Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Knock knock, it's Homeland Security

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 5:36 AM on February 16, 2006.


This is not a joke.
clas842s
Class photos from 1984, the year of that George Orwell novel.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Suzanne Braun Levine SuzanneBraunLevine.com

Bush's White House Spying on Iraqi Prime Minister
Amanda Think Progress

Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Steve Benen Washington Monthly

This is an astonishing read. In Idaho, an outspoken Veterans for Peace leader, and federal employee Dwight Scarbrough, was harassed for having an anti-Bush bumper sticker on his truck parked on federal property. Fortunately, he had the knowledge to respond and the wherewithal to tape it. From Nicholas Collias' article in the Boise Weekly:

Officer: Step back here please.

Dwight Scarbrough: Let's have a seat.

O: I'd like to talk to you.

DS: Let's have a seat.

O: Sir, come over here please.

DS: I don't want to come over there. I want to sit down.

O: Let me tell you what's going on here. OK, there's a violation of the code of federal regulations.

DS: For what?

O: The CFR. 41, CFR, 102, 74, 415. Posting or affixing signs, pamphlets, handbills or flyers on federal property. Do you understand that?

DS: I'm not doing anything on federal property.

O: Yes, sir, you've got signs posted on your vehicle. I'm informing you that you're in violation.

DS: That's not illegal. That's not illegal.

O: You're posting ...

DS: I ... All right.

O: Would you like to listen to me before ... sir...

DS: [To his co-worker] Would you go get [their supervisor]?

O: I need you to listen when I'm talking, sir.

DS: [To co-worker]. Would you go get [him] please? [To officer] I'm listening.

O: Okay.

DS: You're at my place of work, first of all. And you're harassing me.

O: Sir, you're in violation of the code of federal regulations.

DS: I'm not in violation.

O: You're posting signs on this property.

DS: I am not posting signs. That's on a private vehicle.

O: Sir, I'm here to tell you now that you have to remove those signs.

DS: Was the law just changed?

O: No, there was no law just changed.

DS: Then it's not a violation.

O: I just told you what the law is, sir.

DS: It is not a violation. I've read the statutes already.

O: If you do not comply with my order to remove the signs from the property, I will cite you for it, OK? Do you understand that?

DS: You know what? This is harassment.

O: No, sir, it's not.

DS: Yes, it is.

O: No, it's not.

DS: Say it again, please. (Holds up microphone.) This is harassment.

O: Do you understand what I've told you?

DS: I understand what you've told me, but I've also read the statute that as a federal employee--

O: I've just given you an order and told you to remove those signs from the property.

DS: I will move my vehicle off the property.

O: That will be fine. That will comply with it, and we don't have to ...

DS: You know this is total B.S., though. Because--will you get [his supervisor], please?--I've already had this conversation once, and we've already looked up all the statues and laws covering personal vehicles with stick ... with anything on them on government property. And it is not illegal.

O: It's in 41 CFR. Look that up.

D: "Why don't you look it up?" I have.

O: 41 CF4 102--

D: What is the violation?

O: Posting of signs on--

D: Which one?

O: I just told you the violation.

D: Those are not signs.

O: Twice now I've told you.

D: Those are not signs.

O: Yes, sir, they are. What are they then?

D: So any vehicle that comes on with, like, a police sign, or with delivery or FedEx or something, that's not a sign?

O: All signs are prohibited--

D: You know you're harassing me. You know you're harassing me.

O: No, sir, I'm not.

D: You know the Department of Homeland Security is giving me harassment--

O: Sir--

D: --because I'm a person who happens to express my viewpoints on my vehicle.

O: I need you to comply with my order and remove the signs...

D: Who has filed a complaint?

O: ...you said you'd do that, that's fine ...

D: Who has filed a complaint? Who has filed a complaint?

O: No one has filed a complaint, sir.

D: Well, then what's the complaint?

O: It's law enforcement on federal property.

D: You know this is ... I would like my supervisor down here, please.

O: This doesn't concern him at all.

D: Yes, it does, because I've already had this discussion with him, and I've already been asked to change the signs, and I did. And I looked up all the statutes.

O: (Muffled)

D: Do you have a piece of paper with the number then, please?

O: I told you the number.

D: I would like to write it down, then.

O: I will give you a piece of paper ...

D: Just write it down. That's all I'm asking.

O: But I need you to comply with my instructions to remove the--

D: You're harassing me, in other words.

O: Sir, this is not harassment.

D: It's crap, and you know it.

O: No, sir, it is not.

D: It is. Okay, go ahead.

O: 41, C-F-R...

D: 41, C-F-R...

O: 102 ...

