FBI releases documents that confirm they proactively spy on anarchists(rt.com)
rt.com
FBI releases documents that confirm they proactively spy on anarchists
https://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-plante-anarchists-jury-983/
8 comments
>Having read some additional sources, the justification for forcing the three individuals to speak is that they were given immunity from prosecution by the grand jury. This supposedly prevents them from taking the fifth, because they can't incriminate themselves. That smells like an attempted end run around the constitution.
This is pretty standard and has been for (at least) decades. The constitutional injunction is against self incrimination. You can be forced to testify against others, and a whole lot of people have been thrown in jail over the years for refusing to do so.
>Freedom of speech must include the freedom to remain silent.
Why would you think that?
>Fourth amendment protections against search and seizure should apply as well.
This is beyond weak as a constitutional argument.
This is pretty standard and has been for (at least) decades. The constitutional injunction is against self incrimination. You can be forced to testify against others, and a whole lot of people have been thrown in jail over the years for refusing to do so.
>Freedom of speech must include the freedom to remain silent.
Why would you think that?
>Fourth amendment protections against search and seizure should apply as well.
This is beyond weak as a constitutional argument.
>>Freedom of speech must include the freedom to remain silent.
>Why would you think that?
The same reason that atheism is covered under freedom of religion.
>Why would you think that?
The same reason that atheism is covered under freedom of religion.
That was purely an invention of the courts. They haven't invented the freedom of speech to remain silent. Not yet, at least.
From the 6th Ammendment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor...
Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_Process_Clause
So the Constitution is fairly explicit that courts have the power to compel testimony. That's not to say that the power isn't be abused, or at least used in a fashion not originally intended. But given the directness of this statement of a court power, your arguments against are unconvincing, since they rely on interpretations that are as yet unproven (like the right to silence).
The courts are generally more empowered than normal government institutions, because they are only invoked when other rights (may) have already been violated. The pursuit of truth, and in particular the pursuit of innocence of an accused party, may occasionally trump individual civil liberties.
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor...
Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_Process_Clause
So the Constitution is fairly explicit that courts have the power to compel testimony. That's not to say that the power isn't be abused, or at least used in a fashion not originally intended. But given the directness of this statement of a court power, your arguments against are unconvincing, since they rely on interpretations that are as yet unproven (like the right to silence).
The courts are generally more empowered than normal government institutions, because they are only invoked when other rights (may) have already been violated. The pursuit of truth, and in particular the pursuit of innocence of an accused party, may occasionally trump individual civil liberties.
Unless I missed something big from the article, no charges have been filed.
Therefore the 6th does not apply. Habeas Corpus should in theory apply, if it is still in the US code - not sure about that.
Therefore the 6th does not apply. Habeas Corpus should in theory apply, if it is still in the US code - not sure about that.
Nothing in the constitution gives the government the power to compel expression.
Courts are invested with the power to try cases. When someone swears to 'tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' they're agreeing to express themselves to an organ of the government. The constitution doesn't forbid lying, but that doesn't grant you the freedom to engage in perjury.
This use of the grand jury system is a clear violation of those limits and a moral outrage.
I wouldn't rely on Russia Today for my legal analysis if I were you. The Validimir Putin Press Agency is not really in a position to report objectively on the theory or practice of fair trials, given the lamentable state of the Russian legal system.
Courts are invested with the power to try cases. When someone swears to 'tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' they're agreeing to express themselves to an organ of the government. The constitution doesn't forbid lying, but that doesn't grant you the freedom to engage in perjury.
This use of the grand jury system is a clear violation of those limits and a moral outrage.
I wouldn't rely on Russia Today for my legal analysis if I were you. The Validimir Putin Press Agency is not really in a position to report objectively on the theory or practice of fair trials, given the lamentable state of the Russian legal system.
> When someone swears to 'tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' they're agreeing to express themselves to an organ of the government. The constitution doesn't forbid lying, but that doesn't grant you the freedom to engage in perjury.
