조나단 털리: AG Garland's testimony only begs more questions. DOJ가 부모를 모니터링하는 이유?

That scene came to mind when 메릭 갈랜드 법무장관 testified in Congresfbs to assure members that he does not believe that parents protesting at school board meetings are domestic terrorists.

GARLAND GRILLED ON SCHOOL BOARD MEMO, 헌터 바이든, JAN. 6 AT HOUSE JUDICIARY HEARING

The Attorney General insists there was nothing to be worried about because the FBI would simply be monitoring what these parents say or do at school meetings. Promises of suchunobtrusiveinvestigations or operations ignore the obvious: any national enforcement or monitoring effort is, by definition, obtrusive—particularly when it comes to free speech.

Garland’s testimony came after the 법무부 announced that it would initiate a national effort toaddress threats against school administrators, 이사회 구성원, 교사, and staff,” 포함 “open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.

(Greg Nash/Pool via AP)

It came shortly after the National School Boards Association asked for such action, including the possible use of the Patriot Act against individuals deemed threatening to board members. While the Justice Department memo itself does not mention domestic terrorists nor the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s press release pledged to include the National Security Division in the effort.

Garland repeatedly assured the members that he knows of no basis for alleging domestic terrorism in these school board meetings. He further pledged that he will not use such laws against parents objecting to critical race theory or other issues at these meetings.

의견 더보기

하나, those answers only begged the question: why has the Justice Department pledged this broad effort to monitor and respond to threats at these meetings? If these are not matters of domestic terrorism, why is the Justice Department implementing this effort? The school board association letter does not cite any pattern of criminal threats nor interstate, federal profile.

분명히, some threats using interstate communications or interstate conduct can satisfy federal jurisdiction, but such local threats are rarely matters of federal enforcement. 과연, I raised the same concerns when the Justice Department took over rioting cases in Wisconsin, 워싱턴, and other states.

When asked about alleged sexual misconduct in Loudoun County, Virginia school bathrooms involving student-on-student misconduct, Garland insisted that such violence sounds like alocal caseand the Justice Department would not be involved. 아직, the Justice Department just announced it would get involved with any such threats or violence in school board meetings.

These meetings involve core political speech on issues that are deeply dividing the country. If the Justice Department is going to launch a national effort to address possible crimes in such meetings, it has a heightened duty to explain the basis for an effort based on federal criminal conduct.

Any national enforcement or monitoring effort is, by definition, obtrusive

댓글이 닫혀 있습니다..