At 2 am PT Fri. 9.12.03 FBI and ATF agents approached our collective home and arrested one of our members. They would not provide a reason but we knew it was politically motivated because that member has been a key organizer in anti-war and antiBush protests.
Since 2 am they have completely surrounded our home. They will not let us come or go with any boxes or bags, incl school notebooks. They cut our Net access. They say they will be there until their warrant arrives so they can search our house.

Please call us in solidarity at these phone numbers.
714.686.5621
909.469.5100

Link to Yahoo map for directions.

I'm so glad the government is dealing firmly with those who are a threat to peace, people like Sherman Austin and these lunatics here.

The CNN article on the arrest of Josh Connole (presently at

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/09/13/suv.arson.ap/index.html )

contains the following claim:

"The Times, citing sources it did not identify, said Connole could be seen on one surveillance tape just before dozens of vehicles were torched."

The actual Times quote (from its article currently posted at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-hummer13sep13.story )

is as follows:

"Sources close to the investigation said that Connole could be seen on surveillance tape shot just before the fire at the Hummer dealership."

CNN's formulation implies that the Times stated on its own account ("the Times...said...") and as its own opinion based upon its own sources that Connole was seen on the surveillance tape. In reality, the Times merely passed along the opinion of unnamed sources without endorsing it or vouching for its credibility in any way.

That interpretation is supported by the rest of the Times article, which presents a picture that is generally supportive of the possibility that Connole might be innocent of the crime. The Times of course does not take a formal position regarding Connole's guilt or innocence, as is common for any article not specifically appearing as an editorial comment.

What does this arrest mean? That authorities are embarassed at their lack of a credible suspect and are looking for a scapegoat? That authorities were looking to pin something on Connole for other reasons and thought that this might stick? A little of both? Or, maybe that they had some small suspicion that he might be their culprit and didn't want to risk his getting away until they could confirm or deny this? Or perhaps that they simply bungled their investigation and now are waiting until public attention dies down before admitting to their mistake?

From what I have read of Connole, he is not of exceptional importance or interest to the authorities, which is not to disrespect the many positive and nonviolent activities in which he and his evidently lovely group of communards have participated. So, I strongly suspect that investigators either screwed up or else are looking for a scapegoat.

However, there is one other possibility, and that is that they are deliberately framing someone who is engaged in completely legal activism in an attempt to instill fear in the broad class of such law-abiding activists and to thus stifle legitimate dissent.

Just because I mention this last does not mean that I believe it is the most likely possibility. There are endless possibilities so far as law enforcement bungling and other misuses of the blunt legal instrument are concerned. But it is certainly something that has to be considered. And of course attention has to be focused upon this case until Connole's release is secured.