Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    	RE: "non-violent"
    
    	 I wouldn't call storming a clinic and roughing up people
    	inside as non-violent.....
    
    	 While they may feel their cause is just, they do not have
    	the right to go on private property or to stop people from
    	entering any building for any purpose..
    

    re .0
    
    I agree, the legal action is dangerous. It is a two edged sword.
    It could set precedents that are used against us.
    
    Is NOW or anyone else organizing counter demonstrations to defend
    the rights of the clinic and women to go their in safely and without
    intimidation and isolation?
    
    If there is, it might be a good idea to join them. If not, why not
    initiate something?
    
    Les

Nancy,

You have a good point about setting a precedent, but I would think
that the suit would have to prove that the demonstration organizers 
were not there just to demonstrate, but actually intended to 
close the clinic through harrassment and by forcing the city into Bankruptcy.

I hope this is the way it turns out. We'll have to wait and see...

Roberta

    In the news reports I've seen, there were always counter-demonstrators
    present and escorts for the women going in.
    
    I agree that if demonstrators are being physically assaultive/violent,
    then those *individuals* should be appropriately prosecuted.  As
    for interfering with the "normal course of business," remember that
    it took doing the very same thing to integrate lunch counters in
    the 60's.  Blacks and whites sat at the counters together and the
    whites said, "Serve me when you serve him."  As long as the Op.
    Rescue folks are not physically violent and do not actually destroy
    property, the fact that they are in the way is very much in keeping
    with the civil rights demonstrations!  As one old enough to remember
    the 60's, I am *very* concerned that the *rights* of Op. Rescue *not*
    be restricted.  It's too easy for us who are pro-choice to overlook
    the ramifications.
    
    Again, what about *financially* supporting Brookline so that Op. Rescue
    will be unsuccessful in causing bankruptcy???  And protecting *out*
    rights in the process??
    

    I can't comment specifically on the Brookline case, but NOW has several
    cases pending across the U.S. specifically charging the leaders of
    "Operation Rescue" with rackateering under the federal RECO act.  This
    was considered a reasonable thing to do since "Operation Rescue" is
    not simply demonstrating but are alledgedly trying through whatever
    means possible (physical intimidation, harassment etc.) to have the
    clinics shut down.  Death threats have reportedly been made against
    clinic workers, with the goal being to force them to quit their jobs.
    It is these incidents that prompted the invokation of RECO, not simply
    the demonstrations.
    
    In case anyone thinks Brookline is the first city to do this, you're
    mistaken.  Philadelphia has already successfully applied the RECO
    act to the anti-abortion activists working in that geography.
    
    The analogy between lunch counters and the civil rights movement and
    what "Operation Rescue" is doing is said to be flawed since OpR is
    trying to prevent *other* people from exercising their constitutional
    rights, whereas the civil rights people were trying to exercise their
    *own* rights.  {NOTE: I'm just reporting what I heard ... not saying
    I agree with this logic or not.}

    This is from the Boston Globe (not today's)
    
    "A US Appeals Court cleared the way for the unconventional use of the
    RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) law last
    month when it found that 27 members of Operation Rescue had violated
    the RICO statute by staging similar protests in Philadelphia.  
    
    "This is an appropriate use of RICO," said Jeffrey Allen, chairman of
    the Board of Selectmen.  "We've met with Operation Rescue and been told
    they will protest legally if we shut down the clinics during their
    demonstrations.  That's extortion.  They are saying, 'We'll cut 
    down the costs to the town if you deny women their right to enter these
    clinics.'  We cannot do that."
    
    Because these demonstrations are being held to deny some of us our
    constitutional rights (and not to freely exercise constitutional
    rights that are being denied to Operation Rescue people as was true
    in the civil rights demonstrations of the sixties), I believe this
    to be a valid application of the RICO laws.
    
    Mary

    That certainly sounds a cogent argument to me.

    
    How easily we forget how it was 25+ years ago, when
    the liberal beliefs that are currently "mainstrean"
    were held by a minority leftist fringe. Yeah,imagine
    if RICO was used against protesters in the 1960s... 
    
    This is another way of saying that since our current
    opposition is irrational lets us ruling liberals 
    rule all opposition as irrational, and sic the
    law on them... and help solidify their hold on 
    power and access to the media. 
    
    First, we are disarmed. Then drugtested... Then, we'll
    need permits to live in a given place, all this for
    the best of reasons, the good of society. Then, we'll
    make laws giving certain chosen genders and nationalities
    special advantages, and before you know it, most of
    us will be unable to protest even if we wanted to.
    
    Look at what's happening here... our rights are being
    surrendered by our elected "representatives" for
    *their* convenience, so they can stay in office for
    years and years... 
    
    What if they sicced RICO on NOW? Can't you see how
    wrong this is?

    It seems like there is a huge difference between violent and
    non-violent protest.  Remember the Kent State students putting flowers
    in the ends of the Guards' rifles?  Remember chanting groups of hippies
    blocking a road?  Remember the tactics of the Clamshell alliance?  Yes,
    there were violent groups during the 60's (weathermen and other
    'societal change through violence' types), but other than those small
    cadres of fanatics who were indeed interfering with the rights of
    others, most protests were relatively peaceful. 
    
    I don't think that members of 'Operation Rescue' should lose their
    rights to assemble, speak out, or promote their views.  I do think
    that when their tactics include doing physical harm to clinic staff
    members, extortion, property damage to individual homes, and control
    through fear, they are infringing on the rights of others just as
    the violent groups on the left were doing during the 60's.  As long
    as they exercise their rights and don't seek to infringe on the
    rights of others, they cannot be prosecuted.
           
    From the NPR report last week, I was impressed to hear that they
    are being prosecuted for unacceptable *actions* (violent ones) under
    RICO.  No one is trying to take away their constitutional rights
    to promote their own views.
    
    Holly

    
    They can be prosecuted as individuals for their acts...
    just as Clamshell ought to have been for costing us PGE
    ratepayers millions by their stupid grandstanding over
    issues they barely understand.
    
    The use of a law designed to prosecute mobsters against
    protagonists in a political struggle sends a chill to
    all those who hold the minority view. 
    
    Except for the cases of arson and bombing (admittedly 
    serious crimes), what kind of violence are we talking
    about? Blockading offices? Blocking sidewalks? For this
    we should send in the goon squad?  
    
    We have plenty of laws already against arson and assault.
    Why do we need the extra vindictiveness of RICO..? It will
    only create martyrs, and thats the last thing the pro-choice
    majority needs to do.

RE .8
    
     circa 1960's  
    
    'We will protest until the bus company is shutdown changes to a
    way acceptable to us'
    
    This IS what happened in the south along with lunch counters etc.

    If Operation Rescue is open for RICO charges, then the civil rights
    marchers were also.
    
    

    	RE:  .13
    
    	(First off, is there any reason why you use the title "exit"
    	for all your notes?)  Just curious.
    
    	What, precisely, do you claim was the civil rights threat to
    	the bus companies?  If they planned a peaceful protest until
    	the bus company stopped denying people their civil rights, then
    	RICO could not have been used against them.
    
    	Had they planned to rough people up until the bus company AGREED
    	to deny people their rights, then RICO could be used.
    
    	However, I don't believe that the latter was the case.  Do you?

    I'm afraid  that  RICO is a bad law. It allows assets to be frozen
    (or confiscated) without a conviction.  Why this isn't a violation
    of  the  "Due Process" clause is beyond me. I'm also very leary of
    laws  against "conspiracy" and similar things as they appear to be
    a mind control law rather than a law punishing actions.

    That said,  I  can  see  the  use  of  RICO  against  SOME  of the
    anti-abortion  groups as they have been illegally interfering with
    legal  actions  at the abortion clinics. If they picket or boycott
    and  that  causes  business  to  drop,  I have no problem with the
    action,  but  if  a  group  tries  to  forcibly prevent entry to a
    building,  that  is  illegal,  and  should  be  punished.  Clearly
    destruction   of  property  is  also  punishable.  Since  we  have
    conspiracy   laws   (and   RICO)   we   should  use  them  against
    anti-abortionists  who  are  illegally  interferring with abortion
    clinics.  In a better world, we wouldn't have the RICO statues.

--David

           <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 545.14              Brookline -vs- Operation Rescue                14 of 15
NEXUS::CONLON                                        14 lines  17-APR-1989 07:56
                            -< Not the same thing. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    	RE:  .13
    
>    	(First off, is there any reason why you use the title "exit"
>    	for all your notes?)  Just curious.

    Mis-type    Just this one note as far as I know.
    
>    	What, precisely, do you claim was the civil rights threat to
>    	the bus companies?  If they planned a peaceful protest until
>    	the bus company stopped denying people their civil rights, then
>    	RICO could not have been used against them.

    If they planned a peaceful protest until the abortion clinic
    stopped denying unborn people their civil rights, then
    RICO could not have been used against them.
    
>    	Had they planned to rough people up until the bus company AGREED
>    	to deny people their rights, then RICO could be used.

    Roughing people up is wrong no matter who does it. Did you see on
    the news the Atlanta Rescue demonstrations.  Those demonstrators
    were roughed up.    

>        However, I don't believe that the latter was the case.  Do you?

    
     See above
    
    As an aside to  Brookline, should Washington D.C. charge NOW for
    the demonstration they just had? Peaceful though it might have been,
    it did cost them money.

    	RE:  .16
    
    	Unless you have permission to rewrite someone else's note,
    	please do not use other people's words (with certain substitutions)
    	in your argument BACK to them.  Try arguing in your own words.
    
    	> Did you see on the news the Atlanta Rescue demonstrations?
    	> Those demonstrators were roughed up.
    
    	What I saw on the news the other night (regarding Operation Rescue)
    	was that police have started carrying demonstrators off in
    	stretchers (instead of carrying them by their arms or legs.)
    	
    	It looked to me as though they were trying very hard *NOT* to
    	hurt the demonstrators.
    
    	RE: General
    
    	Aside from the ideologies behind the opposing positions, which
    	has been amply covered in Topic 183, the real issue seems to
    	be whether or not Operation Rescue is engaging in activities
    	that fall within the realm of the legal/acceptable definitions
    	of protesting peacefully.
    
    	In my opinion, they do not confine their activities within this
    	realm (due to the fact that the object of their demonstration
    	is not the government, or even the media, as much as it is WOMEN.)
    
    	They harrass and scream at pregnant women using megaphones (and 
    	block the women's entrance into buildings that the women are 
    	legally entitled to enter.)
    
    	The very fact that the demonstrations consist of harrassing
    	individuals (and not merely making a "statement" to a governing
    	body) constitutes a breach of the women's civil rights.
    
    	Before anyone launches into a rathole about embryos civil rights,
    	our present court system is not set up for that particular kind
    	of argument at the moment, so let's try to stick to what a court
    	might or might not decide to do with a RICO case against Operation
    	Rescue (if such a discussion is, indeed, possible.)

    I was not going to reply today, but I thought it better if I did.
    
    RE .17
    
    About using someones argument and changing a few words. Is this
    hitting too close to home if I take your 
    beliefs and turn them around and point them out from another
    perspective that may be argued as forcefully as yours?

    
    The Atlanta demsonstrations, the first ones a couple of months ago
    were the ones I was refering to. I would not want to see anyone
    peacefully protesting handled like they were.
    
    I suppose when all is said and done, the courts will be the ones
    to decide if this RICO charge will stick.
    
    As an aside. I heard on the TV the other day that a new poll by
    some national news organization (sorry I came in on the end of this
    so I don't remember the name of the organization)
    found that a majority of americans favor legalized abortion. However
    a majority also were against the 'casual' or 'birthcontrol' abortions
    which if I remember a note in this notes file correctly account
    for about 90+% of the abortions. Did anyone else hear this?

    	RE: .18
    
    	> About using someones argument and changing a few words.
    	> Is this hitting too close to home if I take your beliefs and
    	> turn them around and point them out from another perspective
    	> that may be argued as forcefully as yours?
    
