Even in the court room if you don't want to testify YOU DO NOT HAVE TO! It is your right to deny to testify. However if you are the make or break witness/testimony of the prosecutor/defenses case then it is their right/duty to subpoena you.

Also you can anonymously tip off the DA/police. If they don't even know who tipped them they don't have to provide that person. They could build a strong enough case without the tipsters name.

Well then why don't anonymous do that?  If any of them have anything besides media conjecture, why do they not simply call the police? 

And why bother with the anonymity?  I think the points raised in this thread have effectively debunked the "Scientologists will kill me if they know who I am" crap. 

Sorry I haven't kept up on this~

First, I never said CoS was evil or inherenly illegal at all. Although it has been marked by such corruption throughout its history including Operation Snow White which is documented by the FBI( as they investigated it). I would presume should you require proof you are capable of following up with the proper channels, as this is an FBI case that is on official record I am going to leave it up to you to discredit it as I feel absolutely no need to provide proof of something the FBI has already proven. Should you feel the need for more proof and yet lack the desire to look into it for yourself I will take that as willing ignorance on your part. I can't and won't look it up for you, as it does you no good for me to look it up.

Operation Snow White involved the illegal infiltration of 136 government agencies aimed at purging unfavorable records about the church. In the investigation of this case they found official church documents held by CoS officials that documented their conspiracy to harrass, discredit, and ruin the life of Paulette Cooper. This operation was known as "Operation Freakout".

Their recruitement tactics have routinely been called into question, just to give an example they've placed ads for "Jobs" and lure people to an interview where they attempt to pressure them into a contract for a volunteer position where they recieve no pay despite the ad offering a paying position. This was documented at the beginning of this thread by one of the news reports from Denmark I believe, but I've heard of others, I'll let your natural curiousity at such things lead you to search further. I've personally seen enough in this regard and again my searching doesn't help you, you'll have to do it on your own I've provided a starting point.

In regards to policies of the church they have in the past used such policies as the following located at: HCOPL Oct. 18, 1967 Issue IV, Penalties for Lower Conditions. Which stated "[SPs] may be deprived of property or injured by any means... May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.". An SP is someone labeled an enemy of the church essentially. Once again that was an official policy.

Here I'll just copy a list of legal issues relating to the church from wikipedia, feel free to go their for their sources(I bolded some of my favorites):

* During the 1960s, Scientology was accused by the United States government of engaging in medical fraud by claiming that the E-meter would treat and cure physical ailments and diseases. A 1971 ruling of the United States District Court, District of Columbia (333 F. Supp. 357), specifically stated, "the E-meter has no proven usefulness in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease, nor is it medically or scientifically capable of improving any bodily function." As a result of this ruling, Scientology now publishes disclaimers in its books and publications declaring that "by itself, the E-meter does nothing"[26] and that it is used specifically for spiritual purposes.
* In 1978, L. Ron Hubbard was convicted in absentia by French authorities of engaging in fraud, fined 35,000 French Francs and sentenced to four years in prison. The head of the French Church of Scientology was convicted at the same trial and given a suspended one-year prison sentence.
* The FBI raid on the Church's headquarters revealed documentation that detailed Scientology actions against various critics of the organization. Among these documents was a plan to frame Gabe Cazares, the mayor of the city of Clearwater, Florida, with a staged hit-and-run accident; plans to discredit the skeptical organization CSICOP by spreading rumors that it was a front for the CIA; and a project called "Operation Freakout", aimed at ruining the life of author Paulette Cooper, author of an early book critical of the movement, The Scandal of Scientology.
* In 1988 the government of Spain arrested Scientology president Heber Jentzsch and ten other members of the organization on various charges, including "illicit association," coercion, fraud, and labor law violations. Jentzsch jumped bail, leaving Spain and returning to the United States after Scientology paid a bail bond of approximately $1 million, and he has not returned to the country since. Scientology fought the charges in court for fourteen years, until the case was finally dismissed in 2002.
* The Church of Scientology is the only religious organization in Canada to be convicted on the charge of breaching the public trust: The Queen v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, et al. (1992)
* In France, several officials of the Church of Scientology have been convicted of crimes such as embezzlement. The Church was listed as a "dangerous cult" in a parliamentary report.
* The Church of Scientology long considered the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) as one of its most important enemies, and many Scientology publications during the 1980s and 1990s cast CAN (and its spokesperson at the time, Cynthia Kisser) in an unfriendly light, accusing the cult-watchdog organization of various criminal activities. After CAN was forced into bankruptcy and taken over by Scientologists in the late 1990s, Scientology proudly proclaimed this as one of its greatest victories.
* In Belgium, after a judicial investigation since 1997, a trial against the organization is due to begin in 2008. Charges include formation of a criminal organization, the unlawful exercise of medicine, and fraud.
* In the United Kingdom the church has been accused of "grooming" City of London police officers with gifts worth thousands of pounds.
* In Australia, Scientology has been temporarily banned in the 1960s in three out of six states; the use of the E-meter was similarly banned in Victoria. In Victoria, Scientology was investigated by the state Government. In the conclusion to his report written as part of this investigation, Kevin Victor Anderson, Q.C. stated "Scientology is a delusional belief system, based on fiction and fallacies and propagated by falsehood and deception". The report was later overturned by the High Court of Australia, which compelled the states to recognize Scientology as a religion.

