It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In The Sex- Neutral, Color-Blind society Democrats want so bad, Cynthia McKinney would Be In Jail!!

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
ceci, this is not about whether racial profiling occurs in the US, or even in the halls of Congress. The fact that it does occur is a given, and the only argument people have about it is the amount of real vs perceived profiling.

This issue is about whether Ms. McKinney struck the officer. Now it is a given that the officer grabbed her arm to stop her. Was that appropriate? I think so. In response, she struck him. Was that appropriate? Not i my opinion.

There are attempts to paint the officer as the aggressor, as shown by your source:

Then, an even more revealing moment occurred on the broadcast when the chief of the Capitol Police, Terrance Gainer, admitted on camera that the Capitol police officer struck first by grabbing McKinney as she was attempting to enter the Capitol office building. That’s an amazing concession, because it is evidence that the police officer initiated the “assault” on McKinney, a U.S. Congresswoman, who arguably was caught off guard and might well have reacted instinctively, in self defense, seeking to put distance between herself and a perceived attacker.

"Struck first"?
"Initiated the assault"?

Let's be serious here. This is nothing more than an attempt to condemn the officer, who was doing his job, and support McKinney, who acted inappropriately. I believe in examining all possibilities, but this is just too much of a stretch. Even her fellow democrats are condemning her actions; it was either Pelosi or Boxer who said it was never right to strike an officer. This is McKinney's fifth encounter with the police. That tells me something.




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Here's an URL to an article written by Wayne Madsen, a D.C.-based journalist who is a very well-respected investigative reporter.

www.counterpunch.org/mckinney0918.html

Note the report says that she was wearing her ID pin and also that officers are REQUIRED to recognize legislators by face. If it's happened 5 times, that simply tells me that the cops truly do have it in for her and it constitutes harassment.
Ever hear of DWB? (Driving While Black) Well this is the exact same thing it sounds like to me. The neocons have been trying to destroy her ever since she became the sole member of Congress to ask for a 911 investigation as soon as it happened.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Well-respected? "Heimland"?

Your link takes a wrong turn somewhere, btw. It doesn't link to an article by Madsen.

Five run-ins tells me that she may very well have an attitude problem.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
jsobecky, that's fair to say.

But, your sources came from FOX news. I would find them just as credible as you think my sources are in reporting the news. Throughout this thread, I have posted mediamatters.org stories that criticize FOX News for its coverage of the McKinney incident. I have also researched every angle of this situation. But my difference is that I am trying to find alternative news sources as well as the regular media outlets to shore up my information.

Just because a few democrats have been interviewed in the news as not coming out for Ms. McKinney does not mean that the support didn't exist. You can't just readily discount alternative sources because they don't "support the cops".

But you have to think about the possibility that cops are not as pristeen as you make them out to be.

And, I ask you, why do you think that cops are always right? And why do you discount Ms. McKinney's experiences with law enforcement as proof that the cops aren't as good as they are made out to be? Are you saying that she has a bad attitude because she had the temerity to write to the White House about the Capitol Police's behavior? Don't you think that the example conveying her aides have been mistaken twice for the congresswoman constitutes bad behavior by the U.S Capitol Police?

Her run-ins with the police display a pattern that the Capitol cops are just as culpable in having a negligent attitude when trying to treat her properly. You yourself admitted that their policies were lax.

Could you prove it to me, without using FOX News, that the U.S. Capitol police are truly without blame?



P.S. I found the story that forestlady was trying to display in her post.

It is: counterpunch.org

Plus, I found another interesting article about Ms. McKinney on counterpunch regarding Hannity and Colmes.

It is: Defending Cynthia McKinney

Both are by Wayne Madsen.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
jsobecky, that's fair to say.

But, your sources came from FOX news. I would find them just as credible as you think my sources are in reporting the news.

Some of mine do; not all of them.


You can't just readily discount alternative sources because they don't "support the cops".

It was the way they called the Homeland "Heimland".


But you have to think about the possibility that cops are not as pristeen as you make them out to be.

Nobody is pristene. But I think that if I were to pull something dirty, it wouldn't be in broad daylight with dozens of witnesses around.

As it turns out, the two witnesses that will appear before the Grand Jury will support the officer.


And, I ask you, why do you think that cops are always right? And why do you discount Ms. McKinney's experiences with law enforcement as proof that the cops aren't as good as they are made out to be?

I never said the cops were always right. But the majority of congresspersons go through their entire career without a single negative encounter with the Capitol police, and yet McKinney has five encounters.

I also question why you seem to think that the cops are always at fault.


Don't you think that the example conveying her aides have been mistaken twice for the congresswoman constitutes bad behavior by the U.S Capitol Police?

Bad behavior? Absolutely not! What could they possibly gain by mistaking an identity? How about calling it what it probably is, simple human error.


Her run-ins with the police display a pattern that the Capitol cops are just as culpable in having a negligent attitude when trying to treat her properly. You yourself admitted that their policies were lax.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.


Could you prove it to me, without using FOX News, that the U.S. Capitol police are truly without blame?

I've used several other sources throughout this discussion that say McKinney was wrong.




P.S. I found the story that forestlady was trying to display in her post.

