HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » Kangaroo Court Looming fo...

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 07:30 PM

Kangaroo Court Looming for Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Critics

Three disarmament radicals that snuck into the Y-12 nuclear weapons complex last summer are preparing for their February 2013 trial, and face the prospect that any mention of nuclear weapons will be forbidden.

Y-12 is the 811-acre site in Oak Ridge, Tenn. that’s been building H-bombs and contaminating workers and the environment since 1943. On July 28, Sr. Megan Rice, Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed snipped through fences and walked up to the new Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility building. They unfurled banners, spray-painted the building with phrases such as “Woe to the empire of blood,” poured blood, prayed and broke bread.

Now they face felony charges that carry a maximum of $500,000 in fines and 15 years in prison. Additionally, in what looks like an attempt to scare them into pleading guilty now, federal prosecutors have mentioned bringing two heavier charges, including sabotage “during wartime,” which together carry up to 50 years imprisonment.

As with previous cases of symbolic damage to nuclear war systems, a kangaroo court is being arranged in advance. If the government gets its way again, the trial judge will keep facts about nuclear weapons away from the jurors and make sure that questions about the bomb’s outlaw status are left out of jury instructions. Instructions are the juror’s marching orders, the last thing they hear before starting deliberations.
...
via: http://www.zcommunications.org/kangaroo-court-looming-for-y-12-nuclear-weapons-critics-by-john-laforge

53 replies, 4883 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply Kangaroo Court Looming for Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Critics (Original post)
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 OP
MrModerate Nov 2012 #1
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #2
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #3
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #4
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #5
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #6
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #7
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #8
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #9
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #10
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #12
PETRUS Nov 2012 #14
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #16
PETRUS Nov 2012 #39
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #41
PETRUS Nov 2012 #42
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #45
PETRUS Nov 2012 #46
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #48
PETRUS Nov 2012 #50
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #17
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #23
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #31
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #34
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #37
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #38
Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #18
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #22
Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #24
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #25
Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #26
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #27
Confusious Nov 2012 #28
Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #30
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #33
Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #35
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #36
Confusious Nov 2012 #52
MrModerate Nov 2012 #11
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #13
MrModerate Nov 2012 #19
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #21
MrModerate Nov 2012 #29
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #32
PETRUS Nov 2012 #40
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #43
PETRUS Nov 2012 #44
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #47
PETRUS Nov 2012 #49
a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #51
PETRUS Nov 2012 #15
MrModerate Nov 2012 #20
bananas Nov 2012 #53

Response to limpyhobbler (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:43 AM

1. It's called "the rule of law" . . .

While the one heavier charge you mention is probably nonsense and certainly sounds like prosecutorial bullying, breaking into national security facilities — regardless of motive — is a serious felony.

The wickedness of atomic bombs is irrelevant under such laws, and the prosecutors would be remiss if they allowed such testimony to be admitted.

It's called "civil disobedience" for a reason, and while I understand the protestors using every ruse they and their lawyers can think of to gum up the legal works, maintaining the fiction that their (alleged) acts weren't criminal probably shouldn't be attempted outside the courtroom itself.

It ain't no kangaroo court, it's just a court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:17 PM

2. Should their motives be allowed in the defense? The fact that they did it as

part of an anti-nuclear political protest, surely that warrants some consideration. It's different than if they had been actual saboteurs, and it should be treated differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:20 PM

3. They breached a national security area...

 

Regardless of their motives... THEY BROKE THE LAW.

Why should their being part of a protest warrant them lighter conduct?

They're lucky they aren't dead. (Many nuclear/military facilities are authorized to shoot on sight.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:29 PM

4. So you support a gag order that forbids them from stating their motives in the crime.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

:^)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:40 PM

5. and thank YOU for putting words in my mouth...

 

Kind of a cheap play on your part, isn't it?

The facility is a secure/classified area. That means you can't talk about it, without violating national security. If I climb over the fence at everybody's favorite facility, Area 51 at Groom Lake - and somehow survive/escape to tell the tale - I don't get to talk about whatever I've seen. THAT'S THE LAW.

Here's a hint sparky: don't commit a crime, unless you are willing to face prison time. If you throw a rock through a window of a building you don't like, you may face charges of vandalism. It really doesn't matter what your motives were/are/will be. If you aren't willing to face jail time for your beliefs/values, then I suggest you avoid illegal tactics.

