Antiwar activists will refuse to testify (FBI raids)

[Enrique]

Source: Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-fbiraids-chicago,0,33495.story

CHICAGO — Anti-war activists raided recently by the FBI say they'll refuse to testify before a grand jury in Chicago as ordered.

Activist attorney Jim Fennerty says all 14 Midwest activists who were served subpoenas to testify this month won't appear.

A Chicago couple whose home was raided last month spoke at a rally Tuesday just outside the Dirksen Federal Building where the grand jury is sitting.

Joe Iosbaker and Stephanie Weiner told reporters they're among those who were set to testify this month but won't.

Weiner says the government is on "a fishing exhibition" to find wrongdoing by peaceful activists.


(...)

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-fbiraids-chicago,0,33495.story

[Make7]

1. Good for them. ( n/t )

[villager]

2. If even a small, but significant, group of people refuses to cooperate with the system...

...the system can't function...

[pleah]

3. K&R

[DirkGently]

4. I support the notion of peaceful resistance, but question handing the Feds an easy way to jail you.

Are there lawyers volunteering to represent the activists? If you're in the right, it IS possible to win in court. If this investigation is as slap-dash as is being suggested, the more effective pushback could be to beat the case, rather than take on the "system." Embarrass them with the facts, if possible. Shutting down lets them continue to insinuate whatever they wish, and start punishing on the basis of non-cooperation, which is far easier.

[Mnpaul]

5. The feds cheat in court

Listen to Clyde Bellecourt explain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC4HMeQyKFk

[Realityhack]

7. Which totaly makes it ok.

I mean some cops murder people so why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Terrible logic.

[Mnpaul]

10. Why should they participate in legal system

that doesn't follow the law?

[DirkGently]

12. To win?

I think it's possibly a little early declare the entire American legal system invalid, but even if someone is so inclined, tactically speaking, you make it easy if you stand on silence and get jailed for failure to participate in a grand jury.

Maybe they're working a strategy here -- activists do like to send messages by non-cooperation. If so, I hope it works. If not, I hope they'll decide to fight and give the public a chance to just exactly what is WRONG with our system that peace activists become the target of anti-terrorism prosecution.

[Mnpaul]

13. If they don't cooperate

the feds have no case. They are on a fishing expedition. The activists can be charged if they testify and if they don't. If they testify, information gained can be used to build the feds case. I'm sure they weighed the pros and cons and decided not to testify.

[DirkGently]

23. Just my take. Hope whatever they're up to works.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. If they don't show up, they will likely be jailed for contempt of court

They could show up and plead the 5th.

[formercia]

6. .....or charge them with Conspiracy.

The FBI can convict them on something. The point is to make the life of the Activist miserable, regardless of the validity of the charges.
These folks need to talk with they're attorneys, before they go off and do something stupid.

[Mnpaul]

8. They have good attorneys

I'm sure this decision came about with their input. The FBI has no case. Why give them one?

[Realityhack]

9. +1 for getting real legal advice. n/t

[ThomCat]

43. In a grand jury you can't have a lawyer,

But anything you say can and will be used against you. And they can ask you questions and dig until they get something they can use against you.

Any lawyer will tell you to never talk. They will always find something they can use against you. Always. Nobody can talk for even a few minutes and manage to say absolutely nothing that couldn't be used, twisted, or implied as evidence against you.

The whole point of a grand jury is supposed to be to find out if there is enough reason to bring you to a trial. But in practice it is a damned good opportunity to go fishing for information, and make you hang yourself. Because you don't know what the are planning to throw against you. You don't know what information they can use against you. And they can always alter their plans to use whatever you say, especially if they don't mind being dishonest to build any kind of far fetched case against you.

Never talk if you can possibly avoid it. All you do is hurt yourself.

[DirkGently]

44. Agreed. But a Grand Jury can't convict.

[bobthedrummer]

11. If An Agent Knocks (the booklet) What to do if you or your organization are targeted by federal law

enforcement (The Center for Constitutional Rights)
http://www.ccrjustice.org/ifanagentknocks/

[Mnpaul]

14. Statement from the activists

The grand jury subpoenas are part of the fishing expedition targeting these committed activists and organizers. The use of grand juries to conduct sweeping investigations dates back to the Nixon administration’s attack on the social movements in the 1970s. The grand jury is neither fair nor even handed, no matter who is in charge.

A grand jury is a panel of jurors who hear evidence from a prosecutor and decide whether or not to charge someone with a crime. The grand jury can subpoena pretty much anyone they want and ask about anything, and people can be jailed for contempt if they do not answer questions. The jurors are hand-picked by prosecutors with no screen for bias. All evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy. The prosecutor has no responsibility to present evidence that favors those being investigated. Grand jury witnesses have no right to have a lawyer in the room to object to how the prosecutor is conducting the proceedings.

The grand jury has been used as a tool of political repression against many movements for social change in this country. From the pre-civil war abolitionist movement to the Civil Rights movements, the movement against the war in Vietnam, the American Indian Movement, the Central America solidarity movement, the Puerto Rican Independence movement, animal rights and environmental movements, there have have been many targets of political repression and grand jury inquisition.

We believe we have been targeted because of what we believe, what we say and who we know. The grand jury process is an attempt to violate the inalienable rights under the constitution and international law to freedom of political speech, association and the right to advocate for change.

One does not even need to be opposed to U.S. foreign policy to recognize that the government is working here to establish a dangerous precedent in targeting us. This case endangers the right of every person in the U.S. to organize for and express their views.