These three activists didn't lie or take an oath - they simply refused to testify. You could argue that the courts' power to try cases allows the govt to imprison people to coerce testimony, but that's a different argument.
> I wouldn't rely on Russia Today for my legal analysis if I were you. The Validimir Putin Press Agency is not really in a position to report objectively on the theory or practice of fair trials, given the lamentable state of the Russian legal system.
And yet that logic never stops US papers from reporting on other countries' legal systems...
There are sources besides RT for this news - you can google them.
These three activists didn't lie or take an oath - they simply refused to testify. You could argue that the courts' power to try cases allows the govt to imprison people to coerce testimony, but that's a different argument.
> I wouldn't rely on Russia Today for my legal analysis if I were you. The Validimir Putin Press Agency is not really in a position to report objectively on the theory or practice of fair trials, given the lamentable state of the Russian legal system.
And yet that logic never stops US papers from reporting on other countries' legal systems...
There are sources besides RT for this news - you can google them.
Please read the first line of the grandparent comment about how information from other sources establishes that the three were given immunity from prosecution. In other words, they made a deal with prosecutors to testify.
No they didn't, all three have been very upfront about their unwillingness to testify.
You don't have to consent to be given immunity.
After digging about a bit, I find I was mistaken - the court granted immunity but exercised its power to compel testimony by subpoena. Still, the court is not exceeding its authority in that area. Subpoenas do not viol;ate the constitution.
What facts does the RT article have wrong? I've read similar accounts of this case from other sources as well.
Well, leaving out the fact of an immunity deal is a huge omission. EDIT: immunity granted by the court, rather than offered by prosecutors.
And they quote one of the parties complaints about the time when the GJ was set up without mentioning whether it was set up specially or just in line with the normal calendar schedule. The jury in a trial is specially convened for that case. Grand juries typically sit for several months at a time and issue indictments on whatever happens to come before them. They're completely different from trial juries.
And they quote one of the parties complaints about the time when the GJ was set up without mentioning whether it was set up specially or just in line with the normal calendar schedule. The jury in a trial is specially convened for that case. Grand juries typically sit for several months at a time and issue indictments on whatever happens to come before them. They're completely different from trial juries.
Although I'm not defending the government's actions, the fourth and fifth amendments only protect you from your own testimony or your own illegally-seized things being used against you. People can be, and frequently are, forced to testify against others against their will. That's the purpose of a subpoena.
I haven't read the "additional sources" you speak of, but if true, your first, fourth and fifth amendment arguments don't hold up.
Edit: jstalin, I stand corrected. Looks like immunity is often forced upon people.
Edit: jstalin, I stand corrected. Looks like immunity is often forced upon people.
Not really. You can have immunity forced on you so that the fifth amendment no longer applies. Then they can force you to testify, even against yourself, but they can't use that testimony or anything derived from it against you. The fifth amendment only protects you from being forced to incriminate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastigar_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastigar_v._United_States
Has anyone been charged yet in this case? If not, Kastigar v United States does not apply.
The fourth amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.
It should not be possible to jail people this long without charging them with something, contempt of court doesn't cut it for me.
Unfortunately this isn't even getting close to the longest time for people to be imprisoned for contempt of court. The US record goes to Mr. Chadwick[1] at 14 years. I certainly do agree that these cases don't seem in line with a properly operating system of justice.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick
[deleted]
RT - Question more (as long as it is against the USA, not Russia)
It's funny that Russia Today always points out the flaws in the USA while having a not really well functioning democracy at home.
Let's release some FSB information for a change?
I am not thinking RT is the root of all evil though. It's definitely a valuable source for information, if you take it with a grain of salt.
[Funny also that they are one of the big media outlets for Assange or Wikileaks/Whistleblowers in general, that are with their information indirectly targeting mostly American Intelligence] - one of the reasons btw why Assange is a hypocrite
It's funny that Russia Today always points out the flaws in the USA while having a not really well functioning democracy at home.
