Refusal to testify, free speech, anarchy, etc.

[Indium Flappers]

Please tell me you guys are not ok with this sort of thing.

Plante had been summoned to Seattle by a federal subpoena, delivered to her in the early hours of July 25, when the FBI raided her home—one of several raids in Seattle and Portland in the past couple of months. FBI agents, she said, smashed through her front door with a battering ram with assault rifles drawn, "looking paramilitary." According to a copy of the warrant, agents were looking for black clothing, paint, sticks, flags, computers and cell phones, and "anti-government or anarchist literature."

...

Nowadays, Fox said, grand juries are often used by prosecutors and investigators who have run out of leads. But grand juries are secret, so it's difficult to know what the prosecutor is really doing. And the effects of raids and subpoenas like the ones in Seattle and Portland may be more about putting on the dramatic public spectacle of dragging people through the mud than investigating a crime.

Doug Honig, communications director at ACLU of Washington, echoed Fox's concerns: "If it's not carefully conducted, it can end up becoming a fishing expedition looking into people's political views and political associations."

...

"That's a really important point," Potter said when I mentioned that detail. "There's a huge disconnect between what the FBI and local police are being told and trained for, and what the reality is. There are presentations about ominous, nihilistic, black-clad, bomb-throwing, turn-of-the-century caricatures—the reality is that many anarchists are just organizing gathering spaces, free libraries, free neighborhood kitchens."

From here.

Also, a similar story from Reason tv: Tortured for Testimony: Anarchists Get Solitary Confinement for Not Snitching

I note that the first story is dated April 8th 2012, and the second April 9th 2013. So, in a year we go from merely seeing police raids on witnesses' homes, explicitly looking for political literature, to actually locking witnesses up in solitary confinement for refusing to testify. (For, let me be clear, refusing to testify in a case of vandalism.)

[Doug]

(For, let me be clear, refusing to testify in a case of vandalism.)

Vandalism of a courthouse.

Look, we did PAGES AND PAGES of anarchy roast in the early days of this discussion board. See the earlier threads.

Frankly, I'm not interested in bothering to roast this anarchy nonsense anymore. Been there. Done that.

[Indium Flappers]

(For, let me be clear, refusing to testify in a case of vandalism.)

Vandalism of a courthouse.

Look, we did PAGES AND PAGES of anarchy roast in the early days of this discussion board. See the earlier threads.

Frankly, I'm not interested in bothering to roast this anarchy nonsense anymore. Been there. Done that.

I've read some of the earlier threads. Would you be willing to go on the record as saying that you are ok with the people who refused to testify against someone who vandalized a courthouse being locked in solitary confinement for two months. Yes or no?

[David Franks]

I note that the first story is dated April 8th 2012, and the second April 9th 2013. So, in a year we go from merely seeing police raids on witnesses' homes, explicitly looking for political literature, to actually locking witnesses up in solitary confinement for refusing to testify. (For, let me be clear, refusing to testify in a case of vandalism.)

I note that your assertion that government is just getting worse and worse ignores almost 100% of the relevant data.

Would you be willing to go on the record as saying that you are ok with the people who refused to testify against someone who vandalized a courthouse being locked in solitary confinement for two months. Yes or no?

Would you be willing to go on the record as saying that it would have been better to lynch everybody involved and get it over with?

If I were in prison, I would probably prefer solitary confinement. There's a lot less murder, rape, and mindless make-work to put up with. But then I'm probably better company for myself than a lot of people are.

[Indium Flappers]

I would go on the record as saying that the witnesses, once they testified that they were not present during the crime, and once this was proven and known to be true, and once they then refused to testify further, should have been released and allowed to go home.

And for the imaginary audience at the back of the imaginary room that is still curious about what I think, I'd further go on the record as saying that anyone who has not violently attacked another sentient being, stolen or damaged someone's justly owned property, or defrauded someone out of their just property, ought to be left alone to go about their lives in peace. If there are exceptions to this, I can't think of them.

[Dardedar]

Frankly, I'm not interested in bothering to roast this anarchy nonsense anymore.

I'll go on the record for having complete agreement with that.

[ps484]

I would go on the record as saying that the witnesses, once they testified that they were not present during the crime, and once this was proven and known to be true, and once they then refused to testify further, should have been released and allowed to go home.

And for the imaginary audience at the back of the imaginary room that is still curious about what I think, I'd further go on the record as saying that anyone who has not violently attacked another sentient being, stolen or damaged someone's justly owned property, or defrauded someone out of their just property, ought to be left alone to go about their lives in peace. If there are exceptions to this, I can't think of them.

I agree, why would witnesses who were not even present, not be allowed to go home?

[David Franks]

I agree, why would witnesses who were not even present, not be allowed to go home?

Indium Flappers (Hey-- that would be a good name for a band!) consistently referred to them as witnesses, even after he got around to mentioning that they weren't present during the crime. Were they witnesses, or weren't they?

If one goes by the indications herein of the deleterious effects on a discussion of anarchy in commenting, anarchy is entirely deleterious.

So much for that.

[Indium Flappers]

I would go on the record as saying that the witnesses, once they testified that they were not present during the crime, and once this was proven and known to be true, and once they then refused to testify further, should have been released and allowed to go home.

And for the imaginary audience at the back of the imaginary room that is still curious about what I think, I'd further go on the record as saying that anyone who has not violently attacked another sentient being, stolen or damaged someone's justly owned property, or defrauded someone out of their just property, ought to be left alone to go about their lives in peace. If there are exceptions to this, I can't think of them.

I agree, why would witnesses who were not even present, not be allowed to go home?

Thanks. At least someone in the world agrees.

I agree, why would witnesses who were not even present, not be allowed to go home?

Indium Flappers (Hey-- that would be a good name for a band!) consistently referred to them as witnesses, even after he got around to mentioning that they weren't present during the crime. Were they witnesses, or weren't they?

If I remember correctly, (been a while), the judge called them in to testify before a grand jury. It's in that sense that I called them "witnesses", not in the sense that they actually witnessed the events that took place. I believe they were supposed to be "witnessing" as to the political views of some of the people who had been present at the event during which someone vandalized the court house. Don't we call people who are called to testify before a jury "witnesses", just as a normal matter of speaking? What should I have called them? "Testificants"?

I'd depended on people reading the article and watching the video before forming an opinion, and was speaking in that context. In future discussions elsewhere I guess I'll try and explain things more carefully.

If one goes by the indications herein of the deleterious effects on a discussion of anarchy in commenting, anarchy is entirely deleterious.

So much for that.

I guess you're saying the board has anarchy in commenting because the mods let people post opinions different from those on the board?

Anyways, I posted the topic, (and the topics on jury nullification and the NSA stuff,) in an attempt to gauge how close others on this board were to me in their emotional responses to various things. Investigation was my purpose, not persuasion.

Also, yeah, it could be a good name for a band I guess.

[David Franks]

Also, yeah, it could be a good name for a band I guess.

Although I can't quite shake the image of Gene Simmons' tongue, I can't wait to see the logo in the bass drum.