We fear the the government may be seeking to use the recent Supreme Court decision in Holder vs Humanitarian Law to attack conduct that clearly falls under the realm of freedom of speech and that we never imagined could be construed as “material support for terrorism.”

Those with Grand Jury dates for October 5 and those whose subpoenas are pending have declared that we intend to exercise our right not to participate in this fishing expedition. The next legal step is in the hands of the Department of Justice. They could cancel the grand jury. They could carry on, but leave us alone. They could send subpoenas again giving us the option to talk or go to jail. We don’t know when they will take the next step, or what it will be. We do know what our next steps will be.

We will not be silent. We will not allow the harassment of activists to quiet our opposition to immoral policies. We will continue to speak out against the unjust investigation, the unjust law, and the unjust foreign policies of the US government. Our communities are strong, and are already showing amazing solidarity around the country with 60 demonstrations last week, many statements of solidarity and a very successful call in day yesterday. We will need that support to continue to push back against this attack.

http://stopfbi.net/

[marias23]

20. Maybe there is hope.

Reminds me of the courageous people I knew in the 60's. Right ON!

[mcollins]

15. Then I hope they like jail.

Because refusing to cooperate with the court will land them a contempt charge and innocent that they are surely, they still will be in jail.

[Joe Chi Minh]

17. You hope they like jail? Do your really think they haven't considered the

possibility that they could be jailed? Are you sneering at their integrity? You do realise that the law under all manner of tyrannical regimes has done the bidding of the worst despots?

[mcollins]

21. By refusing to testify they won't get a day in court.

The court will lock them up. period.

How does that serve their integrity?

The right will use this to prove they are guilty, "See, they won't even defend themselves!"

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. Nonsense. Integrity doesn't ask to be served. It just exists or it doesn't,

irrespective of pressure from others.

"The right will use this to prove they are guilty, "See, they won't even defend themselves!""

That is just as mistaken. They are rightly perceived as 'martyrs' to their cause, even sometimes when the cause is questionable. It isn't questionable in this case.

Never heard of conscientious objectors willing to go to prison for their beliefs? You must have come with the last shower of rain.

[rhett o rick]

33. You act as if you think the system works in favor of the innocent. They wont get their "day in cour

court with a grand jury. "A grand jury is a panel of jurors who hear evidence from a prosecutor and decide whether or not to charge someone with a crime. The grand jury can subpoena pretty much anyone they want and ask about anything, and people can be jailed for contempt if they do not answer questions. The jurors are hand-picked by prosecutors with no screen for bias. All evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy. The prosecutor has no responsibility to present evidence that favors those being investigated. Grand jury witnesses have no right to have a lawyer in the room to object to how the prosecutor is conducting the proceedings."

I applaud their courage to stand up for what they believe. It is supposed to be easy in our "democracy". But they are being targeted by the "government" and have few options.

[Pavulon]

35. The ""'s of death will convict them.

not the evidence.

[rhett o rick]

38. Sorry but I dont know what that means. nm

[Pavulon]

40. "democracy" "government"

you know in quotes. Like you could break the law in any other western democracy and not be tried.

[rhett o rick]

42. If you are mocking me, I am sorry that I am not smart enough to get it. nm

[atreides1]

19. Probably not

But at least they are willing to sacrifice their freedom to fight for what they believe in.

What would you be willing to sacrifice for your beliefs?

[mcollins]

22. Obviously I would use the court to defend my actions

rather than refuse to do so.

What is it they are giving up their freedoms for, btw? Illegal search and arrest? By making sure they go to jail for contempt?

[gratuitous]

41. Anti-war activists know they're bucking the national religion

Jail is always a possibility when you're dealing with the High Church of Redemptive Violence and its vengeful adherents.

[Joe Chi Minh]

16. The impression I got, rightly or wrongly, was that your Grand Juries

tend to be much more honest and wise than the normal procedure allows. So, I would have thought it would be a good opportunity to vindicate their movement and expose the real villains. But it's obviously unlikely I'd have a better understanding of the reality of their situation than them.

[atreides1]

18. Not really

You see in the case of a Grand Jury, things heard by a second party, or hearsay, can be introduced as evidence by the prosecutor.

The accused have little to no right to question the evidence that is used against them in a grand jury hearing.

[Joe Chi Minh]

30. Wow.That sounds totalitarian style.

[Doremus]

25. No. Defendants have no attorneys present and do not get to present any evidence in their defense.

[Pavulon]

31. Grand Jury is not trial. If they go to trial

they are subject to the same rules as every other person who has gone through the federal system.

[irislake]

24. Now we'll see

how nasty your government will dare to be. I am betting they will back off.

[druidity33]

27. I'll take that bet. nt.

[EFerrari]

39. I'll take that bet, too. n/t

[mistertrickster]

26. Karl Rove never answered his subpeonas. Why should anyone else have to? nt

[Devil_Fish]

37. Kinda Slezy Rice didn't answer her subpeona eaither. NT

[Pavulon]

29. They can take the 5th. Its their call. If the evidence is there, they will do federal time

they aren't the first to come up with this idea.

[Downwinder]

32. They have not been charged with anything. It is about what someone else

may or may not have done. If they speak at all they are required to answer all questions, there is no 5th Amendment protection.

[Pavulon]

34. I do hope they will use the constitution to its fullest

but be prepared to suffer consequences for any illegal acts.

[Downwinder]

36. If nothing more they will save their expenses to travel to Chicago and

room and board while they are there plus any medical expenses on the trip.