7 ms·
FBI releases documents that confirm they proactively spy on anarchists
- stephengillie 14y agoBefore 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?
- anigbrowl 14y agoGrand 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.
- pygy_ 14y agoI don't understand how this answers the question... ... or do you mean that they were investigating an alleged conspiracy to vandalize state property?
- anigbrowl 14y agoBecause 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.
- joshAg 14y agoThe grand jury was convened in march to rule on any crimes that might occur in the following months.
- stephengillie 14y agoDo 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.
- aplusbi 14y agoI 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.
- anigbrowl 14y agoGrand 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/FederalCourts/Jury/grandhandbook2007.pdf 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.
- cristiantsara 14y agothis thread is probably being monitored by the FBI now
- jacquesm 14y agoIt should not be possible to jail people this long without charging them with something, contempt of court doesn't cut it for me.
- janzer 14y agoUnfortunately 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- SparrowOS 14y agoCreationists are waiting for the Great Pumpkin. God says... hear such things? And he desired to see him. 9:10 And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida. 9:11 And the people, when they knew it, followed him: and he received them, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing. 9:12 And when the day began to wear away, then came the twelve, and said unto him, Send the multitude away, that they may go into the towns and country round about, and lodge, and get victuals: for we are here in a desert place. 9:13 But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy meat for all this people. 9:14 For they were about five thousand men. And he said to his disciples, Make them sit down by fifties in a company. ---- Say sompin about evolution. I believe in Intelligent Design through evolution. God said the hardest thing was getting monkey mothers to hold babies for nursing. Smothering is one problem in nursing. ---- God says... made was not able to receive the burnt offerings, and the meat offerings, and the fat. 7:8 Also at the same time Solomon kept the feast seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great congregation, from the entering in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt. 7:9 And in the eighth day they made a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days. 7:10 And on the three and twentieth day of the seventh month he sent the people away into their tents, glad and merry in heart for the goodness that the LORD had shewed unto David, and to Solomon, and to Israel his people. 7:11 Thus Solomon finished the house of the LORD, and the king's house: and all that came into Solomon's heart to make in the house of the LORD, and in his own house, he prosperously effected.
- numbsafari 14y agoWhy shouldn't the government keep tabs on a group whose professed ideology is the elimination of government?
- bediger4000 14y agoon a group whose professed ideology is the elimination of government Hmmm - yes, why not: http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Reforming/#Item4 http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Reforming/#Item4
- tsotha 14y agoDoesn't apply.
- bediger4000 14y agoHow 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.
- tsotha 14y agoBecause 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.
- pnathan 14y agoIf 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.
- scarmig 14y agoWhy 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.
- ojiikun 14y agoI wonder if the Federal Government is more afraid of the Cascadian movement than we know? Where is my tin foil hat?
- ari_elle 14y agoRT - 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
- jlgreco 14y agoI 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).
- davidw 14y agoWith the subtle difference that Russian journalists who get too out of line get murdered.
- jlgreco 14y agoObviously 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.
- davidw 14y agoThere are journalists in the US who back the "Russian" or "anti-US" point of view. Maybe they're not mainstream, but they're free to voice their opinions. BTW, this article reeks of off-topic to me.
- patrickmay 14y agoHaving 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. 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.
- anigbrowl 14y agoNothing 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.
- mcantelon 14y agoWhat facts does the RT article have wrong? I've read similar accounts of this case from other sources as well.
- anigbrowl 14y agoWell, 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.