Police In Ferguson Set Up No-Fly Zone Solely To Keep Journalists Out, According To FAA Audio Recordings
from the that-thing-you-suspected?-yeah,-it's-true dept
A few more details have come to light on the police state experiment conducted in Ferguson, MO over the past couple of months. Despite repeated denials that continued all the way up until October 31st, the real reason for the FAA’s no-fly zone over Ferguson has been revealed.
“They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out,” said one FAA manager about the St. Louis County Police in a series of recorded telephone conversations obtained by The Associated Press. “But they were a little concerned of, obviously, anything else that could be going on.
At another point, a manager at the FAA’s Kansas City center said police “did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn’t want media in there.”
Law enforcement put FAA staffers in an awkward position with this request. The FAA (obviously) has nothing in the rule books that provides for blocking First Amendment-protected activity. While there would be the heightened danger of collisions if police helicopters were also in the area, it’s not like this sort of situation hasn’t been handled without incident before. (See also: news coverage of every demonstration/riot/police pursuit to this point.)
No, law enforcement simply wanted to keep news coverage to a minimum and control the narrative through the indiscriminate use of tear gas, a ridiculous (and unconstitutional) “five second rule” and the casual detainment of reporters at ground level.
St. Louis police claimed over and over and over again that the no-fly zone was for “safety,” citing a single incident where a police helicopter was allegedly shot at — an incident that only existed in the minds of those looking to keep the press from circling overhead.
[P]olice officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed “rumors.”
Small concessions were made when law enforcement realized what it was asking for was impractical (and mostly illegal). As one news director pointed out, his crew was eventually told it could fly over Ferguson but only at an altitude above 3,000 feet — not exactly a height that produces optimal (or even usable) footage.
Whatever your stance on the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson, the fact remains that nearly everything local law enforcement did in response was poorly thought-out at best, and an outright abuse of power at worst. Officials have lied to the public, paywalled public documents, released information in a purely self-serving fashion (and over the objections of Eric Holder and the Justice Dept.) and approached the citizens they serve as an occupying force, rather than trusted allies.
Filed Under: ferguson, journalism, media, missouri, no fly zone, police state
Comments on “Police In Ferguson Set Up No-Fly Zone Solely To Keep Journalists Out, According To FAA Audio Recordings”
What strikes me is that this no-fly zone was introduced supposedly for safety because some aircraft was shot from the ground. But, really, why prevent journalists from flying over at their own risk if some of them remain months report in the middle of goddamn full-blown war conflicts going as far as remaining close to the battle front? Some of them got caught by guerrillas or even decapitated so why aren’t you banning them from visiting such places too? Oh, because it makes other Govts or groups look bad, not yourself.
Half-assed excuse that’s what it was. They aren’t even trying anymore.
Re: Re:
If someone on the ground was really shooting at aircraft overhead, keeping civilian aircraft not designed to withstand attacks and not being operated by personnel trained to pilot under those conditions could keep people on the ground safer from aircraft falling out of the sky.
However, their excuse is pretty weak.
Re: Re: Re:
They weren’t keeping civilian aircraft out; just news media aircraft.
Re: Re: Re:
I would hazrd to quess they weren’t shooting at “aitcraft overhead” but rather police aircraft over head.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspect that someone pointing a finger gun at the helicopter gave them an excuse for asking for a no fly area.
When those charged with upholding the law do not want anyone watching, it should be a real wakeup call.
This force has lied repeatedly, the little integrity they had was traded off so they could tear gas them uppity citizens who dared get upset about a historic pattern of abuse & coverup by the department.
Perhaps it is time to look at the whole picture, rather than the single event that was finally enough. Trying to paint this outpouring of citizen rage & police coverup as being just because of 1 incident is the ‘easy’ solution, that will solve nothing.
The wrongdoing by this force should be investigated, and the fact that it has been given a pass so many times before needs to cause serious discussion why the word of police is taken above citizens at all considering the number of times they have lied to everyone. They have lied to courts, they have lied to those who pay them, they have lied at every turn. They can no longer effectively do their job, they have destroyed the public trust by their actions, deeds, & coverups. A badge needs to stop being a free pass to do things that would land a regular citizen in jail facing serious charges. ‘Fear of their safety’ is an amazing cop out to cover up a multitude of sins and needs to stop.