It is: counterpunch.org

Plus, I found another interesting article about Ms. McKinney on counterpunch regarding Hannity and Colmes.

It is: Defending Cynthia McKinney

Both are by Wayne Madsen.

I know they were from counterpunch. I discounted them as irrelevant to this case because they were from 2002. That and "Heimland". That smacks of yellow journalism. A true professional doesn't need hype like that.

And her first link didn't point directly to the Madsen story. I'm not about to track down what she meant.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
jsobecky, your answers here are also very fair. But I still have to take issue with some of the things that you had to say.


Originally quoted by jsobecky
As it turns out, the two witnesses that will appear before the Grand Jury will support the officer.


Yes, for the most part. Most articles did report that the two witnesses were supeonaed. However, The Hill, the newspaper for the Congress, reports that only one witness was supeonaed for the case.


The Hill
Troy Phillips, a senior legislative assistant from the office of Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), has been subpoenaed as a witness to the altercation.


However, what about the other witness in the case, Lisa Subrize?

According to the StatesboroHerald, Lisa Subrize is the executive assistant to Michigan Republican Thaddeus McCotter. Here's what she did:


Bob Jackson, a spokesman for McCotter, said that Subrize witnessed the confrontation and immediately filled out a form for the Capitol Police, describing what she saw. A spokeswoman for Farr declined comment.


What she did was certainly not wrong. But, when you work for a Republican Congressman and you witness a Democratic congresswoman having a confrontation with the police, wouldn't you rush and immediately tell what happened?

And as for Troy Phillips? The papers would only group him with Ms. Subrize as "notifying" Mr. Hastert. That could mean anything from writing an affadavit of the situation to simply telling the House Speaker that something happened. We will not know until the evidence from the grand jury dispells the speculation.

I can say that no article or video clip ever said that both witnesses supported the police. I've looked at major papers across the country as well as read the media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, and Associated Press. But if you can find that one article that says otherwise, it would prove to be the "silver bullet" so to speak.


Originally quoted by jsobecky
I never said the cops were always right. But the majority of congresspersons go through their entire career without a single negative encounter with the Capitol police, and yet McKinney has five encounters.

I also question why you seem to think that the cops are always at fault.


I have never said that the cops were entirely at fault. In some of my posts, I had said that the cops deserved to be respected. I also said that Ms. McKinney's actions are unexcusable. However, that doesn't mean police should be free of scrutiny. No agency is perfect. But when you can find examples of abuse within that agency, doesn't that make you wonder if all the procedures are being followed properly--if not equally?

For the most part, you are right about congresspeople going through their career without incident with the Capitol Police. Unless you work there or know somebody who does, how would you actually know what goes on behind closed doors? But, for the cases that do make it to the press, they are rare. And Ms. McKinney's dealings with the police--compared to other stories--take on epic proportions at a time when she stands against the disapproval of House Majority as well as some of the Minority.

Furthermore, I would like to mention another of the oft-cited investigations of the Congressional Black Caucus: the 1990 encounter between former Rep. Mickey Edwards and a Black Capitol Police Woman. I am surprised in all this grilling of Ms. McKinney's encounters, why this has not been brought up. This also comes out of the Statesboro Herald in the same article:


One such probe occurred in 1990, when the caucus investigated whether Rep. Mickey Edwards, R-Okla. poked a black female Capitol Police officer and shouted curses at her after she had denied entrance to an Edwards staffer who did not have a House identification card with her.


Now, what would you say about the former Oklahoma Congressman? Would you say that he "struck" an officer? Would you also say that he deserves battery? Does Mr. Edwards have a bad attitude? Would you say that the police, in this instance, did their job? And no one ever said what exactly Edwards told the Black Policewoman. I can certainly guess, but I may not be right.


Her run-ins with the police display a pattern that the Capitol cops are just as culpable in having a negligent attitude when trying to treat her properly. You yourself admitted that their policies were lax.



Originally quoted by jsobecky
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.


Sorry, jsobecky. Sometimes in my writing, I get a little wordy. So, I will try to reword things to make it better.

What I meant is that Cynthia McKinney obviously displayed a pattern of run-ins with the police. That is not being disputed. I am also putting forth the inquiry that perhaps the Capitol cops display a negligent attitude when dealing with her. That too displays a pattern.

If the Capitol Cops are still not recognizing Ms. McKinney even after she has written the White House about her ill treatment, it is not her fault. The fault of the matter lies on the hands of the Capitol police. If it is true that their security measures are lax, then the evidence of not treating Ms. McKinney with respect is also valuable in debating how well the Capitol Cops treat congresspeople in general. And if they are not expected to remember all 435 members of Congress, wouldn't that also be an indicator that the Capitol Police are lax in their security measures?

It's not like these members of law enforcement work in an airport like O'Hare or LAX. If this security guard worked at an airport, then I would understand the difficulty of remembering faces as well as the heightened security measures. In an airport, more people pass through security gates, go through security checks as well as have that special "pat down". Plus, they supposedly have "face recognition" software.

BTW, would it equally help the capitol police if they had "face recognition" software since they can't remember all the members of Congress?

And, you still haven't explained to me why you defend the cops so vigorously in this situation or why you think Ms. McKinney is so wrong.