It's really starting to sound like most protesters think the law either doesn't or shouldn't apply to their own "noble" cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:43 PM

6. So you support gagging these protesters from raising their MOTIVES as part of their defense.

Isn't that right sir?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:02 PM

7. What point would voicing their motives serve?

 

They broke the law. They should pay the penalty.

YOU don't get to skip out of a penalty, just because you think your own motives are "pure."

Welcome to reality-land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:12 PM

8. The motives are part of their defense.

They should be allowed to present the best possible defense in court.

Why did you put the word "YOU" in all capital letters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:17 PM

9. okay then...

 

walking onto the property...breaking and entering or trespassing
spray painting walls...vandalism
pouring blood on the ground...vandalism/hate crime

so these folks should be released for saying the word NUCLEAR? FEH!

I put YOU in caps, as you seem to feel they should get off on the charges.

When someone breaks the law, and then whinges on about how they should be released from all charges becuase they did it in a "good cause," I consider it either rank cowardice, or delusional behavior.

That's just a disgrace to REAL protestors. Like Rev. King.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:24 PM

10. I didn't say any of those things. Only that they should be able to speak in their own defense.

They should be able to say the reasons why they took the actions.

That doesn't mean they will escape punishment for the alleged crime.

Do you understand the difference between those two concepts now?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:31 PM

12. I understand you have difficulty understanding the law.

 

Their reasons are unimportant... THEY BROKE THE LAW with no extenuating circumstances. NONE.

Give me a situation wherein pouring blood on private property would be justified.

If you act like a terrorist (breaking and entering with the goal of disrupting a critical infrastructure facility), why should anyone care about your motives? These characters are lucky to be alive.

Go back to school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:38 PM

14. The lawyer sitting next to me

...says that there's plenty of precedent for this kind of "affirmative defense." Although he also says that the article doesn't contain enough information for him to offer an opinion on this specific case.

It would be nice if "the rule of law" was applied consistently, but it's not. This is not a minor complaint. Also, it's not accurate to say they broke the law. The case has yet to be tried. One could say they allegedly broke the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:01 PM

16. Fair point.

 

I'll rephrase...

The allegedly violated local, state, and federal laws by:
...allegedly breaking and entering onto the premises.
...allegedly spray-painting graffiti onto the walls of the premises.
...allegedly pouring blood on the grounds of the premises.

Then we've got the issue of violating national security, to issue said affirmative defense, to got three idiots off of charges...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:39 PM

39. You've made an incorrect assumption.

I didn't say anything about whether or not they should be convicted or even the question of sentencing. I'm talking about the court proceedings. By design and by definition the courts are part of our political system. This was a political act. The prosecution is attempting to mask that and have it treated as a strictly criminal question. Fine, their role is to advocate, they're just doing their job. The question is how the judge will rule. When we were discussing it last night, my lawyer relative was careful to say that there could be details/technicalities that factor in, but all we had to go on is the article. So the conversation on this thread is more a political than a legal discussion and one's position is largely dependent upon personal views, e.g. how one feels about the cause, or whether one's impulses tend more towards authoritarianism or democracy. You and I clearly have different worldviews.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:11 PM

41. The difference in our worldviews seems to be that I play by the rules...

 

Also, I don't consider a lawbreaker to be automatically above the law, should they espouse supposedly "noble" goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #41)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:14 PM

42. In what sense am I not playing by the rules?

And when did I suggest that anyone is above the law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:28 PM

45. You seem to be willing to allow "noble reasons" to mitigate/abrogate the law.

 

If they wanted to just garner attention, they can set up a web-page, write a protest song (what the hell, write a symphony), make documentaries, create fantastic cake recipes...

Your right to protest STOPS at the security fence. You go over that line, you play by National Security rules. Part of that is not letting folks talk about bomb construction, the SIOP, etc.

These turkeys have no reasonable defense. They knew (or should have known) the legal risks (imprisonment/death).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #45)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:35 PM

46. You misunderstand me.

I think the full circumstances of the case should come to light in trial. If this crew did what they are accused of - and it seems likely they're not even contesting that - a guilty verdict would be appropriate. I don't think this kind of civil disobedience is particularly effective, but I don't think the character of the crime should be misrepresented in court either.

