Most RNC Protest Charges Dismissed

The Minnesota Independent reports:

The St. Paul city attorney’s office is not faring too well in prosecutions stemming from the Republican National Convention in September. Initially 672 cases were turned over to John Choi’s office for potential misdemeanor prosecutions.

The overwhelming majority of these — roughly 85 percent — have since been dropped owing to insufficient evidence. This includes the cases of 323 people who were picked up in a mass arrest on the final day of the convention and 39 journalists who were detained. In addition, as of last month, another 52 defendants had either pleaded guilty or paid a fine.

Continue reading.

Here's a link to my take on these absurd mass arrests.

Lawsuits Against RNC Police Begin

The Minnesota Independent reports:

Let the litigation begin. Eight lawsuits have been filed in U.S. District Court claiming civil rights abuses by police officers during events surrounding the Republican National Convention (RNC) in September. The civil suits accuse officers of physical and sexual abuse, illegal searches and seizure of property, and wrongful detainment.

“This is just the beginning,” says Ted Dooley, one of the attorneys handling the cases. “There’s going to be a lot of litigation, and it’s going to take a long time.”

Plaintiff Michael Whalen’s duplex was raided by St. Paul police on August 30, two days before the start of the convention. At the time, Whalen (pictured below) was housing members of Eyewitness Video, who were in town to document RNC protests.

Continue reading.

The Final Word On The Phelps Fiasco

...(at least on this blog) goes to Radley Balko, who's provided wonderfully, bitingly sarcastic commentary throughout the news cycle this event dominated:

Michael Phelps Apologizes ... to China

His message to Chinese youngsters: “Do the right thing.”

Which I guess means submit to the state’s authority, even when the law you’ve broken is an immoral one, and the means the state has used to enforce it are wholly disproportionate to the alleged crime.

So let’s stop with the rabble rousing. No more questioning the legitimacy of bad laws. No more questioning the state’s power, or it’s willingness to flex its authority when it gets embarrassed by its citizenry. No more staring down tanks, whether they belong to Deng Xiaoping ... or Sheriff Leon Lott.

And, in case you don't feel sufficiently motivated to click Balko's links, here's the picture of Deng's tanks:



And here's Lott's:



That's right, the good Sheriff Lott actually procured an armored personnel carrier for his department--and that was even before his jurisdiction was overrun with such nefarious characters as pot-smoking swimmers. Balko actually wrote about this madness months ago:

The Richland County, South Carolina Sheriff's Department (that's them above) just obtained an armored personnel carrier, complete with a belt-fed, .50-cal turreted machine gun. Sheriff Leon Lott has charmingly named the vehicle "The Peacemaker," and insists that using a caliber of ammunition that even the U.S. military is reluctant to use against human targets (it's generally reserved for use against armored vehicles) will "save lives."

...

Like most of these military toys obtained by local police departments, the Peacemaker will inevitably be used on drug and gambling raids—that is, to enforce laws against consensual activities. Or, as we're now seeing in Minnesota, perhaps on raids against leftist political activists.

Oh, authoritarianism. The human propensity to violently dominate others would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. And terrifying. Because when it comes down to it, we are just an overgrown tribe of super-empowered chimps.

Chicken Taco Has Beef With Me

Perennial Podium commenter "taco" has been quite active recently. I'm posting discussions we've been having in two posts' comment threads on the main page for everyone to enjoy.

The following conversation resulted from my post "Panel Mildly Critical Of RNC Policing."

Taco:

"Well, I heard that press are going to jail tonight, anyway," Snyders reported the officer said. "So it doesn't matter."

Having used this quotation multiple times, you obviously think it's significant, but answer these questions: Do you honestly believe that a press credential is literally a Monopoly-like get-out-of-jail-free cards? Do you honestly believe that being issued one exempts you from law enforcement jurisdiction?

And rhetorically, do you believe that press credentials exempt you from being shot on open ground in a warzone?

Me:

"Do you honestly believe that a press credential is literally a Monopoly-like get-out-of-jail-free cards?"

No.

"Do you honestly believe that being issued one exempts you from law enforcement jurisdiction?"

No.

"And rhetorically, do you believe that press credentials exempt you from being shot on open ground in a warzone?"

No.

However, about two months after my arrest, I received a letter in the mail from the St. Paul district attorney. He informed me that they had conducted an investigation into me and concluded that I was a bona fide journalist and ought not face charges of any kind. A copy of this letter was also sent to the St. Paul police.

