ePluribus Media Community || citizen journalism, for the people, by the people

Blogger/Journalist Arrested At Inauguration Parade for Governor Jodi Rell

Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 07:06:36 PM EST

Wow...promoted - standingup

OK. He has worked on the Green party campaign for the Governor, the Lamont campaign for Senate, and does a lot of Blogging and work as an indie Journalist. Apparently he is perceived as a serious enough threat to our paranoid Governor Jodi Rell that he was arrested at her innaugural prade.

Activist Arrested At Inauguration Parade:

"HARTFORD, Conn. -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell's security detail only watched when a woman left the sidewalk and quickly walked toward Rell during the inaugural parade Wednesday. The woman shook Rell's hand and melted into the crowd.
But a slightly built man who jumped off a mountain bike and ran into the parade route ahead of Rell was intercepted by a state trooper and arrested by a Hartford police officer.
One difference in the way the two incursions were handled: A state police intelligence unit had previously identified the man, Ken Krayeske, as a political activist and potential threat.

A potential threat? What was so threatening about Krayeske that the Trooper had to step in and grab him? And why, and how, had they identified him? (More Below)

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

Hartford Det. Jeff Antuna wrote in his report that Krayeske hp/2007/01/0drew his attention by rapidly riding up to the parade route near Bushnell Park, dumping his bike and running to a position in front of Rell.
"I immediately recognized the accused as Kenneth Krayeske from the photograph provided by the state police," Antuna wrote.
A state police detective intercepted Krayeske. When Antuna grabbed his arm, police said, Krayeske pulled away.

Photograph provided by State Police? Huh??? According to the Hartford police officers report the State had given the local Hartford police photographs of activists that might be considered threats to "Her Excellency" Governor Jodi Rell.

His lawyer says Krayeske apparently came to the attention of state police by heckling Rell during a campaign stop in Glastonbury last year over her refusal to debate his candidate, Clifford Thornton.
"Are there little circles of law-enforcement officers who have lists of who is naughty and who is nice?" asked Krayeske's lawyer, Norm Pattis. "What is the criteria for inclusion?"

Speaking on behalf of the state police, Lt. J. Paul Vance had nothing to say about how Kreyeske came to the State Police intelligence unit's OR the Connecticut Intelligence Centers attention. He did admit that these unit's do share information and intelligence. Speaking on behalf of Nutmeggers... I knew they shared information, but I had no clue so many agencies were watching all of us?
As for the list:

Nancy Mulroy, a Hartford police spokeswoman, played down the list, saying Krayeske was arrested for his actions.

Pay no attention to the McCarthy inspired list! Just move along to the dangerous actions of Krayeske... OK, Let's do that for the moment. Situation, according to the Hartford police:

"List or no list, if you rush off a bike and start charging toward the governor during a processional parade, you are going to be arrested," Mulroy said. "In this day and age, when security is a very serious matter, you cannot expect to act like that and not have to face the consequences. Our job was to protect the governor, and we took it seriously."

Whoa! He was charging at our Governor? This seems to match the arrest report filed by the officer on the scene dug up and posted at The Courant website. (h/t to Journalist, radio host, and Blogger Colin McEnroe)

According to The Courant article there was a witness to back up the police version of the arrest. Eliot Streim:

Streim, a Hartford lawyer who was watching the parade with a colleague, said police did not intercept Krayeske as he ran into the parade route. On the contrary, Krayeske photographed the governor without incident and was detained by police only after Rell had passed by, Streim said.

Well? He did back them up against the wall. Straim's version seems to leave a lot of doubt about the police version of the arrest.