The article doesn't contain enough information for either one of us to know if the evidence the defense wants to enter should be considered admissible. We'd have to see it to judge. If your position is as I interpret it, you're categorically excluding it without due consideration, which would not be respecting the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:38 PM

48. They broke the law without extenuating circumstances.

 

Good enough for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #48)


Response to PETRUS (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:05 PM

17. If affirmative defense is typically

permitted, then the judge ought to have some justification for forbidding it beyond just "your reasons are not relevant".

I think it's reasonable to question whether the reason for muzzling the defense is that they just don't want it to turn into a media spectacle where the nuclear arsenal might come to public attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:28 PM

23. maybe the judge doesn't want to say "national security," to avoid a media spectacle...

 

and, technically, their reasons AREN'T relevant.

Nuclear facilities are pretty much "See something on the base? You can't talk about it. Don't like it? don't come over in the first place."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:37 PM

31. If the prosecution tried to stop the affirmative defense based on a national security claim,

then they would be asked to justify that claim of national security, which they could not, because there is no real national security claim, other than the fact that it will make the government look bad.

Some people may think that making the government look bad is a threat to national security, I suppose.

The defendants are not asking to reveal secrets they learned in a secret area, but rather they wish to give an affirmative defense as explained in the article.

They are not asking to talk about anything they "saw on base". You have made that baseless claim multiple times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #31)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:38 PM

34. limphobbler...

 

HOW is the "security breaching trio" any different any other "the ends justify the means" claim?

1.) By legal definition, nuclear facilities are national security sites. That means they don't have to arrest you. The security forces can just shoot you on sight. How do the local security forces and the LEOs know these guys aren't there to steal bomb parts?

2.) A defense is "why I am not guilty" or "I did it for a reason that makes my conduct not a crime, or a lesser crime." They trespassed and vandalized a secure government facility. It's kind of hard to picture a legal reason for such conduct.

It's a short set of jumps from violating national security, to "so-and-so has more money than we do! Let's break in and take half!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:50 PM

37. The only thing I'm talking about is whether they should be able to present an affirmative defense.

The person who wrote the article thinks it should be permitted, based on the reasons already stated.

You think they should not be able to present an affirmative defense, because of reasons you already stated.

1.) By legal definition, nuclear facilities are national security sites. That means they don't have to arrest you. The security forces can just shoot you on sight. How do the local security forces and the LEOs know these guys aren't there to steal bomb parts?
If you think it's ok for guards at this place to shoot trespassers on sight, I don't agree with you. I don't have the time to continue this kind of conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:53 PM

38. kind of figured that one...

 

I gotta say, I'm starting to wonder how many people on DU understand the idea of security, and facing consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:11 PM

18. You misunderstand the point of civil disobedience.

Please don't invoke MLK as though he would support your argument.

These protestors don't expect to be released of all charges. They expect their day in court and a fair trial and a chance for their case to be argued. They also likely expect to be found guilty and punished for some measure of charges.

One of the main purposes of civil disobedience is to have your chance to defend your actions *on the record* in a court of law. And likely to recieve media coverage that also presents the defendants' position.

No one here is whinging about how they should be released from all charges for this. Your deliberately misleading arguments are derailing the whole point of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:16 PM

22. and national security can override that "on the record"

 

perfectly constititional.

OP has yet to show the court is rigged.

Also... you want disarmament? Do it legally: take a page from PROTECT and form a single issue group. Scorecard each politician and use it as election leverage (vote our way, and we vote for YOU.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:49 PM

24. "National Security" has been used as an excuse for all sorts of

unconstitutional things in the last 12 years or so. Well, further back than that, but at unprecedented levels lately. So that argument doesn't work. Acting like our so-called justice system is fair is either naive or totally disingenuous.

As for a scorecard? Not worth the paper it is printed on, as very few candidates on either side of the aisle support significant disarmament measures. Change on this scale does not come from the ballot box. Just look at history. Politicians have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any real change to the status quo when it comes to defense, economics, etc. They are the last to join the bandwagon after people's movements have done all the work and given them no choice.

The greatest changes in this nation have come, in part, from citizens who are willing to break the law and risk arrest, jail time, police beatdowns, and sometimes even death, to draw attention and increase public support.

