
FBI releases documents that confirm they proactively spy on anarchists - tjaerv
https://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-plante-anarchists-jury-983/
======
patrickmay
Having read some additional sources, the justification for forcing the three
individuals to speak is that they were given immunity from prosecution by the
grand jury. This supposedly prevents them from taking the fifth, because they
can't incriminate themselves. That smells like an attempted end run around the
constitution.

What immunity doesn't address is the individual's first amendment right to
freedom of speech. Freedom of speech must include the freedom to remain
silent. Nothing in the constitution gives the government the power to compel
expression.

Fourth amendment protections against search and seizure should apply as well.
The government is trying to force these people to provide the contents of
their minds. Again, there is no constitutional justification for this.

The constitution sets out strict limits on government power. This use of the
grand jury system is a clear violation of those limits and a moral outrage.

~~~
anigbrowl
_Nothing in the constitution gives the government the power to compel
expression._

Courts are invested with the power to try cases. When someone swears to 'tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' they're agreeing to
express themselves to an organ of the government. The constitution doesn't
forbid lying, but that doesn't grant you the freedom to engage in perjury.

 _This use of the grand jury system is a clear violation of those limits and a
moral outrage._

I wouldn't rely on Russia Today for my legal analysis if I were you. The
Validimir Putin Press Agency is not really in a position to report objectively
on the theory or practice of fair trials, given the lamentable state of the
Russian legal system.

~~~
agwa
> When someone swears to 'tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
> truth,' they're agreeing to express themselves to an organ of the
> government. The constitution doesn't forbid lying, but that doesn't grant
> you the freedom to engage in perjury.

These three activists didn't lie or take an oath - they simply refused to
testify. You could argue that the courts' power to try cases allows the govt
to imprison people to coerce testimony, but that's a different argument.

> I wouldn't rely on Russia Today for my legal analysis if I were you. The
> Validimir Putin Press Agency is not really in a position to report
> objectively on the theory or practice of fair trials, given the lamentable
> state of the Russian legal system.

And yet that logic never stops US papers from reporting on other countries'
legal systems...

There are sources besides RT for this news - you can google them.

~~~
anigbrowl
Please read the first line of the grandparent comment about how information
from other sources establishes that the three were given immunity from
prosecution. In other words, they made a deal with prosecutors to testify.

~~~
agwa
You don't have to consent to be given immunity.

~~~
anigbrowl
After digging about a bit, I find I was mistaken - the court granted immunity
but exercised its power to compel testimony by subpoena. Still, the court is
not exceeding its authority in that area. Subpoenas do not viol;ate the
constitution.

------
jacquesm
It should not be possible to jail people this long without charging them with
something, contempt of court doesn't cut it for me.

~~~
janzer
Unfortunately this isn't even getting close to the longest time for people to
be imprisoned for contempt of court. The US record goes to Mr. Chadwick[1] at
14 years. I certainly do agree that these cases don't seem in line with a
properly operating system of justice.

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick>

------
ari_elle
_RT - Question more (as long as it is against the USA, not Russia)_

It's funny that Russia Today always points out the flaws in the USA while
having a not really well functioning democracy at home.

Let's release some FSB information for a change?

I am not thinking RT is the root of all evil though. It's definitely a
valuable source for information, if you take it with a grain of salt.

 _[Funny also that they are one of the big media outlets for Assange or
Wikileaks/Whistleblowers in general, that are with their information
indirectly targeting mostly American Intelligence] - one of the reasons btw
why Assange is a hypocrite_

~~~
redcircle
What is your point? If we want a balanced view of the world, and most news
sources push government propaganda (including NY Times, Washington Post, etc.,
which are like press agents for the executive branch), then we need to combine
multiple vectors of propaganda to discern some truth.

~~~
ari_elle
That is exactly what i said!

"It's definitely a valuable source for information, if you take it with a
grain of salt."

I don't think that you should absorb any information without critical thinking
of course, but just said, that especially news from RT about American
Intelligence Failures you should be careful with.

And my observation: There is more USA government critical thinking in the NY
Times than on RT. So imo they are more based on ideology, while the NYT is of
course too, but not that much.

~~~
sologoub
Not sure how much of this is true, but the story currently unfolding in Russia
is fascinating to observe: [http://www.euronews.com/newswires/1701658-russian-
activist-s...](http://www.euronews.com/newswires/1701658-russian-activist-
said-was-forced-to-confess-rights-workers/)

Summary: Anti-Putin activist fled to Ukraine to seek UN protection, stepped
out of the UN office to get lunch, got abducted by some people who transported
him back to Russia, got a confession out of him and turned him over to
prosecutors... Reads like something from a Cold War novel.

------
stephengillie
_Before being imprisoned and released, Plante said that a Freedom of
Information Act request she filed revealed that the grand jury was first
convened in March, two months before the vandalism she is being questioned
about even occurred._

How does a grand jury meet in March to investigate riots happening in May?