D: 102 ...

O: 74 ...

D: 74 ...

O: Subpart C ...

D: Subpart C ...

O: Paragraph 415.

D: Paragraph 415.

O: And they are posted at the entrances to federal facilities, as they are here, and it is referenced.

D: And this defines exactly what "signs" are, right?

O: It says "signs," sir.

D: Yeah. You're harassing me. I'll be back in a minute. I don't have my keys with me.

O: Sir--

D: I don't have my car keys with me.

O: Okay.

D: I had no clue what you were here to bother me about ... (walks toward door)... this is your buddy, your boss and my boss harassing people for expressing political viewpoints. And you know it. There's nothing illegal about it. (Door beeps).

If you think that's all creepy, read the follow up where the reporter finds no listing for an Idaho office for DHS, is shuffled through bureaucrats who hide their nameplates when asked for their ID, and converses through a "tennis-ball-sized hole in the window" with another employee who refers him to DHS national. Who didn't return calls...

PS: It looks like the Patriot Act is going to be permanent... (BoiseWeekly)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Digg!

Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.


Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Sarah Palin is a milestone, for we achieve true gender equality when an incompetent woman goes as far as an incompetent man.
Post by Suzanne Braun Levine. September 5, 2008.
Bush's White House Spying on Iraqi Prime Minister
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino wants to make it clear, the White House IS NOT denying spying on Maliki.
Post by Amanda. September 5, 2008.
Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Wait, we're seriously talking about Fox News? The Fox News?
Post by Steve Benen. September 5, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Tactics and countertactics
Posted by: woody on Feb 16, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe a form of this exchange already exists as a training item for "security officers." And most of the training involves stopping the recording "with necessary force" and criminalizing the objections to the officer's charges, including by the officer making this a forcible arrest. Many who demonstrated during 2000 and 2004 at the political conventions know it.
But it's a good thing for those who don't have to worry about jobs to practice, if you're ready for the consequences.
Importantly, I think this incident shows that some officers are not set to eliminate contradiction or opposition automatically.
I identify the important elements for protesters as objecting clearly while trying to "kind of" cooperate. Let's get these tactics down and our commitments if we're going to do anything about the coming war on Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

landlord
Posted by: terradea on Feb 16, 2006 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's another: I recently tried to contact a former deadbeat tenant who works for "homeland security" at O'hare Airport in Chicago. I needed to know where she worked so that I could serve her with a summons. She wrote me an email and threatened me with "homeland security action" if I did not stop contacting her about the money she owed me for her rent, utility bills, etc.

I was later contacted by the ombudsman of the TSA union who left me a message to call her back. Is this one of the perks for working for homeland security? You don't have to pay your bills, or worry about someone collecting a debt or serving you with a summons?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ask for identification?
Posted by: Bearzerker on Feb 16, 2006 10:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't a law enforcement officer required to "IDENTIFY" himself and provide his Badge Number and the Department he works for when requested by individuals in instances like this... if it is, it seems prudent that peeps like this ensure that they get the name badge and dept of creeps like this before any type of communcation starts...

This is just a question and seems like a common sense approach to the gestapo tactics that are permeating this society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So much for "Baby on Board"
Posted by: drone on Feb 17, 2006 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean, that's actually a sign, and I strongly suspect that our Fox-addled friend would not have asked someone to take the little garfield thingee down. My kid's an honor student? Just go check out the nearest federal parking lot in your neighborhood and tell me how many stickers you see on cars.
There are laws about politicking on federal property, but in all my years on a military installation, I never saw a single Reagan/Bush decal yanked. Go figure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just a picture of the sky . . .
Posted by: saywhat on Feb 17, 2006 1:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just took pictures of the sky this week. It involved chemtrails all over the sky above my town. (It happens about every six days here.) I’d leave a web site for your information but maybe this is against AlterNet rules, I don’t know.) Anyway the government is doing this and if anyone has information about which government agency is REALLY doing this, and what they are REALLY doing I would like to hear about it.
I attached my first name to the flier on chemtrails with pictures of the sky crisscrossed with trails. I left the fliers at public places in town. I expect a knock on my door at any time. I already have my tape recorder handy by the door and questions I wish to ask the “officer”. My family has been informed of my attorneys name and phone number.
“I just took pictures of the sky officer.” Hmm. Wonder how that will go down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GOP OSTRICHES PREFER NOT TO SEE CRITICISM
Posted by: fiskhus on Feb 21, 2006 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because the GOP's only source for knowledge is "received wisdom, and because Republicans are intellectually incapable of entertaining self-doubt, they will demand that dissent be hidden in an ignorant attempt to hide dissent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]