Thats the info I could find in 20 minutes looking around the net a bit and in the time I was reading I never saw one thing that contradicted or even remotely went against what I'd learned previously. In the united stated there is no such law that requires a person to protest with their face visible and as such the church has no such right to know who they are regardless of your claims that they do. You point to it as an indication of wrongdoing but truthfully the only real indication of wrongdoing by anyone is the wrongdoing of CoS and most of it is official policy passed down by the highest officials as I've shown above. Yet you would point to the fact that people fear for their safety and well-being as overriding proof of everything I posted above and to that I have no responce because its just not a reasonable position.

Ironically the tactics you've used in this thread in discrediting those who are pro-Anonymous are perfectly synonymous with the policy letter issued by Hubbard here. It talks about always keeping the focus on the attackers and pushing to disclose their deads and their crimes and keeping the focus off the church. What better way to attack one side of the issue than to feign that you are a moderate. You've played that part to a "T" and I have to admit I personally can think of no better explaination for your irrational position with the possible exception of willing ignorance. With that said I have no proof so I'll keep that a strong suspicion for the time being.

Once you've looked into each of these cases and can provide proof to the contrary for at least half of them we can shift our focus away from CoS but until then I have no interest in any conversation that would provide further fodder for the strategy described by hubbard that you seem to have employed.

But is this "right" or morally correct?

What you are essentially saying is that a mob can say whatever they want about ANYONE whilst maintaining their anonymity, without ever having to back it up or face natural justice if they are lying. 

You were doing so well until that paragraph.  You see you at least tried to paint the issue in a more quantitative light than pooper and ssj12 (who keeps linking to the most incredibly biased) sites.  But what I was wondering as I read your post is whether it would end with an actual opinion on the point I have been making this entire thread.

Do you, Sqrl, feel that a mob has the right to say whatever they wish about anyone whilst maintaining anonymity?

Do you believe that it is ok that Anonymous has absolutely no level of accountability whatsoever?

PooperScooper and his cronies have tried to paint me as a man in support of the CoS, both as a religion and an organization.  It takes one glance over my posts in this thread to realize that that is complete crap.  What I vehemenently oppose is the idea that Anonymous could take these incidents, apply them broadly to the entirety of the CoS and then use them to discredit the organization and it's members WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY.  

If you can prove something is true, you will win a defamamtion law suit.  Why does Anonymous not simply file a lawsuit against the CoS, if it's evidence is so damning?  Why must they hide when the simplest logic dictates that their whole "they'll kill us if they know us" routine is bogus?  

A further comment on this paragraph....

In looking for evidence of the use of these tactics, you found the right thread, but the wrong poster:

ssj12:

"The only reason your defending this inhuman behavior by the Co$ is if you have personally commited crimes equivilent to or worse then them, or you are a Scientology member yourself and look at the crimes as just or you just dont have any human emotions."

"And no I was no calling you a murderer. I was to state that you are not showing any real emotion towards what is being discussed. Since these are real world matters a bit more emotion behind your posts is needed to make a post sound a bit more established to ones beliefs. I used the "have done similar" part as a way to display that something along those lines could, be reasonable reason for why you arent displaying any sort of emotion to the C0$ crimes. I'm not saying murder, morealong the lines of beating the crap out of someone or something that falls under voilent terms."

