Activist Bruce Fealk, who dogged former U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg with a giant paper mache head, is now trying to whip up a waterboarding frenzy, and not at the Waterford Oaks water park: He's challenged Chetly Zarko, a Republican consultant and blogger, to a torture tete a tete: "I'd give $10 per second for every second Chetly could withstand being waterboarded."
Zarko got the challenge after he characterized the interrogation practice as "pouring a little bit of water in someone's face" in a recent blog post.
Our friend Bruce Fealk, infamous for stalking the honorable Joe Knollenberg around during last year's congressional campaign, has one of these uncool little buttons on his website that stole our name and added Democratic in the middle, and advocates for prosecuting our last president for war crimes. The main evidence they have for such an action is 1) he alleged authorized "torture" (actually, his lawyers argued for his right to authorize limited activities but there is no evidence he authorized a specific torture activity and evidence that he abided by Supreme Court rulings against the arguments his lawyers made - never once did Bush defy a court ruling against him, which in my mind would be qualification for impeachment) 2) he made a decision to go to war pre-emptively against a state in violation of UN resolution.
But let's think about the consequences of this to America, even if you are person of liberal persuasion or think the president may have been wrong.
Consequence 1 - Continues a cylce of retributive politics and (some, hopefully none but ... ) Republicans will look to get revenge on O'Bama or other Democrats in the next power shift, whenever that occurs. It doesn't take a non-partisan or genius to figure this much out - its one good reason you don't beat people when they've peacefully left office and their down.
Consequence 2 - The unparalelled effort extends partisanship to after a person serves office. America had a time-honored tradition of ex-presidents making non-partisan public contributions during this time, often allowing one to rebuild a reputation (Nixon and Carter). This type of effort makes that less likely.
Consequence 3 - Relinquishes American sovereignty. While some liberals may actually want no American sovereignty, I'm sure most recognize its value. Turning the President over to war crimes tribunals would diminish the power of the current president and US overall and diminish the power of the US as a force for projecting good values (even traditionally liberal ones). Any president, including O'Bama, will be seriously chilled in their decision-process on whether to go to war legitimately in the future.
Consequence 4 - It elevates speculation about guilt to the standard of proof, and rewards Congress for not acting politically (by impeachment proceeding) when the action would have been timely and could have been punished or rewarded by the voter. If Bush were guilty of a crime while in office, an opposing party dominated Congress had two years to act on it. It chose not either because of 1) it did not have evidence (that's the optimistic view) 2) it didn't want to take a risk the American voter would backlash against the effort, so it delayed (note, if that is the case, I'd suggest the Congress was "complicit in War Crimes" for not reporting them to the world and American people). The truth is a combination of the two (although mostly tilted toward not having the evidence), but I'll assume the best in people (because presumption of innocence requires it, actually). Either way though, we all go to jail (or share moral culpability) under this theory or there never really was evidence of moral wrong-doing by Bush (even if there is evidence of making bad decisions).
Of course, conservatives and Republicans could come up with other reasons, but these are reasons even those on the left should appreciate.
Bruce Fealk has again quickly jumped to conclusions on something he took little or no time to check. Here's his diatribe on the blog he so creatively named Oakland Democratic Politics (well after we started here) against the recent appointment of Glenn Clark to the County Commission to replace George Suarez:
Thursday, August 21, 2008 Oakland County Commissioners Replace Democrat George Suarez with McCain co-chair, Glenn Clark
I'm not even sure this is legal, since Glenn Clark doesn't reside in Suarez' district, but today at the Oakland County Commissioners, the Republicans took the step of appointing John McCain's campaign state vice chair, to the seat that was formerly held by George Suarez, a Democrat. Clark is on the far right wing of the Republican party in Michigan. I have to ask myself by what authority the Republicans have taken this step.
A review of public records - namely Glenn Clark's precinct delegate application, shows that he lives in Troy Precinct 24. Something I knew off-hand because I've seen dozens of lists of Troy voters and precinct delegates. Troy 24 is one of a tiny handful of southern Troy that is covered in Suarez's district (Commission District 24), which is almost all of Madison Heights and a tip of Troy (which borders Madison Heights in part).
Bruce Fealk - again wrong, in a very substantive way.
That said, I understand why the Democrats are steaming on this appointment, both in its timing and the way it was done. Republican Commissioner Robert Gosselin, who clearly engineered the appointment, is technically correct that the majority party has both the authority and the tradition (and don't kid yourselves - the Democrats, if the shoe were on their foot, would have done the same) to appoint in favor of the majority despite the previous party id of the person creating the vacancy. But there might have been a softer road to take here - one that could have have built a bridge to the Democrats or at least not have given them extra personal motivation or political tools in the fight for the Commission this fall. Clark's appointment certainly satisfied some short-term desires, but it remains to be seen whether it will have any long-term ramifications in the battle for control over the Commission.
