posted
Some court has ordered a college to release background info on a group of anti-war protesters. The college is under a gag order and cannot talk about it. The people being investigated suspect that they will be accused of an "incident" that happened during the rally. A lady was accused of being violent, but she said she merely went limp to resist arrest.
I'm just concerned that Big Brother is starting to go after people who disagree with him.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What college? Any other more specific info to help us look up the story on other news sources?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend of mine who was involved in that protest has been issued a grand jury subpoena. We are worried.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found an article here , I haven't read it yet, though.
Dana, that is superscary. I will keep your friend in my thoughts. Also, I haven't forgotten about your post-Christmas present, I've just had the flu. Forgive me? (it's part of your job, you know *very big grin*)
Here's the article (shorter than the one Jenny linked to):
quote:University, Peace Activists Receive Subpoenas FBI Asking For Records Of New York Based Legal Group
POSTED: 7:15 PM CST February 6, 2004 UPDATED: 5:50 AM CST February 7, 2004
DES MOINES, Iowa -- In what may be the first subpoena of its kind since Sept. 11, 2001, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war protesters.
Subpoenas have also been served on four antiwar protesters who attended a Nov. 15 forum at Drake University to appear before a grand jury next week.
Federal prosecutors declined to comment, but the subpoenas were served by a local sheriff's deputy who works on the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.
In addition to records about who attended the event, the subpoena asks the university to divulge all records relating to the local Chapter of the National Lawyer's Guild, a New York based legal activist organization which sponsored the forum.
The group, once similarly targeted for alleged ties to communism in the 1950s, announced Friday that it will ask a federal court to quash the subpoena.
Guild president Micahel Ayers says the law is clear that the use of the grand jury to investigate protected political activities or to intimidate protestors exceeds its authority.
Is there a reason to suspect this group is in league with terrorists or something? I would be profoundly disturbed if they were investigating them solely for sponsoring an anti-war forum.
Isn't that like, protected? Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand the silence. Admittedly, I'm not very smart about these sorts of things, but it seems unconstitutional to issue a gag order of this magnitude.
The Patriot Acts are very very scary. To not be able to say that it's even connected (or not) to the Patriot Acts...makes me nervous. I'm pretty laid-back and trusting of the government, but I'm getting a little paranoid about this.
There are things about my husband's enlistment in the military that I don't understand, either. I know that I am not allowed to sue the government (for instance), as a spouse of the military member...or at least, I think that's true...and I am pretty sure that hubby is not allowed to attend protests while under the employment of the government...even when off duty, though? Of course, essentially, every military member is on duty 24 hours a day. A very intrusive boss, our Uncle Sam. Sigh.
This is worrisome.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just concerned that Big Brother is starting to go after people who disagree with him.
I agree, but I'd put it more bluntly, that the Bush administration is using the Patriot Act in exactly the abusive ways people have been fearing. (Unfortunately, most people aren't informed or concerned about some of the abuses already occurring - like people being held indefinitely without being charged with a crime.)
This is an incredibly stupid move at this point in time especially. (leaving the rightness or wrongness aside) Bush's approval ratings have been dropping. If this story goes national - and I hope it does - it's a great tool for furthering the uneasiness of people who don't identify with the right or the left. The swing voters. It's a creepy story. One that won't come across well to almost anyone except the most loyal administration fans.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually know two of the four people subpoenaed, and the other two by name and reputation. They are religious pacifists. The idea of them being investigated by a terrorism task force is insane. I think it really is an effort to quash freedom of speech by intimidation.
Fortunately, these folks are not easily intimidated. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know how after 9/11 there will be no more hijacking of planes? Because the passengers will rise up and kill the hijackers if anyone ever tries to do that again?
