury by accusing them of a crime in open court, then that lowly citizen goes away for a VERY VERY long time.
There should be apps for that (Score:5, Insightful)
There's this app [wired.com] for New Yorkers evidently. Any suggestions from anyone for those of us who don't live in NY?
Re:A sudden attack of reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reporter Arrested for recording cops (Score:3, Insightful)
but you can only file a lawsuit for MONEY... you can't file a lawsuit say to compel the court to disolve their marriages and send their kids to CPS. You can't file a lawsuit to have them striped naked and paraded through prison for a week.... I'd even settle for a 7x7 whipping on the courthouse steps.
THOSE are the kinds of things that need to happen to stop these abuses.... hurtful, spiteful, public punishments.
Re:A sudden attack of reason (Score:4, Insightful)
"People like you crack me up. You do realize that a drone is just a weapons platform right? If you can conceive of a reason why the US government might reasonable kill an American citizen with a pistol, a shotgun, an assault rifle, or a tank, why would the use of a drone somehow be any different?"
The problem here is that so far drones haven't been used "reasonably". They've been used to kill people on the President's personal kill list, in violation of treaty, international law, and U.S. law. That's not "war", it's legally murder.
Since ALL the evidence we have (the use of drones so far) points to illegal use of drones, why should anybody expect that they would suddenly be used in a reasonable and lawful manner, once used withing the U.S.?
If you are the sort of person who values real evidence, you should see that there are very good, rational reasons to be opposed to domestic use of drones.
Incentives (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the reference is more to the fact that, as a device that is normally connected and uploading to the internet, the fact that beating someone up and taking their "geek glasses" won't actually let you seize and destroy the recording, and just makes it more likely that, on top of whatever they were recording that made you want to seize the device getting out, the video of your beating them up to seize the device will also get out, which sort of removes the whole incentive for the beating-and-seizing behavior in the first place.
Re:A sudden attack of reason (Score:5, Insightful)
I must have missed that memo. I looked through my mail for anything with a subject called "The Presidents Personal Kill List", but I'm guessing I'm just not on that distribution.
I think this is where a [Citation Needed] is justified. At the parent stated, this make believe scenario was created by Rand Paul. In my opinion, it was done for one reason. Rand Paul personal ambition. The nation has always had a top list of most wanted, and dead or alive for a terrorist isn't a problem. It wasn't a problem for Bush, it wasn't a problem for Clinton, and it wasn't a problem for Bush Sr. They don't stop and try to take these folks into custody. If someone has declared them intentions and is clearly in collusion with a terrorist cell, then they have forfeited their rights as a citizen, and have declared themselves an enemy of the state.
Police will already shoot and kill an armed and dangerous person if they pull a weapon and the officer fears for his life. Now take that same scenario, apply it to a suspected terrorist with a dirty bomb. I have zero issue with said terrorist getting his ass blown away before he might harm hundreds or thousands in an OKC style bombing, or drastically worse, a dirty nuclear weapon. Walking up to such a person, and trying to arrest them and read them their miranda rights is more likely to just get them to trigger the bomb. A drone can take a person out before they have to to react and do such a thing.
The Constitution already charges the president with protecting it's citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. Holder already stated that using a drone, on a common American Citizen, siting in a Starbucks, would be an unnecessary use of force. That is not an ambiguous statement. I don't care what 'party' a President hails from. Any President who used a drone on innocent civilians without an overwhelming need to protect thousands more, would be impeached, and likely thrown in prison. Rand Paul claiming that this President could somehow do just that, and not face any consequences as a result was pure rhetoric, and beneath the dignity that the Office of the President deserves as a leader of the United States. Even his own party members called him out on it.
Lastly, Rand himself said he had no problem and would expect the President to use a drone to take out a terrorist who was an imminent threat in such a situation.
That 13 hours was all for the benefit of Rand, and no one else.
Re:A sudden attack of reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Rand Paul is the one who thought up the scenario, so we should be appalled and outraged at Rand Paul?
Yes we should. Senator Paul was just obfuscating the real issue. Killing citizens with drones is not an issue: the rules should be exactly the same as any other use of deadly force. It is not different because it is "with a drone". The issue is spying on citizens. When it comes to spying, drones are a game changer (in good ways and bad).
Re:It's better, it's not just "journalists" (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech zones are for stifling protesters.
In direct contradiction to the right to free speech.
Re:A sudden attack of reason (Score:5, Insightful)
I do question that this kill list contains anything but terrorists, or suspected terrorists.
It doesn't seem to take much to become a "suspect terrorist" these days. Everyone gets molested at airports for being possible terrorists, and being a suspected terrorist is just a step up from that.
Re:A sudden attack of reason (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you lock your house at night?
Fortunately that doesn't violate anyone's fundamental rights!
it's a simple precaution, but it restricts your freedoms, yet you do it.
When I lock my own door, the government is not restricting my freedoms. Your example is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
The difference here being that the TSA is tasked with the safety of the passengers and airline employees just as you may be tasked with the safety of those in your home.
And in my opinion, the TSA is tasked with violating everyone's fundamental rights and I would therefore consider their entire job morally wrong.
The courts allow it because congress allowed it, and congress allowed it because that's what a majority of their constituents want.
To me, it's pretty clear that it violates the violates the constitution, and as far as I know, the majority doesn't have absolute power in the US.
They have real world examples engraved in their memories after 9/11.
So they point to a single example and say, "See! The bogeyman is going to get us! Give us security theater or the terrists will destroy us!" Well, maybe they do...
Re:A sudden attack of reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it is actually. Authorizing the execution without trial of an American citizen, even one accused of terrorism, is illegal, a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process. And authorizing the assassination of a citizen of another county who is not a combatant or a military commander is a violation of international law.
In fact, the Army is expressly forbidden from offering a reward for an enemy "dead or alive". [globalsecurity.org] (Assuming this hasn't been superseded since this was written in the "anything does" post-9/11 moral decay of the U.S.)
A soldier with a gun is (if he's operating lawfully) firing at combatants on a battlefield. Drones have largely been used to slaughter people who are not currently engaging in hostile activities and are not on a battlefield.
Yes, the President could kill or order the killing of someone who was about to set of a bomb and kill many innocents. But he needs zero government power to do that -- if you or I saw someone about to push the button on a dirty bomb, we have the legal right (perhaps even the moral responsibility) to shoot them if we're able. That has fuck-all to do with how drones have been used; and given the crimes that have already been perpetrated, it's reasonable to question what further crimes
None of the three American citizens slaughtered so far in drone attacks were convicted of crimes, or belonged to the military of any nation, and therefore were legally innocent civilians. There was no imminent need to kill them. Yet Obama remains unimpeached and free.
Re: A sudden attack of reason (Score:4, Insightful)
No. First of all, prior to Paul's filibuster, the official policy of the administration on killing us citizens on us soil was that it was perfectly legal and hypothetically possible. No further conditions on that. At least now they've narrowed it down to people engaged in "combat"...though we have no way of knowing how broadly that is defined, so in a practical sense it doesn't change much.
The real issue though is that Paul did not go far enough. Done strikes are just as unconstitutional in Pakistan as they would be in Minnesota. The Bill of Rights is not some list of privileges given to us by the government. It is a list of rights, inherent to all human beings, that the government may not violate. Doesn't matter if they're inside our outside of our borders, and it doesn't matter if they're citizens. If we haven't declared war, we're required to give the accused a trial. It's that simple. There's no declaration of war against Pakistan, for just one example, so we can't legally use drones there.