Your Anti-Terrorism $$$$s At Work

by Staff | January 8, 2007 8:34 AM | | Comments (9)

010307_Rell_walking.jpgAccording to the police, the taking of this photograph in a public street constituted a criminal act. So now we know how Connecticut has spent "homeland security" dollars sent here since 9/11: to build photo databases of peace activists and set them up for bogus arrests. As we reported Friday, police hauled activist/ journalist Ken Krayeske to jail -- for daring to take this photo of Gov. Jodi Rell at her inaugural parade. Turns out Krayeske, a pacifist, was on a list of potential troublemakers compiled by the state cops. Click here, and scroll to Dan Levine's comment, to read about the post-9/11 program under which state cops sent Krayeske's photo to the parade route. Click here and here for stories about this outrage by Independent Capitol correspondent Christine Stuart, including an updated version of her original story the original police report added and a lively debate underneath. And click here to join a caption contest on Krayeske's website. Click here to read a Hartford Courant article in which an eyewitness contradicts the official police version of the incident. ... and Doug Hardy, an associate editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, backs Krayeske in a passionate letter here.







Comments

Posted by: Mikey Benny | February 18, 2007 10:21 AM

Connecticut is crazy; first Julie Amero, now this. Note to self: skip the trip to Hartford.

Posted by: Ariel Liebowitz | February 18, 2007 11:57 AM

Wow, glad I don't live there any more. A fine police state it's turned into.

Posted by: Jeromy | February 18, 2007 1:12 PM

Sounds like something the Church of Scientology would do.

I would like to see what the official charge would be when Ken gets to court.

Posted by: Sean | February 18, 2007 2:14 PM

Wow, talk about a biased article.
He was arrested for "charging" at Rell and because he has a history of making disturbances.
The police definitely over-reacted, but I can't see what the hell homeland security or anti-terrorism money has to do with this.
You're twisting this for your own means.
Yell at the police for being crazy about this situation, but seriously, stop being such a moron.

Posted by: 1stOne | February 18, 2007 2:17 PM

This is the kind of crap that indicates that change is a coming.

Posted by: Joe | February 18, 2007 2:20 PM

An American critical of the Iraq War who also happens to be a free-lance journalist and photographer, takes a picture of a Republican Governor in public during her inaugural parade, and he's arrested.

Claims that police intercepted him going toward the governor where contradicted by reliable eye witnesses such as Eliot 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.

So he snapped the picture without incident and later they quietly arrested him and made up a story that he was a threat. Welcome to Nazi Germany.

Posted by: rob enderle | February 18, 2007 4:00 PM

Gee, imagine if this happened in China (or any other country we dont like)? We'd be hearing about this nonstop on the news?

I live in Canada now and there was a Iranian-Canadian photographer who went back to Iran and was killed there while in police custody. The photographer had fled its home country over two decades ago and was taking pictures of jails and other government buildings. To top it off, she was a woman *which we know what that means.
Needless to say many pundits said she did nothing wrong, she was a free woman,...rights..blah;blah....

When famed journalists like Robert Fisk get barred from entering the US, we never hear of it.
But bloggers in some third world countries we dont like get tons of coverage.

Posted by: Ryan | February 18, 2007 4:21 PM

I'm a photojournalist and during school we were taught that photographers could take photos in a public place as long as the lens is of normal length. That means probably nothing over 300mm, if it's a large glass then it might need to be a shorter length. This is rather concerning though.

Posted by: Stay Vigilant | February 18, 2007 8:34 PM

Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November.

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35