OK... Someone is lying, and the only one I can see with nothing to gain or lose here is the Lawyer/witness. Can Krayeske shed any light on what he was doing at the parade? Take a look: Photo by Ken Krayeske (photo h/t ct bob)

He was taking pictures! That was a photo taken by Krayeske shortly before he was arrested. Does that look like a photo that someone charging at Granny Paranoia might be able to take? Half of my pictures come out blurry even when I am standing as still as I can. That is a damned good picture considering the subject. (FYI: Krayeske is having a caption contest for the photo to poke fun at inauguRellgate, and celebrate the glorious circumstances of his arrest and 13 hours in jail)

It is bad enough that this guy got arrested for taking pictures, but what is a really scary thought is that Connecticut now has a "LIST" of potential dangegerously threatening people that seems to include peaceful activists like Bloggers, Journalists, campaign volunteers, and obviously photographers.

So now we have a "List", an apparently ginned up arrest, spying on peaceful political activists... And yes he is your typical peaceful activist. Ctnewsjunkie fills in some of Kreyeske's info:

Krayeske was working as a freelance photojournalist at the time of the arrest Wednesday. He also runs a Web site The 40 Year Plan. He was previously arrested in 2003 for demonstrating against the war. In 2004 Krayeske worked on Ralph Nader's presidential campaign and in 2005 he traveled to Syria to report on the war. He has also contributed stories and photos to ctnewsjunkie.com

Atalbot at MLN can give you a little more background on Krayeske.

Now to the last little part in this story: What helped to get all of Connectucut's various secret and not so secret policing efforts and attention and put him on the "LIST". According to Maura at MLN:

Paz makes note in his article of this comment that Ken wrote at Connecticut Local Politics:

Whose going to protest the inaugural ball Jan. 3 with me? No need to make nice after watching this documentary about CJTS
Paz hasn't yet connected this comment to the aspect of this whole outrage that I think is nearly as interesting as the revelation that CTIC has a list of political activists deemed troublesome to Rell -- the fact that the bond for Krayeske was set at the absurdly high level of $75,000.
Since Ken couldn't make this bond, he was kept in lockup all afternoon and night...and then mysteriously sprung without having to make bond at all, simply on promise to appear, at 1:00 AM.
Rell's inaugural ball, which Ken commented at CLP that he'd like to protest, ended at 1:00 AM.

Krayeske is a freelance writer and photographer and he his only intention was to photograph "Her Excellency" Governor Jodi Rell. They arrested him on ginned up charges, and held him until after that Rell's ball ended. You have seen most of the the evidence. Do I raelly need to tell you what to make of this?

The Day has a bit more on this from Krayeske's lawyer today:

Pattis called the police department's version "ridiculous," accusing them of "lying and making it up as they go along."
Equally important, he said, is the question of the surveillance and whether Krayeske and other political activists and freelance journalists are being investigated and monitored.
The number of other people on the list and their identities were not available Friday.
"It's not a crime in this country to be a political activist, at least not yet," Pattis said. "It's not apparent that Mr. Krayeske broke any law, it's not apparent that he did anything that any of the rest of us are not allowed to do. This is sort of, police state run riot."
A spokesman for the governor's office declined to comment Friday.

CT police and not so secret police (not secret anymore) have stepped in it big time, and all for the benefit of our paranoid GOP Governor Jodi Rell. They have crossed way over the line of what their stated purposes are. Just check Colin McEnroe's site to see the proof of that:

I am trying to stay with this story as I do the show. I now have the police report on the arrest of Ken Krayeske. The information about him seems to have come, at least partly, from the Connecticut Intelligence Center, a creature of Homeland Security.
Here is its stated purpose. I fail to see how it includes monitoring members of the Green Party:

* Connecticut Intelligence Center
The DEMHS Statewide Anti-Terrorism Task Force is now co-located with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, in an effort to streamline investigations and response to terrorism-related allegations and incidents. A key component of this investigative and law enforcement asset created in 2005 is the Connecticut Intelligence Center ("CTIC"), a multi-agency collaborative operation that includes representatives of the FBI, DEMHS, Connecticut State Police, municipal law enforcement agencies and the U.S. Coast Guard.
CTIC collects, analyzes and disseminates both criminal and terrorism related intelligence to all law enforcement agencies in Connecticut. Serving as a statewide central resource to affect intelligence sharing, CTIC also acts to identify emerging threats and trends. CTIC produces a number of intelligence reports and bulletins, including the CTIC Weekly Briefing and has conducted three seminars for state and local law enforcement professionals. The seminars have helped increase the knowledge of local law enforcement professionals in dealing with terrorist prevention and incidents.

