Ever hear of The Lockyer Manual? Not to worry, almost nobody has. Not even many police departments, and it’s all about them and their interactions with public citizens during political demonstrations.
Basically the Lockyer Manual, created by former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, sets down legal guidelines regarding police surveillance during public demonstrations, marches and the like by codifying under what explicit conditions police or sheriff’s departments can photograph and record participants without violating their state constitutional rights to privacy.
It all hinges on this: Absent an articulable criminal predicate for the gathering of information it will not be possible to justify it [surveillance] under the general heading of intelligence activity.
In other words, the criterion, the benchmark, the only reason for law enforcement doing surveillance is that there must be reasonable suspicion of a crime. By setting down this legal marker, California’s constitutional right to privacy provides greater protections than the federal Constitution. Legal precedent established by the California Supreme Court established that there must be some connection between the information gathered, e.g., photographs, and unlawful activity.
Which brings us to an editorial in The Sun on Thursday, May 24 titled, “Cops on Watch,” that’s so full of suppositional speculation it’s the kind of drivel that gives BS a bad name. I’ve been told that The Sun gang-edits by committee so there’s no way to address an individual for writing this crap, and it’s always left unsigned. Frankly I don’t believe this. What I believe is that Sun publisher Bill Hammett penned this misleading and incorrect legal assessment of citizens exercising their constitutional rights of speech, association and privacy.
Firstly, no one, not Dave Henderson, Mike Smith, any adult or student at the demonstration or I has complained about police presence during the event. The objection voiced to the City Council regarded the unlawful photography of the participants by a sheriff’s department officer absent a crime having been committed. The editorial states that the students “violated school policy by leaving campus” “violated municipal codes by obstructing traffic lanes” while marching up Broadway. Give me a break! High School principal Michaela Philpot and several teachers attended the march/demonstration from the school. If the students violated school policy in actively learning a valuable civic and constitutional principle then it’s the school’s business, not local law enforcement’s. If Mr. Hammett and whoever joined him in this cockamamie editorial is so upset about a short time of obstructing traffic early on a Monday morning then perhaps in the interest of good law enforcement and community protection he should press charges against the students, and while he’s at it the sheriff’s deputy who accompanied them, but saw no reason to bust them.
Secondly, the editorial “presumes” pictures were being taken “in order to be able later to identify those student in the march.” If Hammett or any of his reporters except Mr. Mejia from El Sol had actually covered the demonstration he would know that the principal and some teachers were present. I think it’s safe to assume they know who these students are. Then the editorial speculates that it was necessary to take photographs to have on record in case there was a disturbance. Read the laws regarding surveillance, Mr. Hammett, and what police can and cannot do during public gatherings. Lockyer’s guideline plainly states that it is a mistake of constitutional dimension to gather information for a criminal intelligence file where there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed.
Bizarrely the editorial goes on “…to ponder what might have happened” if there was organized opposition to the march and if violence ensued. Okay, then there would have been grounds for photographing and police intervention and for whatever else would have been necessary to keep the peace. But what Hammett has done in arguing the case for surveillance is set up a straw man. Again, there was and is no opposition to a police presence during the march – there was and is opposition to photographic surveillance of a peaceful, orderly and school monitored constitutionally legal gathering of students and adults exercising their civil rights when there was no criminal predicate to justify it.
Another straw man argument posed by the editorial’s writer or writers, ostensibly assisted by their “legal folks,” posits that “there is no ‘expectation of privacy’” for people gathering in public, or cameras on school buses or mounted in police patrol cars. Stationary cameras now commonly used in public areas or private businesses or in school busses, set up for the public’s protection is a different scenario altogether than photographic surveillance during free speech activity for the purpose of gathering intelligence. And the fact of the matter is the Sheriff’s Department officer was photographing adults as well as students. If this was not for the purpose of gathering intelligence then the question is – what was it being done for? This is the question that should have been asked in the newspaper’s editorial. Furthermore when asked why he was photographing the demonstrators, the officer, J. Cobert answered that he was doing it on his own volition. He later fessed up that Sgt. Shubel of the Sonoma Police Department, ordered him to do so. What the truth of this is has yet to be determined.
But The Sun’s fatuous screed was too busy dissing those adults who stood in solidarity with the Latino student’s protest for fair immigration reform, and mouthing stupid platitudes about people who still live in the 60s. If living in the 60s means fighting for our dwindling civil rights, standing up against illegal police procedures, and supporting the human rights of our Latino brothers and sisters then I’m guilty as charged. My fellow travelers and I will oppose illegal and immoral wars, unjust social persecution, and government interference in our right to dissent. That’s what we learned in the 60s in the struggle for civil rights, women’s rights, and student’s right,s and in opposition to another immoral and unnecessary war for dominance. How quickly we forget, and how terrible a price we pay for our amnesia.
