9/11 Activist Arrested And Charged With Espionage At Republican Debate

This guy was not arrested by DHS, nor was he handled by Secret Service. He was arrested by local authorities who were there to keep the peace. The 'reporter' had one intention, and that was to cause a scene and get a reaction.

Why does he not ask why there were 17000 murders in America last year, or 90000 rapes. How about child abuse, or education. or that 33% of the homeless population is under 10? Ask the politicians those tough questions.

He is asking questions that have no answers. I am all for the press asking questions, but this was the incorrect forum. Why was he the ONLY press person with a webcam? Because he was well aware of the what would happen. I would love to go on TV or radio with that guy in the video and debate him.

He was not charged with espionage, and he is not in Guantanamo. He paid 400 dollars and bailed himself out of a criminal trespass charge that more than likely will be dimissed with a fine.

If you watch the video, the press secretary told him he would speak with him, and he kept going. He would not let up and take the time to talk, it was a set up.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't agree that what the police did was very heavy-handed at all. And I disagree with the notion that it shows an undue influence by poltical peeps.

The same thing happens all the time at sporting events, music concerts, etc. Overly-energetic people are routinely escorted out, regardless of the fact that they paid good money for a ticket!

The people being confronted were NOT ROCK STARS!!!

They were people running for public office. Furthermore, the person being asked the question abused the power of the public servants in a fashion that was an afront to the journalist (yes, his credentials are questionable) and his right to be at that event.

What seems to be lost in all of this is the erosion of the political process of exchange between the government and the people in electing their leaders.

Do we really want a police state that can "sick the dogs on us" on command when we find questions that are inconvenient or uncomfortable to us? Even questions that strike possibly at the core of who we are, especially when you are running for president of the united states??

In the current political environment and the heightened state of security that exists in this country, this meeting between zealot and handler could have been managed much better in an open and "democratic" way. Perhaps giving both a chance to benefit their respective organizations/people.

The fact remains that a nerve was exposed in this incident: not just the content of the question, but how it was handled and now, by way of precedent, how future reporters or even just plain citizens, can be handled in similar situations.

Imagine, at your local town meeting, a person steps up and asks a question of a town council member that involves a local scandal that they'd rather not address...will it now be okay for the police to be called to ask them to leave and to confiscate their recording equipment??

[edit on 8-6-2007 by newtron25]

Originally posted by esdad71
This guy was not arrested by DHS, nor was he handled by Secret Service. He was arrested by local authorities who were there to keep the peace. The 'reporter' had one intention, and that was to cause a scene and get a reaction.

Every reporter wants a reaction. It's called a response to quesions.


Why does he not ask why there were 17000 murders in America last year, or 90000 rapes. How about child abuse, or education. or that 33% of the homeless population is under 10? Ask the politicians those tough questions.

Every reporter is given the freedom to ask whatever questions are deemed germaine to their reporting. Furthermore, restricting someone to asking the "pat" questions is not always productive news generation. Getting the same answers over and over again to the same questions...real helpful.

He is asking questions that have no answers. I am all for the press asking questions, but this was the incorrect forum. Why was he the ONLY press person with a webcam? Because he was well aware of the what would happen. I would love to go on TV or radio with that guy in the video and debate him.

There were others there with cameras, perhaps not webcams, and I'm sure at the press conferences for other candidates, you could count plenty of other webcams. You should invite him to a debate. You would likely have a good time. :-)

He was not charged with espionage, and he is not in Guantanamo. He paid 400 dollars and bailed himself out of a criminal trespass charge that more than likely will be dimissed with a fine.

He was also provided with an unnecessary criminal charge on his record by a person who leveraged his power as part of a political candidate's campaign. Would you like to go through with that process, get just a $400 fine (which by the way, is approximately 9 or 10 tanks of gasoline for a small car.)

If you watch the video, the press secretary told him he would speak with him, and he kept going. He would not let up and take the time to talk, it was a set up.

Do you honestly believe the press secretary meant that? If you do, I'm willing to bet you were set up too.

No one levereged any power. The Police were there when he 'began' asking the questions, they were not called over after the incident started. In the video I see to NH cops escorting him outside, no SS, no DHS, no FBI, no black jackets and sunglasses. Just local authority who do not act under the guidance of a press secretary. The local police did their job.

