Small Victories

Federal prosecutors have withdrawn a subpoena (and the attendant gag order) that sought records from a Drake University forum for anti-war protesters. That seems like a good thing, but it does make one wonder: Isn't the withdrawal a de facto acknowledgement that the request went further than necessary to investigate a single instance of alleged trespassing? And should the decision to back down here provide much comfort for those who lack the resources and media-pull of a medium-sized university?

Comments

[Adam]

I think it's pretty scary what the government gets away with at times... I think it's crazy that it got as far as it did.

[dhex]

yes, but saddam hussein was a tyrant.

therefore, anything that happens here is ok.

unless you hate america.

how well do you think a drive to replace "politician" with "cunting pigfucker" would fair?

[Jennifer]

Dhex--

Having been raised in the white-trash part of the South, I know some literal pigfuckers who would become very offended and point out that THEY never started any illegal wars or robbed people of their civil liberties; all they've ever wanted to do is make sweet love to the multi-ton behemoths they married.

Insult the politicians all you want, but keep honest perverts out of it!

[Dan]

the Salem Witch Hunts originally picked on the poor and marginalized, and the accusers seemed unstoppable; however, once the accusers fingered such notables as the governor's wife the whole souffle collapsed.

That's not accurate. The first four accused were "poor and marginalized", but the accusations spread throughout all strata of society after that. The accusations first went public in March; by the end of the month, both respected and marginalized people were being accused. The hangings didn't begin until June, and didn't end until October. Furthermore, the first person executed was Bridget Bishop, a church member who ran two taverns -- not exactly "poor" or "marginalized".

Anyway, the accusation against the governor's wife was certainly a factor. However, prominent ministers had already been lobbying him for an end to the trials before that ever happened, and public sentiment in Salem had begun turning against the trials, and members of the court began resigning, as soon as the executions started.

[JimInNoVA]

Jennifer - We've already seen that the rich kids get let off the hook when it comes to drugs. Daddy's the governor? Uncle's the President? You can write a (poor) fake script, and get probation. Violate your probation because there's a crack rock in your shoe? Don't worry, you still won't see the inside of a jail cell. It's rehab for you. After all, when it's their kids it's a "family problem."

Which reminds me: one pot dealer at Annandale High School (which is "multicultural," but hardly in the ghetto) gets drug dogs, locker searches, and constitutionally suspect backpack grabs. A heroin/E/oxy-contin ring at Robinson HS down the street (Can we say "Crackerville?") where the average income is about $50K more yields not a news story nor extra police presence. Why? Because their parents have the money and influence to buy their way out of trouble with rehab and an expensive lawyer and a nice suit to wear to court when theit daughter gets caught with a kilo of coke. She won't get charged with intent to distribute, but a latino kid with 3 joints will.

I guess the funniest part is that the rich white kids are using daddy's money to buy harder drugs (and more of them) than the "ghetto" kids are, but arn't getting searched because they go to a "good" school.

[Dan]

Isn't the withdrawal a de facto acknowledgement that the request went further than necessary to investigate a single instance of alleged trespassing?

That's certainly one possibility. It's also possible that the prosector simply didn't think he could win, or wasn't willing to deal with the political backlash.

[Dan]

She won't get charged with intent to distribute, but a latino kid with 3 joints will

Congrats on your stunning revelation that criminals who can afford good lawyers receive lighter sentencing than those who can't.

What's your proposed solution to this problem -- setting a cap on the amount of money Americans are allowed to spend defending ourselves in court, or jacking up our taxes so that every crackhead in Los Angeles can afford Johnnie Cochran?

[JimInNoVA]

And we will tastefully stay away from the "withdrawing the subpoena" jokes. Wouldn't want an FCC investigation.

[SteveInClearwater]

"...withdrawing the subpoena,,,"

SinC: Indeed. As George Carlin would likely remark, "Sounds rather unmanly to me.."