Lockyer wrote the manual in order to issue guidelines for local law enforcement agencies, and sent it out to every police chief and sheriff in the state in 2003 in the form of a book titled, “Criminal Intelligence Systems: A California Perspective.” The question is: Did they read it and do they care? A 2005 survey taken by the ACLU indicates a resounding “no.” In its report titled, “The State of Surveillance: Government Monitoring of Political Activity in Northern and Central California,” it’s stated: “The survey revealed a profound lack of regulation and a disappointing level of familiarity with the Lockyer Manual.” It further states: “The vast majority of law enforcement agencies did not have policies regulating the circumstances under which officers may monitor or gather information on individuals engaged in political activity.”
Hopefully the Sonoma Police Department will adopt and implement local law enforcement regulations that will preserve constitutionally protected civil liberties, and that will highlight the need for increasingly threatened privacy protections. I can see no reason why the community and the law enforcement agency cannot create these guidelines in a timely and mutually respectful manner.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Police Surveillance of Immigration Reform Demonstration
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow
-T.S. Elliot
We set out for the day thinking we know where we’re going, but in truth we have no idea. What we have is intention – I’m going to do this and I’m going to go there, – but the reality is anything can happen between your intention and its fulfillment.
For instance, I started out last Friday morning from the east side of town to the Sonoma Market and while passing by the Plaza encountered a rather large gathering of mostly young Latino High School students along with a few graying Anglos demonstrating for fair and just immigration reform. I honked the car horn in solidarity and approval as I passed, but seeing some friends, the usual activist contingent, decided on the spur of the moment to join in their march around the perimeter of the Plaza.
I hotfooted across the park to catch up with longtime fellow political traveler, Mike Smith, brandishing his oversized American flag, and joined in the kids chanting “si se puede!” I’ve always been in favor of that positive exclamation coined by the extraordinary fighter for worker and human rights, Cesar Chavez. And around the Plaza we marched.
The kids were great – spirited, strongly vocal, disciplined and well behaved. As our long line of 100+ marchers moved around the Plaza, Mike noticed a police officer in the familiar tan uniform of the Sonoma Sheriff’s Department taking photographs of the demonstrators with a camera. I looked to see and sure enough the officer was snapping away, his camera pointed directly at us. Mike was upset by these actions, said he was going to speak with the officer when we got back to the front of the Plaza, and asked if I’d accompany him. “Sure”, I replied, and off we went to speak with officer cameraman.
“Why are you taking pictures of us,” asked Mike, “this is a peaceful and orderly demonstration. Who authorized you to take photographs of the marchers?”
“Nobody” answered Officer J. Cobert, at least that’s my recall of his name, he refused to give us his card. We did ascertain that he is the High School Safety Officer.
“C’mon,” says Mike, “who told you to do this?”
“No one,” insisted Officer Cobert, reminding me for some reason of Officer Obie from Alice’s Restaurant, “I’m doing it for myself.”
Well things sort of spiraled down from there, Mike insisting he must be doing it on orders from the Police Department or some other authority, and Obie/Cobert demurring. Mike wasn’t buying it. He told the officer that the march was a peaceful, orderly and non-violent legal demonstration, and that his taking photos of the participants was intimidating and intrusive as there was nothing untoward going on. He relayed to the cop that in all the years of protests in Sonoma the police had never taken this kind of action, and that relations between police and demonstrators had always been cordial and respectful. As one who’s participated in any number of political or social protest demonstrations I can attest to this.
But Cobert, with a frozen smile and the hard-eyed look that comes from training or is maybe just inherent in his case, was implacable. He stuck to his story about doing it on his own, and the conversation pretty much ended in a stand off.
Shortly thereafter, Dave Henderson of the Sonoma Valley Peace & Justice group, who had been among the demonstrators went over to Cobert and repeated the query as to why he was photographing the marchers. This time, Cobert told Henderson that he was doing it under orders from Police Sgt. Shubel of the Sonoma Police Department. Why Cobert decided to fess up this time around is anybody’s guess, if in fact he was telling the truth to Henderson.
Now we fast forward to the city council meeting of May 16, during which both Henderson and Smith relayed the incident to the council in no uncertain terms, demanding an investigation into who ordered the photographic surveillance, for what purpose/s, and what was being done with the photographs of the marchers.
Henderson [see his remarks in full below] emphasized that the demonstration for immigration reform participants were “exercising their Constitutionally-protected right to free speech,” that the march was “well-controlled, well-monitored, law-abiding, and non-threatening in every way,” and that there “should be no reason for photography other than to facilitate traffic control, crowd management or other safety measures, which was manifestly not necessary at this gathering.” He added that in his estimation one could easily presume that the reason for photographing would be “to create files and dossiers on us.”
Councilman Ken Brown promised to look into the matter; the only council member to respond to Henderson’s importuning.
So still there are major questions that need to be answered, and perhaps as importantly, what is going to be the relationship between the Sonoma Police Department and future political or social issue demonstrators engaging in their Constitutionally guaranteed rights?
