A Black Mark

D.C. police and the FBI need to explain their actions in a 2002 protest incident.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007; A14

IF YOU DON'T like something your government is doing, you should be able to come to Washington, D.C., and say so in peaceful protest. You shouldn't have to worry that the color of your shirt will get you arrested. Or that police will call in the FBI to grill you about your political or religious views. It's distressing, then, when authorities in the nation's capital show so little regard for the basic American tenet of free assembly and trample on the rights of citizens.

A lawsuit brought by a group of protesters in a 2002 incident paints a disturbing picture of the actions of D.C. police and the FBI, and it raises questions about whether there was an attempt to hide some of those actions. As reported by The Post's Carol D. Leonnig, the protesters not only were wrongly arrested (the charges were dropped and any records expunged), but they were also interrogated by the FBI, allegedly including inappropriate questions about their and others' beliefs. The protesters say the interrogations were videotaped, and one aim of their lawsuit is to find out what happened to those records.

There's no question that police should investigate suspicious behavior, particularly in this era of heightened concern over terrorism. Yet the worst offense of these protesters is that they were wearing black; police were apparently confusing fashion with dangerous anarchism. That they were arrested on trespassing charges even after showing they had a parking pass for the garage where they were detained suggests that public safety was not the paramount concern. Either the arrests were a pretense to gather intelligence or a bid to discourage dissent -- perhaps both.

The involvement of the FBI, which is supposed to monitor domestic groups only when there is clear suspicion of criminal activity, is particularly disturbing. For years, authorities refused even to acknowledge that FBI agents were present in the garage, only to have their presence confirmed by a newly discovered document. What makes that revelation even more troubling is that city officials had vowed to the court that no such document existed. Was that oversight an honest mistake or a coverup?

Both the FBI and D.C. police have stumbled in the area of individual rights -- the FBI of late with its misuse of "national security letters" to obtain private information about U.S. citizens. The District's most notable transgression was the infamous mass arrests in Pershing Park, also during anti-globalization protests in 2002. Police officials say they have reformed their ways since that costly incident. We would like to think so. But the apparent nonchalance of local and federal officials about getting to the bottom of what happened to those people dressed in black is not reassuring.

Taking the Resitance Underground– in Washington

Jewish Week

April 10th, 2007

Subterranean soapbox Anti-`occupation’ ads coming to Metro stations

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about to go underground– into the Washington subway system, to be exact.

Beginning May 13, some 20 downtown Metro stations will be emblazoned with posters advertising a June 10 rally and march in Washington protesting “Israel’s illegal military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.”

The event, which will be held on the west lawn of the Capitol, is being organized by the District-based U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, which claims 250 member organizations around the country.

“If past events organized by this organization are any indication, it will make no attempt to present a balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and this ad is a pure reflection of that,” said Oren Segal, a spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League.

The U.S. Campaign’s effort to publicize the rally ran into an early roadblock that escalated into a minor freedom of speech face-off that eventually involved the American Civil Liberties Union.

The saga began unfolding when the U.S. Campaign approached CBS Outdoor, the New York-based company that handles in-station advertising for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. A CBS Outdoor account executive refused to place the organization’s ad, claiming in a March 9 e-mail that it was “too offensive to be displayed in a public place,” according to Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area.

Jodi Senese, CBS Outdoor’s executive vice president in charge of marketing, rejected the ad, saying it appeared to violate company policy. “The ad,” she explained in an interview, “included a picture that I felt was inflammatory and was exploitative of children.”

Senese said the ad was not turned down because of its political stance. “I’m Jewish,” she added, “and I didn’t want to be seen as making a political statement.”

The ad is dominated by a photograph of a child who is facing a giant tank that looms menacingly in the near distance. The accompanying text reads in part: “Imagine if this were your child’s daily path to school. Palestinians don’t have to imagine.” In larger, bold letters, it also reads: “The World Says No to Israeli Occupation!”

Within days of being turned down, a U.S. Campaign official contacted Spitzer, who then set out to touch base with a lawyer he knows in the WMATA legal office, who, as Spitzer put it, “understands the First Amendment and can help solve this with a call.”

The issue was indeed solved with a single nonthreatening call, and a confirming e-mail. CBS Outdoor has been instructed by WMATA to place the ad as per its contract with the U.S. Campaign, and the company has not objected, according to Spitzer. WMATA spokesperson Joanne Ferreira said only: “We didn’t have any problem with the ad. It was a First Amendment issue.”

The 46-by-60-inch ads (one per designated station) will appear for one month, according to a U.S. Campaign spokesperson who declined to comment when asked how much the advertising campaign costs.

Spitzer said this case is not precedent-setting. Over the years, several highly politicized ads have run in the Metro system, espousing positions spanning the political spectrum. In some cases, the ACLU has gone to court to fend off those who sought to remove them.

Spitzer, who is Jewish, was asked if he had any compunctions about defending the rights of an organization that is publicly and harshly criticizing Israel. “This is not a case about Judaism or Israel,” he said, “but about establishing someone’s right to freedom of speech, which I agree with regardless of whether I agree with their particular political position.”

by Richard Greenberg 10 April 2007