Judge Chides NYPD Over Interrogations (of protesters)

NEW YORK -- A federal judge broadened judicial oversight of the city's police department Thursday, saying the force showed "some need of discipline" after subjecting anti-war protesters to questions including whether they hated President Bush.

Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. said there was evidence of "operational ignorance" by the department's highest officials about the interrogations of some of the 274 people who were arrested during a Feb. 15 demonstration.

snip>

Haight downplayed the effect of his ruling, saying it simply would "make a violation of the Constitution a contempt of the court's order as well."

"That consequence should not unduly trouble the NYPD, which I will assume is not engaged in thinking up ways to violate the Constitution," he said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-nypd-surveillance,0,3531408.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

Questions posed to protesters included: "Do you hate George W. Bush? Do you think anything would be different if Al Gore were elected? What is your opinion of the war in Iraq? Don't you think it was necessary for us to get involved in World War II?"

:wtf:

<snip>

Jethro Eisenstein, a lawyer who has fought to strengthen the consent decree, said the ruling means "the Police Department will recognize that the new rules they put into effect are really rules, that they have the force of law and the contempt power behind them."

He said the police officers who interrogated protesters had tried to intimidate them with the attitude: "`America, love it or leave it, whatever the government does should be supported.' That's very intimidating to someone in custody."
<end>

Intimidating? It's positively Third Reich!

I guess the ol' "Protect and Serve" philosophy is now overtly about the powerful rather than the people. It's one way to stop being hypocritical, I guess. :puke: Sieg Heil!

to BLOCK BUSH's JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS!!!

:-)

:dem:

Haight downplayed the effect of his ruling, saying it simply would "make a violation of the Constitution a contempt of the court's order as well."

"That consequence should not unduly trouble the NYPD, which I will assume is not engaged in thinking up ways to violate the Constitution," he said.

----------------------