We may think we know where we are going when we set out for the day, but really we have no idea where we’re going to wind up. Life’s a crapshoot and like all games of chance the odds are with the house. And the house is reality.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
*Dave Henderson’s remarks to Council:
City of Sonoma Council Meeting, May 16, 2007
Presentation
Re: POLICE SURVEILLANCE OF HIGH SCHOOL DEMONSTRATON IN
PLAZA, MAY 15, 2007,
My name is Dave Henderson. I reside at 765Michael Drive.
I would like to inform this Council of something extremely unsettling that happened to me and to other Sonoma residents yesterday, May 15, in the Plaza.
100 or so students from Sonoma Valley High School had marched from the high school north on Broadway and gathered in the Plaza, joined by many others, included myself, to call for reform of our national immigration policies.
While we were gathered there with our signs, we noticed that a sheriff’s deputy was photographing all of us. Upon our challenging him for the justification for this action, he stated that he had been assigned to do so by Sgt. Shubel, but he refused to divulge any more information.
I ask--no, demand-- that this Council investigate why the police of this city are photographing innocent citizens who are exercising their Constitutionally-protected right to free speech, and therefore presumably using those photographs to create files and dossiers on us.
There should be no reason for photography other than to facilitate traffic control, crowd management or other safety measures, which was manifestly not necessary at this gathering, which was well-controlled, well-monitored, law-abiding, and non-threatening in every way.
I urge the Council to ascertain:
1. Who ordered this photographic surveillance;
2. What written, official policies of the police department, and/or of City of Sonoma,
authorize such surveillance; and,
3. If such written policies are lacking, what specific reasons did lead to the surveillance
order.
I hope this issue is of as grave concern to this Council as it is to me. Such police surveillance of law-abiding citizens exercising their free speech has no place in the United States that is under the rule of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Our police are obviously not sensitive to those rights and need urgent instruction in how to behave in a law-abiding fashion.
I hereby submit for your urgent study a report prepared by The American Civil Liberties Union in July 2006, entitled “The State of Surveillance: Government Monitoring of Political Activity in Northern and Central California.” You will find some very pertinent sections here, such as: “Government Surveillance and Privacy Right: A Brief History,” “Surveillance Abuses by Local Agencies in Northern and Central California,” “Best Practices Guidelines for First Amendment Activities.”
I hope that this Council will speedily adopt measures suggested in this report and adopted, in fact, by other cities. I hope that we have seen the last of un-Constitutional police surveillance in this city.
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow
-T.S. Elliot
We set out for the day thinking we know where we’re going, but in truth we have no idea. What we have is intention – I’m going to do this and I’m going to go there, – but the reality is anything can happen between your intention and its fulfillment.
For instance, I started out last Friday morning from the east side of town to the Sonoma Market and while passing by the Plaza encountered a rather large gathering of mostly young Latino High School students along with a few graying Anglos demonstrating for fair and just immigration reform. I honked the car horn in solidarity and approval as I passed, but seeing some friends, the usual activist contingent, decided on the spur of the moment to join in their march around the perimeter of the Plaza.
I hotfooted across the park to catch up with longtime fellow political traveler, Mike Smith, brandishing his oversized American flag, and joined in the kids chanting “si se puede!” I’ve always been in favor of that positive exclamation coined by the extraordinary fighter for worker and human rights, Cesar Chavez. And around the Plaza we marched.
The kids were great – spirited, strongly vocal, disciplined and well behaved. As our long line of 100+ marchers moved around the Plaza, Mike noticed a police officer in the familiar tan uniform of the Sonoma Sheriff’s Department taking photographs of the demonstrators with a camera. I looked to see and sure enough the officer was snapping away, his camera pointed directly at us. Mike was upset by these actions, said he was going to speak with the officer when we got back to the front of the Plaza, and asked if I’d accompany him. “Sure”, I replied, and off we went to speak with officer cameraman.
“Why are you taking pictures of us,” asked Mike, “this is a peaceful and orderly demonstration. Who authorized you to take photographs of the marchers?”
“Nobody” answered Officer J. Cobert, at least that’s my recall of his name, he refused to give us his card. We did ascertain that he is the High School Safety Officer.
“C’mon,” says Mike, “who told you to do this?”
“No one,” insisted Officer Cobert, reminding me for some reason of Officer Obie from Alice’s Restaurant, “I’m doing it for myself.”
Well things sort of spiraled down from there, Mike insisting he must be doing it on orders from the Police Department or some other authority, and Obie/Cobert demurring. Mike wasn’t buying it. He told the officer that the march was a peaceful, orderly and non-violent legal demonstration, and that his taking photos of the participants was intimidating and intrusive as there was nothing untoward going on. He relayed to the cop that in all the years of protests in Sonoma the police had never taken this kind of action, and that relations between police and demonstrators had always been cordial and respectful. As one who’s participated in any number of political or social protest demonstrations I can attest to this.