Re: Re:
No, this is really fucking simple:
Those guys are not cops. They are ‘legalised’ criminals.
Re: Re: Re:
I would prefer to use the term state sanctioned terrorism.
Lets turn their bullshit right back on them!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe the proper term is “freedom fighter”
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’d call ’em KKK. Damned coloreds still haven’t learned their place.
Re: Re:
s/citizens/n***ers/g
There, fixed that for you. At least in the Ferguson case and from the police point of view. But don’t fall into the trap of thinking it won’t happen to you because you are hispanic, asian, white, or anything else for that matter.
In some sense the civil rights movement of the 60s has succeeded. Now everyone has to be scared of the police and the police have to be scared of everyone. Not a good situation.
USA as a 'special assignment' area
Maybe it’s time that national and international news organizations started treating the US as every other ‘dangerous’ assignment. With Ferguson, attacks on whistleblowers, intimidation at the borders, threats against public photography, the list goes on.
I am not so sure that reporting in the USA is any safer than Iraq, Eastern Ukraine, or Sierra Leone anymore. Sad.
Re: USA as a 'special assignment' area
from first world nation to a third world one.
All because of a few ruling elites insane desire to reduce their citizens freedoms, while enriching themselves. Should be a lesson in that but few people ever learn from history otherwise the states would not be in this mess.
This is the same government everyone trusts to impose net neutrality rules, right? I’m sure that the FCC with new powers over network traffic will never approve “emergency” blocking of traffic or websites when some local or federal police agency requests it, right?
After all, the FCC has quite a track record of using its neutral regulatory powers to encourage surveillance, with Team Telecom:
Re: Re:
Sure, the FCC won’t be supposed to use its powers that way, but neither was the FAA here, nor the FCC with Team Telecom.
But I suppose many people will honestly believe that slightly increasing the risk of this sort of thing is worth what they think will lower the chance of nefarious moves on the part of companies. We will simply have to honestly disagree on the relative risks.
Re: Re: Re:
Paid shill much?
The government may be corrupt, but at least they are not as bad as Verizon et al. So I’d rather have the FCC enforcing net neutrality rules badly, than not having net neutrality rules in the first place.
Re: Re:
I’m sure that the FCC with new powers over network traffic will never approve “emergency” blocking of traffic or websites when some local or federal police agency requests it, right?
The new rules and authorities have nothing, whatsoever, to do with any such situation. So, nice strawman.
That's not all they've done
“Officials have lied to the public, paywalled public documents, released information in a purely self-serving fashion (and over the objections of Eric Holder and the Justice Dept.) and approached the citizens they serve as an occupying force, rather than trusted allies.”
They’ve arrested legal observers.
They’ve threatened, teargassed, pepper-sprayed and assaulted journalists and livestreamers.
They’ve refused to produce the (legally required) use-of-force report.
They’ve done everything possible to conceal the truth, which is of course why every sane observer is convinced that they’re lying.
Note, by the way, that the similar case of VonDerrit Myers, on the south side of St. Louis, is being handled in similar fashion. No use-of-force report. No disclosure of the officer’s name. Strategic links of information designed to paint him as a “thug”. Attacks against media. Stonewalling.
These aren’t exceptions: these are the rule. The organized criminal gangs known as “local police forces” are doing their best to justify/cover up summary executions, and given the naivete and collusion of much of the mainstream media, coupled with the willingness of other parts of government to assist their efforts, they’re probably going to get away with it.
Why didn't the police deploy their anti-aircraft guns?
Everyone is saying that the Ferguson police police were wrong when they asked the FAA for a no-fly zone, but I think it was a reasonable response considering they could have (and should have) just deployed their anti-aircraft batteries against the agrressors.
Re: Why didn't the police deploy their anti-aircraft guns?
What??… “aggressors”??
Did I read that right?
Were you really advocating that law enforcement shoot at, and potentially murder, members of the news media in aircraft?
Please tell me you were just being sarcastic, because it sure doesn’t sound like it.
Re: Re: Why didn't the police deploy their anti-aircraft guns?
Good lord, he’s OBVIOUSLY trolling. For christ’s sake don’t let anyone have that kind of control over your emotions. He’s playing you like a damn puppet.
