12 ms·

Protesters charged with 'Terrorism Hoax' for too much glitter on their banner

240 points by rwissmann 13y ago

swalkergibson 13y ago
I hope that the judge hearing this case dismisses it in its entirety during the preliminary hearing. How is this even possible?
- sp332 13y ago
  I hope the judge rips the prosecutor a new one too. Edit: if the prosecutor doesn't smack the cops upside the head first!
  - ericcumbee 13y ago
    I think your jumping the gun. From reading that article, it sounds like the Police are holding them on those charges. It does not sound it's made it to the prosecutor yet. The police can arrest you on charges, but it is up to the prosecutor if they actually want to prosecute.
    - swalkergibson 13y ago
      It would appear that Stefan Warner has been formally charged, arraigned, and bail set at $1,000 on one count of a terrorism hoax. I did not look up the other woman, but I assume that she has also been charged formally. http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=3070317&db=Oklahoma http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp...
      - ericcumbee 13y ago
        That record looks fairly sparse. I think the default behavior is that they move forward like they will prosecute until a decision has been made not to.
      - sp332 13y ago
        That says a judge has been appointed to determine probable cause in the arrest. According to http://www.oklahomacounty.org/Judges/page/Judge-Russell-Hall.aspx http://www.oklahomacounty.org/Judges/page/Judge-Russell-Hall... that judge calls 45,000 cases per year - that's a case every 20 minutes 24x7. One imagines he has a low tolerance for people wasting his time.
        Crito 13y ago
        With that sort of throughput, I have to wonder if he even has the time to determine if people are wasting his time.
      - andygates 13y ago
        It seems to me there's a clear difference between a "terrorism hoax" and "jumping at shadows", just waiting to be clearly exploited by their counsel...
- wmeredith 13y ago
  I think there is a line from the political satire comedy series Veep on HBO that answers your question nicely. It's a sage piece of advice offered to the Vice President from a Senator she's asking to help her with some PR on an Oil issue: "...you don’t want to fuck with [big oil] because they fuck in a very unpleasant fashion." It's a really well written (if extremely vulgar) show. Art imitates life, life imitates art, etc...
migrantgeek 13y ago
This is exactly what should happen. The success of any protest is based on media coverage. If no one was arrested, this wouldn't have been a story. If this coverage reaches a few who are willing to get arrested for the cause, they'll launch additional protests hoping for more exposure. If protesters manage to keep themselves in the news cycle, they may actually make a difference.
- sp332 13y ago
  Maybe the protesters who locked themselves in a doorway were looking for coverage, but it looks like the two who hung up the banner weren't interested in making a story.
- kelnos 13y ago
  There's a line, though. On one side you have the risk of serious trumped-up felony charges that can land you in prison and make you basically unemployable. On the other side you have an arrest and release with no charges filed. If the likelihood of the former is too high, the gov't might succeed in frightening away enough would-be protesters.
- grecy 13y ago
  Imagine what will happen if they are found guilty and actually get a 10 year sentence. Every single person will think twice about attending a protest next time, which would be the end of democracy (if it isn't already gone in the USA)
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    It will probably never happen, since if the charges aren't dropped, dozens of prominent civil rights lawyers will probably offer to defend these guys pro bono. And it would be hard to convince a jury that these guys actually intended to perpetrate a terrorism hoax. Who'd believe that someone could mistake glitter that fell off a sign for a dangerous substance?
    - 1457389 13y ago
njharman 13y ago
It's sadly ironic that the enforcement of and (I cynically believe) the purpose behind most anti-terrorism laws is to terrorize protesters, malcontents, and others the "established power structure" deems embarrassing. Terrorize them with the threat of immense punishment, travel hassles, etc. Keeping them quiet and complacent.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  it isn't surprising if you know about ALEC and in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#Animal_and_Ecological_Terrorism_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_C... Why the representatives you sent to DC and state capitols are happily voting for AETA-style bills instead of, say, proposing and voting for anti-AETA bills, for example something like "reaffirming and extending the 1st Amendment rights" bills and/or the bills that would treat as a terrorism any assault on the [at least Constitutional] rights of protesters?
- mcantelon 13y ago
  The War on Terror is, to a large extent, about creating a domestic counter-insurgence apparatus in the US. Perhaps there are changes coming that necessitate, from the perspective of those in power, this level of control over the population.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    like another orchestrated terrorist attack similar to 9/11 this time created by left/right wing domestic "terrorists" ? If they could pull off 9/11, I'm sure they can do that again with domestic "enemy". But then what's the purpose? Why to do that? Usually, not to loose power. But they are in the power all the time anyway (military/industrial complex). So, what gives?
    - mcantelon 13y ago
