More On The "Homeland Security Agents" In Boise
Earlier this week, I blogged about a report that a Boise submariner and anti-war activist had been accosted by "Homeland Security agents" in the parking lot of the federal building he works at and told to remove banners from his car. Initially, I thought sounded a lot like the fake report made by a Dartmouth student last year about "Homeland Security agents" attempting to trample free speech. Then, I read another report that indicated that the encounter had been witnessed and tape recorded, so I figured it wasn't completely made up.
The story's starting to spread a little bit, as shown by this post at Boise Guardian, and another one at New West Network. (Still nothing at the Idaho Statesman, though.) My concern with the story, other than federal employees wasting their time bugging people who are clearly within their rights under the Hatch Act, is that the blogs that are covering the story are using moonbatty terms that threaten to erase whatever real news value the story might have.
The Boise Weekly story talks about "Homeland Security agents" as if they're some super-secret zampolit organization. It turns out, from what I've been told, that the "agents" involved were uniformed members of the Federal Protective Service. Not really a Gestapo agency, they "provide law enforcement and security services to over one million tenants and daily visitors to all federally owned and leased facilities nationwide" -- kinda like mall cops. It looks reasonable to assume that someone at Dwight Scarbrough's (the submariner) office complained about the truck in question, and someone at the local level made a decision to try to take care of it without really understanding the issues. When they found out that the submariner in question had done his homework, they backed off, and are getting a resolution at a higher level. My guess is that they'll get their pee-pees slapped for stepping over the line. Not really evidence of a great Rovian conspiracy to imprison all liberals.
I tried to comment over at the Boise Guardian on the issue, but my comment got rejected for being potentially "confusing" to the readers. (The webmaster had a point: I sarcastically discussed a potential "Bush/Cheney/Rove/Halliburton/Major League Baseball conspiracy" that I normally use over at BlameBush!, which I admit is confusing in normal discourse.) He offered to let me re-post my comment, but I decided to answer his article, and various commenters, here instead.
Staying at PD....