home

Bad Advice

Really bad advice:

Former Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel was caught on tape last week telling a crowd in Washington, D.C., that they should harass a federal prosecutor who helped bring criminal contempt charges against a Palestinian activist. ...

“Find out where he lives, find out where his kids go to school, find out where his office is, picket him all the time,” Gravel said, in an audio tape obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism and provided to FOX News.

No matter what you think of this prosecution or any other, stalking a prosecutor, and particularly doing anything involving his or her kids, is way over the top, and will probably land you in jail.

Gravel's defense -- "that he personally wouldn’t do the things he’s recommended" -- doesn't excuse his comments. He should know better.

< Colorado Marijuana Group Attacks Cindy McCain, Alcohol Pusher | Religion and the VP Choice >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Brandenburg v Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:54:29 PM EST
    395 U.S. 444 (1969)

    Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.


    I think I concur (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by JamesTX on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:12:23 PM EST
    from a practical perspective this is bad advice and would probably result in real trouble for anyone who did it; but I wonder why it is so. Clearly, picketing other government officials, often more important than prosecutors, is considered speech and is far from "off limits". It happens all the time. Government officials get picketed, protested, and all those other things that most people read in "the right to petition their government". I know that attorneys are trained to especially respect officers of the court. My question is why prosecutors should be immune from the forms of protest that other government officials and private citizens are vulnerable to? Is it a simple practical consequence of their power, discretion, and prerogative in deciding who to prosecute, thus making the protester more vulnerable to stumbling onto the wrong side of that prerogative? Alternatively, is there some real logical, ethical, or legal reason prosecutors should have more insulation from public opinion than others? I guess my point is this: Is it a bad idea to confront them simply because they are dangerously powerful and you may get hurt, or is it bad because confronting them is really wrong in some way?

    I guess I am thinking this because I don't think the idea of picketing or protesting a prosecutor would have been viewed as a terribly dangerous or illegal act thirty or forty years ago, before we started worshiping and glamorizing executive power again (which ultimately led us into this political mess).

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:38:26 PM EST
    "Find out where his kids go to school?"

    That's harassment and threatening, not protesting or picketing.

    Parent

    Take that line out of Gravel's rant (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:40:46 PM EST
    and all of JamesTX's questions are valid.

    Parent
    agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by JamesTX on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:54:10 PM EST
    My question was really the more general points. Following or confronting kids is bad news. It could mean something entirely different, though, as in exposing something like an exclusive private school and wealth as a means to make the prosecutor look elitist. Thanks


    Parent
    Picketing Kromberg's house (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:31:40 PM EST
    Legality would depend not on his status as a prosecutor, but on whether the municipality has adopted a residential picketing ordinance consistent with the limits in Frisby v Schultz 487 U.S. 474 (1988.)

          (d) As is evidenced by its text, the ordinance serves the significant government interest of protecting residential privacy. An important aspect of such privacy is the protection of unwilling listeners within their homes from the intrusion of objectionable or unwanted speech. See, e. g., FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 . Moreover, the ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve that governmental interest, since, although its ban is complete, it targets and eliminates no more than the exact source of the "evil" it seeks to remedy: offensive and disturbing picketing focused on a "captive" home audience. It does not prohibit more generally directed means of public communication that may not be completely banned in residential areas. Pp. 484-488.

    O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and BLACKMUN, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 488. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 491. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 496.

    Yes, he is flat-out wrong. We know he is (none / 0) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:41:04 PM EST
    a little out there, but come on...

    "a little out there" is right. (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:17:13 PM EST
    It sounds like this time he has taken a page out of Bill O'Reilly's playbook. Maybe the Factor should have him on to discuss his right to intimidate and invade other people's personal lives. I hope he can pull himself together.

    Parent
    stoopid (none / 0) (#3)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:55:49 PM EST
    among other things.
    I think all of us could write a multiparagraph rant on why Gravel was ethically and morally wrong and why his excuse was pathetic and unacceptable.

    I hope Gravel goes public with a sincere and straight forward apology and admission that he was wrong.  

    He needs to hope against hope (none / 0) (#6)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:26:46 PM EST
    that nothing happens to that prosecutor or any member of his family.

    Politically, perhaps (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:32:59 PM EST
    but I can't see vicarious liabilty.

    Parent
    Geez (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:49:29 PM EST
    Sounds like he is mad as hell.

    From what I have read Kromberg is responsible for the delay in Sami Al-Arian deportation and dirty dealing. He wants him to rot in a US jail, despite a  plea agreement.

    Seems like picketing is in order, imo.

    during sharp exchanges with Kromberg over Dr. Al-Arian's cooperation. Kromberg admitted that the alleged contempt by Dr. Al-Arian was his refusal to answer questions from the Florida trial, which was closed with the plea agreement. In this admission, Kromberg established that Dr. Al-Arian is not being charged with failing to answer questions about the IIIT investigation -- which were addressed fully in his affidavits. Rather, the government is trying to revisit the Florida trial that it lost when a jury acquitted Dr. Al-Arian of various counts (and came within two votes of acquitting him on all counts).

    Judge Brinkema made a number of significant statements in the hearing.

    First, she warned the government that she was getting "strange signals" for this case....

    link

    There are few prospects in the justice system so grimly awful as when the feds decide never to let go. Rebuffed in their persecutions of some target by juries, or by contrary judges, they shift ground, betray solemn agreements, dream up new stratagems to exhaust their victims, drive them into bankruptcy, despair and even to suicide.

    Alexander Cockburn

    Uh, weren't there warning signs? (none / 0) (#13)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:09:51 AM EST
    I'd say this was a pretty clear warning sign:

    youtube.com/watch?v=bA2LgJviH9w

    Meanwhile, someone from a local "liberal" group said something similar a couple years back (not involving the feds, just regular citizens' kids) and not only did nothing happen to that group, but they're still "protected" by the local Dem machine and just today they got a $1.5 million contribution from another "liberal". They're just a local group and not a former senator, but even so it's a good thing to remember should TL ever decide to write a post in their favor.

    Bringing the kids in.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:01:33 AM EST
    is definitely bad form...ya can't choose your parents, the kids are innocent.

    That being said...I've got no problem with we the people letting one of our employees, in this case a prosecutor, know how we feel through protest.  I'd picket a prosecutor's home if they were up to no good and practicing tyranny in my name...you bet your arse.