Gag Order on RNC-8 and Prosecutor Gaertner

Gag orders denote secrecy denotes terrorism (0.00 / 0)

This blurring of terrorism with protest and/or planned acts of civil disobedience just gets WORSE and WORSE!  The RNC 8 are not charged with actually DOING anything but "conspiring to riot in furtherance of terrorism".  They were all pre-emptively raided and arrested the weekend before the RNC even began.  

Therein lies one of the indications that the "war on terror" has been turned inward into a "war on dissent".  If you remember--even tho' Sarah Palin didn't--the "BUSH DOCTRINE" established in the "Global War on Terror (GWOT)" after 9-11 was to the effect that the U.S. is entitled to launch attacks on a "pre-emptive" or "preventive" basis.  Of course the Bush Doctrine runs completely counter to international law in that respect but.... and now the doctrine involving "pre-emptive arrests" has been turned on American citizens?

Additionally, if you've been following the linking of the Bush Administration's excessive secrecy, over-classification, and the GWOT, well if you haven't been following it, I don't have the space here to inform you how extremely excessive it's become.  "State Secrets Privilege" used repeatedly by the government to win lawsuits; secret court proceedings; secret black sites; secret searches; gag orders on requests for records; you get the picture.  Finally, just a couple of days ago, a federal judge struck down the blanket "gag orders" that have been accompanying all FBI "national security letters".  The fact that excessive secrecy has accompanied every turn of the GWOT is a well understood problem to the extent that it's even counter-productive to agencies sharing of intelligence in many instances.  But now, if news reports are right, we are seeing the Ramsey County Prosecutor seeking a "gag order" on the RNC 8 criminal defendants in Minnesota?!  How would they find and contact witnesses or experts for their defense?!

Finally, (and again if news reports are correct), I just read that the courtroom that the RNC 8 defendants were in was subjected to a bomb-sniffing dog as the proceeding started.

I wish officials would just take a deep breath and remember what Edmund Burke said: "Nothing so effectively robs the mind of its ability to act or to reason as fear."  Ridiculous, unbridled fear is what fueled the Salem Witch Hunt and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.  It obviously also played a role in the police response to the protest of the RNC.        
       

---

by: Coleen Rowley @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 21:20:55 PM CST

Bank windows, Susan Gaertner (0.00 / 0)

So, how does the window breaking factor into this? Do we think that is acceptible?  I don't.  Someone was just convicted of that.  I don't see much difference between that and the acts committed on "Kristallnacht".  Hate combined with action.

The RNC 8:  We can't tell what the evidence is... one thing that is happening FOR SURE is Susan Gaertner's name being dragged in thru the mud, making it hard for her to do her job and run as a Gov.  I guess that's called "baggage" and maybe why lawyers sometimes don't make good candidates?  I think her stance on the issues is pretty good and I will vote for her if she is endorsed.

The Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism must mean there is evidence of conspiracy (togetherness, with mission) but that word terrorism is loaded, isn't it.  There's still the idea that govn't protects the people, but "terrorism" is way overused.

---

by: Holly Cairns @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:42:37 AM CST

Are laws uniformly enforced? (0.00 / 0)

The people who were "conspiring" to kill Obama in Denver were simply let go, while people here "conspiring" to break a window are held under felony terrorism charges.  

---

by: Grace Kelly @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 11:01:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Conspiring (0.00 / 0)

Well, there must have been more to it than just conspiring to break windows (which, by the way, hurts fellow citizens who have to fix those and pay for those windows and doesn't necessarily have an effect on the group they hate:  the RNC attendees.)

---

by: Holly Cairns @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 15:51:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Planning is not Conspiracy (0.00 / 0)

I assure you, the existence of a felony charge does not indicate evidence of anything.

Protestors are commonly given felony charges after the police have beaten them up or otherwise violated their rights.  The idea is to scare them into accepting a plea deal on a lesser charge.  The protestor is relieved, thinking, "Wow, I really got off easy there!"  When in reality it is the police that have gotten off easy -- once the protestor pleads guilty to something -- anything -- it is very difficult to sue the police for brutatlity or violation of civil rights.  The judge will simply say, "You were doing something wrong and you got what you deserved."

Planning for a large protest, finding out-of-town visitors a place to stay, gathering up bicycles so people can get around town does not constitute "conspiracy to riot" either with or without the terrorism enhancement.  Planning is not a conspiracy.  The prosecution is going to have to do a lot better than this.

---

by: magoo @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 10:45:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

welcome to what? The USA? Nope. (0.00 / 0)

magoo said:

Planning for a large protest, finding out-of-town visitors a place to stay, gathering up bicycles so people can get around town does not constitute "conspiracy to riot" either with or without the terrorism enhancement.  Planning is not a conspiracy.  The prosecution is going to have to do a lot better than this.

That all sounds wonderful except for the planning for a large protest part...

This anarchist group planned to "crash" the RNC.  That sounds pretty anti-American to me. I agree with the idea of free speech, but it also sounds like they are going to "crash" the RNC... what does that mean. Where does free speech stop and protection of others' rights begin.  

Let's see, according to their website http://www.nornc.org/:  

Those who work with the RNC Welcoming Committee must agree to:
1. A rejection of Capitalism, Imperialism, and the State;

2. Resist the commodification of our shared and living Earth;

3. Organize on the principles of decentralization, autonomy, sustainability, and mutual aid;

4. Work to end all relationships of domination and subjugation, including but not limited to those rooted in patriarchy, race, class, and homophobia;

5. Oppose the police and prison-industrial complex, and maintain solidarity with all targets of state repression;

6. Directly confront systems of oppression, and respect the need for a diversity of tactics.

here's more on what they mean by anti-State:

The State: A political organization that exists to support the ruling class by managing and policing people. The state is considered by most, though not by us, as the only modern institution that may legitimately use violence to achieve its goals, via the military and the police. The relationship between capitalism and the state can be clearly seen in the recent Enron and Halliburton scandals.

That is outright disregard for law and order, and for our precious democracy. I understand there has to be push-pull or power gets out of hand, but they were clearly a group with a mission.

---

by: Holly Cairns @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 14:24:30 PM CST

Thoughts are not Crimes (0.00 / 0)

First of all, you cannot punish people for what they put up on a website -- unless you're planning on abolishing the First Amendment.  You cannot punish people for believing that a large centralized state concentrates too much power in too few hands, unless you plan to start prosecuting "thought crimes."

The way the RNC Welcoming Committee worked is that various groups planned their own actions among themselves.  What they chose to do would depend on their own agendas, what tactics they thought were appropriate and how much risk they were willing to take personally.  This means some groups might picket, others might do street theater, some might decide to  block traffic and others might try to prevent the delegates from reaching the convention, and some might decide to have their own little picnic in a park along Shephard Road.  This is what "diversity of tactics" means.  The various groups did not agree on what constituted appropriate tactics, but under the umbrella agreement, they agreed to leave one another alone in this respect.

Unless the prosecution can prove the defendants were planning to do something illegal themselves, they haven't got a case.  It isn't enough to say that some group from Santa Cruz broke a window, therefore the people who gave them a place to sleep are guilty of a crime.  It isn't enough to say that some protestors tried to prevent the delegates from reaching the convention, therefore all are guilty.  The prosecution is going to have to prove that Luce Guillen-Givins, Max Specktor, Nathanael Secor, Eryn Trimmer, Monica Bicking, Erik Oseland, Robert Czernik and Garrett Fitzgerald each intended to do something illegal before they have any case at all.  Then they are going to have to show what it was they intended to do, and then they are going to have to show that that action would constitute terrorism.  That's why they all have four charges against them now -- because the prosecution is not sure it can convince a jury that "property damage" = "terrorism,"  that "picketing" = "disorderly conduct" or that "blocking the streets" = "rioting."

---

by: magoo @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 13:34:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]