[edit on 14-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well-respected? "Heimland"?
Your link takes a wrong turn somewhere, btw. It doesn't link to an article by Madsen.


Sorry about that, I don't know what happened with the link. But the link that Ceci and JSOB both read and the link that Ceci provided, were the wrong ones.
Anyway, it was from a website called currentera.com
and it was also on Wayne Madsen's website. Wayne Madison is the one I'm calling a well-respected journalist. Plus, this article is only 2 weeks old, right after the McKinney incident in question occurred. So you can hardly call that yellow journalism.
JSOB, where are you getting Heimland from? Was it something from the wrong link?

Anyway, here is the article in full:
currentera.com...
********
March 30, 2006
Last night, Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney was accosted by a Capitol Hill Policeman
Filed under: Main Blog — Tom @ 7:39 am
Wayne Madsen Report

March 30, 2006 — Last night, Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney was accosted by a Capitol Hill policeman after she entered the Longworth Building and bypassed the metal detector, which is customary for members of Congress. The police officer did not recognize McKinney who showed him her congressional ID. After he placed his hand on her shoulder in a hostile restraining move, an altercation ensued. The officer said he did not recognize McKinney, something that is required of all Capitol Hill police officers.

This editor has personally witnessed such an incident previously in which a Capitol Hill police officer did not recognize McKinney. I was in a car with McKinney and her assistant when a Capitol Hill police officer at Longworth demanded, and not in a nice way, McKinney’s ID. It is doubtful that any white member of the House or Senate has been stopped in such a manner by cops in the “People’s House.” One memorable incident was when House Doorman Fishbait Miller of Mississippi demanded that the late New York Congresswoman remove her trademark hat when she entered the House chamber. Although there was a verbal altercation between the two, there was no physical contact. But that was then and this Congress now consists of hundreds of “Fishbait Millers” who are elected members, staffers, and cops.

Last month, McKinney’s Georgia home was “toilet papered” with video tape after she participated in the Sundown Film Festival, where a documentary on the electoral fraud used against her in 2002 received an award. The Capitol Hill police are rife with officers hired by the Republican leadership and the recently-departed and nepotism scandal-tainted police chief Terrance Gainer, who got his start as a rookie cop in Chicago in 1968 clubbing anti-Vietnam War protestors at the Democratic National Convention. The Capitol Hill police, which works for the Republican-appointed Sergeant-at-Arms, a political patronage position, has taken on a distinct “southern sheriff’s department” appearance in the last few years. On this past Martin Luther King’s birthday, Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke of a “plantation” mentality in the House of Representatives, adding, “you all know what I’m talking about.” Yes, Senator Clinton, with the McKinney incident, we all now know what you mean.

NOTE especially where it says she was wearing her ID pin and that cops are REQUIRED to know the legislators by face. Seems to me the cops don't like McKinney and are harassing her, if they can't recognize her by now. Also, cops are not supposed to interfere with a legislator when they are coming and going. He was needlessly interfering with her work.

-Forestlady



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
And, you still haven't explained to me why you defend the cops so vigorously in this situation or why you think Ms. McKinney is so wrong.

I'm not going to get into sidetrack issues such as my opinion of police. I will address security via "facial recognition".

The level of security you impose is dependent on the value of what you are trying to secure. Imo, facial recognition is the lowest level of security, and not at all appropriate for Capitol Hill. The identity pin is one level above that, and still very insecure. Add metal detectors and you're at level one.

So if you want to defend poor security measures, be my guest.

One firm I worked for had a security guard named Nell, an elderly woman. She knew every employee in the building, and most of their family members. But she would not let one person pass through without their ID badge, no matter how long you worked there, or what your position might be. She had our highest respect, and we were glad we had her. Cynthia McKinney would never had made it past her.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
JSOB, where are you getting Heimland from? Was it something from the wrong link?


Yes.

CounterPunch
September 16, 2002

America's Horst Wessel
The Shoney's Snoop
by Wayne Madsen

The Bush administration, complete with its Homeland ("Heimland") Security fixation, Gestapo-like TIPS (Terrorist Information and Prevention System) program, and continuous war preparations and sabre rattling, now has its own hero: Eunice Stone of Cartersville, Georgia.
www.counterpunch.org...


The man is obviously biased against Bush; I don't think that is in question.


Anyway, here is the article in full:
currentera.com...
********
March 30, 2006
Last night, Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney was accosted by a Capitol Hill Policeman
Filed under: Main Blog — Tom @ 7:39 am
Wayne Madsen Report

March 30, 2006 — Last night, Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney was accosted by a Capitol Hill policeman after she entered the Longworth Building and bypassed the metal detector, which is customary for members of Congress. The police officer did not recognize McKinney who showed him her congressional ID. After he placed his hand on her shoulder in a hostile restraining move, an altercation ensued. The officer said he did not recognize McKinney, something that is required of all Capitol Hill police officers.



NOTE especially where it says she was wearing her ID pin and that cops are REQUIRED to know the legislators by face. Seems to me the cops don't like McKinney and are harassing her, if they can't recognize her by now. Also, cops are not supposed to interfere with a legislator when they are coming and going. He was needlessly interfering with her work.