And like the typical GOP low-life she personifies Jodi Rell will likely do nothing and say nothing about this until everyone dogpiles on her. She would prefer to just try and sweep it under the rug. What she didn't count on was that not only has the Blogosphere latched on to this, BUT the MSM has grabbed this one early and has done a lot of digging as well.

There are a couple of F words that come to mind when I see shit like this from our government... One of them is: Fascism. And it can even happen here in one of the bluest of blue states, Connecticut. Fortunately there are too many in the left for them to arrest all of us here. At least, I hope there are too many of us?

Blogger/Journalist Arrested At Inauguration Parade for Governor Jodi Rell | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)

This is an ongoing story (5.00 / 2) (#1)

in the CT media and Blogosphere.

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford
by Connecticut Man1 on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 07:26:08 PM EST

Are you sure (5.00 / 2) (#2)

You want to promote this without editing it? Considering your new relationship with the Columbia Journalism School Sulzberger Leadership Program?

lol jk (kindof/sortof) :)

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford
by Connecticut Man1 on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 07:54:48 PM EST

Yes (5.00 / 2) (#3)

The edited content resides here and this is a great post for the front page. Situations like this one in CT need exposure. I'm glad you posted it here.

by standingup on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 11:45:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On other sites, it is not important to them (5.00 / 5) (#5)

On ePluribis Media, there is, I understand, a liking for accuracy.

Without offering a reason for his belief, we are told "His lawyer says Krayeske apparently came to the attention of state police by heckling Rell during a campaign stop in Glastonbury last year"

The commentary also quotes another blogger (Ctnewsjunkie) as saying "He was previously arrested in 2003 for demonstrating against the war."

In fact, the newspaper article quoted as the source for this story states:

Krayeske, 34, of Hartford was charged with breach of peace and interfering with a police officer. He said he has a record of three previous arrests involving acts of civil disobedience protesting the war in Iraq and the launching of a nuclear submarine, the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter.

This is rather different from "heckling during a campaign stop" and is of an order of arrest greater than a single instance. As some of my friends from our Quaker meeting who attended the Faslane nuclear submarine base protest last month and who undertake similar protests know, and this protester's lawyer should know, this does rather tend to put you on lists. It is an understood and accepted part of taking your protest into areas of civil disobedience.

by Welshman on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 11:08:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

An arrest is one thing (5.00 / 1) (#8)

Was there a conviction, plea of guilt or were the charges dropped? It is very easy to arrest protestors as a way to quickly handle a situation but that does not tell us if there was a good basis for the arrest.

by standingup on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 11:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

: The only information available.. (5.00 / 1) (#11)

..is that of the protester himself, who says he was arrested on three previous occasions.
It is not the outcome of these arrests that are so important - other than getting himself in this position constantly will end up in him being listed.
What is important is that this diary quotes wrong information from CTnewsjunkie regarding the arrest record and contradicts that provided by the protestor as quoted in the original source of the story.

by Welshman on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:21:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't want to sort this one out (5.00 / 5) (#4)

It is certainly not a crime to be a political activist but unfortunately it can become one if it is disruptive. A call to protest the Inaugural Ball is fine but to physically impose, or to give cause to believe that the protest may involve the physical imposition of, that protest changes the nature of the activism.

As Mike Stark found, rushing up to politicians when you are a known protester is bound to create concern for those who are charged with protecting them.

