We are in the midst of the second imperial Presidency in our nation's history. George W. Bush is Richard Nixon revisited, and the same result awaits.
Posting a story on this BBS is a very small action. It takes minimal effort. Copy and paste. Big deal. But small actions often lead to greater ones. And if more Americans do "small" things to encourage open-minded political discourse, the prospects of a strong American future can only improve. Greenvegan you are right. Small actions leading to big ones count, too. Going to the type of meeting, Ashcroft finds upsetting is another small step However, just being informed,especially as you try to spread the info, is important. . I talked to a working class Bush supporter, yesterday, He says he still supports Bush, because after all if it hadn't been for the UN, Sadam wouldn't have had all that time to hide his weapons. We can do more than just vote. I am thinking of rejoining the Lawyer's Guild, which I have been a member of, before. They're going to need the money as they take on the Right's lawfirm, I mean Aschroft and Justice. Fortunatley from what I know of the Guild they won't be intimidated and backdown.
i'm not i post any more articles than rimrocker (where's he been?), but in any case they're meant to prompt some sort of debate. sometimes they do, some times it just prompts an extended exercise in name calling, which just adds to my "ignore" list. for the record i find aspects of this disturbing, but at the risk of pissing you off by posting from another blog, there's some useful perspective on Eugene Volokh's site: http://volokh.com/2004_02_08_volokh_archive.html#107637977030883014 I found it fair and, dare i say, balanced. -- according to a story in the Des Moines Register, Nov. 17, 2003, the rally also apparently involved criminal trespass by about a dozen of the 70-odd people who attended; and, according to Capt. Doug Phillips of the Polk County Sheriff's Department, the woman being prosecuted for assault, Chris Gaunt, "became limp and kicked a deputy in the knee as they were putting her in the (police) wagon." These sorts of subpoena cases are, I think, quite hard. Subpoenas asking about what was said at political meetings do risk deterring people from participating in such meetings; and this sort of inquiry, together with the subpoena of university records related to the group (which seem unlikely to be particularly relevant, or particularly informative), seems rather disproportional to the misdemeanor offenses involved here. Nonetheless, meeting in order to plan an illegal activity may well be criminal conspiracy. The line between criminal conspiracy and protected advocacy is at times hard to draw (my Crime-Facilitating Speech article touches on one aspect of this difficulty), but if the speech was essentially detailed planning of what to do, coupled with mutual agreement to commit criminal acts -- e.g., "At 10 a.m., we'll all show up here; you folks go here to block this location until they arrest you; if they arrest you, become limp, and throw a kick or two; are we all agreed?" -- then there is pretty clearly a constitutionally unprotected conspiracy going on here. That the conspiracy (if there is one) was organized at a political meeting doesn't make the meeting immune from government investigation. The prosecutors are certainly allowed to subpoena people who witnessed the actual trespass and alleged assault. They also may subpoena people who the prosecutors think participated in the planning, both to gather evidence related to any possible criminal conspiracy, and to see if any statements at the planning meeting might be relevant to the substantive offenses at the rally: For instance, if Chris Gaunt was heard to say "If any of those cops touch me, I'll show them who's boss" at the meeting, then the government's case against her on the alleged assault would become a lot stronger. It's harder to see why the Drake records related to the NLG chapter are relevant here; it will be interesting to see what arguments the government provides in response to the motion to quash that subpoena. Political meetings are not safe harbors in which people can freely organize conspiracies to commit crimes, free from any risk of investigation (including coercive investigation using subpoenas). That's true if it's a KKK meeting used to organize racial terrorism, an Operation Rescue meeting used to organize trespass or vandalism at an abortion clinic, or an anti-war group's meeting used to organize criminal trespass or possible misdemeanor assault. The government doesn't have carte blanche to just demand the entire membership list of a group (see NAACP v. Alabama); but it has considerable latitude to ask people about any possibly criminal conduct that they've witnessed, and even about information that may simply be relevant to determining whether such conduct took place. I do think the government should try to use this power sparingly, and as I said I'm not sure that such subpoenas are the proper tools when investigating relatively low-level misconduct such as this. But on the other hand, trespass and assault against officers are crimes; and the First Amendment doesn't generally block the government from using its subpoena power to investigate such crimes, especially if there's reason to think that the Nov. 15 meeting did involve conspiracy to commit a crime.