But Cobert, with a frozen smile and the hard-eyed look that comes from training or is maybe just inherent in his case, was implacable. He stuck to his story about doing it on his own, and the conversation pretty much ended in a stand off.
Shortly thereafter, Dave Henderson of the Sonoma Valley Peace & Justice group, who had been among the demonstrators went over to Cobert and repeated the query as to why he was photographing the marchers. This time, Cobert told Henderson that he was doing it under orders from Police Sgt. Shubel of the Sonoma Police Department. Why Cobert decided to fess up this time around is anybody’s guess, if in fact he was telling the truth to Henderson.
Now we fast forward to the city council meeting of May 16, during which both Henderson and Smith relayed the incident to the council in no uncertain terms, demanding an investigation into who ordered the photographic surveillance, for what purpose/s, and what was being done with the photographs of the marchers.
Henderson [see his remarks in full below] emphasized that the demonstration for immigration reform participants were “exercising their Constitutionally-protected right to free speech,” that the march was “well-controlled, well-monitored, law-abiding, and non-threatening in every way,” and that there “should be no reason for photography other than to facilitate traffic control, crowd management or other safety measures, which was manifestly not necessary at this gathering.” He added that in his estimation one could easily presume that the reason for photographing would be “to create files and dossiers on us.”
Councilman Ken Brown promised to look into the matter; the only council member to respond to Henderson’s importuning.
So still there are major questions that need to be answered, and perhaps as importantly, what is going to be the relationship between the Sonoma Police Department and future political or social issue demonstrators engaging in their Constitutionally guaranteed rights?
We may think we know where we are going when we set out for the day, but really we have no idea where we’re going to wind up. Life’s a crapshoot and like all games of chance the odds are with the house. And the house is reality.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
*Dave Henderson’s remarks to Council:
City of Sonoma Council Meeting, May 16, 2007
Presentation
Re: POLICE SURVEILLANCE OF HIGH SCHOOL DEMONSTRATON IN
PLAZA, MAY 15, 2007,
My name is Dave Henderson. I reside at 765Michael Drive.
I would like to inform this Council of something extremely unsettling that happened to me and to other Sonoma residents yesterday, May 15, in the Plaza.
100 or so students from Sonoma Valley High School had marched from the high school north on Broadway and gathered in the Plaza, joined by many others, included myself, to call for reform of our national immigration policies.
While we were gathered there with our signs, we noticed that a sheriff’s deputy was photographing all of us. Upon our challenging him for the justification for this action, he stated that he had been assigned to do so by Sgt. Shubel, but he refused to divulge any more information.
I ask--no, demand-- that this Council investigate why the police of this city are photographing innocent citizens who are exercising their Constitutionally-protected right to free speech, and therefore presumably using those photographs to create files and dossiers on us.
There should be no reason for photography other than to facilitate traffic control, crowd management or other safety measures, which was manifestly not necessary at this gathering, which was well-controlled, well-monitored, law-abiding, and non-threatening in every way.
I urge the Council to ascertain:
1. Who ordered this photographic surveillance;
2. What written, official policies of the police department, and/or of City of Sonoma,
authorize such surveillance; and,
3. If such written policies are lacking, what specific reasons did lead to the surveillance
order.
I hope this issue is of as grave concern to this Council as it is to me. Such police surveillance of law-abiding citizens exercising their free speech has no place in the United States that is under the rule of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Our police are obviously not sensitive to those rights and need urgent instruction in how to behave in a law-abiding fashion.
I hereby submit for your urgent study a report prepared by The American Civil Liberties Union in July 2006, entitled “The State of Surveillance: Government Monitoring of Political Activity in Northern and Central California.” You will find some very pertinent sections here, such as: “Government Surveillance and Privacy Right: A Brief History,” “Surveillance Abuses by Local Agencies in Northern and Central California,” “Best Practices Guidelines for First Amendment Activities.”
I hope that this Council will speedily adopt measures suggested in this report and adopted, in fact, by other cities. I hope that we have seen the last of un-Constitutional police surveillance in this city.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Sonoma Locals Stand for Impeachment
By Dave Henderson
We were some 12 witnesses for Impeachment. Two large signs "book-ended" the impeachment “banner” – spelling signs: "AMERICA SAYS:" and "TELL CONGRESS.”
In between were the letters signs I-M-P-E-A-C-H-!, each letter in a different individual style, with special mention going to Pat Spicer's impressive initial "I" to Will Shonbrun's exquisitely American "C".
Other valiant brandishers included Audrey von Hawley, George Holmes, Shirley Clark, Greg Montgomery, Jim McFadden, Mattie Rudinow, Dave Henderson, Jim Syfer, Bob Hauser, and Sue Benson. We were very pleasantly surprised by the enthusiastic reception: fully *300* honks, V-signs, waves, and shouts in the1-hour period! Amazing. And very few contrary, ah, gestures. America, folks, is ready for Impeachment -- and, mind you, many of these were tourists, at 10-11am on Highway 12, not the notoriously left- leaning, knee-jerk liberal Sonoma locals.
