Federal, State And Local Raid Upon Secessionist Public Political Meeting ...


Selene

Recommended Posts

Pretty broad search warrant ...

fbi.jpg

The President has become expert at misusing the concept of "prosecutorial" discretion as a justification for statutory authority.

Therefore, we should take this "raid" as clear evidence of prosecutorial discretion by the Federal government.

In a deliberate “show of force,” federal and local police forces raided a political meeting in Texas, fingerprinting and photographing all attendees as well as confiscating all cell phones and personal recording devices.

Now many would think that this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which states that:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.

"Papers" was a critical concept to the Founders.

The Anti-Federalists were vocal in their demands for protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Anti-Federalist writings are rich in reference to searches and seizures. Richard Henry Lee wrote to George Mason October 1, 1787 that, "the citizens shall not be exposed to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, houses or property.ä (Kurland 448). "Federal Farmer #4" put protection from "hasty and unreasonable search warrants not founded on oath and issued with due caution,ä as its first right of "essential rights which we have understood to be the rights of freemen.ä (450) Similar statements are found in, "Brutus #2" (452), "Federal Farmer #6" (457), and Federal Farmer #16 (459). The most compelling Anti-Federalist statement of protection from unreasonable searches came in "A Maryland Farmer #1,ä which gave the following as its argument in favor of a bill of rights: "Suppose for instance, that an officer of the United States should force the house, the asylum of a citizen by virtue of general warrant, I would ask, are general warrants illegal by the constitution of the United States?ä (464)

Professor David Woll in a Brooklyn Law Review article, "Border Searches" observed that the Fourth Amendment was historically unique from the rest of the Bill of Rights in that it was passed in direct response to the Writs of Assistance in which the British used the general warrant to search homes and buildings for contraband. (754). He concludes that, "·it is doubtful that the historical context of the fourth amendment's enactment supports warrantless and intrusive customs searches conducted today.ä (754). Justice Brennan summarized the historical application point U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez , 462 U.S. 579 (1983), saying of the Act of July 31, 1798 and the Fourth Amendment: "I cannot agree that every statute enacted by the First Congress must be presumed to be constitutional" Id.,. at 600, n.7, (Brennan J. dissenting).

The first record in English common law of search and seizure protection was Semayneâs case, in 1603, which proclaimed the maxim,

"Every man's house is his castle." Semayne's case demonstrated the principle at the heart of the Fourth Amendment in protection from the sovereign, but it also recognizes the authority of the state to enter, with notice, to arrest or execute the King's orders. (Findlaw.com http://www.findworld.com/data/Constitution/amendment04/01.html#3)

Entick v. Carrington (1762) brought the rights of free press and unreasonable seizure questions together when, in an attempt to silence John Wilkes and his criticism of the King, agents raided various homes of his supporters under a general warrant. (Howell's State Trials 1029, 95 Eng. 807, 1762). Entick sued when the King's agents broke into his house looking for papers connecting him with Wilkes. The English court ruled that the search was invalid because it failed to specify the material seized and did not state probable cause.

The seizure of the cell phones, without stating "with precision," what was being searched for raises serious questions.

Strangely enough, the "data" on the cell phones includes an individual's "papers."

However, there are cases regarding cell towers and their "data history" is searchable:

United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D. Md. 2012), was a Maryland District Court case in which the Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Reacting to precedent established by the recent Supreme Court case United States v. Antoine Jones in conjunction with the application of the third party doctrine, Judge Richard D. Bennett, found that "information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection" because that information no longer belongs to the consumer, but rather to the telecommunications company that handles the transmissions records.[1] The historical cell site location data is then not subject to the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause, but rather to the Stored Communications Act, which governs the voluntary or compelled disclosure of stored electronic communications records.

This "raid" should be an extreme wake up call to every individual citizen.

