Posted on 06/27/2010 12:17:07 PM PDT by Palter
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll bemuch easier to deal with.” (’Atlas Shrugged’ 1957)
Thanks. Wish I knew who wrote it.
They deserve a lot of credit, don’t you think?
That was his mistake. You dont say *anything* to goons from the FBI or any other law enforcement agency w/o an atty present. Anything. And you most certainly never let them in w/o a warrant.
Never talk to cops (of any stripe).
The people that read the mail and stack it in different piles (to be ignored, answered with form letter, reported to the police), those mundane duties fall upon the interns. THEY are the one’s most involved in “screening,” not the staffer.
Take a look over here for a sampling of the typical intern behavior:
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
It is easy to see why some are “harassed” back.
Could be, but if this occurred after Bunning announced his pending retirement, you would wonder why they would be so teed off by this seemingly moderate criticism. What would he have to lose at this stage of his career? IMHO, it is not threatening or harassing.
BTW, why does Nat Hentoff limit the Constitution "being razed" to the last 9 1/2 years? Why such a limited time frame? Seems like the razing of the Constitution has been going on for about 100 years, at least various parts of it. Even the statute he refers to was from 1996 which is 14 years ago, if he cares to count.
Pretty clear to me ~ but whadda' I know ~ spent a couple of years READING and then ANSWERING complaints sent to the Postal Consumer Advocate and definitely know the difference between a threat and a descriptive statement.
The FBI and some really weird US Attorney are going to lose this case.
Oh, yeah, the threats ~ those came during the years I spent writing regulations for public comment, and then ruling on appeals of field decisions. There were the heavy breathers; the people just parked in front of the house; etc. Amazing what people will come up with.
This ex~con (35 bankrobberies) has ways to make real threats. This wasn't it.
However, in order to underscore the idea that no one really thought him to be violent THEY LET HIM OUT OF PRISON IN FOUR (4), count'em, 1, 2, 3, 4 YEARS!!!!
The FBI didn't say a word when they turned this bad boy loose. Now they're back at him unsatisfied with the way he writes emails to Senators.
This reminds me of the "fibbies" who shot the Boy Scout in the jaw because they thought he was a bank robber.
Let me suggest the "fibbies" are weak on dealing with bank robbers, and non bank robbers, and if you show them the word "bank robber" they fly off in all directions shooting people.
Not to be critical, but there you have it!
But I also think there is a time for genuine threats, of a sort.
I speak of pitchforks a lot. And what I mean by that is some level of "getting in their faces" that will actually cause them some fear, more of humiliation than anything else. Because in their offices and chambers they are overprotected and they have none.
And that isn't right.
Seems as if Nat Hentoff didn't tell the whole story of what the emails had said, nor did he give us the fact that the guy who sent the emails had a serious criminal record.
The "life and death game" part of his email could be construed as a threat, as well as "we will come to your offices and make our point."
After this additional info, I'm kind of on the fence now as to whether the prosecutors made the right call in indicting this man. Anyway, Hentoff might have been better advised to discuss a more egregious violation of free speech than this.
And mind, this apparently was a long string of e-mails, we've seen but one, but I suspect that there's more in other e-mails that led the senator's office to turn it over to authorities and they in turn to go through the effort of tracking down who wrote the e-mails, and then traveling to PA to talk to him.
Should it end there? Or is he being used as an example case, with prosecutor's quietly pleased that he's gained a defender at the Huffington Post? I see it to a level to investigate, I don't think I see it to a level to prosecute, but a grand jury disagrees with my opinion. By the letter of the law, and the limits of the First Amendment, it might behoove this yahoo to be very, very pleasant in court. ‘cause I could easily see them deciding that the guy needs housing in prison.
To begin with, Nat Hentoff uses as his sole source an article from the Huffington Post written by Arthur Delaney. If you link to that article, you will find more information to fill in the blanks.
For one thing, the investigation was not initiated by Sen. Bunning's office.
Also, "Specifically, the indictment (PDF) says that on Feb. 26, Shore "did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication."
The part (my bold) about not disclosing his identity apparently stems from the fact that he signed the email 'Brad Shore', instead of Bruce Shore.
As to Shore's criminal record, "In 1995, he and his girlfriend pleaded guilty to 35 burglaries in Bucks County, Pa. The Philadelphia Daily News dubbed them "Bonnie & Clyde."
Burglary, while not a feather in anyone's cap, is less serious than bank robbery, which the 'Bonnie and Clyde' appelation suggests.
I don't want to sound like I am defending either Shore or the FBI or US Marshalls. That's what the link is for. This is certainly a story to follow, since I have never heard of someone being indicted for such an (apparently) innocuous email.
That is weak tea indeed, “Brad Shore” instead of “Bruce Shore”?
And certainly someone in Bunning’s office forwarded the matter to the respective LEO Agencies as they typically do not peruse Senators Email communications..right?
I happen to like Jim Bunning so I have no ax to grind politically speaking however this dude does have the right to make his displeasure known to political figures as long as he doesn’t or didn’t threaten violence towards them.
I don't think that point really stands, because the Senator's office decides which e-mails to forward to the Capitol Police. In other words, both the Senator's office and the Capitol Police are exercising judgment in selecting certain communications for "action."
Regardless of who is forwarding e-mails that "might be of concern or interest," my first impression is that this prosecution is a gross over-reach by the prosecutor. Although, not having read all that many indictments, I may be off the mark in concluding that this indictment is sparse (on factual recitation) to the point of being a bad joke.
Pure speculation on my part, that the intention (by the Senator's office, or by the prosecutor) may be to temper public communication by using the prosecution as public intimidation. If so, it's wrong-headed, in that it justifies a conclusion that the government is ham and heavy handed.
I was wondering the same thing. Mr. Shore says he don't keep copies or records of all that he's sent, but being over-persistent is one form of harassment; even when the contents of the communications aren't of a threatening nature.
Still, my first impression is that filing criminal charges is an unwise (over)step on the part of the government. But there's no way for the prosecutor to walk back from that without losing face.
It would appear the FBI is as humorless as folks imagine it to be ~ and maybe beyond that ~ like "pigheadedly ignant" ~ to mix a metaphor.
I, too, thought there'd be more to this ~ and as far as identifying himself, the guy who sent the email sent a packet just chock full of all kinds of stuff that would enable ANYONE with an interest in finding him to get at him.
I think if this is all they have the government loses the case.
ping
There is no free speech without anonymous speech.
It sounds like perhaps a case of serial abuse of email, where any single email wouldn't amount to much, but taken together, they might be construed as threatening. Maybe Bruce Shore is a little unhinged.
I can see a staffer at Sen. Bunning's office getting fed up with a string of vaguely threatening emails, suggesting to the boss that they be forwarded to the FBI for routine evaluation, and then the Feds run with the case on their own. It could be that Sen. Bunning had very little knowledge of the emails (what Congresscritter reads all his/her emails personally?).
I have some personal concern, since I've sent several pointed emails to my own Senator Wyden, and I always address him as "Mr. ONE-TERM Senator". LOL, is that going to be construed as a threat? Certainly I never intended to threaten, except with my vote in November. Not having any criminal record beyond some speeding tickets, I probably am safe from that knock on the door. In fact, I would almost welcome it, because it would get my name in the news.
But in the final analysis, the gov't must demonstrate both intent and ability to build a case. That seems unlikely.
This is going to make the judge on the case gasp and giggle a lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.