We reported earlier that the first Bruce Fealk hearing was expected today. Either through misinformation or error on our part, or rescheduling we weren't aware of, the March 12 date was actually heard March 11.
But it was quite irrelevant anyway. A review of the court records by one of our observers showed that all March 11th really was was a "scheduling" hearing. April 7, 830am is the next substantive date, and that's a "pre-trial" hearing in the 52-4 court (520 Big Beaver, Troy, MI). Case 08-001014-OM is Fealk's trespass case. His Hindering, Obstructing, and Resisting a police officer case (001015) and Assault and Batter case (001016) are scheduled for the same time.
It is not likely that a major event will occur at the pre-trial, unless some kind of settlement/plea occurs. Judge Dennis Drury will preside. At this point, the court documents aren't much more than notices to appear and similar service-type of documents.
Bruce Fealk's hearing is set for March 12 at 8:30 a.m. in the Troy District Court, 520 W. Big Beaver, Troy, Michigan.
I'm familiar with the court based on work I've done for clients and its proximity to my home. There's an irony to be had. Don't bring a videocamera (or camera-phone), as the court generally prohibits them without prior approval.
Nonetheless, Fealk has made a call to the liberal blogosphere to attend the hearing, so if you're interested in this from either side, show up to show your support for Troy Police or for Bruce Fealk.
It has been said "imitation is the greatest form of flattery."
Bruce Fealk recently started a website for Oakland County Democratic Politics, modeled in purpose in many ways after this site (although it doesn't use the software we use).
Sandy Armbruster of the Troy Eccentric reports on more details of the arrest and charges possibly to be brought against Bruce Fealk following his refusal to stop videotaping at a Republican event.
Notably, the article notes a resisting arrest charge was also made, which I consider to be the more serious charge and the reason Fealk's actions were over the top.
Also note that not only was Fealk asked to not videotape - so was I and everyone else. I complied with that request, just as I complied with a Troy Democratic Club request not to tape in September 2007 in the very same room (when real candidates for public office were debating, and the Club allowed other TV to videotape). Fealk may have a legitimate (or not) beef with the Troy Community Center policy, but the right way to raise that issue is to comply with authorities when present and to use civil litigation to challenge the policy if it is unlawful.
If the link above expires, I've included the whole article below (a rarity, but given the issue and the closeness to the issues this site covers, I'm going to make a fair use argument - visit http://www.hometownlife.com for recent news).
I hate that it is dominating the recent news on this site - I promise to not report on anything Fealk for several weeks unless it is imminently relevant to the issues this site covers (which is possible).
I've promised readers an explanation for the recent freezing of an item on OP, due to comments by Bruce Fealk.
With the advice of a liberal blogger - Christine Barry at http://www.ChristineBarry.com - I'm leaving the freeze in effect. Below the fold I quote extensively from e-mails from Christine where she analyzes my policy both for practical application and whether it is consistent with our principles of openness, etc.
She concurs with the brunt of what I concluded independently. The twist is that she believes "if true" the allegations made by Fealk would be of at least mild public interest, but that it is clear Fealk, by his own admission, relied on "rumor", and that, as such, my policy disallows the comment and the policy provides a legitimate protection (my readers and my own legal and political interests) against possible libel and that it is not inconsistent with free speech principles.
While I make no judgment as to the importance of the allegations Fealk made, or whether they are relevant to the political debate, Christine's conclusion is in all the important respects aligned with mine. I would note that she makes valid points that this wasn't as bad as some other attacks out there in the blogosphere, and that it is unclear whether this is a "personal attack" or not (suggesting that I clarify my policy slightly on that, which I'll do by changing it to something like allegations of a personal nature) largely because its unclear whether its true or not. Nonetheless, those portions of her reasoning do not excuse the unsourced allegation.
It is legitimate for me to block personal allegations where there is no evidence. My decision is not based on political content - its based on a jouralistic and common-sense standard. I'll be issuing Fealk a letter by e-mail warning him - a luxury (along with any explanation for reasons) I'd note not granted to me by other bloxes which plainly censor for political content. I'd note however that my interpretation of Fealk's behavior is harsh, and while I'm lenient this one time, repeated misuse is something that will result in less forgiveness.
Ok. Some time has passed and I've given the Fealk situation some thought.
First, Fealk has been awfully quiet. A google news and google blog engine search reveals that Fealk is out of jail but that he's only commenting on mortgages. This is probably as it should be. A good lawyer would advise him to keep his trap shut - and maybe if he thinks about the mistakes he made in the process of testing the police, he'll understand why this one is not one he'll maneuver into some kind of PR victory.