Members of the Republic of Texas, a secession movement dedicated to restoring Texas as an independent constitutional republic, had gathered Feb. 14 in a Bryan, Texas, meeting hall along with public onlookers. They were debating issues of currency, international relations and celebrating the birthday of one of their oldest members. The group, which describes itself as “congenial and unimposing,” maintains a small working government, including official currency, congress and courts.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/feds-raid-texas-political-meeting/#72jbFBk3LmVXsmOB.99

And there is the big honking red flag!!

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd wait and see on this one. Bing and Google searches on "texas secessionist" turn up reports on the incident from several fringey little sites and one fairly credible one, VodkaPundit. VP in turn cites only single source, one of the aforementioned fringey ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd wait and see on this one. Bing and Google searches on "texas secessionist" turn up reports on the incident from several fringey little sites and one fairly credible one, VodkaPundit. VP in turn cites only single source, one of the aforementioned fringey ones.

I am assuming the worst whack jobs possible.

No arrests?

Were the two (2) in question there?

I would truly desire to see the search warrant and the probable cause affidavit.

Seems like they have a mole in their ranks though which would not surprise me.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My search led back to an article in the Houston Chronicle. I don't know anything about that particular newspaper, but it seems quite normal, so I'm assuming that the story is factual.

What the description above leaves out is the reason for the raid. According to the Chronicle, members of the Republic of Texas issued fabricated court documents including an official looking summons for certain persons to appear before a Republic of Texas "court" in connection with the foreclosure of one of its member's houses.

In other words, the Republic of Texas had taken the notion of "shadow government" a little too far. When they started issuing summonses to members of the public not associated with the group, they caught the attention of the police.

Some people questioned the need for a raid involving multiple local and federal agencies in connection with a misdemeanor offense, but it doesn't necessarily sound like the heavy boot of government coming down on a law abiding group. Clearly, they had gone beyond merely talking and that's what triggered the raid.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, they had gone beyond merely talking and that's what triggered the raid.

The foreclosure was clearly mentioned in the article that I posted.

Information Liberation noted, “The pretext of the raid was that two individuals from the group had reportedly sent out ‘simulated court documents’ — summonses for a judge and a banker to appear before the Republic of Texas to discuss the matter of a foreclosure. These ‘simulated documents’ were rejected and the authorities decided to react with a ‘show of force’ – 20 officers and an extremely broad search warrant.”

The invalid court summons was signed by Susan Cammak, a Kerr County homeowner, and David Kroupa, a Republic of Texas judge from Harris County.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/feds-raid-texas-political-meeting/#IXZlvfZWzpvf0awj.99

Moreover, am I to understand that if you attended this man's birthday party, or, were interested in what they had to say, your mere attendance justified having your personal cell phone seized and searched?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the description above leaves out is the reason for the raid.

The foreclosure was clearly mentioned in the article that I posted.

The foreclosure was mentioned in the article that you linked, but not in the "description above."

Part of the purpose of my post was to respond to Reidy's comment that he couldn't find a reliable source for the information. Since the WND article refers back to a Houston Chronicle article, I was helping to bolster the case that your information was factual.

Moreover, am I to understand that if you attended this man's birthday party, or, were interested in what they had to say, your mere attendance justified having your personal cell phone seized and searched?

I think the warrant under which law enforcement was operating was overly broad. The warrant allowed the officers to seize everyone's cell phone and search it. It also allowed the officers to take a DNA sample from everyone. The breadth of the warrant is frightening --- I agree.

I also appreciated your references to the history of the 4th Amendment. I was not aware that the British used to issue general warrants that provided them with broad authority to search people that weren't specifically mentioned in the warrant. The warrant issued in this case seemed to operate much like a general warrant and should be found illegitimate under the Constitution.

I guess my one objection to your posting was the connection that you made to prosecutorial discretion. That characterization seems to tie what happened in Texas to the Obama amnesty for illegal immigrants. However, in my view, this is an entirely different animal.

