Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

reACTIONary

(5,749 posts)
254. If people are delibertly engaging in vandalism under the pretext of "political action"...
Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:51 AM
Oct 2012

... then there is no need to "construct a crime". The crime is evident and warrants investigation.

The details of a grand jury proceeding are kept secrete, since the proceeding is investigative and speculative in nature and may turn up personal or otherwise embarrassing information that is not related to a crime. If an indictment is returned a normal acusatorial proceeding is initiated, innocence is presumed, and the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in open court.

Let me be frank. Vandalism is not free speech or legitimate political action. It is not productive of democratic values. It will not further the cause. It will only alienate those who should be, and otherwise might be, on our side. Those engaging in it have not only brought this upon themselves, they have given the opposition the opportunity to characterize the movement as a whole by their criminal actions. They simply don't deserve our support, and won't get mine.

Doesn't one need to 'accept' immunity? randome Oct 2012 #1
I don't think so. HereSince1628 Oct 2012 #11
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #19
Then I don't see the point of holding her in contempt. randome Oct 2012 #25
She's protecting a criminal by not testifying against them. That's why she is in contempt. nt Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #31
there's no evidence she's protecting a criminal. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #34
True. There is the presumption of innocence for anyone who might be accused of the vandalism. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #36
there's actually no evidence this is anything but a fishing expedition. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #39
That's what it sounds like to me, too. randome Oct 2012 #44
This is a Grand Jury Investigation. It is by definition... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #178
'fishing expedition' = seeking information, not about any specific crime, but seeking information in HiPointDem Oct 2012 #245
If people are delibertly engaging in vandalism under the pretext of "political action"... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #254
first, the grand jury was convened 3 months *before* may day, so it was not convened to HiPointDem Oct 2012 #299
Grand juries are sometimes empanelled for an extended period of time... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #340
"Seek to understand." girl gone mad Oct 2012 #300
And... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #342
The woman who just went to jail was not even present at the May Day protests. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #302
We don't know the connection between the may day vandalism... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #341
Gee. I'm glad the Sons of Liberty had a different idea. bvar22 Oct 2012 #323
Anyone who feels smashing windows & smashing SUVs people worked hard to pay for is the way to go... Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #329
+10 (NT) reACTIONary Oct 2012 #344
We live in a liberal democracy that respects... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #343
Yes, they did f’ it up for everybody else. ieoeja Oct 2012 #373
how could there be any evidence when grand juries are secret? TorchTheWitch Oct 2012 #333
what we know: HiPointDem Oct 2012 #336
No, we don't KNOW any of that TorchTheWitch Oct 2012 #346
They are not vandals. Please post some proof of that claim. As for people respecting them sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #356
It would be much better tama Oct 2012 #362
+10 !!! (NT) reACTIONary Oct 2012 #380
None of these three people were even at the May Day protests so they were not involved sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #350
She's protecting her own integrity from broad erosion of civil liberties in the name of "terrorism." antigone382 Oct 2012 #67
There is no allegation or charge of terrorism in this case. Vandalism is vandalism. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #69
Whatever the ultimate charges, she was targeted because of broad anti-terrorism laws. antigone382 Oct 2012 #78
Could be search warrants were illegal & that would be a way to throw out the supoenas & convictions. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #82
The problem is that they are legal under current laws. antigone382 Oct 2012 #85
I would attack it on the grounds that searches for "anti-government literature" is much too vague Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #86
My hope is that such laws will eventually be overturned or found unconstitutional. antigone382 Oct 2012 #88
“anti-government...literature.” dixiegrrrrl Oct 2012 #146
they often call grand juries to fish for evidence about vandalism, do they? HiPointDem Oct 2012 #94
Grand juries have broad scope to make inquiries and yes, they do look into crimes that occur after Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #111
This message was self-deleted by its author HiPointDem Oct 2012 #301
What criminal? She refused to give the names of other protesters. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #131
The word "criminal" is already addressed. Read my other posts. Fifth Amendment does not apply here. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #132
You mean the law that abuses the Grand Jury's purpose and that violates the rights of individuals. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #157