So what we found out is that America is READY FOR IMPEACHMENT!
………………………………………………………………………………..
Blogger's note: April 28 was I-M-P-E-A-C-H day across the nation. Newspapers and the WEB report the day a success as many cities and towns turned out to demonstrate for impeachment. Interestingly neither local Sonoma newspapers published one word about the Plaza Impeach demonstration. Once again our local press failed to cover a news event of significant interest – not even a photograph. Is this censorship or laziness?
Representative and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich introduced House Resolution 333 to impeach Vice President Cheney on April 24. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a House Democratic leader raised the possibility of impeaching Bush on Sunday’s Meet the Press and in an interview on NPR’s All Things Considered, where he said that impeachment is “on the table.”
Here’s what you can do to further this cause – the remedy specified in the U.S. Constitution for the “high crimes and misdemeanors” perpetrated by the Bush administration.
Sign petitions to your representatives at: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73 and to every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, which must be persuaded to hold hearings
Honk to Impeach Every week, get a group of activists to gather with signs reading: "Honk to Impeach / Bush and Cheney" "Call Rep. X / 123-457-7890"
Choose a busy intersection, preferably in front of your Congress Member's local office, or in front of a your local TV, radio, or newspaper office. We recommend Wednesdays from 4-6 p.m. during rush hour, but your group should decide what works best. You'll be amazed by the positive response you get!
Also bring copies of our petition: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/petition
You can collect signatures from pedestrians, drivers after they park, shoppers and workers entering businesses, or drivers at long red lights in safe intersections.
In between were the letters signs I-M-P-E-A-C-H-!, each letter in a different individual style, with special mention going to Pat Spicer's impressive initial "I" to Will Shonbrun's exquisitely American "C".
Other valiant brandishers included Audrey von Hawley, George Holmes, Shirley Clark, Greg Montgomery, Jim McFadden, Mattie Rudinow, Dave Henderson, Jim Syfer, Bob Hauser, and Sue Benson. We were very pleasantly surprised by the enthusiastic reception: fully *300* honks, V-signs, waves, and shouts in the1-hour period! Amazing. And very few contrary, ah, gestures. America, folks, is ready for Impeachment -- and, mind you, many of these were tourists, at 10-11am on Highway 12, not the notoriously left- leaning, knee-jerk liberal Sonoma locals.
So what we found out is that America is READY FOR IMPEACHMENT!
………………………………………………………………………………..
Blogger's note: April 28 was I-M-P-E-A-C-H day across the nation. Newspapers and the WEB report the day a success as many cities and towns turned out to demonstrate for impeachment. Interestingly neither local Sonoma newspapers published one word about the Plaza Impeach demonstration. Once again our local press failed to cover a news event of significant interest – not even a photograph. Is this censorship or laziness?
Representative and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich introduced House Resolution 333 to impeach Vice President Cheney on April 24. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a House Democratic leader raised the possibility of impeaching Bush on Sunday’s Meet the Press and in an interview on NPR’s All Things Considered, where he said that impeachment is “on the table.”
Here’s what you can do to further this cause – the remedy specified in the U.S. Constitution for the “high crimes and misdemeanors” perpetrated by the Bush administration.
Sign petitions to your representatives at: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73 and to every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, which must be persuaded to hold hearings
Honk to Impeach Every week, get a group of activists to gather with signs reading: "Honk to Impeach / Bush and Cheney" "Call Rep. X / 123-457-7890"
Choose a busy intersection, preferably in front of your Congress Member's local office, or in front of a your local TV, radio, or newspaper office. We recommend Wednesdays from 4-6 p.m. during rush hour, but your group should decide what works best. You'll be amazed by the positive response you get!
Also bring copies of our petition: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/petition
You can collect signatures from pedestrians, drivers after they park, shoppers and workers entering businesses, or drivers at long red lights in safe intersections.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Comments & Caveats
As the former publisher/editor of the Sonoma Valley Voice newsletter, 1997-2004, and Commentary Editor for the short-lived North Bay Progressive newspaper, ’02-’06, I’ve rarely been at a loss for words. I even took a turn at online publication with the Sonoma Valley Voice.com website for a few years, so I’ve been bloviating and opining almost to my heart’s content these last 10 years or so. In between these endeavors I’m an inveterate letter to the editor writer to our local papers. Obviously I’m not reticent about shooting my mouth off, and I’m most definitely a political news junkie and culture critic.
I certainly make no claim as to being right all the time, although I think I am most of the time, and am willing to debate my point of view, decidedly progressive/liberal, in print. Blogging is a new gig for me, but I’m up for taking a shot at it. Anyone wanting to comment on what I’m putting out there is welcome to do so, but I’ve decided to screen comments first before publishing them. As the editor of this blog I will use my discretion in publishing what I determine to be comments of substance.