Also, I do not think reporters should lob softballs to answer, but at the same time, please explain what the 'reporter' attmepted to accomplish? By harassing the press secretary, what was he to gain? How was he helping the American people? These are the questions I would like answered from those who are defending someone who accomplished nothing.

Also, when was INfowars purchaed by CNN?

Originally posted by esdad71
No one levereged any power. The Police were there when he 'began' asking the questions, they were not called over after the incident started. In the video I see to NH cops escorting him outside, no SS, no DHS, no FBI, no black jackets and sunglasses. Just local authority who do not act under the guidance of a press secretary. The local police did their job.

Also, I do not think reporters should lob softballs to answer, but at the same time, please explain what the 'reporter' attmepted to accomplish? By harassing the press secretary, what was he to gain? How was he helping the American people? These are the questions I would like answered from those who are defending someone who accomplished nothing.

Also, when was INfowars purchaed by CNN?

Clarify please: when he "began" asking questions?

So, the police are now in the business of monitoring what questions we ask? And they are also now given the authority, especially on the local level, to escort "unruly" citizens who have press credentials away from press secretaries who are incapable of handling chaos.

Some press secretary. I thought the job description for that position included handling tough questions. I guess it means something else....

As for what the reporter attempted to accomplish, your insinuation is just as false an assumption as mine would be in guessing. After all, he was taken away before given a chance to exchange with the press secretary, just like every other person there with press credentials.

I am not saying the guy should have had the press credentials, but CNN did give them to him. And be that as it may, since CNN and ABC and NBC and FOX and REUTERS and all the rest were there to ask questions, you can't on the spot decide to change the rules because you think the questions were too hard, too sensitive or possibly injurious to your candidates campaign. How was he helping the American people??? How was he hurting the American people? Last time I checked, Mr. Giuliani benefitted from the same amendment to the US Constitution in answering questions during the debate as that guy should have had in asking his press secretary those questions.

Did the "reporter" (I will grant you, he was not what I would call a reporter's reporter) ever strike the press secretary? Did he assault or slander him? Did he in any way impinge upon his freedoms?

Thats how the cookie crumbles. This isn't golf where you can call a mulligan, unless of course you call sending this guy to be charged with a misdemeaner as a mulligan. The press secretary invoked the lamest trick in the book: the good 'ol "do over" maneuver with this guy. It was most obvious and if its any indication as to how his candidate will run things should he win, then look forward to throwing away the rules...if there are any.

InfoWars was not purchased by CNN. The actions taken by an individual is accountable by that individual and they alone are to be held responsible unless your accusation is supportable by evidence you are withholding from this thread.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by newtron25]

Reporters get thrown out of press confrences all the time


Well... not real reporters. How many times back in the 90's did we see Stuttering John from the Howard Stern Show get kicked out of places and even arrested once. He was asking idiotic questions just like this guy was.

Stuttering John actually asked Jamie Lee Curtis if she had a penis!

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Reporters get thrown out of press confrences all the time


Well... not real reporters. How many times back in the 90's did we see Stuttering John from the Howard Stern Show get kicked out of places and even arrested once. He was asking idiotic questions just like this guy was.

Stuttering John actually asked Jamie Lee Curtis if she had a penis!

What a fine and appropriate corollary. Bully to you sir. You get the cupie doll.

Please.

Originally posted by esdad71
please explain what the 'reporter' attmepted to accomplish?
...
How was he helping the American people?
...
accomplished nothing.

He was attempting to reveal a HUGE lie told by a presidential candidate. He was attempting to reveal possible foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks by the government. You may not agree with that, but that's what he's trying to do. He's trying to get public officials to answer for the corruption that is going on in government today.

It helps us, the American people, to know what's really going on as regards corruption in the government. We have a right to know. And he's trying to help get that information to us. That's one of the MAIN jobs of reporters.

And he DID accomplish something. He showed us that the spokesman was so uncomfortable with the questions that he refused to answer them and had the reporter thrown out in order to avoid answering them... He's got something big to hide. Else he would have simply answered the reporter's question.

I think this stuff is pretty clear-cut and straightforward. I'm pretty amazed that you have to ask these questions, actually. But it's certainly not the first time I find myself totally baffled...

I have followed this debate closely, and will now put in a comment or two.