Which law are you looking to overturn? Nt Confusious Oct 2012 #184
The right to remain silent Did I Just Type This Oct 2012 #143
Because of a law that was passed manipulating the system to remove those rights. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #158
What law needs to be changed??? nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #193
these "protesters" were vandalizing cars and busting storefront windows. they crazyjoe Oct 2012 #306
I think you need to catch up. The woman who is the subject of this OP was not even sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #310
maybe your right, why is she being questioned if she wasn't even there? crazyjoe Oct 2012 #347
Link to the evidence for this? obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #251
If that is true, why would she not testify? Yo_Mama Oct 2012 #65
You need to understand recent laws that have been passed to limit the rights of dissenters... antigone382 Oct 2012 #74
Gulags come to American soil. dixiegrrrrl Oct 2012 #147
because she thinks the proceedings are illegitimate? HiPointDem Oct 2012 #95
All three of them are resisting tama Oct 2012 #98
Thanks for the links Yo_Mama Oct 2012 #115
The reason she won't testify Triloon Oct 2012 #149
I applaud her also, she and the other two are heroes. This is what it takes to draw attention to the sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #160
No. The grant of immunity is conditional on the giving of testimony. msanthrope Oct 2012 #176
no. kastigar v. US, 1972. People were summoned before a grand jury & gov't/prosecutor thought HiPointDem Oct 2012 #332
Post #1 after the OP said it all. Everything else was a distraction. graham4anything Oct 2012 #375
Why punish someone for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury more than the actual perp? Vincardog Oct 2012 #2
Absolutely. nm rhett o rick Oct 2012 #4
Bingo Stryder Oct 2012 #28
+1 Zorra Oct 2012 #30
Contempt conviction NOT equivalent to torture. Same as refusing to testify against an arsonist. nt Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #32
It is Aerows Oct 2012 #120
Nothing about contempt conviction that requires solitary confinement, no communication, & no appeal. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #122
Any removal of a person's freedom who has committed no crime, IS equivalent to torture. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #161
An individual DOES NOT have a right to remain silent... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #186
This is an abuse of the Grand Jury system and has long been recognized as such. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #208
"has used the grand jury as a tool of inquisition" LOL! reACTIONary Oct 2012 #210
The woman who just went to jail was not even present at the May Day protests. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #303
They have broken the law. That's a crime. If you don't like the law change it. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #195
I like Grand Juries just fine. I like what the Founding Fathers intended them to be used for. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #206
You can stop calling me racist and sexist. That's disruptive, rude, and over-the-top. Not very DU. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #207
Nice try at diversion. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #214
Diversion is, apparently, all this one has to bring. n/t Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #222
quoted YOUR WORDS "you would have said the same thing about the laws that forbade African Americans" Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #234
She did not call you racist and sxeist, so please quit saying that obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #255
Nobody CALLED you anything. 99Forever Oct 2012 #258
I asked you to quote my words, not your interpretation of my words. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #283
She did not imply that you are racist and sexist obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #253
That's what Sabrina1 does jberryhill Oct 2012 #263
Thanks for the background. In this thread I've been called Gestapo, racist, brown, white, etc. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #266
Yeah, that's pretty much SOP jberryhill Oct 2012 #267
Post some proof of this false allegation or retract it. I will be back to see your links sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #290
Still waiting? Of course you are. This little group frequently does this, it's SOP for them. Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #374
Don't want to wear the labels? Stop earning them. n/t backscatter712 Oct 2012 #276
Oh, so you think that labelling like that is consistent with DU Community Standards? Think again. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #277
I'm still waiting for you to post my comments with the labels you sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #292
I've dealt with it already. Shown you your words. Over an hour ago. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #293
No you have not. You posted my words, then you posted YOUR false interpretation sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #294
But not by me. You have stated that these three prostesters deserve sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #309
And you have links to prove this or you would not be backing this false allegation I am sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #291
link to where she did this, please. cause i dont see it. i do see bernando & yourself constructing HiPointDem Oct 2012 #298
Thank you! n/t sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #381
