Roeder, Terrorist, Lights The Ticking Time Bomb

Last week I wrote this post about applying the standards of terror policies against Muslim extremists to the anti-abortion right, and when I cross-posted on Daily Kos I used the provocative title Should We Waterboard Scott Roeder? A lot of people got really mad, failing to read the entire post and just angered that I would suggest such a thing. Of course I wasn't, I was merely playing out the implications of the belief that we must torture terrorists who might have information on future attacks, and presumptively detain suspects who might engage in attacks in the future, and try them in national security courts instead of the criminal justice system.

Now we have yet another data point.

The man charged with murdering a high-profile abortion doctor claimed from his jail cell Sunday that similar violence was planned around the nation for as long as the procedure remained legal, a threat that comes days after a federal investigation launched into his possible accomplices.

A Justice Department spokesman said the threat was being taken seriously and additional protection had been ordered for abortion clinics last week. But a leader of the anti-abortion movement derided the accused shooter as "a fruit and a lunatic."

Scott Roeder called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail, where he's being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller one week ago.

"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said. When asked by the AP what he meant and if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate further.

The conservative philosophy of a "one percent doctrine" means that if there's a one percent chance Roeder is telling the truth, then we must use every tool at our disposal to stop attacks. So intellectually honest conservatives like Dick Cheney will presumably endorse harsh interrogation tactics and indefinite detention for the anti-abortion right.

Waiting for that press release to come by my desk any time now.

Of course, like John Cole I don't think any of these policies work. And in fact, the Justice Department reacted to the Roeder comments by stepping up enforcement at abortion clinics. Which is how you deal with crime, through the system tested for 200-plus years that provides the right balance between liberty and security.

Equal Justice

I'm getting to this late, but Jack Balkin (h/t Hilzoy) has some excellent questions about George Tiller's alleged murderer Scott Roeder:

"(1) Should the United States be able to hold Roeder without trial in order to prevent him from returning to society to kill more abortion providers? If we believe that Roeder and other domestic terrorists will plan further attacks on abortion providers and abortion clinics if we let them free, can we subject them to indefinite detention?

(2) The Obama Administration is currently considering a national security court to make decisions about the detention of suspected terrorists, with the power to order continued preventive detention. Should this court be able to hear cases involving U.S. citizens, whether they are Muslim or Christian? (...)

(4) One of the most important reasons for detaining terrorists (suspected or otherwise) is to obtain information about future terrorist attacks that may save lives and prevent future bombings. To procure this information, can the government dispense with the usual constitutional and legal safeguards against coercive interrogation? Should it be able to subject Roeder to enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding and other methods, to determine whether Roeder knows of any other persons who are likely to commit violence against abortion clinics or against abortion providers in the future? Would your answer change if you believed that an attack on an abortion provider or a bombing of an abortion clinic was imminent?

(5) Terrorists and terrorist organizations need money and resources to operate effectively. Often the only way to stop them is to dry up their sources of financial and logistical support. Can the U.S. government freeze the assets of pro-life organizations and make it illegal to contribute money to a pro-life charity that it believes might funnel money or provide material support to persons like Roeder or to organizations that practice violence against abortion providers? Can the government arrest, detain, and seize the property of anti-abortion activists who helped Roeder in any way in the months leading up to his crime, for example by giving him rides or allowing him to stay in their homes?"

In fact, if you want to talk about ticking time bomb scenarios, Roeder would certainly be a subject for interrogation. He has been involved in pro-life movements for many years; he was arrested and convicted in 1996 for attempting to bomb an abortion clinic; he attempted to break and enter into Tiller's clinic in the weeks leading up to the murder (a federal crime under the FACE Act), and his name and license plate number were sent to the FBI; he had the phone number for Operation Rescue in his car, and Operation Rescue provided information about Tiller to Roeder before the shooting. In the wake of Tiller's murder, a pro-life activist published photos and personal information of other doctors who perform late-term abortions.