Re: Re: I'm sorry. I was so convinced that the sarcasm was self-evident
That I failed to put SNARK at the end. My bad. Of course, I’m being absolutely ridiculous. The press (AKA the fifth estate) is our only protection, it now seems, against a Government gone bad. This is not a Republican problem (although they, in the form of Bush, empowered the NSA and created the TSA) but also the Democrats (who, in the person of Obama, have continued to protect the NSA from prosecution for its Constitutional violations, while simultaneously attacking Snowden, rather than rewarding him for pointing out violations of the Constitution and for his whistle-blowing.)
Incidentally, the fifth estate, due to the number of consolidations and mergers, has been “bought up” in large part by mega-billionaires, thereby being rendered partly impotent. We all need to do whatever we can, within the law: including voting, to combat this erosion of our Rights, our Constitution, and our Ideals.
Re: Re: Re: I'm sorry. I was so convinced that the sarcasm was self-evident
Point 1: Never rely on someone else (fifth estate) to protect you from your government. Rely on yourself, and build a coalition for change from there.
Precisely. The press has their own agenda, and they can be bought. This is why you need to rely on yourself to foment change and not expect someone else to do it for you (see point 1).
That’s the spirit. Good to see you referencing point 1 on your own. =)
Re: Re: Re: I'm sorry. I was so convinced that the sarcasm was self-evident
“Incidentally, the fifth estate, due to the number of consolidations and mergers, has been “bought up” in large part by mega-billionaires, thereby being rendered partly impotent.”
I disagree. With very few exceptions, the press has not been rendered partly impotent at all. It is a fully potent mouthpiece for the government and industry.
Re: Re: Re:2 I'm sorry. I was so convinced that the sarcasm was self-evident
I spent some time this weekend reading numerous stories spawned by the release of a movie (“Kill The Messenger”) chronicling the story of Gary Webb, especially:
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/28/how-the-washington-press-turned-bad/
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/31/big-media-has-betrayed-the-people/
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/11/02/gary-webb-and-media-manipulation/
TL;DR: NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times were/are complicit co-conspirators and owned mouthpieces of the Washington elite and the Israeli lobby.
WaPo is still in denial despite Webb’s allegations having been proven almost completely correct, including by the CIA’s own internal investigation. The CIA created the crack cocaine epidemic and shielded traffickers from FBI & DEA, did the same thing in SE Asia via Air America & etc. ca. the VietNam conflict, and are continuing in the same vein wrt heroin in Afghanistan, the latter fueling Russia’s heroin epidemic.
“War is simply diplomacy by other means.” — von Clauswitz.
The weirdest part for me is this even starts to rehabilitate Nixon who believed he was being persecuted and set up by both for being less than supportive of Israel.
Aiie, yi yi! What a tangled web we weave!
Re: Re: Why didn't the police deploy their anti-aircraft guns?
Apart from the obvious snark in the GP’s post, he said they should have deployed their anti-aircraft guns against the agressors, not the observers.
In other words, they should have been shooting police craft out of the air (wasn’t an alleged report of someone shooting at a police aircraft what set this off in the first place?)
Get the police helicopters out of the air, and the problem goes away — no more shooting at police helicopters.
This is certainly not the first time that a “no fly zone” was created to shield law enforcement from news reporters. Earlier this year another no fly zone was declared at the now-famous Bundy Ranch, presumably to keep kamikaze pilots from flying into cattle wranglers rounding up cattle … or something crazy like that.
In reality, the Bundy no fly zone served a completely different purpose, keeping the prying eyes of newsmen from reporting the slaughter and burial of several of the Bundy’s cows and calves that did not take well to being rounded up. This took place outside of camera view and went undetected until several days later when the fresh graves were found. It seems that governments always prefer to work in secret.
There are valid uses for establishing no fly zones, such as the recent NATO meeting in England. But once the government has this power, there is no limit to how it will be used.
It’s the classic mission-creep. Freedom-busting restrictions are laid down for the most dire situations, the public acquiesces, then those situations are gradually expanded to the point that they no longer have any meaningful purpose, except to keep the public (and the news media) out of the way and uninformed. As authorities award themselves more and more freedom to invasively monitor the public, they also take away the public’s right to monitor them.