I'm still waiting for those links that back up your allegations here, but so far sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #349
Contempt conviction is NOT torture. You have a DUTY to testify, and a right to refuse... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #183
+1 Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #196
The intent is the same as the intent in torture. You are the only one saying the two are equivalent Vincardog Oct 2012 #230
Seriously. What the hell country IS this???!!?? Butterbean Oct 2012 #37
That my friend is IT... 99Forever Oct 2012 #51
Contempt is ignoring a subpoena treestar Oct 2012 #53
When grand juries are abused to get information on political beliefs, etc. it is another matter. antigone382 Oct 2012 #81
You mean she could be a rat?? Fortunately she has integrity and will not allow herself to be forced sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #162
All courts have the contempt and subpoena powers treestar Oct 2012 #164
There is only one person even accused of a crime here, unless you also believe that sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #167
+1 tama Oct 2012 #99
Nailed It! bvar22 Oct 2012 #118
Economic vandalism which destroys the lives of millions is acceptable. girl gone mad Oct 2012 #305
Your logo - INVESTIGATE, INDICT, TRY, CONVICT - answers your question... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #181
what crime are they investigating? not anything that happened on may day, as the grand jury HiPointDem Oct 2012 #242
"five people broke some glass on may day"... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #261
Maybe it was you tama Oct 2012 #285
If you think that advocating for the rule of law and against... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #296
Not my style to alert tama Oct 2012 #313
If its not your style to alert... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #339
I seek to understand. tama Oct 2012 #348
We do not live in a totalitarian police state, no one is being persecuted... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #376
No one is buying your lies tama Oct 2012 #377
Well, it wasn't the three people who have just been sent to jail because none of them sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #353
yeah, and what would the grand jury have been investigating before may day that concerned HiPointDem Oct 2012 #355
' wasn't even in Seattle on May Day' Angry Dragon Oct 2012 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #5
You may have missed the person's title "Judge Jones". nt jody Oct 2012 #6
the judge backs up the contempt dsc Oct 2012 #12
Doesn't the judge have the authority to hold the witness in contempt and not the prosecutor? nt jody Oct 2012 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #46
Do you mean that a prosecutor has the authority to hold a witness in contempt and sentence them to jody Oct 2012 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #61
Thanks, your "Obviously" answers "5. Who controls "a federal grand jury"? and its the judge. jody Oct 2012 #66
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #73
yes but the prosecutor asks the judge to do so dsc Oct 2012 #63
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #13
I replied to "Who controls 'a federal grand jury'?" jody Oct 2012 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #43
The question is simple, does a federal judge over a grand jury have sole authority to hold a jody Oct 2012 #49
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #64
Every judge is sole authority in their court although they can be overruled by a superior court on jody Oct 2012 #70
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #75
That's beyond fucked up. Solly Mack Oct 2012 #7
If it looks like a perversion of the Fifth Amendment, then it probably is Supersedeas Oct 2012 #8
Question: Why? Answer: Authoritarianism. closeupready Oct 2012 #9
This is pretty fucked up. nt hack89 Oct 2012 #10
Hey, we have the BEST justice system on the planet! Agony Oct 2012 #14
I don't understand anything in this country since the coup. librechik Oct 2012 #15
JFK's Assasination formercia Oct 2012 #41
1933? UnrepentantLiberal Oct 2012 #145
The attempted Coup on FDR formercia Oct 2012 #156
Because many Federal judges think they are Gods CanonRay Oct 2012 #16
This is a prime example of a political prisoner. Whovian Oct 2012 #17
BINGO!!!! Got it in one......... socialist_n_TN Oct 2012 #77
According to the judge's logic cheney and rove should be in prison for the next thousand lifetimes Dont call me Shirley Oct 2012 #18
Brave lady. I would have resorted to the "I can't recall" meme Live and Learn Oct 2012 #20
So 'Live and Learn' is more of a hoped-for philosophy, right? randome Oct 2012 #21
I learned many things are best forgotten lol nt Live and Learn Oct 2012 #22
I don't remember worked for Reagan but in his defense he probably didn't remember at that point. nt jody Oct 2012 #26
Yes it did work for him. He was never prosecuted, was he? And all his cohorts sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #173
but, but, we don't live in a police state... KG Oct 2012 #27
We don't. People who lived in police states like E. Germany or Iraq know the difference between Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #33
most people in police states live perfectly routine lives, just as they do here. they live their HiPointDem Oct 2012 #35
True. But in p.s. are all aware of what is happening all around them and they behave accordingly to Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #40
so all those folks in nazi germany who said they didn't know about the camps were lying? HiPointDem Oct 2012 #42