Known disruptive activists from the right or left are certainly a problem for law enforcement. What is legitimate protest and what is intrusion into the orderly and peaceful conduct of events? How can the nature of that intrusion be determined as to whether or not it may lead to the threat of injury or worse? It puts everyone in a difficult position, but it is better that police play it safe, I guess.

It is always better if a protest can be exercised in a way that does not put police and activists into confrontation with each other.

The bail and release at 1.00 a.m. seems to have been quite a neat "judgement of Solomon" for diffusing the situation. I just hope it was done with good humour on all sides.

In instances where civil disobedience is involved, if this is planned as part of the protest, it is always a good thing to plan in advance and recognise the stress that it puts on people who are required by law to respond to it.

Good organisation and planning always makes for the best protests.

I remember vocally protesting a Conservative event and being physically bundled away quite forcibly. Fair play, it is all part of what we expect can happen. No great constitutional crisis - just how things pan out on the day. If you lie down in the middle of the road, eventually the police will pick you up and bundle you into a van. It is going to happen that you will be removed so you either struggle and possibly risk injury or you calmly make it as easy as possible for the police to do their duty, having done what you perceive as yours.

No, not fascism - just a difficult call for law enforcement officers.

by Welshman on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 09:46:02 AM EST

Yes and no (5.00 / 1) (#6)

Welshman, I agree with you on some points. The job of law enforcement is not an easy one. I would not want to be in their shoes.

I suppose the difference I see with this incident is that one spectator was allowed to approach the govenor without intervention while another was intercepted by officials. And what was the basis for their choosing to handle one differently than the other?

From CTnewsjunkie:

According to the police report, plainclothes Hartford Police Officers recognized Krayeske from a photo they were given by the Connecticut Intelligence Center and the State Police Central Intelligence Unit that "briefed us on possible threats to Gov. Rell by a political activist."

So what threat did Krayeske possibly pose? He was a vocal opponent of the govenor. We have the right to do that in the United States. He made on comment on a website that could have suggested or implied his protest would not be peaceful. But that could have just as easily been interpreted otherwise too.

No need to make nice after watching this documentary about CJTS

Also from CTnewsjunkie, the woman who....

left the sidewalk and quickly walked toward Rell during the inaugural parade Wednesday

...could have been holding a gun or knife in her pocket when she approached the govenor. Instead of a handshake there could have been an attempted shooting or stabbing. Why didn't anyone grab her before she made contact with the govenor? The police admitted Krayeske was aprehended because they recognized his photo. I assume the woman was not on the list of possible political acivists that the police were briefed on but nonetheless could have been a risk. So what is the real risk they are concerned with here? Physical harm or political dissent which can be politially uncomfortable. I think the latter and that is the reason many of us view this as a descent into an dangerous territory. Unfortunately this has become more common if not acceptable during the Bush presidency and former republican majority rule in Congress.

by standingup on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 11:17:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have added some additional... (5.00 / 2) (#10)

..information up thread from the newspaper article quoted as the source by the diarist, particularly that relating to the arrest record of the protester. This is not accurately portrayed by the diarist.

Whether the police officer exercised the right judgement is something that the courts are there to sort out. In the UK, if he did not commit an offence, he will be found not guilty. If he became abusive to the police officer who challenged him, then he might get a reprimand or small fine.

There are thousands of deaths occurring in Iraq. Our governments seem out of control and failing from a lack of proper oversight. This seems a more sensible issue on which to support the protester, who agrees with this concern, rather than expending energy on a minor incident in which he may fairly or unfairly have been involved and for which there exist legal checks and balances that will be, but have not yet been, exercised.

If I seem less than enthusiastic about this diary that is going to be repeated across all the progressive blogs, it is because it is inaccurate. It is inaccurate in the worse way, in that it is selective in its quotations from its own source, contradicts other information from that source and compounds this by quoting wrong or misleading information from other less secure and unsubstantiated comment.

