Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (30227)	2/18/2004 12:56:13 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793698

If the accounts you mischaracterized are in fact accurate, just hypothetically, any problems with that? Little problem with the demonstrators. People have a right to protest, but there have always been limits on their rights to get into the faces of other people. I don't think this policy is new, I think it was the same under previous Presidents. As for the supoena, I have a problem if these anti-war protesters were all just Americans exercising their free speech rights. If Hamas or Hizbullah had members on that panel, my problems vanish. And the possibility is not fanciful, remember Sami al-Arian. But as I read it, those accounts that I "mischaracterized" were all written by people with rather large axes to grind. What are the actual facts of case, that is the question.

To: E who wrote (30227)	2/18/2004 8:26:40 AM
From: gamesmistress	Respond to of 793698

There's more to that "subpoenas against the anti-war protesters" story than the freedom of speech issue. According to this story, the focus of the investigation was "alleged trespassing at the Iowa National Guard headquarters in Johnston." Using anti-war meetings to plan that sort of thing is not covered by freedom of speech. Exactly what happened, I dunno. I don't believe everything I read in the papers, whether they're quoting "anti-war activists" or the Feds. Prosecutors withdraw subpoenas against university, protesters By The Associated Press 02.11.04 DES MOINES, Iowa — After a nationwide outcry, federal prosecutors yesterday withdrew a subpoena asking Drake University to turn over a list of people involved in a November anti-war forum, as well as subpoenas ordering four activists to testify before a grand jury. The subpoenas raised concerns among peace activists and civil liberties advocates across the country that the government was attempting to stifle dissent and debate with a McCarthy-style witch hunt. Brian Terrell, leader of the Catholic Peace Ministry and one of the four called before the grand jury, broke the news to cheering protesters outside the U.S. Courthouse. “We made them want to stop, and we have to make sure they never want to do this again,” he told a crowd of about 100 attending a noontime rally. The subpoenas were withdrawn after U.S. Attorney Stephen O’Meara did not resist motions to quash them. U.S. District Judge Ronald E. Longstaff then lifted a gag order that had prohibited Drake University employees from discussing the case. The development came one day after O’Meara issued a statement acknowledging the investigation, saying its focus was alleged trespassing at the Iowa National Guard headquarters in Johnston on Nov. 16, when 12 people were arrested during an anti-war protest. Al Overbaugh, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office, said the investigation was not over, but he could not comment further. As part of the probe, prosecutors had served a subpoena last week asking Drake University to turn over the names of participants in the forum, held the previous day. It also requested campus security records about the forum, sponsored by the Drake chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, which included sessions on nonviolence training and the war in Iraq.