    	No, it doesn't hit close to home.  It annoys me to see you
    	become so attached to the strength of my words that you start
    	"borrowing" them for your own arguments (using the kinds of
    	inappropriate substitutions that create bothersome fallacies.)
    
    	Although I'm flattered that you would rather use my words for
    	your arguments than using whatever thoughts you could write
    	yourself, it seems like a cheap short cut to me.  
    
    	If your arguments have merit, surely you should be able to come 
    	up with your own ideas on how to express them without relying on 
    	my words to do it for you.  

    I think there is a real difference between the bus boycotts and
    the abortion clinic harassments.
    
    Blacks in the south said "we will walk until you treat us with dignity
    and equality".  I don't remember ever hearing that they attempted to
    stop white people from boarding buses.  Each black person who chose to
    walk made a decision about his/her own life and preference for dignity.
    People in this country have the right to choose what goods and services
    they will use even if it results in a boycott. 
    
    The parallel would be if the anti-abortion forces were to say, "Well
    we won't go to those clinics!  We refuse to have abortions!."  The
    clinics, and the pro-choice movement would support them wholeheartedly.
    
    But they are apparently using violence and threats towards others in
    many cities rather than exercising their own right not to use a
    particular service. 
    
    Holly
    

         I see a better parallel between Operation Rescue and the anti
    war protesters of the 60's.  Operation Rescue blocks abortion clinics
    and the anti-war protesters blocked draft boards and recruiting
    stations.  
    
         I don't agree with Operation Rescue or many of the tactics
    that they've used. But I think that if the racketeering laws are
    effectively used against them that we will stand to lose some of
    our freedoms.  Imagine what would have happened if the early anti-war
    protesters had been jailed on racketeering charges.
    
    ASP

    Remember that the early anti-war protesters were a very small minority.
    It did not matter that the majority of them were peaceful, the cops
    and the media treated *all* of them as a fringe that had nothing
    in common with the rest of God fearing America. When the police
    or others attacked the protesters, it was the protesters that were
    labeled as the violent ones.
    
    In the case of Operation Rescue, there are those that are
    participating in those demonstrations out of sincere conviction.
    Many, or at least some do not go along with all of the tactics
    that Operation Rescue or other groups use.
    
    If this group is labeled an organized crime outfit under RICO,
    then what about those that *associate* with this group? Will they
    be considered criminals? Will they be further denied rights by their
    association with this or similar groups? I say this is *very*
    dangerous.
    
    I would also like to warn against putting to much faith in a government
    to protect a right that they do *not* agree with. RICO is *not* going
    to protect the right to choose. RICO in this case is only a
    *substitute* for the necessary mobilization of women and their
    supporters to make it clear that we have these rights and the likes
    of Operation Rescue represent a reactionary minority.
    
    Les

re .17

>    	They harrass and scream at pregnant women using megaphones (and 
>    	block the women's entrance into buildings that the women are 
>    	legally entitled to enter.)

	Let me reword this slightly and I think it clearly applies to
	tactics used very successfully by labor unions in this country:
    
    	They harrass and scream at replacement workers using megaphones (and 
    	block the worker's entrance into buildings that the workers are 
    	legally entitled to enter.)

	I would personally hate to see the labor unions prosecuted or
	treated as racketeers for this type of action.

							Tom_K

    
      During the anti-war demonstrations, college buildings were often
    taken control of by demonstraters, denying access to students. Damage
    to the buildings often resulted. If RICO was around then and had
    been applied, these demonstraters would have been treated like
    members of organized crime.
      During protests of Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, damage and
    trespassing have occured. Workers also have been harrassed and
    screamed at with megaphones. RICO could also be applied here.
      This is a very dangerous statute. If Roe v. Wade is overturned
    by the Supreme Court, the Pro Choice demonstraters will be next
    on the government's hit list.

    I find it ironic that the previous few arguments appear to be 
    aimed at convincing pro-choice people to protect the constitutional 
    right of anti-abortionists to deprive American women of one of our 
    constitutional rights.
    
    If Operation Rescue hadn't engaged in extortion by refusing to 
    *legally* demonstrate unless the clinics closed down during 
    their demonstrations, RICO probably wouldn't have been applied.
    
    Perhaps we had all better face the fact that any time individual
    rights are threatened in this country, a precedent is set.
    You want to preserve your right to demonstrate regarding your
    beliefs?  Then don't attack our rights either.  Your rights are
    no more precious than ours.  If we lose ours, you lose as well.
    We all stand to lose far too much in our modern political climate.
    
    Mary

    re .26 (Mary)
    
    I do not think the way to protect rights is to advocate violating
    other's rights. There are laws against firebombing and some other
    tactics used by some foes of the right to abortion. The politicians
    and the police should apprehend the bombers or other infractors and
    prosecute them to the limit of the laws.
    
    RICO and other conspiracy type laws strike at the right to associate.
    People that have committed no crime can be penalized and have rights
    denied.
    
    No mechanism should ever supported that allows the government to
    circumvent due process. RICO does precisely this.
    
    Some people in the movement have the mistaken notion that the
    governments going to protect the right to an abortion or any other
    right for that matter.
    
    It is the visible demonstration of people demanding that our rights
    be respected that will preserve and extend these rights. The quieter
    the insistence the less likely will there be for success. Courts
    and court action is a lot quieter than 600,000 in the streets.
    
    The 600,000 in DC has registered on a national level. This has been
    the *biggest* blow to the anti-choice people. It would be best to
    extend this to the local level. Out mobilize Operation Rescue
    everywhere they show their faces.
    
    When the masses let themselves know that we are in the majority the
    government will call off their terrorist dogs. They have their means.
    We should not offer to support any method that could be used against
    us.
    
    Les

    I believe  that  we  have  to  protect  everyone's  constitutional
    rights,  especially  the  right to protest. I don't agree with the
    Operation  Rescue members, but they have the same right to protest
    something  that  they  feel  is  wrong  that  the civil rights and
    anti-war  movements  had  to  protest something that they felt was
    wrong.  I  believe  it was Jefferson who said that the only weapon
    against bad ideas is better ideas. It is not in my interest to use
    fundamentally  flawed laws to prevent a group that I disagree with
    from expressing their opinion.

    Operation Rescue  has  every  right  to  yell  at  women  using  a
    megaphone.  They  have  the  right to picket abortion clinics, but
    they  don't  have  the  right  to block the doors. If they wish to
    violate  laws,  they can, but they must expect whatever punishment
    the  law  provides.  These  are  the  fundamental  ideas  of civil
    disobediance.

    This is  why I support the ACLU. They published a letter that they
    received with a check just after they defended the rights of Nazis
    to  march  in Skokie. The letter said "Defend the bastards." And I
    have  to  concur.  Any attempt to limit their right to demonstrate
    will hurt my causes when we wish to demonstrate. I can't argue for
    free speech only for people who agree with me.

--David

    Its a difficult question in these days of million dollar PACS.
    Operation Rescue has repeatedly refused to disclose any financial
    information.  For all we know, Operation Rescue is funded by 
    a specific group (or groups) who have access to a great deal of
    money and who is involved in a conspiracy to deprive American
    women of their civil rights.  
    
    No one is denying OR members their right to protest as far as I can tell. 
    Rather, they (as an organization) are being held financially accountable 
    for any illegal acts the *organization* may have conspired to committ 
    against a certain group of Americans.  
    
    I understand that the director of Operation Rescue earns a yearly salary 
    in the neighborhood of $30,000.  Who pays that salary?  Where does
    the funding for Operation Rescue come from?  
    
    Certainly the protestors of the sixties were not paid by wealthy and 
    influencial institutions to protest.  They took to the streets as 
    individuals to fight for their beliefs.  They were not sent out into the 
    streets by a paid organizer.  Its the spector of a wealthy and
    influencial institution behind the conception of Operation Rescue that
    disturbs me and that leads me to believe that the RICO laws are indeed
    being violated in this instance.
    
    Mary

      I wonder if the FBI is keeping records on the OR folks the same as
      they did on the war protestors? On 60 minutes they once did a
      segment that showed the FBI had even started files on people who
      had their cars parked on the same street as a known war protestor.
      Anyone they assosciated with was considered a subversive.

      I do however, defend their right to protest though I disagree with
      them totally. liesl

    I don't have the news article at hand, but...
    
    "Operation Rescue" is the name used by a POW/MIA (Prisoner of War/
    Missing in Action) organization formed in Calif. in about 1975.
    They are considering suing this new group from using their
    name.
    
    It is headed by retired Col. Jack Bailey who operates a ship out
    of Bankok picking up boat people escaping from communist SE Asia.
    

    I don't think that Operation Rescue has the right to harass others.
    They don't have the right to break the nose of someone who works at the
    abortion clinic. They have a right to protest but I don't believe they
    have a right to be violent. Their right to protest is no more important
    that a woman who has made a legal decison to walk into the clinic
    without being harassed. People are not allowed to harass others in
    buses, on the street, etc. Why should OR be excused?  As for setting
    precedents, excusing OR is setting a bad precedent. That's what
    we should worry about.  First it's anti-abortionists. Next, who
    knows...
    
    

 Like it or not, all of you who think it's such a great idea that the RICO laws
are going to be used against Operation Rescue had better be prepared to have 
them used at the next NOW sponsored pro-choice march, etc. If they can 
successfully block people from peaceably assembling in one place, they will do
it whenever it suits them. This is clearly a bad precedent. Yet another freedom
being taken away. I wonder which one will be next- freedom to associate with
people of one's own choosing? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion?

 The Doctah

    	Speaking of setting precedents...
    
    	Back in the sixties, violent protesters were beaten with clubs,
    	shot at with rubber bullets (which were capable of breaking
    	bones and killing the unborn children of pregnant protesters,)
    	and in a very few cases, violent protesters and/or innocent
    	bystanders were killed.  (Anyone remember the people who died
    	during the Berkeley riots?  Does anyone remember what happened
    	at Kent State?)
    
    	Speaking of being "charged" for organizing demonstrations --
    	does anyone remember a certain trial for the "Chicago 7" (where
    	people were charged with conspiracy?)
    
    	Yet, here we are, twenty years later and Americans are still
    	demonstrating.  As a nation, we have a tendency to speak our
    	minds (and if beating us with clubs, shooting at us, and sending
    	us to jail can't stop us, I doubt that charging one group with
    	RICO is going to do it either.)
    
    	If O.R. is allowed to use violent demonstrations to rob people
    	of their civil rights, then who will stop the reorganized KKK
    	if they follow O.R.'s lead and start blocking black employees
    	from their jobs (threatening city governments that they will
    	become bankrupt if they refuse to fire all black city
    	employees)?

    	If we're talking about worrying about possible scenerios, the
    	one involving KKK is just as likely as any of the others that
    	I have seen here.
    
    	Let's not confuse peaceful protesting with what people at O.R.
    	are doing (and let's not lose our *real* freedom by mistakenly
    	defending the rights of reactionary groups to take our freedoms
    	away through violence and blackmail.)

    
    re .33
    
    I thougink the point has been made NUMEROUS times that we are not
    talking about peacably assembling. We are talking about extortion.
    
    Thank you.
    
    Roberta

    
    I never did understand the logic behind O.R.
    "We are going to stop you from aborting a fetus if we have to kill
    you to do it".  
    Somehow it doesn't make much sense...
                                          
    

    	Correction to .34 ...
    
    	Not all of the sixties demonstrations where people were clubbed, 
    	shot at and killed were violent demonstrations.
    
    	Sorry for the error in wording.
    

    
      If RICO is used successfully against OR today these will be the
    headlines tommorrow:
    
      "Molly Yard convicted of organizing illegal demonstration!"
    
      "Leaders of Clamshell Alliance to be sentenced today"
    
      "Jesse Jackson and leaders of NAACP indicted."
      
      "Anti-war demonstrators start jail term today"
    
      "War is Peace"
    
      

    	RE:  .38
    
    	Is that before or after the sky falls?
    