-Forestlady

Those two points are in question, Forestlady. All I have heard was that she was not wearing her ID pin, and so she was required to pass through the metal detectors, which she also didn't do. And where does is say that the police are required to know the legislators by face?



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And where does is say that the police are required to know the legislators by face?


Originally posted by forestlady
From the article:
"The officer said he did not recognize McKinney, something that is required of all Capitol Hill police officers. "
-Forestlady
jsobecky:
Those two points are in question, Forestlady. All I have heard was that she was not wearing her ID pin, and so she was required to pass through the metal detectors, which she also didn't do.


If that's all you've heard, I can believe that, since you quote mostly from Fox "Faux" News. Haven't you caught on yet that Americans are being fed propaganda by our mainstream press? You have to ferret out information nowadays to find out the truth...oh wait, no, you already said you weren't willing to try to track down information I gave, so I guess you aren't willinlg to do the work it takes to find out the truth? This administration has obviously targeted Cynthia McKinney, BushCo has spread so many lies about her and is trying to discredit her, now it seems they have set the D.C. cops on her to harass her. I have read several articles saying that she was wearing her pin and even some saying that she passed through the metal detector. If she didn't pass the metal detector, it may well have been because the officer assaulted her before she could do so.
Just because he's a cop doesn't make him automatically the good guy.

JSOBecky, did you even bother to read the article I posted?

-Forestlady



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady

Originally posted by jsobecky
And where does is say that the police are required to know the legislators by face?


Originally posted by forestlady
From the article:
"The officer said he did not recognize McKinney, something that is required of all Capitol Hill police officers. "
-Forestlady
jsobecky:
Those two points are in question, Forestlady. All I have heard was that she was not wearing her ID pin, and so she was required to pass through the metal detectors, which she also didn't do.


If that's all you've heard, I can believe that, since you quote mostly from Fox "Faux" News.

Yes, I do quote from Fox News. I also quote CNN, AOL, MSNBC, and many others.

Are you drawing some kind of conclusion because I admit to using Fox News?


...oh wait, no, you already said you weren't willing to try to track down information I gave, so I guess you aren't willinlg to do the work it takes to find out the truth?

What I meant was that if your link did not point directly to the article you cited, I wasn't going to spend time guessing which turn to take. That's an issue you have to work on; if you use a link, make sure it points to the article you cite. It's not my problem. Sorry.



This administration has obviously targeted Cynthia McKinney, BushCo has spread so many lies about her and is trying to discredit her, now it seems they have set the D.C. cops on her to harass her.


Can you back this up with facts? Or is this just your opinion?


I have read several articles saying that she was wearing her pin and even some saying that she passed through the metal detector.


I'd like to see these articles, other than someone's opinion in a blog. Can yo provide them?


Just because he's a cop doesn't make him automatically the good guy.

And just because McKinney is a black, a female, or a congressperson doesn't automatically make her right, either.


JSOBecky, did you even bother to read the article I posted?

Yes, and I'll say it again - blogs don't carry much weight as far as being an unbiased source.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
forestlady, I'm sorry that I posted the wrong link. I just went from the link that was posted in your post. Furthermore, the second link was my own. It featured the transcript from "Hannity and Colmes" where they denigrate Ms. McKinney. It is an interesting read.


jsobecky, it bewilders me why you won't discuss your vigorous support of the police in this matter. It further perplexes me why you think that Ms. McKinney is so wrong. Could it be that you view her as a perpetrator without reviewing the extenuating circumstances? loam, odium, forestlady, myself and others tried to present an alternative view to you. But, you still hold fast to your point of view what Ms. McKinney did was worthy of the chair.

Believe me, I understand that sometimes people have a hard line about the law. And I am glad that you had a security guard that held fast to checking I.D. That means, she was doing her job and she ought to be commended. But are you so sure about the police that you are willing to overlook the other facts of the case? Does it bother you that some of us tried to prove that Ms. McKinney's claims might have some merit?

I don't believe it is sidetracking the issue to discuss your point of view of the police. Clearly, your views about security paint your view of the McKinney case. I am probably not the only one who would like to hear how you view the police and why you think they are right in this case.

And you didn't answer my question about former Rep. Mickey Edwards. So, I'll ask again. What do you think about that case? Do you also think that Rep. Mickey Edwards should deserve the same fate in your mind as Ms. McKinney? Both "struck" officers. Both deserve battery. Both deserve jail time. That is what you would say, yes? Mr. Edwards, imho, would probably have deserved worse, because he cursed the security guard and "struck" her.

Ms. McKinney did not say anything derogatory to the security guard. He made the first move to restrain her. She, on impulse, swung around and "struck" him with her cell phone.

Same case. Two different races and genders. Mr. Edwards treated the officer worse than Ms. McKinney. And what does he get? A slap on the wrist, maybe? But this was not publicized until it was brought up in contrast to the congresswoman's case. In Ms. McKinney's case, calls of censure and jail time are being proposed for the congresswoman. Do you honestly think that is fair in comparison to Mr. Edwards? I did not find any articles demonizing him for his ill treatment of the Capitol police.

Please tell me that you are not so one-sided to see the dichotomy in both cases.





