Obama Administration Throws Book at DADT Protestors

I applauded the actions of the 13 LGBT military veterans and activists who chained themselves to the White House fence last fall to draw attention to the need for DADT repeal. Now, in yet another action that contradicts Barack Obama's claimed support for LGBT rights, the government's lawyers made clear on Friday that they intend to prosecute the 13 defendants for "violating the orders of a federal law enforcement officer." These charges could result in jail time and represent the first time DADT protesters have been in federal court. The other defendants were processed for minor misdemeanors in DC's court system. Could it be that our faux advocate doesn't like his spinelessness and double speak highlighted in such a dramatic way? Why do the words "liar" and "hypocrite" once again spring to mind? Here are brief highlights from America Blog:
*
At today's arraignment, Mark Goldstone, the lawyer for the 13 protesters, explained to Federal Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola that the statute under which the defendants are being charged was unusual. He noted that it had not been used in recent past against people engaging in civil disobedience at the White House. For whatever reason, the government has decided to pursue the more serious criminal charges.
*
What happened next was surprising to those in the Courtroom. Judge Facciola got up out of his chair, while pacing, gave a speech about the history of the civil rights movement in the United States. He intimated that there were trumped up charges back in the 50s and 60s, too. And, he evoked the Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham case, Martin Luther King's "letters from the Birmingham jail" and how civil rights protesters were often brought to court to face stricter charges. The judge clearly linked the protest over Don't Ask, Don't Tell to those earlier civil rights protests.
*
The Judge asked the government prosecutor a lot of questions, including why the government didn't charge the protesters under the lesser crime of disorderly conduct. Apparently, and I had to ask Paul to repeat this a couple times, the prosecutor said the protesters were talking politely and weren't being that loud. So, they weren't being disorderly.
*
[T]the Judge also asked the government to reconsider the tougher criminal charges. He told the lawyers to work it out. Til now, the government has been unwilling to seeking anything but a criminal conviction for "violating the orders of a federal law enforcement officer."