hoooooray. welcome home

Glad this part is over now. I hope getting redress is not long in coming.

Go ahead, keep pushing, Kiley. If that could happen to these folks, just imagine what could happen to you if you keep committing the crime of thinking that you are entitled to know the whys or hows of government decision making. To badly mangle John Donne's work, ask not for whom the drone circles, the drone circles for thee.

Hooray! Welcome home, Maddie! In your face, liberals!

Good

hoooooray. welcome home

Hoooray! Lets go set fire to some green condos being built, to show our support! She is clearly a working class hero as she never snitched on her friends. /sarcasm

A witness who refuses to testify at trial after having been granted immunity from prosecution may be summarily convicted of direct criminal contempt under Rule 42(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. "Rule 42(a) was never intended to be limited to situations where a witness uses scurrilous language, or threatens or creates overt physical disorder and thereby disrupts a trial. All that is necessary is that the judge certify that he "saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court.'"

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_r…

Although reading that again, the second part is more applicable

By contrast, a witness who refuses to testify before a grand jury on the ground of the privilege against self-incrimination after having been granted immunity from prosecution and ordered to testify by a court, may only be prosecuted for criminal contempt according to the procedures applicable to indirect contempts under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

They are convening a grand jury Monday in the Steubenville rape case. When they initially interviewed people 16 refused to answer questions, probably for the same reason these folks did. Not wanting to get their friends in trouble. Some of them may not have even been at the party, nor involved in any way except that they knew the offenders and potentially had information relevant to the investigation. Some might be in written form like emails or facebooks. The Grand Jury will allow the State to force them to testify and will probably start with the same foundational questions about who they know, for how long, etc.

So if these folks refuse to testify do they deserve the same sympathy or does that only apply when the refusers are more in line with your political views?

http://www.cleveland.com/steubenville-ra…

@11: Do you suppose questions for those brought before the grand jury to which you refer will be like, "Did you witness this unconscious young woman being carried into the party you attended?" or will it be a session with prosecutors "rattling off names and showing photographs of people, asking about their social contacts and political opinions"?

Because the Steubenville grand jury was convened to get information on a specific crime (the gang rape of a minor and subsequent coverup). This grand jury was convened to help build a database of anarchists. And while a lot of anarchists do commit crimes, so do a lot of communists, Republicans, and Democrats. We're talking territory that covers everyone from the dumbasses who light condos on fire to Gandhi and Dorothy Day and, uh, Alicia Keys.

@12 This was not a politically motivated crime, but yes I am sure the same foundational questions will be asked. Especially of those not there, but who may have heard about the crime, been shown the pictures, etc. They may even ask questions about people's views on things like rape.

@13 Oh please, no one wants a database of anarchists. You had a group of people planning on committing, and then committing crimes. Just because they were doing it for some silly ideology does not mean that the police should not investigate, nor that they should disregard questions or investigation into their motives simply because they are political.

@14 not true. There are actually a few of those, but you're not supposed to know about those databases.

That said, I'd watch Alicia Keys, @13, very closely. I'll volunteer for that!

I would argue that those who refuse to testify in the Stubenville rape case should be awarded the same level of sympathy. No one should be compelled to provide information to the state against their will.

Even though the crime may be terrible and we all really want justice and answer's, the Grand Jury system is so slanted that we can be provided neither. There's that Ben Franklin thing, "Those who sacrifice long term liberty for short term security deserve neither," or something like that.

The court system has a very specific function, to adjudicate alleged crimes and to handle civil matters. Using the Grand Jury in this way effectively makes it a tool of law enforcement by fueling investigations. Law enforcement is part of the Executive branch, the courts are obviously Judicial. Not only is it a violation of the separation of powers but it's just patently immoral.

A good result achieved by way of a bad process is a bad result. Using prisons to compel testimony increases the likelihood that people will lie when called to testify. It serves no one, makes no one safer and should be abolished.

Personally, I don't really get worked up when demonstrators break stuff. It's not like I love it, but I don't really care enough to get my blood boiled.

That's almost besides the point. What I'm saying is that I feel the Grand Jury is inappropriate, even when I DO have strong feels about the crime, like in Stubenville. Frankly, the ends don't justify the means. A guilty person is wrongfully convicted if they are subjected to an unfair process. Using imprisonment as a coercive tactic to compel testimony from unrelated people is unfair, unreliable and unjust.

Personally, I don't really get worked up when demonstrators break stuff.

And I don't really get worked up when your punk friends are thrown in the slammer. So I guess we're even.

Once again, it's about the questions asked.

While grand juries, which have been abolished in most of the world's countries with legal systems that resemble ours, are of debatable merit on their own (they originally began as a way to protect citizens, but can be parlayed into a means of punishing them), there is a world of difference between asking for evidence of a crime and asking for evidence of minority political views.