    	If RICO is used against O.R., they will be awfully damn quiet
    	for awhile, and it will be years before we hear how it all came
    	out in the courts.
    
    	Meanwhile, life will go on (and *real* peaceful demonstrations
    	will still be allowed.)
    

     
     RE: 39
    
      I see your point now. The ends justify the means.

    I really think that the point that some are *trying* to make is
    that there are existing laws which the OR folks are breaking that
    can be used to prosecute them.  Those laws can *and should* be used
    to their fullest extent.  (These include arson charges, harassment
    charges, disturbance of peace charges, and assault charges.)  [This
    is not *in any way* a defense of the OR folks.  Personally, I despise
    them.]  
                
    The point of civil disobedience is that one takes the (illegal) action 
    expecting to be prosecuted and hoping that the resultant court case
    will result in a change in case law.  An additional desired outcome is a
    change in statutory law as a result of lawmakers "seeing the error
    of the law".                                                
                                                                
    The RICO laws and provisions are very pernicious to the basic rights
    which we expect in this country.  They do in fact result in a lot
    of 'punishment before guilt is proved' activity.  IMHO, that entire
    set of law needs to be revisited and reviewed.  To the best of my
    knowledge, no cases prosecuted under RICO provisions have been heard
    by the Supreme Court.  If they have, I would be interested in knowing
    the outcome.                                                
                                                                
    Alison                                                           

No one is suggesting that Op.R. be "allowed to harass" (Note .32) or
"allowed to use violent demonstrations" (Note .34)!!!  The point is 
that if the RICO law, supposedly designed to make it easier to
confict *organized crime bosses*, can be used against Op.R., then
that law endangers us all.  As .41 pointed out, there are *other*
laws under which Op.R. people can be prosecuted for harassment,
violence, etc.  We mustn't let our feelings about choice and abortion
blind us to *this* danger!

Nancy

    RICO is NOT being invoked to deter any group from peacefully assembling
    or demonstrating in a non-violent way.  No one is questioning anyone's
    constitutional right to do that.
    
    RICO is being used to say to those groups, "Look, your right to
    swing your fist ends where their nose/property begins.  Assemble
    peacefully, and demonstrate non-violently, but DO NOT engage in
    any practices defined as racketeering or extortion or you will be
    prosecuted."                    
    
    I can't believe some people are equating this kind of limit-setting with
    the loss of constitutional freedoms.  

    Yes, there are other laws one can use against OR. I believe that
    that generally the most effective and the most potent laws are used.
    
    If OR would only be non-violent, if OR would only be peaceful, then
    comparisons to other noteworthy movements would be reasonable. Until
    then, most comparisons to the civil rights movements are way out of
    line. I only wish that people would show a little bit of respect
    to those who did participate in non-violent movements by not comparing
    OR to those movements. And that has nothign to do with my feeling
    on choice and abortion.
    
    And yes, people did suggest that OR has the right to continue to
    do what they are currently doing. 

    _karen

    	RE: .40
    
    	> I see your point now.  The ends justify the means.
    
    	Well, personally, I think that using extortion and violence (in
    	addition to the harassment of private citizens who happen to
    	be young, female and pregnant) in order to make a *statement*
    	about abortion is more the case of the ends trying to justify 
    	the means.
    
    	Using RICO laws against a group of paid organizers (who get their
    	funding from a source they refuse to name) as a way to stop the
    	extortion, violence and harassment sounds pretty reasonable to me 
    	in comparison.
    

>    	Using RICO laws against a group of paid organizers (who get their
>    	funding from a source they refuse to name) as a way to stop the
>    	extortion, violence and harassment sounds pretty reasonable to me 
>    	in comparison.
 
 Obviously. They aren't _your_ group.

 The Doctah 

    	RE: .46  -< ye shall reap what ye sow >-
    
    	> Obviously. They aren't _your_ group.
    
    	Thank goodness for that!  I think that O.R. may be about to reap
    	what they have sown, and I don't envy them for it a bit.  They
    	should have been much more careful about what they did.
    
	I simply disagree that we will *all* end up losing the right
    	to assemble and/or protest peacefully because of O.R.'s obvious 
    	mistakes in judgment.
    

In general, I think cheap shots are uncalled-for in this notesfile.
	Mez, co-mod

    
      Last night, a group of demonstrators were arrested at U.Mass.
    Amherst (sp?) for breaking into and occupying a building used for
    Defense Department research. They were protesting the University's
    ties to the Defense Department.
      The problem with RICO is that it is so broad that it can be used
    against these demonstrators. Under RICO, conspiracy and racketeering
    is defined as two or more people getting together and planning to
    break a law: any law. Clearly, trespassing is against the law. 
    The law was designed to go after organized crime. Unfortunately,
    it was so badly written it can be used against virtually anyone.
    
      To those who are so in love with RICO: Be careful what you wish
    for, you may get it. 

    If RICO is an unjust law, it should be changed.  It should not be
    changed because it might be used against Operation Rescue.  OR is not
    above the law. a law that is unfair to Operation Rescue is a law that 
    is unfair to the MAFIA as well.  Either we have justice for all of us
    or we will have justice for none of us. 
    
    Those of us who did participate in peaceful demonstrations during the 
    sixties learned that one takes a chance when one takes a stand for 
    principle.   There are no guarantees.  One must always be prepared to
    accept the consequences of onen's actions.  Whether that means getting
    beaten up by the police or prosecuted under the RICO laws.
    
    What I fail to understand is, who exactly is running Operation Rescue?
    A man went from being a used car salesman to being Director of
    Operation Rescue (for a yearly salary of 33,000, If I remember the
    article correctly).  Who interviewed that man and who pays his salary?
    An organizer who is salaried is representing interests other than his
    own.  Whoes interests are they?  Perhaps RICO can answer that question
    for us.
    
    Mary

    re .34
    
    Suzzanne,
    
    I remember the sixties fairly well. I was not in the movement then
    but followed things pretty closely. I was in the military in the
    early sixties and sweated going to Viet Nam. In 1967 I was working
    for an aero-space company that tried to send me to Viet Nam. I had
    to quit.
    
    In the seventies I was on the front lines in much of the movement,
    including the pro-choice movement. Offices that I was working out
    of were repeatedly broken into by the police. My apartment was broken
    into at least once. I have been confronted uniformed and armed Nazzis
    and other rightist thugs.
    
    I was fired from one job and had a contract terminated for being
    a member of a legal organization. I have been blacklisted. I have
    had friends severely beaten and one have a nervous breakdown under
    interrogation.
    
    I have observed a few things about the way the government works.
    First, they are always on the wrong side of the issue. They may
    try to confuse the issue sometimes and pretend they are on the right
    side.
    
    The other is that the government will do anything to discredit and
    isolate the people that are trying defend or extend the rights of
    humanity. In this they will use conspiracy laws, they will use all
    sorts of laws to deny freedom of speech. They will accuse us of
    "inciting to riot" when *they* attack us. They will charge "resisting
    arrest when *they* beat us." They do and *will* use frameups.
    
    There are occasions when we will use civil disobedience (breaking
    laws on the books). There are and will be times when we will not
    want to make names of supporters public. Sometimes the first place
    these names go is the FBI who in turn turns them over to violent
    right wing groups.
    
    There is a very long history of the government and right wing groups
    working hand and hand. This ranges from the KKK through anti-Cuban
    terrorists right to the likes of Operation Rescue.
    
    The government will use all sorts of anti-democratic means to rein
    in their own dogs to cut their losses, but we should *never* cheer
    or advocate these methods.
    
    RICO is an anti-democratic device. It denies due process and if
    we cheer it in one case it will be harder to oppose it in another.
    
    At the moment a fairly large minority thinks what Operation Rescue
    is doing is right. *They* are the ones trying to make the case that
    they are doing what the civil rights movement did. They do have
    people confused. Using RICO against them *will* make it easier to
    use it against future movements that may not have mass popularity.
    
    NOW calling for the use of RICO is a substitute for fighting this
    out on a political level. Some do not want to fight this issue out.
    This battle will be won in the streets, not in the courts or
    legislatures.
    
    We have fought many battles in the fairly recent history and have
    made many gains. Abortion rights are one of those. Roe vs Wade was
    decided at the time of an ascendancy of the woman's rights movements.
    It was in the wake of the civil rights and anti-war movement. It
    was also during a crisis in U.S. government that culminated in
    Watergate and the Viet Nam syndrome.
    
    However, the movements receded during the mid to late seventies
    and into the eighties. This certainly included the woman's rights
    movement. During this time the rightist were doing their thing,
    including chipping away at Roe vs Wade. The Hyde amendment was one
    of those serious setbacks. There has been some movement forward
    but the attacks have far outnumbered them.
    
    Roe vs Wade was and *is* in serious danger. April 9th did a huge
    amount to shift the relationship of forces here but the battle is
    *NOT* over.
    
    The real question is whether to continue and expand the mobilization
    or depend on the government to give us this right and protect it.
    RICO is letting our enemies defend us. This is not only dangerous
    for the issue at hand, but hands our enemies one more weapon to
    use against us.
    
    Les 

    Les,
    
    >First, they are always on the wrong side.
    >RICO is an anti-democratic device.
    
    Absolutes don't work today.  Life has gotten too complex, too far out
    of control.  The Tower Commission exonerates Bush and Bush fights to
    make John Tower Secretary of Defense.  North implicates Regan and Bush
    in the Cocaine/Contra situation.  Jim Wright displays to us all that
    corruption does not honor party boundries.
    
    We, as individual taxpayers, are paying for Exxon's mistakes, for
    Texas's Savings and Loan Director's stealing, and at the same time
    we are being slowly but surely deprived of the independence that
    our constitution gives us.  
    
    We are used, we are abused, we are manipulated, and we are fed up.  
    Everybody wants our money and no one wants to leave us alone, to make 
    our own decisions, to reach our own conclusions, to live our own lives
    as we must.  
    
    Behind Operation Rescue is an intent to reverse a law that has 
    greatly contributed to the survival of some of us.  If a particular
    party or parties are secretly encouraging that intent with money or
    influence, then we want to know about it.  Our government gives us
    precious little support as it is.  Lets just sit back for awhile and
    see how this thing plays out.  I'd like to see what RICO turns up.
    
    >The real question is whether to continue and expand the mobilization
    >or depend on the government to give us this right and protect it.
    >RICO is letting our enemies defend us. This is not only dangerous
    >for the issue at hand, but hands our enemies one more weapon to
    >use against us.
    
    Les, men tend to see things in black or white.  The government isn't
    the enemy.  They are merely a fumbling, corrupt, too-big institution
    and they are all we have to work with at the moment.  This is no more
    dangerous than anything else these days.  We live in dangerous times..
    ... (in case you haven't noticed.) 
    
    Mary

    
    re: .51
    
    Les, 
    
    That is one of the most inspiring and convincing notes I've read
    in this file. Although you didn't say anything I didn't already
    "know", you put it so strongly and clearly it got me to modify my
    view. I would modify my position to say that Brookline
    should not prosecute under the RICO laws, but under general laws
    against harrassment and extortion.  Unfortunately (for me, not for
    Brookline :^)), I don't live in Brookline, so I guess my hopes won't
    count for much with the city fathers.
    
    re: .52 
    
    Although it's true that the government isn't some big bad animal,
    I think the point is well taken that it is best to _assume_ and
    act as if the government is on the wrong side. Because if they aren't
    on a particular issue, they may be on another. 
          
    Roberta

    But Roberta, ... to make such an assumption is to say that the
    government can only work against us and can never work for us.
    To proceed under such an assumption is to hand over control of
    the government to those who work with and within it.  If it is
    in fact true that the government can never work for us, then 
    should we allow it to continue to control us at all?  
    
    I'm afraid such thinking will always keep us from exercising our
    rights as citizens of this country,  indeed, such thinking 
    suggests that we have no rights and are second class citizens 
    at best.
    