Let's release some FSB information for a change?
I am not thinking RT is the root of all evil though. It's definitely a valuable source for information, if you take it with a grain of salt.
[Funny also that they are one of the big media outlets for Assange or Wikileaks/Whistleblowers in general, that are with their information indirectly targeting mostly American Intelligence] - one of the reasons btw why Assange is a hypocrite
What is your point? If we want a balanced view of the world, and most news sources push government propaganda (including NY Times, Washington Post, etc., which are like press agents for the executive branch), then we need to combine multiple vectors of propaganda to discern some truth.
That is exactly what i said!
"It's definitely a valuable source for information, if you take it with a grain of salt."
I don't think that you should absorb any information without critical thinking of course, but just said, that especially news from RT about American Intelligence Failures you should be careful with.
And my observation: There is more USA government critical thinking in the NY Times than on RT. So imo they are more based on ideology, while the NYT is of course too, but not that much.
"It's definitely a valuable source for information, if you take it with a grain of salt."
I don't think that you should absorb any information without critical thinking of course, but just said, that especially news from RT about American Intelligence Failures you should be careful with.
And my observation: There is more USA government critical thinking in the NY Times than on RT. So imo they are more based on ideology, while the NYT is of course too, but not that much.
Not sure how much of this is true, but the story currently unfolding in Russia is fascinating to observe: http://www.euronews.com/newswires/1701658-russian-activist-s...
Summary: Anti-Putin activist fled to Ukraine to seek UN protection, stepped out of the UN office to get lunch, got abducted by some people who transported him back to Russia, got a confession out of him and turned him over to prosecutors... Reads like something from a Cold War novel.
Summary: Anti-Putin activist fled to Ukraine to seek UN protection, stepped out of the UN office to get lunch, got abducted by some people who transported him back to Russia, got a confession out of him and turned him over to prosecutors... Reads like something from a Cold War novel.
A previous HN comment about RT as a source, with back-and-forth follow-up comments below:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4247829
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4247829
Thank you :)
I suspect Russian media bias is not so fundamentally different from American media bias. The two complement each other neatly I think; reading both side by side is enlightening. Al Jazeera is another good one to throw into the mix (and their international reporting of "non-partisan" things is superb).
With the subtle difference that Russian journalists who get too out of line get murdered.
Obviously the realities of life as a reporter are dramatically different, but the result, the resulting biases, share parallels, even if not in magnitude or severity. The topics that each adore or ignore are roughly mirrors of each other, with the exception of a handful of topics.
As an avid RT watcher it's pretty obvious when they are trying to promote a certain angle. For example, there was some protest against a pro-soviet monument in Ukraine and RT portrayed it like all the people who were against it were Nazi sympathizers. They also were denigrating the Georgian government under Sakashvili in the lead up to the little war they fought with Georgia in 2008.
The U.S reporting is pretty decent though. Anybody who has a problem with the way things are going in the U.S they will give a microphone to so sometimes the quality of the interviewee's presentation degrades somewhat. However, on the plus side, they would never consider patriotism or national security as an excuse not to report on something in the U.S as domestic channels would.
The U.S reporting is pretty decent though. Anybody who has a problem with the way things are going in the U.S they will give a microphone to so sometimes the quality of the interviewee's presentation degrades somewhat. However, on the plus side, they would never consider patriotism or national security as an excuse not to report on something in the U.S as domestic channels would.
>Let's release some FSB information for a change?
Ever hear the phrase "don't shit where you eat"?
Ever hear the phrase "don't shit where you eat"?
My point exactly.
Because they never would - therefore they are strongly driven by a political agenda (/influenced by a political mindset), not reporting bad things about the democracy "at home", while constantly commercializing Intelligence Failures of and Whistleblowers in the USA.
And like i've also mentioned:
- still valuable source of information, if you are able to identify this agenda and are applying your logic accordingly
Because they never would - therefore they are strongly driven by a political agenda (/influenced by a political mindset), not reporting bad things about the democracy "at home", while constantly commercializing Intelligence Failures of and Whistleblowers in the USA.
