Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

Then they'll be fine. If they weren't even in the city, they can hardly be indicted for crimes committed in the city.

I'm sure they'll be fine after 18 months in solitary confinement...

And I do admit that all the writing on this that I've seen was biased in nature, but it still seems like these three are being questioned for everything they know about other anarchists and activism in general in the area... not just about this specific crime that is supposedly being investigated.

[sluissa]

Okay, were the three people who were arrested not in Seattle? or were the people they were asking about not in the city? Even if those three weren't in Seattle at the time doesn't mean they don't know anything about what was going on. If they were part of the same organization than it stands to reason they might know something about what was going on that day and who was involved.

[palsch]

And I do admit that all the writing on this that I've seen was biased in nature, but it still seems like these three are being questioned for everything they know about other anarchists and activism in general in the area... not just about this specific crime that is supposedly being investigated.

As sluissa said, this is a grand jury investigation that appears to have a broad scope.

The purpose of a grand jury is to investigate *something* to determine what individuals can be charged with what crimes. Sometimes these investigations are nebulous, focused on general groups or organisations rather than any particular events or individuals.

In this case it seems it's a grand jury investigating general violent crime related to anarchist groups in the Pacific Northwest.

I would note that these specific people had specific crimes (even if not their own) they were being questioned about. That is, the property damage at the protest and the federal crime of crossing state lines in order to riot. Something in the investigation suggested these people might have information related to those crimes, so they were subpoenaed to testify.

It's possible a that intimidation of such groups was a (misguided) element of this decision, and that the investigation has illiberal intentions. But given the public facts about this it looks pretty much the same as due process from here.

[SalmonGod]

That's the very definition of political persecution, though.  "We're launching an investigation into an entire political belief to see if any of them have committed crimes."  In principle, that's exactly like racial profiling.  If a democrat or republican ever commits a crime and their political organizations are investigated in the same manner, I'll no longer complain.

Of course, this all rests on the strong impression that the scope of this investigation goes beyond the specific vandalisms on May Day, which may or may not be true.  I don't really have a problem with law enforcement of a specific crime... although the involvement of the Joint Terrorism Task Force is  highly questionable and the ability to hold someone who has committed no crime in solitary confinement for 18 months (which has a 100% likelihood of causing permanent psychological trauma) is absolutely horrendous.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They have reason to believe that this anarchist group was the primary initiator of the May Day crimes, which means that an investigation into the group is not only the appropriate course of action but perhaps the only course of action.

Chapters of the Republicans and Democrats have been investigated before, usually for voter fraud if I recall correctly.

It isn't like the organization is being outlawed, and if the investigation, being an investigation, finds that the members didn't actually do anything, then nothing more will happen here.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I honestly don't give a damn if the US government 'discriminates' against terrorist [in this case a joke of an anarcho-liberal commune] groups. It's because there's previous precedent for them to follow: you do not simply ignore organizations like these since if something were to occur there would be bays for blood, and their aggressive actions [possibly even further aggressive plans, but we do not know since the conspirators won't talk] only serve help their justification of acting in such a way towards the anarchists.

Our judicial system isn't the way you think it is. Honestly, you can't keep screeching about how the government is irredeemably corrupt whilst you're talking about a transparent operation with the details of it all over the damn internet.

It isn't like the organization is being outlawed, and if the investigation, being an investigation, finds that the members didn't actually do anything, then nothing more will happen here.

[SalmonGod]

And now you're equating vandalism with terrorism...

Chapters of the Republicans and Democrats have been investigated before, usually for voter fraud if I recall correctly.

But I sincerely doubt their doors were kicked in, most of their possessions confiscated, and people thrown into extended solitary confinement.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

And now you're equating vandalism with terrorism...

Okay. What is the next plan after you intimidate the local authorities with vandalism? Everyone gathers hands? Or do you continue similar actions since the original violent action was successful?

[SalmonGod]

And now you're equating vandalism with terrorism...

Okay. What is the next plan after you intimidate the local authorities with vandalism? Everyone gathers hands? Or do you continue similar actions since the original violent action was successful?

I'm not defending the action, but I'm also not accepting the argument that because someone has committed a smaller crime you can go ahead and assign them a label associated with much larger crimes.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Chapters of the Republicans and Democrats have been investigated before, usually for voter fraud if I recall correctly.

But I sincerely doubt their doors were kicked in, most of their possessions confiscated, and people thrown into extended solitary confinement.

The police had a search warrant, the possessions are evidence if the suspected crime turns out to be legit, and she was thrown into solitary confinement because she refused to speak to a grand jury after being granted total immunity from prosecution.

You may not like that she had a legal obligation to participate in this, but the justice system will never go anywhere if it is a totally voluntary system.

[SalmonGod]

Chapters of the Republicans and Democrats have been investigated before, usually for voter fraud if I recall correctly.

But I sincerely doubt their doors were kicked in, most of their possessions confiscated, and people thrown into extended solitary confinement.

The police had a search warrant, the possessions are evidence if the suspected crime turns out to be legit, and she was thrown into solitary confinement because she refused to speak to a grand jury after being granted total immunity from prosecution.

You may not like that she had a legal obligation to participate in this, but the justice system will never go anywhere if it is a totally voluntary system.

No.  What I don't like is that they're receiving the fullest possible force of the law because their political beliefs are disfavored.  They don't have to carry out procedure in the most harmful manner possible, and they wouldn't do so if investigating a more mainstream organization.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

And now you're equating vandalism with terrorism...

Okay. What is the next plan after you intimidate the local authorities with vandalism? Everyone gathers hands? Or do you continue similar actions since the original violent action was successful?

I'm not defending the action, but I'm also not accepting the argument that because someone has committed a smaller crime you can go ahead and assign them a label associated with much larger crimes.

Ter·ror·ism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


There's left wing terrorism too, friend.

[Nadaka]

And now you're equating vandalism with terrorism...

Okay. What is the next plan after you intimidate the local authorities with vandalism? Everyone gathers hands? Or do you continue similar actions since the original violent action was successful?

I'm not defending the action, but I'm also not accepting the argument that because someone has committed a smaller crime you can go ahead and assign them a label associated with much larger crimes.

Ter·ror·ism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Thank you. The Grand Jury are clearly terrorists.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No.  What I don't like is that they're receiving the fullest possible force of the law because their political beliefs are disfavored.  They don't have to carry out procedure in the most harmful manner possible, and they wouldn't do so if investigating a more mainstream organization.

Until you have anything to back that up besides the assertions of some radical news blogs, I don't see us going anywhere with this.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Thank you. The Grand Jury are clearly terrorists.

And, pray tell, what were the motivations for the vandalism? And: do you agree with attacking federal buildings to attempt to sway public opinion in your way?