The Obama Administration is attempting to construct an entire government program on the flimsy foundation of prosecutorial discretion. In this case, it is the judge that issued the warrant and not the executive in the form of the police that over stepped their bounds. While it is true that prosecutors generally ask for a specific warrant and they should be scolded for attempting to obtain such a broad warrant, I blame the judge for issuing it. The fact that it pertained to a large group of people not directly involved in the case should have rung alarm bells in his head.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my one objection to your posting was the connection that you made to prosecutorial discretion. That characterization seems to tie what happened in Texas to the Obama amnesty for illegal immigrants. However, in my view, this is an entirely different animal.

The Obama Administration is attempting to construct an entire government program on the flimsy foundation of prosecutorial discretion. In this case, it is the judge that issued the warrant and not the executive in the form of the police that over stepped their bounds. While it is true that prosecutors generally ask for a specific warrant and they should be scolded for attempting to obtain such a broad warrant, I blame the judge for issuing it. The fact that it pertained to a large group of people not directly involved in the case should have rung alarm bells in his head.

Darrell

Thanks.

Here is the amusing part of your answer, I was being dryly satirical about the "misuse" of prosecutorial discretion with that reference.

However, I was intimating that the presence of the FBI constituted the Administration's stance that the real "T" threats are from these kinds of "right wing" nullifiers, secessionists and ____[fill in the blanks].

Didn't mean to jump down your throat.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be your opinion if these secessionists were seeking to create a communist state in the Florida Keys and join Cuba? And then what if the prosecutor and police did nothing? Or then further protected their meeting from protestors outside the building? Would you praise the authorities for their rigorous devotion to civil liberties and civil rights?

I followed Darrell's link from the Houston Chronicle. Thanks. It explained a lot.

I also followed a Chron story from 2009 about the 1997 stand-off. Read here:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2009/04/today-in-texas-history-long-live-republic-of-texas-separatist-group-standoff-in-mountains-begins/

Secession is unconstitutional. That question was settled by the War Between the States.

Here in Texas, you cannot be employed by the Department of Public Safety - highway patrol troopers, state police, and Texas Rangers, as well as some other efforts - if you belong to any radical, reactionary, or secessionist organization. I am a member of the State Guard. We answer only to the governor. We cannot be sent overseas. Our oath of office nonetheless includes swearing loyalty to the United States of America.

It is a fact of political life in America, that just about everyone on the far left and far right looks to the American Revolution for their roots. This week's Atlas Shrugged Movie email newsletter pointed to three discussions on the Galt's Gulch Online board calling for a real Gulch somewhere right now. The continued popularity of Ayn Rand's novel made that a cultural artifact for our time. But no one has a monopoly. From Aaron Burr's plan to become emperor of Texas to the Mormons of Deseret, to the Shakers of Ohio, and the California utopian communities, secession seems to be woven into the fabric of American politics. But therein lies a conceptual contradiction: you want to follow in the tradition of the place you want to leave. After all, the American revolutionaries only wanted their rights as Englishmen.

But capitalism is globalism. After the American revolution - despite desires to have open trade with Spanish and French ports as well as all others - most of the trade among merchants in America was with merchants in Great Britain. As late as the 1830s - fifty years after independence - merchants along the American seaboard kept their books in pounds-shillings-pence. Isolationism is contrary to the fundamentals of economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secession, except by permission of Congress is legally treason. There was a court decision made in 1866 justifying Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and the court concluded secession is an act of war, which by constitutional definition is treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I was intimating that the presence of the FBI constituted the Administration's stance that the real "T" threats are from these kinds of "right wing" nullifiers, secessionists and ____[fill in the blanks].

Ever since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 the faction in control of the government of the United States has used its powers to suppress its political opponents. Perhaps the only time that broad powers were applied uniformly was in the 1930s when J. Edgar Hoover went after everyone, radicals, dissidents, communists, nazis, and ordinary political opponents of the Administration, as well as the Administration itself.