      They are an established power, but they've still had to deal with societal friction in response to their actions. This slows them down as they attempt to compete with other global factions. Hence the need to lessen societal friction by making things more "expensive" to those who gum up the works for them. And yeah, more "strategy of tension" operations wouldn't be surprising.
rayiner 13y ago
Obviously this is unbelievable and I hope it's quickly dismissed. But unfortunately, environmental protestors have been putting up with this sort of shit, often at the behest of energy and agricultural companies, for decades.
SwellJoe 13y ago
I never realized just how bad the situation was until I got involved more seriously in activism. Two and a half years into being politically active enough to never go more than a week or two without some form of protest (which could take the form of a march or rally, or an Overpass Light Brigade, or helping organize a cryptoparty, hosting documentary movie nights, helping with direct action training, etc.), I now have literally dozens of friends who have been charged with felonies. These are among the sweetest, and gentlest, people I know. Some are barely older than children (the youngest person I know charged with a felony was 19 when she was charged with "Use of a criminal instrument" for locking her arm to a fellow protesters arm using a device suggested and made for them by a team of undercover Austin Police Department officers). It is completely transparent, to me, that these laws and these tactics, are tools of oppression. They are not "to keep us safe", and never were. They are designed to make dissent as dangerous as possible through every means they can get away with. It includes violent, or at least threatening, police presence at any protest of significance (which means many populations cannot safely express dissent; anyone with warrants, regardless of what they are for, has no free speech because they will be snatched from a protest, anyone who is an undocumented immigrant has no free speech because they will be snatched, etc.). It includes violent arrest tactics; police are trained in "pain compliance" techniques, which include spraying pepper spray into protesters eyes, and forcing their eyes open to do so. It includes widespread spying at the local, state, and federal level, as well as spying by corporations like Stratfor. It includes charging activists with laws intended for violent terrorists, so that arrest is no longer a minor inconvenience, but a life-altering event. When non-violent activists are facing years in prison, for causing nothing more than minor temporary inconvenience, something is horribly broken. I suspect most Americans would be disgusted by all of this, if they were really aware of it. But, it's not very frequently reported in mainstream media. I only know about it because I know some of the people involved and follow activist-oriented news sources.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>It is completely transparent, to me, that these laws and these tactics, are tools of oppression. They are not "to keep us safe", and never were. They are designed to make dissent as dangerous as possible through every means they can get away with. It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism. I think that in itself is a more significant indication of how hopeless the situation in America is. It underlines the main reason why serious social change is so difficult. Put it simply: the government exists to protect the interests of corporations and wealthy people. Dissent of any kind challenges the status quo and therefore must be discouraged and quelled by any means necessary. The rights of "The People" (i.e. the poor) mean jack shit, because The People only exist to make the rich richer. This has been the case since the country's founding. This is not to say that change is impossible. But, historically, the only time meaningful change has happened is when there was overwhelming social pressure. We aren't talking about petty (and for the most part meaningless) activism here and there. We're talking about social dissent of such magnitude that it threatens to become a revolution. Only in such times has the establishment allowed any sort of concession.
zobzu 13y ago
yep, if you're not doing whatever some powerful man wants, you're a terrorist. That's what you get for allowing anti terrorist laws. They were never anti terrorist. They're anti american laws. Bad luck, other countries quickly copied this fantastic idea.
steven2012 13y ago
This police state we are living in currently will only end once we vote in politicians that actually care about the politician. We can decide as a society whether or not we want to get distracted by things like gay marriage, abortion, swift boats, birth certificates, or if we care about things like liberty and freedom. But it's up to us. We voted in these monsters, and we need to vote them out.
rch 13y ago
Are there any resources or groups dedicated to getting ahead of overzealous prosecutions like this? I know there are options one somebody has fallen victim to a misguided process, but it would be nice if there was a constructive effort to make sure law enforcement maintains some perspective from the onset.
- adventured 13y ago
  The ACLU for one. It's a hugely challenging problem these days however, for a group like the ACLU they're like a dinghy boat floating around in a hurricane.
bhewes 13y ago
I know Devon Energy pretty well. I know they have a strong PR department and their is no way they want this to be blown up. They need the Keystone XL pipeline built. My guess is this is a case of overzealous security guards and OKC police. Time will tell though.