The areas of interest and concern to me are politics, social justice and civil rights issues, and the protection and conservation of our environment. These issues have always been closest to my heart and will continue to be the main focus here.
Another focus of this blog will be local issues that I think are important and need to be looked at from a different point of view. I can’t make any pledges as to form or content except to say I’ll try to keep it interesting. I’m aware that my writing style and perspective are at times obnoxious to some and a turn off. So be it. All I can say to those who are offended is don’t read it. I am not writing this blog to be polite, accepted, or even to change anyone’s thinking. This is personal commentary, and the thoughts expressed here are what I would say, and how I would say it, if we were sitting across from one another.
A note of appreciation: this blog site was designed and implemented by my friends Tom Whitworth and Jeri Lynn Chandler. I think they did a fabulous (as Tom would say) job, and I’ll try to keep the content equal to the presentation.
So, in the spirit of rebellious free thought, my guiding principle, here goes…
WS
I certainly make no claim as to being right all the time, although I think I am most of the time, and am willing to debate my point of view, decidedly progressive/liberal, in print. Blogging is a new gig for me, but I’m up for taking a shot at it. Anyone wanting to comment on what I’m putting out there is welcome to do so, but I’ve decided to screen comments first before publishing them. As the editor of this blog I will use my discretion in publishing what I determine to be comments of substance.
The areas of interest and concern to me are politics, social justice and civil rights issues, and the protection and conservation of our environment. These issues have always been closest to my heart and will continue to be the main focus here.
Another focus of this blog will be local issues that I think are important and need to be looked at from a different point of view. I can’t make any pledges as to form or content except to say I’ll try to keep it interesting. I’m aware that my writing style and perspective are at times obnoxious to some and a turn off. So be it. All I can say to those who are offended is don’t read it. I am not writing this blog to be polite, accepted, or even to change anyone’s thinking. This is personal commentary, and the thoughts expressed here are what I would say, and how I would say it, if we were sitting across from one another.
A note of appreciation: this blog site was designed and implemented by my friends Tom Whitworth and Jeri Lynn Chandler. I think they did a fabulous (as Tom would say) job, and I’ll try to keep the content equal to the presentation.
So, in the spirit of rebellious free thought, my guiding principle, here goes…
WS
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
18 Missing Inches in New Orleans
By Greg Palast
From the new updated and expanded paperback edition of the bestseller Armed Madhouse in stores now.
Since the initial release of Armed Madhouse in June 2006, much has changed in America.
The Department of Homeland Security, after a five-year hunt for Osama, finally brought charges against... Greg Palast.
As America crawled toward the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attack, Homeland Security charged me and my US producer Matt Pascarella with violating the anti-terror laws.
Don't you feel safer?
And I confess: we're guilty.
On August 22, 2006, we were videotaping Katrina evacuees still held behind barbed wire in a trailer park encampment a hundred miles from New Orleans. It had been a year since the hurricane and 73,000 POW's (Prisoners of Dubya) were still in mobile home Gulags. I arranged a surreptitious visit with Pamela Lewis, one of the unwilling guests of George Bush's Guantanamo on wheels. She told me, "It's a prison set-up" - except there are no home furloughs for these inmates because they no longer have homes.
You can't film there. FEMA is part of Homeland Security and its camps are off limits to cameras. We don't want Osama to know he can get a cramped Airstream by posing as a displaced Black person.
To give a sense of the full flavor and smell of Kamp Katrina, we wanted to show that this human parking lot, with kids and elderly, is close by Exxon Petroleum's Baton Rouge refinery. The neighborhood goes by the quaint sobriquet, "Cancer Alley."
So we filmed it. Uh, oh. The refinery, is a CAVIP, "Critical Asset and Vulnerable Infrastructure Point." Apparently, you can't film a CAVIP.
As to the bust: The positive side for me as a reporter was that I got to see Bush's terror-trackers in action. I should note that it took the Maxwell Smarts at Homeland Security a full two weeks to hunt us down. And we're on television.
Frankly, Matt and I were a bit scared that, given the charges, we wouldn't be allowed on a plane into New York for the September 11 commemoration. But what scared us more is that we were allowed on the plane.
Once I was traced, I had a bit of an other-worldly conversation with my would-be captors. Detective Frank Penantano of Homeland Security told me, "This is a 'Critical Infrastructure' … and they get nervous about unauthorized filming of their property."
Well, me too, Detective. In fact, I'm very nervous that extremely detailed satellite photos of this potential chemical blast-site can be downloaded from maps.google.com.
Detective Penantano, in justifying our impending arrest, said, "If you remember, a lot of people were killed on 9/11."
Yes, I remember "a lot" of people were killed. So I have this suggestion, Detective - and you can pass it on to Mr. Bush: Go find the people who killed them.
18 Missing Inches
Before the Big Bust, we learned a little more about how New Orleans drowned. Given my line of work, I'm not shocked at much. Yet, this one got to me.