[edit on 14-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
jsobecky, it bewilders me why you won't discuss your vigorous support of the police in this matter. It further perplexes me why you think that Ms. McKinney is so wrong.

The officer's actions were in direct response to Ms.McKinney's actions. His reaction was appropriate under the circumstances; her's was inappropriate.

Extenuating circumstances? I have heard everything from she thought she was being attacked, to racial profiling, to her mindset at the time, to the fact that she didn't hear him, to the fact that grabbing her arm was "inappropriate touching". All of them are excuses, and "maybe's" and "possibly's" and "what ifs". None of them are fact. The only fact is that she struck the officer.


loam, odium, forestlady, myself and others tried to present an alternative view to you. But, you still hold fast to your point of view what Ms. McKinney did was worthy of the chair.

Worthy of the chair? You're being a little melodramatic here, ceci. I just refuse to let her off the hook. You and the others you cite want so badly for her to be innocent and for the officer to be guilty that you will put forth every and any excuse for her actions.

I say it doesn't matter what happened to her yesterday or last year. I don't care if she was having a bad hair day. I don't care that she couldn't hear because she was on the phone. What matters was the actions on that day. And that's enough for me to make up my mind.

I might be more sympathetic if she didn't have such a poor record of dealing with authority, or if she hadn't called so many silly press conferences immediately after, using "celebrities" for support, or if she would have been adult enough to answer the questions asked of her withouth glazing over and smiling and talking over the questioners. Her actions were clownish.


I don't believe it is sidetracking the issue to discuss your point of view of the police. Clearly, your views about security paint your view of the McKinney case. I am probably not the only one who would like to hear how you view the police and why you think they are right in this case.


I've already stated that the police acted appropriately in this case. My general opinion of the police is irrelevant, and to discuss them would be to go off-topic.


And you didn't answer my question about former Rep. Mickey Edwards.

Strictly speaking, he was guilty of battery.


Ms. McKinney did not say anything derogatory to the security guard. He made the first move to restrain her.

As he had every right and responsibility to do.


She, on impulse, swung around and "struck" him with her cell phone.

And that's where she screwed up. I could give you a dozen other good reasons why someone other than security would want to stop her, but when I do, I've been ridiculed here.


Same case. Two different races and genders. Mr. Edwards treated the officer worse than Ms. McKinney. And what does he get? A slap on the wrist, maybe? But this was not publicized until it was brought up in contrast to the congresswoman's case. In Ms. McKinney's case, calls of censure and jail time are being proposed for the congresswoman. Do you honestly think that is fair in comparison to Mr. Edwards? I did not find any articles demonizing him for his ill treatment of the Capitol police.


This is a perfect example of a sidetrack issue, but I'll indulge you:


Maybe there were no articles because maybe it was handled quickly and quietly, instead of claims of racism, and without celebrity press conferences, etc. And maybe it wasn't common behavior with Edwards.

Occams Razor. This case is a perfect example of when it should be applied..

Edit: typos
[edit on 14-4-2006 by jsobecky]

[edit on 14-4-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
jsobecky, the problem with Mr. Edwards and the Black woman police officer is not a sidetrack issue. It fits perfectly in the theme of this thread. After all, the former Oklahoma congressman can also be included in having problems with the U.S. Capitol police. This gives me the idea that problems exist within the U.S. Capitol police if they are not properly treating congresspeople with respect. However, it is also fair to say that this story also alerts people to the fact that congressmembers have conflicts with the U.S. Capitol police.

But, I am glad that you think that he deserved the same fate as Ms. McKinney.

And I do agree with you that what Ms. McKinney did in response was rather bad. I can see how her press conferences might be misconstrued as a publicized stand to demonize the U.S. Capitol Police. And to add Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte clearly overdoes it. But in terms of holding press conferences surrounding people she is most comfortable with on the steps of Howard University, isn't truly the worst thing. Would it be more satisfactory if she went on the steps of the Congress surrounded by White people to make the same claims? Would her accusations against the police be more believable?

I also agree that she could have solved this matter quietly. But, even you have to agree, that isn't Ms. McKinney's style. She holds her ground and tells people what's on her mind. And she doesn't hold things back. On one side, you can see that as being foolhardy. But I prefer to view that as courage--especially when she has openly questioned the GWB administration on sex trafficking, 9/11 as well as other matters that affect the most vunerable in the population.

That's why I cannot just simply brand her as crazy or having "bad behavior". She clearly is a rebel. She does not go in lockstep like other people in terms of seeking the truth. And I suppose, even in this situation, she had to go down swinging--until the Congressional Black Caucus told her to settle down. She's a fighter. And Congress needs more like her. It's not that she passed a few decent bills. She actually took a "hit" for the home team on many controversial issues. When has Sen. Hillary Clinton put herself on the line to display her views on a controversial issue?

Still, I don't know if the simplest answer is the best in this situation. I don't see that our alternative information could be perceived as "excuses". I call them, perhaps, "extenuating circumstances". They serve to possibly explain why the case happened. That's why mentioning these other facts are important in weighing the case of Ms. McKinney and her encounter with the cop.

