General Discussion

girl gone mad

(20,634 posts)

307. Oh yea, another brave soul who believes that protecting windows..

Reply to struggle4progress (Reply #165)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 04:23 PM

Oct 2012

is more important that protecting human rights and civil liberties.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

382 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

And Then There Were Three: Third Grand Jury Refuser Goes to Prison [View all] HiPointDem Oct 2012 OP

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