They can both happen under a grand jury rubric, but one is more legitimate than the other.

#20 translation: My grand juries are good, anyone else's grand juries are bad.

@14 your law jocking within the comments of the grand jury resistors posts is extremely tired, and makes me lose respect for you as a person. the grand jury resistors are humans that are friends with people you know in real life, and even though i am positive i disagree with things YOUR friends do, i would never speak about them disrespectfully in a public place as you have continually done, reinforcing a lack of humanity the justice system already imposes.

political repression is a thing, scott. it is a thing that the government totally does, and that is totally fucked up.

being purposefully obtuse or playing devil's advocate, which i guess is what you are doing, because the court is, under the law, in the right, does not mean that what they are doing is right. it doesnt make it any less of a whole big giant pile of power-playing bullshit.

it is not comparable to steubenville because rape is illegal, maybe knowing an anarchist is not.

@14 FURTHERMORE, you referring to anarchism as a "silly ideology" is grossly full of paternal naivete, as if political outliers, obstructionists, and activists haven't been a fucking critical element in shaping what little democracy we have.

@22 I had know idea that I knew people who knew them, but that does not change the fact that I fully support the right of grand juries to compel testimony. It is not illegal to know rapists either, but we still make their friends and family testify against them.

They were not being oppressed they were being asked reasonably questions in an attempt to get information about crimes that were committed by people they knew or associated with. It sucks that they decided to go to jail instead of fulfilling their civic obligations, but that was their choice. No different than tax protestors or others who have an ideological issue with some governmental function.

Anarchism =/= political outliers, obstructionists, and activists. I fully support people working for good social change, but I do not consider anarchy to be a good social change. I put it in the same camp as extreme libertarianism or other philosophies that simply do not work and make little sense. They are a counterproductive element and while most are not violent the violent ones are especially problematic.

People are of course free to disagree, and if this had just been a peaceful protest I'd have no concern. But a bunch of self entitled assholes decided to trash my city, scaring a bunch of people, and causing damage. Plus they did it in an attempt to cause a riot which could have caused even more damage and harm. And all for a cause that, if successful, would be very bad for myself and people I care about.

So I have nothing against them personally, and if I have personally insulted them I apologize, but I do not support their cause nor the idea that they are being oppressed or are victims here.

@20 Even in countries that have abolished grand juries there is still compelled testimony. It just happens differently.

And when the ideology is the motivation for the crime, it is a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry.

@20

If you want to compare US law to that of developed nations that have done away with Grand Juries, then you really, really ought to mention the fact that those nations do not grant their inhabitants anything remotely resembling the US citizen's highly unusual right to evade self-incrimination via fifth-amendment silence.

Also, Brendan, you get a Courage in Journalism award for your meticulous avoidance of using any pronouns at all when referring to "Maddie" Pfeiffer.

I'm sure they is grateful for your acceptance of they's oft-disrespected gender identity.

So is Maddie a trannie?

By the way, are those not two of the homliest Seattle hipsters you've ever seen? Yikes!

@24 I am endlessly amazed at the scope and depth of ignorance of otherwise seemingly intelligent people concerning anarchism. Your comment shows you have absolutely no idea what anarchism even is. Anarchism literally means "without ruler" and is a system of societal governance based on very organized structures facilitating consensual decision making. And anarchism has a long history of "working" very well. Have you ever heard of the Spanish Civil War? The Spanish anarchists organized themselves phenomenally and improved their lives immeasurably. Many, many societies have organized themselves along horizontal lines of consensus, as opposed to vertical top down authoritarianism. Remember Hurricane Sandy? While the red cross couldn't find its backside with both hands, and displayed woeful inability to get help to victims, Occupy Sandy was the first on the scene, with mindblowing organization and efficiency generated by their anarchist principles and structures. Please educate yourself just a little. Read David Graeber. His writing is very accessible.

@24 I am endlessly amazed at the scope and depth of ignorance of otherwise seemingly intelligent people concerning anarchism. Your comment shows you have absolutely no idea what anarchism even is. Anarchism literally means "without ruler" and is a system of societal governance based on very organized structures facilitating consensual decision making. And anarchism has a long history of "working" very well. Have you ever heard of the Spanish Civil War? The Spanish anarchists organized themselves phenomenally and improved their lives immeasurably. Many, many societies have organized themselves along horizontal lines of consensus, as opposed to vertical top down authoritarianism. Remember Hurricane Sandy? While the red cross couldn't find its backside with both hands, and displayed woeful inability to get help to victims, Occupy Sandy was the first on the scene, with mindblowing organization and efficiency generated by their anarchist principles and structures. Please educate yourself just a little. Read David Graeber. His writing is very accessible.