U.S. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, who’s overseeing the trial of the 13 White House protesters who chained themselves to the fence to protest DADT, appears ready to laugh this case out of court: He’s asked federal prosecutors to find a way to resolve the matter without going to court (something prosecutors aren’t thrilled about). Says defense attorney Mark Goldstone: “The judge was telegraphing very clearly that he sees the case similiar to how we see this case: as a civil rights exercise, as a First Amendment exercise, as people who non-violently expressed their opposition to a policy which has now been repealed. So, what’s the harm to the government if the case is dismissed, or if the case is handled in such a way that it doesn’t result in a criminal conviction?” [photo via]
MoMan
Waaaa, waaaa, waaaa. Protestors intentionally break the law to draw attention to their cause; prosecutors prosecute those who break the law. The equation is simple. You brought attention to your cause; now pay the price.
Or just whine some more.
Jim Hlavac
@MoMan — you made me laugh, for a number of reasons. I think primarily of Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia of NYC who made it a habit to stand on city hall’s steps, or down at the courthouse, with a glass of wine to whine about prohibition. He dared them to arrest him! He was not arrested, nor prosecuted.
Then I think of Rosa Parks, also, not really prosecuted for breaking the law. There was a lot of that in the Civil Rights era. Then I think of the hundreds of other examples of civil disobedience in order to protest a law — many of whom were never arrested, nor charged, nor prosecuted, nor brought before a judge.
And so what the judge is saying is — the prosecution is silly, even if “criminals” broke the law — and that sometimes, just sometimes, some sort of mercy, or refusal to prosecute under prosecutorial prerogative, or discretion, is the best way to go. Like, oh, you know “Plea Bargain” or even “no lo contender” stipulations; there’s even “pay the fine, deny the crime” sort of methods that could be employed. And since, oh, 800 years ago, in our Common Law system, judges have discretion, as do prosecutors, to ignore the word of the law, but go for the spirit.
Sort of like a cop not writing you a ticket for speeding when you and he both knew you were going like a bat out of hell, and yet, the warning and admonishment to speed no more is more effective.
Sometimes, sometimes, it’s just pointless to prosecute some people who did a silly think like chain themselves momentarily to White House fence. About which you can, of course, whine all you want to.
Oprah
Lock them up.
KKK
Waaaa, waaaa, waaaa. Rosa Parks intentionally broke the law to draw attention to her cause; prosecutors prosecute those who break the law. The equation is simple. You brought attention to your cause; now pay the price — prison time.
Or just whine some more.
the crustybastard
I’m really getting sick of this fucking president and his anti-gay bullshit.
Mr. Obama, you had peaceful protesters of an unjust law arrested, you had them dragged off, you had them jailed, you had them charged. You made the point that you’re a thin-skinned petty despot, so now call off your goddam dogs!
As to the prosecution — you’re the Justice Department, ferchrissakes. Try to give a small shit about doing JUSTICE.
sweetbrandigirl2004
Well if Autumn Sandeen goes to prison it will have to be a male prison since he/she’s has male genitalia and is part of the Transgender Horde, who’ve hijacked a diagnosis of GID that doesn’t cover his kind.
Jeffree
@BrandiGirl2004: You too would also have gone to the men’s prison before your SRS. Did you forget that you were physically male once? Did they wipe that part of your memory away when they “corrected” your birth defect? They unfortunately couldn’t fïx your heart or brain or character.
When Autumn sees your comment, you might not be so welcome to comment on her site.