Republicans vote to give police powers to arrest people planning peaceful protests

[bananas]

Source: Independent

Police may be given power to arrest anyone involved in a peaceful demonstration that is merely suspected of turning violent.

Republican senators in Arizona voted for SB1142 this week, which proposes expanding the state’s racketeering laws to also include rioting.

<snip>

Republicans voted by 17 to the Democrats' 13 in favour of the bill on Wednesday.

It will now go to the House of Representatives for approval.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/arizona-republicans-police-arrest-peaceful-protest-powers-vote-violent-state-senate-a7595361.html

---

It also allows asset seizure.

[guillaumeb]

1. Thought crime?

Will the Arizona Senate formally revoke the First Amendment in Arizona next?

[Hortensis]

24. Let's just hope this finally goes too far for a significant body

of conservatives. Most are not the extremists who've been bought into office, and many will have people they care about at risk. Arizona Capitol Times seems to be giving both sides good coverage but begins and ends with with concerns.

But the real heart of the legislation is what Democrats say is the guilt by association — and giving the government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest and everyone who participated. And what’s worse, said Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, is that the person who may have broken a window, triggering the claim there was a riot, might actually not be a member of the group but someone from the other side.

“You now have a situation where you have full-time, almost professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder,’’ he said. AA lot of them are ideologues, some of them are anarchists,’’ Kavanagh continued. “But this stuff is all planned.’’

There’s something else: By including rioting in racketeering laws, it actually permits police to arrest those who are planning events.

And Kavanagh, a former police officer, said if there are organized groups, “I should certainly hope that our law enforcement people have some undercover people there.’’ “Wouldn’t you rather stop a riot before it starts?’’ Kavanagh asked colleagues during debate. “Do you really want to wait until people are injuring each other, throwing Molotov cocktails, picking up barricades and smashing them through businesses in downtown Phoenix?’’

Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the new criminal laws are necessary. “I have been heartsick with what’s been going on in our country, what young people are being encouraged to do,’’ she said. She agreed with Quezada that there already are laws that cover overt acts. But Allen said they don’t work. “If they get thrown in jail, somebody pays to get them out,’’ she said. “There has to be something to deter them from that.’’

Yes, the risk of being arrested and having your home seized for discussing protesting would be a real deterrent.

Fascists.

[guillaumeb]

27. These GOP CONservatives believe in THEIR right to protest.

But that right is not extended to non-GOP protesters.

The GOP believes in one-party rule.

[Hortensis]

29. Most, yes. But some are smart enough to realize that

losing their own right to gather could be a serious problem for them.

Some are already unhappily learning that the plan to repeal the ACA is all too real and is going forward. Some are undoubtedly disturbed to learn that when they voted for Trump they voted to defund public schools. Only the smarter, more aware ones, of course.

But some few are undoubtedly already uneasily remembering that many of their leaders have always vowed to repeal Social Security and Medicare. Medicare, of course, is the program that frees so many conservatives to work and travel instead of being trapped at home 24/7 caring for elderly or otherwise disabled relatives.

Of those on the right, we only need a few percent to turn on the GOP in 2018, either by voting against or by not voting.

[guillaumeb]

31. Your last observation should be the slogan for Democrats going forward.

Well said Hortensis.

[Hortensis]

32. So far it's the Republican leadership that's doing all

that work, of course, and they'll also likely continue assisting our efforts to get more of our people to the polls also.

Many of the extremists in and behind Congress seem to be more determined to make the most of power to dismantle while they have it than worried about 2018. And, of course, would-be fascists at all levels think they're off the leash, or will be shortly.

This current situation reminds me of when Donald's flirting with treason and later sexual predation shocked conservatives--who then went on to justify supporting him anyway. Will large numbers later come to support dismantlings too extreme and destabilizing to be believable now?

[guillaumeb]

33. And as things are dismantled, will there be a certain momentum to the dismantling

that will lead to more? A corollary to your last question.

I think that speed is essential for the process. The GOP undoubtedly saw a fast attack process as desirable, especially given Trump's comments about all of the immediate actions he would take. If Democrats, and Government workers, can release enough damaging information, the GOP will have to defend against the information. And that might slow the destructive processes down.

[Marthe48]

2. Blatantly

unconstitutional? I hope.

[Charles Bukowski]

3. The Cons haven't been in power 5 weeks and they already the Constitution hanging on

by a thread.

[Glamrock]

4. Can't see this passing judicial muster...

This thing will be overturned and Arizona will be paying a fortune for violating people's rights.

[cstanleytech]

8. Agree but it doesnt come out of the Repugnants pockets so they dont care. nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

19. By then Trump will have his Bannon-approved pick on the SCOTUS

if the State appeals it.
Then you'll see a domino effect with other Red States.

