3rd guy removed from SOTU speech

[Balta1701]

Seems a 3rd guy was removed from the State of the Union speech. A guest of a Florda Congresswoman, who has a U.S. security clearance. It seems they saw his face, spent a few minutes talking, and decided that he might resemble someone on the terror watch list. Time.

 

But on the same evening that President Bush was lauding democracy and freedom, there was one other person in attendance whose rights were infringed upon. The man, who did not want his identity revealed after the disturbing incident, was a personal guest of Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings. He is a prominent businessman from Broward County, Florida who works with the Department of Defense-and has a security clearance. After sitting in the gallery for the entire speech, he was surrounded by about ten law enforcement officers as he exited the chamber and whisked away to a room in the Capitol.

 

      For close to an hour the man, who was born in India but is an American citizen, was questioned by the Police, who thought he resembled someone on a Secret Service photo watch list, according to Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer. Eventually, the police realized it was a case of mistaken identity and let him go. Gainer has assured Hastings that the Capitol Police, Secret Service and FBI will investigate why the man was detained for so long, and try to "sharpen our procedures." But the man was "very, very scared" by the incident, says Fred Turner, a spokesperson for Hastings.  On Tuesday night, he told the congressman that the experience was "maybe just the price of being brown in America," Turner says.

 

      "He shouldn't have gone through the ringer as long as he did," Gainer says. "He did get caught up in the morass of Secret Service FBI, Capitol Police. Everybody was trying to figure out whether he was a threat. And he absolutely, unequivocally clearly was not." Gainer apologized to the man afterwards, only one of the many apologies he has had to make this week. He met with Congressman Young at least twice, as well as with Young's wife. "There is no prohibition against simply wearing a T-shirt that states your particular cause," Gainer stresses, taking full accountability for not providing clearer direction to his officers.

[EvilMonkey]

Everybody was trying to figure out whether he was a threat. And he absolutely, unequivocally clearly was not."

 

I guess it wasn't THAT clear or he woldn't have been pulled aside and questioned to begin with. If they have to err, they need to do it on the side of caution. They didn't take him in the back and waterboard him, they questioned him because they thought there may be a threat. Then they apologized. I disagree that his 'rights were infringed upon'. What right did they infirnge? I agree that they should have beenable to clear him faster, especially since he supposedly has security clearance already, but come on.

[mr_genius]

  What right did they infirnge?

 

the God given right to attend the State of the Union address

[kevin57]

the God given right to attend the State of the Union address

 

Yes, this is part of the 'penumbra' of rights enumerated in the Constitution

Edited February 6, 2006 by kevin57

[YASNY]

I guess it wasn't THAT clear or he woldn't have been pulled aside and questioned to begin with.  If they have to err, they need to do it on the side of caution.  They didn't take him in the back and waterboard him, they questioned him because they thought there may be a threat.  Then they apologized.  I disagree that his 'rights were infringed upon'.  What right did they infirnge?  I agree that they should have beenable to clear him faster, especially since he supposedly has security clearance already, but come on.

 

But the mainstream media isn't liberally slanted. Noooooooooo.

[NorthSideSox72]

The thing that was missed in the article is the question I'd ask: what about the guest list? If a Congressperson has a guest for SOTU, I guarantee the name goes on a list ahead of time. So, this person, walking into the building, has already met the following security scrutiny:

 

1. Invited guest of a member of Congress, who is present in the building

2. Name on the list, which means identity checked ahead of time

3. During ID check ahead of time, would have found out the man has a security clearance and is clearly not a threat

4. Physical ID check on entry, against list of names

5. Detection for metal, bomb material, etc. on the way in

 

And then, he sits through the entire speech before security does anything. THEN they drag him out and question him, after he has sat through the event without incident?!

 

This isn't about rights being trampled on - this is about complete and utter incompetence on the part of USSS, FBI, DCCPD, FPS and any other security agency responsible for that event. They should be embarrassed.