Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No. The three who are (and now, were) in custody were supposed to testify before a Grand Jury concerning the May Day riot as part of an investigation into whether or not a trial needs to be held concerning it. The three themselves were not in danger of self-incrimination due to being preemptively granted immunity, which also removes their ability to legally not testify.

All they had to do was recount the events to the Grand Jury. They even theoretically could have lied and there likely would have been no way to prove it. But they refused to speak entirely and thus were in contempt of the Grand Jury, which is one of the only things (if not the only thing) that can result in coercive imprisonment for a maximum of 18 months.

The confiscated political materials were taken because if there was indeed a need for a trial, proof of the group's ideology would be evidence.

[SalmonGod]

All they had to do was recount the events to the Grand Jury. They even theoretically could have lied and there likely would have been no way to prove it. But they refused to speak entirely and thus were in contempt of the Grand Jury, which is one of the only things (if not the only thing) that can result in coercive imprisonment for a maximum of 18 months.

They can't recount events for which they were not present.  I haven't seen anything stating that they refused to talk at all, either.  All I've seen is that they refuse to identify other anarchists and provide tactically useful information about the local activism scene.  Coincidentally, that's exactly the only information they're useful for, since they weren't present at the May Day protests.

The confiscated political materials were taken because if there was indeed a need for a trial, proof of the group's ideology would be evidence.

Like a Quran could be used as ideological proof in a terrorism investigation?  Because all muslims are terrorists, right?  Just like all anarchists are vandals.

[Gantolandon]

No. The three who are (and now, were) in custody were supposed to testify before a Grand Jury concerning the May Day riot as part of an investigation into whether or not a trial needs to be held concerning it. The three themselves were not in danger of self-incrimination due to being preemptively granted immunity, which also removes their ability to legally not testify.

All they had to do was recount the events to the Grand Jury. They even theoretically could have lied and there likely would have been no way to prove it. But they refused to speak entirely and thus were in contempt of the Grand Jury, which is one of the only things (if not the only thing) that can result in coercive imprisonment for a maximum of 18 months.

The confiscated political materials were taken because if there was indeed a need for a trial, proof of the group's ideology would be evidence.

The important part is why the three of anarchists who were supposed to testify were in custody in the first place, if they were not even present during the event where the alleged crime took place. If they were not suspects, then why the hell they were imprisoned and their materials confiscated as evidence? Or is it normal in the USA to detain someone on the basis of his political affiliation, then repeating the process until someone who is guilty is found?

Also something is really fucked up with the American law, if you are supposed to out other anarchists (when being one is not a crime) or face jail time. Could they also asked them to tell which of them are Jews or homosexuals?

[sluissa]

No. The three who are (and now, were) in custody were supposed to testify before a Grand Jury concerning the May Day riot as part of an investigation into whether or not a trial needs to be held concerning it. The three themselves were not in danger of self-incrimination due to being preemptively granted immunity, which also removes their ability to legally not testify.

All they had to do was recount the events to the Grand Jury. They even theoretically could have lied and there likely would have been no way to prove it. But they refused to speak entirely and thus were in contempt of the Grand Jury, which is one of the only things (if not the only thing) that can result in coercive imprisonment for a maximum of 18 months.

The confiscated political materials were taken because if there was indeed a need for a trial, proof of the group's ideology would be evidence.

The important part is why the three of anarchists who were supposed to testify were in custody in the first place, if they were not even present during the event where the alleged crime took place. If they were not suspects, then why the hell they were imprisoned and their materials confiscated as evidence? Or is it normal in the USA to detain someone on the basis of his political affiliation, then repeating the process until someone who is guilty is found?

Also something is really fucked up with the American law, if you are supposed to out other anarchists (when being one is not a crime) or face jail time. Could they also asked them to tell which of them are Jews or homosexuals?

They were subpoenaed. Under normal circumstances, all this involves is that you are forced to get up in front of a jury, answer some questions and then you go on your way. The ONLY reason they were imprisoned (for a really reasonable amount of time) is that they refused to answer those questions.

And again... nobody has ever said being an anarchist is a crime... simply that doing illegal activities, no matter your affiliation, is a crime. In May, there were some people who, while not identifiying themselves, identified as anarchists. They caused a decently large amount of property damage(at the very least). Now, since they couldn't pick out who exactly was involved in the damage causing, what do they do? They go find people who ARE known anarchists and then ask them about it. It's the same exact thing as asking around a neighborhood for witnesses to a crime or contacting the friends of someone they're looking for to ask if they've had any contact with them.