Has anyone here read the Declaration of Independence? Did you note the list of abuses that the Founding Fathers outlined? Do you see their frustration towards a system that blocked or ignored their every request?

Can you see how many of those things apply today?

I agree that some people become overly emotional and confrontational with today's American leadership. So did men in times past, and we now call them heroes. Was John Hancock confrontational? How about Nathan Hale?

When the leaders of any group of people refuse to talk to their subjects, and that is what we have become in their eyes, then the level of confrontation rises. Those who talk of other means, other venues, are apologizing for a government that sets the agenda for the people, and not as a government that does the bidding of the people. By your very words and phrases you give credence to them being the masters and we their servants.

God forbid that I ever humble myself before another mortal man. My head will not bow, nor my knee bend, to the lackeys who abuse the positions they hold. It would seem that others are not so in awe of these people either, and dare to ask, nay, demand, that questions be answered.

Perhaps a less aggressive method could have been found. But I for one will not gainsay a man the right to speak out loud that which he thinks need be spoken. There is no royalty in our nation, and one man's right to ask for answers, no matter how forcefully, is not to be squashed by those who see themselves as a class apart.

There is no excuse for putting the glory of the few above the rights of the many.

The press secretary does not state once on that tape to take him away, he stated, "show me your documentation, more than once, and he also stated that if the 'reporter could wait' he could talk to him in a few minutes. The 'reporter' then continued with the questions, was asked to back of by the press secretary, and the police finally took him away after he started becoming loud and protesting, not asking questions. That was NOT professional journalism. He could have said OK, gotten his documentation and waited, but he chose not too. INstead, he made a scene and was escorted out.

The 'Guliani had prior knowledge" is nothing but a smear campaign in this political season. It is going to be an interesting run up to 2008 and people better get ready.

As a believer in the TRUTH... Arabs DID in fact highjack planes and slam them into buildings and the buildings collapsed.

Gulliani IMO is well aware of the CT's that are spread about him. In fact he is accused in here and in public as a PERP to the DEATH of over 3 thousand americans. IMO thats slander. There is ZERO proof that he was involved. So let me ask you folks something...you have cameras all over you and your asked a STUPID BASELESS question... by a person with a webcam and very agressive I may add. You would not want to respond to a stupid question in fear of it being twisted in 50 different way (just like things are done in here EVERY day) ie: "pull it"

Would I have had him arrested? No...but i would have had him removed from my area.

Here's a response that would have conveyed far more assurance to everyone:

Stand quietly in front of him until he stopped talking. Then tell him the answer to his face, calmly, and then move on to the next question.

If the truth is that arabs did hijack a plane and slam it into the world trade center, and if there is no base to this questions, then answer him with level tone and cool demeanor: "The answer to your question is that Mr. Giuliani did not say that. Period. Next question."

Why was that so difficult? And the question remains, for a press secretary, one of the people you rely upon to remain ice cold and rock solid during situations like this, why did he react the way he did? He deferred to the local police, yes because the guy was being a jerk, but he could have ended any future confrontations by handling it properly, if in fact he was able to answer the question appropriately.

To that last point, i am not pointing fingers, I am merely wondering what happened.

To be fair, during the entire night, there were technical problems with the thunderstorm and there was an environment of tension amongst candidates, let alone press asking questions. It is likely this press secretary was simply fried and reacted in a most human way: to defend his guy.

Come on now...if the secretary had answered the question honestly, the "reporter" would have been JUST as beligerant as he was. That man was there to make a scene. If questions were answered in calm manner, I feel the reporter would have kept on him.

Originally posted by esdad71
That was NOT professional journalism.

Why not? He was very polite and never raised his voice. He called everyone sir and never swore or threatened. He was persistent. That's all. Since when is being persistent considered "not professional" behavior for a reporter?

What's professional? Asking a question and then just rolling over when person doesn't answer?

He could have said OK, gotten his documentation and waited, but he chose not too.

He OFFERED to show the documentation. It was a videotape. He offered to show it and the guy declined.

Originally posted by esdad71
He is asking questions that have no answers. I am all for the press asking questions, but this was the incorrect forum.

Well what then is the correct forum for these questions? Arranged press meetings which are controlled by the candidates PR machine??? Try and ask a difficult question like this on their turf and you'll fly out of there really fast. I think this was the perfect forum for such a question.