Do you support disarmament? Do you hate 82 year old nuns who have the courage to do stuff like this? Just asking, as long as loaded, irrelevant questions are on the table and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #24)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:11 AM

25. Go look up Protect - Vachss, and - separately - the NRA

 

Voting blocks work.

Thank you for the stirring "apple pie" speech in re "the greatest change..."

As to your loaded questions: it depends on what you mean by disarmament. Define it, and we'll talk. I don't hate nuns. I also don't hold them above the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:16 AM

26. You're not even trying

Vachss? NRA?

Yeah, I think you just hate nuns. *snicker*

Good day, sir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #26)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:26 AM

27. right...

 

a group of gun nuts gets most of their wish list, and that's not effective.
a group out to to protect kids, isn't effective.

You guys really need to get it together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #24)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:06 AM

28. Nukes have fallen under "national security"

For quite a long time now, so not really a good argument.

Do I support disarmament? If everyone does, sure.

But I doubt I'll be seeing NK or china disarming in my lifetime, if at all.

Let me know when these protesters go over to NK or china and try and have them lose the nukes.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:06 AM

30. I was throwing his question back at him

It is not the point of this thread. The article is about the courts.

And back to that- these people werent trying to steal state secrets, they aren't going to testify about things that will compromise national security. They just want to defend themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:16 PM

33. Cal...

 

"defending themselves" suggests that they have a defensible position.

The protestors don't have such.

Look, "self defense" is allowable to avoid sentencing for killing somebody else. "Your honor, I was in my house, the other party broke in and was brandishing a knife, while chanting 'blood and souls for my lord Arioch.'" That's a justifiable reason to break a law.

What's the reason to let these turkeys violate national security? The facility they trespassed on was a national security site. That means you don't get to talk about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #33)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:57 PM

35. Wow, who needs courts at all then?

I cant believe how far you are taking this, man. Do you hear yourself? Have you read the constitution? The accused get a day in court, they have a right to an attorney and defend themselves in court. No matter who, what, or how guilty. National security issues aside, you've taken it further and assigned yourself judge, jury, and possibly executioner.

Good god, listen to yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:28 PM

36. okay...here we go...

 

I cant believe how far you are taking this, man.




Do you hear yourself? Have you read the constitution?


Have you heard of the idea of being arrested for yelling "fire" in a theater? How about Jury direction? Maybe you've heard of the Secrecy Act?

The accused get a day in court, they have a right to an attorney and defend themselves in court. No matter who, what, or how guilty.


They are getting their day in court. Your histrionics aside, they have no defense. So far, what you are describing is the same as a bunch of malcontented teenagers not liking a construction project, so they sprayed grafitti on the bull dozers, and poured blood on the ground.

National security issues aside, you've taken it further and assigned yourself judge, jury, and possibly executioner.


Look, these turkeys want to talk about the evils of nuclear weapons. That doesn't give them the right to trespass or vandalize. National Security areas have the authority to shoot to kill...

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&sa=N&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&tbm=isch&tbnid=Ds3vCDLKCpPYnM:&imgrefurl=http://www.ebay.com/itm/No-Trespassing-AREA-51-Deadly-Force-Wall-Decor-Tin-Man-Cave-Laugh-Sign-/370643585184&docid=LuIughuffM1mMM&imgurl=http://i.ebayimg.com/t/No-Trespassing-AREA-51-Deadly-Force-Wall-Decor-Tin-Man-Cave-Laugh-Sign-/00/s/NzE5WDk2MA%253D%253D/%2524T2eC16F,!%290E9s37F,nhBQKSWKhKGQ~~60_35.JPG&w=300&h=224&ei=m1OxULrIEuS20QHhi4CoDw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=174&vpy=4&dur=2666&hovh=179&hovw=240&tx=112&ty=96&sig=101750165110097635745&page=1&tbnh=133&tbnw=167&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r,s:0,i:109&biw=1123&bih=528

the trial judge will keep facts about nuclear weapons away from the jurors


National Security. The whole "the jury would acquit" means that the writer of the article is okay with breaking laws, when he/she finds it convenient. Grow up and deal with the consequences of your actions.

Also, From the article...
The motion asks the court to forbid all evidence — even expert testimony — about “necessity, international law, Nuremberg Principles, First Amendment protections, the alleged immorality of nuclear weapons, good motive, religious moral or political beliefs regarding nuclear weapons, and the U.S. government’s policy regarding nuclear weapons.” The “basis” for excluding evidence regarding the threatened use of our H-bombs is that it is “not relevant.”


