A Pattern Of Civil/Human Rights Abuses
On top of all the other posts regarding Gitmo and related matters, we are seeing an overall pattern of civil liberties abuses in our nation. Since the US is the so-called bedrock of modern democracy, it seems to me we should be doing it better than anyone else... better than anywhere else.
But we do not seem to get this concept. The CATO Institute, which is a bit of flip-flop in terms of pegging its political nature (sometimes being conservative, sometimes moderate and sometimes liberal), has a recent article and paper on Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America written by Radley Balko the CATO policy analyst specializing in civil liberties issues. The full report details how so many law enforcement agencies, at the local, state and federal levels are conducting botched no-knock raids.
In addition to the article, CATO has an interesting interactive map that identifies all the botched Paramilitary Police Raids. The map allows interactive restructuring of the map by various criteria, including state, death of an innocent, death of a law enforcement officer, death of a non-violent offender, raids on innocent people, and the year ranging from 1985 to 2006.
The reliance on confidential informants and the issue of police lying to obtain warrants to conduct both routine warrant service as well as no-knock raids is also back in the news. There are numerous case precedents regarding botched use of confidential informants that have led to bad situations. Even with well-established rules for using confidential informants, as well as guidelines for using incarcerated informants, there are far too many abuses and botched investigations to consider the practice as safe in terms of protecting civil liberties and the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Given the loose and often unconstitutional limits offered by the USA Patriot Act, presidential authority grabs via so-called "signing statements, and the ever-increasing trend for secret tactics and surveillance in this climate of fear-mongering, there needs to be external review and specific remedy made available to assure that our rights and the presumption of innocence are preserved and protected.
While the use of informants is a necessary tool for law enforcement, there needs to be more stringent oversight by front line law enforcement supervisors, as well as increased scrutiny by prosecutors before bringing the matter to a judge to obtain warrants and even more scrutiny by the judges sitting on the bench. The use of confidential informants should be precluded to cases where the information of the "CI" can be corroborated by other witnesses, surveillance evidence, forensics and the presentation of a "portfolio" of information strongly demonstrating probable cause.
The cancer of falsifying evidence and/or testimony in order to obtain a warrant has reached an epidemic level, if not pandemic from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The cancer is also metastasizing throughout our society because we are now living in a state of fear and expanding paranoia--some of it justifiable and reasonable, but most of it a symptom of fascism--that sees terrorist bogeymen everywhere, rather than isolated to specific minority groups with specific extremist views.
Additionally, corporate America has taken note that there is profit in the world of providing technology to security. Not only are sales of security technology and services on the rise to state and federal government agencies, but there are new twists that get travelers to pay for background checks and separate screening by some of that technology: For A Fee, Fliers Won't Shed Shoes
The idea that those with money can pay to wander through airport security with less inconvenience is yet another form of institutionalized elitism, discrimination and idiocy. Those of us that fly to see their families should have the same opportunities of those that have corporate expense accounts, independent wealth or influence. If the technology described is an effective screening tool for explosives, and it only takes 20-25 seconds to process an individual, why doesn't the FAA, TSA and the DHS spend some money to make our airports safer and use this technology immediately available to all air travelers? The only possible answer is that the government is in the business of discrimination, providing better service to those identified as "elite" and providing profit opportunities to big business rather than protecting and serving the general public as required by the Constition (c.f. Preamble requirements to promote the "general welfare" and provide security for all citizens).
But the federal government is so busy making sure that we are becoming the most fascist government in the new millenium and making sure it can operate without scrutiny that it doesn't have time for reason, justice, principle or adhering to the provisions of the Constitution.
But we do not seem to get this concept. The CATO Institute, which is a bit of flip-flop in terms of pegging its political nature (sometimes being conservative, sometimes moderate and sometimes liberal), has a recent article and paper on Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America written by Radley Balko the CATO policy analyst specializing in civil liberties issues. The full report details how so many law enforcement agencies, at the local, state and federal levels are conducting botched no-knock raids.
In addition to the article, CATO has an interesting interactive map that identifies all the botched Paramilitary Police Raids. The map allows interactive restructuring of the map by various criteria, including state, death of an innocent, death of a law enforcement officer, death of a non-violent offender, raids on innocent people, and the year ranging from 1985 to 2006.
The reliance on confidential informants and the issue of police lying to obtain warrants to conduct both routine warrant service as well as no-knock raids is also back in the news. There are numerous case precedents regarding botched use of confidential informants that have led to bad situations. Even with well-established rules for using confidential informants, as well as guidelines for using incarcerated informants, there are far too many abuses and botched investigations to consider the practice as safe in terms of protecting civil liberties and the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Given the loose and often unconstitutional limits offered by the USA Patriot Act, presidential authority grabs via so-called "signing statements, and the ever-increasing trend for secret tactics and surveillance in this climate of fear-mongering, there needs to be external review and specific remedy made available to assure that our rights and the presumption of innocence are preserved and protected.
While the use of informants is a necessary tool for law enforcement, there needs to be more stringent oversight by front line law enforcement supervisors, as well as increased scrutiny by prosecutors before bringing the matter to a judge to obtain warrants and even more scrutiny by the judges sitting on the bench. The use of confidential informants should be precluded to cases where the information of the "CI" can be corroborated by other witnesses, surveillance evidence, forensics and the presentation of a "portfolio" of information strongly demonstrating probable cause.
The cancer of falsifying evidence and/or testimony in order to obtain a warrant has reached an epidemic level, if not pandemic from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The cancer is also metastasizing throughout our society because we are now living in a state of fear and expanding paranoia--some of it justifiable and reasonable, but most of it a symptom of fascism--that sees terrorist bogeymen everywhere, rather than isolated to specific minority groups with specific extremist views.
Additionally, corporate America has taken note that there is profit in the world of providing technology to security. Not only are sales of security technology and services on the rise to state and federal government agencies, but there are new twists that get travelers to pay for background checks and separate screening by some of that technology: For A Fee, Fliers Won't Shed Shoes
The idea that those with money can pay to wander through airport security with less inconvenience is yet another form of institutionalized elitism, discrimination and idiocy. Those of us that fly to see their families should have the same opportunities of those that have corporate expense accounts, independent wealth or influence. If the technology described is an effective screening tool for explosives, and it only takes 20-25 seconds to process an individual, why doesn't the FAA, TSA and the DHS spend some money to make our airports safer and use this technology immediately available to all air travelers? The only possible answer is that the government is in the business of discrimination, providing better service to those identified as "elite" and providing profit opportunities to big business rather than protecting and serving the general public as required by the Constition (c.f. Preamble requirements to promote the "general welfare" and provide security for all citizens).
But the federal government is so busy making sure that we are becoming the most fascist government in the new millenium and making sure it can operate without scrutiny that it doesn't have time for reason, justice, principle or adhering to the provisions of the Constitution.
posted by Jim Downey at 6:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home