For a class in Terrorism for First Responders sponsored by the School of Staff and Command of the Center for Regional and National Security of Eastern Michigan University, I wrote about the Earth Liberation Front. The ELF claimed that a "Green Scare" was in play analogous to the Red Scares of the 1920s and 1950s. They pointed to the fact that leftwing people who burned SUVs in car dealerships received harsher sentences than rightwing people who planned to poison the water supplies of cities. They claimed that the Bush Administration was soft on rightwing terrorism. Before 9/11 the worst terrorist event in America was the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. The response was not the same as the crackdown after the September 16, 1920, Wall Street bombing that took 38 lives. (Never solved, it is still attributed to Italian anarchists operating in the United States.) Largely, the political conservatives tend to ignore rather than denounce rightwing terrorism, just as radicals of the left excuse what they consider to be "responses to oppression."

When the FBI went into the woods in pursuit of Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph, their command trailer was shot up (in their absence). Nothing came of it. I have here two books about the FBI Hostage Rescue Team: NO HEROES by Danny L. Coulson and ON SCENE COMMANDER by Welton Kennedy, both of them FBI senior agents, managers of SAICs, who worked their way to the top. When right wing militias came to their attention - except for Ruby Ridge - they were able to negotiate a settlement. The basis for the non-violent outcome of an armed stand-off in the woods was a set of shared values: military veterans; family values; Christian religion; patriotism. All of that was lacking when they faced the Greens in Oregon and Washington.

With Chicago communists defining the agenda of the current Administration, the tide turned… until the next change of Administration.

The simplest solution for the ordinary citizen is stay within the mainstream of the American political tradition.

Hofstadter's introduction proposes that the major political traditions in the United States, despite contentious battles, have all

...shared a belief in the rights of property, the philosophy of economic individualism, the value of competition... [T]hey have accepted the economic virtues of a capitalist culture as necessary qualities of man.

While many accounts have made political conflict central,the author proposes that a common ideology of "self-help, free enterprise, competition, and beneficent cupidity" has guided the Republic since its inception. Through analyses of the ruling class in the U.S., Hofstadter argues that this consensus is the hallmark of political life in the U.S. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Political_Tradition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private property rights and freedom of association guarantees the right of group or gov't succession. Indeed, even the individual may secede from a given gov't at will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private property rights and freedom of association guarantees the right of group or gov't succession. Indeed, even the individual may secede from a given gov't at will.

That is not what the courts decided. And since the courts are backed up by government guns, you lose.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private property rights and freedom of association guarantees the right of group or gov't succession. Indeed, even the individual may secede from a given gov't at will.

That is not what the courts decided. And since the courts are backed up by government guns, you lose.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Not only the courts Bob.

About 750,000 American men women and children gave their lives to decide whose courts would make the decision.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I was intimating that the presence of the FBI constituted the Administration's stance that the real "T" threats are from these kinds of "right wing" nullifiers, secessionists and ____[fill in the blanks].

I agree that the focus of this Administration is off target.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be your opinion if these secessionists were seeking to create a communist state in the Florida Keys and join Cuba? And then what if the prosecutor and police did nothing? Or then further protected their meeting from protestors outside the building? Would you praise the authorities for their rigorous devotion to civil liberties and civil rights?

Michael,

Thank you for the link to the story about the 1997 raid.

If a bunch of communist secessionists were sitting around celebrating the birthday of mass murderer, Che Guevara and the police raided them and confiscated everyone's cell phone, I'd say that was government overreach.

If a couple members of the group had issued false subpoenas, I'd say that they should be arrested. But, they're the only ones that should be arrested. The other 60 people at Che's birthday party shouldn't be arrested.

There are two main reasons for expanding government power:

1. As a response to a conflict or threat of conflict such as a war, and

2. As a natural consequence of leftist, utopian idealism.

The raid down in Texas is a case of government overreach in response to a mostly quiet secessionist group. Secession through use of force may be illegal, but talking about secession isn't. After all, in principle, secession could be accomplished peacefully by petitioning the federal government. If Congress approved a secession plan and the President signed it into law, it would, perforce, be legal.