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  Obviously, they don't want media coverage. But, I think you're misunderstanding how they'll go about it. The companies behind Keystone XL, have exerted tremendous efforts to have protesters charged under terrorism laws. There have been training sessions for local police departments, put on by TransCanada and energy companies that want to see fracking continue unhindered. Those sessions teach small-town police departments about military tactics for attacking protesters, causing them harm, and how to most effectively charge them with huge laundry lists of offenses. Media rarely covers this stuff no matter what police and corporations do.
  - bhewes 13y ago
    As far as Keystone XL and other pipelines across the country the training programs are for actual terrorist attacks. An attack on a pipeline is a mess if local law enforcement does not know how to deal with it. I remember sitting in my dad's office looking at a pipeline map and asking him who "protected" all of it? At the time his response was no one. Anyway's the mess in Oklahoma City had to deal with four people at the Devon Tower downtown. If protesters get anywhere near pipelines or fracking zones, well there is pretty long history of legal action against people trespassing on energy production sites. It is whole new territory charging people for protesting at corporate office building under a "terrorism hoax" law in the State of Oklahoma that has not even been tested. And if this actual goes to trial there will be strong media and legal coverage. Of that much I am certain. <update> The state of Oklahoma has historically gone after activist groups. The IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) & Green Corn Rebellion being the extreme examples.
malandrew 13y ago
It really ought to be an ethics violation investigateable by a state bar association if a prosecutor pulls a stunt like using absurdly trumped up charges. AFAICT, at the end of the day, state bar associations have the power to reign in prosecutorial abuses like this one. Prosecutors like this are actively harming the pursuit of justice, and I can't see how any group of peers (i.e. lawyers who vary in area of specialization) would not look at this behavior as a gross disservice to the profession, and that such gross disservice warrants being disbarred. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about state bar associations being able to control this misconduct.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  The trouble with this is the state of the law and the power dynamics in play. It's almost impossible to prove that charges were "absurdly trumped up" because there are so many outrageously broad felonies on the books and prosecutors are clever enough to choose ones that at least vaguely resemble what the defendants were actually doing. Meanwhile you have to protect prosecutors who attempt to prosecute politically powerful defendants from the defendants using their political power to retaliate against the prosecutor. Which means that prosecutors have a lot of discretion and bar associations, while theoretically capable of taking action, generally won't. At the end of the day it's the "who watches the watchers" problem. Prosecutors are the ones supposed to be prosecuting misconduct. Who are we going to get to prosecute them, and how is it we can trust them to do it when they ought to and not when they ought not to, any more than we can trust the original prosecutors? The answer has to be in taking away the ability to abuse the law by taking away the broad prohibitions with high penalties that prosecutors are so fond of abusing. There is no call for a non-violent offender to be made a felon in any but the most exceptional and rare of cases, which means that the law should make it nearly impossible for a prosecutor to make that case. It is not necessary to use the penal system to destroy the life of everyone who makes a wrong decision; particularly when structuring things that way also allows it to destroy the lives of everyone who makes a reasoned decision to resist the status quo.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    Any sort of Terrorism charges for glitter or a banner protest are clearly absurd.
midas007 13y ago
Three Felonies a Day seems to be par for the course. https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-June/008810.html https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-J...
lafar6502 13y ago
Well, you need to be prepared for such things when you want to play politics. In some places you can be beaten by police, in 'more democratic' countries you'll be thrown into legal repression machine.
seanccox 13y ago
As Jay Gould put it: "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." The police have been and will remain the hired half...
noonespecial 13y ago
And so we've arrived. A terrorist is now anyone you happen to disagree with (who also happens to be politically weaker than you). Now we find out how monumentally bad all of those 'special' anti-terrorism laws we let slip into being over the last decade truly are. We're all terrorists now.
Fuxy 13y ago
That's why when i see "terrorists were arrested" in the news i think yea right... you mean people who don't share the powers views and may or may not be violent. The word "terrorist" has lost its meaning to me since just about everyone not doing as they're told are classified as a terrorist now. It's just another buzzword that has lost all its original meaning.
vampirechicken 13y ago
People with power will do everything they can to keep their power. That includes pepper spraying peaceful protesters, forbidding them form using public address systems, or yes, charging people with terrorism in order to stifle descent. It is sad, but not surprising.