If I am to challenge my government for these very same failings at the start of the Iraq war, I prefer not to blog with those who commit identical errors to advance their own arguments.

My other concern is that the diarist says "There are a couple of F words that come to mind when I see shit like this from our government... One of them is: Fascism."

I find that I am more influential with those whom I wish to persuade if I do not accuse them of being the same as those who caused six million deaths in the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau, Treblinka and the others. This is particularly so when this charge is made based on nothing greater than a difficult judgement call by a lone law enforcement officer with a specific duty to keep the peace at a parade in Hartford.

Sorry.

by Welshman on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obviously we disagree (5.00 / 2) (#12)

[new] Obviously we disagree (none / 0) (#12)
and that is fine with me. I'm not certain which is a bigger thorn to you, the promototion or the context of the diary.

As I read the post, and could admittedly could be wrong, I see the reference to the information provided by CTnewsjunkie as some of the background on Kreyeske. It does not appear to me the diarist is using this as a complete history, arrest record or otherwise, for Kreyeske. It's more of a fill in the picture in addition to the information sourced in the Courant, other Connecticut bloggers and Kreyeske's own website. I can come to one conclusion with certainty, you and I read the same words with very different interpretations of the words, importance and intent of the author.

For me the more important issue here is the larger picture. Yes, this about one particular incident. But this is one incident among many that have become much too common in attempts to silence and suppress dissidence. Perhaps you are not as familiar with the many incidents of people being arrested or detained for peaceful protests or not being allowed to attend events because they are members of the opposite political party (in most situations they are opposing republicans) but it has been on the increase since Bush took office and the Iraq war. Can people expect to be placed on lists, have FBI files or arrested because the oppose the war or policies? Yes. Does that make it correct or mean that we should find it acceptable? No. Is it fascism? Depends on your definition and standard. I would hope that would not have to rise to the level of past examples of fascism that result in the death of millions in gas chambers before we start to call them on it.

The man in question was arrested at an event that he was covering as an independent photo journalist. It wasn't even at the inaugural ball that he had written about protesting but in advance of that event. Call me cynical but that's pretty convenient. These acts bother me and I'm surprised it does not raise more ire with you since you are usually supportive of bloggers, citizens and independent journalists.

by standingup on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:31:57 PM CST
[Edit User] [ Parent

by standingup on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:37:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To clarify (5.00 / 1) (#13)

It is this diary, not your initial promotion of it, that concerns me.

My first reading of it made me sympathetic to its point. The reference to it being indicative of fascism is what made me look deeper into the evidence upon which it was based.

It is rare that the writer's own source in fact denies the purported facts upon which the conclusions have been reached.

I see little difference between your situation in the United States and that in the UK. Nor does there appear to be a difference in how protesters are treated nor the records that are retained.

It is very difficult to respond to a generalisation such as "Perhaps you are not as familiar with the many incidents of people being arrested or detained for peaceful protests". I do know that, if you attend a protest, there is a danger that there will always be an element who get out of control, who want and force confrontation with the police and, however much you may want to avoid such actions yourself, it is possible that you will be caught up in it. You have to understand this risk when taking part.

In the UK it happens that innocents can get arrested, detained and maybe even charged, but not to the extent that it stopped many quiet, peaceful families participating in the huge rallies protesting at the start of the Iraq war. It was a model of a well organised protest and had a deep effect on those who were previously not sympathetic to the position of the protesters. It could have been very different.

You ask and provide your own answers to your questions: "Can people expect to be placed on lists, have FBI files or arrested because the oppose the war or policies? Yes. Does that make it correct or mean that we should find it acceptable? No."

This is much more problematical. This debate goes on here in the UK but we are more laid back about it - largely because we don't think any intelligence services are that efficient! Most of such lists are concerned with those who exercise civil disobedience. Is this a proper role for our law enforcement agencies? Of course. Civil disobedience involves breaking the law. There would be no point in undertaking it if it did not. Do we, and that includes you and I, require our law enforcement agencies to keep surveillance on those liable to break the law? Yes, we do. We can't then be selective as to which laws are maintained.