In my book, a utopian is basically any person who believes that he can create a better society than a free society through force or coercion or the threat of force or coercion. Such people are predominantly creatures of the left. So, your hypothetical meeting of communists is probably more of a threat to liberty than a meeting of secessionists because communists generally want to force everyone into a commune and secessionists usually just want to be left alone.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have here two books about the FBI Hostage Rescue Team: NO HEROES by Danny L. Coulson and ON SCENE COMMANDER by Welton Kennedy, both of them FBI senior agents, managers of SAICs, who worked their way to the top. When right wing militias came to their attention - except for Ruby Ridge - they were able to negotiate a settlement.

A sickening whitewash by the foxes guarding the chicken-coop. The Weavers were in no way a militia, and the FBI -- far from trying to negotiate anything -- set up Randy Weaver then murdered his wife and son. After that their dog isn't worth mentioning. See Ruby Ridge.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, your hypothetical meeting of communists is probably more of a threat to liberty than a meeting of secessionists because communists generally want to force everyone into a commune and secessionists usually just want to be left alone.

Precisely Darrell:

I would make this point to the anarcho-syndicalists and other left anarchists at our conferences in NY City.

They could easily exist in our utopia, however, we would not be permitted to exist in theirs.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have here two books about the FBI Hostage Rescue Team: NO HEROES by Danny L. Coulson and ON SCENE COMMANDER by Welton Kennedy, both of them FBI senior agents, managers of SAICs, who worked their way to the top. When right wing militias came to their attention - except for Ruby Ridge - they were able to negotiate a settlement.

A sickening whitewash by the foxes guarding the chicken-coop. The Weavers were in no way a militia, and the FBI -- far from trying to negotiate anything -- set up Randy Weaver then murdered his wife and son. After that their dog isn't worth mentioning. See Ruby Ridge.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

Correct.

I have always loved Spence's letter to his Jewish friend who apparently asked him to remove himself from defending Weaver.

"My name is Gerry Spence" I began. "I'm the lawyer you've been told about. Before we begin to talk I want you to understand that I do not share any of your political or religious beliefs. Many of my dearest friends are Jews. My daughter is married to a Jew. My sister is married to a black man. She has adopted a black child. I deplore what the Nazis stand for. If I defend you I will not defend your political beliefs or your religious beliefs, but your right as an American citizen to a fair trial." His quiet answer was, "That is all I ask." Then I motioned him to a red plastic chair and I took a similar one. And as the guards marched by and from time to time peered in, he told his story.

Then as he lays the foundation for his decision he uses a parable...

In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last has the people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays. They were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong.

How could that be our wrong you ask?

That none of us felt responsible for having lost our freedom has been a part of an insidious progression. In the beginning the attention of the flock was directed not to the marauding wolf but to our own deviant members within the flock. We rejoiced as the wolf destroyed them for they were our enemies. We were told that the weak lay under the rocks while we faced the blizzards to rustle our food, and we did not care when the wolf took them. We argued that they deserved it. When one of our flock faced the wolf alone it was always eaten. Each of us was afraid of the wolf, but as a flock we were not afraid. Indeed the wolf cleansed the herd by destroying the weak and dismembering the aberrant element within. As time went by, strangely, the herd felt more secure under the rule of the wolf. It believed that by belonging to this wolf it would remain safe from all the other wolves. But

we were eaten just the same.

He then makes his decision clear to his friend.

And so my friend Allan, you can now understand the pain I feel in this case. It is pain that comes from the realization that we have permitted a government to act in our name and in our behalf in a criminal fashion. It is the pain of watching the government as it now attempts to lie about its criminal complicity in this affair and to cover its crimes by charging Randy with crimes he did not commit, including murder. It is the pain of seeing an innocent woman with a child in her arms murdered and innocent children subjected to these atrocities. Indeed, as a human being I feel Randy's irrepressible pain and horror and grief.

The letter is much longer and even better than I expected.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/weaver/spenceletter.html

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlas Shrugged was on the Weaver family reading list.