So, answer me this: If the city's own top criminal justice attorney didn't feel that I had broken the law, why was I arrested? There's nothing he knew that the officers on the scene shouldn't have known as well.

The police don't just get to arrest whomever they want. The law requires that they have probable cause. Given that it was exceedingly obvious to the arresting officers that Snyders (we were arrested together) and I were journalists and not actually participants the the peaceful (though illegal due to the event permit's expiration) protest, we should not have been detained let alone processed through the county jail. If I had more financial resources at my disposal, I would have already filed a law suit against the arresting officer and the department as a whole.

Taco:

"So, answer me this: If the city's own top criminal justice attorney didn't feel that I had broken the law, why was I arrested?"

I'll answer your question with another question: What exactly where you doing that put your credibility as a reporter in doubt?

Just in case you want to avoid the question and quibble about the wording there, I'll ask the same question another way: What exactly were you, Amy Goodman and "independent media" blogger types doing differently that got you arrested that did not get the majority of traditional media reporters arrested?

Maybe the Minneapolis is the headquarters of the national blogger suppression task force and they have a dossier on you and Trentz so they can take you down on site and protect their corporate mass media overlords.

You mention in a posting today that you want to redefining journalism ethics. Well, perhaps you could consider that if you blogger "journalists" start some kind of social movement redefining what journalists are, it's inevitable that the government and the public are going to redefine their understanding of journalist rights and privileges accordingly. I have nothing against your love of the medium, but you need to acknowledge the flaws of the model and recognize its considerable opportunity for abuse and its potential to destroy the respect and trust that the traditional hierarchical structure that brought this country to where it is today.

Me:

"What exactly where you doing that put your credibility as a reporter in doubt?"

Nothing.

"What exactly were you, Amy Goodman and 'independent media' blogger types doing differently that got you arrested that did not get the majority of traditional media reporters arrested?"

First, I'll say that your qualification about "the majority of traditional reporters" is quite warranted, as a number of people who work for traditional print publications as well as two Fox News producers suffered the same fate as Treftz and I in getting caught up in the fray. And second, I'll tell you exactly why Snyders and I got arrested: It was because we were within visual distance of the protest on the last night of the convention. Everyone within a large commercial block got arrested, including plenty of random bystanders and passersby as well as more than a dozen journalists working for a variety of different types of outlets.

I'm not even asserting special assembly privileges as a journalist. Merely following quietly a block behind a peaceful protest and taking notes and talking with Snyders does not constitute legitimate probable cause to arrest me. I wasn't breaking any law--and any law interpreted in such a fashion clearly runs afoul of the First Amendment.

The only relevance my personal political opinions have in any of this is that I believe in the American Constitution and the rule of law.

You're living in a fantasy world if you believe no one ever gets arrested illegally. Frankly, I just think the cops were pissed that we were watching how they were being unnecessarily forceful with the often silly, but entirely harmless, likes of David Goodner. So they decided they'd bring us in to teach us a lesson. Less not learned.

I'll say once more, taco, before you continue in your irrational visualization of me as some sort of scary left-wing activist, you should really meet up with me for a cup of coffee sometime. I'm confident that a face-to-face encounter with me would make you realize that I'm nothing but a sweater-wearing and obsessively polite gay guy.

Taco:

"Nothing."

That's what we all say, of course...

"First, I'll say that your qualification about "the majority of traditional reporters" is quite warranted, as a number of people who work for traditional print publications as well as two Fox News producers suffered the same fate as Treftz and I in getting caught up in the fray."

Let's not even play games with this. No reporters from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, NPR or other full-time professional organization were arrested. The vast majority of them are older than you, have been doing their jobs longer and have had their opportunities to reflect on their ethical duties and responsibilities as journalists. You and some other recent grads and alternative news "reporters" who "coincidentally" haven't been at the typewriter as long and haven't had to face the full professional pressure of a traditional journalism position, did manage to get arrested in noteworthy numbers, and now you blame the police for it. Pull your head out of the blogosphere for one minute and look around at your other industry peers. A journalist's role is what it is for good reasons. If you behave like you're something different you'll get treated like something different. You need to stop being so egotistical thinking you're already capable of crafting a better definition of professionalism than the millions of journalism professionals who came before you.

"I'm not even asserting special assembly privileges as a journalist. Merely following quietly a block behind a peaceful protest and taking notes and talking with Snyders does not constitute legitimate probable cause to arrest me."