Well, the U.S. government can't do things like arresting people for disagreeing with it anymore for the exact same reason. The people will not allow it. We have the power to find out the truth about what is happening, and we have the power to refuse to accept it. An informed and educated population can't be oppressed.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
ak, I want to believe that, but I know that *I* am ignorant and uneducated about the Patriot Acts, and if it weren't for Hatrack, I wouldn't know enough to be worried. I am fairly average, so there are plenty of Americans who don't know how heinous this is. Unless the story of these protesters gets far more coverage, I worry.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't mean we shouldn't worry. I meant we have to keep up with what is going on and not let it happen. We are the ones that have that responsibility, because, like you say, many people will not ever even know or WANT to know or take the trouble to do anything until it affects them directly.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, the U.S. government can't do things like arresting people for disagreeing with it anymore for the exact same reason. The people will not allow it.
So you say...
But you forget that some folks have said they will overlook things like this, so long as they have leaders that oppose abortions or gay marriages or favor whatever special issues matter to them personally.
Others have said they are willing to overlook things like this, so long as they have a leader that has a personality they like.
Still others are willing to overlook things like this, just so long as it's their team who wins the election in the end.
And many have made it clear that they are willing to overlook things like this, just so long as our leaders claim it is in the name of fighting evil or protecting children - because, as they say, the ends justify the means.
The people will not allow it? Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe the people just don't care much about these sorts of things.
posted
"You know how after 9/11 there will be no more hijacking of planes? Because the passengers will rise up and kill the hijackers if anyone ever tries to do that again?"
As demonstrated by the hijacked passengers who found out that planes had already been used as human-guided missiles. Makes one wonder about the Department of Homeland"Security" in general. The Iraq WoMD debacle indicates that they certainly aren't interested in getting or providing correct information about America's enemies. And stunts like this -- or banning ~1% of all Americans from boarding aircraft and subjecting another few percent to extreme hassling by airport security -- makes one suspect that Homeland"Security" and the juvenilely acronymed "PATRIOT"ACT was designed solely to terrorize America's loyal opposition to the current Administration.
Especially peculiar in light of Republican SenateMajorityLeader Frist's attempt to place a comparatively harmless ricin poison attack and short-lived evacuation of the Republican office building on equal par with the deadly&sophisticated anthrax bacteriological attack on the previous Democratic SenateMajorityLeader which caused long-term evacuation of the Democratic office building. Especially considering how this ricin "hot issue" draws attention and news coverage away from Frist's aides being the primary suspects in an illegal computer break-in to spy on Democratic email. And what sort of idiot would Frist have to be to honestly claim that office mail -- after the anthrax attack, known to be opened by separate office staff by eveyone including potential terrorists -- would be used in a real attempt to kill him.
Or, Frist’s office receiving the ricin-contaminated letter is especially peculiar in light of the release of memos left unsecured by Democrats for almost 2 years after they received notice of the security flaw detailing collusion between Senate Democrats and special interest groups to delay consideration of particular nominees in order to affect pending cases.
Especially considering how this attack, which could not feasibly have resulted in Frist’s death, could then be used to remind the public about the more deadly Anthrax attacks aimed at the former Democratic Senate majority leader.
See, I can recast news stories in a partisan, one-sided, conspiracy-suggesting manner, too. It’s a fun game; everyone play!
posted
I've found the charges of "illegal collusion" odd for two reasons. One, because they pretty much all come from the staffer who quit under pressure for (probably illegally) distributing the Democrat's internal correspondence, and two because AFAIK there's no law against people in congress colluding however they darn well like, so long as there's no quid pro quo involved and any meetings required to be public or the notes made public (not many at all when its party internal) are done
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you forget that some folks have said they will overlook things like this, so long as they have leaders that oppose abortions or gay marriages or favor whatever special issues matter to them personally.
This is a misconstrual of a discussion that was on Hatrack a couple months ago, Tresopax.
The question on that long-ago discussion was how people could continue supporting the Republicans based on the allegations of civil rights abuses perpetrated by the Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft agenda.
The answer that I gave was that certain issues held priority for me.
Priority does not mean exclusion.
I have not yet been persuaded that I should discard the whole of my social policy beliefs in exchange for ONE concession from the Democratic party.