No. Some of them were. But there was more to the Nazi police state than extermination camps. nt Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #45
The USA is not a police state, but there is a Prison-Industrial complex that is a little out of Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #47
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about understated: 99Forever Oct 2012 #52
Yes. It is understated. Not everyone sprinkles their posts with swearing. Sometimes I mistake DU for Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #55
Aren't you just so very superior. 99Forever Oct 2012 #56
I rest my case about "a place for serious discussions". Sorry. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #57
"Rest my case." 99Forever Oct 2012 #59
:eyes: Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #60
That's what I thought. 99Forever Oct 2012 #62
It would be more efficient to not repeat most of the first line of your post as the tblue37 Oct 2012 #92
Let us know when you are ready for a serious discussion. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #172
Know why you oppose it, but not how you'd change it. BTW the lack of "serious" discussion is not you Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #192
Going to call me out? 99Forever Oct 2012 #262
I have already called you out & responded to every post of yours directed at me that wasn't nonsense Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #264
No you haven't. 99Forever Oct 2012 #265
Well, my comment wasn't about opposing Grand Juries although I have read both sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #284
In a police state: detention without judicial review & compulsion of testimony w/o court order and + Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #50
Freedom House states that its Board of Trustees is composed of "business and labor leaders, HiPointDem Oct 2012 #58
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #68
"They grant you immunity and if you don't testify they can throw you in jail." HiPointDem Oct 2012 #83
Yes I saw the post. It does not logically follow that they can "force anyone to do anything". nt Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #87
because you say so? there are many ways to make people do what the police want, starting with HiPointDem Oct 2012 #96
No. The person making the outlandish claim (force "anyone to do anything") has to buttress it. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #112
the woman didn't ask for immunity. she was given immunity in order to use the threat of jail time HiPointDem Oct 2012 #218
Governments of free nations do not use drones to kill civilians in nations they are not at war RC Oct 2012 #166
"As of 2010, US federal government grants accounted for most of Freedom House's funding." JackRiddler Oct 2012 #102
Folks, the Freedom House graphic was illustrative, not definitive, & the discussion does not pivot Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #113
backing off it after it starts to become clear it's run by the same spooks who are running us HiPointDem Oct 2012 #130
Don't you dare worm out of this. JackRiddler Oct 2012 #137
The graphic is not in any way pivotal or essential to any point I am making. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #185
Blah blah blah, it's not about "the graphic" JackRiddler Oct 2012 #200
That is one of the most asinine string of words I've ever read here. Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #93
DU is all about governing by consent. So why are you wasting time here if "the last vestige" vanish Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #114
I'm prety sure no one claimed DU is a police state, so that continues your streak of nonsense. Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #119
Well, read it that way if you must. Was talking about DU being all about the USA governed by consent Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #121
You're the one that wrote, "DU is all about governing by consent." Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #163
Wow, you do make bogus assumptions and then proceed to build & knock down straw men. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #187
So you are white? Then how can you claim to have the authority to unequivocally state that Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #221
Again you make the racist assumptions. My skin color is not in evidence and you divert with it. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #235
No, sorry, not going to happen. You are the one that has taken it upon yourself to Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #280
Did you just decide that you could tell the color of someone's skin from their username? msanthrope Oct 2012 #189
Apparently Egalitarian Thug thinks she or he has that power. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #198
I wonder what one could tell from your avatar. Are you a white male writer, about 177 years old? nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #201
That I use Linux. I think your username says all one needs to know about you. n/t Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #224
Yes & yes. Egalitarian because I actually believe in real, complete equality. In a system wherein Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #223
I noted the implication. If it's wrong, fine. I think it is a fair assumption that the number of Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #220
I meant what I wrote. I never expected anyone to interpret it the way you did. DU a police state???? Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #190