I also understand that mentioning these "extenuating circumstances" also has to do with cultural experiences with law enforcement as well. I know that you have probably had great experiences with law enforcement. That is not to be discounted. I think it is wonderful. I too have had good experiences with the police. But that doesn't make me forget that sometimes the cops can make mistakes. These issues have to be also examined in Ms. McKinney's case.

Will you at least acknowledge that the U.S. Capitol Police has problems? Is that so hard?

And I promise, I won't give you the chair if you explain your theories.
Please if you could, refresh my memory why you have your views about the case. I just want to understand where you are coming from and why you perceive this case the way you do.



[edit on 14-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I wouldn't exactly call Wayne Madsen's report just "someone's opinion in a blog." He is an established journalist working in DC who actually knows Ms. McKinney. Here's his bio:
**********

Wayne Madsen, Editor

Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist, nationally-distributed columnist, and author who has covered Washington, DC politics, national security, and intelligence issues since 1994. He has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, CAQ, Counterpunch, and the Intelligence Newsletter (based in Paris). Madsen is the author of Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999, co-author of America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II, and the forthcoming Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates. Madsen is also the author of The Handbook of Personal Data Protection (London: Macmillan, 1992), an acclaimed reference book on international data protection law.

Madsen is a former U.S. Naval officer who was assigned to the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. He also has some twenty years experience in computer security and data privacy. He has also worked for the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation.
**********

Not a shabby resume if you ask me. He's no dummy. He was with McKinney the time before this when she was stopped by the cops. She was wearing her ID pin then, ttoo, but still got stopped. So in at least 2 of those 5 times, she was doing what she was suoposed to be doing. But the officers WERE NOT. They were supposed to know her by face, even if you think that's not efficient, JSOB, it's what they require.

I have a sense that JSOB, you will dismiss any evidence I provide. I've already provided a link that says she was wearing her pin. Wayne Madsen talked to her for crying out loud and that's how he knows she was wearing her pin. There was also an eyewitness report, but I forget where I read that.

If you want to hear propaganda, stick with the mainstream press. But if you really want the truth, you have to go find it. THe mainstream press is as slanted as the USSR back in the Communist '70s - I should know, I was there then and experienced firsthand how much the Soviet government lied to their people. I see the exact same propaganda tactics being used now.

I grew up working in my dad's office and he had his own public relations business. I know the difference betweeen public relations and actual facts. PR and their press releases are where the mainstream gets its news, there are no more investigative journalists in the MSM. Do you really think that someone's public relations office is going to admit to their client's wrongdoing?
It seems that you are simply dismissing all our arguments out of hand because they don't agree with any of your black vs. white views (yes, pun intended) Just because you don't know who Wayne Madsen is, you dismiss him right away. Why haven't you done some research to find out what the other side has to say like Ceci and I have done? I suspect you don't want to hear it, that you form your opinions before getting the facts and if it doesn't conform to your world view, you simply dismiss it.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady

So in at least 2 of those 5 times, she was doing what she was suoposed to be doing. But the officers WERE NOT. They were supposed to know her by face, even if you think that's not efficient, JSOB, it's what they require.

I have a sense that JSOB, you will dismiss any evidence I provide. I've already provided a link that says she was wearing her pin. Wayne Madsen talked to her for crying out loud and that's how he knows she was wearing her pin. There was also an eyewitness report, but I forget where I read that.

First of all, I wonder why you feel the need to debase my username. It's a childish tactic and you should know better.

Next, she was not "doing what she was supposed to be doing" in at least one of those times, unless you mean that striking someone is doing what comes normal.

Ad I don't care how many times Madsen says something. His word alone is insufficcient. I want proof. The man, and you, are so obviously anti-Bush and pro-McKinney that your conclusions cannot be trusted. I mean, have you even read what he says? He hates everything American, from calling them rednecks to ridiculing what they do. And this is what you call a well-respected journalist? Gimme a break.:shk:


If you want to hear propaganda, stick with the mainstream press. But if you really want the truth, you have to go find it.

What you really mean is, keep looking until you find a source that supports your preconceived conclusions.


THe mainstream press is as slanted as the USSR back in the Communist '70s - I should know, I was there then and experienced firsthand how much the Soviet government lied to their people. I see the exact same propaganda tactics being used now.

I know - the gov't twists all news sources except yours, right?
Don't compare the US to your corrupt former regime.


It seems that you are simply dismissing all our arguments out of hand because they don't agree with any of your black vs. white views (yes, pun intended) Just because you don't know who Wayne Madsen is, you dismiss him right away. Why haven't you done some research to find out what the other side has to say like Ceci and I have done? I suspect you don't want to hear it, that you form your opinions before getting the facts and if it doesn't conform to your world view, you simply dismiss it.


Just because I won't go along with the flow, just because I won't join your flock of blind sheeple, means I'm wrong, eh? You need to fit in with the masses way of thinking so much that you are afraid to step out of line. Instead, you attack the loner, the person who thinks for himself.

