6 ms·

This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the role of grand juries in the legal system. A grand jury is used to determine of there are sufficient facts for the

by evgen 8y ago

This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the role of grand juries in the legal system. A grand jury is used to determine of there are sufficient facts for the state to make an indictment and therefore to protect the accused they are _always_ secret. They are not used to prosecute people, they are used as a filter to prevent unwarranted prosecution.

refurb 8y ago
You said it better than I could. I mean what's the alternative? The judge says "You have to testify" and the person says "no" and the judge says "ok"?
tuxxy 8y ago
It's as if no one is even reading the link I posted in response to this. > Today, FBI, police harassment and secret grand juries are being used to attack Muslims and other immigrants, Black, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native, anti-war, anarchist, environmental and animal rights activists and movements. These incidents are not isolated, and they are not happening because the government wants to "solve crimes." They are an attack on all our movements: an attempt to divide us, isolate outspoken individuals, create fear and distrust among us, and rewrite our history of resistance as "criminal." The government will use secret grand juries to get activists to testify against other activists, thus splitting up movements and pitting the participants against each other. It undermines basic democratic principles no matter how grand juries were _supposed_ to be used. It's historically been used as a weapon of the state to fight against activists. This goes back to the days of McCarthyism.
- evgen 8y ago
  I read the link and rejected its pages of persecution-complex thesis and lack of worthwhile supporting evidence. The grand jury compels activists to testify when they are involved with or witness to crimes and conspiracies. The witnesses are not picked at random or for political purposes, but some political groups that have violent edges will sometimes find themselves facing a society that does not share its appreciation of "direct action". Some of the more radical elements of the groups you mention _are_ criminal and dealing with the via criminal prosecution is much better than the alternatives (which is not to just leave them alone but rather to treat them as terrorists, traitors, unlawful combatants, or simply line them up against a wall and shoot them.)
  - tuxxy 8y ago
    The US and Liberia are the only countries that use Grand Juries for preliminary hearings. I'm quite appalled at the juxtaposition in your response. You claim to not support the direct action used by activists, yet your suggestions for "alternatives" to Grand Juries are far more violent and combative than anything the activists are doing -- even going so far as to suggest to line them up against a wall and execute them. There are plenty more alternatives for a functioning Democracy than Grand Juries.

by evgen 8y ago

refurb 8y ago

You said it better than I could. I mean what's the alternative? The judge says "You have to testify" and the person says "no" and the judge says "ok"?

tuxxy 8y ago

It's as if no one is even reading the link I posted in response to this. > Today, FBI, police harassment and secret grand juries are being used to attack Muslims and other immigrants, Black, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native, anti-war, anarchist, environmental and animal rights activists and movements. These incidents are not isolated, and they are not happening because the government wants to "solve crimes." They are an attack on all our movements: an attempt to divide us, isolate outspoken individuals, create fear and distrust among us, and rewrite our history of resistance as "criminal." The government will use secret grand juries to get activists to testify against other activists, thus splitting up movements and pitting the participants against each other. It undermines basic democratic principles no matter how grand juries were _supposed_ to be used. It's historically been used as a weapon of the state to fight against activists. This goes back to the days of McCarthyism.

evgen 8y ago
I read the link and rejected its pages of persecution-complex thesis and lack of worthwhile supporting evidence. The grand jury compels activists to testify when they are involved with or witness to crimes and conspiracies. The witnesses are not picked at random or for political purposes, but some political groups that have violent edges will sometimes find themselves facing a society that does not share its appreciation of "direct action". Some of the more radical elements of the groups you mention _are_ criminal and dealing with the via criminal prosecution is much better than the alternatives (which is not to just leave them alone but rather to treat them as terrorists, traitors, unlawful combatants, or simply line them up against a wall and shoot them.)
- tuxxy 8y ago
  The US and Liberia are the only countries that use Grand Juries for preliminary hearings. I'm quite appalled at the juxtaposition in your response. You claim to not support the direct action used by activists, yet your suggestions for "alternatives" to Grand Juries are far more violent and combative than anything the activists are doing -- even going so far as to suggest to line them up against a wall and execute them. There are plenty more alternatives for a functioning Democracy than Grand Juries.