Apparently you slept through the few English classes you might have attended. I quoted, in whole, Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #225
You keep making personal attack. Just stop, please. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #236
Since when is pointing out that your point is without merit a personal attack? And when did it Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #316
Your attack is personal when you call me illiterate. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #326
Your attack is also personal when you call a DU member "a drunken moron": Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #327
It is also a personal attack to assume skin color of a DU member and assume that it matters. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #331
First, I did make that erroneous assumption and it is completely relevant to the challenge proposed. Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #337
Q remains: Since you state there is zero government by consent in the USA, why are you at DU which Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #191
Your question was answered in my previous reply. We're still waiting for you to provide Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #226
You are trying to argue Black vs White, bvar22 Oct 2012 #123
Actually, those claiming "police state" are arguing the binary mode. And about your personal attack Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #124
One simple question for YOU and those reading this thread: bvar22 Oct 2012 #139
+1 HiPointDem Oct 2012 #142
Hell yes. 99Forever Oct 2012 #148
+10,000! sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #175
Yes. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #197
Will you please self-delete your accusation that a DU member is the Gestapo? Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #199
LOL! This guy reminds me of a drunken moron that heckles Sam Kinison. Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #227
That until the apparatus of the police state is used against them. Meanwhile, everyone else who is tblue37 Oct 2012 #91
Forget it. He's on a roll. randome Oct 2012 #38
Yeah, AFTER it was TOO LATE! Too bad more of them didn't listen to the warnings sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #213
(pic heavy) We do, but generally, only those who question authority, Zorra Oct 2012 #128
That is excellent! You should make it an OP, maybe in the OWS forum! sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #215
Thanks, sabrina 1, Zorra Oct 2012 #289
Inexcusable perversion of the Constitution. (nt) DirkGently Oct 2012 #29
There are contempt citations every day treestar Oct 2012 #54
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #71
The point was that the courts have rules treestar Oct 2012 #79
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #84
No. Under this logic, fishing expeditions like this are in bad faith. DirkGently Oct 2012 #174
I just read about this trick- it's been used for quite a while. Poll_Blind Oct 2012 #72
i'm going to quote your post to the police state guy if you don't mind. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #76
If she was granted immunity, then she by law can't take the 5th. graham4anything Oct 2012 #80
Like a frog in a pot. 99Forever Oct 2012 #89
this is the system of the founding fathers graham4anything Oct 2012 #105
Poppycock. 99Forever Oct 2012 #108
read the constitution. Read our laws already on the books. Don't like them? Change them graham4anything Oct 2012 #109
Someone put you in charge of .. 99Forever Oct 2012 #110
Thomas Jefferson jailed people who lived on his PROPERTY...i.e. they were his property & graham4anything Oct 2012 #358
Slavery was wrong... 99Forever Oct 2012 #361
Sheesh! slavery was alot more than wrong.I would think its a zillion times worse than Gitmo graham4anything Oct 2012 #363
This thread is not about slavery .. 99Forever Oct 2012 #366
you brought it up, same as you brought up Dr. King...I only was answering you... graham4anything Oct 2012 #368
Bullshit. 99Forever Oct 2012 #371
well, someone did here, it wasn't me. I didn't bring Dr. King in to this graham4anything Oct 2012 #372
+1 (NT) reACTIONary Oct 2012 #378
Yes, this 'forced immunity' law went on the books for the first time back in the '50s sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #351
so change the law. It's simple as A-B-C. Dr. King worked for change. It took decades. graham4anything Oct 2012 #359
Anarchy is democracy tama Oct 2012 #116
Excellent post. Thank you. 99Forever Oct 2012 #117
And who was it who said... reACTIONary Oct 2012 #379
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #90
The grand jury was convened *before* May Day (March 2, 2012). So it has nothing to do with HiPointDem Oct 2012 #97
Um--that's probably the sitting grand jury. So what? Prosecutors generally use the sitting msanthrope Oct 2012 #179
sounds like the court is inventing crimes, then. Union Scribe Oct 2012 #100
What right? You are granted immunity so you won't be prosecuted for what you said graham4anything Oct 2012 #107
You don't have right to refuse to testify. That's been the case since the founding. nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #180
Your system is mockery of justice. nt tama Oct 2012 #101
The fifth amendment is to avoid incriminating oneself for future prosecution. graham4anything Oct 2012 #106
That someone here thinks "Zbig is one of the good guys" shows how far we've gone... Comrade Grumpy Oct 2012 #126
Absolutely shocked to see Zbig be considered a "good guy" obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #256
At least Pussy Riot got a trial. JackRiddler Oct 2012 #103
All of my heroes have FBI files! JackRiddler Oct 2012 #104