You ask and again provide your own answer : "Is it fascism? Depends on your definition and standard." Well, of course any debate on any subject depends on personal values, experience and knowledge. As many have commented on our progressive blogs, to use the word "fascist" is not one to be used lightly, not least because it can alienate those whom we wish to influence. In the instance of this diary, it was attached to what appears to be a a conclusion based on faulty information. I will understand why we disagree if you, for an example, do not draw a distinction between a single arrest and this being the fourth.

Some of our disagreement may come from a difference in experience. When Personnel Officer at a large, commercial fundamental research laboratory working on the first lasers (which my company turned into CD players and the military into weapons guidance systems) I once received photographs from the intelligence services of marchers on the Aldermaston Anti Nuclear rally, one of the longest lasting and biggest protests in the UK during the height of the Cold War.

Was it right that they took such photographs of peaceful marchers? Well, from one of them they had identified the Deputy Head of the Laboratory. He was a s scientist that had come from one of the Eastern European countries. We were able to assure the intelligence agency that his attendance on the march had been cleared in advance and caused us no problems. It might have been very different and their photographs could have been of vital national security.

Mind you, a lot of us at the laboratory shared his views on the nuclear deterrent!

Of course, there are no absolutes in this type of argument. If you have worked in government service, however, you will know that you will have had to undertake planning with all types of responders to cope with civil disorder and the breakdown that can occur in all democracies. This can occur unexpectedly and you do need to be sensitive as to the source which will turn peaceful protest into something far more threatening to society. There are always those who through misguided passion. or deliberate belief in anarchy as a means of change, will commandeer any unrest for their own objectives. It is not that difficult.

Ultimately, you have to believe in the ballot box if you believe in democracy. That is why current concerns on their reliability in the States is of such great importance.

I think all Western democracies are very conscious of what happened in France in 1968. There was a student protest, heavily based on deeply abstract philosophical beliefs in how society should be ordered, that was joined for their own agenda by the trade unions. The peaceful marches in Paris became excited calls to the barriers in emulation of their great historical precedent. Order became disorder. Argument became fear. De Gaulle fled Paris and the government, the democratically elected government that still retained the confidence of the majority, almost fell.

If I lived in the States, I would be a member of the Democratic Party. In the UK, I am a Liberal Democrat, which is to the left of the other two main parties. The key word in all this is "democrat". I am fiercely a supporter of democracy for all its imperfections and see a need to protect this in our societies and I do not want to see fear created by either the Left or Right.

Six months ago I re-read "It Couldn't Happen Here". It could, and I will quarrel with no one who is alert to the dangers. All I ask is for some sense of proportion from those on our blogs who may lack experience of both sides of the question.

Hope this helps understand where I am coming from. I have no problems in our being in disagreement - especially when you cheer my day with such great photographs :)

by Welshman on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 04:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#17)

I have a sense we probably agree more than we disagree. And I understand your points on security, being realistic about the risks of engagin in protests, etc.
The point of concern for me is what I believe to be the misuse of authority by the repbulican party, during the period of the Bush presidency, to stop protests or statements of political disagreement that are embarrassing to them. Arresting people who are posing a threat or engaging in civil disobedience is reasonable and to be expected. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, for example, people wearing anti-war shirts or believed to be a Democrat were not allowed to even attend a campaign speech given by Bush. These are cowardly acts on the part of politicians who want to maintain an image and have nothing to do with security. I believe (speculate) the arrest at the inaugural parade could likely be another example of a republican official using their authority to prevent an embarassing situation later at the inaugural ball.

by standingup on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 07:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Civil disobediance is a far cry from terrorism (none / 0) (#14)

As far a reasoning for being included on a "list". The groups watching him are not charged to spy on people that may have engaged in a sit-in, etc. But to address the issue of using the cdtnewsjunkie source that refers to only one arrest:

When I wrotee this and posted at dKos I had originally used the reference to the 3 arrests as a quote, since I did not want to show an incomplete picture of the situation.

