The government, it seems, really doesn't believe any longer in the right of peaceful protest. Not that this should come as a terribly large surprise to anyone.
An Antiwar Forum in Iowa Brings Federal Subpoenas (NY Times, February 10, 2004, registration required): To hear the antiwar protesters describe it, their forum at a local university last fall was like so many others they had held over the years. They talked about the nonviolent philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they said, and how best to convey their feelings about Iraq into acts of civil disobedience. But last week, subpoenas began arriving seeking details about the forum's sponsor -- its leadership list, its annual reports, its office location -- and the event itself. On Monday, lawyers for the sponsor, the Drake University chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, went to court in an effort to block the federal prosecutors' demands. Those who attended the forum, at least four of whom said they had received subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury on Tuesday, said that they did not know what to make of the inquiry and that they feared it was intended to quash protest. Late on Monday, prosecutors in the United States attorney's office for the southern district of Iowa took the unusual step of issuing a confirmation of the investigation, stressing that its scope was limited to learning more about one person who had tried to scale a security fence at an Iowa National Guard base in a protest a day after the forum. "The United States attorney's office does not prosecute persons peacefully and lawfully engaged in rallies which are conducted under the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," a written statement issued by the prosecutor here, Stephen Patrick O'Meara, said.
The problem with that statement is that there are any number of ways in which the government might have pursued its goal of investigating one person -- who might well be entirely unaffiliated, given that he scaled the fence in protest the next day, independent of the organized protest -- other than subpoenaing everything affiliated with the forum.
"I've heard of such a thing, but not since the 1950's, the McCarthy era," said David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor. "It sends a very troubling message about government officials' attitudes toward basic liberties." Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he feared news of the subpoenas — which was spreading rapidly via e-mail on Monday among activist organizations — might discourage people from showing up to protests, attending meetings at universities or even checking out library books. "People will have to be asking themselves: will this be subject to government scrutiny?" Mr. Romero said.
And the answer to al of the above is: (1) One suspects this administration quite admires the McCarthyesque approach to security, if that's quite the right word; (2) they would most emphatically like to discourage people from attending any protest anywhere any time (the PATRIOT act can be used to discourage people regarding library books, thanks), and (3) yes, an antiwar protest is subject to government scrutiny these days -- that should pretty much be a given, really.
Officials at Drake University, a private institution of 5,100 students, declined to comment on Monday. Lisa Lacher, a spokeswoman for the school, said the court had made Drake, which received a broad subpoena in the case, subject "to a nondisclosure order" about the matter. "I'm afraid then that there's not much we can say," Ms. Lacher said. The school's subpoena called for detailed information on the lawyers guild and its members, including the names of those who are officers, and guild meeting agendas and annual reports since 2002. The subpoena also focused on the Nov. 15 antiwar forum, asking for "all requests for use of a room, all documents indicating the purpose and intended participants in the meeting, and all documents or recordings which would identify persons that actually attended the meeting."
Really, does this sound like something that was ever intended to focus on just one person? The request for November 15 records would seem to go far beyond focusing on the forum itself; surely Drake had other rooms being used that day in that building (and nothing in the request seems to limit itself to one building) for other purposes.
It's difficult to see how this investigation can be meant as anything other than a message: protest and we will make your lives a legal hell.
Posted by iain at February 10, 2004 01:37 PM