And like i've also mentioned:
- still valuable source of information, if you are able to identify this agenda and are applying your logic accordingly
Before being imprisoned and released, Plante said that a Freedom of Information Act request she filed revealed that the grand jury was first convened in March, two months before the vandalism she is being questioned about even occurred.
How does a grand jury meet in March to investigate riots happening in May?
How does a grand jury meet in March to investigate riots happening in May?
Grand juries are typically impanelled for calendar periods, and consider whatever (alleged) crimes take place during that time. They can be specially impanelled for unusual or extraordinary crimes (eg following an act of terrorism such as the OK bombing), but federal rules of civil procedure require every district court to impanel a GJ at least 18 months, which acts as a (light) check on federal prosecutors.
I don't understand how this answers the question...
... or do you mean that they were investigating an alleged conspiracy to vandalize state property?
... or do you mean that they were investigating an alleged conspiracy to vandalize state property?
Because the grand jury was likely not impanelled to consider a specific set of crimes; it's just the one that happened to be in session at the time these people came before it. That it was convened in March is probably completely irrelevant.
The grand jury was convened in march to rule on any crimes that might occur in the following months.
Do you have a good link which explains how the grand jury operates? It's a foreign concept to me that the grand jury deals with precrime, and I'm suddenly uncomfortable with knowing so little about my country's justice system.
Grand juries sit for months at a time, and a prosecutor has to bring cases before the grand jury before going to court. The grand jury decides if there is sufficient evidence for the case to go to trial. It's largely a formality. Essentially, the grand jury is there to answer the question of 'if these alleged facts are true, would that mean a crime has taken place?' Technically, the GJ's job is to find whether there is probable cause to issue an indictment and put someone on trial.
That's why you don't have a regular defense team there; the GJ isn't pronouncing on the guilt or innocence of the accused person, they're pronouncing on the gravity of the alleged offense. So if you're a prosecutor and you bring someone in front of a grand jury for murder, all you have to establish on a practical level is that a murder took place. You can learn more from the handbook for jurors: http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/FederalCou...
There's no precrime involved here. A crime (vandalism of a federal court building) occurred in May, and it was brought before the grand jury that happened to be impanelled at that time, as one of the many cases they examine. It's not a conspiracy just because you don't know about it.
That's why you don't have a regular defense team there; the GJ isn't pronouncing on the guilt or innocence of the accused person, they're pronouncing on the gravity of the alleged offense. So if you're a prosecutor and you bring someone in front of a grand jury for murder, all you have to establish on a practical level is that a murder took place. You can learn more from the handbook for jurors: http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/FederalCou...
There's no precrime involved here. A crime (vandalism of a federal court building) occurred in May, and it was brought before the grand jury that happened to be impanelled at that time, as one of the many cases they examine. It's not a conspiracy just because you don't know about it.
I don't have any good links, but in the US a grand jury does not deal with precrime.
Juries are selected for a particular case. Grand juries are selected for a particular time period. During that time period potential cases will be brought before the grand jury who will then decide whether or not the case will go to trial (and if it does, a separate jury is selected for that case).
I may be off on some details, but that is my understanding of how grand juries work.
Juries are selected for a particular case. Grand juries are selected for a particular time period. During that time period potential cases will be brought before the grand jury who will then decide whether or not the case will go to trial (and if it does, a separate jury is selected for that case).
I may be off on some details, but that is my understanding of how grand juries work.
Why shouldn't the government keep tabs on a group whose professed ideology is the elimination of government?
If they're stockpiling bombs or something and actively working towards criminal activity, sure. I think monitoring of some anti-government groups who rise to that level, such as some groups within the American militia movement, or groups such as Revolutionary Struggle in Greece, is legitimate.