In order to avert the issue of copyright infringements I edited this piece multiple times, the piece at dKos looks different from this one as it was edited even further, at the urging of Kossacks and because of Markos rules. I decided to use an alternate reference to keep some sense of balance on the issue and still avvoid the copyright issue while, also, expanding the picture of this guy.

If you read the read the entire post at ctnewsjunkie you begin to realize that this guy is a legit as far as being a real Journalist. If you read the other piece by Atalbot, you get even more of a sense of his being a harmless person.

Recent pieces in the AP have revealed that his creds are legit, because he has actually worked for the MSM, taking interests in developing the views of children in the MSM.

I was not trying to deceive, as far as the arrests, nor was I deflecting the issue. Just trying to give a larger picture of this guys overall views while avoiding the copyright issues.

You can read the links, and you certainly did read some of them, provided. This diary was simply an effort to get this some national views AND introduce you to the fast developing story.

The more I have learned about this guy, the more he seems to be pretty much what I present him as. An environmental peacenik, quaker type, etc., and a clearly a victim.

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford
by Connecticut Man1 on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 05:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Connecticut Man (5.00 / 1) (#15)

I have no problem with the description of him being "An environmental peacenik, quaker type" nor that he ie may be a victim. Neither the links that you provide nor anything I have written contradicts this as being a reasonable interpretation. It is of what he may be a victim of may be where I think we disagree.

Many of my fellow Quaker friends are on UK surveillance lists. Some undoubetdly are "marked" people. They understand this and do not object - they cheerfully accept that this is bound to be so if they are going to engage in civil disobedience and the police do their duty and they do theirs - which they see as their duty of conscience. They know that they are not going to cross any serious lines whereby they pose a threat but also realise that the law enforcement agencies are not to know this and so will keep one eye on them just in case.

I really think it is is the consequences arising from his appearance in court that matters.

Please keep us posted.

by Welshman on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 06:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If they are kepping a "List" (none / 0) (#16)

and it contains harmless political activists based on their views of certain politicians OR their stated intentions to pursue further peaceful political activism, and they begin arresting said individuals on these "lists" for ginned up charges... It is clearly a bold step into fascism.

You said upthread that he was "charging at the governor" and it was reason enough reason to arrest him. I would give you that if it were true.

It isn't.

The photos taken at the parade suggest otherwise. And the fact that the witness said it was not the situation the police accounts have described further proves that point. Even the different statements by the police are conflicting. If you go to any of the other CT Blogs, and even in the media here, you will see the evidence and questions are mounting. Everyone wants to know why they are targeting this guy.

What happens to your quaker friends if they get arrested on trumped up charges and there are no witnesses other then the police that are acting unlawfully? They would be fucked. (The other F word)

This guy was lucky a witness came forward.

And this whole situation demonstrates the lengths to which certain politicians will allow police surveillance to cross the lines, and go beyond their jurisdictions, for their political benefit.

I don't feel that fascism is a hard choice of words to describe this entire situation.

And as I said before about not including the 3 arrests mention... Blame the Kossacks. They asked me to edit it down. (I don't mean that in a bad way towards Kossacks!) I just want to be clear that I was not attempting to mislead anyone.

I am glad that you brought it up, but it has been beaten to death in the CT blogosphere thus far. Even the media have reasoned that labeling him as a threat to be watched is a serious issue and a waste of our taxpayers money. He was, after all, one of them.

We want to know who is else is on that list. At this point I will not be surprised to find that I am given what I know, and even though that would be just as as absurd as having Krayeske on it IMHO.

