|
Police coverup after mass arrests at protests { March 11 2004 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48021-2004Mar10.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48021-2004Mar10.html
Police Coverup Alleged After Mass Arrests
Ramsey, Others Evaded Blame, D.C. Council Report Says
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 11, 2004; Page B01
D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey and other police officials conspired to deflect blame and cover up evidence of their wrongdoing during the mass arrests of anti-globalization demonstrators in September 2002, according to a D.C. Council committee that investigated the incident.
The Judiciary Committee criticized police for not telling protesters to disperse during the demonstrations and then arresting them for failing to obey the nonexistent order. Hundreds of protesters and bystanders were arrested. In the months afterward, Ramsey changed his account of whether he had approved the arrests, according to a copy of the committee report obtained yesterday.
The investigation found fault with the police department's handling of demonstrations dating back to 2000. The report challenges the force's use of undercover officers to infiltrate protest groups, saying some continued surveillance after organizations were found to be generally law-abiding.
"The mayor of the District needs to turn the police department around," said Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3), who led the investigation. "Turn the police department away from spying on our residents and away from arresting people because of their political views."
Ramsey reacted angrily yesterday when told of the report's conclusions.
"That's bullshit," he said. "If they're challenging my integrity, that's just total BS."
The report echoes some of the findings of an internal police investigation into the mass arrests that concluded that the apprehensions were wrong. But the new report's tone is sharper, particularly about police officials.
"I'm not denying that there were some mistakes made at Pershing Park," Ramsey said. "But to . . . take it to another level, to make it some kind of massive coverup" is wrong, he said.
Ramsey contended that Patterson, chairman of the council's Judiciary Committee, had her mind made up before the investigation was launched more than a year ago. Patterson has been a frequent critic, raising questions not only about the protests but also about the quality of homicide investigations and the use of overtime.
At a council hearing in December, Patterson questioned the practice of sending undercover officers to meetings held by groups planning protests. Activists and civil libertarians also complained at the hearing about the activities of the undercover officers, which Ramsey defended.
Ramsey said yesterday that "spying" was too strong a word to describe the undercover work. He said officers attended open meetings and did nothing illegal. Police want to monitor groups that could commit criminal acts, he said, adding, "It's not politics that we're concerned about."
Mass arrests took place at Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002, the first day of a weekend of protests aimed at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. In the days before, police had warned that there might be tens of thousands of demonstrators downtown and that many might follow through on threats to "shut down the city."
There were a few sporadic acts of vandalism that morning, and some protesters blocked roads. Police used the park, at 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, as a place to contain and arrest lawbreakers. Most of nearly 400 people in the park -- a group that included not only demonstrators but also tourists, other bystanders and journalists -- were arrested.
The council report says that just after the arrests, police said the protesters had failed to obey an order to disperse. But many of the cases fell apart when it was found that no such order had been given.
As the controversy grew, Ramsey and other police officials tried to keep the chief from being held responsible for the arrests, according to the council report, which is to be released today. The report says a move was made to put the blame on a subordinate, Assistant Chief Peter Newsham.
The report cites testimony from Ramsey in February 2003 in which he told the council that he was not involved in the decision to arrest the demonstrators. It quotes him as saying, "When I came up on the scene, actually, that was already practically in progress."
But in December, the report says, Ramsey told a council attorney that "I told [Newsham] that I thought that the arrests were okay."
In an interview yesterday, Patterson said she believes that the December exchange showed that Newsham was supposed to "take the fall."
"In February [Ramsey] didn't participate. In December, he approved the arrests," Patterson said yesterday. "One of these statements is untrue."
Ramsey said yesterday that he had never been untruthful about his role in the arrests. He said that at Pershing Park, he heard Newsham's rationale for arresting the protesters and then gave "tacit approval."
"I was under the impression that there had been warnings given" to the crowd, Ramsey said.
The committee report also takes issue with a raid on the headquarters of anti-globalization organizers during protests in April 2000. The report says police were unable to obtain a search warrant for the building, so they persuaded fire officials to clear out the place as a fire hazard, with police officers going in behind them.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
|
|