Atlas Shrugged
by Ayn Rand (1957)

randbook.jpg
In her classic libertarian novel, Rand describes how her philosophy (objectivism) should guide purposeful lives. Dagny Taggert, a key executive at the world's largest railroad, focused solely on the success of her company, is among a select view who must save her country from officials that are controlling to an ever greater degree the lives of its citizens.

I was not aware of this and I read Spence's book on the case.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlas Shrugged was on the Weaver family reading list.

… I was not aware of this and I read Spence's book on the case.

You must not lump all government employees into one set. That would be the fallacy of the unnamed collective. If you know the difference between David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff, then you must accept that the incident at Ruby Ridge was isolated to one command post. Horrible as it was, it has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

More to the point here, that "the Weaver family" (including the baby?) had Atlas Shrugged in their bookcase is not relevant. I have 22 works by or about Ayn Rand on my bookshelf and I do not own any firearms. Randy Weaver was entrapped over the purchase of an illegal firearm. Firearms, marijuana, gambling, unlicensed barbering, or unregulated tarot cards, you make your choices and you take your chances. Randy Weaver gambled with the lives of his wife, child, and dog.

But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, the secessionists of Bryan, Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, the secessionists of Bryan, Texas.

How nice of you to remind us of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlas Shrugged was on the Weaver family reading list.

… I was not aware of this and I read Spence's book on the case.

You must not lump all government employees into one set. That would be the fallacy of the unnamed collective. If you know the difference between David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff, then you must accept that the incident at Ruby Ridge was isolated to one command post. Horrible as it was, it has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

That's rationalization of a horrible status quo then and still extant today: the life and freedom threatening danger of government thugs with guns following orders given by power-mongering bureaucrats. I suspect you prefer empiricism for there are always facts to be found to support a proposition, while deduction always relies directly on logic and is transparent.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...the incident at Ruby Ridge..."

US bombing of the Black Wall Street in the 1920's...

Numerous witness accounts described airplanes carrying white assailants, who fired rifles and dropped firebombs on buildings, homes, and fleeing families.[citation needed] The planes, six biplane two-seater trainers left over from World War I, were dispatched from the nearby Curtiss-Southwest Field outside Tulsa.[21] Law enforcement officials later stated the planes were to provide reconnaissance and protect against a "Negro uprising".[21] Eyewitness accounts and testimony from the survivors maintained that on the morning of June 1, the planes dropped incendiary bombs and fired rifles at black residents on the ground.[21]

The routing of the WW I pensioners...

Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time, visited their camp to back the effort and encourage them.[1] On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. Veterans were also shot dead at other locations during the demonstration. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

The beating and imprisonment of the Suffragettes during WW I...

The Night of Terror for Women Lobbying to Pass the 19th Amendment

The National Women’s Party began picketing in front of the White House in January 1917. Their banners asked “How Long Must Women Wait for Liberty?” Although 12 western states already permitted women to vote, the suffragettes sought passage of a Constitutional Amendment that expanded the right to all women. In July 1917, District of Columbia police arrested the protesters on the charge of “obstructing sidewalk traffic.” Thirty-three of these women would be sent to Occoquan.

Their incarceration began on November 15th, the “Night of Terror.” Forty prison guards literally threw the women into cells. Lucy Burns was beaten and her hands were chained to the cell bars above her head. Dora Lewis was knocked out. Alice Cosu suffered a heart attack. In the ensuring days, the women were given worm-infested food while a glass of water was a “privilege.” According to a November 25, 1917 New York Times article, the women were “deliberately terrorized” and warned not to talk about their experiences.

https://suite.io/michael-streich/2ych2nv

Waco ...

Kent State ...

And those are just off the top of my head....

Yeah, definitely an "isolated" "incident" [what a nice word for murder].

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wounded Knee

The Sand Creek Massacre

The Trail of Tears

Marias Massacre

The Whiskey Rebellion

slavery

I was going to go back further than the 20th century, however I thought I would stop at 1900.

I agree with all of the ones you added.

I would include the Japanese, German and Italian Americans who were thrown into camps, had property stolen and in too many cases wound up mysteriously dead.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now