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford
by Connecticut Man1 on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 07:08:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: If you are right.. (5.00 / 1) (#19)

..his appearance at court will resolve the issue. I suspect from what you say, the case will be dismissed but no censure of the police officer will occur because of the previous arrest record for civil disobedience of the protester.
Concerns about the ability of the government to abuse its powers under those that have been assumed by this administration are necessary and right. If you have absolutely no confidence left at all, however, in your justice system, in your law enforcement officers or in the checks and balances in your society, none of which are perfect but which here in the UK broadly work well with the occasional notorious exceptions, then you have lost all faith in every arm of your society. Certainly comments suggesting a slightly more balanced view on a blog are not going to change your opinion in this regard.
Similarly, nothing will resolve your anxiety about the fact that police keep database information on known activists, although this has always been the case. You either see this as a necessary part of maintaining sensible policing, as most do, or as the fascism that you describe.
I am afraid that I do not allow the self-reinforcement of one's own opinion that occurs from continually reading like-minded blogs to overcome my real life experience.
The blogs are great at bringing important issues to our attention but can sometimes give us too dark a view of events that begins to seep into every area of our perception of our life.
Thanks for the exchange of ideas. I must admit, however, I am much more concerned about proven and more serious crimes against humanity where real activism is required.

by Welshman on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:22:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd be interested in the legal definition (5.00 / 2) (#7)

of a Breach of Peace.

In my view, from a common-sense rather than legal point of view, it was perfectly justified for Krayeske to be detained in the sense of being pulled back from the governor and warned not to engage in that kind of behavior again. But throwing him into jail does not seem to be justified.

I don't think the comparison between Krayeske and the woman who walked up to Rell is a fruitful one. If the woman who was rewarded with a handshake had also biked/run up to Rell, that would be a more unequivocal case of injustice. Or if Krayeske had been quietly standing by but had been arrested anyway simply because he was on a list, that would have also been disturbing.

It's also worth noting that Krayeske was apparently not grabbed in a way that could have injured him, as the blogger Mike Stark was when he tried to approach George Allen in Virginia.

by AlanF on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 11:29:17 AM EST

: Krayeske was there (5.00 / 1) (#9)

taking photos of the inaugural parade and his photo equipment was listed with the items of property on the police report. The report doesn't make mention of him taking pictures. And the police report does not state he was making any movement toward the govenor but rather "running up to the parade procession direcly in front of where the Govenor was passing by in the procession."

by standingup on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 11:48:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just a minor update (none / 0) (#18)

Krayeske had this to say at his site:

P.S. - If you're still questioning the timing of the arrest, check out the metadata embedded in the photos. My camera isn't set for Daylight Savings Time, so it reads an hour later. The CT Air National Guard was taken before the Rell picture. In about 30 seconds at the spot on the corner of Ford and Pearl, I snapped about 23 photos before my shoot was unceremoniously terminated.

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford
by Connecticut Man1 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 01:55:20 AM EST

: If you check the protester's site.. (5.00 / 2) (#20)

..you will also see that he took photographs of the security agent (he calls him "Agent Smith").
Really, a known activist with a previous arrest record, that is recognised by a local patrol officer, taking photographs of secret service agents assigned to protect the Governor and then going up to the head of the parade to get close to and photograph an elected politician about whom he is known to have antipathy - and all after posting negatively about the parade on his blog in advance - is bound to attract attention.
We do not know what exchange subsequently took place with the police officer when he was questioned, but it was in relation to this and not his approaching the Governor to take photographs that appears on the charge sheet.
My interese in discussing this minor incident that has not even appeared in court yet has been based on trying to make sure that we retain some sort of sensible balance in our dialogue on our blogs when throwing words like fascism around.
It has been useful because it helps clarify in my own mind why I have withdrawn much of my contribution to DKos and my growing sense of alienation from progressive blogs, which seem to be becoming less and less relevant to the real issues and real politics of the Democratic Party.

by Welshman on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:01:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]