I don't know, I can't keep your "FUCKING FACISTS" Twitter posting from coming to mind when we start talking about your role in events. You obviously were caught up in the moment and without video of the incident I have no way of knowing whether this is the truth or not. Like I said, everybody thinks they're innocent. But I can see how its very possible that by standing in a certain place or moving around in a certain way in a hostile environment, perhaps without you even realizing it, you could be seen as contributing to the disturbance. Not entirely unlike being shot at if you were reporting from somewhere in Iraq and got shot at by one side or another when you took the wrong step. You may not have intended to do anything wrong, and the shooter could hypothetically have a high personal regard for journalists. But if you make an imprudent move, even accidentally, severe consequences could await.

Even if you're right - and yes I'm skeptical of personal accounts of one's own arrest, but I admit, you could be right - then I regard your personal situation as unfortunate but not necessarily improper action on behalf of the police, not so much their "being pissed and ... deciding to teach you a lesson." Based on the above lack of mainstream journalist arrests, it just doesn't seem likely to me that this was an organized sting on journalists by police as you suggest with your choice quote. They have a job to do too. You have your own duty to the University of Iowa community and they have a duty to the city of St. Paul. The fact that they went to the extent of sending you an apology letter confirms this in my mind, admitting to you that they made a mistake and that they seemingly don't bear you any ill will upon reflection.

Me:

I'm not saying it was an organized sting on journalists. They just decided to arrest everyone anywhere near the protest. They arrested journalists on purpose, but likely hadn't planned on doing so ahead of time. And I personally heard the comment the officer made to Snyders in my editorial, so I know what was going through at least one of the officers' minds. Ultimately, the DA's letter to me just indicates that he actually knows what the law is and cares about enforcing it. The police on the other hand didn't care. They decided they wanted to arrest everyone they came across and they did. It was illegal. Period. And the police should follow the law--obviously.

Regarding my Twitter posts at the time, it's hard not to react strongly when one is getting tear-gassed for no reason. I was mad about it then and am still mad about it now.

And you're just wrong about no mainstream journalists getting arrested. Do a little research and you'll find out otherwise. But I'm sure you'd rather continue to make unfounded assertions. Have fun with that.

Taco:

"And you're just wrong about no mainstream journalists getting arrested."

Kthx, no need to give any specific counter examples after my 173 word expansion of that statement. Thank you, Mr. Cutting Edge Reporter.

Me:

Here's a list of journalists who were detained that includes the names of the outlets they were working for:

http://minnesotaindependent.com/8190/cataloging-the-journalist-detainees-connected-to-rnc-protests

I suggest learning how to use Google--it's quite useful.

And this simultaneous exchange grew out of my post "Journalism Ethics 2.0."

Taco:

"Old rule: You can't cover something in which you are personally involved.
New rule: Tell your readers how you are involved and how that's shaped your reporting."

Old rule: Freedom of the Press
New rule: You're on your own, kid.

Adding to the comments I just posted on the RNC post: You really need to give some hard thought to all this advocating for new journalism ethics standards.

For one thing, in light of your accusations of police brutality at the RNC it makes your argument look horribly two-faced: "The police shouldn't have any right to lay their hands on me when I'm covering a political convention! Oh, and journalists should get some additional new rights too."

Secondly, the implications of a "new code of ethics" that all the naive bloggers are all abuzz are much bigger than many of its advocates realize (as detailed in other comment page) or are willing to acknowledge.

Media technology may be changing, but the duty of media to the public has not. You may think of yourself as a dude with a blog, and get stuck in the unintended mindset that you and me and some other people are your only consumers and critics, but if that's really where you stand in cyberspace, you're not a professional and not entitled to press credentials to begin with.

Truth has always been the object of the media. You think Bernstein and Woodward were just giving all sides a chance to give testimony in '72? Do you think that's all journalists were doing at the turn of the century in the muckraker era? You and Niles are confusing the goals of the profession with the details of the job.

The professional responsibility hasn't changed. If you want Freedom of the Press in the form of press passes and the liberty to not be arrested in the middle of reporting, you need to restrain the youthful enthusiasm and not involve yourself in unfolding events. That's central to a journalist's identity. If you give that up, you're testing a professional barrier and running the risk of getting exactly what you got in Minneapolis. It doesn't matter if you felt the protesters were entitled to do what they did, and that you didn't do anymore than they did. When you put yourself in a story, you're playing games with your role and your accompanying first amendment rights.

