4 ms·

You might find it interesting to hear from a lawyer who helped pioneer these tactics in the Canwell hearings in Washington State (who happened to be a relative

You might find it interesting to hear from a lawyer who helped pioneer these tactics in the Canwell hearings in Washington State (who happened to be a relative of mine): http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/caughlan_interview.shtml http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/caughlan_inter... By the time HUAC came around, actually, the reasons to take the fifth were quite well developed. Additionally he had helped someone come up with a strategy of refusing to answer questions without an appointed attorney present which had the effect of getting a lot of lawyers who weren't even necessarily civil libertarians thrust into the front lines. The result was that Canwell lost re-election. This was before HUAC even got formed. You have a point about McCarthy but only from a different direction. McCarthy was an exponent of what was going on. He did not turn America into anything. He was just the final wave. We do have McCarthy to thank however for the great free speech protections we enjoy in our nation. It was due to his overreaches that the court ruled that spreading the Communist ideology was protected under the 1st Amendment unless one actually went so far as to try to raise an army to violently rebel (the case was Yates v. United States). The great irony was that whatever McCarthy's lust for power or his intentions, he succeeded in showing the court why Communists had to have civil liberties too and perhaps turned the US into something better, very much despite his best efforts.

smsm42 13y ago
>>> You might find it interesting to hear from a lawyer who helped pioneer these tactics in the Canwell hearings in Washington State Looks like this person made a career on defending the worst of the worst. The article - which is no wonder - tries to paint it in ligher tones by saying communists and BPP were "prosecuted for radical beliefs" - but we all know it went way, way beyond mere beliefs there. Still, of course, maintaining legal representation even to the worst of the worst is the important part of the due process, so I guess he has a place in the picture too. Though I'm not sure if we heard about a guy who defends the right of local Al Qaeda group to hold meetings in your local civic center, we'd think "he's the hero of our time", even recognizing their right for legal representation. As for the practice of taking the Fifth, I can appreciate that people associating with organisation with official goal of overthrowing US government and which is financed and directed by Joseph Stalin would feel the need of some defensive tactics when the same government their organisation is trying to overthrow comes in and asks questions. I can also appreciate they may think it was unfair that they suffered some serious problems due to their association with the CP, but think about it - would you want a known Al Qaeda member to be in charge of the gas lines in your city, for example? Yes, he personally never did anything wrong except being publicly in support of Al Qaeda and their actions, which is not a crime, so would you be OK with him in this position or would you demand him to be replaced?
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Many in fact were prosecuted for their political beliefs. Remember that Yates' conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court on the basis that they never showed he did anything other than distribute Communist literature. Additionally I don't think you can look at the shift in Supreme Court precedent between Whitney v. California and Yates v. United States and conclude that the Supreme Court eventually decided that prosecuting for mere party membership and political belief was falling out of favor in the party. > Still, of course, maintaining legal representation even to the worst of the worst is the important part of the due process, so I guess he has a place in the picture too. Sure, and defending such rights at the cost of one's job and even being kicked out of the ACLU when the ACLU didn't want to touch the issue requires a certain degree of courage. > As for the practice of taking the Fifth, I can appreciate that people associating with organisation with official goal of overthrowing US government and which is financed and directed by Joseph Stalin would feel the need of some defensive tactics when the same government their organisation is trying to overthrow comes in and asks questions. Taking the 5th started after people were prosecuted for refusing to testify before the state legislature in Washington State. But a goal in the abstract is just a political belief. It is not until it is paired with concrete steps to make it happen that it is actionable. This is what Yates turned on, unless you think the Supreme Court in Yates got it wrong and the Smith Act never should have been castrated. But if the Communist Party's goal in the abstract of overthrow of our government at some indefinite point in the future makes them illegal, then surely the National Rifle Association's view that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to rebel violently against the government would be illegal too, is it not? There is not much difference between "things are such that at some point we will have to take over the country by violent revolution if necessary" and "this provision of the Constitution is to ensure that if and when the government overreaches, we can exercise our duty and take over the country by violent revolution if necessary." Drawing a line between the CP and the NRA is surprisingly difficult. I want to underscore this by saying one of my most memorable conversations with John was about gun control back in the early 1990's and I thought it was interesting that he made the arguments almost exactly that the Supreme Court accepted in Heller years later. My question to you is whether you think the Supreme Court got it wrong in Yates v. United States, when it held that arguing for actions in the abstract with no tangible steps to make it happen was fully protected under the first amendment even when it came to advocating the moral desirability of violent overthrow of the government. Maybe you think that was wrong and the NRA should tone down their rhetoric too. After all the "cold dead hands" mantra is a threat to rebel if sufficient gun control laws are enforced.