    Mary

                 
    Mary,
    
    What I meant to say was that I don't think we can rely on the
    government to decide whose rights to violate, because yours or mine
    may be next. I'd rather we play it safe and not let them violate
    _anyone's_ rights.
    
    I do believe the government can work for us. But it must work for
    us within the realm of constitutional law.
           
    Like I said, I'd like to see OR prosecuted under non-RICO laws.
    
    Roberta
     

    
    RE: .52  >Les, men tend to see things in black and white.   
    
    
      This is a blatantly sexist statement.

    Here are some quotes from the April issue of "Ms." in an article
    by Mary Suh and Lydia Denworth about Operation Rescue:
    
    "According to a lawsuit filed by NOW,, the group was formed in 1986
    with the help of Joe Scheidler.  ... [H]e has led clinic invasions,
    pledging to create a `year of pain and fear' for anyone receiving
    or performing an abortion."
    
    "Randall Terry, ... leader of Operation Rescue, ... led a two-day
    protest in Pensacola, Florida, in November 1986.  Before it was
    over, police were assaulted and traffic stopped."
    
    "The budget grew from $43,000 in 1987 to $300,000 the next year...
    Jerry Falwell recently gave [Terry] $10,000, ... to pay legal fees.
    ... Little is known about the finances of Operation Rescue. ...
    Terry has not filed for nonprofit status. ... [S]aid [Mary] Gundrum
    [an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights], `According to
    the testimony of the bookkeeper, she no longer takes checks and deposits
    them; she gives them to Randall Terry.  He then, some way or another,
    goes around and cashes them.'"
    
    Concerning a protest against Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger
    Center in New York City:  "After about two hours, Terry informed
    the police the protest was over and left....  The protester scattered,
    police officers started back to their regular beats, and counter-
    protesters packed up their pro-choice placards. ... Within minutes,
    in a surprise stampede, protesters rushed the same clinic, trying
    to ram through the doors."
    
    "Protesters are arrested on charges of trespassing or disorderly
    conduct."
    
    "In the New York City area, an injunction preventing them from
    blocking access to the clinics has led to fines of $50,000, which
    Terry vows he will never pay.  [The lawsuit] by NOW ... charges
    Terry and Joe Scheidler with racketeering, extortion, and antitrust
    violations.  NOW charges that they are trying to close down a
    legitimate place of business -- the clinics. ... [V]arious local
    pro-choice groups have won injunctions and fines to stop the sit-ins.
    ... [Gundrum:] `We want people to exercise their First Amendment
    rights.  They can do that by simply demonstrating across the street,
    in a way that doesn't block the door or harass women.'"
    
    "Key to Operation Rescue's success is its imitation of the 1960s
    civil rights movement.  [Terry] has angered civil rights workers,
    who issued a statement denouncing Terry and his organization. ...
    As Kate Michelman says, `People in this country know the difference
    between a civil rights movement designed to end discrimination
    and attain rights for minority people and this movement, which is
    designed to take away rights from women.'"
    
    About O.R.'s effectiveness:  "`My sense is that though women are
    subjected to terrific harassment, it doesn't keep them from having
    abortions,' said Jean Hunt, director of Elizabeth Blackwell Health
    Center for Women in Philadelphia.  Philadelphia clinics have started
    calling the lockouts `Operation Reschedule' as patients cancel
    appointments for that day and make them for later."

    						Ann B.

    re: .58
    Ann, that is certainly a chilling article and makes it sound like
    they *are* "gangsters."  However:
    
    re: .50
    Mary, You're right, RICO should be opposed regardless of its targets
    (including "gangsters.")
    
    At least it should be modified.

    	RE: .51
    
    	Les, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
    
    	As a teenager, I lived the late sixties from inside the counter-
    	culture (and during 1970, while pregnant with my son Ryan, I
    	lived in Berkeley, where I witnessed the last serious year of
    	the Berkeley riots.  I subsequently voted in an historic Berkeley
	election that found students, hippies and street people willing
    	to work *within* the system by electing local radicals to the
    	city council.)
    
    	Having experienced a few of the Berkeley riots from the inside
    	(while *very* pregnant with Ryan,) I can tell you that fighting
    	for your rights on the street is not generally the best idea
    	when you're up against people who are more willing to be violent
    	than you are.
    
    	Operation Rescue (by its *very nature*) has few options other
    	than the use of violence and intimidation because their goal is
    	to interfere with the personal decisions of individuals (in
    	an attempt to control what we as individuals do with our bodies.)  
	They are willing to be more violent than we are, no question.
        
    	The members of OR are on the *outside* of the decisions that women
    	make with our doctors, so the only way they can successfully
    	interfere with the process itself (in a drastic enough way to
    	gain publicity for their cause) has been to violate the rights of
    	women and the clinics that serve us.

    	The Pro-Choice movement, by contrast, is *not* trying to control
    	individuals.  The whole point of the movement is to give individual
	women the right to make our own decisions about reproduction
    	(which means that we are trying to *protect* the same rights
    	that Operation Rescue is busy violating - those of privacy.)
    
    	We will never, ever have the need to engage in the kinds of
    	activities that have become the standard operating procedure
    	for Operation Rescue.  At this point in time, the law is on
    	our side (even if the current administration is sympathetic
    	to the other side.)  We are also in the majority.
    
    	If the government is preparing to turn their backs on us (as
    	they did for the first 150 years or so in our country's history)
	then I want them to do it while looking us straight in the eye.
    	
    	If we turn our backs on the government now, deciding that they
    	are the "enemy," then we'll only make it easier for them to
    	turn their backs on us later with clear consciences.

    	If we can build a case against O.R. using racketeering laws,
    	then perhaps it will make it less likely for the administration to
    	turn away from *us* (as people who are trying to work from within
	the system) and *toward* those who have been blatantly violating
    	women's rights.
    
    	Of course, whatever we all decide here, you do realize that
    	it is purely academic.  The decision to pursue the use of RICO
    	is not up to any of us (and the suits *are* moving forward, whether
    	any of us here agree with them or not.)

    	There isn't a person here who would stop O.R. from protesting,
    	picketing, boycotting, marching, or writing billions of letters
    	if they so chose.  No one is trying to stop O.R. from enjoying
    	their constitutional rights to assemble and/or protest.  Using
    	RICO to fight illegal violence and harassment does not put legal
    	ways of protesting in jeopardy (any more than they were in jeopardy
    	already, that is.)
    
    	It seems obvious that the potential loss of rights for women is
    	such a serious threat that *all* our rights have become endangered 
    	along with women's rights in the process.
    	
    	In other words, I don't think that the use of RICO has put us in 
    	any more danger than we were already facing without it.

    On TV this morning I caught a brief story that said that Los Angeles
    has a new law that will make it possible to *prosecute* any person
    actively *associated* with a gang.
    
    Think about that for a while! 
    
    Les

    	RE: .61
    
    	How do they define "gang" (or did they say?)
    
    

    re .62
    
    Suzzanne,
    
    You are up early. I think there was some adjective like violent
    used. I do not remeber. How would they define violent? They did
    not say. How would they define active association? They did not
    say.
    
    In Germany they have imprisoned lawers that represented political
    activists. In Ireland they jail people that visit prisoners in
    jail.
    
    In England, if you are *accused* of supporting the Irish struggle
    you have *no* rights.
    
    And speaking of association with gangs, in El Salvador it is *our*
    tax dollars that finace the death squads.
    
    Les

    Les,
    
    Believe me, things are getting very scary everywhere in the world.
    The fastest growing occupation in the United States (9.something
    percent) is corrections officer.  The government's answer to everything 
    these days is to build more jails and arrest more people.   
    
    At this rate, those of us who are not in jail, or guarding those who
    are in jail, will be supporting them and that group of phenominally
    wealthy elistists who appear to be above the law (such as
    Jim Wright's Saving and Loan croonies in Texas).
    
    Operation Rescue (in my opinion) does violate the RICO laws.  It *is*
    functioning as a corrupt organization and *does* qualify under the
    racketeering definitions.  We must take a stand somewhere.  We
    cannot keep pouring money into a government that continues to work
    against our interests, to sell the planet to the highest bidder,
    to bail out wealthy businessmen at tax payer expense, to change
    laws to pander to the loudest voices, without ever attempting to
    use that government to maintain freedom, privacy, and the democratic way
    of life.  
    
    We have a government made up primarily of wealthy white men who are 
    looking out for themselves, their croonies, and their own agenda.
    We, and people all over the world, are learning that we must take 
    care of ourselves, no one else cares about us.
    We cannot control our lives and our survival if we are subject to
    random or continual pregnancy.  We cannot allow the government to
    rob us of our humanity, to make us into brooding machines.
    
    I don't trust the government anymore than the next guy but I can't
    help but wonder why the RICO laws are being challenged now, when
    they are about to be put to some good use.  Why is it that no one
    cared about RICO before this?  I can't help but think that this
    is more of the right wing, politically conservative element using
    whatever means they can to deprive American women of their right
    to choose.
    
    Mary
    
    p.s. My apologies to saying that men tend to see things in black and
    white.  That was an unforgiveable generality.  

    re:64
    
    Mary, that was beautiful. I wish you would send your message to
    the appropriate politicians. You have a way with words.
    
    Kate

    
    
      This is not the first time RICO is being questioned. Since it
    was enacted, groups and individuals from all sides of the polital
    spectrum have issued warnings. 
      At first it was used against Mafia organizations. I remember
    Alan Dersowitze (sp?) arguing then that the law was too broad
    and it would soon be applied to other organizations. A few weeks
    ago, I saw Dersowitze again on TV, strenuously arguing against it's
    being used against OR. I would hardly call Dersowitze a right wing
    radical. In fact, he is very much Pro-Choice.
      A couple of notes ago, the noter said that she believes OR violates
    RICO, therefore OR should be prosecuted. Well, let's at least have
    equal justice. I agree OR violates RICO. So haven't every demonstration
    or protest I can remember, from the civil rights movement to the
    anti-war protestors to the Clam Shell Alliance people to the students
    who occupied a building at U. Mass. a few days ago.  Remember, RICO
    defines racketeering as two or more people conspiring to break the
    law: ANY law, including trespassing. If we're going to have equal
    justice, we can't pick and choose which groups we would like to
    have prosecuted. One can't decide upon one's own definition of 
    rackeetering; RICO's definition has to be used. And under RICO's
    definition, all of the above mentioned groups are guilty.

    	RE: .66
    
    	> A couple of notes ago, the noter said that she believes OR
    	> violates RICO, therefore OR should be prosecuted. Well, let's
    	> at least have equal justice. I agree OR violates RICO. So
    	> haven't every demonstration or protest I can remember...
    	>...Remember, RICO defines racketeering as two or more people
    	> conspiring to break the law: ANY law, including trespassing.
    	
    	Well, as for myself, I can remember a good number of peaceful
    	demonstrations that did not break any laws.
    
    	If OR wants to demonstrate peacefully, it is not a problem.
    	If they want to engage in civil disobedience, that is not a
    	real problem either.  
    
    	For the zillionth time, it is the extortion and harassment that
    	is being addressed here (not the activities that fall under
    	the realm of 'ordinary' protesting.)
    
    	> If we're going to have equal justice, we can't pick and choose
    	> which groups we would like to have prosecuted [through RICO.]
    
    	If OR doesn't want to be prosecuted differently than most other
    	groups, then it should stop using extortion and harassment (while
    	*claiming* that it is *no different* from other groups that
    	protest.)
    
    	OR *is* different.  In these times, it might be regarded as
    	advantageous for a group like OR to use a front that *resembles* 
    	true rights movements to furthur its cause (and they might have 
    	even gotten away with the ruse, had they not used tactics like 
    	extortion and harassment.)
	
    	However, if we allow OR to take it upon themselves to decide
    	that a certain minority group *ought not* to have a right we
    	*have already been given* (using *extortion and harassment* to 
    	make their point) then what is to stop groups like the KKK and 
    	the Aryan Nation from becoming bolder in their OWN movements
    	to take away the rights of minorities (using extortion and
    	harassment as newly legitimized techniques for the removal of
    	any minority rights that *THEY* don't happen to like)?