Originally posted by esdad71

...Also, I do not think reporters should lob softballs to answer, but at the same time, please explain what the 'reporter' attmepted to accomplish? By harassing the press secretary, what was he to gain? How was he helping the American people? These are the questions I would like answered from those who are defending someone who accomplished nothing.

Maybe get an answer for one? He was there to ask the questions that most people dont wanna ask. He might've gotten a proper answer from a skilled politician, unfortunately this press secretary isn't one of them. This was the worst outcome for this scenario, best would've been another scandalous slip up from Rudy's staff.

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, when was INfowars purchaed by CNN?

What does this have to do with anything? It was a CNN arranged meeting, not a CNN exclusive private party. There were press from probably most big media outlets there.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Come on now...if the secretary had answered the question honestly, the "reporter" would have been JUST as beligerant as he was. That man was there to make a scene. If questions were answered in calm manner, I feel the reporter would have kept on him.

You must be a psychic to know what would've happen if so and so... And for your information, this reporter was acting very professionally during the whole event so I doubt that he would've made a scene if he'd gotten answers.

[edit on 8/6/2007 by PsykoOps]

and in the tape, the press secretary said he would be glad to see it. He did not deny anything, but he was also not able actually do anything because of the behaviour of the reporter. I mean, why were there not any other reporters acting the same way if he is doing this for the 'people' and that "all americans" have the right to know.

Like I stated before, if he used some of this energy on issues that he can change he might make a difference in some way. Right now he is nothing more than an attention monger making false statements that he was threatened to be taken to a secret location.

The press secretary also did not call anyone over and yell to take him away. He turned and asked what was going on and made an analogy that this type of thing has been around forever. Nothing sinister hidden, yet it pounds the drums of disinfo that "JOURNALISTS ARRESTED BY REPUBLICANS" and "GUILIANI DUCKING THE QUESTIONS" when it wasn;t even Guiliani bieng questioned.

If he would have pulled that in Boston the police would have roughed him up.

Also, the INfowars/CNN remarks was sarcasm.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by esdad71]

Police are merely the yes men servants of the elitist, jailing the pothead, the truther, the protester, to enact the socialist dream that these marxist elitists really want in america. they are amibas, the brainless zombies. Just look at how messed up russia is, or venezuela and you will see why the rational side of America will never accept socialism and always fight it.
Socialism is a joke, so is dictatorship, sure the death and destruction is no joke, but the men and women who serve the system by allowance or innaction, they are jokes. Thos reporters that said and did nothing, are jokes. The police are bigger jokes, they are likely neo-nazis. This country sucks thanks to naive people and the old people who think every president is christian or above the law. Release this guy NH police because your breaking constitutional commandments. If yoou want officers we can beam you back to hitlers 1938 and let you join the nazi party since its what you seem to want to turn america into. Stop the gun nuts, stop the law nuts, stop the law.

Originally posted by esdad71
The 'Guliani had prior knowledge" is nothing but a smear campaign in this political season. It is going to be an interesting run up to 2008 and people better get ready.

If it's nothing but smear. Why is Guilani on tape lying about it to begin with? If it's a smear campaign, he brought it upon himself. Don't turn this around and place blame on the wrong side.

As far as the reporter goes. He was a little unruly, but not until after he was accussed of not having credentials.

Does the press secratary ask for people's "documents" before answering every question? No.

BTW, the question of 'do you have documents" or however it was phrased, reminds of the old nazi movies I used to watch. "Your papers, please".

Originally posted by esdad71
Nothing sinister hidden, yet it pounds the drums of disinfo ... when it wasn;t even Guiliani bieng questioned.

If he would have pulled that in Boston the police would have roughed him up.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by esdad71]

It wasn't Giuliani being questioned? So when people ask Giuliani's press secretary how he stands on Iraq, its not Giuliani being questioned. When people ask anyone representive of Giuliani's beliefs who are members of his staff, then you should forget that you are speaking to someone who has been in essence deputized by Rudolph Giuliani to speak on his behalf?

That is efficient. Why, more politicians should work this way, so just in case you get caught saying something that might get you into trouble, you can lop that person off of your staff like a foot with gout, right?

As for the Boston police remark - you need to go back and review the tape: they weren't in Boston. They were in the "Live Free or Die" state, mate.