"By midnight on Monday the White House knew. Monday night I was at the state Emergency Operations Center and nobody was aware that the levees had breeched. Nobody."
The charges were so devastating - the White House's withholding from the state police the information that the city was about to flood - that from almost any source, I simply would have dismissed it. But this was not just any source. The whistleblower was Dr. Ivor van Heerden, deputy chief of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Studies Center, and the chief technician advising the state on saving lives during Katrina.
That Monday night, August 29, 2005, the sleepless crew at the state Emergency Operations Center, directing the response to Hurricane Katrina, were high-fiving it, relieved that Katrina had swung east of New Orleans, sparing the city from drowning.
They were wrong. The Army Corps, FEMA and White House knew for critical hours that the levees had begun to crack, but withheld the information for a day and night. The delay was deadly.
Van Heerden explained that levees don't collapse in a single bang. First, there's a small crack or two, a few feet wide, which take hours to burst open into visible floodways.
Had the state known New Orleans' bulwark was failing, they would have shifted resources to get out those left in the danger zone.
Van Heerden: FEMA knew on 11 o'clock on Monday that the levees had breeched. At 2pm they flew over the 17th Street Canal and took video of the breech.
Question: So the White House wouldn't tell you that the levees had breeched?
Van Heerden: They didn't tell anybody.
Question: And you're at the Emergency Center?
Van Heerden: I mean nobody knew. Well, the Corps of Engineers knew. FEMA knew. None of us knew.
The prevarications continued all week.
Van Heerden said, "I went to the Governor's on Tuesday night and I said this, 'There's a lot more breeches than one.' They said, "Whatever you need, go find out.' I got in an airplane, I flew. I counted 28 breeches."
The White House had good reason, or at least political and financial reasons, to keep mum. A hurricane is an act of God, but catastrophic levee failure is an act of the Administration. Once the federal levees go, evacuation, rescue and those frightening words - responsibility and compensation - become Washington's. Van Heerden knew that "not an act of God, but catastrophic failure of the levee system" would mean that, at least, "these people must be compensated."
Not every flood victim in America gets the Katrina treatment. In 1992, storms wiped out 190 houses on the beach at West Hampton Dunes, home to film stars and celebrity speculators. The federal government paid to completely rebuild the houses, which, hauled in four million cubic feet of sand to restore the tony beaches, and guaranteed the home's safety into the coming decades - after which the "victim's" homes rose in value to an average $2 million each.
But in New Orleans, instead of compensation, 73,000 have been sentenced to life in FEMA's trailer-parks in Louisiana. Even more are displaced to other states. I asked van Heeerden about the consequences of the White House's failures, the information about the levee being just one of a list.
"Well, fifteen hundred people drowned. That's the bottom line."
But why did the levees fail at all if the hurricane missed the city? The professor showed me a computer model indicating the levees were a foot and a half too short - the result of a technical error in the Army Corp of Engineer's calculation of sea level when the levees were built beginning in the 1930s.
And the Bush crew knew it. Long before Katrina struck, the White House staff had sought van Heerden's advice on coastal safety. So when the professor learned of the 18-inch error, he informed the White House directly. But this was advice they didn't want to hear. The President had already sent the levee repair crew, the Army Corp of Engineers, to Afghanistan and Iraq.
*********
Greg Palast is author of Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild, released this week by Penguin. Get it here.
For more information on the Armed Madhouse tour and for a podcast of 18 Missing Inches read by 'On With Leon's' Dr. Wilmer Leon go to www.GregPalast.com
You can also read "Who Drowned the Big Easy?," a new article by Greg Palast, in the next issue of YES! magazine.
Since the initial release of Armed Madhouse in June 2006, much has changed in America.
The Department of Homeland Security, after a five-year hunt for Osama, finally brought charges against... Greg Palast.
As America crawled toward the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attack, Homeland Security charged me and my US producer Matt Pascarella with violating the anti-terror laws.
Don't you feel safer?
And I confess: we're guilty.
On August 22, 2006, we were videotaping Katrina evacuees still held behind barbed wire in a trailer park encampment a hundred miles from New Orleans. It had been a year since the hurricane and 73,000 POW's (Prisoners of Dubya) were still in mobile home Gulags. I arranged a surreptitious visit with Pamela Lewis, one of the unwilling guests of George Bush's Guantanamo on wheels. She told me, "It's a prison set-up" - except there are no home furloughs for these inmates because they no longer have homes.
You can't film there. FEMA is part of Homeland Security and its camps are off limits to cameras. We don't want Osama to know he can get a cramped Airstream by posing as a displaced Black person.
To give a sense of the full flavor and smell of Kamp Katrina, we wanted to show that this human parking lot, with kids and elderly, is close by Exxon Petroleum's Baton Rouge refinery. The neighborhood goes by the quaint sobriquet, "Cancer Alley."