    On April 15th a federal judge in Miami let stand a $1.5 billion
    suit brought by Eastern Airlines against the International Association
    of Machinists and Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). This suit
    was filed 11 months ago and charges the two unions with racketeering,
    extortion, fraud, and defamation, in an effort to take control of
    the airline.
    
    Les

About a year ago, Abbie Hoffman, Amy Carter, and a bunch of other folks
were tried for tresspassing at UMass Amherst.  They were demonstrating
to block CIA recruting.  They were *acquited* by the jury, basing their
defense on "necessity" -- it was necessary to break the tresspassing
law in order to prevent the greater harm of CIA actions.

Don't bet the house that OR will be convicted for RICO/tresspass or
illegal parking, for that matter.

Martin.

    
    re .69
    
    Yes, but didn't Hoffman, Carter, et al. have to prove that the CIA
    was doing illegal stuff which is what they were trying to prevent?
    Since the women going into the clinics aren't doing anything illegal,
    I don't see how that defense would hold up.
    
    Roberta

    
      RE: .67
     
          >If OR wants to demonstrate peacefully, it is not a problem.
          >If they want to engage in civil disobedience, that is not
          >a problem either.
    
      Civil disobedience is a BIG problem under RICO. By definition,
    civil disobedience involves the breaking of laws, usually misdemeanors
    such as trespassing or blocking of entrances. Unfortunately, that's
    all it takes for RICO to be applied. 
      Does anyone seriously believe that if RICO was on the books during
    the sixties that it wouldn't have been used against the civil rights
    protestors and the anti-war demonstrators? And that it won't eventually
    be used against "peaceful" demonstrators in the future when they
    use "civil disobedience"? 
     Again, the only definition of "racketeering" that is relevant to
    this discussion is RICO's definition. 
     

    Given the climate of the time, and especially how people in power
    like J Edgar Hoover felt about the protestors, I have no question
    that RICO would have been used against those who protested
    against civil rights abuses and the vietnam war.  Those in power
    really resented the protestors and used everything in their
    power to stop them. RICO would be a terrible tool to prevent
    protest against intrenched power.
    
    Bonnie

    	RE: .71
    
    	>> If OR wants to demonstrate peacefully, it is not a problem.
    	>> If they want to engage in civil disobedience, that is not
    	>> a real problem either.
    
    	> Civil disobedience is a BIG problem under RICO.
    
    	You missed my point.  What I was trying to say is that the subject
    	of RICO would *never* have come up if OR had demonstrated peacefully
	and/or had merely engaged in civil disobedience.

    	By the time the Pro-Life movement got off the ground, our culture
	had become very "fond" of demonstrators (out of nostalgia for
    	the sixties.)  Pro-Lifers peacefully demonstrated for around 14 or
    	15 years with very little objection at all.  They started Operation
	Rescue as a means of becoming "drastic enough" to get attention.
    	
    	Actually, I don't even fault the Pro-Lifers for feeling the need
    	to go to "extraordinary lengths" to send out their message -- it has
    	been done before.
    
    	The *problem* is that they protested against *people* instead
    	of the government (and used their big_money_backing to hurt those
    	who had LESS money and power than they did.)
    
    	In the sixties, the demonstrations were against institutions
    	that had MORE money and power than the protestors did.  That
    	is an important thing to remember when we start comparing protest
    	groups.
    
    	> Does anyone seriously believe that if RICO was on the books
    	> during the sixties that it wouldn't have been used against
    	> the civil rights protestors and the anti-war demonstrators?
    
    	That would have been a neat trick.  The thing is, RICO isn't
    	as effective against groups that don't have *money*.  Most of the 
    	"pain" inflicted on groups charged with RICO is that their assets 
    	are frozen or confiscated before the conviction.
    	
    	What assets did most of the sixties protestors have as a group?
    	They were not "paid organizers" - they were thousands of individuals
	(MOST of whom were from disenfranchised groups and/or were students/ 
    	hippies/street_people who *HAD* no real money or assets worth
    	freezing!)  It would have been pointless to use something like
    	RICO.  So the government used clubs, pepper fog, and rubber
    	bullets against the sixties demonstrators instead.  
    
    	> Does anyone seriously believe that...it won't eventually be
    	> used against "peaceful" demonstrators in the future when they
    	> use "civil disobedience"?
    
    	RICO is not a law that can easily be applied to grassroots movements.
	When millions of people rise up for a cause, they aren't part
    	of a "big money organization" that can be hurt by RICO.  If
    	the few who *are* the heads of organizations are subjected to RICO,
    	it still leaves behind the millions of unpaid individuals who
    	can not be incorporated into a lawsuit without involving more
    	practical and legal headaches than can be imagined.  If peaceful
    	demonstrations become illegal, then the government will have
    	an interesting time trying to arrest 600,000 people at the next
    	March.
    
    	There is *still* a huge difference between protesting to your
    	government to get laws changed, and protesting against *PEOPLE*
    	because you don't think they ought to have as many rights as
    	they have been lawfully given.

       re .73:
       
       You have missed the most significant aspect of RICO: with RICO,
       the national government is involved in prosecutions.  
       
       In the late 60s/early 70s, the exuberance, as it were, that went
       down in Grant Park and Cambridge Common, in Madison and Berkeley,
       on nearly every campus in the country and eventually in all but
       the most brainwashed cities was only an issue for local
       authorities.  If people were carrying on in Harvard Sq or at
       Columbia, then it was strictly for the city/state authorities to
       deal with.  No federal law was ever in question of being broken,
       and neither Nixon and his thugs in Justice nor Hoover and his
       merrie men had any jurisdiction.  If Nixon could have hauled the
       anti-war people into federal court, it's frightening to think of
       how much that could have slowed the anti-war movement.  
       
       With RICO, that has changed.  The US Department of Justice is now
       involved in investigations and potential prosecutions.  When the
       next Nixon is in the White House---and with the political mood of
       the country where people overwhelmingly vote for their own
       short-term financial gain rather than ethics or anything else the
       next Nixon is not far off (and may already be retired on his Santa
       Barbara ranch)---RICO will be a Damocletian sword hanging over the
       head of anyone who demonstrates against the government. 
       
       If the federal government is allowed to use RICO as a means to
       prosecute anti-government demonstrations, then it's one more
       (large) chunk of freedom that everyone loses.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    	RE: .74
    
    	> If the federal government is allowed to use RICO as a means
    	> to prosecute anti-government demonstrations, then it's one
    	> more (large) chunk of freedome that everyone loses.
    
    	RICO is *not* being used to prosecute anti-government demonstrations
	that have been conducted by Operation Rescue.
    
    	RICO is being used to prosecute OR's demonstrations against *PEOPLE*
    	(and the use of extortion against LOCAL governments in an effort
    	to get those local governments to take away *PEOPLE'S* rights
    	in order to avoid being forced into bankruptcy by OR.)
    
    	As long as RICO laws exist, the possibility exists that they
    	could be used against anti-government demonstrations (even though
    	they are *NOT* being used against O.R. in that regard.)
    
    	We aren't telling the government anything it doesn't already
    	know (about the existence of the RICO laws.)  These laws are
    	being used to prosecute O.R. in ways that *differ* from those 
    	against which you are arguing.

       re .75 (re .74):
       
       Once more, in case it gets muddied by tangential issue waved in
       .75: the potential evil of RICO is that it lets the federal
       government become involved in prosecutions that had previously
       been left up to the discretion of state and local governments. 
       
       The semantic exercise that Suzanne uses says it's okay to use RICO
       because OR's demonstrations are against people and not the
       government. If Suzanne or anyone else believes that the Next Nixon
       would eschew using RICO against anti-government protesters because
       of this distinction (if indeed it exists), then they've been
       watching a different federal government from the one I've ever
       seen.  This reasoning isn't just hair-splitting; it's dangerously
       myopic and sorrowfully forgetful of the federal government's
       propensity to abuse its power. 
              
       I'd like to see Operation Rescue, their thugs, and their repulsive
       methods disappear into the night.  But I'm not willing to
       sacrifice any more of our ever-eroding freedoms in order to
       put them away.  
       
       --Mr Topaz

    I've shifted back and forth on this issue as the various arguments have
    been made pro and con.  At present, I think I agree with the anti-RICO
    position more:  there really _aren't_ a lot of demonstrable differences
    between the methods used by OR and those used by the civil-rights
    groups in the 60s, and what can be used against OR today can be used
    against pro-freedom groups tomorrow.  Better we should look ahead and
    not allow dangerous precedents to be set just because we think it can't
    happen to us. 
    
    For those who think (as I did) that there really _are_ clear
    differences, consider:  _given_the_validity_of_their_respective_
    _premises_, where's the substantive difference between keeping women
    from getting a legal abortion and, e.g., forcing some family into
    bankruptcy by preventing uninvolved customers from coming into their
    restaurant?  The fact that the family is racist & is breaking the law?
    That's an awfully shaky position to take, depending as it does on two
    unexamined premises (racism is always wrong; the law is always just). 
    
    
    I think maybe the right move is the one Nancy urged 'way back in .0:  
    
�   I have seriously thought of doing the following and would like your
�   comments:  What about writing to the Brookline Board of Selectmen to
�   express appreciation that Brookline is willing to *have* abortion
�   clinics in its town (as opposed to some other towns), to express being
�   pro-choice but also pro-the-right-to-protest, *and* to include $10
�   toward the extra expense? 
    
						=maggie

    	RE: .77
    
    	Maggie, I've considered all the arguments in this topic carefully
    	myself (since, wonder of wonders, it has remained fairly calm
    	throughout with a few rare exceptions.)
    
    	I simply can't buy the portion of the anti-RICO argument that
    	seems to be suggesting that this one isolated use (against O.R.)
    	will open the door for RICO laws to be used against *ALL* peaceful 
    	demonstrations in the future.
    
	If the law is dangerous to our freedom, it is (and will remain)
    	dangerous to us whether it is used against O.R. or not.  There
    	is no guarantee that if the opponents of O.R. were to *refrain*
    	from using the RICO law that our freedom to peacefully demonstrate
    	would thus be *protected* from RICO.  
    
    	The law is not being established.  It already exists.  Using
    	RICO in a way that does not involve anti-government demonstrations
	should have no effect on whether the government decides to use
    	the law against peaceful anti-government demonstrators or not.
    	If the government is going to use it, they will proceed *regardless*
    	of what the opponents of O.R. decide to do.
    
    	As for Operation Rescue, I *do* continue to see a big difference
    	between their activities and those of the civil rights and other
    	minority movements.  They are looking at a minority group (women)
    	and are using physical force to take away the rights of individual
    	women (through the use of "a year of fear and pain.")
    
    	If we are going to fight so hard for our rights, why isn't it
    	important to fight against paid organizers (backed by big money
    	from a source they refuse to name) who use bullying tactics
    	to take our rights as women away with physical force?
    
    	If the non-government bullies with the money decide to take
    	our freedoms away from us first, there won't be much left of our
   	freedoms for the government to use RICO to take away later.
    
    	The dangerous precedent that I worry about (more than what our
    	elected officials might do to us) is letting go of our freedom
    	to those who *imitate* rights movements and who threaten to ruin 
    	the right to peacefully demonstrate (*that we all have*) if we use 
    	our most powerful laws to fight back.

    The civil rights protesters and Vietnam protestors of the 60's did
    nothing to prevent a person from his constitutional rights. If some-
    one stopped me from entering a voting booth, he would be arrested.
    It is illegal for partisan sign-holders to enter a certain radius.
    Why is the right to vote held more precious than the right to choose
    parenthood?
    