And the arrest is not something the right should be happy about or gloat over. Having watched it personally, and from other experiences, arrests are not a pleasant thing to watch.
There comes a few obvious questions.
Was the arrest justified?
I believe so. Here's the situation - Fealk shows up at a Troy-Clawson Republican Club event with tripod and camera. Glenn Clark is a well-known member of the club. Guess who Fealk had just attempted to libel with irrelevant personal allegations just a week earlier right here on OP? Obviously, there would be little reason to trust Fealk and whether he would try to do something unethical with whatever tape he developed.
The event was in a public building, but the room was rented and paid for through the lawfully created process of the building management. Hence, the Club owned the space for the time they rented it. The Club leader asked everyone - myself included - prior to event, to not video-record. I complied with this request. There are quiet simply more times when not recording something is the socially right thing to do rather than recording it (indeed, you'll recall a run in I had with the Troy Democratic Club in September in the same building, and I complied with their request not to record - more on that below). Indeed, I've complied with other Republican requests not to record certain events or individuals who are not public figures. It's simple courtesy. So Bruce ignored the request of the Club leader. The Club leader informed building management. The building manager came to the room and informed Fealk it was privately rented and to cease recording. Fealk refused this request. At this point, the police were called. After a wait - perhaps 15 minutes - police arrived. They told Fealk to remove the camera and Fealk demanded to see the policy. He continued to refuse to turn the camera off, and at some point the officers secured his arm behind his back. While I hesitate to use the word resistance as it has a legal implication, and I could not hear the exact exchange of words, it was clear that Fealk was not cooperative and that he tensed up. Officers at this point removed Fealk from the room forcibly, and handcuffed him in the hallway. There was considerable yelling and complaining by Fealk, and after a while he was escorted away along with his equipment.
Where Fealk went wrong was not in cooperating with the requests of the officers immediately, which are presumed lawful until otherwise proven. If Fealk wanted to investigate the building policy, the time for that was after complying with the officers requests and by politely inquiring with the building managers. Is it possible that their is a question as to whether the building policy is appropriate or Constitutional. Sure. But resisting (no legal conclusion intended) was the huge misstep by Fealk.
A second question - one I've personally wrestled with over the last the few days. Am I being consistent? You'll recall I complained when the Troy Democrats refused to allow me to videotape a Troy City Council debate in the very same building. I also taped just a week before the Fealk arrest a Troy Democrat Club presentation of an anti-Right-to-Work presentation by AFL-CIO leader Mark Gaffney - but for editorial reasons I didn't publish it because it wasn't sufficiently newsworthy. Indeed, it is that discretion, and some reasonableness even in my complaints, that may explain why the TDC has allowed me to tape since the first event and is another difference between Fealk and I. And finally, I recently taped this Peters-Skinner debate (see the google video inset) in the Oakland County Commissioners auditorum, hosted by the Troy Dems, and attended and taped also by Fealk (indeed, Fealk referred to this I believe in telling some of the Republican Club members he should be allowed to tape).
I believe I am being consistent. Here's why. First, the people speaking this week were not running for public office. Second, the Troy Democrats allowed another news outlet to tape, and misrepresented a "contract" they claimed the studio had which granted it an exclusive. And finally, and most important, I acknowledged the nuances of trespass law, and whether the Troy Dem Club (TDC) had rented the room for the City Council candidate debate or not. Here's what I wrote on that theme:
A second male explained to me that this was their decision and that it was based on the fact that Community Media Network (CMN) was present and tapes would be available to the public later. I noted that I was there in my capacity as media and strongly objected to the disparate treatment, and that the Troy Community Center was a public building operated under public rules and this was advertised as a public forum, although I admitted that as a matter of legality it was uncertain whether the Club as lessees of the room had the right to restrict public access or media coverage and that I wouldn't resist their decision.
In that acknowledgement, I also didn't challenge the TDC request - for both social reasons and because I wasn't 100% on the legality or morality (if rented, the ownership question becomes philosophically important, although I'm not sure that weighs against public access when actual candidates for office are involved).
The bottom line is Fealk both brazenly challenged the police without knowing the law first, and the social custom of following your hosts requests, within reason. A better course of action would have simply been for Fealk to leave and report it on his blog. When you push the limits to get a story or make news, as Fealk has constantly done, sometimes you cross the line and have to pay the price. It is unclear whether Fealk will or should be prosecuted, or will try to counter-prosecute on some civil liberties claim, but the whole scenario should, in reality, be a lesson. Hopefully Fealk learns from it.