The only difference in this case is you have people who have a political motivation to make the judicial system, and government as a whole look as bad as possible. Likely this means they hyperbolize every little thing that's asked of them or done to them. They also have a somewhat decent support structure in place which allows them to get their message of pity and martyrism out.

American law is fucked up, but not in this case. What's happening makes sense if you actually pay attention to what's happening and don't get wrapped up in the emotional crap that's getting spewed on both sides of the argument.

[SalmonGod]

The ONLY reason they were imprisoned (for a really reasonable amount of time) is that they refused to answer those questions.

One has been released, and it's unclear if that's permanent.  Two more are still being held up to 18 months.

It's the same exact thing as asking around a neighborhood for witnesses to a crime or contacting the friends of someone they're looking for to ask if they've had any contact with them.

You say this as if kicking in someone's door, arresting them, gathering up their belongings, and bringing them to court is the same as casually asking around for information.

[sluissa]

It's the same exact thing as asking around a neighborhood for witnesses to a crime or contacting the friends of someone they're looking for to ask if they've had any contact with them.

You say this as if kicking in someone's door, arresting them, gathering up their belongings, and bringing them to court is the same as casually asking around for information.

The kicking in and arresting them came only AFTER the refusal to testify. EDIT: I was mistaken, the kicking in did occur first by Leah's account. Arresting still came after though.

[SalmonGod]

It's the same exact thing as asking around a neighborhood for witnesses to a crime or contacting the friends of someone they're looking for to ask if they've had any contact with them.

You say this as if kicking in someone's door, arresting them, gathering up their belongings, and bringing them to court is the same as casually asking around for information.

The kicking in and arresting them came only AFTER the refusal to testify.

I never saw this.  Care to show me?

According to Leah's statement, the door kicking and arresting was completely unexpected, and the first they heard of their role in this case.

[Reelya]

No, I'm talking about you not knowing anything about what you're defending and doing so simply because they're Liberals.

dude, they were waving bits of foam at the car. There weren't any dents or broken glass or anything. Not even a smashed side mirror.

Seriously if that's the best you got, it's not very convincing of crowd violence. Show me cars upside down and on fire then you might have a case.

[sluissa]

Yeah, I read her written statement and was confused on the order of events. Sorry. I was mistaken. In any case it's still understandable. If you do want to collect evidence, you don't give people warning and allow them to dispose of it first.

She, however, was not actually arrested on the 25th of July. Handcuffed while the police collected evidence, possibly, but I see nothing saying that she was actually arrested until October, after her contempt hearing.

Girl needs to learn how to organize her thoughts better.

I'll agree, that kicking in is a bit extreme, but it also, for better or worse, tends to be standard procedure, under the right circumstances, when collecting evidence. (Same thing happened to the Gizmodo reviewer that had a leaked iPhone 4 in their possession.)

Now, if she wants my solidarity in getting the police to repair her door(which I believe they usually do), then she's got it. Otherwise, the rest is her own fault.

[Eagle_eye]

Yeah, I read her written statement and was confused on the order of events. Sorry. I was mistaken. In any case it's still understandable. If you do want to collect evidence, you don't give people warning and allow them to dispose of it first.

She, however, was not actually arrested on the 25th of July. Handcuffed while the police collected evidence, possibly, but I see nothing saying that she was actually arrested until October, after her contempt hearing.

Girl needs to learn how to organize her thoughts better.

I'll agree, that kicking in is a bit extreme, but it also, for better or worse, tends to be standard procedure, under the right circumstances, when collecting evidence. (Same thing happened to the Gizmodo reviewer that had a leaked iPhone 4 in their possession.)

Now, if she wants my solidarity in getting the police to repair her door(which I believe they usually do), then she's got it. Otherwise, the rest is her own fault.

So because we can predict that something is going to be the result of our actions, and do it anyway, that means it's ok that it happened? The whole point of an action being moral is that you do it despite knowing you're going to suffer. Would you have sympathy for Rosa Parks when she was arrested? What about Daniel Ellsberg? They both knew what they were getting into. That doesn't mean it's acceptable.

[Reelya]

Looks like they let her out. Probably because the whole thing was a PR disaster for the government.

The other two are still being held. Plante is said to be "different" than the other two. More photogenic would be my assessment of how she's "different". Nobody's crying for that fat girl.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We found out they let her out a while back.

[sluissa]

Yeah, I read her written statement and was confused on the order of events. Sorry. I was mistaken. In any case it's still understandable. If you do want to collect evidence, you don't give people warning and allow them to dispose of it first.