Re: Re:
Nevada Grand Larceny Laws:
Marking or branding livestock owned by another person (or altering an existing brand); buying or selling livestock carcasses or hides that have had the brand cut out; and killing certain livestock or domesticated animals owned by another person (§ 205.220).
Category B Felony Theft:
Theft is considered a category B felony in Nevada If the value of the property or services stolen is $2,500 or more. (Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 205.0835.)
Re: Re: Re:
But like everything else, it’s not illegal when the government does it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is when Federal Officials break State law and the state wants to prosecute.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It is when Federal Officials break State law and the state wants to prosecute.
Yeah, good luck with that second half.
This is depressing. The fallout over this will be no where near as bad as the potential fallout from the news crews getting hard evidence of police abuse. This means that the cost benefit analysis will always be that instating a no fly zone is the most advantageous choice between the two.
This is akin to corporate fraud, where the money they pilfer is always higher than the cost of the penalties, so there’s never any incentive to be honest.
The future is looking extremely grim.
Re: Speaking of pilfering money
It’s what they do.
For a brief introduction, read: http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees-fuel-anger which includes this nugget:
“In 2013, the municipal court in Ferguson — a city of 21,135 people — issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations.”
For a much longer, but must-read analysis, see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/ which, similarly, points out:
“Incidentally, Beverly Hills, Missouri has a population of 571. Its City Hall and police station share a building with a pharmacy. Yet in 2013, the town handed out 3,250 traffic tickets, and issued another 1,085 citations for violations of non-traffic ordinances. Total revenue generated by the town’s municipal court: $221,164, or $387 for each of its residents.”
The tiny municipalities which make up St. Louis County (many of which were created in the 50’s and 60’s as devices to keep black people from moving out of St. Louis City) still exist. They have mayors, councils, judges, prosecutors and police forces that are almost entirely white, while many of the communities are almost entirely black. And they are thriving because they’re structured to extract money.
Re: Re: Speaking of pilfering money
Most suburban small towns are “structured to extract money” from passing motorists because unlike the city next door, they don’t have a commercial tax base to exploit. And raising residential property taxes is more hazardous to a politician’s career than making passing speeders (or other petty lawbreakers) pay through the nose. That’s one reason we have the system we do. It’s all a big racket to line the pockets of the ruling class.
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of pilfering money
“Most suburban small towns are “structured to extract money” from passing motorists because unlike the city next door, they don’t have a commercial tax base to exploit.”
This is true, but it’s also self-defeating. As people do their best to avoid entering such towns, such policies make it more difficult to establish a commercial tax base.
Re: Re: Re:2 Speaking of pilfering money
John, i’ve heard from my brother (who is a police officer) that the amount of money raised from traffic citations and court costs often doesn’t even cover the cost of the police and court system themselves. This is especially true if the town in question is small enough.
While i don’t doubt that this is what police officers are told regardless if it is true or not, i actually think it makes a lot of sense. All one has to do is picture all the infrastructure and salaries that these institutions require, combined with nonstop liability payments spawned from their corruption and it’s not hard to imagine that many need to be heavily subsidized outside of their “take” in order to function.
Re: Re: Re:3 Speaking of pilfering money
They, the citations and court costs, need not pay for themselves. They only need to be expensive enough to ensure that the people they are directed toward are kept impoverished, which is their aim: a target that they hit with astounding accuracy.
Also, who knows if that so? Movie studios almost always say that they loose money on pictures. It doesn’t matter how many Billions the movie grosses – they’ve always “lost money.” It’s called “creative accounting.”
Re: Re: Re:4 Speaking of pilfering money
Let’s do some quick math shall we?
There are one chief and six police officers in my brothers town, each making 50-70k per year, with the chief in the six figures. There are also a couple of administrative assistants. Add jail costs, equipment costs (cars, buildings, computers, etc), court costs, prison costs, etc.
Now how many citations do you think those six police officers would have to write per year in order to cover that nut in a one stop light town working 40 hours per week each?
Re: Re: Re:2 Speaking of pilfering money
“As people do their best to avoid entering such towns, such policies make it more difficult to establish a commercial tax base”
In most affluent suburbs, residents DEFINITELY do not want commercial development, except perhaps for things that will serve the needs of local residents, and even that’s very iffy.