But I don't think that, in a free country, the government should be monitoring people solely for their political views or what kind of books they read, without some actual evidence that they're a danger to anyone. Sure, maybe someone who buys an Ayn Rand book will eventually work to eliminate government, but I'm not sure owning The Fountainhead should land you on a watchlist; and the same should go for reading Proudhon or Kropotkin.
It's also really easy to run into false positives. In the '80s/'90s, for example, the police/media liked to paint a bunch of generally harmless BBSing kids as "dangerous anarchists" because they had an ASCII file of The Anarchist Cookbook—which is violent anarchist literature, after all.
But I don't think that, in a free country, the government should be monitoring people solely for their political views or what kind of books they read, without some actual evidence that they're a danger to anyone. Sure, maybe someone who buys an Ayn Rand book will eventually work to eliminate government, but I'm not sure owning The Fountainhead should land you on a watchlist; and the same should go for reading Proudhon or Kropotkin.
It's also really easy to run into false positives. In the '80s/'90s, for example, the police/media liked to paint a bunch of generally harmless BBSing kids as "dangerous anarchists" because they had an ASCII file of The Anarchist Cookbook—which is violent anarchist literature, after all.
And is (peacefully) working to eliminate gov't illegal in and of it's self? Could congress vote to dissolve, or amend the constitution to massively reduce the size and scope of the gov't?
It generally isn't, no. In fact under a modern view of the First Amendment, even organizing with an eventual goal of a revolutionary overthrow of the government isn't illegal, as long as it doesn't rise to the level of inciting "imminent lawless action". So, prosecuting communists solely for joining a communist party and advocating communist revolution wasn't allowed after 1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio).
Curiously, communists probably had it better precisely because of how focused they were on the one "big" goal (communist revolution): Leninist parties in particular were very centralized, disciplined, and scrupulously avoided doing minor illegal things (vandalism, etc.) that could give the police a excuse, because Marxist-Leninist ideology generally believes that small-scale direct action is ineffective, and the vanguard party should keep its powder dry, so to speak, until they're in position to seize power in one quick move. Anarchists are much more decentralized, and have varying opinions about how to organize change, so there's much more scope for the cops to find someone who spray-painted or vandalized something, and via that argue that any group that person was part of is part of an "anarchist criminal cell" by transitivity (occasionally they get tired of waiting, and a police infiltrator will actively egg on more militancy).
Curiously, communists probably had it better precisely because of how focused they were on the one "big" goal (communist revolution): Leninist parties in particular were very centralized, disciplined, and scrupulously avoided doing minor illegal things (vandalism, etc.) that could give the police a excuse, because Marxist-Leninist ideology generally believes that small-scale direct action is ineffective, and the vanguard party should keep its powder dry, so to speak, until they're in position to seize power in one quick move. Anarchists are much more decentralized, and have varying opinions about how to organize change, so there's much more scope for the cops to find someone who spray-painted or vandalized something, and via that argue that any group that person was part of is part of an "anarchist criminal cell" by transitivity (occasionally they get tired of waiting, and a police infiltrator will actively egg on more militancy).
This is probably off topic, but it makes an interesting contrast: in Afganistan and Pakistan, where the Bill of Rights doesn't restrict the U.S. gov, trying to peacefully express disagreement with the U.S. government's policies gets you drone bombed.
Rand was a minarchist, not an anarchist; in any case.
True, maybe Murray Rothbard would've been a better example of a "right" anarchist than Rand.
Lest anyone forget, "keeping tabs on anarchists" would also mean spying on people who are more in line with people like Noam Chomsky. There is a huge spectrum of ideology and "danger" that is encompassed by "anarchist".
Not all anarchists are teenage rioters who just want to make trouble and listen to punk music. Hell, many (most?) are not even interested in an active (let alone violent...) overthrow, and are no more politically active than any other person of more mainstream political ideologies.
What you are proposing is that the government spy on anyone who falls within a broad category of political classification. I think the issue with that should be self-evident.
What you are proposing is that the government spy on anyone who falls within a broad category of political classification. I think the issue with that should be self-evident.
