@ 101. Oh, dear. You really don't understand this story at all. They were not charged with anything. But our federal system has a wrinkle that allows it to imprison people (for long periods of time) who haven't been charged with a crime. That is why people are worked up about this story.

On a different note, I'm glad to see such robust debate over how this "nation of laws" has acted in this particular case. A few observations on the conversation so far:

(a) Of course some anarchists apply for food stamps and game the system! The system, from that political perspective, is a gambling house monstrously rigged to keep the rich rich and keep the poor poor. So if you can squeeze a few bucks out of it, why not go for it? It's just a squirt of piss compared to what the Wall Street barons are stealing from the rest of us.

(b) We do live in a nation of laws and nobody with any real understanding of them (from the humblest public defender to the most conservative Supreme Court judge) would say they are perfect. We lurch back and forth, wrestling with them on a daily basis in courts across the country. Some of you seem to argue "everything that is legal is right" (let's call that the Eichmann fallacy—and it's why some of you are having a hard time rhetorically squaring your support for the judge's decision to release them with your previous blather that the grand-jury refusers should "rot" in prison "for years"). Others of you seem to argue that "law itself is tyranny" (let's call that the idealist extrapolation).

Both the Eichmann fallacy and the idealist extrapolation fail to engage with the reality we're actually in—that is, in a state of constant struggle with our laws and our courts to make them as just as possible, while realizing they will never be perfectly just. That takes hard work, on a daily basis, and not the paralyzing position of "it's all good" or "it's all bad."

And who knows? Perhaps the anarchists and the Marxists are correct. Perhaps society and capitalism will drive itself into the ground, in which case we'll *all* be thinking (and thinking fast) about what a world without laws should look like. The theorist John Zerzan says that anarchism is practice—like going to the gym—for the inevitable crash. The more we practice anarchism, the softer our landing will be.

He might be right, he might be wrong. But I'd like some of the anarchist haters (including some of our federal officials) to think about anarchism in a slightly less emotional way.

105, wrong, the article goes on to explain the types of contempt that a person can be charged with after that quote.

People like Giffy have me convinced that when dictatorship comes to America it may not be wrapped in an American flag with bible in hand after all. Instead its handmaiden will be the cold logic of law-and-order liberals.

106, Contempt of court is long ago settled law. Jailing people guilty of contempt of court is also settled law. It's not some new judicial device created to jail the Anarchists.

Nobody said it was new. It's very old. So old that, per my comment way above, it's been abolished by England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. etc.

But there is a difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt, and understanding that difference is key to understanding this whole months-long saga.

@108

Dictatorship has of course come many times before under the guise of "reasonable and agreeable social order," just as it has come many times before under the guise of "correcting the wrongs of the ruling class" or "freeing all people to live as they were meant to live."

@111: True, but I was speaking specifically of the US in the 21st century.

@112

In the US in the 21st century, I would not be at all surprised to see some sort of small-scale dictatorship emerge from some of the radical anti-capitalist groups running around out there.

After all, a lot of them seem to be perfectly content with a uniformed, anonymous paramilitary cadre meting out punishment for perceived immoral behavior, as they see fit, and with no accountability to anyone but themselves.

@113: "...some sort of vague thing from some stereotype of a very marginal group of people I don't know but read about..."

Sure, dude. Whatever.

@114

As opposed to all those non-stereotyped liberal totalitarians you've conjured up, yeah.

I agree. Whatever.

Dude.

@115: Oh no, I actually KNOW plenty of liberals. Beyond that, there are many liberals who have actual power in this country, like, you know, the president.

Oh, OK. You've actually seen a liberal! Totally different, then.

I guess those uniformed, anonymous paramilitary cadres meting out punishment for perceived immoral behavior, and accountable to no-one but themselves, are just some sort of digital video trickery, then.

Special effects and vague stereotypes, that's what they are. That's why I've never heard mention of them in a General Assembly, I reckon.

@118: "...those uniformed, anonymous paramilitary cadres meting out punishment for perceived immoral behavior, and accountable to no-one but themselves..."

Yes, they are real too. All five of them. They are pathetic and if you actually see them as any kind of real threat to you then you are just as pathetic.

It's not really a question of whether or not I feel threatened by them, is it?

The question as pertains to dictatorship is whether or not a given subculture has decided that such cadres should be considered a legitimate component of a properly functioning society.

Your own affinity group might not tolerate the ninja-suited goofballs, but there are at least some left-radical affinity groups out there that do tolerate or even celebrate this secret-cadre-based, erm, "morality encouragement."

@120: My original post was regarding the likeliest source of dictatorship. There are many, many marginal groups who would fantasize of seizing such power, including some "some left-radical affinity groups" but who will remain forever marginal. Chatter all you want about their aims, I speak of actual likelihood.