Go ahead, make this thread about me. Attack my sources, my motives, my conclusions, if it makes you sleep better. When you resort to such tactics, you've already lost.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
jsobecky, the problem with Mr. Edwards and the Black woman police officer is not a sidetrack issue. It fits perfectly in the theme of this thread. After all, the former Oklahoma congressman can also be included in having problems with the U.S. Capitol police. This gives me the idea that problems exist within the U.S. Capitol police if they are not properly treating congresspeople with respect. However, it is also fair to say that this story also alerts people to the fact that congressmembers have conflicts with the U.S. Capitol police.


ceci, I'm sure that the Capitol Police have had many "encounters" with the congress and with the general public. They aren't exactly dealing with the best "clientele", after all. We should just accept that as a day in the life.


But in terms of holding press conferences surrounding people she is most comfortable with on the steps of Howard University, isn't truly the worst thing. Would it be more satisfactory if she went on the steps of the Congress surrounded by White people to make the same claims? Would her accusations against the police be more believable?

It's the fact that she had to hold more than one conference. She was trying to work the incident to her advantage; it blew up in her face.


She holds her ground and tells people what's on her mind. And she doesn't hold things back. On one side, you can see that as being foolhardy. But I prefer to view that as courage--especially when she has openly questioned the GWB administration on sex trafficking, 9/11 as well as other matters that affect the most vunerable in the population.

I see it as an anti-semitic, racist woman looking for a fight wherever she goes. Even she admitted that she had no proof implicating Bush in 9/11, when called upon to defend her statements. All she had were some inflammatory feelings that an investigation might reveal something.


And Congress needs more like her.

More people that support Farrakhan and Mugabe? Not imo, they don't.


Will you at least acknowledge that the U.S. Capitol Police has problems? Is that so hard?

You are persistent, I'll give you that. But no, not until they repeatedly do something they are not supposed to.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I'm not debasing your name, I'm using the initials of your handle - I really dont want to type JSOBecky every time.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
jsobecky,

I just want to thank you for your honesty in this situation. Your comments went past the "She was racist" bend and actually explained why you think such. You would probably think that I am mad with what you said. But I'm not. Weirdly, I feel relieved because finally someone came out and said what they felt instead of using the same attacks. You said what was on your mind about Cynthia McKinney and why you think she was wrong. And that frankness enables me to understand your point of view.

I also understand that we may agree to disagree about the cops. That is a given. But we can also agree that we both respect the police. I, on my part, just have a heightened sensitivity to watching police behavior to see if their efforts are fair.

As for Ms. McKinney and her problems with Jewish people, I too agree that is a problem. I can say for myself that I advocate dignity, respect and fairness from people of all stripes. And I find it is fair to examine exactly what her support for Mugabe as well as her contention with Jewish people exactly is. Yes, I researched it to see exactly what her stance was. These are a few examples on both sides that might explain these issues.

For a African-American point of view about Cynthia McKinney, here is a piece from the Black Commentator.

This is an except from Alexander Cockburn's Piece on Cynthia McKinney also:


From Cynthia McKinney to Katha Pollitt, to the ILWU to Paul Krugman

Yet when a torrent of money from out of state American Jewish organizations smashed Earl Hilliard, first elected black congressperson in Alabama since Reconstruction, you could have heard a mouse cough. Hilliard had made the fatal error of calling for some measure of even-handedness in the Middle East. So he was targeted by AIPAC and the others. Down he went, defeated in the Democratic primary by Artur Davis, a black lawyer who obediently sang for his supper of the topic of Israel.

Then it was McKinney's turn. A terrific liberal black congresswoman. Like Hilliard she wasn't cowed by the Israel right-or-wrong lobby and called for real debate on the Middle East. And she called for a real examination of the lead-up to 9/11. So the sky fell in on her. Torrents of American Jewish money showered her opponent, a black woman judge called Majette. Buckets of sewage were poured over McKinney's head in the Washington Post and the Atlanta Constitution.

Here's how it worked. McKinney saw what happened to Hilliard, and that American Jewish money was pumping up Majette's challenge. So she went to Arab-American groups to try to raise money to fight back. This allowed Tom Edsall to attack her in the Washington Post as being in receipt of money from pro-terror Muslims. Lots of nasty looking Arab/Muslim names suddenly filled Edsall's stories.


This article was orginally posted by Majic in the other Cynthia McKinney thread. But I am going to post some excerpts here, to highlight her contentious relationship with Jewish people in Atlanta:


Deconstructing Cynthia McKinney

With relations already beginning to show signs of strain, an episode in 1994 heightened Jewish suspicions about McKinney. She refused to vote for a congressional resolution condemning the anti-Semitic speeches of a Farrakhan disciple, Khalid Muhammad. McKinney saw the vote as a threat to freedom of speech, while her critics saw it as a blatant slap at the Jewish community.
[...]
To be sure, McKinney has forged close alliances with some Jews. Stephanie Davis, head of the Atlanta Women's Foundation, has known McKinney since her days in the state legislature, where Davis was a legislative researcher. "I think she's a visionary in many ways," Davis said. "She is so strong on issues of equality and equal rights for women and people of color." Davis is frustrated by what she sees as the Jewish community's unwillingness to forgive McKinney for the harsh tone of the 1996 election: "We cannot disregard her or pretend she's not important to our future or try to discount her for past actions that I think she's reversed."
[...]
The simple fact is that McKinney doesn't put so-called Jewish issues at the top of her agenda. She is deeply involved in helping emerging African nations. She fights for black causes and women's rights. And truth be known, she doesn't need Jewish votes to keep her seat - the 4th District is just 4 percent Jewish - as long as she maintains her strong coalition of women and African American voters.


