Thursday, July 21, 2005
NBC's Mitchell Angry After Sudan Incident
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
Thu Jul 21, 4:21 PM ET
Andrea Mitchell, NBC’s diplomatic correspondent, got roughed up by police in Sudan and, based on the media whining, you would think the world was about to end. Since I am starting to become a grudging fan of President Bush and the general Republican disregard for fundamental human dignity, I thought I might try to imagine how an American judge, maybe even John Roberts author of the famous French fry decision and now nominated for the Supreme Court, might view the incident. Keep telling yourself: this is only satire. This is only satire.
The treatment accorded to Ms. Mitchell was certainly unfortunate and, we are certain, not typical of all arresting officers. To forcibly remove one from a hotel room, in fact, does impose an inconvenience and must have been a humiliating experience. The lack of a search warrant raises serious concerns. There is testimony that, during the course of the detainment, Mitchell’s wrists were pulled tightly behind her, that she was handcuffed, and that considerable physical pain resulted from this procedure. It is, furthermore, related that authorities only ceased to question when contacted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, also a guest in the hotel. While all of these facts tend to outline what must have been a frightening and unpleasant experience, this court finds no violation of constitutional rights.
Taking into consideration the Fourth Amendment guarantee of no searches and seizure without a properly executed warrant, particularly describing the area to be search and the items to be searched for, we point out that nobody believes in that hokum any more. Don’t tell this count about privacy rights. Ever since we started making kids pee into a jar, that went completely out the window. Besides, if Ms. Mitchell has nothing to hide, we wonder what she would be afraid of anyway?
Being rousted out of a hotel room by armed strangers may cause discomfort and inconvenience, but we need to ask ourselves, who the hell cares anyway? This court finds that taking a more formal and courteous tact might have been the most desirable procedure; cops are busy people who certainly do not have time to take the wishes of mere citizens into account.
A question has been raised about the handcuffing and alleged physical pain caused as a result of being forcibly dragged out of a hotel room. Although this type of incident is unfortunate, it is apparent that protecting public safety must take precedence over any supposed personal freedoms. It seems perfectly logical that, upon occasion, individuals must be harmed to maintain public safety. The court takes due notice that no bones were broken and Mitchell seems just fine now. It should also be noted that this ruling should not be interpreted to imply that merely breaking some innocent schmuck’s bones would create some sort of automatic threshold to proving police brutality. We reserve the right to decide such things on a case-by-case basis.
Law enforcement personnel must presume that every individual is a potential serial killer, international terrorist or cannibal. A comparatively tiny woman of 5 feet and 3 inches in height can do enormous harm if proper restraint is not applied. If you bunch of left-leaning, commie-loving, weak sisters have not heard, we have been at war since 9-11.
It is further determined that the extended questioning of Ms. Mitchell was disruptive to her personal activities, but that purely personal consideration is far outweighed by the need for police to operate efficiently in the cause of protecting freedom. Besides, the Secretary of State, that incredibly hot chick, Condi Rice, personally intervened with the president, and the interrogation immediately ceased. So, what’s the big deal? No harm done. Whenever any of us get in trouble, we call our powerful wealthy friends and they push all the right buttons.
In summary, what do you think this is, America? Sit down, shut up, and quit your gal-darned griping and complaining.
Thu Jul 21, 4:21 PM ET
Andrea Mitchell, NBC’s diplomatic correspondent, got roughed up by police in Sudan and, based on the media whining, you would think the world was about to end. Since I am starting to become a grudging fan of President Bush and the general Republican disregard for fundamental human dignity, I thought I might try to imagine how an American judge, maybe even John Roberts author of the famous French fry decision and now nominated for the Supreme Court, might view the incident. Keep telling yourself: this is only satire. This is only satire.
The treatment accorded to Ms. Mitchell was certainly unfortunate and, we are certain, not typical of all arresting officers. To forcibly remove one from a hotel room, in fact, does impose an inconvenience and must have been a humiliating experience. The lack of a search warrant raises serious concerns. There is testimony that, during the course of the detainment, Mitchell’s wrists were pulled tightly behind her, that she was handcuffed, and that considerable physical pain resulted from this procedure. It is, furthermore, related that authorities only ceased to question when contacted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, also a guest in the hotel. While all of these facts tend to outline what must have been a frightening and unpleasant experience, this court finds no violation of constitutional rights.
Taking into consideration the Fourth Amendment guarantee of no searches and seizure without a properly executed warrant, particularly describing the area to be search and the items to be searched for, we point out that nobody believes in that hokum any more. Don’t tell this count about privacy rights. Ever since we started making kids pee into a jar, that went completely out the window. Besides, if Ms. Mitchell has nothing to hide, we wonder what she would be afraid of anyway?
Being rousted out of a hotel room by armed strangers may cause discomfort and inconvenience, but we need to ask ourselves, who the hell cares anyway? This court finds that taking a more formal and courteous tact might have been the most desirable procedure; cops are busy people who certainly do not have time to take the wishes of mere citizens into account.
A question has been raised about the handcuffing and alleged physical pain caused as a result of being forcibly dragged out of a hotel room. Although this type of incident is unfortunate, it is apparent that protecting public safety must take precedence over any supposed personal freedoms. It seems perfectly logical that, upon occasion, individuals must be harmed to maintain public safety. The court takes due notice that no bones were broken and Mitchell seems just fine now. It should also be noted that this ruling should not be interpreted to imply that merely breaking some innocent schmuck’s bones would create some sort of automatic threshold to proving police brutality. We reserve the right to decide such things on a case-by-case basis.
Law enforcement personnel must presume that every individual is a potential serial killer, international terrorist or cannibal. A comparatively tiny woman of 5 feet and 3 inches in height can do enormous harm if proper restraint is not applied. If you bunch of left-leaning, commie-loving, weak sisters have not heard, we have been at war since 9-11.
It is further determined that the extended questioning of Ms. Mitchell was disruptive to her personal activities, but that purely personal consideration is far outweighed by the need for police to operate efficiently in the cause of protecting freedom. Besides, the Secretary of State, that incredibly hot chick, Condi Rice, personally intervened with the president, and the interrogation immediately ceased. So, what’s the big deal? No harm done. Whenever any of us get in trouble, we call our powerful wealthy friends and they push all the right buttons.
In summary, what do you think this is, America? Sit down, shut up, and quit your gal-darned griping and complaining.
