When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Thursday, December 05, 2002
A California farm worker on his way home five years ago was grabbed by police in the midst of questioning a suspect and shot five times. Now he's paralyzed and blind in one eye and suing Oxnard police. Before the case was tried on the facts, an appeal as to the constitutional issues has gone up to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Attorney General jumped in with an argument that observers say would overturn the Miranda rule (You have the right to remain silent) created by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1966. A generation and a half has grown up with the right to an attorney.
Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, a Bush appointee, claims the government can coerce information from a witness, as long as the evidence obtained isn't used at trial against the witness, the LA Times article says.
An article on Common Dreams has a different take on the case than the LA Times. Writer Charles Sheehan-Miles states:
You can read the Department of Justice brief, which defends coersive police questioning in emergencies to protect the general public. Their argument seems compelling, but there was no emergency claimed in the Martinez case.
If the Supreme Court allows such sweeping reasoning for the Bush administration, they should equally allow the Martinez side to project the possiblity of police roundups of whole communities and wholesale torture. Usually the Supreme Court sticks pretty closely to the facts of a case in rendering a decision. With this court, however, there's no telling where they will go.
I'm old enough to recall the howl of outrage by police and their sympathizers when the Miranda rule was enunciated. Police claimed at the time they would never be able to bring criminals to justice without coersive testimony. At that time, use of the third degree was accepted practice. Use of beatings was accepted practice. It was accepted because it was assumed (often wrongly) that police would always get willing cooperation from innocent persons, and resistance only from guilty ones.
In the thirty-six years since Miranda, police have developed a host of other means of making their case. Forensic science has come into its own. Police do not need to beat or shoot people any more.
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
No more strawberries for Oliverio Martinez
A California farm worker on his way home five years ago was grabbed by police in the midst of questioning a suspect and shot five times. Now he's paralyzed and blind in one eye and suing Oxnard police. Before the case was tried on the facts, an appeal as to the constitutional issues has gone up to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Attorney General jumped in with an argument that observers say would overturn the Miranda rule (You have the right to remain silent) created by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1966. A generation and a half has grown up with the right to an attorney.
Officers will be told Miranda is not a constitutional right. If there is no right, and you are not liable, why should you honor the right to silence.... I think it means you will see more police using threats and violence to get people to talk. Innocent people will be subjected to very unpleasant experiences --University of Texas law professor Susan Klein, quoted in the Los Angeles Times
Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, a Bush appointee, claims the government can coerce information from a witness, as long as the evidence obtained isn't used at trial against the witness, the LA Times article says.
An article on Common Dreams has a different take on the case than the LA Times. Writer Charles Sheehan-Miles states:
In other words, Olsen plans to argue the police can detain or arrest anyone for any reason and then beat you up or even shoot you to get information, even if there are no emergent circumstances.
In other countries, this is called torture. In our country, we have the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution designed to prevent such horrendous abuses by the police. --Shoot Citizens, ask questions, then get a lawyer (maybe)
You can read the Department of Justice brief, which defends coersive police questioning in emergencies to protect the general public. Their argument seems compelling, but there was no emergency claimed in the Martinez case.
If the Supreme Court allows such sweeping reasoning for the Bush administration, they should equally allow the Martinez side to project the possiblity of police roundups of whole communities and wholesale torture. Usually the Supreme Court sticks pretty closely to the facts of a case in rendering a decision. With this court, however, there's no telling where they will go.
I'm old enough to recall the howl of outrage by police and their sympathizers when the Miranda rule was enunciated. Police claimed at the time they would never be able to bring criminals to justice without coersive testimony. At that time, use of the third degree was accepted practice. Use of beatings was accepted practice. It was accepted because it was assumed (often wrongly) that police would always get willing cooperation from innocent persons, and resistance only from guilty ones.
In the thirty-six years since Miranda, police have developed a host of other means of making their case. Forensic science has come into its own. Police do not need to beat or shoot people any more.
Palema
6:31 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|