The article goes into the deep wounds between Ms. McKinney and the Jewish community, but yes, it is problematic because of her support with Farrakhan. But then again, Farrakhan himself is a polarizing figure who is uncomprising in his manner and speech. However, I tend to think that Mr. Farrakhan is just one voice in a plethora of voices within the Black Community. Now it's been proven that her father, Billy McKinney, said derogatory statements about Jewish people. On the record, so far, she has not.

I'm no apologist for her tactics if she has treated the Jewish community badly. I know that her relations with the Jewish community has been lukewarm. I do not like it that she has pussy-footed around her relationship with the Jewish community. But until someone proves that she has said any anti-Semetic comments, my opinion will change.

On Ms. McKinney's part, she did not condemn Mr. Farrakhan's speech because she based it on the principle of First Amendment rights. So, do you think that is fair? Would you do the same for the Ku Klux Klan?

About her relations with Mr. Mugabe, I am first going to give you her comments about the matter from globalblacknews.com:


"Up Close - Zimbabwe"

So we have come today to speak about Zimbabwe. And what prompts that discussion? Headlines that inform us that Zimbabwe is coming apart. Some would have us believe that we become heated over Zimbabwe because of the country's human rights abuse, democracy well over the line toward autocracy, rampant corruption, and black racism. But ultimately, the question is the land. Zimbabwe has embarked upon a long-promised and well-overdue land reform.

But President Mugabe has known full well that the question of Zimbabwean independence, even at its dawn, was hinged on the question of the ownership of the land. For the question remains unanswered by those who claim title to the land of how they actually got that land. And if they are not willing to answer that question, then how can their title to the land be legally valid?

But that is not just a Zimbabwe issue. That is an African issue. For Africa was not a barren land devoid of people. Africa was for Africans until the Europeans came along. And then Africa became theirs and basically remains theirs to this day.


And here is an article from BlackPressUSA.com by Bill Fletcher, Jr. This is his comments about the entire Mugabe affair--especially when the Bush Administration is taking measures to overthrow the Zimbabwe leader's government:


Rumors of More Wars

I came across the story over the Internet. A dispatch from a paper in Harare, Zimbabwe, alleged that the Bush Administration is planning a military intervention in order to overthrow President Robert Mugabe. The following day I was told that unnamed State Department officials were making noises along the same lines.

While these reports are all unconfirmed, the fact that anyone would take this seriously speaks volumes about the perception of the Bush Administration and its new National Security Doctrine (which includes so-called regime change). Bush Administration saber rattling has been most pronounced with respect to Iraq. At the same time, the administration has decided to focus much of its remaining ire at the Mugabe government in Africa.

President Mugabe could have ended his political career a hero to millions. Leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union, and one of the principal leaders of the struggle against White minority rule in the then Rhodesia, Mugabe directed the transition to democracy and national development in his country. Yet over the last several years in response to rising political and economic discontent, Mugabe chose repression and intransigence rather than national, democratic dialogue. Seizing on an issue he had ignored for 10 years�land reform and redistribution�he co-opted sections of the landless movement; focused his attack on White farmers while ignoring the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Black farmworkers who actually work the land; wrapped himself and this entire issue in the flag of nationalism; and condemned all opponents as agents of imperialism.


Yes, Ms. McKinney's involvement in Zimbabwe's struggle for parity of land remains rather spotty at best. But, her comments--as I found so far--centered on the struggle of the people rather than the support of the leader--as many right wing blogs would have the American public believe. I have not found an article which breaks down this issue fairly. However, I did go and research what African-Americans would think about Ms. McKinney's participation with Mr. Mugabe. This is not to discount your claims. In this issue, I will keep an open mind until I can find other information not centering on propaganda.

As for Ms. McKinney's involvement about 9/11, I will keep an open mind here too. I don't think that her questions were way off base. I will keep researching her views until I find something that points one way or the other. Until then, I don't think what she said was so inflammatory. She asked questions. That is more than any other Congressperson did.

All I can say is that I am sorry that you felt on the spot from my questions. My questions were genuine because I really wanted to know why people felt the way they did about Ms. McKinney instead of her being "crazy" and "racist". Your answers of honesty showed me why you felt the way you did. And that is great. I applaud you for that. You went further than most about explaining their feelings instead of keeping under the cover. This can only serve to heighten more understanding about the issues at hand.

Besides, I wouldn't give you the chair. I like debating with you a lot more.




















[edit on 15-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
CNN has obtained a copy of the officiial police report from the incident. It is available at the link provided (pdf ). It identifies the officer, Paul McKenna, and characterizes him as "solid".

There are several interesting points brought out in the article. The most telling is the statement by the officer that McKinney struck him with a "closed fist".


Police sources said McKenna has been with the Capitol Hill Police for a little more than three years, and has a clean reputation.

One Capitol Hill Police source said McKenna has never faced disciplinary action, and described him as "a very squared-away officer ... he knows his job, and is very professional."
CNN



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join