The picture above, retrieved from an important article in The Nation magazine, shows our current president signing National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7). Please do click the link just provided, and read up on what Wikipedia has to say about this important document. Even better, click this link, for the actual text of NSPM-7. The following link will let you read that article in The Nation, which is titled, "The Chilling Trump Order Threatening All Americans."
"All Americans" includes you! And me, too, of course!
This blog posting is my personal response to the potential "threat" against me, as identified in the article published in The Nation.
Essentially, what The Nation explains is that this new "National Security Presidential Memorandum," authored by our current president on September 25th of last year, may be utilized to charge and convict citizens (and others) with crimes, even when those prosecuted took no illegal action whatsoever. Such criminal prosecutions would be pursued based on court decisions that rely on a "so-called 'conspiracy doctrine,' which requires only agreement with the idea of an action, not action itself." In other words, "the government doesn't need to prove that anyone did anything, only that they talked about doing it, or associated with people who did."
As an example, if you or I were to join a peaceful protest demonstration, objecting to the conduct of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel in our local community, and then someone in the crowd did something illegal - like hitting a law enforcement officer over the head with a stick - all of those in the protest gathering might well be criminally prosecuted, even though they took no such action themselves, and were just exercising their First Amendment right to speak out on issues of concern to them, and to engage with others in a peaceful demonstration of their political views. The text of the Memorandum clearly suggests that the purpose of the Memorandum is to increase the prosecution of those who are exercising their First Amendment rights, as one way to discourage demonstrations in the first place.
If you read all the materials highlighted in the first paragraph of this blog posting, you might well think twice about engaging in any kind of peaceful protest action. That, of course, seems to be one reason that our current president has promulgated NSPM-7, and has indicated that its objectives should be vigorously pursued by federal officials.
If you are not willing to give up your First Amendment right to engage in peaceful demonstrations and peaceful protests, it might well make sense to try to insulate yourself from the kind of prosecutions highlighted by The Nation. If the federal government carries through on its implied plan to prosecute people who "associate" with people who engage in arguably criminal conduct, and who support the "idea of an action," as opposed to being involved in any potentially criminal conduct themselves, it will be important to make clear in advance (to the greatest degree you can do so) that you do not "agree" with any kind of criminal conduct that might occur during a peaceful protest in which you are engaged.
Let me say, I do believe that our courts will not, ultimately, let the government convict and then penalize people who don't "do" anything that is illegal, themselves, but who merely exercise their right to assemble and to speak out about their political views. Nonetheless, as The Nation's article makes clear, the federal government may adopt a strategy of prosecuting people not guilty of any illegal "action," but who just hold views that are the same as someone who did do something illegal.
I, personally, do not intend to curtail my First Amendment right to speak out on issues of concern to me, and to join, with others, to express my views. I want to repudiate any idea that I think I should be able to take any illegal action, myself, without facing possible prosecution for things that I actually do. "Action," however, is what might be grounds for criminal prosecution. If my actions are consistent with the law - and I understand that the law absolutely respects and includes my Constitutional right to assemble with others and to speak out on things I care about - then I should not be subjected to prosecution because someone else has done something that, arguably, violates the law.
So, let me say the following, as clearly as I can: As of the date and time this blog posting is published, I want the following to be understood: I do not support, or advocate violent or illegal actions as a way to "make a statement," or as a way to achieve some political goal that I support. If someone whose political positions are consistent with my own political positions does something that is arguably illegal, the fact that I share their political positions, or was in the same geographic location that they were during some kind of protest or demonstration, is absolutely not my "agreement" to support their actions, whatever they may be, or may have been. I should be prosecuted for crimes only when I act against the law.
And that's true for everyone!
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-nspm-7-repression/