Consider the fact that Freedom of the Press isn't, and probably can never be, a right reserved to every individual citizen of the United States. There's an essential difference between the role you play in society as an individual citizen and as a reporter.

The Daily Iowan has criticized David Goodner several times for his confrontational and self-inserting style of protesting the Iraq war. I honestly believe that the approach to journalism espoused here is highly analogous to Goodner's approach to protesting. You both express frustration and challenge time-tested barriers of your roles, and in doing so you and others like you overstep long-standing bright lines of trust and respect that your audience and the public at large has for you, and diminish your respective causes in the long-run.

Me:

The First Amendment reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

As I recently pointed out to another commenter, I'm a law student at the UI College of Law and earned a solid A in the constitutional law class that covered the Bill of Rights. It's my professional legal opinion that the police acted illegally in arresting me on Sept. 4 in St. Paul. I was there and I know the law. You weren't and you don't--at least not as well--so you're a bit out of your league here, taco.

Most of your comment to this post is merely tilting at windmills. I don't believe many of the things you apparently think I do. Again, I suggest a face-to-face meeting to clear up your unfortunate confusion.

Taco:

"so you're a bit out of your league here, taco."

Oh me my, why 'escuse me Judge I dinna know you had such esstensif' legal backaroun'.

I'm over my head because you got an awesome grade in 91:116?? That's too funny, oh boy! You're right, I take for granted how highly educated and enlightened you are. My apologies for thinking that you, with that attitude, might blame someone else, like the police, for something that is actually your own fault.

If you ever decide you want to actually discuss these issues rather than reveling in how totally cool you are, let me know.

"Again, I suggest a face-to-face meeting to clear up your unfortunate confusion."

Never gonna happen as long as that attitude persists and you continue to demonstrate that you're not really interested in discussing issues with me. I've lived in this town longer than you have, and seen enough bar fights to know how unwise it is to be confrontational with somebody downtown. If you really want to talk in person, you need to show a little more good faith on your end.

Me:

Bar fights? What are you talking about? You think I'm going to physically attack you if we get a coffee at the Java House?

If you actually believe that, you're insane.

I think you're just an anonymous coward.

Taco:

"You think I'm going to physically attack you if we get a coffee at the Java House?"

You know as well as I do that people in general are batshiat crazy and kill eachother all the time over nothing at all.

I don't know you from Adam. When I have to go on is your juvenile namecalling and refusal to keep things academic here in a nonphysical environment, why would I think things would be any different in person? If you don't want to talk electronically, what exactly is supposed to make me think all you want to do is talk in a personal confrontation? Huh?

I'm not stupid, and you're not either, you just seem to have trouble seeing matters from other people's POV and/or following other people's train of thought without getting angry and having to try to prove your original conclusion was correct every time. When you won't dialogue, directly or indirectly tell other media consumers they're out of their league talking to you, call people cowards, and say you'd like to meet them in person, you come off as nothing more than an anal-expulsive testosterone-fuelled internet toughguy looking to foist crazy ideas off on people who otherwise don't listen.

The way you talk down to the majority of your readers, including myself, who are believe it or not, equally or perhaps more informed and educated as you on topics like Constitutional and Human Rights Law, that is the general reputation you're going to create for yourself.

Anonymous, somewhat. A coward, perhaps. But I want to talk about the issues, and if your blogging is worth a fraction of its weight in ideas, what do you have to lose in a compare and contrast session with my less-pro-alternative-media perspective? All it amounts to is egotistical truth-averse self-censorship.

Me:

I'm polite to people until they're not polite to me. You crossed that line long ago.

And it's pretty clear to me that you're not actually interested in serious dialogue. Despite Snyders and Treftz's independent accounts of the events surrounding my arrest in St. Paul and even a letter from the city's district attorney, you continue to insist that I must have been doing something that justified the polices' actions. You obviously just don't like me and you have allowed this fact to blind you to the possibility that (as all the available evidence suggests) I'm telling the whole story behind my detention.

Your lack of good faith in our dialogue is further evidenced by your unwillingness to step out from behind your computer screen and say who you are and what qualifications you have. You might not like what I have to say or how I say it, but at least I have the guts to put myself out there. You, however, continue to hide behind your little mask and shoot spit balls at me from the back of the room. I hope that's fun for you.