You know with Ashcroft and this crap, and Bush running up the budget it may be time for me to vote for a democrat to get the country back to a more moderate point. DD
Just curious... I've read some suggesting that "going limp" is a form of assault because it forces officers to carry a person and that could lead to injury. So if "going limp" is assault, then is going limp with a Swiss army knife in your pocket assault with a deadly weapon?
At this point it may not be worse than the war in Iraq, but I think it definitely has the potential to become that way. The erosion of our country's governing document, could be the worst possible thing there is. It would mean that Ashcroft and friends succeeded in doing what all of Al Qaeda, and Saddam's Baathists could not do. It's a scary thing to think about. The truth is that our country would survive another attack even ten times larger than 9/11. I believe our country has that kind of strength and resolve. But our country would never survive the loss of our constitution.
[deleted]I don't know about assault, but my last girlfriend told me it was very annoying because [/deleted]....ER, UH.... EDIT: Why does Francis always have to take the last shot?
Thank goodness Some Federal Judges Still Uphold Freedom Ashcroft keeps proving that he has a fascist mentality. It is very dangerous when you have Ashcroft plus fedral judges appointed by the same crew. This is why it is important to fight the Bush-Ashcroft court nominees. *************** By Scott Rank Daily Staff Writer Protesting snowpeople -- complete with picket signs -- joined a national avalanche of protest against a federal court that issued subpoenas for four antiwar activists in Des Moines. It worked. The federal government heard the protests, which had built since Friday, and acted Tuesday. The four activists no longer have to appear before a grand jury, and Drake University is no longer being asked to release its records related to a forum held on its Des Moines campus in November. The snowpeople, built near Parks Library by members of the ISU chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, were representations of the four Iowa antiwar activists, who were issued the subpoenas on the grounds of trespassing. "This violation of liberty goes way beyond anything that has happened recently," said Carolyn Heising, professor of industrial and manufacturing systems engineering. "You'd have to go back to the times of J. Edgar Hoover to find something like this." According to the Associated Press, antiwar activists gathered at Drake University Nov. 15 for a typical peace forum: a discussion of the philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. and how to translate their frustrations of the war in Iraq into demonstrations. The day after the forum, some group members traveled to Camp Dodge, the Johnston headquarters of the Iowa National Guard. There they staged an antiwar demonstration, and a dozen people were arrested for trespassing. Last week, subpoenas arrived ordering Drake University to give information about the forum and its leadership. Four protesters received subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury. Among them was Brian Terrell, executive director of the Catholic Peace Ministry. Protesters at Iowa State said they feared the subpoenas were intended to squash protesting rights through the powers of the Patriot Act, said Cara Harris, president of the ACLU at Iowa State. "Under the Patriot Act, these protesters could be defined as terrorists because they were trying to coerce the government," Harris said. "The government has sacrificed our civil liberties to create a false sense of security." Federal prosecutors said subpoenas were issued for events related to trespassing, not protesting, in order to escape criticisms that the government abused its powers granted by the Patriot Act. "The investigation strictly concerns alleged unlawful entry onto military property ... within the fenced security perimeter," U.S. Attorney Stephen O'Meara said in a statement. "The U.S. Attorney's office doesn't prosecute persons peacefully and lawfully engaged in rallies which are conducted under the protection of the First Amendment." The case drew attention from national media such as the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune. The National Lawyers Guild, which has more than 6,000 members and 100 law chapters, also threw its support behind Drake and the activists. The Guild filed a motion Monday seeking to stamp out the federal subpoenas. Before the investigation was called off Tuesday, government officials began to show signs of backing away from the investigation. Before dropping the subpoenas, prosecutors delayed grand jury appearances until March. While political activists breathed a sigh of relief once the charges were dropped, they were still shaken by the events that transpired. "I don't think Catholic peace activists are domestic terrorists," Heising said. "Where will they draw the line?"