240 points by rwissmann 13y ago

I hope that the judge hearing this case dismisses it in its entirety during the preliminary hearing. How is this even possible?

sp332 13y ago
I hope the judge rips the prosecutor a new one too. Edit: if the prosecutor doesn't smack the cops upside the head first!
- ericcumbee 13y ago
  I think your jumping the gun. From reading that article, it sounds like the Police are holding them on those charges. It does not sound it's made it to the prosecutor yet. The police can arrest you on charges, but it is up to the prosecutor if they actually want to prosecute.
  - swalkergibson 13y ago
    It would appear that Stefan Warner has been formally charged, arraigned, and bail set at $1,000 on one count of a terrorism hoax. I did not look up the other woman, but I assume that she has also been charged formally. http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=3070317&db=Oklahoma http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp...
    - ericcumbee 13y ago
      That record looks fairly sparse. I think the default behavior is that they move forward like they will prosecute until a decision has been made not to.
    - sp332 13y ago
      That says a judge has been appointed to determine probable cause in the arrest. According to http://www.oklahomacounty.org/Judges/page/Judge-Russell-Hall.aspx http://www.oklahomacounty.org/Judges/page/Judge-Russell-Hall... that judge calls 45,000 cases per year - that's a case every 20 minutes 24x7. One imagines he has a low tolerance for people wasting his time.
      - Crito 13y ago
        With that sort of throughput, I have to wonder if he even has the time to determine if people are wasting his time.
    - andygates 13y ago
      It seems to me there's a clear difference between a "terrorism hoax" and "jumping at shadows", just waiting to be clearly exploited by their counsel...
wmeredith 13y ago
I think there is a line from the political satire comedy series Veep on HBO that answers your question nicely. It's a sage piece of advice offered to the Vice President from a Senator she's asking to help her with some PR on an Oil issue: "...you don’t want to fuck with [big oil] because they fuck in a very unpleasant fashion." It's a really well written (if extremely vulgar) show. Art imitates life, life imitates art, etc...

migrantgeek 13y ago

This is exactly what should happen. The success of any protest is based on media coverage. If no one was arrested, this wouldn't have been a story. If this coverage reaches a few who are willing to get arrested for the cause, they'll launch additional protests hoping for more exposure. If protesters manage to keep themselves in the news cycle, they may actually make a difference.

sp332 13y ago
Maybe the protesters who locked themselves in a doorway were looking for coverage, but it looks like the two who hung up the banner weren't interested in making a story.
kelnos 13y ago
There's a line, though. On one side you have the risk of serious trumped-up felony charges that can land you in prison and make you basically unemployable. On the other side you have an arrest and release with no charges filed. If the likelihood of the former is too high, the gov't might succeed in frightening away enough would-be protesters.
grecy 13y ago
Imagine what will happen if they are found guilty and actually get a 10 year sentence. Every single person will think twice about attending a protest next time, which would be the end of democracy (if it isn't already gone in the USA)
- greenyoda 13y ago
  It will probably never happen, since if the charges aren't dropped, dozens of prominent civil rights lawyers will probably offer to defend these guys pro bono. And it would be hard to convince a jury that these guys actually intended to perpetrate a terrorism hoax. Who'd believe that someone could mistake glitter that fell off a sign for a dangerous substance?
  - 1457389 13y ago

njharman 13y ago

It's sadly ironic that the enforcement of and (I cynically believe) the purpose behind most anti-terrorism laws is to terrorize protesters, malcontents, and others the "established power structure" deems embarrassing. Terrorize them with the threat of immense punishment, travel hassles, etc. Keeping them quiet and complacent.

VladRussian2 13y ago
it isn't surprising if you know about ALEC and in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#Animal_and_Ecological_Terrorism_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_C... Why the representatives you sent to DC and state capitols are happily voting for AETA-style bills instead of, say, proposing and voting for anti-AETA bills, for example something like "reaffirming and extending the 1st Amendment rights" bills and/or the bills that would treat as a terrorism any assault on the [at least Constitutional] rights of protesters?
mcantelon 13y ago
The War on Terror is, to a large extent, about creating a domestic counter-insurgence apparatus in the US. Perhaps there are changes coming that necessitate, from the perspective of those in power, this level of control over the population.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  like another orchestrated terrorist attack similar to 9/11 this time created by left/right wing domestic "terrorists" ? If they could pull off 9/11, I'm sure they can do that again with domestic "enemy". But then what's the purpose? Why to do that? Usually, not to loose power. But they are in the power all the time anyway (military/industrial complex). So, what gives?
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    They are an established power, but they've still had to deal with societal friction in response to their actions. This slows them down as they attempt to compete with other global factions. Hence the need to lessen societal friction by making things more "expensive" to those who gum up the works for them. And yeah, more "strategy of tension" operations wouldn't be surprising.