Seattle May Day protest marked by vandalism, arrests struggle4progress Oct 2012 #125
The grand jury was convened *before* May Day. In March, to be exact. Do the feds usually HiPointDem Oct 2012 #127
IIRC grand juries are allowed to investigate crimes that occur while they are seated struggle4progress Oct 2012 #141
nobody does. because it's 'secret' & doesn't have to be disclosed to the public. but we know HiPointDem Oct 2012 #144
That sounds very much like the grand jury is looking into criminal conspiracy struggle4progress Oct 2012 #150
there were no 'wildings' in seattle on may day. but 'wilding' is a racially-charged word that was HiPointDem Oct 2012 #151
Don't let facts and truthful framing of the issue get in the way of s4p's trolling! n/t backscatter712 Oct 2012 #152
I don't much favor masked gangs smashing windows struggle4progress Oct 2012 #154
And I don't favor throwing people into prison for guilt-by-association. backscatter712 Oct 2012 #169
She's not found guilty-by-association: she's held for contempt, a situation she can end whenever struggle4progress Oct 2012 #170
That's just the official excuse. backscatter712 Oct 2012 #171
You said it. LAGC Oct 2012 #228
+1. Even if they call themselves "anarchists". Even if they *are* anarchists. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #203
none of the people in jail were in seattle on may day, let alone breaking windows in seattle. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #216
You are out of cogent arguments, so you make the personal attack, as so many do. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #237
you must have missed the cognent argument: none of the people in jail were in seattle on may day, HiPointDem Oct 2012 #240
False attack Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #243
"I was subpoenaed to a federal grand jury in May of 1982 in New York City. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #246
"grand juries are by nature "fishing expeditions". Always have been always will." = wrong. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #248
Other well know American etc. anarchists: tama Oct 2012 #231
Fine. If they refuse subpoenas by grand juries investigating masked gangs smashing violently, then Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #239
"The masked gangs that subvert peaceful protests by suddenly smashing things need to be stopped." tama Oct 2012 #247
Yes, those too. But there are other issues as well and nothing is simple. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #249
Oh, it's simple tama Oct 2012 #272
Being an anarchist isn't against the law any more obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #259
" I know this must be disappointing to you." Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #260
Actually tama Oct 2012 #273
Call it what you like: it's black-shirted masked thuggery in my book. Here: struggle4progress Oct 2012 #153
call it whatever names you like: the fact that there was vandalism on M1 by supposed HiPointDem Oct 2012 #155
Her house-mate Matt Duran's statement emphasized: "I am in no way ever cooperating with the state" struggle4progress Oct 2012 #165
most of the public didn't experience any such thing. they saw it on tv -- the same shots, HiPointDem Oct 2012 #168
Call it propaganda if you want, but blackshirted thugs smashing windows is bad news in any town struggle4progress Oct 2012 #204
i wouldn't answer except your language is so interesting. first you talk about 'wilding,' to draw HiPointDem Oct 2012 #212
Yeah, the "wilding" thing really bothered me obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #269
masked gangs of armed thugs tama Oct 2012 #232
Oh yea, another brave soul who believes that protecting windows.. girl gone mad Oct 2012 #307
wonder why the cop in this picture didn't arrest that guy... HiPointDem Oct 2012 #219
+1 obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #270
But the woman in the OP had nothing to do with it obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #268
WILDINGS?! Cannot believe you used that word obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #257
What has that got to do with these three people? None of them were at the May Day protests! sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #352
I salute them for having the courage of their convictions. Comrade Grumpy Oct 2012 #129
Arbitrary detention without trial for invoking constitutional rights Taitertots Oct 2012 #133
well, detention w/o trial is ok, you see, because she's 1) protecting criminals; 2) hiding something HiPointDem Oct 2012 #134
Nobody has a constitutional right to not testify in a grand jury when granted immunity. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #135
Yes, it's lawful, but sometimes the law is an ass. Comrade Grumpy Oct 2012 #136
Racially segregated facilities were also once lawful. JackRiddler Oct 2012 #138
If you don't like the law, change the law. No, they can't imprison anyone they like. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #182
Racially segregated facilities are... JackRiddler Oct 2012 #202
Read the OP. The witness is not in prison for vandalism. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #205
no, the witness is in jail because she calls herself an anarchist. your point? HiPointDem Oct 2012 #217
The witness is in jail for willfully breaking a law: refusing a subpoena; not because she calls Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #233
she didn't refuse a supoena. she answered the supoena and refused to testify. she was supoenaed HiPointDem Oct 2012 #238
Ok, she refused to testify, not refused the subpoena. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #241