    Also. Way back. Mr Keith, when a woman enters an abortion clinic,
    no-one asks her if she's been raped or a victim of incest or if
    she was a victim af marital rape etc,etc. She is asked if she's 
    considered all the ins and outs and if this is what's going to 
    make her happiest. Please take your non-scientific "90% of abortions 
    are birth-control" statement somewhere else if you already haven't.
    
    Kate
     
    
    

    As a person that has helped organize some of the big demos I can
    tell you that there was a lot of money around. Ever wonder how we
    could get hundreds of busses from one city to got to DC or San Fran?
    
    There were bank accounts set up and bus companies were paid deposits
    and then for the actual buses that were used. Money was borrowed
    from people and there were loans from banks with collateral put
    down.
    
    After a big demo we would usually owe money and have to continue
    fund raising to pay off obligations.
    
    If the government could freeze or confiscate our accounts it would
    have been *very* crippling.
    
    Les

    	RE: .80
    
    	Les, where did the money *come* from, ultimately?  Did you have
    	the backing of big business or rich non-taxable quasi-religious
    	groups?  Didn't your money come from the contributions of a huge
    	number of private individuals who simply believed in the cause?
    
    	If you had to do much of your fund-raising *after* the fact,
    	then you weren't involved in the same kind of money deal that
    	supports groups like Operation Rescue.
    
    	Freezing the kinds of assets that you're talking about wouldn't
    	have had as much impact on your group as it would have on groups 
    	that are secretly funded from other kinds of sources.

    <--(.78) Suzanne, I agree that if the government is interested in using
    RICO (or whatever) against civil-rights demos then there's really
    nothing that can prevent them from trying it on.  But wouldn't you
    agree that something that could make it _easier_ for them to succeed is
    for a precedent to be established here?  It certainly seems that way to
    me. Right now we're arguing whether it's legitimate to use RICO for
    this class of case, and I would guess that the same arguments may get
    played out in court.  But if we settle some of the issues now in favor
    of that kind of intervention, it will be a smoother road for the
    fascists if they decide to use it to oppose civil-rights activities. 
    
    <--(.79)
    
    It depends on what you mean by "constitutional rights", Kate.  I
    don't really think there are any involved here, except maybe those
    that could be used against RICO.
    
    Your example is a good one (though in fact I think most people would
    consider voting *much* more a fundamental right in this country). I
    would certainly be in favor of Brookline (or wherever) saying to OR:
    "You can protest all you want to...25 meters from the entrance to the
    building.  Go any closer and we'll bag you on assault which is good for
    $xxxx and on a federal civil-rights charge that carries yy years and
    $zzzzzz" 
                                                
    						=maggie

re .82

>	I would certainly be in favor of Brookline (or wherever) saying to OR:
>	"You can protest all you want to...25 meters from the entrance to the
>	building.  Go any closer and we'll bag you on assault which is good for
>	$xxxx and on a federal civil-rights charge that carries yy years and
>	$zzzzzz" 

	So in the '60's, lunch counter demonstrators could have been told to
	stay away from the local Woolworths?

	In the '70 and '80 Seabrook demonstrators should be told to stay away
	from the front gates of Seabrook?

	Just a few months ago, Howard University students should have been
	told to vacate the administration building they were occupying?

	An abortion clinic is a public place of business, much like Woolworths.
	If the government can say it's ok for an abortion clinic to refuse
	to admit entry to certain persons, what is to prevent Woolworths
	from doing the same?

							Tom_K

    	RE: .82
    
    	> But wouldn't you agree that something that could make it _easier_
	> for them to succeed is for a precedent to be established here?
    
    	No, I don't agree at all.  If the situation is not the same,
    	then how does it become a precedent?  If *any* use of RICO can
    	be used to establish a precedent, then it's too late.  The precedent
	is already being set, because the law is being used elsewhere.
    
    	I don't see the same direct connection that some seem to be implying
	about how the use of RICO in this *one* instance will cause the loss
    	of a right that is as well established as the right to peacefully
    	demonstrate (while *other* uses of RICO apparently have so little
    	effect that the use of RICO against O.R. will be the one case that
    	will decide ALL our fates on its own.)

    	It just seems too simplistic to me that our entire freedom as
    	a nation can *ALL* come down to one single decision involving
    	women fighting back against privately organized assaults on our 
    	rights.
    	
    	If we have such a flimsy hold on freedom in this country (such
    	that women need to be asked to give in to physical intimidation
    	as a way to "save" freedom for others,) then we simply must
    	not have as big a grip on freedom as we originally thought.

    Maggie,
    
    Regarding your comment about people believing that voting is a more
    fundemental right than choosing parenting options:
    
    What is more important in your life? One of your pregnancies or
    your vote in the last election? 8^D.
                                                     
    Kate
    
    
    

    Suzanne, your arguments are persuasive.  Maybe I *still* don't
    understand what's going on well enough to take a useful position.
    
    						=maggie

    re .81 (Suzanne)
    
>   Freezing the kinds of assets that you're talking about wouldn't
>   have had as much impact on your group as it would have on groups 
>   that are secretly funded from other kinds of sources.
    
    I believe just the opposite is true. Freezing or confiscating assets
    of the movement would have been *very* destabilizing. We built
    relationships very carefully, including with the bus companies and
    some people of considerable wealth.
    
    The people that are funding operation rescue have many billions of
    dollars at stake. They are "legit" businesses and people. These
    are the same types that do fund the Contra through the likes of
    Ollie North. All the laws in the world (literally) did not stop
    them nor will they.
        
    These people have much of the government on *their* side. The cops
    are on their side and the courts are also. That is *why* we are in
    the streets. We know that we are right and the majority is on our side.
    
    This is really a battle for opinions. We should point as bright
    a spotlight on this collusion as possible. We should point at the
    police and expose *their* complicity with the crimes that Operation
    Rescue is committing. We should also point at the courts and the
    executives of the states and federal government.
    
    We should demand that women or anyone that goes to a clinic be
    respected and not have their rights violated.
    
    The reason that the police let these people get away with bombings
    and other intimidation is because they have been able to create
    a smoke screen of false public support for this behavior. This is
    a conspiracy between some religious groups, the government and the
    media.
    
    We do not yet have control over *any* of these institutions. They
    will *continue* to be our enemies in many of these struggles. They
    will continue to attempt to manipulate any position we take to the
    best of *their* benefit.
    
    This is a struggle that goes beyond the abortion issue. The marchers
    in Washington April 9 were predominately middle class. We will not
    win with this base alone. There was some union support, we will
    need more. There was some Black support, we will need more. There
    was some support from women and men that do not have English as
    their first language, we will need more. There was support from
    other countries, we will need more.
    
    Some people we need to support us do not understand this issue.
    And many that do understand this issue do not understand the issues
    of Blacks, of poverty, workers rights. We not only have to understand
    each other's concerns, but we have to support each other. It certainly
    won't help to fight each other.
    
    Woman, Blacks, unionists, and other fighters for social change will
    have to use some of the tactics that Operation Rescue is now using,
    not against women in need of medical services.
    
    Let's take the example of workers rights. The right to organize
    unions, the right to a decent standard of living. The only power
    they have is their labor power. But what can they do with this labor
    power. They can work for a boss. They could withhold it. But the
    real power is to prevent the boss from producing.
    
    How does a worker prevent the boss from producing. The worker sets
    up picket lines. The workers try to talk others from crossing. But
    many will under some conditions. Some scabs will be professional
    paid right wingers just attempting to break a strike, others will
    be those in desperate need of a job.
    
    In any case workers have and must and will be forced to use
    intimidation. The bosses have the government, the cops, and the
    courts. The workers just have numbers.
    
    Laws such as RICO *will* be used against workers in struggle. There
    are many other laws that will be used. Also the bosses, the government,
    the cops, and the courts will just *ignore* the laws.
    
    It all boils down to social weight and who your allies are. In this
    case *we* have the moral high ground and the social weight. We must
    bring this to bear. We may not have much say in what laws or pretenses
    the government may use in a particular circumstance, but we must
    avoid being a cheering section for the use of un-democratic laws.
    It lets them off the hook. They can stop these folks. It is their
    folks that they have control of.
    
    Les

    <--(.85)
    
    I know, Kate, I know...and I agree with you, dammit :-)
    
    But the right to vote is at least *hypothetically* more important,
    since all rights (are supposed to) derive from the vote of the
    governed.
    
    						=maggie 

    I think the problem with abortion clinics is a special case.  Many
    women who enter abortion clinics are baring their souls to the world by
    the very act.  They are admitting that they had sex, and that they are
    pregnant (and many women who decide to have abortions are younger,
    unmarried, etc.), and that they may well decide to abort the fetus,
    which is a VERY difficult decision and can give the woman a lot
    of feelings of GUILT and SIN and so forth.
    
    I would not get pangs of angst entering a Woolworths, or a lunch
    counter, or a bus, or standing in front of the state house.  The
    judgement on people entering Woolworths is that they want a cup
    of coffee, or an inexpensive toy.  The judgement on people in front
    of the statehouse, or standing on the commons somewhere, is that
    they are just people - we know no more about them.  The absolutely
    untenable thing about violently/obscenely/aggressively demonstrating
    abortion clinics is that those who go there for HELP are already
    very brittle...it is a very rough decision and one that is not lightly
    made in most cases.  Having to hurry by/through picketers jeering
    at them and throwing things and screaming things they have already
    silently screamed at themselves is agonizing, and traumatizing.
    
    Part of me doesn't care if it's RICO that brings organized,
    high-level-financed, violent demonstrations near abortion clinics
    to an abrupt halt, or something else.  
    
    I just want them to stop.  NOW.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Like Maggie, I'm still wavering a little. It does seem that, as
    Suzanne said, women who go to these clinics are being asked to wave
    their right to be free of harassment so that others may have _their_
    rights protected. 
    
    On the other hand, I still think it sets a bad precedent. What I
    still want to know is could OR be prosecuted for extortion and
    harrassment without Brookline invoking RICO? How would you all feel
    about that?
                        
    On the one hand, you could say that the lunch counter sitters were
    using a form of extortion. But it wasn't an explicitly illegal one,
    like OR uses when they say, "close down the clinics and we'll go
    home."
               
    What's your opinion?
    
    Roberta                                             
    

    Re .81
    
    We don't *know* that OR is backed by big business.  It could be
    that they are backed by many individuals giving large chunks of
    their income to this.  Remember, the anti-choice people really believe
    that they are stopping a murder, and have a large emotional investment
    in this.  It boils down to that WE JUST DON'T KNOW, and they, for
    whatever reason, refuse to say.
    
    I don't think anyone is asking women to just put up with this. 
    I would like to see them charged with assault, extortion, breaking
    and entering, civil rights violations, and any other "normal" laws
    they break.  I oppose RICO being used against OR, peace movements,
    or the Mafia.  It's just a bad law, and it will, sooner or later,
    be used against a movement that you and I support.
    
    Elizabeth

    I have really enjoyed this discussion!  Some of your arguments have
    caused me to modify my thinking; others have confirmed my own beliefs:
    
    1) Any participation in civil disobedience requires the willingness
    of the participants to undergo whatever legal penalty results from
    breaking the law (i.e., civil disobedience).  Consequently, if there
    is a legal (and constitutional and moral) way -- other than through
    RICO -- to make OR pay for the costs that Brookline has incurred, 
    they should be made to do so.
        
    2) HOWEVER, I still firmly believe that RICO is a bad law, an immoral
    law, a probably-unconstitutional law, and that it should be repealed
    or amended.  I firmly believe it is a threat to all of us -- for
    all the reasons that have been mentioned in this discussion!  OR
    should be prosecuted under the other applicable laws that exist.
    
    3) I'm still concerned about Brookline's fiscal situation.  That
    town has allowed abortion clinics when other towns did not.  If
    OR is successful in causing financial ruin, then where will we be?
    What can/should we do to back/support/encourage Brookline (and the
    individual clinics) not to give in to OR?
    
    Nancy

    RE: 89
    
    Jody,
    
    Thank you for putting into words exactly what I was thinking.
    You did it much better than I could have.  (Woolworths VS Abortion
    clinic, they are like apples and oranges).
    