rayiner 13y ago

Obviously this is unbelievable and I hope it's quickly dismissed. But unfortunately, environmental protestors have been putting up with this sort of shit, often at the behest of energy and agricultural companies, for decades.

SwellJoe 13y ago

I never realized just how bad the situation was until I got involved more seriously in activism. Two and a half years into being politically active enough to never go more than a week or two without some form of protest (which could take the form of a march or rally, or an Overpass Light Brigade, or helping organize a cryptoparty, hosting documentary movie nights, helping with direct action training, etc.), I now have literally dozens of friends who have been charged with felonies. These are among the sweetest, and gentlest, people I know. Some are barely older than children (the youngest person I know charged with a felony was 19 when she was charged with "Use of a criminal instrument" for locking her arm to a fellow protesters arm using a device suggested and made for them by a team of undercover Austin Police Department officers). It is completely transparent, to me, that these laws and these tactics, are tools of oppression. They are not "to keep us safe", and never were. They are designed to make dissent as dangerous as possible through every means they can get away with. It includes violent, or at least threatening, police presence at any protest of significance (which means many populations cannot safely express dissent; anyone with warrants, regardless of what they are for, has no free speech because they will be snatched from a protest, anyone who is an undocumented immigrant has no free speech because they will be snatched, etc.). It includes violent arrest tactics; police are trained in "pain compliance" techniques, which include spraying pepper spray into protesters eyes, and forcing their eyes open to do so. It includes widespread spying at the local, state, and federal level, as well as spying by corporations like Stratfor. It includes charging activists with laws intended for violent terrorists, so that arrest is no longer a minor inconvenience, but a life-altering event. When non-violent activists are facing years in prison, for causing nothing more than minor temporary inconvenience, something is horribly broken. I suspect most Americans would be disgusted by all of this, if they were really aware of it. But, it's not very frequently reported in mainstream media. I only know about it because I know some of the people involved and follow activist-oriented news sources.

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>It is completely transparent, to me, that these laws and these tactics, are tools of oppression. They are not "to keep us safe", and never were. They are designed to make dissent as dangerous as possible through every means they can get away with. It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism. I think that in itself is a more significant indication of how hopeless the situation in America is. It underlines the main reason why serious social change is so difficult. Put it simply: the government exists to protect the interests of corporations and wealthy people. Dissent of any kind challenges the status quo and therefore must be discouraged and quelled by any means necessary. The rights of "The People" (i.e. the poor) mean jack shit, because The People only exist to make the rich richer. This has been the case since the country's founding. This is not to say that change is impossible. But, historically, the only time meaningful change has happened is when there was overwhelming social pressure. We aren't talking about petty (and for the most part meaningless) activism here and there. We're talking about social dissent of such magnitude that it threatens to become a revolution. Only in such times has the establishment allowed any sort of concession.

zobzu 13y ago

yep, if you're not doing whatever some powerful man wants, you're a terrorist. That's what you get for allowing anti terrorist laws. They were never anti terrorist. They're anti american laws. Bad luck, other countries quickly copied this fantastic idea.

steven2012 13y ago

This police state we are living in currently will only end once we vote in politicians that actually care about the politician. We can decide as a society whether or not we want to get distracted by things like gay marriage, abortion, swift boats, birth certificates, or if we care about things like liberty and freedom. But it's up to us. We voted in these monsters, and we need to vote them out.

rch 13y ago

Are there any resources or groups dedicated to getting ahead of overzealous prosecutions like this? I know there are options one somebody has fallen victim to a misguided process, but it would be nice if there was a constructive effort to make sure law enforcement maintains some perspective from the onset.

adventured 13y ago
The ACLU for one. It's a hugely challenging problem these days however, for a group like the ACLU they're like a dinghy boat floating around in a hurricane.

bhewes 13y ago

I know Devon Energy pretty well. I know they have a strong PR department and their is no way they want this to be blown up. They need the Keystone XL pipeline built. My guess is this is a case of overzealous security guards and OKC police. Time will tell though.