it's precisely the same. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #244
From my reading of TMIAHM and my take on the character of professor de la Paz Fumesucker Oct 2012 #250
My views are more complex than a fictional character or any of the fiction views of me posted in DU. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #278
All we have to go by is your words on our screens. Fumesucker Oct 2012 #281
She didn't refuse a subpeona, she refused to testify obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #274
they can imprison anyone they like. they can call a secret grand jury to target anyone they HiPointDem Oct 2012 #357
No. They can't just pick some one & imprison them. A) The person has to willfully make a choice. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #360
... HiPointDem Oct 2012 #364
The immunity was forced on her, it wasn't granted obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #271
Twain, on "Law" upi402 Oct 2012 #140
Bumping because this is real. This is our country. JackRiddler Oct 2012 #159
K+r Blue_Tires Oct 2012 #177
The state murders innocents by the thousands. Vattel Oct 2012 #188
So, the Grand Jury is investigating whether other crimes have been committed? Th1onein Oct 2012 #194
More photogenic than, say, the Michigan Militia. Robb Oct 2012 #209
The michigan militia is an organized paramilitary membership group, with dues. "Anarchists" are the HiPointDem Oct 2012 #211
I just read some old Judith Miller threads....we were all for the rule of law, then. nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #275
+1. Funny how often the target or the hero/villain makes people take diametric opposite positions.nt Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #279
I find that the far right and the far left share a common view of the law: it's okay, as long as msanthrope Oct 2012 #286
What a totally incorrect assessment of DUers who oppose what is happening here. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #287
Kindly cite the "bad law" to which you refer. nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #288
The Improper Use of the Federal Grand Jury: An Instrument for the Internment of Political Activists" sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #297
Let's try again. It's a simple question. Name the "bad law." Not an article written in 1984. nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #308
Are you saying that they have been jailed illegally? Show me the law which sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #312
Sabrina--you used the term "bad law." Tell us 'which' law is "bad." msanthrope Oct 2012 #315
'The Forced Immunity Statute' sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #317
That was repealed in 1970. Try again. nt msanthrope Oct 2012 #318
Yes, and they made it worse. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #320
If one wishes to repeal a "bad law," one might start with naming the law. Further, the 5th A does msanthrope Oct 2012 #322
Try using Google if you don't have the information. That's what I did. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #325
I don't use "Google" for law. Perhaps that is why you cannot name the law you think is "bad." msanthrope Oct 2012 #330
I'm still waiting for you to answer my earlier questions. What law sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #334
Sabrina, you engaged me in this subthread, and wrote about a "bad law." While I am more than msanthrope Oct 2012 #335
I've made it pretty clear what is in my mind. The law which allowed a judge to sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #338
Sabrina, it may be clear in your mind, but the rest of us are still wondering which magical law was msanthrope Oct 2012 #345
And who said there was a law meant to catch ONLY Mafia Dons? sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #354
Sabrina...'Title' in this instance, is a number. I still have no idea what "bad law" msanthrope Oct 2012 #365
As expected, this game you're playing is pretty childish and so transparent. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #367
There you go again, sabrina, stuffing words into people's mouths, an abhorrent practice you say Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #369
If you are familiar with the terminology, then just tell us which law you are calling a "bad law." msanthrope Oct 2012 #370
about your last paragraph on Dr. Rev. King, something irritates me here graham4anything Oct 2012 #304
I don't see these protesters 'whining' (and why is this word which has always been sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #311
You used Dr. King in your example. Change the law, but until then it is the law graham4anything Oct 2012 #314
What I see is a violation of the Constitutional Rights of American citizens sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #319
It takes decades sometimes graham4anything Oct 2012 #321
Yes, I know it takes time, but it has to begin somewhere. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #324
I will give you 2 specific recent examples (out of 1000s) graham4anything Oct 2012 #328
so i'm wondering, with all the photographers and media around as the black bloc was breaking HiPointDem Oct 2012 #229
Excellent analysis of what happened. This has become par for the course. When sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #295
Speaking as someone who was involved with Black Market Drugs in the 60s and 70s, bvar22 Oct 2012 #382
a nice example of "Political Internment American Style" Agony Oct 2012 #252
Interesting. Quantess Oct 2012 #282
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»And Then There Were Three...»Reply #254