    Suzanne

    Its true Elizabeth that "we don't know".  But if Operation Rescue were
     prosecuted under RICO, we would know.  I doubt that the government
    (who is pro-life) would even bring the case against them unless it 
    believed the case to have substance.
    
    To others who are concerned about RICO, I ask two questions:
    
    The first question is, if RICO is not used against Operation Rescue
    will RICO suddenly disappear?  Or will it stay on the books to be
    used again at the governments discretion.
    
    The second question is, does anyone really believe, in this time of
    compulsory blood and urine testing, that the government will not
    prosecute whomever it wants, whenever it wants?  The Chicago Seven
    were tied and gagged in the courtroom, remember?  
    
    Not going after Operation Rescue does not protect the rest of us.  Its
    merely another instance of our laws being used to protect society....
    except when "society" means women.
    
    In this morning Boston Globe, Cardinal Law spoke out on behalf of
    Operation Rescue twice, calling it a "grass roots movement".  Me
    thinks he doth protest too much.  Grass roots movements have no 
    need to hide their financial information.   The laws of this country
    are supposed to be used to protect the citizens of this country.
    Well, women are citizens too... and we badly need some help defending 
    ourselves from some extremely wealthy, powerful, and influencial
    institutions that appear to be determined to legislate their dogma
    into our lives. 
    
    Our legal system is very delicate and intricate.  Abortion has been
    legal for a long time and that may change due in part to certain 
    illegal activities.  Either the laws apply to all of us or none of
    us will respect them.  The government, with it pardons for political
    criminals, has done much to damage public faith in the legal system.
    We are at a crossroads.  Can the system work for us?  
    
    Mary
    

    re: .94
    
    Mary, the point *now* is to get RICO *off* the books (or significantly
    amended.)  _If_ we agree with you that the gov't will persecute
    (as well as prosecute) whomever it will, that's all the more reason
    to fight back!
    
    I was only vaguely aware -- if at all -- of RICO before OR.  *Now*
    I want the law changed!
    
    Nancy

    RICO has  already  been  used  to  stifle  freedom  of expression.
    Several  bookstores were shut down and their assets frozen because
    of  accusations  that  they  were involved in a conspiracy to sell
    pornography. Whatever you think about pornography, shutting down a
    bookstore  because  some  people  find their wares offensive is an
    awful precedent. I don't know what the offensive material was, but
    the  stores  sold other books as well, which makes me suspect that
    it was not hard core porn.

--David

           
    Nancy,
    
    I don't know if you have noticed, but no one has actually posted the
    RICO law here.  All we have heard is different interpretations and
    opinions of it... heresay and subjective at best.  
    
    Its premature to want a law changed when we don't even know
    what the law actually is.  It reminds me of ERA.  No one really knew
    what it was, they knew only that they were against it.  
    
    If anyone has access to it, could someone post the actual RICO law as it 
    stands?  Decisions require information, don't we need to know for sure
    so that we can decide for ourselves?
    
    Mary

    re .96
    
    David,
    
    The drug laws have allowed the government to confiscate homes, boats,
    planes and bank accounts without due process.  I recall a case where
    fishing boats were confiscated, denying their owners the ability to
    pursue their profession, even though the small amounts of pot found
    on board belonged to crewmen (without the owner's knowledge or
    consent).
    
    The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the Drug Enforcement Agency
    can stop and search any air traveler that fits it's profile of 
    suspicious.  They have defined "suspicious" as: 1. paying for one's
    ticket with cash, and 2. acting "nervous".
    
    Bennett (the Drug Czar) wants to put barbed war around Washington's
    public housing and require all tenents to carry "identification cards".
    
    We have far greater threats to our freedom than RICO, believe me.

    re .94 (Mary)
    
    The legal system in this country should be demystified to a certain
    extent. The legal system is in the hands of those that have very
    little concern for most of our rights. However they are the ones
    that protect these rights at certain times.
    
    A legal system and its enforcement provisions is a necessary
    requirement for the orderly conduct of our society's business. Not
    everybody has the same ideas as to what the laws should be or shouldn't
    be or which ones to enforce.
    
    The laws are really a marker, marking the status of past struggles.
    Women have the right to vote *because* they fought for it. The
    employers and their government could still try to prevent women
    from voting by law *except* for the social and productive cost the
    continuation of this battle would mean. It would mean lower profits.
    
    At one time it was *profitable* to have Blacks eat, work, go to school,
    access any public facility separately and *not* equally. When the
    struggle became hot the people in power felt that it was necessary
    to give in to a certain extent. The idea is to give a little to
    prevent the struggle from going *further*.
    
    This giving in sometimes takes the form of laws. Sometimes these
    laws are enforced and sometimes not. It depends on the relationship
    of forces.
    
    Many of the laws are conquests of *our* struggle and we should *insist*
    that they be enforced. Others are have a goal of keeping us in check.
    We should always be against such laws.
    
    Where do the RICO laws fall? We must first realize that there is
    a whole web of connections between the government and criminal activity.
    We see this in the defense procurement area. We see this in finance and
    we see this in the military and organizations such as the CIA. These
    involve money laundering, murder, drug smuggling, kidnaping and
    involve people in the highest levels of government. Much of this
    illegal activity is organized by some individuals or groups. We
    see all sorts of police complicity and cover-up in these areas.
    
    We must realize that all sorts of activities happen between these
    gangsters. They do not feel bound by any laws. The government has
    made it quite clear that they are above the law also. They have
    such things as executive privilege and national security to to claim
    immunity from obeying their own laws.
    
    They also find it necessary to use visible forces (like the police,
    FBI, and the courts) to fight their battles for control of turf.
    They even make up new organizations like the super-CIA that Ollie
    North and gang were involved in. They have no respect for rights
    nor do they think they are necessary. They also have no respect
    for national boundaries.
    
    They do want to take away as many rights from *us* as possible.Why?
    It is precisely because we are finding that we *have* to use these
    rights to win our battles. And they do not want us to win these
    battles. It would be difficult right now to deny us our right for
    what we did on April 9. But they are trying to make it harder.
    
    One of the things they do is to spy on us and disrupt us. NOW has
    been, I say still is, a victim in this area. There is a pattern
    of similarities of lack of sufficient apprehension and prosecution
    in the abortion clinic bombings and those of the break-ins and
    firebombings of anti-war groups *still* going on.
    
    We have the right to privacy, due process, presumption of innocence
    *unless* there is the issue of drugs.
    
    We have the right to privacy, due process, presumption of innocence
    *unless* there is the issue of national security.
    
    We have the right to privacy, due process, presumption of innocence
    *unless* there is the issue of conspiracy.
    
    We have the right to privacy, due process, presumption of innocence
    *unless* there is the issue of terrorism.
    
    With a few clever definitions, none of us has rights.
    
    We should take stands on *all* of these issues. They are *not* for
    our protection.
    
    Another side of this issue which has been brought up before is using
    RICO as a substitute for our own mobilizations. This battle is not
    won yet and we still have to make our position the totally accepted
    one. We can not allow the people like Cardinal Law to say this is
    a grass roots operation without a very serious price for him to
    pay. We have to thoroughly expose Operation Rescue as the tiny minority
    of thugs at their core that they are. The government will *never*
    do this for us. We have to do it.
    
    Les

    re: Mary's call for the actual text of the RICO law
    
    Bravo! A modicum of sanity and intelligence. How can any of us make an
    informed and thoughtful decision without the facts?
    
    re: right to abortion to be changed in part due to illegal activities
    
     Need I remind you that part of the reason the US got out of Viet Nam
    was due to pressure exerted by "illegal activities?" Should we have
    stayed instead?
    
    re: charging OR with crimes
    
     I think that if an individual punches another individual in the nose,
    he should be charged with assault. I think the individuals that break
    laws ought to be charged as they break laws. On the other hand,
    individuals that break laws often get away with it when they do so as
    an organized group (like the clamshell alliance). Either they should
    all be convicted and punished or none of them should. I don't think it
    should matter what issue or side they're on. Personally, I think they
    should all be prosecuted (including clamshell alliance protestors that
    break the law, etc).
    
    re: right to not be harassed
    
     I can definitely relate to this. As a hunter, I have to endure plenty
    of well meaning but ill informed "nature lovers" who harass hunters and
    attempt to disrupt hunting efforts. I think that there is a limit to
    what you can do under the guise of pursuit of freedom, and it is
    crossed when you begin to harass someone (whether they are on their way
    to an abortion clinic or a tree stand).
    
    re: due process
    
     RICO, as stated by Mary, is one of our lesser problems. We already
    have a number of provisions that cut down on our rights. It is time to
    take a stand against all of these provisions, not just the ones that
    are being used to our detriment this minute.
    
    re: making OR pay
    
     I don't think that it is reasonable to make OR pay for the increased
    costs of police any more than I think it is reasonable to charge any
    other group for the same. When gays invade the statehouse, should they
    be charged fro the police who remove them? When pacifists stage a sit
    in at a local college, should they be charged? I think too many people
    are reacting to the cause or the group rather than the principle, which
    in my opinion, is a mistake.
    
    The Doctah

    Les,
    
    RICO isn't being used as a substitute for our mobilization.  This
    country is in a state of mobilization.  Already anarchy is growing
    in the cities.  Government has failed us and itself.  It has sold
    itself to the highest bidder and we are left with several generations
    of kids who have grown up under such extreme circumstances that 
    "wilding" has become entertainment.... shades of Clock Work Orange.
    
    Amnesty International now files reports on us.  In a report centered 
    on the death penalty, the London-based rights group said blacks
    made up 12 percent of the US population but accounted for 40 percent
    of the 2,182 prisoners on death row at the end of 1988.
    
    Teenage pregnancy is a breeding ground for poverty and despair.  
    Americans are told to work harder, study harder, while the American
    family has been stretched to the breaking point and the Junk Bond
    King earns 551 million dollars a year.
    
    Perhaps I've gotten cynical or perhaps I've been subjected to a bit
    too much social conditioning of the Just Say No crowd but
    I've had enough retoric... I want to see what the law says for myself.
    Faith is a commodity we can not afford today.  We are surrounded by
    deceivers and manipulators who have redefined "education" to mean 
    social conditioning.

    re .87, Les-
    
    Nothing personal, please don't misunderstand me, Les.  But
    I reject several of your positions on philosophical grounds.
    This rambles a bit, please forgive the format.
        
     > The reason that the police let these people get away with bombings
     > and other intimidation is because they have been able to create
     > a smoke screen of false public support for this behavior. This is
     > a conspiracy between some religious groups, the government and the
     > media.

    Actually, this one isn't philosophically objectionable, its just
    wrong.  There is NO public support, false, smoke-screened, or
    otherwise, for bombings.  Many of our opponents in this struggle
    are honorable people with different opinions, and they have repeatedly
    repudiated the bombings.  We may rant and gnash and feel frustrated
    that we can't find, stop, and rip out the bombers' vital organs
    with our teeth, but we must recognize that a large portion of the
    "pro-life" movement abhors their illegal actions as much as we do.
    
     > This is a struggle that goes beyond the abortion issue.
       
    For you perhaps.  And for some people, in some of the directions
    you painted.  But frankly, Les, to me this was really and truly
    a march for Women's Equality and Women's Lives.  This struggle against
    OR and the other pro-lifers is a single issue fight.  It is emphatically
    not a repudiation of capitalism.  It is not an espousal of the 
    socialist party line pitting workers against bosses.  The struggle
    I have chosen is NOT your struggle.  
                   
     > Some people we need to support us do not understand this issue.
       
    I totally reject your association of the entire movement for abortion
    rights with all of the other items on your agenda, Les.  We don't
    misunderstand that socialists are for abortion rights, too, and
    we welcome your support; but don't attempt to recast the issue in
    your terms and enlist us to fight your other battles.  They are
    SEPARATE issues.
    
     > Let's take the example of workers rights.
    