I really love this quote on the idea:
"Our aim is not to overthrow the state, but to ignore it. Anyone who wants to continue to support the state and obey its laws is free to do so, so long as they leave us alone. Our goal is to build the kind of society we want, and prevent the state from overthrowing us while we’re doing it. The last person out of the state can turn off the lights." - Kevin Carson
To some anarchism is the idea of a completely voluntary society. A violent overthrow of the state is against this idea.
"Our aim is not to overthrow the state, but to ignore it. Anyone who wants to continue to support the state and obey its laws is free to do so, so long as they leave us alone. Our goal is to build the kind of society we want, and prevent the state from overthrowing us while we’re doing it. The last person out of the state can turn off the lights." - Kevin Carson
To some anarchism is the idea of a completely voluntary society. A violent overthrow of the state is against this idea.
That is a brilliant quote, thank you for it. It sums up my thoughts on the matter quite nicely.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Why should the government preemptively keep tabs on anyone? Should the EPA and HUD be able to place sleeper agents in right wing community organizations to monitor them? Should pro-secessionist historians have their phones bugged and be trailed because they don't believe in the legitimacy of the federal state?
Aside from that general principle, there's also the reality of how its implemented. Most of the time sleeper agents are used to get evidence for trumped up, meaningless charges like "interstate travel with intent to riot." That's the best case scenario. At worst, these agents, on not finding something of even minor note, will attempt to incite violence to prove that "those anarchists have really been violent all along." See, for instance, Brandon Darby.
Edited to add: I do, for the record, think that if there's actual evidence that someone's trying to blow up a bridge, monitoring is appropriate (though I don't see why simply arresting them wouldn't usually be sufficient if that were the case). But usually these things are more fishing expeditions than anything, against people whose ideology the State finds distasteful.
Aside from that general principle, there's also the reality of how its implemented. Most of the time sleeper agents are used to get evidence for trumped up, meaningless charges like "interstate travel with intent to riot." That's the best case scenario. At worst, these agents, on not finding something of even minor note, will attempt to incite violence to prove that "those anarchists have really been violent all along." See, for instance, Brandon Darby.
Edited to add: I do, for the record, think that if there's actual evidence that someone's trying to blow up a bridge, monitoring is appropriate (though I don't see why simply arresting them wouldn't usually be sufficient if that were the case). But usually these things are more fishing expeditions than anything, against people whose ideology the State finds distasteful.
All joking aside, because the government is created by the people to serve the people. It is not in the slightest sense the job of the government to sustain itself. That behaviour is the sole result of overpaid, power-hungry politicians who don't want to have to go find a real job.
> the government is created by the people to serve the people.
Be careful, this is only true in certain countries. Sometimes governments are created by someone who is the best warlord & administrator, c.f., Charlemagne.
Be careful, this is only true in certain countries. Sometimes governments are created by someone who is the best warlord & administrator, c.f., Charlemagne.
In this case it's clear that "the government" is short for "the US government".
How can the government serve the people if it can't sustain itself?
Government is sustained (or abolished) by the people who employ it. Government that can self-sustain seems dangerously close to a government that doesn't need the people it serves.
A government, if it is to serve the people, should only exist as long as the people will it.
If the people present a democratic threat to the government, the government should fade from existence peacefully. If people present a non-democratic threat to the government, then the government should act to protect itself.
Anarchists do not, categorically, present (or seek to present) a non-democratic threat to the democracy.
Do you want to keep tabs on violent* anarchists? Knock yourself out. I have no particular issue with that.
If the people present a democratic threat to the government, the government should fade from existence peacefully. If people present a non-democratic threat to the government, then the government should act to protect itself.
Anarchists do not, categorically, present (or seek to present) a non-democratic threat to the democracy.
Do you want to keep tabs on violent* anarchists? Knock yourself out. I have no particular issue with that.
The issue is not that of government is trying to preserve itself. This is a desirable outcome, if all else were equal. The issue is that, in this case preservation was given priority above other goals, among them preserving the right of people to freely associate.
