General Discussion

Bernardo de La Paz

(58,776 posts)

121. Well, read it that way if you must. Was talking about DU being all about the USA governed by consent

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 12:12 PM

Oct 2012

Nothing in what I wrote implied that DU is a police state.

Nothing in what I wrote implied that anyone claimed DU is a police state.

You claimed that the USA is no longer governed by consent. That there is no vestige of such consent. That all traces of it have vanished.

I claim that that the USA still is governed (imperfectly) by consent. 2008 is some evidence. Perhaps you wish to ignore that or perhaps you consider Obama a totalitarian thug who does not govern by consent; how else are we to make sense of your claim that "The last vestige of governing by consent of the governed was lost in 2000"?

Since you believe that there is no vestige of government by consent in the USA, why are you wasting your time on a site dedicate to government by consent in the USA (the site called DU)?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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