[Jennifer]

Julian Sanchez wondered if this might be a bad thing, in that most people do not have the publicity or resources to fight subpeonas as Drake did. But perhaps this is a good thing in disguise! There have been many cases in history when injustices were ignored when perpetrated against the poor, but when the rich and powerful start to suffer the law pulls back. One early example: the Salem Witch Hunts originally picked on the poor and marginalized, and the accusers seemed unstoppable; however, once the accusers fingered such notables as the governor's wife the whole souffle collapsed.

Or, for something more recent: one reason the War on Drugs has been allowed to last as long as it has is because it's mostly the poor, dark-skinned folks who have suffered. If the law ever starts punishing rich pale people like the Bush kids, the rich folks will push back and things will change.

The more non-Arab, non-Muslim Americans who suffer in the name of the War on Terror, the sooner we'll have a chance at rolling back these atrocious assaults on our freedoms.

[Jennifer]

By coincidence, today's Salon has an article about the Drake incident. Pretty disturbing stuff, having cops infiltrate protest groups AND try to convince the groups to do criminal activities, just so the cops can get more arrests:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/11/cointelpro/

[Dan]

Bridget Bishop may have had money, but as an independent female running a house of drink she would have been marginalized in the sense that no respectable person would be seen talking to her.

First of all, she was married. Secondly, the Puritans brewed beer and distilled alcohol from a variety of sources; they were NOT anti-alcohol the way that 19th and 20th-century fundamentalists became. Beer was a dietary staple; tavern owners were NOT outcasts in any sense of the word. She was an active member of the church, and people did talk to her. We don't have to draw inferences about what her role in society "would have been"; we have historical records to go by. Bishop was loud, obnoxious, and wore flashy clothes. She was an unpopular person, yes. But she was a well-to-do member of mainstream society. This precludes the use of the term "marginalized" to refer to her.

The accusers didn't start picking on "respectable" people until the movement had enough momentum.

As I've already explained, they started picking on "respectable" people before the movement was even a month old, three months before any executions occurred. Even if you decide, for arbitrary reasons, to label Bishop as one of the "marginalized", that same month of March also saw a number of other formerly-accepted members of society accused of witchcraft.

Actually, I read something somewhere that a lot of victims were women who stood to inherit money (can't let a woman have money; money is for men.)

First they were "poor and marginalized"; now they're inheriting money? Who was leaving them the money, if they were poor and marginalized?

Anyway, you were mistaken the first time, but you are in this case correct: one of the common denominators among the female victims was that many were in a position to inherit money.

First they came for the poor, and I said nothing because I'm not poor. Then they came for the whores, and I said nothing because I am pure. Then they went for the single women, and I said nothing because I'm in a committed relationship. Finally they went for the Governor's wife. Freedom!

The notion that "going for the governor's wife" is what ended the trials is an unsupported myth. The people who were "gone for" were rich and poor, mainstream and marginalized, single and married, from the very earliest days of the hysteria. What they "went for" is people who behaved unusually. The trials ended because popular sentiment was turning strongly against them, not because the governor's wife was accused (along with fifty other women the accuser had just met); hundreds of people were accused without ever seeing the inside of a jail, let alone the end of a hangman's noose.

[JimInNoVA]

How about setting standards for intent to distribute, actually holding them to the minimum sentencing, and getting some bitter cops to bust some rich white kids? A little hard to weasel out when the law says: "you have X ammout of drugs, you are charged with this crime, your sentence must include jail time in a medium-security prison for no less than y days." In this particular case I'm all for tying judges hands.

I know it's about as anti-libertarian a stance as I can take, but if the nanny state won't overturn their drug laws then make the ones doing the nannying feel the pain.

[Jennifer]

Dan--

Bridget Bishop may have had money, but as an independent female running a house of drink she would have been marginalized in the sense that no respectable person would be seen talking to her.

Actually, I read something somewhere that a lot of victims were women who stood to inherit money (can't let a woman have money; money is for men.) Either way, such people would not have had much respect from their community, and would be easy targets. The accusers didn't start picking on "respectable" people until the movement had enough momentum.

"First they came for the poor, and I said nothing because I'm not poor. Then they came for the whores, and I said nothing because I am pure. Then they went for the single women, and I said nothing because I'm in a committed relationship. Finally they went for the Governor's wife. Freedom!"