She, however, was not actually arrested on the 25th of July. Handcuffed while the police collected evidence, possibly, but I see nothing saying that she was actually arrested until October, after her contempt hearing.

Girl needs to learn how to organize her thoughts better.

I'll agree, that kicking in is a bit extreme, but it also, for better or worse, tends to be standard procedure, under the right circumstances, when collecting evidence. (Same thing happened to the Gizmodo reviewer that had a leaked iPhone 4 in their possession.)

Now, if she wants my solidarity in getting the police to repair her door(which I believe they usually do), then she's got it. Otherwise, the rest is her own fault.

So because we can predict that something is going to be the result of our actions, and do it anyway, that means it's ok that it happened? The whole point of an action being moral is that you do it despite knowing you're going to suffer. Would you have sympathy for Rosa Parks when she was arrested? What about Daniel Ellsberg? They both knew what they were getting into. That doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Rosa Parks and Daniel Ellsberg weren't trying to protect the identities of violent criminals either. What the "resistors" are doing isn't moral, it's aiding and abetting helping criminals hide, or worse, it's a publicity stunt.

Edited because I don't fully understand the legal implications of "aiding and abetting" even after looking it up again. Was just using the/a popular meaning, but I realize that's probably not entirely accurate.

[Reelya]

Now, they had ample opportunity to arrest people in Seattle, they arrested quite a few, and not a single one is being paraded around as having links to any organized Anarchist group. If there were any links, you can be sure there would be some sort of hint that the media would be loudly presenting to justify the Leah-Lynn Plante case.

I'm kind of skeptical that organized politically aware Anarchist groups are behind most of this, because for a start, there really aren't that many of them. And, they are vastly outnumbered in the USA by right-wing anti-NWO types (Alex Jones types). There are plenty of right-wing conspiracy radio and cable shows, and not a single Anarchist one.

Where exactly are all the right-wing anti-NWO types during protests? I'm pretty sure they're there, but they probably get labeled "Anarchists" even though their worldview is diametrically opposed. They are even more hostile to the government than Anarchists are, and they also lack the pacifist ideology that pervades most educated Anarchism. Anarchists over a century ago, worked out that fighting violence with violence only strengthens the state by justifying crackdowns.

Smashing windows only hastens a police state, any Anarchist with any education knows this fact.

[SalmonGod]

Anarchy in America is really fractured.  There are many denominations and the web of which ones get along with each other is really tangled.  There are a few minor localized publications and a couple major websites I know of where all types gather and post news and essays and debate and organize.  There really isn't a good solidarity infrastructure for us here in America, and people who have made major efforts to unite and network anarchists across the country have been found dead.  There was a girl (can't remember her name just now and it would take some digging to find it) just a couple years ago who was traveling the country meeting with every activist group and anarchist she could find, trying to build up connections between them.  She was shot (in the back of the head, IIRC) on the street late at night and just left there.  There were no witnesses, and her death wasn't even investigated.

The people that form black blocs and smash things up are typically known as Insurrectionary Anarchists.  I wouldn't say they're always uneducated.  I'd say it's a phase that young anarchists go through, when they're energetic and frustration with the harmful behavior of powerful institutions is at its height.  They need an outlet.  I wouldn't say there's no value in that, either.  The alternative is to spend one's entire life feeling like a helpless victim.  I've seen articulate and educated arguments in the past that there are appropriate times for window smashing-type activities, and everyone needs to have the experience of surviving physical confrontation with the state and coming away from it knowing that they do have the power to succeed in direct action.  It builds confidence into all the other activities that one may participate in as an activist, most of which will not be window-smashing, even for an insurrectionary.

In a state as large and overbearingly powerful as the U.S., though, that is the only practical purpose for such acts.  Most people do understand that it heightens the police state.  Anarchists in Greece or Spain can get away with direct action through black blocs to challenge their enemies, and occasions like the murder of Alexandros Grigoropoulos are actually appropriate times for it, in my opinion.  America is different.  It's widely understood that vandalism has no place here right now.  I don't think it's much of a stretch at all to assume that the majority of black bloc vandalism that takes place in the U.S. is caused by agent provocateurs preying on the susceptibility of young, hotblooded anarchists, and such operations have been found out multiple times in the past.

And it's true that insane Alex Jones-inspired libertarian/anarcho-capitalist types are becoming frighteningly widespread in America right now, and have much more violent revolutionary sentiment about them than your average lefty anarchist... but they're all lumped together in the eyes of an outsider anyway.