Need a legal opinion about the Oakland Protests

[Laz]

Could the US government prosecute using the following:

SABOTAGE


U.S. CODE AS OF 1/02/01


TITLE 18 CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I, CHAPTER 105 - SABOTAGE


Section 2153


(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, or in times of national emergency as declared by the President or by the Congress, with intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the United States or any associate nation in preparing for or carrying on the
war or defense activities, or, with reason to believe that his act may injure, interfere with, or obstruct the United States or any associate nation in preparing for or carrying on the war or defense activities, willfully injures, destroys, contaminates or infects,
or attempts to so injure, destroy, contaminate or infect any war material, war premises, or war utilities, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than thirty years, or both.


(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of this section.

 

[bsnyder]

I don't know about the legality, but these people are just getting on my last nerve! We've just about won the war, and they're still protesting!

 

[SuiteDisney]

Not just protesting, Bet, they were trying to keep us from sending supplies to our troops.

 

[bsnyder]

Yes, Laura, I saw that.

From MSNBC:

“Whether or not war cargo is there on that day, we are trying to send a message to APL that we oppose their profiting off this unjust and illegal war,” Sasha Wright, an organizer with Direct Action to Stop the War told MSNBC.com last week. “We will hold them accountable.”
Patrick Reinsborough, a spokesman for the group, said it hoped that members of Local 10 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union would respect the picket line, as union members usually do, and thus shut down APL’s Oakland operations by refusing to work.
Asked whether cutting off supplies to American soldiers would jeopardize their lives, Wright said, “We feel like the war is what’s putting their lives in danger. This is an effort to save lives by stopping the war as quickly as possible.”

This woman is either incredibly stupid, or she's really hoping for the deaths of American soldiers. I think it's the latter.

 

[smiley]

Well I live in the Bay Area and am sick and tired of these people and their violent protests. They were given several opportunities by the Oakland Police to disperse and they refused to do so. THEY GOT WHAT THEY DESERVED. I only wish the San Francisco Police would have taken care of business the same way.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ***********
Not just protesting, Bet, they were trying to keep us from sending supplies to our troops.

But of course they will tell you they support the troops but are against the war. And this is how they are protesting the war?

This borders on sedition.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

Originally posted by dmadman43
This borders on sedition.

Sounds like they're way past that border.

 

[PamOKW]

“We feel like the war is what’s putting their lives in danger. This is an effort to save lives by stopping the war as quickly as possible.”

This is the same kind of drivel I've heard from some other protesters. They are "saving" the soldiers with their protests.

I can't find a link to an article that was in the NYT Sunday. It was about how the professors at some of the Ivy League colleges are so excited by the anti-war protests and can't understand why their students aren't as gung-ho to join them. Some of the students actually have the gall to complain about professors who don't show up for class because they are out protesting. One of the professors kind of gave away what I suspect is the real reason many of them love to protest, she made comments about how it reminded her of her youth and the joy and excitement of the anti-war protests when she was in college. It's a return to youth for some of them more than any real protest. They are just conditioned to fight the Establishment....no matter who the Establishment is or how much they themselves have actually become a part of it.

 

[bsnyder]

Pam, I think your observation is right on!

It's another reason I think this war is going to have some radical effects on us, as a nation, in the years to come. We have a whole generation of news media that came of age, literally and professionally, during the Vietnam era. They became reflexively conditioned to negative opinions and stereotypes about the military, from the leadership level down to the individual soldier.

One of the great by-products of the "embedded journalist" program is all the young reporters out there who are seeing first hand what a wonderful job our military personnel are doing! Some of them are the producers and news anchors of the future, and I think they'll have a very different view of our military.

 

[disneefamily]

Disnee Dad Says.............................Treason, sedition, all true, but basically in America you can do that, unless you are one person going a million miles beyond common sense. A small crowd seems to make it a misdemeanor, and with a large crowd, thier is no crime at all! Protest in the park, at the capitol, join by the thousands at football fields. But if you block traffic you are a criminal, and should be arrested and/or shot with rubber bullets, if you are preventing trade, an act of sedition, then you should be arrested and if you resist, should be shot to wound then arrested.
We have a right to peaceful protest, once you are no longer peaceful you are criminal.
The saddest part of all is we throw out these cases, no punishment at all, so they can do it again, and again.

 

[amid chaos]

YES,.... 'nuf said!

 

[Saffron]

I haven't read through the entire thread and I don't know what the protestors are doing out in the Bay Area, but under that particular law I don't think they'd be able to prosecute. The USA has not declared war on/with Iraq. To do so would be to declare war on the people of Iraq. Nor has a national emergency been declared. I know nothing about law, so I may be wrong, but I think that law states that when the USA is at war, declared war by the President or Congress, such as in WWII, or declared national emergency, then they would be able to stop whatever it is that's going on if it falls within those categories.

 

[Laz]

But with the threat level at "high," isn't that a national emergency?

If it is not a national emergency, could they be prosecuted under the following:

Section 2155. Destruction of national-defense materials, national-defense premises, or national-defense utilities


(a) Whoever, with intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the national defense of the United States, willfully injures, destroys, contaminates or infects, or attempts to so injure, destroy, contaminate or infect any national-defense material, national-defense premises, or national-defense utilities, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of this section.

 

[CRB#33]

Originally posted by bsnyder
This woman is either incredibly stupid, or she's really hoping for the deaths of American soldiers. I think it's the latter.

I actually think she just wants her 15 minutes She's probably loving seeing her name in the paper.

 

[Saffron]

It would seem to me, that if people are destroying national defense materials, national defense premises or national defense utiilites, they could be prosecuted under that law.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

I am a lawyer and am about to render a legal opinion here.


the protesters have a right to free speach. the men and women who died in Iraq, and in all the other wars before that, will have died in vain if that fundamental right is not preserved and respected. many of you who posted to this thread strongly disagree with the protesters. but if you do not afford them respect you have violated the spirit of the first amendment. our founding fathers will roll over in their graves.


that being said, protesters do NOT have the right to be disruptive, and when they cross the line the police are justified in restoring order and making appropriate arrests. standing in Times Sqaure with a parade permit is one thing, lying down in traffic on 5th avenue is a very different matter. disturbing the peace in such a manner is usually a misdemeanor, not a felony.

that being said, Laz, I haven't had a chance to pull out 18USCA2153, so I don't have a sense of how the courts have interpreted the act. but my gut instict is -- picketers are not committing acts of sabotage whichi would subject them to criminal penalties under the act. my gut instinct is that you'd have to have an overt act of destruction in order to be subject to the statute's penalties.

 

[Laz]

I know that I am looking like I am trying to pick a fight, but the reason I ask for legal opinion is that some (not all) outspoken conservative media types are quoting this law quite a bit. I was just wondering if they were being realistic.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

there's a legal difference between picketing in front of a warehouse in the hope that the teamsters will refuse to cross the picket line and actually interfering with governmental operations. we don't punish people for expressing an opinion. we punish them for actions that are unlawful.