I may be convinced in time to switch over . . . but that time isn't yet.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've found the charges of "illegal collusion" odd for two reasons. One, because they pretty much all come from the staffer who quit under pressure for (probably illegally) distributing the Democrat's internal correspondence, and two because AFAIK there's no law against people in congress colluding however they darn well like, so long as there's no quid pro quo involved and any meetings required to be public or the notes made public (not many at all when its party internal) are done correctly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't trying to make a post showing the collusion is illegal (notice I didn't use the word illegal). I was merely spinning a conspiracy theory out of thin air to demonstrate what I thought of aspectre's attempt at the same thing.
Despite not being illegal, the collusion charges would likely be damaging politically - attempting to fiddle with the outcome of a pending case is frowned upon. Even FDR couldn't get away with it. So it would be worth distracting from that issue, which is why it's included in my "conspiracy."
Also, it seems as if the files were left in an unsecured section of the server and that the hole was brought to the Democrat's network admin in 2001. So I'm not sure if they'll be able to charge him with anything.
This has no become a major thread derail...Just in case it's not clear, I don't believe my "theory." It was a rhetorical device.
posted
Oh, I'm merely rambling, I often do that when I see something that reminds me of something else.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
its worth noting that only one Republican staffer was saying it had already been brought to the attention of the Dems (and if he did, there's probably email evidence for it), the rest on the same staff were saying it hadn't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
is it just me, or is impossible to find any real coverage of this issue. All the news articles contain no needed details (especially for a geek like me) and all the op-eds are hopelessly biased one way or the other.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I would bet that Frist in fact, is, playing up the ricin to try to distract from anything that might be embarassing at the moment -- it only makes good political sense. Of course, the rest of aspectre's theory is pretty much gibberish.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Sergeant at Arms has pretty much shut down all the information leaks. I'd bet there was a mild threat to both sides that if they didn't shut up and let him investigate he was going to start throwing anyone out of the Senate whenever they got in shouting matches, or somesuch. He and his office have always struck me as being good sorts.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, computer insecurity beginning two years ago, Dagonee. The coincidence in timing makes one wonder if other hanky panky was occuring under the distraction of the anthrax attack, or during the long wait for decontamination of the Democratic office building.
Admit it, I'm better at spinning paranoia than you are
posted
Well, aspectre, I might be willing to admit that your personality lends itself better to paranoia than mine. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's possible this could become a problem for the FBI and administration - the story is going national.
Today's check of google news found multiple references to the story all over the country. The LA Times, Newsday, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution all published the full version of the AP story. The lead sentence in most stories (AP stories can be edited by individual newspapers) refers to the quest for college records "the first of its kind in decades."
Here's the lead sentence in the AJC:
quote:In what may be the first subpoena of its kind since the Communist-hunting days of the 1950s, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists.
This has potential for having some nasty (and probably deserved) fallout for those currently in power.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to throw the "Free Speech Zone" arrests into this mix as well.
Whenever President Bush has a public appearance, the Secret Service, as part of their pre-event set-up, gets the local police to set up so-called "Free Speech Zones" where protestors are (sometimes forcibly) relocated and restrained in. These zones are almost always at least half a mile away from wherever the President is speaking. If the police find you outside of that zone, they can arrest you. The charge will vary, from trespassing (they've tried to do this to do people on public sidewalks), disorderly conduct, obstructing without violence, resisting arrest, or a recently dredged up law concerning "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States".
Arrestees have been specificly told that they were being arrested because of the content of the signs they were holding. Some have complained that "the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing.”
In May 2003, the Department of Homeland Security issued a terrorist advisory telling law enforcement officials to watch anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government.”