smsm42 13y ago

>>> You might find it interesting to hear from a lawyer who helped pioneer these tactics in the Canwell hearings in Washington State Looks like this person made a career on defending the worst of the worst. The article - which is no wonder - tries to paint it in ligher tones by saying communists and BPP were "prosecuted for radical beliefs" - but we all know it went way, way beyond mere beliefs there. Still, of course, maintaining legal representation even to the worst of the worst is the important part of the due process, so I guess he has a place in the picture too. Though I'm not sure if we heard about a guy who defends the right of local Al Qaeda group to hold meetings in your local civic center, we'd think "he's the hero of our time", even recognizing their right for legal representation. As for the practice of taking the Fifth, I can appreciate that people associating with organisation with official goal of overthrowing US government and which is financed and directed by Joseph Stalin would feel the need of some defensive tactics when the same government their organisation is trying to overthrow comes in and asks questions. I can also appreciate they may think it was unfair that they suffered some serious problems due to their association with the CP, but think about it - would you want a known Al Qaeda member to be in charge of the gas lines in your city, for example? Yes, he personally never did anything wrong except being publicly in support of Al Qaeda and their actions, which is not a crime, so would you be OK with him in this position or would you demand him to be replaced?

einhverfr 13y ago
Many in fact were prosecuted for their political beliefs. Remember that Yates' conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court on the basis that they never showed he did anything other than distribute Communist literature. Additionally I don't think you can look at the shift in Supreme Court precedent between Whitney v. California and Yates v. United States and conclude that the Supreme Court eventually decided that prosecuting for mere party membership and political belief was falling out of favor in the party. > Still, of course, maintaining legal representation even to the worst of the worst is the important part of the due process, so I guess he has a place in the picture too. Sure, and defending such rights at the cost of one's job and even being kicked out of the ACLU when the ACLU didn't want to touch the issue requires a certain degree of courage. > As for the practice of taking the Fifth, I can appreciate that people associating with organisation with official goal of overthrowing US government and which is financed and directed by Joseph Stalin would feel the need of some defensive tactics when the same government their organisation is trying to overthrow comes in and asks questions. Taking the 5th started after people were prosecuted for refusing to testify before the state legislature in Washington State. But a goal in the abstract is just a political belief. It is not until it is paired with concrete steps to make it happen that it is actionable. This is what Yates turned on, unless you think the Supreme Court in Yates got it wrong and the Smith Act never should have been castrated. But if the Communist Party's goal in the abstract of overthrow of our government at some indefinite point in the future makes them illegal, then surely the National Rifle Association's view that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to rebel violently against the government would be illegal too, is it not? There is not much difference between "things are such that at some point we will have to take over the country by violent revolution if necessary" and "this provision of the Constitution is to ensure that if and when the government overreaches, we can exercise our duty and take over the country by violent revolution if necessary." Drawing a line between the CP and the NRA is surprisingly difficult. I want to underscore this by saying one of my most memorable conversations with John was about gun control back in the early 1990's and I thought it was interesting that he made the arguments almost exactly that the Supreme Court accepted in Heller years later. My question to you is whether you think the Supreme Court got it wrong in Yates v. United States, when it held that arguing for actions in the abstract with no tangible steps to make it happen was fully protected under the first amendment even when it came to advocating the moral desirability of violent overthrow of the government. Maybe you think that was wrong and the NRA should tone down their rhetoric too. After all the "cold dead hands" mantra is a threat to rebel if sufficient gun control laws are enforced.