The First Amendment Right To Talk Crazy

And the corollary Constitutional right to say extremely crazy, untrue, provocative things to large gatherings of possibly armed people has been getting a workout, too.

Look at this:

A few thousand people gathered at Freedom Plaza in Washington today for the first of two Tea Party rallies in the nation's capital today organized to protest government spending and taxation.

Clutching angry signs and occasionally breaking out into chants of "USA! USA!," the protesters listened to a series of fiery speeches attacking the Obama administration for what they cast as irresponsible spending and far left wing policies.

Rep. Michele Bachmann said the "gangster government" has instituted a "takeover of one private industry after another," again making her questionable claim that "the federal government owns or controls 51 percent of the private economy."

She said the Obama administration is "perfectly content with presiding over a decline in our economy," adding: "I'd say it's time for these little piggies to go home, and come November that's where they're headed."

That, of course, is Constitutionally protected, insane speech. The "gangster government" was elected by a majority vote. And its policies, for better or worse, were what it was apparently elected to do. Evidently, democracy and majority rule are now "gangster government." But strangely, the previous administration's kidnapping foreign nationals off of streets, secretly putting them on airplanes, flying them to secret, black hole prisons, and torturing them for months is not "gangster government." That's necessary "security." The illegal renditions must not have been "gangster government" solely because there was no demand for ransom. But I digress.

Michele Bachmann's (RWNJ-Minn) utterances are so far from the truth and so obviously unhinged that Bill Clinton has criticized them:

"They are not gangsters," Mr. Clinton said in an interview with the New York Times. "They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do."

The former president, who was in his first term in office when Timothy McVeigh bombed an Oklahoma City federal building, drew parallels between the anti-government rhetoric being used now and what was being said then.

But back then it was the camouflage wearing militia fringe that was making the dangerous, provocative claims. Nobody in their right mind listened to their rantings. They were shunned. And they got no publicity. And now, well now it's an elected Congressperson and evidently the Tea Parties and Faux TV that trumpet this insanity and the rest of the Traditional Media^TM feels compelled further to disseminate the ravings.

The First Amendment Right to crazy talk is getting a total, stretching workout. Let's hope this exercise of madness doesn't lead inexorably to yet another "imminent breach of the peace."

I'm Going To Hell

Pardon me. I'm not a Christian. Never was, never will be. I don't believe that Jesus was the messiah, that he died for my sins. I don't have a personal relationship with him. I haven't been saved. Or redeemed. I haven't been re-born. I don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God. And I was simply and utterly infuriated that both the presumptive presidential nominees decided to attend Rev. Rick Warren's forum so they could show him and his many co-religionists that they were, well, just like them. That they were all good, moral Christians, and they all believed very much in a particular kind of Christianity, and that they were willing to prove it. I was outraged that they decided to make a spectacle of their "faith." But I was even more outraged that they would seek to prove they had the right kind of faith to this particular audience.

That's right, prove it. They weren't going to refuse the invitation. They weren't going to say, "I'm sorry, but what I believe is private. It's between me and my God. I am not willing publicly to discuss theology." They weren't going to say, "I'm sorry, I believe in the separation of church and state, and, therefore, I consider this mega church to be an inappropriate setting for a political discussion about secular, political matters." They weren't going to say, "I'm sorry, I'm a very good person, but I don't believe the same things you say I should believe. I'm nevertheless scrupulously honest and moral." They weren't going to say, "You're free to think about these issues any way you wish, but I don't want to discuss how my religious beliefs might be related to my policy positions. My policy positions stand on their own merit." No. No chance. The candidates decided to show up, and they blatantly pandered to these right wing evangelicals. To gain their approval, to gain their votes.

Unlike Rev. Warren, I don't believe that life begins at conception. I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. I don't believe that Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and atheists will all go to hell. source. I don't agree with those positions, I think they're dead wrong, but I will defend his Constitutional right to believe anything he wishes to believe. His receiving a federal income tax exemption might be a different matter.

The spectacle of the presumptive nominees agreeing to this kind of forum, however, completely disgusts me. I don't agree that the US is a Christian nation, whatever that means. I don't agree that religious belief equates with morality. I don't agree that personal "character" correlates to a person's religious preference or his/her "faith."

So today, after thinking about the forum, and after reading about the questions, and after pondering the distractions offered by the "cross in the dirt" and the "cone of silence," I realized that I was simply outraged that, in addition to all of the other parts of the Constitution that have been trashed in the last 8 years, the part of the First Amendment forbidding state establishments of religion, has now also been unceremoniously scrapped.

How else can you explain the candidates showing up at a mega church to discuss with an evangelical pastor the way their faith influences their politics?

And don't tell me that it's all about getting the votes of these religious people and that after the election the bright line between church and state will somehow miraculously be restored. It won't be. It's too late.

And don't tell me how Obama's views were more acceptable, more moderate than McCain's. That's not the point. Neither of the candidates should have been at Rick Warren's forum. Neither of them should be permitting this kind of encroachment of religion into the resolution of civil, political issues.