At an anti-war protest at the port of Oakland, CA, the police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protestors. Not suprisingly, this sparked a controversy that Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center, answered by saying “You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that’s being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act.” He added, “I’ve heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn’t just bombs going off and killing people.”
quote:the powder found in Frist's mail room was mostly paper dust, with traces of ricin so minute, they can't even be evaluated for particle size or purity. No envelope or note has been found, and no other piece of mail from the Senate has even a trace of ricin on it. Neither do any door sills, doorknobs, railings or surfaces anywhere in the building. Same goes for air filters, which should catch floating particles.
Maybe a castor bean and some paper processed through an espresso grinder? No matter how outre'... ...reality during the Dubya Administration trumps it
quote:“You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that’s being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act.” He added, “I’ve heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn’t just bombs going off and killing people.”
Sadly this exercise in excess isn't limited to the right. It's the same logic that NOW applied in their Supreme Court case against Operation Rescue. NOW sought to have the tactics of blocking doorways defined as "racketeering and extortion."
If NOW had succeeded (it didn't), it would have subjected many groups to treatment as "racketeers." Groups that filed in support of Operation Rescue included the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, PETA, American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (ADAPT), Not Dead Yet, Plowshares, and a bunch of anti-war groups.
The ability to have your hatred for a group overwhelm the respect for the freedom you are defending is not something that is limited to the right end of the political spectrum.
Edited to add (for what I hope is clarity): The government wasn't the originator of the suit to apply the RICO act to pretty standard tactics of civil disobedience. But if NOW had prevailed, that is the role the government would have been in.
And, I hope it goes without saying, but I thought the logic stunk when NOW used it. And I think it smells just as bad now.
(If anyone is interested, I give lessons on how to ingratiate oneself with people at both ends of the political spectrum.)
posted
There is a VAST difference between physically impeding anothers right to move freely while subjecting them to threats and physical abuse and forcing a picketer into an area so far away that there is no apparent connection between the picketer and the object of protest, that the person(s) targeted to receive the message can't even see the protest.
This complete physical disconnect of politicians, their appointees, bureaucrats, and other government employees from the people for whom they are supposed to be working ain't worth the cost.
What the hell is your point about the ricin? Is someone making it up? Should the FBI not investigate it? How the hell was it even relevant to this thread?
Do you believe it was planted as a distraction? Do you believe the media is paying too much attention to it?
Or does it suit your agenda to make vague insinuations of wrongdoing so you don't have to substantiate them?
posted
I have friends in Des Moines, who are religious pacifists. Fortunately some of them are busy writing e-mails to a group I'm part of, so I know they are not involved. But I feel queasy suddenly.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:DES MOINES, Iowa Feb. 10 — Federal prosecutors withdrew a subpoena Tuesday ordering Drake University to turn over a list of people involved in an antiwar forum in November, as well as subpoenas ordering four activists to testify before a grand jury.
Read the rest of the article. It looks like some wiser heads realized this could be a real public relations nightmare for the Bush administration - especially with comparisons to McCarthy-era fishing expeditions.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
The photo of Michael Jackson in the advertisement freaked me out for a minute. It was right under the paragraph about Brian Terrell, and I thought, “Either they got the wrong photo, or Brian has changed since the last time I saw him.” Then I realized it was an ad. ::relieved::
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops. Sorry, a defensive mechanism must have kicked in when I accessed the page. I don't remember even seeing it. Sometimes it's good to have defensive mechanisms.
Sometime I'll elaborate on what a bad rap "denial" has gotten...
But this is very good news for all involved - I'm surprised it went on this long. It's not like the Bush administration needs more reasons for people to feel hostile and suspicious. I'm too lazy to check right now, what way does Iowa lean? Is it one of those state's that's arguably "up for grabs?"
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After hearing Tim Russert today, I did a check and I think I solved the "mystery" of the sudden collapse of the subpoenas.
In the last election, Iowa went to Gore, by about 3 tenths of a percentage point. That means it's not a good state to solidify Democratic anger that could translate into high voter turnout in November. Both parties will be spending a lot of time, energy and money on this state. Both parties consider it "up for grabs."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Forgive me? (it's part of your job, you know *very big grin*)![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