Ultimately, if you want me to take you seriously, you'll have to act like you're serious. And your claim that no mainstream media reporters were detained in St. Paul despite how easy it is to use Google to find out that people working for the Associated Press and even Fox did indeed suffer the same fate I did indicates a profound lack of seriousness on your part.

Update:

Taco:

"Ultimately, if you want me to take you seriously, you'll have to act like you're serious. And your claim that no mainstream media reporters were detained in St. Paul"

Patently and demonstrably false. You are now officially being either journalistically negligent or intentionally dishonest by denying facts. Second item, 5th post, RNC thread.

Me:

What exactly are you referencing?

You wrote: "No reporters from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, NPR or other full-time professional organization were arrested."

And yet Alice Kalthoff, an editor with MyFoxdfw.com, was detained. As was John P. Wise, a MyFox national editor. Are you quibbling over the reporter/editor distinction? Regardless, those people are both FOX employees.

There are plenty of veteran AP reporters on the list too, if you actually care to look at it:

http://minnesotaindependent.com/8190/cataloging-the-journalist-detainees-connected-to-rnc-protests

Update II:

Taco:

"Are you quibbling over the reporter/editor distinction? Regardless, those people are both FOX employees."

Look, don't play dumb. We both know every single one of those organizations had reporters and cameras in St. Paul that day, some covering the RNC itself and some actually covering the street theater.

But it took Amy Goodman and you "FUCKING FASCISTS"-Twittering, Journalism Ethics 2.0-espousing blogger "journalists" to get yourselves arrested and create these "Freedom of Press suppression" stories. Trying to disprove that observation by pointing to the two FOX editors is insanely disingenuous.

Bringing us full circle back to my original point: When you start talking seriously about redefining what a journalist is and acting on those personal definitions, you call your role and into question in other people's minds and in doing so put your 1st Amendment rights at risk.

You can proclaim "lesson not learned!" like a 5 year old, and plan for a long career of throwing tantrums about police brutality in 2nd rate "indy media" organizations for the rest of your career. Or, you can come to terms with a real journalist's responsibilities and perhaps be taken seriously one day.

Me:

I don't have much interest in debating the future of the media with you, especially since I don't really know who you are or what your background is. Ultimately, these issues will be settled by economics and the broader culture, none of which either of us can individually influence all that much.

But if you're unwilling to concede that two Fox editors, two AP writers, and an AP photographer all suffering the same fate I did weighs strongly against the notion that a journalist had to do something wrong to get arrested, then I no longer consider this conversation worth having. In any case, I look forward to your comments on my series of follow-up pieces this semester.

Panel Mildly Critical Of RNC Policing

The Minnesota Independent reports:

Nearly 800 people were arrested. Pepper spray and flash-bang grenades were repeatedly utilized to disperse crowds. Store-front windows were smashed and vehicle tires slashed. If nothing else, the four days of the Republican National Convention certainly succeeded in bringing some excitement to the normally sleepy streets of downtown St. Paul.

Before a sometimes rambunctious public audience today, a seven-member panel, led by former U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy Luger, presented an 82-page report on policing during the Republican National Convention to the St. Paul City Council. While the panel generally concluded that the St. Paul police acted appropriately in overseeing security arrangements during the four-day gathering, it did offer numerous criticisms of the department’s preparations and tactics.


Continue reading.

Given my experience being arrested while observing the RNC protests as a journalist, I remain quite interested in the truth about the police commanders' motivations.

In the hours immediately after my release from jail, I wrote the following editorial:

In St. Paul, Minn., riot police detained and ticketed journalists who were covering a peaceful protest against the Republican Convention on the night of Sept. 4. The officers' actions against these reporters were a grossly outrageous violation of the most foundational and sacred of American values.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That unqualified statement of idealistic principle was ratified and became law in 1791, but it seems that 217 years was not enough time for the authorities in St. Paul to get the message. Although the American press has long been one of the freest in the world, the events of Sept. 4 are an ominous indication that perhaps that is no longer the case.

The Minnesota Independent reported that Nancy Doyle Brown, a media-reform organizer from the Twin Cities Media Alliance who spoke at a press conference on the morning of Sept. 5, defended the rights of the reporters ticketed the night before.

Journalists have "been detained and arrested, subjected to raids, pepper-sprayed, and more simply for showing up to work," she said. "These have been dark days for press freedom in the U.S."