SwellJoe 13y ago
Obviously, they don't want media coverage. But, I think you're misunderstanding how they'll go about it. The companies behind Keystone XL, have exerted tremendous efforts to have protesters charged under terrorism laws. There have been training sessions for local police departments, put on by TransCanada and energy companies that want to see fracking continue unhindered. Those sessions teach small-town police departments about military tactics for attacking protesters, causing them harm, and how to most effectively charge them with huge laundry lists of offenses. Media rarely covers this stuff no matter what police and corporations do.
- bhewes 13y ago
  As far as Keystone XL and other pipelines across the country the training programs are for actual terrorist attacks. An attack on a pipeline is a mess if local law enforcement does not know how to deal with it. I remember sitting in my dad's office looking at a pipeline map and asking him who "protected" all of it? At the time his response was no one. Anyway's the mess in Oklahoma City had to deal with four people at the Devon Tower downtown. If protesters get anywhere near pipelines or fracking zones, well there is pretty long history of legal action against people trespassing on energy production sites. It is whole new territory charging people for protesting at corporate office building under a "terrorism hoax" law in the State of Oklahoma that has not even been tested. And if this actual goes to trial there will be strong media and legal coverage. Of that much I am certain. <update> The state of Oklahoma has historically gone after activist groups. The IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) & Green Corn Rebellion being the extreme examples.

malandrew 13y ago

It really ought to be an ethics violation investigateable by a state bar association if a prosecutor pulls a stunt like using absurdly trumped up charges. AFAICT, at the end of the day, state bar associations have the power to reign in prosecutorial abuses like this one. Prosecutors like this are actively harming the pursuit of justice, and I can't see how any group of peers (i.e. lawyers who vary in area of specialization) would not look at this behavior as a gross disservice to the profession, and that such gross disservice warrants being disbarred. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about state bar associations being able to control this misconduct.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
The trouble with this is the state of the law and the power dynamics in play. It's almost impossible to prove that charges were "absurdly trumped up" because there are so many outrageously broad felonies on the books and prosecutors are clever enough to choose ones that at least vaguely resemble what the defendants were actually doing. Meanwhile you have to protect prosecutors who attempt to prosecute politically powerful defendants from the defendants using their political power to retaliate against the prosecutor. Which means that prosecutors have a lot of discretion and bar associations, while theoretically capable of taking action, generally won't. At the end of the day it's the "who watches the watchers" problem. Prosecutors are the ones supposed to be prosecuting misconduct. Who are we going to get to prosecute them, and how is it we can trust them to do it when they ought to and not when they ought not to, any more than we can trust the original prosecutors? The answer has to be in taking away the ability to abuse the law by taking away the broad prohibitions with high penalties that prosecutors are so fond of abusing. There is no call for a non-violent offender to be made a felon in any but the most exceptional and rare of cases, which means that the law should make it nearly impossible for a prosecutor to make that case. It is not necessary to use the penal system to destroy the life of everyone who makes a wrong decision; particularly when structuring things that way also allows it to destroy the lives of everyone who makes a reasoned decision to resist the status quo.
- grey-area 13y ago
  Any sort of Terrorism charges for glitter or a banner protest are clearly absurd.

midas007 13y ago

Three Felonies a Day seems to be par for the course. https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-June/008810.html https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-J...

lafar6502 13y ago

Well, you need to be prepared for such things when you want to play politics. In some places you can be beaten by police, in 'more democratic' countries you'll be thrown into legal repression machine.

seanccox 13y ago

As Jay Gould put it: "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." The police have been and will remain the hired half...

noonespecial 13y ago

And so we've arrived. A terrorist is now anyone you happen to disagree with (who also happens to be politically weaker than you). Now we find out how monumentally bad all of those 'special' anti-terrorism laws we let slip into being over the last decade truly are. We're all terrorists now.

Fuxy 13y ago

That's why when i see "terrorists were arrested" in the news i think yea right... you mean people who don't share the powers views and may or may not be violent. The word "terrorist" has lost its meaning to me since just about everyone not doing as they're told are classified as a terrorist now. It's just another buzzword that has lost all its original meaning.

vampirechicken 13y ago

People with power will do everything they can to keep their power. That includes pepper spraying peaceful protesters, forbidding them form using public address systems, or yes, charging people with terrorism in order to stifle descent. It is sad, but not surprising.