    Lets not.  This discussion has certainly lead us in many interesting
    directions; involving illegal tactics; RICO laws and their
    applicability to OR and to other movements; financial burdens imposed
    by demonstrations upon communities and clinics; civil disobedience;
    etc.  I see NO value to recasting the struggle I and many others
    have accepted, into the 'workers rights' and other battles upon
    which I do not accept your premises nor your conclusions.  You will
    lose many moderate pro-choice supporters with your radicalizing,
    and we can't afford to lose them.  I am a CAPITALIST for CHOICE.
    I agree with your premise that RICO is bad law and will be used
    against demonstrators in the future if we don't get it off the books,
    and I agree we should be worried about it.

     > How does a worker prevent the boss from producing...In any case 
     > workers have and must and will be forced to use intimidation. 
    
    Simple.  The worker violates the boss' property rights.  I don't
    support it, never have, never will.  DON'T RADICALIZE THE PRO-CHOICE
    ISSUE, PLEASE.  It's counterproductive.

     > It all boils down to social weight and who your allies are. In this
     > case *we* have the moral high ground and the social weight. 
    
    On the pro-choice issue, yes we do.  On all of your others?  Not
    germane to this discussion.
    
    DougO

    As I see it, there is more than one issue being argued here.
    
    Perhaps if we quit muddling them together, we can make some sense
    out of this.
    
    1)	Is OR a group that must be stopped from harassing individual
    citizens who are executing their (as it currently stands)
    constitutional rights? 
    
    	To this I hear a resounding yes.
    
    2)  Are the RICO laws a help to stopping organized crime (and, since
    OR is organized, and they do commit crimes, they fit that bill)
    or are these laws a threat to freedom?  Do they need to be left
    alone, amended, or repealed?
    
     	We seem to be divided on this, but the majority here seems to
    	think they need change.
    
    3)  Should we use a constitutionally questionable law, that has
    been used on other groups in the past, to prosecute a specific group
    (OR) that is currently a public problem?
    
    	Again, we're quite divided on this.
    
    Elizabeth

    	*I* think that the Doctah made an excellent comparison between
    this issue and the Clamshell Alliance. Not in the sense of the specific
    issue, but more to the protest. The CA has caused damage in the
    millions to Seabrook by saboetage, open destruction of property,
    slowing down work and workers, etc. The difficult part of this is
    that many supporters of CA honestly believe that this is acceptable
    behavior because they so strongly believe in their cause. The OR
    people are doing the same, but the problem is that the protest is
    directed at individuals, whereas the CA is pointing at a "thing"
    or corporation.
    	If RICO is invoked against OR, it will be invoked against CA,
    Greenpeace, Cit. for a Clean America, etc.
    	*I* think this is an amendment to the Lawyers Full Employment
    Act that states all lawyers should be able to acheive fame and/or
    fortune at the expense of others.
    
    	My final question: If the press was not allowed to cover any
    protests, how many would never happen???When the cameras roll, so
    do all of the players, be it in Brookline or Washington, DC. 
    
    Ken

    RE: .98
    
    Mary,
    
    I'd be happy to see the RICO law, or a trustworthy summary of what
    is probably its "legalese."  It's true that we are discussing based
    on news reports (sorry I didn't save my sources :-)).  My own dismay
    is the result of radio and TV reports and The Boston Globe articles.
    Although it is possible that I can misinterpret, or that my sources
    misinterpreted, the specifics that alarmed me are:
    
    1) The law covers anyone accused of committing the same crime within
    a ten-year period.  By extension, this could include those who "parade
    without a license," for example.  I admit that the key word here
    is "accused."  The reason I believe it is "accused" rather than
    "convicted" is because the RICO law is used to prosecute the individual
    in question -- and that must happen before s/he is convicted.  
    
    IF the law can actually be used only after a person has been
    *convicted* of the *same crime TWICE* within ten years, I would
    re-think, but not necessarily change, my opinion.  In addition to
    *that* more strict requirement, I would want the crime to have to
    be at least a felony.  Then I *might* find it acceptable.
    
    2) The law allows confiscation of assets before the accused is tried.
    This, IMO, goes against our principle of "innocent till proven guilty.

    3) One of the chief authors of the law admitted -- without any apparent
    chagrin over the matter -- that the law could have been applied to Martin
    Luther King, Jr.
    
    I am quite willing to modify my views appropriately if I am mistaken
    on any of these points.  Meanwhile, however, virtually the only
    source I ever use for an understanding of laws, etc., is the news
    media.  I welcome the effort that anyone else would care to spend
    to bring us more details!
    
    Nancy

           
    You may be correct.  It may not be necessary to use the RICO laws.
    Information regarding Operation Rescue's financial backers is starting
    to come out.
    Today's Boston Globe contained an article that stated:
    
    "The president of the Boston chapter of NOW yesterday called for
    a boycott of Domino's Pizza and properties owned by the Flatley
    Co., including the Tara Hotels chain, saying those business have
    contributed heavily to antiabortion efforts...   
    ...
    Convisser (Ellen Convisser is Boston NOW president) charged that 
    Domino's Pizza has heavily funded Operation Rescue... "
       
    Perhaps we can accomplish our objective of discovering who is behind
    this effort without having to resort to setting a (perhaps) potentially 
    dangerous precedent.
                                                                            
    Mary 
                                                

    .108 (Roberta) .109 (Mary)
    
    Apparently DEC employees were some 5% of the demo at the NH state
    house last Saturday.
    
    Where is one of those pizza palce near where many of us work?
    
    Les

    If you want to organize a protest against a company, it's best to
    do it outside of a notes file, especially if the form of protest
    is a boycott.  Organizing a protest against a government position
    is one thing, but organizing a protest against a business can put
    Digital in a very awkward position.

	Actually, I thought I could use some Pizza tonight...

						Tom_K

    Yea, I think I'll call Pizza Hut.

    I would like to thank Chelsea for pointing out that we cannot
    talk about organizing boycotts of other corporations in
    a Digital Notes file.
    
    As a moderator I would like to ask all of you to be very careful
    about how you speak of other corporations in a notes file.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod

    re .111 (Roberta)
    
>   SHEESH! _I_ don't know! Les, you're the community radical! How do
>   we go about this?      
    
    Call NOW. See if they are thinking of anything.
    
    Les

    
    I deleted my note .111 because I don't want to get anyone in trouble.
    If anyone wants to discuss boycotts/protests with me outside of
    notes, feel free to send me mail. 
    
    BTW, Tom_K, if every pro-choice person boycotted Domino's, the
    anti-choice people would have to eat pizza for breakfast, lunch and
    dinner to make up for it. Then again, maybe you could force-feed
    a few pregnant women.
    
    Roberta

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    As Chelsea (and others) have very correctly pointed out, political
    action directed at some governmental body is one thing, but action
    --whether economic or purely political-- directed at a private body
    such as a corporation is quite another.  And, in general, solicitation
    of any kind, whether for economic, political, or controversial
    humanitarian ends is against both DEC policy and that of our file. 
    
    It is perfectly permissable to state your personal intentions in a
    declarative way ("I plan to <mumble>"), but please do not urge others
    to follow your example. 
                                                                      
						=maggie

    I've always thought Domino's makes a good pizza, but I'm sure that if
    the current allegations about their support of OR prove true, I won't
    buy their product anymore and will urge those people I know not to buy,
    either.   I would also be willing to help draft a letter to Domino's
    management if there are others interested in expressing their
    dissatisfaction in that way.
    
    Does anyone know of a good way to determine whether they support OR as
    alleged? 
    
    						=maggie 

       re .119:
       
       In one of the hidden notes is a reference to a Boston Globe
       article in which someone affilliated with the Boston chapter (?)
       of NOW [I thought chapters were state-by-state; maybe it's the
       Boston office] claimed that Domino's pizza and William Flatley
       both supported OR.  (Flatley is unconnected to Domino's, but the
       head of a huge real estate organization that owns the Tara Hotels,
       among many other things.)  I'm not sure why that note got hidden
       (it simply relayed a published report), but I'd think you could
       get in touch with the person identified in the article and find
       out the basis for her statements. 
       
       Maybe pizza is best left to others' diets.  I avoid Papa Gino's,
       as the owner of the chain is one of the ultra-conservatives who
       (literally) bought out the Massachusetts Republican Party,
       changing it from the progressive political organization that
       produced Richardson, Brooke, Volpe, and Sargent to the right-wing
       sideshow of Greg Hyatt, Joyce Hampers, Royall Switzler, and Joe
       Malone.
       
       --Mr Topaz 

 Is the current unpopularity trend towards Domino Pizza motivated primarily
by the alleged act of contributing to a political movement or by the side
of the movement they happen to be on?  If they were supporting the pro-choice
side, would their contributions be more palatable?

 The Doctah

re .117

>	Then again, maybe you could force-feed a few pregnant women.

	If you wish to argue for this, I would be happy to consider your
	arguments.

							Tom_K

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    It'll work better if we hold the snide, folks.
    
    						=maggie

 There was an article in this morning's Greenville News concerning local OR 
demonstrations Saturday in front of the Women's Clinic on Grove Road. There 
were 64 out of 125 arrested for tresspassing when they blocked the entrance 
to the clinic. A demonstration on Friday at another women's clinic in town 
involved an additional 28 arrests. 

  "At 8:10 a.m., and orange sports car pulled into the driveway. From each 
side, demonstrators threw themselves onto the ground in front of it. as 
depities grabbed them and dragged them out of the way."

  "Please save your baby!", and "Don't be a murderer!" were yelled at the 
car.  The car returned a few minutes later and entered the clinic.

  There were rep's there from the local NOW to assist those coming to the 
clinic for help. Having someone there to walk thru this vicious verbal 
abuse *does* make a difference for those seeking clinic services.
  We who are pro-choice can do something in each of our towns to help 
fight this battle for women's reproductive freedoms.  



    
    
    ~robin                                      
                                                

    
    So what is the verdict on Flatley? 
    
    Are they OR supporters, or not? 
    
    I need to let the travel agency know not to book 
    me into any more castles...

    
    
      From today's Boston Globe, page 12.
    
    SEABROOK, N.H.- Insisting you can't charge for free speech, the
    antinuclear Clamshell Alliance has asked for an injunction ordering
    the town of Seabrook to grant it a permit for a demonstration June
    4 against low-power testing at the Seabrook nuclear plant.
      Seabrook town officials want $3,900 from the group to pay for
    extra police protection before a permit is issued. A hearing on
    the issue is scheduled for Wednesday in Rockingham Country Superior
    Court.
      "Attaching this kind of financial stipulation is a blatant
    infringement on our Constitutional right to free speech ans
    assembly," said Clamshell Alliance spokeswoman Dianne Dunfey, who
    said now, more than ever, people need to express oppostion to the
    plant. "they're taking those rights away from the general citizenry
    and turing them into a privilege for the wealthy."
      "The bottom line is quite simple," said New Hampshire Civil
    Liberties Union attorney Emmanuel Krasner. "Do people have the right
    to express opinions people in government don't agree with?"
      It is the second time the town has tried to charge demonstrators
    for their antinuclear activities. Two weeks ago, Clamshell Alliance
    refused to pay a $3,300 town bill for extra costs incurred during
    an Oct. 16 demonstration in which 84 persons were arrested.
      "This smacks of harassment," said Dunfey, who has referred both
    cases to the Civil Liberties Union. "It's become characteristic
    of them throwing up roadblocks against our determination to make
    our opposition to this plant public."
      Town officials deny the charge. "The town is not attempting to
    single them out," insisted Seabrook town administrator Steven
    Clark, drawing a parallel between Seabrook's situation and another
    town's attempt to get reimbursed by antiabortion demonstrators.
      "It's not a question of free speech - they have the right to 
    assemble. That's what we all believe," Clark said. "That's what
    our country's made of. The town's position is that we should not
    have to incur a large expense for this or any type of demonstration."
       
    cases to the Civil Liberties Union