O.k., I've had computer problems, which are now all better. But I haven't been blogging for a long time now (Two weeks! Yikes!). I've been collecting a few things and I should get to them. I might even do that. But first, something I tripped over today on a blog called Light Up The Darkness:
Two teachers arrested at a 2004 campaign rally for President Bush and strip-searched at a county jail have filed a lawsuit alleging law officers conspired to violate their constitutional rights.
Alice McCabe and Christine Nelson, both in their 50s, were among five protesters arrested at the Sept. 3 rally. The pair were handcuffed, taken to the county jail, strip-searched and charged with criminal trespass. The charges were dropped months later.
"I believe the federal government behaved very badly in this situation," said David O'Brien, the women's attorney.
And what exactly were the circumstances surrounding the arrest? According to the AP article:
A Secret Service agent allegedly told McCabe, who was on a sidewalk near the rally, that she was on private property and would have to move. When they moved to a parking area, the agent approached again and repeated the order.
After asking why, McCabe was arrested by a state trooper. Nelson was arrested later by another trooper, according to the lawsuit.
The arrests were ridiculous. The lawsuit is understandable. But what I think people are missing is the point.
Look again at the second paragraph (emphasis mine), because it bears repeating:
Alice McCabe and Christine Nelson, both in their 50s, were among five protesters arrested at the Sept. 3 rally. The pair were handcuffed, taken to the county jail, strip-searched and charged with criminal trespass. The charges were dropped months later.
It wold be interesting if someone with Nexis access could go and check on the number of "protester arrests" that ended with this same phrase. I know I've seen it before. Many times. Many, many times over the past four years.
Someone is saying something the administration doesn't want said. An arrest is made. Is it a valid arrest? No, of course not. Do the people making the arrests know this? I would guess that they do, in all likelihood. And then, either the court throws out the charges or they're mysteriously "dropped", but months later, long after any effective protesting could be done.
If you can't stop them legally, just stop them illegally. It still stops them. And nobody comes back at you and says, "stop doing this".
A small community I used to cover for a local newspaper had a less-than-unique way of augmenting it's scanty revenues. It was a well-known speed trap. It's police force spent nearly all it's time stopping cars for speeding violations.
The problem was, too many people knew it was a speed trap and carefully drove at or under the speed limit while in this particular village. Revenues were dropping like stones.
But arrests weren't. The local police continued to pull drivers over left and right and slap tickets on them. Most of these drivers contested the tickets (which were laregely unwarrented) and judges began listening. In fact, in one week, the village brought so many traffic violaters to court that one judge called them all up in a bunch and summarily dismissed all their charges, then warned the village that action could be brought against them if the egregrious ticketing continued.
The following year, there was a housing boom in the village and the police began easing off local motorists.
I don't think a housing boom is going to help those protesting the Bush government.
12:31:57 PM 
|
