No Fair Using Informants to Listen While ANTIFA Lite Schemes to Break the Law.
There was a time in the sixties where the FBI infiltrated left wing groups, based on their politics. The Church Committee put paid to that enterprise. The FBI learned its lesson and only infiltrates Republican and conservative groups, these days. The current story attempts to bring back the glory days of government repression. It only works if one suspends coherent thought.
The website is certainly within acceptable parameters to criticize the Trump administration. It is within its rights to recruit like minded people. Peaceful protest are certainly acceptable.
The problem arises when the terms, “civil disobedience”, “take it to the streets”, and “whatever it takes,”are bandied about. To this old cop, such statements are a large step towards “reasonable suspicion” and possibly probable cause to believe that criminal conduct is contemplated or in progress. That being the case, law enforcement investigative efforts are appropriate.
There is a balancing act. This is an instance where an undercover operation is an appropriate response. Infiltrating such a group, an undercover will quickly be able to determine whether the conspirators are intent on committing a crime or just blowhards. It is possible that law enforcement could be in an out with nobody being the wiser. Avoiding a confrontation sounds good to me.
Yes, I do worry that some undercover operations take on a life of its own. See my posting below.
Okay, the first Amendment allows for the freedom to speak, associate and seek redress of grievances. However, it does not give immunity from criminal responsibility during the course of those activities when it comes to criminal conduct.
Thoreau knew damn well that in his, “civil disobedience,” he was violating the law. He expected and wanted to be jailed. In fact, he was upset when his supporters posted bail. He wanted to stay in jail, but the Sheriff told him he had to go. These modern day Thoreau’s do not share that expectation.
It doesn’t matter whether your group gathers in a titty bar, or a church if the ultimate aim is to plan to break the law, there is a word for that. It’s called conspiracy.
It becomes a criminal conspiracy when the aim is to commit a criminal act. The participants must agree, or do not reject the suggestion, and somebody makes an overt act. This act, in furtherance of the conspiracy does not have to be criminal. Not all of the conspirators need to be aware of each individual act.
Example: It is not against the law to rent a truck, buy fertilizer and diesel fuel. However, the renter becomes criminally responsible when the three are brought together with the intent to create a bomb.
What we don’t know from the article is when this undercover operation took place. We also don’t know what other information LAPD might have possessed over and above the web posting. Given the events it appears to me that LAPD was justified in mounting the operation.
The informant was equipped by police with a hidden recording device and assigned the informant to attend Refuse Fascism meetings at a local church “in an attempt to elicit information regarding the closure” of the freeway and to express interest in being involved “in any such future activities”, police wrote
The quotes from a defendant and his ACLU enabler are instructive. Neither contain a denial that LAPD found evidence of criminal conduct. Instead they throw up the “bait and switch”.
Miguel Antonio complains that they were meeting in a church. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the Spanish Inquisition held in church? He can’t leave well enough alone, Antonio goes on. It seems one cannot plan a peaceful protest without committing a crime. Is that a confession?
With the exception of speed freaks, every crook I’ve ever arrested has sought to belittle the severity of or justify the crime for which he was arrested.
“We’re not scared. We’re not going to back down in the face of repression,” he said, adding that this kind of spying was meant to discourage activists. “You’re in a church, and you’re meeting about organizing a peaceful protest, and you’re running the risk of being charged with conspiracy or these petty crimes.”
Left-wing activist Miguel Antonio
“When you know that your investigation is going to infringe on core political rights that communities have, you have to be damn near certain that there is some criminal activity afoot,” Tajsar told the Los Angeles Times. “It cannot be that you’re relying on speculation, hunches, innuendos or your gut feeling.”
” Mohammad Tajsar, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union
Tajsar takes a bunch of terms out of context and throws them up in the air. What falls to earth is garbage. “Criminal Activity a foot” is a term associated with “Terry V Ohio”. This decision established “reasonable suspicion” as a justification for police action. This is above a hunch and below probable cause.
“Damn Certain” is not a legal concept, but I would hazard a guess it would fall somewhere around or even beyond the concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard to sustain a criminal conviction. So, he has invented a nonsensical standard that no court recognizes. The ACLU maintains that this is the standard police must meet, in order to investigate.
Again, there is no denial of the charges.
ANTIFA, Refuse Fascism, Communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan and democrats are all following the same playbook. Look to the past, the democrats had the Ku Klux Klan on hand to do their bidding. The KKK achieved the democratic party goals through acts of intimidation. Certainly there were lynchings, church burning and deadly assaults, but these acts were dwarfed by the “petty crimes.” Cross burning, vandalism in the night, denial of service and countless acts of intimidation were the daily bread of the democrats and KKK. These acts were so common that they became acceptable, as long as it happened to the other guy.
It took the Nazis close to ten years of intimidation, vandalism, assaults, and vilification of Jews before they were able to get the trains running. Nobody was there to stop thousands of petty crimes before they hit the big one.
Lenin may have brought about the revolution in Russia and it certainly wasn’t bloodless. But it took Stalin to identify an entire class as villains. After a suitable period subjecting them to petty crimes, insults and indignities, Stalin was ready for the main event. Millions died. As Stalin said, “One man’s death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic.”
I have discussed this before in blogs about, “The Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla” at the link: http://poracponders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Mini-Manual-of-the-Urban-Guerrilla-Carlos-Marighella-1969.pdf
Read it. I think it will give insight into left wing thought. I think one of the mistakes that rational people make is to think that an isolated left wing action has to be backed up with coherent thought. That is not true. The act may be meaningless, it is the hoped for effect that is the object all along.