That sounds like these turkeys want a media circus. "Your honor, you can't convict me! I was breaking the law for a higher purpose!" That's the defense that's the "defense" that the clinic bombers use.

U.S. plans for nuclear warfare


That's discussing US Defense strategy, on record. That's violating National Security.

The article seems to feel that laws are only important when not interfering with a Good Cause.

That's a dangerous first step.

Were I the Judge/Jury/Executioner you say I've claimed, why are they still alive?

The mark of an adult is to make decisions, and live with the consequences - including the legal ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:30 PM

52. Well, you got a little off topic

So I was responding to the off-topic

you also stated "24. "National Security" has been used as an excuse for all sorts of unconstitutional things in the last 12 years or so."

Nukes have been "national security" for a long long time, so throwing '"National Security" has been used as an excuse' out really isn't a good argument.

I knew at 8 years old that entering a nuke facility would get you in a lot of trouble, and saying anything about nukes would get you in a lot of trouble.

Hell, I get nervous just looking them up on Wikipedia.

Sure, they should be allowed to say things in their defense, just as long as it has nothing to do with the insides or workings of the facility. Again, I knew that at 8 years old.

35 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:31 PM

11. Their motives warrant consideration by society as a whole . . .

But not by a court in determining guilt or innocence.

There is an opportunity in the pre-sentencing period (I presume: I'm not a lawyer and I haven't worked in Tennessee for years) for exculpatory or mitigating evidence to be submitted and judges typically have latitude within sentencing guidelines.

But the article's description of the proceedings as a "kangaroo court" is flatly wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:32 PM

13. but the article wouldn't rouse the populace (as much) without the "kangaroo" phrase... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:33 PM

19. Good point. And civil disobedience doesn't work as well without . . .

A dose of theatre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:10 PM

21. Tools are most effective, when correctly used...

 

mass disobediance (sp) works best when the zeitgeist gets annoyed enough to start forgetting the social contract.

Not a judgement, just an observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:21 AM

29. Or when the social contract is so frayed by official abuse . . .

That just about any disobedience will rip it to shreds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:08 PM

32. then we get into the issue of just WHAT is in the social contract...

 

or what should be in the social contract.

When people - en masse - are willing to ignore the laws of the land, I start looking for exits. Everybody can find a reason to justify why the laws shouldn't or don't apply to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:40 PM

40. What do you do when society's ostensible leaders are willing to ignore the laws of the land?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #40)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:19 PM

43. Nice framing question...

 

The obstensible leaders have broken the law? Please provide the proof.

If they HAVE broken the law, then build up a national groundswell to change things. Seriously, letting some go and break laws, due to their "noble" reasons, sets up a dangerous precedent...

Don't like a clinic providing abortions? Ignore the laws involved and fire up that sucker! ("saving the unborn...")
Don't like a library that has books on evolution? A few Molotovs ought to handle that! ("promoting God's Word...")

Back to the Social Contract...

I think the stickiness comes in, when two (or more) groups interact, each having differing/opposing versions of what the Social Contract is/should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:26 PM

44. I didn't say they did.

Although plenty has been written about failure to investigate and prosecute high level war and financial crimes, so I suppose it's real possibility, my question was hypothetical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:37 PM

47. Personally, I want to see Elizabeth Warren lead an Untouchables style raid on Wall street...

 

Armed with warrants, and claiming immediate Exigent circumstances. Hit them with RICO laws, and them trace the money. Get enough politicians to stand up, and we can take these guys to the big house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #47)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:53 PM

49. Tempting idea.

It appears to me as though too much has been left unexamined with respect to potential financial crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #49)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:17 PM

51. mind you... if we really wanted to be mean...

 

DU would work together to develop a barter/gift/hours program. This would pull quite a bit of "money" out of the hands of the plutocrats.

But that would be mean, and I try ever so hard to avoid mean-ness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:40 PM

15. I'm not a lawyer either.

But I've got one here in the room with me and he says you're wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:34 PM

20. Okey-doke. And what does he say?

Whoops, just saw your comment above. I defer to a professional's judgement, without necessarily abandoning my own argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:07 AM

53. Their website is transformnowplowshares.wordpress.com

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread