Red state, meet police state
By Nicholas Collias
Boise
Weekly News Editor
Feb 19, 2006, 16:47
A federal employee gets hassled by Homeland Security for
antiwar stickers on his car. Is it a mistake, a new rule, or the part of a
trend of the First Amendment being bullied out of existence? Read the
transcript, read the rules and decide for yourself.
Dwight Scarbrough's idea of political dissent is one that
rubs some people the wrong way. He likes to blame his compulsion for peaceful
troublemaking on his birthday: October 2, the same as Ghandi. However, a few of
Scarbrough's techniques are all his own--especially when it comes to his truck.
For instance, when the Iraq War was looking imminent, not
long after September 11, Dwight attached a garbage bag to the back of his truck
bed. He splattered the bag and the truck with ketchup and added a sign reading,
"This veteran knows that our children are worth more than a $6.95 body
bag." When he drove down the freeway, the bag would inflate and appear
occupied.
"That one was a little in-your-face and
on-the-edge," Scarbrough recalls. "It got a lot of response."
Scarbrough wasn't always so anti-military. During the waning
years of the Cold War, he even served five years on a nuclear submarine for the
U.S. Navy. But now, instead of trying to stop the spread of "red"
states like China and the USSR, Dwight lives in a red state--Idaho. He's the
founder and head of Boise's local branch of Veterans for Peace, he leads
seminars exposing military recruitment practices in schools, and he--and his
truck--are fixtures at nearly every Democratic, antiwar or pro-peace event in
town.
While no longer smeared with ketchup, his ride is still hard
to ignore. On the back, he tapes weekly updates of the number of U.S. soldiers
killed and wounded in Iraq. Beneath that, on a large, white (and also taped-on)
placard: "Support our returning troops and their families when they need
help: Give them this number: GI RIGHTS HOTLINE: 1-800-394-9544." On both
doors, in bold capital letters: "DEATH IN IRAQ IS NOT A CAREER OPPORTUNITY
FOR YOUNG AMERICANS." Taking up nearly half of the back window:
"Veterans for Peace Chapter 117, Idaho." On the driver's side wheel
well, also in all caps: "PERHAPS GOD BLESSES EVERY NATION, NOT JUST THE
USA." And interspersed between them all, he places a variety of purchased
bumper stickers and magnetic ribbons reading, among other sentiments,
"Support our Troops: Bring them Home Now," "Support Diversity"
and "Honor Vets, Wage Peace."
Scarbrough gets his
share of negative attention--including plenty of people "flying the bald
eagle," as he likes to call it--but he savors such attention. He likes to
call his truck a "sociological experiment on wheels," and whether you
like the message of that experiment or not, it's hard to avoid the conclusion
that Scarbrough is the type of extreme voice that the First Amendment--that one
about free speech--is intended to protect.
Or at least it seemed that way until last Tuesday.
On February 7, Scarbrough went to his job like any other
day. He is a scientist with a federal agency in Boise--one that is part of the
executive branch, ironically--and he parked in his usual spot, just outside of
the federal Natural Resource Center on Vinnell Way in Boise, kitty corner to a
Wal-Mart, a Lowe's Home Improvement Center and a 21-screen Edwards cineplex.
Made up of two large, square brick buildings, the complex houses a variety of
federal offices including the Social Security Administration, the Bureau of
Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, among others. But despite the fact that most of the
employees in the complex can, at least officially, consider George W. Bush
their boss, Scarbrough has taken remarkably little grief for his strident
anti-Bush views and props. Even those who don't agree with his message usually
tolerate it.
Once, last year, some conservative-minded ladies objected
about the "BUSHIT" sticker in Scarbrough's passenger-side window.
Scarbrough and his supervisor reviewed all the federal rules concerning bumper
stickers on employee vehicles, and discovered that nothing he had displayed
could be considered illegal. But for once, Scarbrough simply removed the sticker.
Indeed, his current lineup is quite sparse by his standards, he says.
But on this day, apparently it was still too much.
Around 2:15 p.m.,
Scarbrough says, he answered his office phone and found himself talking to a
man who identified himself as Officer R. of the Department of Homeland
Security. (I'm withholding the officer's name; you know, what with Plamegate
and all.) Scarbrough was told that he was in violation of the Code of Federal
Regulations, the set of rules that govern all executive departments and
agencies, and that he was in danger of being cited unless he came out to the
parking lot or let the officer come up to his office. Scarbrough chose the
first option, and took along a co-worker--also a veteran--and, being an
experienced peace activist, a tape recorder. Downstairs, they found two armed
officers with "Homeland Security" insignia patches on their
shoulders, waiting for them in large white SUVs. Scarbrough informed the
officers that he would record their conversation, and what follows is the
transcript of that recording.
Officer: Step back here please.
Dwight Scarbrough: Let's have a seat.
O: I'd like to talk to you.
DS: Let's have a seat.
O: Sir, come over here please.
DS: I don't want to come over there. I want to sit down.
O: Let me tell you what's going on here. OK, there's a
violation of the code of federal regulations.
DS: For what?
O: The CFR. 41, CFR, 102, 74, 415. Posting or affixing
signs, pamphlets, handbills or flyers on federal property. Do you understand
that?
DS: I'm not doing anything on federal property.
O: Yes, sir, you've got signs posted on your vehicle. I'm
informing you that you're in violation.
DS: That's not illegal. That's not illegal.
O: You're posting . . .
DS: I . . . All right.
O: Would you like to listen to me before . . . sir . . .
DS: [To his co-worker] Would you go get [their
supervisor]?
O: I need you to listen when I'm talking, sir.
DS: [To co-worker]. Would you go get [him] please? [To
officer] I'm listening.
O: Okay.
DS: You're at my place of work, first of all. And you're
harassing me.
O: Sir, you're in violation of the code of federal
regulations.
DS: I'm not in violation.
O: You're posting signs on this property.
DS: I am not posting signs. That's on a private vehicle.
O: Sir, I'm here to tell you now that you have to remove
those signs.
DS: Was the law just changed?
O: No, there was no law just changed.
DS: Then it's not a violation.
O: I just told you what the law is, sir.
DS: It is not a violation. I've read the statutes
already.
O: If you do not comply with my order to remove the signs
from the property, I will cite you for it, OK? Do you understand that?
DS: You know what? This is harassment.
O: No, sir, it's not.
DS: Yes, it is.
O: No, it's not.
DS: Say it again, please. (Holds up microphone.) This is
harassment.
O: Do you understand what I've told you?
DS: I understand what you've told me, but I've also read
the statute that as a federal employee--
O: I've just given you an order and told you to remove
those signs from the property.
DS: I will move my vehicle off the property.
O: That will be fine. That will comply with it, and we
don't have to . . .
DS: You know this is total B.S., though. Because--will
you get [his supervisor], please?--I've already had this conversation once, and
we've already looked up all the statues and laws covering personal vehicles
with stick . . . with anything on them on government property. And it is not
illegal.
O: It's in 41 CFR. Look that up.
D: "Why don't you look it up?" I have.
O: 41 CF4 102--
D: What is the violation?
O: Posting of signs on--
D: Which one?
O: I just told you the violation.
D: Those are not signs.
O: Twice now I've told you.
D: Those are not signs.
O: Yes, sir, they are. What are they then?
D: So any vehicle that comes on with, like, a police
sign, or with delivery or FedEx or something, that's not a sign?
O: All signs are prohibited--
D: You know you're harassing me. You know you're
harassing me.
O: No, sir, I'm not.
D: You know the Department of Homeland Security is giving
me harassment--
O: Sir--
D: --because I'm a person who happens to express my
viewpoints on my vehicle.
O: I need you to comply with my order and remove the
signs . . .
D: Who has filed a complaint?
O: . . . you said you'd do that, that's fine . . .
D: Who has filed a complaint? Who has filed a complaint?
O: No one has filed a complaint, sir.
D: Well, then what's the complaint?
O: It's law enforcement on federal property.
D: You know this is . . . I would like my supervisor down
here, please.
O: This doesn't concern him at all.
D: Yes, it does, because I've already had this discussion
with him, and I've already been asked to change the signs, and I did. And I
looked up all the statutes.
O: (Muffled)
D: Do you have a piece of paper with the number then,
please?
O: I told you the number.
D: I would like to write it down, then.
O: I will give you a piece of paper . . .
D: Just write it down. That's all I'm asking.
O: But I need you to comply with my instructions to
remove the--
D: You're harassing me, in other words.
O: Sir, this is not harassment.
D: It's crap, and you know it.
O: No, sir, it is not.
D: It is. Okay, go ahead.
O: 41, C-F-R . . .
D: 41, C-F-R . . .
O: 102 . . .
D: 102 . . .
O: 74 . . .
D: 74 . . .
O: Subpart C . . .
D: Subpart C . . .
O: Paragraph 415.
D: Paragraph 415.
O: And they are posted at the entrances to federal
facilities, as they are here, and it is referenced.
D: And this defines exactly what "signs" are,
right?
O: It says "signs," sir.
D: Yeah. You're harassing me. I'll be back in a minute. I
don't have my keys with me.
O: Sir--
D: I don't have my car keys with me.
O: Okay.
D: I had no clue what you were here to bother me about . .
. (walks toward door) . . . this is your buddy, your boss and my boss harassing
people for expressing political viewpoints. And you know it. There's nothing
illegal about it. (Door beeps).
Scarbrough moved his car to the parking lot in front of a
nearby Goodwill store, a private property where it could legally be towed if
the managers objected to his decorations. It wasn't towed, but according to his
co-worker, Scarbrough was still "very distraught"--both by the
accusations and by the way the officers maneuvered themselves between
Scarbrough and his coworker, isolating them in a classic police crowd-control
technique.
"I wasn't arrested, but I could have been,"
Scarbrough recalls. "I was still violated and harassed." He took the
rest of the week off after the incident. But he didn't just sit and mope. He
looked up the rule that the Homeland Security officers referenced, and found
that it read:
"All persons entering in or on Federal property are
prohibited from: . . .
(b) Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets,
handbills, or flyers, on bulletin boards or elsewhere on GSA-controlled property
. . ."
However, after his experience with the "Bushit"
sticker last year, he was also quick to reference the Hatch Act, the rules that
lay out exactly what political activities federal employees are allowed to
participate in. According to the Hatch Act, political bumper stickers are
allowed on cars parked on federal property, with no stated limitation on either
size or number of stickers. So by the current rules, Scarbrough's car would
seem to be legit--unless the "elsewhere" of the pamphlet rule is meant
to extend to personal property as well as government property.
If that's the case, both Scarbrough and his coworker said,
"That's news to me." It would also be news to the dozens of people
parked in the Natural Resource Complex with bumper stickers reading, among
other sentiments, "My Dad is a Marine," "Create Peace,"
"POW/ MIA," and others of both the pro-choice and pro-life variety.
But after going through the incident, both Scarbrough and
his coworker are insistent: it's not the location or size that mattered in this
case. It's the message. They are quick to relate the event to Cindy Sheehan
being arrested at President Bush's State of the Union address just a week
earlier, where she was wearing a T-shirt reading: "2245 Dead. How many
more?" Sheehan's charges were dropped, and Capitol Police Chief Terrance
Gainer apologized to her in a statement, saying "The policies and
procedures were too vague."
Scarbrough's co-worker doesn't see any vagueness in the
incidents. "It's starting to look like this is something like a directive
from the Department of Homeland Security to suppress opposition to the
war," he says. He calls the officers "image control," but
Scarbrough's take is even more forceful:
"This is a fascist state. At least, it's the beginning
of a fascist state."
If you're unfamiliar with the Boise office of the Federal
Department of Homeland Security, you're not alone. There's not a listing for it
in the most recent federal government listings in the local phonebook. The
representative from Idaho State Bureau of Homeland Security, located at the
Gowen Field Air National Guard Base behind the Boise Airport, hadn't even heard
there was an office when I contacted him. Neither had the receptionist at the
local U.S. Marshal's office, though she was able to track down a number for the
local office of the Federal Protective Service, the section of DHS in charge of
protecting federally owned and leased facilities, after putting me on hold for
a few minutes (It's (208) 334-9374, in case you're curious. Your taxes fund it,
after all.).
I was only able to confirm the location of the office after
asking the security officer at the Natural Resource Complex, whose job
(ostensibly, at least) it is to enforce the rules concerning pamphlets, dogs
and other controlled substances on federal property. He would not comment about
the incident, saying, "If this is about what I think it's about, I'm not
allowed to say nothing." He referred me to "FPS, Federal Courthouse,
Department of Homeland Security," to find someone who would be able to
comment. When I asked who I should say referred me, he covered his nameplate
with his hand.
The "office," once I found it, wasn't much of an
office at all, from a service perspective. The door was locked and there was
neither a receptionist nor a desk at the front window. When I rang the
doorbell, a woman emerged from a nearby cubicle and spoke to me through a
tennis-ball-sized hole in the window. She would not confirm the name or
identity of the officers, nor their badge numbers (Scarbrough, of course, had
written them all down). I slipped a business card through the hole, and by
press time, no one had called me back.
However, when I tried the number provided by the U.S.
Marshals, Terry Martin at the Federal Protection Service was able to confirm
that the officers identified by Scarbrough did, in fact, work for Homeland
Security. He then referred me to the Department of Homeland Security's media
spokesman in Texas, who had not responded by press time to my request for
information about the incident, or about any change in federal law concerning
stickers on vehicles in federal parking lots.
In the meantime, Scarbrough has gone back to work and says
he plans to continue parking in the same spot. But now he has an ally. After
the incident, he contacted the local office of the American Civil Liberties
Union. The ACLU helped hook him up to a local lawyer who will represent
Scarbrough, pro bono, if he is cited. Several other lawyers have already made
similar offers, Scarbrough says. But that doesn't make him feel any better
about the incident or the message it sends, not only to dissenters like him,
but to all federal employees and anyone who thinks their opinions--or their
stickers--are only of concern to themselves.
"Bottom line: My rights are very dear to me. I served
my country to defend them," he says. "And one of the things I was
defending was free speech. It's the First Amendment for a reason--not the last,
not the middle. The first."
This page contains copyrighted material the use
of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are
making this material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this page is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. For more
information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor