It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Supporters of Dennison Williams and Leah-Lynn Plante say the two were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury in Seattle at the same time as the raid. They believe it's part of an investigation into anarchists and other political activism.
The 14 activists victimized in the September raids invoked their Fifth Amendment right when requested to appear before the Chicago grand jury, and subpoenas were withdrawn.
On Jan. 10, Jordan began serving out a ten-month prison sentence for refusing to appear before a federal grand jury investigating animal rights activists under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The protest in Minneapolis was part of a national day of actions to raise awareness about Halliday’s case, the dangers of FBI repression and grand jury injustice. Attending the protest in Minneapolis were Sarah Martin and Jess Sundin, grand jury resisters in the case of 23 international solidarity activists under investigation for supposed material support for terrorism.
A fair reading of the origins and purposes of the fifth amendment, coupled with the rights of political freedom contained in the first amendment, n139 should create a right to "political silence," barring any compelled testimony before a grand jury touching a witness' political activity and associations. Political activists should not be forced to choose between providing the government with political intelligence about their movement or going to prison. The right of silence incorporated into the fifth amendment as the privilege against self-incrimination has its origins in the opposition of religious and political dissenters to the English institutions of inquisition, the Court of High Commission, and the Star Chamber. n140 Historically, early dissenters, refusing to be coerced by government inquisitions, courageously asserted the right of silence as part of the resistance to governmental attacks on freedom of speech and written expression. Significantly, the dissenters asserted this [*1190] right not only as to their own activity, but to the activity of friends and political associates as well. They claimed a broad right of silence as to all political activity. n141 The Supreme Court has ignored the significance of the political origins of the right to silence in several cases upholding congressional immunity legislation. In Brown v. Walker, n142 a five justice majority upheld an act which supplanted the fifth amendment and compelled testimony in return for transactional immunity. The statute in question, however, limited the grant of immunity to matters concerning the Interstate Commerce Commission and consequently did not implicate first amendment issues. Nonetheless, Justice Field, speaking for the minority, articulated the understanding of the four dissenting justices of the scope of the right to silence:
This position may be appropriate when it is applied to economic regulation, but when the government seeks to compel testimony concerning political beliefs, activities, and associations, however, immunity from potential criminal prosecution is inadequate. In these situations, witnesses should be [*1191] afforded the fifth amendment protection giving them the right not to testify. The Supreme Court, however, did not follow this reasoning and remained consistent with its decision in Brown when it decided Ullman v. United States n145 almost fifty years later. In Ullman, the Court upheld an immunity act directed toward matters of internal security. It ruled that the act was sufficient to supplant a witness' fifth amendment right to refuse to answer questions about his communist affiliations. n146 In its analysis, the majority failed to apply the political context of the evolution of the fifth amendment right of silence -- the refusal of the witness to disclose his unpopular political beliefs and those of his associates -- or to give any consideration to the relation between the first amendment and the right to silence. In his dissent, however, Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Black, clearly articulated the personal values of freedom of expression and self-dignity from which the fifth amendment arose.
Ummm...I agree, this to me is an enlightened attainment and when you put it as plainly as that, I comprehend it as well. However, I will also not stand-under any form of governance, other than "self governance".
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by YouSir
Self government is, in my mind, good government. Those who achieve this state have the government they deserve. Do you understand?
Originally posted by NAMTERCES
Originally posted by Phenomium
Sooooo, let me get this straight. They kick down someones door (who cares what THEY think this new Patriot Act 2 means), they violated these peoples constitutional rights as well as their human rights. They seize books and uhem....black clothing (real threat there), flags etc. AND THEY ARE CALLING THESE AMERICANS ANARCHISTS AND TERRORISTS?
It's called "pre-emptive policing".
To stop the crime before it happens.
Most policing used to be after the fact. The police arrive on the scene and then collect evidence after it's all over. Then they have to search for the criminals.
In this case, they prevent the criminals from even committing the crime.
It's the new dogma.
Started with George Bush and his "strike first" policy. To go where the terrorists are and strike them before they get so organized and ready that they can strike home.
The old doctrine was based on the Christian turn the other cheek. Yesterday, we believed in God, and thought that he could prevent a person from doing damage to another if He wanted, so we "waited" to see what happened first, then we acted. But, since Bush discarded that old system, a new policy has been in effect. At the first signs of trouble, move in and prevent it, don't wait for the cheek to be struck, don't let them strike your cheek at all. It's the new religion. STRIKE FIRST.
Welcome to the New World Order.
Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by silent thunder
Libraries closing, next they will be burning books. Ever seen the film Equilibrium?
Originally posted by silent thunder
When FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force agents raided multiple activist homes in the Northwest last week, they were in search of “anti-government or anarchist literature.”
The raids were part of a multi-state operation that targeted activists in Portland, Olympia, and Seattle. At least three people were served subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury on August 2nd in Seattle.
In addition to anarchist literature, the warrants also authorize agents to seize flags, flag-making material, cell phones, hard drives, address books, and black clothing...The motivation for these operations, and the instruction that “anarchist” means “terrorist,” is coming straight from the top levels of the federal government...The FBI presentation described anarchists as “criminals seeking an ideology to justify their activities.”
Has it really come to this? How could they possibly get a warrant for this kind of thing? I'm speechless.
Are the content of political writings now deemed a reason for raiding homes? How could any American, regardless of political views, justify this kind of blatant assault on the nation's most hallowed ideas of freedom?edit on 8/1/2012 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Originally posted by ArrowsNV
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Remember, Big Brother is watching...
When the threat of WAR means your certain and utter destruction, WAR is avoided and PEACE remains. MAD anyone?
I think you meant to say SLAVERY is FREEDOM, that would be the BAD is GOOD framework you were supposed to convey. Funny though, people mock FREEDOM today and say it is really SLAVERY. Or maybe you really think FREEDOM is BAD and SLAVERY is GOOD, then you got your hogwash in order? But that would mean you wish to be a slave.
IGNORANCE is STRENGTH, whew at least you got the order right for the last one. BAD is GOOD, check.
Ignorance is always bad, strength always good....totally incompatible hogwash. But wait, IGNORANCE is BLISS so it can be good after all.