Because everyone knows that the nice gleaming shopping center just built down the street will one day turn into a derelict eyesore before their mortgage is paid off.
Re: Re: Re:3 Speaking of pilfering money
“Because everyone knows that the nice gleaming shopping center”
Commercial development does not automatically mean gleaming shopping centers or strip malls. I live near a number of thriving commercial areas that where nothing like that — not even chain stores of any type — exists at all.
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of pilfering money
This (what you say about suburban towns) is no doubt true. But you really need to read the Washington Post piece to grasp how it’s been elevated to an artform in suburban St. Louis. The systematic extraction of money from the population combined with the unchecked power of the police combined with the machinery of the criminal justice system ensures that it’s almost impossible to escape. Please read the piece, it’s long and worth it.
And when you’re done, perhaps it’ll be clear that the death of Mike Brown is just one more incident in a very long line of such incidents, a catalyst that has sparked a clear call for change and reform. That is why the police are reacting as they are and why they’re feigning fear of their own citizens: they can feel the power structure starting, just starting, to crumble under their feet. For decades, they could bully, harass, extort, beat, and arrest with nearly-complete impunity. But now…with the eyes of the world on them…it’s just starting to change. And they know it.
If I was a conspiracy theorist...
I’d say that this is just a dry run for the upcoming nationwide martial law crackdown…
Re: If I was a conspiracy theorist...
We don’t need a nation-wide martial law crackdown. We’ll just do it piecemeal, thank you. It’s SO much nicer that way. You know, for safety…think of the children…they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with droopy pants…marijuana is a gateway to heroin…
SNARK
‘approached the citizens they serve as an occupying force, rather than trusted allies’
and it wont matter a toss because no one will go after them and sort the whole mess out, let alone start sacking and arresting those same officers! i ask why? but i think the answer is that this is the situation that those who are pulling the strings of the USA (and i very much doubt it’s the government!) and elsewhere, want this very situation and for it to expand!!
Re: Re:
Personally I think Americans should be in open revolt over their police state that’s sliding into a tyranny.
I guess the descendants of the forefathers are too apathetic until something affects them rather than the concept of personal liberty and rights for all
Re: Re: Re:
Personally I think Americans should be in open revolt over their police state that’s sliding into a tyranny.
Good luck with that. As I’ve repeatedly said, taking up arms against the state would get you labeled a terrorist, vilified in the press, and hung out to dry.
I guess the descendants of the forefathers are too apathetic until something affects them PERSONALLY rather than the concept of personal liberty and rights for all
FIFY
We’ve been trained like Pavlov’s dogs to salivate at the sound of partisan buzzwords. Result: social divisions that stop us from working together to actually resolve this crap.
hard to mass murder unresisting civilians when the cameras are rolling
Re: Re:
Yeah, they would have to set up a no fly zone, carry automatic weapons and probably get a giant MRAM or something to make sure the locals don’t take out your troops as you move them in….
Re: Re: Re:
You’re right, but the police really need SAMs…you know, to feel..safe…
SNARK
Re: Re: Re: Re:
SAMs are good against the occasional traditional-media news helicopter, but they aren’t very useful when you have a bunch of protes^H^H^H^H^H^Hrioters filming everything with cell phones. To handle an enemy with many small electronic deices, what the police really need is a bunch of hand-held HERF (High-Energy Radio Frequency[1]) emitters so all those dangerous recording devices can be safely[2] fried.
[1] Aka the magnetron from a microwave oven with a nice waveguide attached.
[2] Safe for the cops, of course. The person holding the camera/phone in question will also be cooked[3].
[3] Seriously, all snark aside, don’t build an HERF gun. Or mess with the magnetron or big capacitors from a microwave oven. The RF burns you can get from even a small reflection can be very harmful.
So the moral of the story
The “good” guys lie
What a shocker, and heres me thinking were suppose to trust em blindly in everything they do, oh wait, people still do
rather than trusted allies.
Or fellow human beings, with equal rights, instead of lesser rights to their own, which in turn is granted to them by an organisation that has no rights in granting or taking away rights…….they are natural, and no money, power or influenec can change