Big Brother is Watching You

[Boatrocker]

I think AP's biggest beef is that they were not informed until after the fact, thus precluding their opportunity to oppose the subpoena in court and let the chips fall where they may. Justice is not served when only the government's position is heard, democracy is not served when people fear talking to the press.

It will be interesting to see what efforts Justice made to get information before issuing the subpoenas, and if they followed their own rules regarding process and approval.

But the records themselves were phone company records, about - but not owned by AP. I suspect that if Justice had asked AP to voluntarily let them review phone records of the people suspected to have been involved in the alleged disclosure, that request would have been met with a hearty "fuckoff!"

And followed by a marathon document-shredding.

[O Really]

Shame on you, O Really, you know how prissily delicate Anonymous (bottom of page, probably Mad [Chicken] American) is about vulgarity.

What - s/he's so ignorant as to not recognize a reference to the great Russian novelist Ivan Fuckoff?

[Stinger]

Meanwhile, the wingnuts go on and on about "threats" to the press (not that I'm thrilled about it) while conveniently forgetting (since history didn't start until 1/20/2009) that AG Alberto Gonzales actually stated that it was duty to jail journalists who publish classified information.

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Mr. Gonzales said on the ABC News program "This Week."

"That's a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he continued. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

Asked whether he was open to the possibility that The New York Times should be prosecuted for its disclosures in December concerning a National Security Agency surveillance program, Mr. Gonzales said his department was trying to determine "the appropriate course of action in that particular case."

"I'm not going to talk about it specifically," he said. "We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity."

[O Really]

I certainly support freedom of the press. But like other freedoms, it is not absolute or without limits. Just as falsely yelling "fire" in the theatre is not protected speech, disclosure of classified information is not part of the press' freedom. Sure, disclosure of ee-vil is a worthy effort, and those who risk their own security to do so are among my list of heros, and sure, some things that are "classified" aren't necessarily a real security threat, but intentional disclosure should still should be considered potentially criminal.

[Stinger]

I certainly support freedom of the press. But like other freedoms, it is not absolute or without limits. Just as falsely yelling "fire" in the theatre is not protected speech, disclosure of classified information is not part of the press' freedom. Sure, disclosure of ee-vil is a worthy effort, and those who risk their own security to do so are among my list of heros, and sure, some things that are "classified" aren't necessarily a real security threat, but intentional disclosure should still should be considered potentially criminal.

To me, there's an easy distinction: National security vs. presidential comfort.

Who draws the line and where they draw it is the question. I don't even trust me.

[O Really]

How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists

That's outrageous. How did they ever get a jury to convict on any of those charges? How did it ever get to trial in the first place? Their attorney should be disbarred, right before being hung and skinned.

[Stinger]

How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists

That's outrageous. How did they ever get a jury to convict on any of those charges? How did it ever get to trial in the first place? Their attorney should be disbarred, right before being hung and skinned.

I don't know about the attorneys. It sounds like a kangaroo court run by a nutjob, and the feds had the fix in on lines of questioning. Sounded more like a grand jury proceeding than an actual trial.

[Leo Lyons]

How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists

Amazing....the things that come out of the Obama Administration, isn't it?

[Roland Deschain]

How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists

Cut a fence and illegally entered a nuclear weapons facility.....oh yeah, these three are just angels!

[Roland Deschain]

Cut a fence and illegally entered a nuclear weapons facility.....oh yeah, these three are just angels!

4 fences, as the article clearly states. Reasonable people can differ about them, their tactics and their goals, but your hearty endorsement of authoritarian exaggeration in their prosecution is sad. It's trespassing and minor property damage, not terrorism and sabotage, Henny Penny.

Yes there were more fences than just one. Excuse me for paraphrasing. However, that does not negate the fact that they made illegal entry into a nuclear weapons facility. The interesting point is that you are basing your assumptions what they "said" they were there to do. The 9-11 hijackers "said" they were making cross country flights. If you can not use the most severe punishment available under the law to protect against illegal entry onto a nuclear weapons facility what can you use it for?

[Roland Deschain]

Well you missed that point. The 9-11 hijackers still "said" they were taking cross country flights. I kind of doubt they would have been allowed on board had they said they were going to hijack the aircraft and crash them into buildings. Don't you agree. Also nice to know that forum staff here has no problem posting IP addresses for public view on the forum. Says loads about the character of folks running this place.

[Ombudsman]

Also nice to know that forum staff here has no problem posting IP addresses for public view on the forum. Says loads about the character of folks running this place.

LOL - You think it takes more character to refuse to log in and post, knowing you'll get your nose wiped by your boy Solar if you do, than for us to know your IP address? BTW, it doesn't take forum staff to see your IP address DG. We can all see it.

[Roland Deschain]

You made no sensible point, that's the point. The 54 people who tried to get on planes with loaded guns last year are not facing decades in prison. Are you saying they should be?

"forum staff"?

That's your taxpayer-funded server, not your "IP address". You've screwed up, again. Here's mine: morrisbb.com
Don't be so delicate.

Are you at "work" right now and do you carry because you're afraid of 82 year-old pacifist Catholic nuns?

The point I as making is that these people illegally entered a nuclear weapons facility. I would say that constitutes a major breach of national security and regardless of what they "said" their intentions were they should be treated as if they intended to do maximum harm.

Still says loads about your character that you saw fit to post what should be "private" information.

I might be at work, or might have simply stepped into the office to take care of a few things. I might be carrying as we speak or I might never carry. Quite franklyu all of that information is none of your business.

[Roland Deschain]

Also nice to know that forum staff here has no problem posting IP addresses for public view on the forum. Says loads about the character of folks running this place.

LOL - You think it takes more character to refuse to log in and post, knowing you'll get your nose wiped by your boy Solar if you do, than for us to know your IP address? BTW, it doesn't take forum staff to see your IP address DG. We can all see it.

Interesting reply but who refused to log in and post, who is "Solar", and what is an "IP address DG"??

[Roland Deschain]

You are really a bitter person. It seems that you are the type that must have the last word in any conversation so be it. However and just one more time to your "question"....none of your business when, what, why, or even if I carry.

[Leo Lyons]

Me "bitter"? You're the one that wants Big Brother to impose the severest of penalties on 82 year-old pacifist trespassers and taggers.

The point I as making is that these people illegally entered a nuclear weapons facility. I would say that constitutes a major breach of national security and regardless of what they "said" their intentions were they should be treated as if they intended to do maximum harm.

They cut through fencing 'clearly' marked with "No Trespassing" signs that 'clearly' stated they would be trespassing on government property where they had no business being, and would be prosecuted if they disobeyed the 'clearly' posted sign.

For starters, it was 'clearly' noted they damaged government property by cutting the fence, and entered property that had materials stored that could be
used in a deadly attack against the American people. Regardless of the woman's age, she committed a felony crime; had she only been 25 years old, she still committed a felony by breaking into the facility. Should she have been given a reassuring pat on the back and told to run along home?

It was also noted they surrendered peacefully; a good thing, because they could have been met with deadly force, regardless what they said their intentions were. They're fortunate that they didn't shoot first and ask questions later, which, given the facility and the actions of the trespassers, might have been considered justified.

Breaking into a federal arsenal-related facility, despite the comical lack of security, is not the same as scaling a power plant smokestack to protest
air pollution or marching in a protest parade.

[O Really]

I've got an idea - let's charge people with what they've actually done, nevermind what they say they might or woulda coulda shoulda done.
These people illegally entered and defaced government property. That's it. There are charges that cover that specifically. Anything else is witch hunt to say the least. I still say the defense attorneys bear a lot of the fault. You telling me the late great Johnnie Cochran wouldn't have been in the jury's face with something like, "they sprayed some paint...terrorists they ain't" or whatever.

[Leo Lyons]

I've got an idea - let's charge people with what they've actually done, nevermind what they say they might or woulda coulda shoulda done.
These people illegally entered and defaced government property. That's it. There are charges that cover that specifically. Anything else is witch hunt to say the least. I still say the defense attorneys bear a lot of the fault. You telling me the late great Johnnie Cochran wouldn't have been in the jury's face with something like, "they sprayed some paint...terrorists they ain't" or whatever.

If I've got my info right, you're an attorney; right? So you should know that all manner of charges can be brought against someone by law enforcement.
In my former job, it was common for the prosecution to tack on as many offemses as possible providing they related to why they were arrested. (see red print below)
Proving all those charges in court generally was difficult which resulted in many charges being tossed out.

I'm betting that eventually these three will wind up being punished according to federal guidelines for B&E a govt. facility and vandalism, depsite the fact
that one of them was a little ol' lady.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — An 84-year-old Albuquerque woman on an oxygen tank has been indicted for drug trafficking.
KRQE-TV reports that Lillie Smith was recently indicted by a Bernalillo County Grand Jury for trafficking, conspiracy to commit trafficking, tampering with evidence and possession.

Court documents show the charges stem from a warrant served at Smith's apartment back in 2011. Deputies suspected that the woman's son,
Nathan Jones, was running a small drug operation out of her Albuquerque apartment.

Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Aaron Williamson says deputies found cocaine and marijuana on her and she tried to stash them during the investigation.
]Little ol' lady arrested

[O Really]

If I've got my info right, you're an attorney; right? So you should know that all manner of charges can be brought against someone by law enforcement.

In my former job, it was common for the prosecution to tack on as many offemses as possible providing they related to why they were arrested. (see red print below)
Proving all those charges in court generally was difficult which resulted in many charges being tossed out.

I'm betting that eventually these three will wind up being punished according to federal guidelines for B&E a govt. facility and vandalism, depsite the fact
that one of them was a little ol' lady.

]

Yes, I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer. Most of what I know about criminal law I learned on TV. But if I read the article right, they were already convicted of a bunch of cockameenie charges, with an apparent minimal proof of anything other than the breaking and entering and property defacement. Yes, I understand filing charges to frighten the defendant, to try to make something stick to the wall, to expand the negotiation field, yada. This case is total bullshit, poorly defended, and an affront to anyone who thinks they're in a "justice" system.

[O Really]

What article did you read, LL?

...up to thirty-five years in prison...

In its decision affirming their incarceration pending their sentencing, the court ruled that both the sabotage and the damage to property convictions were defined by Congress as federal crimes of terrorism...

Sure, trespassing, vandalism and minor property damage, they expected that and are willing to accept the consequences imposed by a nation defending its 7.2 trillion dollar plans to commit genocide. But this? They are political prisoners, prosecuted for their views not their actual deeds, and convicted for so embarrassing the government by exposing how inept it is at even protecting Americans from our own weapons.

Yes, but my question remains - how did they get a jury to go along with this? The prosecution is doing its best "Big Brother" act with regard to punishment for political acts. Got it. But juries get hung over lots of less complicated issues, and juries often reject the charges of a prosecution they deem overly aggressive. I understand the motive and strategy of the prosecution; I just don't understand how they made it work.