Among the journalists detained Sept. 4 were Christopher Patton, a member of the Daily Iowan Editorial Board, Matt Snyders, and Dean Treftz. Snyders and Treftz are both former Daily Iowan writers who were covering the convention for other outlets; both of them were wearing press credentials, enabling them to enter the convention center itself at the time the police detained them. All three of these reporters conducted themselves in a thoroughly professional manner and at no time did anything that could be reasonably construed as identifying them with the protesters they were observing.

There is no question that the police specifically intended to detain journalists.

Writing on a blog maintained by City Pages, a Twin Cities alternative weekly, Snyders described how a police officer responded upon seeing his press credentials.

"Well, I heard that press are going to jail tonight, anyway," Snyders reported the officer said. "So it doesn't matter."

Treftz, blogging as a Youth Vote '08 correspondent for UWire, also described what the police told him when he asked how many people were being arrested.

"You're not press," the officer said. "You're prisoners."

Yet another member of the press who ended up becoming a prisoner on the night of Sept. 4 was Art Hughes, a freelance writer and board member of the Minnesota Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. Hughes had written a guest opinion in the St. Paul Pioneer Press decrying the police's treatment of journalists in St. Paul in the days before his own arrest.

"[The police] have the choice of whether they're portrayed as brutish thugs trying to squelch the rights of citizens or as protectors of public safety tolerant of the First Amendment they're sworn to uphold," he wrote.

Unfortunately, the authorities made the wrong choice. Rather than simply acting to keep the crowd of protesters from disrupting the convention or damaging any property, the police choose to act aggressively to break up the demonstration. And rather than allowing the journalists observing the unfolding events from the protest's periphery to leave once the decision had been made to arrest all of its participants, the police instead elected to forcibly detain them as well, indiscriminately using pepper spray against those who had the misfortune of crossing paths with some of the more trigger-happy officers.

On Sept. 4, the police in St. Paul ceased being the public-safety officers they were supposed to be and became the sort of brutish thugs who harass and intimidate journalists simply trying to do their jobs. If it's against the law for journalists to observe the police's interactions with protesters, even those who are protesting without a permit to do so, then there is no one to watch the watchers. And history shows that no government can be trusted with such unaccountable power. Thus, this brazen assault on America's most basic freedoms must not go unchallenged.

I plan to write a thoroughly researched series of follow-up pieces at some point during the next few months.

Excellent RNC Pictures

A friend who was also covering the protests in St. Paul last week sent me a link to a great photo-blog chronicling the event. Check it out.

The Heat of the Moment

I love experimenting with new media. Twitter is no exception. However, as we journalists forge our own paths through the uncharted jungle that is the information age, we are likely to run into all sorts of unexpected pitfalls. Twitter's format makes it particularly subject to issues of misunderstanding due to the short length of the posts and lack of context.

I thought Twitter would be a good way for me to update my readers as to what was happening when I was reporting from the edges of a protest in St. Paul, Minnesota this weekend. It seems I was wrong. Unfortunately, some of my updates have given at least one reader an extremely distorted view of what I was up to at the time.

Allow me to clear up the confusion. I was not in St. Paul to protest. I was there to cover the protests and the police's reaction to them. To put it as bluntly as possible, I do not hold most of those who were protesting there in even remotely high esteem. The protests for the most part were childish and pointless. However, that does not justify the way the police responded.

From what I saw, the protesters could have easily been contained and waited out. Instead, the police repeatedly acted to instigate conflict. The protesters are certainly to blame for not conducting themselves as serious participants in political discourse ought to, but they did nothing to deserve the severity of the response they got.

Throughout the entire evening I did my best to remain out on the edge of the protests such that I would not appear to endorse them or even be overly associated with them. Rather than chanting any silly slogans, I simply stood back with my fellow reporters and quietly took notes about what was happening. Of course I also updated frequently on Twitter.

As things escalated, I increasingly expressed my exasperation with the police's behavior towards the protesters. Law enforcement officers ought to be more mature than the half-cocked young loudmouths they were keeping away from the convention. In this case they were not. Of course, if I were a straight news reporter, I would only comment on all of these things in objective terms. But I am a columnist and an editorial writer. It is my job to say what I think. Thus, I did my job.