Now let's argue about the impending coup led by Bob Avakian--just as relevant.

@121

Ah, so you're speaking of the "actual likelihood" of mainstream liberals establishing a totalitarian dictatorship in the US.

Glad we cleared that up.

No I didn't say totalitarian.

Brendon, you really have no goddamn idea what you are talking about. Nor does it seem you care to learn.

for someone that "doesn't care about these people", you sure have spent a lot of time here, giffy.

Hooray!!!!! Thanks again Brendan for covering this throughout!!!!!!!

Each time I read the comments, I get so upset about how many people here (in Seattle, no less) just want people to suffer. I moved here from Florida 6 years ago to get away from that kind of ignorance and insanity, and still, even here, people care more about punishment and status quo than about people or the world or, like, a chance of even having a world that doesn't suck.

I guess there's something to say for online comments not being the best representation of people, though.

@ 125. Thanks for the reminder. Fixed.

@ 29. I'm interested in hearing more about your husband. If you want, you can call me at 206-323-7101.

@129

Yes, and given that, I must say it's difficult to imagine Maddie Pfeiffer referring to themselves with any pronoun other than "we."

@106: But our federal system has a wrinkle that allows it to imprison people (for long periods of time) who haven't been charged with a crime.

Right. That "wrinkle" entails charging those who refuse their obligation to testify with civil contempt. If that charge is upheld in court, they are imprisoned. If not, they aren't.

That's the process by which witnesses are compelled to testify. That's what happened here.

@132 seandr: Actually no. If you watch a cops and robbers show on TV and you see a judge get mad at someone and send them to jail for contempt of court, that is what civil contempt looks like. No trial of any sort is needed or required for it. In fact they aren't even allowed. All it takes is the judge deciding all on his or her own that sending the person to jail is just what is needed at that point. THAT is civil contempt. If the person is charged and there is a hearing of ANY sort before sending them to jail for contempt then it becomes criminal contempt of court and lawyers get to be involved. These people did not get a hearing before going to jail. All they did was refuse to give testimony that is highly unlikely to have been of any use in any trial. Third hand evidence at best and they call that hearsay in court. The judge at the hearing decided that since they didn't want to give that type of evidence (tangential evidence is not useful in an actual court trial remember) that they should be held until they did give up a bunch of fucking useless info.

Gee... last time people got that fried for stuff like that the hearings were held by senator joe mccartney. You know, the guy that called everyone a communist and got them blackballed in every industry he could. He would have been proud of the judge and the federal prosecutors in this case. Hell the judges in the Salem witch trials would be proud of this case.

@134

And yet the Grand Jury refusers are free. How did that happen?

Surely it must have been due to something outside the Amerikkkan legal system, yes? It couldn't possibly have been brought about by lawyers and evil judges following a bunch of horrible stupid fascist rules and procedures and laws, could it?

@135

Ease up, man, comparisons like that make you look bloodthirsty.

I do agree with those who say solitary confinement was excessively cruel* in this case, and is also cruel generally, even though I tend not to agree with any of the arguments they strap onto those observations.

* and probably counterproductive, given the refusers' apparent thirst for grandstanding.

@134
Since any review (and what happened to get them out is nothing more than a review and is NOT a trial) takes place AFTER the incarceration it doesn't affect what I typed. They were not charged in any formal sense and there was absolutely NO trial before they were incarcerated. The prosecutors were pissed that these people were not cooperating with their witch-hunt and the judge went along with them. They were not being questioned about the broken glass incident. They were being questioned about the beliefs of people that MAY have been involved in the broken glass incident along with questions about their own political beliefs.

@138

And yet they are free.

How did that happen?

If their refusal to give testimony is a crime, the state should charge them with it, sentence them, and move on. This should be incentive enough to compel testimony out of most people. Sure, it might not be enough of an incentive 100% of the time, but that's something it has in common with literally every other type of crime we have a law for.

What the state has no business doing is holding people indefinitely without charge, trial, or sentence. That's unacceptable for any crime, be it murder, drug trafficking, and, yes, even crimes so foul, grotesque, and unspeakable as ...refusing to say whether or not you know a guy who knows a guy who reads the same books as a guy who threw a brick at a window once.

Anything allowing the state to do so, legally and legitimately, is an unfortunate kink in our legal system that needs to be fixed. In any case, their incarceration is a waste of resources AT BEST.

For those of us who aren't that perfect mix of 2 parts idiot + 1 part asshole, this isn't exactly rocket science.

For the rest of you, I hope someday you'll pull your heads out of your asses and start requiring some actual standards for a system that's supposed to be tasked with prioritizing the prosecution of criminal activity.