[Kingofalldems]

5. I've always said republicans want Chile 1973.

[Judi Lynn]

14. They still think Chile was a major success, of course.

To refresh memories for DU'ers who may not recall how the Republican President overthrew a democratically elected President of Chile, here's a Wikipedia condensed look at that vicious power grab:

~ snip ~

1970 election[edit]

According to the 1975 Church Commission Report, covert United States involvement in Chile in the decade between 1963 and 1973 was extensive and continuous. The CIA spent $8 million in the three years between 1970 and the military coup in September 1973,[8] with over $3 million in 1972 alone. Covert American activity was present in almost every major election in Chile in the decade between 1963 and 1973, but its actual effect on electoral outcomes is not altogether clear. Chile, more than any of its South American neighbours, had an extensive democratic tradition dating back to the early 1930s, and even before. Because of this, it is difficult to gauge how successful CIA tactics were in swaying voters.

At a September 8th, 1970 meeting of the 40 Committee, the chairman of the committee as for analysis of asks for analysis of where the US/CIA stand in terms of taking action to prevent Allende from becoming President. William Broe, a high-ranking CIA officer, said Eduardo Frei Montalvo, the 29th President of Chile, is essential to the situation in Chile, regardless of the type of involvement — military or congressional. But Frei seems like he’s not going to do much more than spread rumors about Allende. The 40 Committee asks that CIA collect information and create more intelligence reports to see what can be further done in Chile. The committee decided it was unlikely they were going to be able to influence the Oct 24, congressional election to go against Allende. Helms was also concerned about Allende supporters in the Chilean military, as it seemed they would support Allende. As a result of all this information, the Committee decided they wanted a full analysis of two things: (1.) a cost versus benefit analysis of organizing a military (Chilean) coup; (2.) a cost versus benefit analysis of organizing future oppositions to Allende to topple his influence. This suggestions a level of oversight by Kissinger as he is considering the options between covert and overt operations. [10]

Four days after the meeting discussed above, a cable between Richard Helms and Henry Kissinger discussed the lack of morale in the US State Department embassy in Chile according to the American Ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry. Kissinger stated in response that he would call another 40 Committee Meeting for the following Monday. Kissinger further stated that, "We will not let Chile go down the drain."

While this committee had already been renamed twice, and would be renamed many more times, the 40 Committee's purpose was to review large scale covert operations proposals. Therefore, the meeting of the 40 Committee in regard to Chile demonstrates that the CIA had intelligence on the region, and Allende's affairs in order to intervene in the interests of the United States and, "not let Chile go down the drain."[11]

Allende Presidency[edit]

Salvador Allende ran again in the 1970 presidential election, winning a narrow plurality (near 37%). U.S. president Richard Nixon stated his fear that Chile could become "another Cuba", and the U.S. cut off most of its foreign aid to Chile and supported Allende's opponents in Chile during his presidency, intending to encourage Allende's resignation, his overthrow, or his defeat in the impending election of 1976.[12] To this end, the Nixon administration clandestinely funded independent and non-state media and labor unions.

The U.S. government had two approaches to fighting Marxism as represented by Allende. "Track I" was a State Department initiative designed to thwart Allende by subverting Chilean elected officials within the bounds of the Chilean constitution and excluded the CIA. Track I expanded to encompass a number of policies whose ultimate goal was to create the conditions that would encourage a coup.[13] "Track II" was a CIA operation overseen by Henry Kissinger and CIA’s director of covert operations, Thomas Karamessine. "Track II" excluded the State Department and Department of Defense.[13] The goal of Track II was to find and support Chilean military officers that would support a coup.

More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_Chile

[burrowowl]

15. Good post for youngsters!

Thanks!

[DBoon]

18. Conservatives LOVE Pinochet

and Francisco Franco (fine Christian patriot)

Seriously - look at old National Review from this era

[byronius]

6. And Arizona continues its slide into nothingness and desolation.

Little bit of orc thrown in as a kicker.

[Marthe48]

11. When I travel

red states are off my list.

[leftyladyfrommo]

7. And the Supreme Court will knock it flat. nt

[TranssexualKaren]

9. This won't stand up in court.

I think we should see this as more a sign of desperation than a tangeable threat.
Still we need to openly challenge it as it reveals what is in their hearts.

[DeadLetterOffice]

10. I'm sure the ACLU will be all over it. n/t

[keithbvadu2]

12. Funny that GOP didn't think that was a good law when the Tea Party was protesting.

[JPK]

26. Yes, even when they brought guns to a presidential speech venue. nt

[mn9driver]

13. Perhaps these asshats believe that the 1st Amendment needn't apply in Arizona.

The courts will quickly correct them:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Historic NY]

16. Come to think of it the 2nd amendment may be necessary to enforce the first.

[TranssexualKaren]

25. "First they....

"First they ignore you, then they make fun of you, then they fight you, and then you win" -Ghandi
Hang in there, we're succeeding at getting under their skin!!!!

[DBoon]

17. they have done something like this before

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation

[Eyeball_Kid]

20. This goes to Court. First Amendment, Fourth Amendment violations.

[Percy Cholmondeley]

21. What I want to know is

who told them to do this?

[brooklynite]

22. "Congress shall make no law respecting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

"...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Vinca]

23. And yet they "believe in the Constitution."

[Smickey]

28. I don't believe this will..

..stand up to judicial scrutiny. That said, I am heading on a road trip from the PNW to Tx. soon and maybe I will avoid Az. just the same.

[question everything]

30. Please add (AZ) to the title. Thanks (nt)