~~~
anigbrowl
Grand juries are typically impanelled for calendar periods, and consider
whatever (alleged) crimes take place during that time. They can be specially
impanelled for unusual or extraordinary crimes (eg following an act of
terrorism such as the OK bombing), but federal rules of civil procedure
require every district court to impanel a GJ at least 18 months, which acts as
a (light) check on federal prosecutors.

~~~
pygy_
I don't understand how this answers the question...

... or do you mean that they were investigating an alleged conspiracy to
vandalize state property?

~~~
joshAg
The grand jury was convened in march to rule on any crimes that might occur in
the following months.

~~~
stephengillie
Do you have a good link which explains how the grand jury operates? It's a
foreign concept to me that the grand jury deals with precrime, and I'm
suddenly uncomfortable with knowing so little about my country's justice
system.

~~~
anigbrowl
Grand juries sit for months at a time, and a prosecutor has to bring cases
before the grand jury before going to court. The grand jury decides if there
is sufficient evidence for the case to go to trial. It's largely a formality.
Essentially, the grand jury is there to answer the question of 'if these
alleged facts are true, would that mean a crime has taken place?' Technically,
the GJ's job is to find whether there is _probable cause_ to issue an
_indictment_ and put someone on _trial_.

That's why you don't have a regular defense team there; the GJ isn't
pronouncing on the guilt or innocence of the accused person, they're
pronouncing on the gravity of the alleged offense. So if you're a prosecutor
and you bring someone in front of a grand jury for murder, all you have to
establish on a practical level is that a murder took place. You can learn more
from the handbook for jurors:
[http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/FederalCou...](http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/FederalCourts/Jury/grandhandbook2007.pdf)

There's no precrime involved here. A crime (vandalism of a federal court
building) occurred in May, and it was brought before the grand jury that
happened to be impanelled at that time, as one of the many cases they examine.
It's not a conspiracy just because you don't know about it.

------
numbsafari
Why shouldn't the government keep tabs on a group whose professed ideology is
the elimination of government?

~~~
_delirium
If they're stockpiling bombs or something and actively working towards
criminal activity, sure. I think monitoring of some anti-government groups who
rise to that level, such as some groups within the American militia movement,
or groups such as Revolutionary Struggle in Greece, is legitimate.

But I don't think that, in a free country, the government should be monitoring
people solely for their political views or what kind of books they read,
without some actual evidence that they're a danger to anyone. Sure, maybe
someone who buys an Ayn Rand book will eventually work to eliminate
government, but I'm not sure owning _The Fountainhead_ should land you on a
watchlist; and the same should go for reading Proudhon or Kropotkin.

It's also really easy to run into false positives. In the '80s/'90s, for
example, the police/media liked to paint a bunch of generally harmless BBSing
kids as "dangerous anarchists" because they had an ASCII file of The Anarchist
Cookbook—which is violent anarchist literature, after all.

~~~
ninetax
And is (peacefully) working to eliminate gov't illegal in and of it's self?
Could congress vote to dissolve, or amend the constitution to massively reduce
the size and scope of the gov't?

~~~
_delirium
It generally isn't, no. In fact under a modern view of the First Amendment,
even organizing with an eventual goal of a revolutionary overthrow of the
government isn't illegal, as long as it doesn't rise to the level of inciting
"imminent lawless action". So, prosecuting communists solely for joining a
communist party and advocating communist revolution wasn't allowed after 1969
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio>).

Curiously, communists probably had it better precisely because of how focused
they were on the one "big" goal (communist revolution): Leninist parties in
particular were very centralized, disciplined, and scrupulously avoided doing
minor illegal things (vandalism, etc.) that could give the police a excuse,
because Marxist-Leninist ideology generally believes that small-scale direct
action is ineffective, and the vanguard party should keep its powder dry, so
to speak, until they're in position to seize power in one quick move.
Anarchists are much more decentralized, and have varying opinions about how to
organize change, so there's much more scope for the cops to find someone who
spray-painted or vandalized something, and via that argue that any group that
person was part of is part of an "anarchist criminal cell" by transitivity
(occasionally they get tired of waiting, and a police infiltrator will
actively egg on more militancy).

~~~
redcircle
This is probably off topic, but it makes an interesting contrast: in
Afganistan and Pakistan, where the Bill of Rights doesn't restrict the U.S.
gov, trying to _peacefully_ express disagreement with the U.S. government's
policies gets you drone bombed.

~~~
scarmig
To be fair, pretty much anything you do in Pakistan can get you drone bombed,
even if it's as simple as going to a wedding party or working in a hospital.

------
ojiikun
I wonder if the Federal Government is more afraid of the Cascadian movement
than we know? Where is my tin foil hat?

------
cristiantsara
this thread is probably being monitored by the FBI now

~~~
lukifer
Thanks to cheap database storage, it's more instructive to speak about the
things which are _not_ being monitored than the things that are.