So on those grounds, considering there may be other individuals seeking to kill American doctors, considering that Roeder has multiple ties to the movement that would carry out those killings, it would only make sense to use the interrorgation techniques on Roeder that would help protect Americans. Right? Furthermore, everyone associated with these movements, all of the dangerous suspected domestic terrorists or those with ties to them, including the commentators who fanned the flames of hate, ought to be locked up without charges so that they don't hurt Americans. Right? Right?

Well, I don't believe the answer is yes. But apparently, on a bipartisan basis, our political leadership does believe that some individuals should be subject to indefinite detention in case they commit a crime in the future, and that the legal system is not equipped to handle them. And the overwhelming majority of at least one major political party believes that torture is justified if it saves American lives. As Hilzoy says:

Obviously, though, these tactics were never meant to be used against people like us. It's only other people -- scary, presumptively guilty other people -- whom we get to detain without trial, based on evidence that would not win a conviction in a normal court of law. Not people like us.

Personally, I think this would be a bad idea. But a lot of people seem to disagree. They seem to think it's fine to toss aside centuries of legal tradition, not to mention our civil liberties. What's really strange is that they claim that they are doing this because they love freedom.

Well said.

Maybe someone in the media could ask any member of either party about this.

Leaving A Trail

It is difficult in a free society to stop a pre-meditated crime. But I think the FBI missed Scott Roeder, when a lot of warning signs were there:

It looks like Scott Roeder, the suspect on the murder of George Tiller, was targeting other abortion providers in the days before Tiller's slaying Sunday.

A worker at a clinic in Kansas City, Kansas at which Roeder regularly demonstrated told CNN that early Saturday morning, he "actually chased after" Roeder after catching him trying to pour epoxy into the facility's locks two weekends in a row.

In other words, it sounds like Roeder was planning to break in to the clinic at a later time.

But could the Feds have used Saturday's incident to try to stop Sunday's? Another worker told CNN he managed to catch the would-be vandal's license plate, and reported it to federal authorities, who told him nothing could be done with the information until a federal grand jury convened. When Roeder was arrested Sunday after allegedly killing Tiller, he was driving a car with that same license number.

And today we learn that an Operation Rescue advisor helped track Tiller for Roeder.

We have criminal justice laws that have served us well for many years. But this guy was practically screaming that he was about to do something violent. And law enforcement failed to pick up on the signs, even when it had the clues. Obviously hindsight is 20/20. And the FBI has a lot on its plate, but abortion provider violence is growing, especially with a pro-choice President in office, and they need to prioritize.

Where Was The FBI?

Scott Roeder, the suspect in the murder of George Tiller, overtly supported killing abortion providers.

"I know that he believed in justifiable homicide," said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City anti-abortion activist who made headlines in 1995 when she was ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of any abortion clinic. "I know he very strongly believed that abortion was murder and that you ought to defend the little ones, both born and unborn."

Why did Regina Dinwiddie keep silent as this man espoused a belief in killing doctors providing legal practices? If someone had prior knowledge of a serial killer's intent and said nothing, I mean, isn't there something close to an accessory statute here? We already had knowledge of Roeder's involvement in the "Freemen" movement, which "claimed sovereignty from government jurisdiction and operated under their own legal system." We didn't have perfect knowledge on this guy, but seemingly enough to put together a conspiracy charge. Roeder openly affiliated with two organizations cited in the DHS rightwing extremism report, for example. Presumably DHS didn't write that report simply as an after-the-violence reference guide.

Now, scumbags like Tucker Carlson prefer to continue to demonize the late Tiller and compare him to a Nazi or a member of Al Qaeda. But I'm looking at the demonstrable reality of anti-abortion movement violence over close to 20 years, and seeing these players in that movement, and wondering why law enforcement personnel cannot protect citizens providing legal services.

I guess they were too busy spying on vegans.

...I'm going to back off of this slightly. I recognize that in a free society, we have to walk a fine line and cannot use the instruments of the law in a punitive way to take anyone's civil liberties. I reject preventive detention or prosecuting thought crimes. We don't want a totalitarian police state. I think that these right-wing movements with a history of violence bear monitoring, but there is a limit to what we can do.