Blatant unConstitutionality (RNC edition)
Welcome to Mussolini's America, folks. Please pass this on to anybody who hasn't heard. Talk about it, blog about it, and maybe we can get some media coverage. Also, please see update at bottom.
FBI/local police raid *suspected* protesters in St. Paul - before the convention.
From the Salon article, emphasis mine:
Several of those who were arrested are being represented by Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild.... There was not a single act of violence or illegality that has taken place, Nestor said. Instead, the raids were purely anticipatory in nature, and clearly designed to frighten people contemplating taking part in any unauthorized protests.
Nestor indicated that only 2 or 3 of the 50 individuals who were handcuffed this morning at the 2 houses were actually arrested and charged with a crime, and the crime they were charged with is "conspiracy to commit riot." Nestor, who has practiced law in Minnesota for many years, said that he had never before heard of that statute being used for anything, and that its parameters are so self-evidently vague, designed to allow pre-emptive arrests of those who are peacefully protesting, that it is almost certainly unconstitutional, though because it had never been invoked (until now), its constitutionality had not been tested.
The New York Times story is here.
Video of Amy Goodman, a reporter from Democracy Now, being arrested on charges of "conspiracy to riot." She has been released circa 9 pm, but her producers are still incarcerated.
In case anybody has forgotten their Bill of Rights:
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Spread the word.
Edited to update:
I'm having a discussion over at yi_sen's lj, since he has friends in law enforcement that are reporting a very different view of the situation. Some of the same issues that Gaidig touched on in the comments, especially the issue of what items the intended-protesters did or did not possess. Here's what I said:
The NY Times story was published early on in the raid, but the only thing it says about the police is that their pretense for inspection was fire code violations. I know they got Al Capone on tax evasion, but at least they had the case airtight before they started knocking down doors and arresting anyone.
Obviously the (eyewitness) coverage has been coming from the protester side, and they're not going to want to make themselves look bad by claiming they have various objects. But notice that your friends (through the grapevine, I assume) are not claiming that the protesters had guns, which are far more dangerous yet legal... and don't make the people accused of having them look "weird" and "other" and "like they deserved what they got, the damn hippies."
When the police are also busy arresting journalists with conspicuous press passes, confiscating a bus used for education about urban homesteading, and pepper spraying innocent people, I think the burden of proof is clearly on *the cops* to come out publicly with the information indicating these arrests are not politically motivated.
FBI/local police raid *suspected* protesters in St. Paul - before the convention.
From the Salon article, emphasis mine:
Several of those who were arrested are being represented by Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild.... There was not a single act of violence or illegality that has taken place, Nestor said. Instead, the raids were purely anticipatory in nature, and clearly designed to frighten people contemplating taking part in any unauthorized protests.
Nestor indicated that only 2 or 3 of the 50 individuals who were handcuffed this morning at the 2 houses were actually arrested and charged with a crime, and the crime they were charged with is "conspiracy to commit riot." Nestor, who has practiced law in Minnesota for many years, said that he had never before heard of that statute being used for anything, and that its parameters are so self-evidently vague, designed to allow pre-emptive arrests of those who are peacefully protesting, that it is almost certainly unconstitutional, though because it had never been invoked (until now), its constitutionality had not been tested.
The New York Times story is here.
Video of Amy Goodman, a reporter from Democracy Now, being arrested on charges of "conspiracy to riot." She has been released circa 9 pm, but her producers are still incarcerated.
In case anybody has forgotten their Bill of Rights:
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Spread the word.
Edited to update:
I'm having a discussion over at yi_sen's lj, since he has friends in law enforcement that are reporting a very different view of the situation. Some of the same issues that Gaidig touched on in the comments, especially the issue of what items the intended-protesters did or did not possess. Here's what I said:
The NY Times story was published early on in the raid, but the only thing it says about the police is that their pretense for inspection was fire code violations. I know they got Al Capone on tax evasion, but at least they had the case airtight before they started knocking down doors and arresting anyone.
Obviously the (eyewitness) coverage has been coming from the protester side, and they're not going to want to make themselves look bad by claiming they have various objects. But notice that your friends (through the grapevine, I assume) are not claiming that the protesters had guns, which are far more dangerous yet legal... and don't make the people accused of having them look "weird" and "other" and "like they deserved what they got, the damn hippies."
When the police are also busy arresting journalists with conspicuous press passes, confiscating a bus used for education about urban homesteading, and pepper spraying innocent people, I think the burden of proof is clearly on *the cops* to come out publicly with the information indicating these arrests are not politically motivated.