PooperScooper:

"I think starcraft worships xulu."

"if you love scientology so much why dont you become a member and see full well for yourself."

"Hey starcraft can you prove the holocaust actually happened? I want you to get Hitler to come to my house and tell me he tried exterminating Jews. (I loved being called a Holocaust denier, thanks Pooper)"

Now if you would like an example of someone who actually took note of what I was saying:

Tavin said:

It took me a while to read all of this thread ... but I'm sorry SSJ12 but Starcraft isn't trying to defend or condone any of the things those guys do, he hasn't say anything like that =(

He is just saying that, murderers, rapists and every other criminal has the right to face their accusers, what those CoS do is disgusting ... but if you go against them with a mask on and start to throw accusations (wich thanks to all the testimonies of people that have been in that church make are likely true) you are just being a coward ... i'm not trying to offend ... really ... that's the only word that came to my mind...

the people that comes out from that "religion" and tell their experiences ... all the horrible things that happened to them ... they do it at open face ... they don't wear masks ... they are the brave ones...

 Again ... I'm totally against the horrible practices of Scientology's leaders ... but i see the point Starcraft is trying to make... and I'm not trying to troll on anybody by calling you a coward ... just trying to give my opinion

Okay, i give up.

Like a fucking institution proven to be evil (yes it is IN FUCKING FACT PROVEN, even though your mouse is broken and cannot click all these links we provided or you are using a blindfold) have the right to defend itself against fucking PROTESTERS after all these PROVEN accounts of scientology CHASING PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED THEM.

One last thing to add: proof is not taken when you ask the criminal and he confirms he done it, is when you indeed PROVE HE FUCKING DONE IT. If life was the way you are enforcing, ALL CRIMINAL MOTHERFUCKERS WOULD STILL BE OUT THERE.

THEY DON'T NEED A FUCKING TRIAL.

And i won't be back on this thread for a while, until logic is back...

And sorry for the swear words but i can't fucking help it...

And now, if you excuse me, i'll take a look at what Anonymous is doing here in Brazil (if they are doing something here) so i can help in taking out these motherfuckers for good.

Thanks for showing us the truth ssj12.

 Once again you redirect the issue away from the CoS, not surprising, actually I expected it. 

And yes I think its perfectly fine for them to maintain anonymity under the circumstances.  Documented above by the FBI is a case where they did exactly what these people fear they might do to them and they have every right to fear for their safety as any reasonable person would see, you haven't even made an argument to the contrary which makes me believe you agree but wish not to address any part of it.

I love how you paint Anonymous as if there is zero accountability despite the fact that they have not broken the law, and to my knowledge continue to file permits for their protests.  As soon as any protestor breaks the law he will lose his anonymity and be held accountable for his actions, beyond that CoS has no right to hold any of them accountable for anything or even know who any of these people are and they have good reason and right to fear a situation in which CoS does learn their identity. 

Now, are you going to continue to sidestep the heart of the issue as outlined in hubbards "attack the attacker" policies or are you going to acknowledge the wrongdoing of CoS and by virtue of that repeated and widespread wrongdoing the necessity for Anonymity? 

Actually let me rephrase that, are you a reasonable person who admits when he was wrong after being shown evidence?  Are you capable of recognizing when circumstances dictate that anonymity is the prudent action?  Or are you obstinate and unwilling to admit error, stuck in the first thought pattern you fall into on any subject?   

 well I did post a video of a former Scientology member who spoke out against scientology and my link is all leaked documents from scientology. Why dont you look at the site and look at some of the documents before you call it biased. You asked for official documents I GAVE THEM TO YOU.

 Freedom of speech.   I have no idea how it is down under but here in America, we like our freedom of speech.  Now if this group of mask wearing protesters were making up things and saying things that were untrue then police would have arrested them and charged them with slander.  If you go in public and claim false things about another person or group they can sue for slander.  Since CoS has not even attempted this shows that there is some truth in the protests if not all true.  

Starcraft, i agree with you that a person should have the balls to show there face if they want to speak out at another group.  But if they do not then they have a right to protect themselves(at least in America).  If i cared enough to speak out against CoS i wouldn't hide behind a mask.  The fear for your life argument is weak at best.