Showings of Force

 

In September the FBI arrested an anti-abortion protester named Mark Houck in his home. Houck and his wife claim the arrest was made in an early morning raid by over a dozen heavily armed men pointing AR type rifles at them and scaring their children. The FBI partially denies the claim, saying that there were fewer agents than the Houcks claim and that the agents’ behavior was “professional”. Its statement does not say how many armed agents were present or how they were armed. It is difficult to say which story, if either, is accurate, but it seems likely that there were more than a handful of agents present and that some of them were well armed. The offense Houck is charged with is shoving a man he was arguing with at a protest last year. Local officials did not prosecute him.

In another case that has made the news recently, there is no question about the behavior of the FBI. It was a raid. A group of agents armed with rifles went to the home of an anti-abortion protester named Paul Vaughn early one morning as he was getting ready to take his kids to school and arrested him. Vaughn’s wife filmed some of the raid with her phone, and the video has been shown on the news on TV. The offense Vaughn is charged with is participating in a sit-in at an abortion clinic in Tennessee.

One has to wonder why the men were arrested in the way they were. It seems fairly clear that neither of them was much of a flight risk. Nothing has been said or published indicating that there were reasons to think they might have been dangerous. Yet in each case there was a big show of force. (As a point for comparison, the FBI’s web site and other sources mention only four agents present staking out the Biograph Theater and taking down John Dillinger. There may have been more, but only four were named.) One should ask why. In the absence of any obvious pragmatic reason for it and given the unpopularity of the opinions of people such as Houck and Vaughn with the present government, it is reasonable to guess that the purpose was to send a message to intimidate others with the same unpopular opinions. If not, officials should tell us why not. If so, the actions were wrong and a violation of the principles of a free society, which should worry people irrespective of what they think of abortion. After all, who knows what opinions might become unpopular with this or some future administration later? It could even be some of mine.