XPost: alt.government.abuse, ny.politics, nyc.general 
 XPost: nyc.politics 
 From: liberty@once.net 
  
 Judge Criticizes Police Methods of Questioning War Protesters 
 NY Times 8/8/03 
 By BENJAMIN WEISER 
  
 A federal judge in Manhattan criticized police officials yesterday for the 
 way demonstrators against the war in Iraq were interrogated earlier this 
 year, and he made clear that civil liberties lawyers could seek to hold the 
 city in contempt of court in the future if the police violate people's 
 rights. 
  
 The judge, Charles S. Haight Jr. of Federal District Court, who recently 
 eased court-ordered rules on police surveillance of political groups, made 
 his comments after hearing evidence that the police had asked the protesters 
 their views on the war, whether they hated President Bush, if they had 
 traveled to Africa or the Middle East, and what might be different if Al 
 Gore were president. 
  
 "These recent events reveal an N.Y.P.D. in some need of discipline," Judge 
 Haight wrote, citing what he called a "display of operational ignorance on 
 the part of the N.Y.P.D.'s highest officials." 
  
 In his ruling, Judge Haight cited comments in the news media by the police 
 commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, that he and his deputy commissioner for 
 intelligence, David Cohen, were unaware that the police were using what they 
 called a "debriefing form" in the questioning. 
  
 "The two commissioners should have known," the judge wrote. 
  
 In February, Judge Haight agreed to modify a longstanding court order that 
 had restricted the Police Department's ability to conduct surveillance of 
 political groups. Police officials had said they needed greater flexibility 
 in investigating terrorism, and the judge agreed to ease the rules, citing 
 "fundamental changes in the threats to public security." 
  
 The original rules were known as the Handschu agreement, named for the first 
 listed plaintiff in a 1971 lawsuit over harassment of political advocacy 
 groups by the Police Department's so-called Red Squad. 
  
 Yesterday, Judge Haight did not impose new restrictions on the police in the 
 wake of the interrogations, which first came to light after the New York 
 Civil Liberties Union received complaints from protesters. Nor did the judge 
 decide the issue of whether the interrogations violated the protesters' 
 constitutional rights. 
  
 But he said he would formally incorporate the recently eased rules into a 
 judicial decree, to make clear that lawyers could return to court and seek 
 to hold the city in contempt if they believed that a violation of the rules 
 also violated an individual's constitutional rights. 
  
 "This approach gives the plaintiff class an increased protection warranted 
 by recent events without unfairly burdening the N.Y.P.D.," the judge said. 
 The ruling, he added, should not "unduly trouble the N.Y.P.D., which I will 
 assume is not engaged in thinking up ways to violate the Constitution." 
  
 Jethro M. Eisenstein, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that the judge made 
 clear "that these rules are not window dressing." 
  
 "They're actual rules, they limit what the Police Department can do, and if 
 the Police Department goes beyond them, they face the risk of being held in 
 contempt," he said, adding that contempt power can result in swift fines and 
 imprisonment. "You don't have to start a lawsuit and reinvent the wheel." 
  
 Commissioner Kelly, who said he had not read the entire ruling, noted that 
 the judge had not altered the recent modifications for which the Police 
 Department had petitioned, "so it allows us to go forward." 
  
 "I think significant for us, the modifications that were made stay in 
 place," the commissioner said. 
  
 Gail Donoghue, special assistant to the city corporation counsel, said, "The 
 city feels that the decision has not adversely impacted on the N.Y.P.D.'s 
 ability to remain proactive in the investigation and prevention of 
 terrorism." 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)