So we filmed it. Uh, oh. The refinery, is a CAVIP, "Critical Asset and Vulnerable Infrastructure Point." Apparently, you can't film a CAVIP.
As to the bust: The positive side for me as a reporter was that I got to see Bush's terror-trackers in action. I should note that it took the Maxwell Smarts at Homeland Security a full two weeks to hunt us down. And we're on television.
Frankly, Matt and I were a bit scared that, given the charges, we wouldn't be allowed on a plane into New York for the September 11 commemoration. But what scared us more is that we were allowed on the plane.
Once I was traced, I had a bit of an other-worldly conversation with my would-be captors. Detective Frank Penantano of Homeland Security told me, "This is a 'Critical Infrastructure' … and they get nervous about unauthorized filming of their property."
Well, me too, Detective. In fact, I'm very nervous that extremely detailed satellite photos of this potential chemical blast-site can be downloaded from maps.google.com.
Detective Penantano, in justifying our impending arrest, said, "If you remember, a lot of people were killed on 9/11."
Yes, I remember "a lot" of people were killed. So I have this suggestion, Detective - and you can pass it on to Mr. Bush: Go find the people who killed them.
18 Missing Inches
Before the Big Bust, we learned a little more about how New Orleans drowned. Given my line of work, I'm not shocked at much. Yet, this one got to me.
"By midnight on Monday the White House knew. Monday night I was at the state Emergency Operations Center and nobody was aware that the levees had breeched. Nobody."
The charges were so devastating - the White House's withholding from the state police the information that the city was about to flood - that from almost any source, I simply would have dismissed it. But this was not just any source. The whistleblower was Dr. Ivor van Heerden, deputy chief of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Studies Center, and the chief technician advising the state on saving lives during Katrina.
That Monday night, August 29, 2005, the sleepless crew at the state Emergency Operations Center, directing the response to Hurricane Katrina, were high-fiving it, relieved that Katrina had swung east of New Orleans, sparing the city from drowning.
They were wrong. The Army Corps, FEMA and White House knew for critical hours that the levees had begun to crack, but withheld the information for a day and night. The delay was deadly.
Van Heerden explained that levees don't collapse in a single bang. First, there's a small crack or two, a few feet wide, which take hours to burst open into visible floodways.
Had the state known New Orleans' bulwark was failing, they would have shifted resources to get out those left in the danger zone.
Van Heerden: FEMA knew on 11 o'clock on Monday that the levees had breeched. At 2pm they flew over the 17th Street Canal and took video of the breech.
Question: So the White House wouldn't tell you that the levees had breeched?
Van Heerden: They didn't tell anybody.
Question: And you're at the Emergency Center?
Van Heerden: I mean nobody knew. Well, the Corps of Engineers knew. FEMA knew. None of us knew.
The prevarications continued all week.
Van Heerden said, "I went to the Governor's on Tuesday night and I said this, 'There's a lot more breeches than one.' They said, "Whatever you need, go find out.' I got in an airplane, I flew. I counted 28 breeches."
The White House had good reason, or at least political and financial reasons, to keep mum. A hurricane is an act of God, but catastrophic levee failure is an act of the Administration. Once the federal levees go, evacuation, rescue and those frightening words - responsibility and compensation - become Washington's. Van Heerden knew that "not an act of God, but catastrophic failure of the levee system" would mean that, at least, "these people must be compensated."
Not every flood victim in America gets the Katrina treatment. In 1992, storms wiped out 190 houses on the beach at West Hampton Dunes, home to film stars and celebrity speculators. The federal government paid to completely rebuild the houses, which, hauled in four million cubic feet of sand to restore the tony beaches, and guaranteed the home's safety into the coming decades - after which the "victim's" homes rose in value to an average $2 million each.
But in New Orleans, instead of compensation, 73,000 have been sentenced to life in FEMA's trailer-parks in Louisiana. Even more are displaced to other states. I asked van Heeerden about the consequences of the White House's failures, the information about the levee being just one of a list.
"Well, fifteen hundred people drowned. That's the bottom line."
But why did the levees fail at all if the hurricane missed the city? The professor showed me a computer model indicating the levees were a foot and a half too short - the result of a technical error in the Army Corp of Engineer's calculation of sea level when the levees were built beginning in the 1930s.
And the Bush crew knew it. Long before Katrina struck, the White House staff had sought van Heerden's advice on coastal safety. So when the professor learned of the 18-inch error, he informed the White House directly. But this was advice they didn't want to hear. The President had already sent the levee repair crew, the Army Corp of Engineers, to Afghanistan and Iraq.
*********
Greg Palast is author of Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild, released this week by Penguin. Get it here.
For more information on the Armed Madhouse tour and for a podcast of 18 Missing Inches read by 'On With Leon's' Dr. Wilmer Leon go to www.GregPalast.com
You can also read "Who Drowned the Big Easy?," a new article by Greg Palast, in the next issue of YES! magazine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