Maryland Police Spied On Activists, Claim It Was Legal

WaPO reports that Maryland police infiltrated and spied upon peace and death penalty abolition groups in 2005. The information the cops gathered was apparently sent to other law enforcement agencies. No crimes were alleged to have been committed by the activists.

That crushing sound you hear is the crumbling of the First Amendment:

Undercover Maryland State Police officers conducted surveillance on war protesters and death penalty opponents, including some in Takoma Park, for more than a year while Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. was governor, documents released yesterday show.

Detailed intelligence reports logged by at least two agents in the police department's Homeland Security and Intelligence Division reveal close monitoring of the movements as the Iraq war and capital punishment were heatedly debated in 2005 and 2006.

Organizational meetings, public forums, prison vigils, rallies outside the State House in Annapolis and e-mail group lists were infiltrated by police posing as peace activists and death penalty opponents, the records show. The surveillance continued even though the logs contained no reports of illegal activity and consistently indicated that the activists were not planning violent protests.

Then-state police superintendent Tim Hutchins acknowledged in an interview yesterday that the surveillance took place on his watch, adding that it was done legally. He said Ehrlich (R) was not aware of it. "You do what you think is best to protect the general populace of the state," said Hutchins, now a federal defense contractor.

Did you read that? The then state police superintendent says that the surveillance "was done legally." I feel so very assured and comforted by this conclusion about the law. And protected. Protected from what you might ask? And from whom? "To protect the general populace of the state" is a police goal that apparently does not include protecting the privacy and right of association of death penalty abolitionists and peace activists.

The WaPo article, after reporting this, turns to a "balanced" discussion of the "legality" of these activities. The ACLU properly says the infiltation and surveillance was illegal:

"To invest this many hours investigating the most all-American of activities without any scintilla of evidence there is anything criminal going on is shocking," ACLU lawyer David Rocah said at a news conference in Baltimore yesterday. "It's Kafkaesque."

The ACLU contends that the surveillance was illegal, even under broader powers the federal government gave law enforcement agencies after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The police, of course, insist that this kind of surveillance is entirely legal and necessary:

But the police force defends its legality, and some legal experts said the program appears to be a constitutional tool available to authorities investigating threats to public safety.

"No illegal actions by State Police have ever been taken against any citizens or groups who have exercised their right to free speech and assembly in a lawful manner," Col. Terrence B. Sheridan, the state police superintendent appointed last year by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), said in a statement. "Only when information regarding criminal activity is alleged will police continue to investigate leads to ensure the public safety."

State Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery), who teaches constitutional law at American University, called the surveillance "extremely dubious homeland security work." But he added that it is probably a constitutional use of police powers to conduct undercover work.

Henry Fawell, Ehrlich's spokesman, said: "State law enforcement uses a variety of means to keep its citizens safe. It would be inappropriate for me to discuss them publicly." While in office, Ehrlich supported both the Iraq war and the death penalty.

This analysis is extremely fuzzy. Of course police may infiltrate and surveil groups that are planning on carrying out illegal activities. They can, of course, infiltrate groups they have reasonable suspicion to believe plan to blow up buildings and kill people. But to do that, they need to have some indication-- leave aside for the moment the level of suspicion they must have-- that something illegal is planned. However, according to Uebercop Sheridan, all it takes to infiltrate your weekly peace meditation group is just an allegation "regarding criminal activity." And of course, whoever made that allegation is a secret, as is the nature of the allegation that was made.

And if no illegal activities of any kind are observed after the tip and after time, do you stop the infiltration and surveillance and record keeping? Of course, not. You never know when groups advocating an end to various kinds of violence will suddenly turn aside from satygraha and decide to plunge into committing crimes of violence, do you?

And Ehrlich's mouthpiece says all is OK because this is just a "means to keep [the] citizens safe." This doesn't bear scrutiny either. How does keeping records about people who are trying to end state killing keep citizens safe? How does keeping records and forwarding them to other agencies about people who are opposed to war keep citizens safe?
It doesn't.

Of course, the illegally acquired information was shared with other agencies who keep records:

Reports of the surveillance were shared with numerous federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, including the National Security Agency and Anne Arundel County's police department.

The groups monitored include the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, which has many members from Takoma Park, and the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, a peace group that has been vocal in opposing the Iraq war.

So now, whatever was written about the activists has been spread around and there are files in computers and many agencies about them. Their crime? Advocating peace and an end to state killing.

The article has more details about the spying.

There is no question whatsoever that the reported surveillance was completely inappropriate and illegal. And it has clear consequences in chilling protected activity. An example of this? Just notice, if you will, how even if you are entirely and completely non-violent the fact of this reported surveillance, and the possibility of similar surveillance elsewhere, deters you from signing up and participating in peace and death penalty abolition groups. Nobody wants their privacy invaded by the cops, even if they're doing absolutely nothing wrong. You don't need that. You might rather stay home.