[deleted]
Because they did nothing wrong.
I am an anarchist (a market anarchist, specifically). It is my professed ideology. I don't break laws (well, maybe occasional acts of non-violent civil disobedience in protest of specific unjust laws), I pay my taxes, and I behave according to pretty high ethical standards.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are files on me with the Austin Police Department, and DHS (via the Fusion Center here in Austin), because an organization I've been a part of has been infiltrated multiple times by undercover APD officers (and APD has, thankfully, been slapped around by judges for doing so, and for the way the officers behaved in the process). But, I'm not pleased about it, and I consider it a violation of basic civil liberties provided by the constitution...since I've never been arrested and never been charged with a crime. I am, by all reasonable standards, an upstanding citizen. Only if you believe holding a belief can be a crime, could you believe that I deserve to be spied on.
I'm sure you hold some beliefs that others, including others in positions of power, consider wrong. Wanting to change (or dismantle peacefully) the government is not a crime.
In short, it aint nobody's business what my ideology is. And, if you believe someone should be put in prison, in solitary, for holding an unpopular ideology...well, that's just not very American. Worse, it's not humanitarian.
I am an anarchist (a market anarchist, specifically). It is my professed ideology. I don't break laws (well, maybe occasional acts of non-violent civil disobedience in protest of specific unjust laws), I pay my taxes, and I behave according to pretty high ethical standards.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are files on me with the Austin Police Department, and DHS (via the Fusion Center here in Austin), because an organization I've been a part of has been infiltrated multiple times by undercover APD officers (and APD has, thankfully, been slapped around by judges for doing so, and for the way the officers behaved in the process). But, I'm not pleased about it, and I consider it a violation of basic civil liberties provided by the constitution...since I've never been arrested and never been charged with a crime. I am, by all reasonable standards, an upstanding citizen. Only if you believe holding a belief can be a crime, could you believe that I deserve to be spied on.
I'm sure you hold some beliefs that others, including others in positions of power, consider wrong. Wanting to change (or dismantle peacefully) the government is not a crime.
In short, it aint nobody's business what my ideology is. And, if you believe someone should be put in prison, in solitary, for holding an unpopular ideology...well, that's just not very American. Worse, it's not humanitarian.
on a group whose professed ideology is the elimination of government
Hmmm - yes, why not: http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Reforming/#Item4
Hmmm - yes, why not: http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Reforming/#Item4
Doesn't apply.
How so? Because they're old, rich, white "Republicans" rather than poor, young "anarchists"?
Is it the very word "anarchist" that causes the difficulty, because that's what it looks like to me.
Is it the very word "anarchist" that causes the difficulty, because that's what it looks like to me.
Because the Republicans are not proposing the elimination of government by any stretch of the imagination, and you can see that from the link you provided.
[deleted]
If you cursorily examine the history of anarchism, there are those who seek to achieve a violent revolution, and there are those who seek to achieve a peaceful revolution.
It's of course reasonable to keep an eye on seditious groups: these almost by definition imperil life, liberty, property, etc. It is another thing altogether to keep an eye on someone who wants to peacefully change government via peaceful and lawful means.
It's of course reasonable to keep an eye on seditious groups: these almost by definition imperil life, liberty, property, etc. It is another thing altogether to keep an eye on someone who wants to peacefully change government via peaceful and lawful means.
[deleted]
Because opposing the government peacefully is not a crime.
I wonder if the Federal Government is more afraid of the Cascadian movement than we know? Where is my tin foil hat?
this thread is probably being monitored by the FBI now
What immunity doesn't address is the individual's first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech must include the freedom to remain silent. Nothing in the constitution gives the government the power to compel expression.
Fourth amendment protections against search and seizure should apply as well. The government is trying to force these people to provide the contents of their minds. Again, there is no constitutional justification for this.
The constitution sets out strict limits on government power. This use of the grand jury system is a clear violation of those limits and a moral outrage.