Fang-Face writes “Noah Leavitt, of FindLaw.com had an interesting analysis of John Ashcroft’s consistent pattern of behaviour reprinted at Alternet.org. The opening paragraphs read:
Over the past two weeks, the Justice Department has issued two intensely controversial sets of subpoenas. The first targeted peaceful demonstrators in Iowa. The second targeted medical caregivers in Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
None of the targets of these subpoenas is alleged to have anything to do with terrorism.
Leavitt looks at two egregious rights violations perpetrated in the name of “security” and then shows how they are part of a slippery slope movement.
I do not trust him, Sam I-am, I will not, cannot, trust this man.“
PATRIOT Act not only problem
Since I suspect that someone is going to jump in and say “This article blames the PATRIOT Act for something it doesn’t do — therefore don’t be worried by the cries of civil libertarians” I figured I could say it first.
Although the article mentions the PATRIOT Act several times, it’s not clear under what statutes these two supeonas were issued under. They COULD NOT have been issued under the infamous Section 215 or we would be hearing about further prosecutions under the gag clause of Section 215.
Does this mean that we can put away our protest signs and go home? To borrow from President Bush, that would be a comforting thought — and a false one. I believe the two abuses of federal power given in the article should give every American who believes in our founding principles pause.
I also believe that people who believe that the current administration is doing a fine job of balancing our freedoms and physical security ask themselves if they would be as comfortable if these actions were being taken by President Clinton and Atty Gen Reno.
Re:PATRIOT Act not only problem
I agree.
In addition, the Iowa incident did involved law breaking. 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 (a Grinnell Library tech), “became limp and kicked a deputy in the knee as they were putting her in the (police) wagon.”
Meeting in order to plan an illegal activity may well be criminal conspiracy. You can’t conspire to break the law and claim First Amendment protection.
Re:PATRIOT Act not only problem
While speaking of investigations, perhaps Alternet should consider filing charges against their writer, Noah Leavitt for stealing. It’s obvious that he is only reporting half of the story.
None of the following, “break the law�, “unlawful entry�, “armory�, or “military property�, was mentioned by Mr. Leavitt in his piece. None.
Ironically “Patriot Act� which this investigation has nothing to do with was mentioned 6 times.
PROSECUTORS FACE CRITICISM OVER PROBE OF ACTIVISTS
By JOSH GERSTEIN
The New York Sun
February 10, 2004
….Mr. Nestor (attorney for activists) acknowledged that the group had been involved in instructing people about how to break the law. …
… in a written statement last night, the United States attorney for the southern district of Iowa, Stephen O’Meara, confirmed that his office is investigating possible security breaches at Camp Dodge, which is part of the armory complex.
“The narrow purpose and scope of that inquiry is to determine whether there were any violations of federal law, or prior agreements to violate federal law, regarding unlawful entry onto military property,” Mr. O’Meara said. He suggested that while the demonstration was taking place someone made “an attempt to enter within the fenced, secure perimeter” at the base, which is the headquarters of the Iowa National Guard.
Mr. O’Meara said that the case was not considered an anti-terrorism matter and he stressed that there was no intent to chill anyone’s freedom of speech.
“The instant investigation does not relate to the rally,” he said, adding, “The United States attorney’s office does not prosecute persons peacefully and lawfully engaged in rallies which are conducted under the protection of the First Amendment….”
Now if we could only link Aschroft to the umbrella man on the grassy knoll.
Happy Hysteria!
Re:PATRIOT Act not only problem
Fang-Face here.
You have presented the point of view of those who have a vested interested in abusing bad laws so as to circumvent civil liberties. And I have to say, they don’t sound too sure of themselves if they have to make allegations of “possible” breaches. Was this investigation initiated because security was breached, or only because somebody thinks it might have been?
Moreover, you failed to quote that part of the article wherein Mr. Nestor justifies abusing a Grand Jury investigation to investigate s simple trespassing charge. Plus, I’d really like to know how it is that Big Brother had to investigate the organizing body when they had cops there on the scene to arrest trespassers; as was done in one case.
There are links to a few articles and commentaries in this previous comment.
Re:PATRIOT Act not only problem
Fang, let’s look at the facts.
What I hear is a call to return to the “wild west”. Every man/woman armed to the teeth and a patsy sherrif. Perhaps there is more to the “Book Wrangler” option on Blake’s poll?
FWIW I am not a big brother apologist. Neither am I the black helicopter type.
Speculation makes for good talk radio and blog traffic. No doubt. However I suggest for the sake of accuracy that we stick with the less sexy facts.