Finally, as the police began firing flash bombs and tear gas into the crowd, I lashed out in my last two Twitter updates. Even though I was a nicely dressed and perfectly well-behaved journalist attempting to stay out of the way of the protest while still being close enough to see what was going on, I was still very much in the line of fire. Of course the crowd rushed out in all directions when the police moved in. As this happened, the police continued to fire flash bombs and tear gas.

After a tear gas canister nearly struck me, I referred to the police as "fascists" in a Twitter update. That was a mistake. I would have used the much more accurate term "authoritarian" if I'd had the time and presence of mind to do so. But, as I said, things were getting a bit out of hand at the time. So I used a word I now regret--not because I think the police were acting appropriately, but because the word is simply not accurate.

It was great that my friends could follow what I was seeing and thinking with Twitter, but it was clearly a mistake to suggest that readers who don't know me personally join in as well. There simply wasn't enough context for them to understand what I was actually saying and thinking. That is why I have, for now, protected my Twitter updates. I'm reevaluating the service's use as a reporting tool.

Again, I am proud of the professional manner in which I conducted myself on Thursday. I was doing my job and I believe I was doing it well. And as I said earlier, I am not particularly sympathetic to the protesters, their ideas, or their methods. However, I believe strongly that it is in large part the First Amendment that makes America the great nation that it is. When I observe police officers acting in a way I deem to be against the spirit of the constitution, I get upset. Of course police officers must protect people and property from those who would endanger them, but they should always do so in an appropriate and restrained way.

I went to St. Paul in order to see for myself whether what I'd been reading online about events there was accurate. Having been there Thursday night, I believe it is. My beliefs in the importance of new media and in the failure of much of mainstream journalism have been strengthened. My disdain for immature protesters as well as my skepticism of and alarm at the militarization of policing in America were also bolstered.

I'll be writing more about my experiences in St. Paul on this blog and in the paper next week. But for now I just wanted to set the record straight. I believe I have done so, but if anyone has question please feel free to ask and I will answer them as best I can.

If He Stands by This, Joe Biden is My New Hero

From ABC, via Daily Kos, via a friend:

Looking to the future but with one eye on the past, Biden also promised that an Obama-Biden government would go through Bush administration data with "a fine-toothed comb" and pursue criminal charges if necessary.

"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation," he said, "they will be pursued, not out of vengeance, not out of retribution - out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no one, no attorney general, no president, no one is above the law."

Plan to restore the rule of law in America:
Step 1 - Elect Obama/Biden.
Step 2 - Get Dodd as attorney general.
Step 3 - Release the document-combing hounds that are idealistic young DOJ attorneys and interns.
Step 4 - Assemble the case.
Step 5 - Show it to a grand jury.
Step 6 - Proceed on rational course following results of Step 5.

Obama and Biden should continue to say what Biden apparently just said, but not get any more specific. It needs to be for the legal system to resolve. They have to stress that it won't be political and they won't be involved. And they shouldn't be.

Seriously, regardless of the results of this process, it will do much to restore some sense of balance to the uncomfortably skewed and seemingly fragile edifice that is the separation of powers in our federal government. The law must apply to everyone at all times--equally. If it doesn't, then we don't have a president. We'd have a king.

Royalist? Hmm. Is that at all catchy as a pejorative in the 21st Century?

My Twitter Page

If you're interested in updates I may file from my phone under circumstances when I can't use my laptop or when I simply have such a short idea that I don't want to waste a whole blog post on, I'll be posting such thoughts on my Twitter page. Click here to check it out--you need not subscribe just to view my updates.

I've Arrived

The Matts and I are here in Minneapolis. I'm rushing to get some other stuff done, but will try to be in St. Paul by 4 p.m. because that's when the first protest is supposed to start. A march on the capitol building. Matt N. has plenty of photography equipment and I have a laptop and a reporter's notepad, so we plan to stick close together. Thus, hopefully, we will appear more like press than we otherwise would. Also, I'm wearing a nice sweater over a button-up shirt. Very non-threatening. Possibly unless you're homophobic.

Feeling teased by all the e-mail I keep getting that AREN'T the e-mail I desperately need ASAP. Man, I first called about this on Tuesday. But it's good experience. The ability to work under this sort of pressure is essential given the current breakneck pace of change in the world. Go to sleep for a second an you might miss something. Good thing I haven't slept since Tuesday night. Naked Juice just did a lot to refresh me, but I'll need to start in on the caffeinated beverages before long. No question about that.

How could people live before WiFi in coffee shops? It just wasn't a civilized world.