michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 12, 2007 13:54:40 GMT 4
Court Says Military Cannot Hold 'Enemy Combatant' By ADAM LIPTAK Published: June 11, 2007 In a stinging rejection of one of the Bush administration’s central assertions about the scope of executive authority to combat terrorism, a federal appeals court ordered the Pentagon to release a man being held as an enemy combatant. “To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, “even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”
“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”The ruling was handed down by a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., in the case of Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar and the only person on the American mainland known to be held as an enemy combatant. Mr. Marri, whom the government calls a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, was arrested on Dec. 12, 2001, in Peoria, Ill., where he was living with his family and studying computer science at Bradley University. He has been held for the last four years at the Navy Brig in Charleston, S.C. Judge Motz wrote that Mr. Marri may well be guilty of serious crimes. But she said that the government cannot circumvent the civilian criminal justice system through military detention.Mr. Marri was charged with credit-card fraud and lying to federal agents after his arrest in 2001, and he was on the verge of a trial on those charges when he was moved into military detention in 2003. The government contended, in a partly declassified declaration from a senior defense intelligence official, Jeffrey N. Rapp, that Mr. Marri was a Qaeda sleeper agent sent to the United States to commit mass murder and disrupt the banking system. Two other men have been held as enemy combatants on the American mainland since the Sept. 11 attacks. One, Yaser Hamdi, was freed and sent to Saudi Arabia after the United States Supreme Court allowed him to challenge his detention in 2004. The other, Jose Padilla, was transferred to the criminal justice system last year just as the Supreme Court was considering whether to review his case. He is now on trial on terrorism charges in federal court in Miami. The decision does not appear to affect the rights of men held at the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Judge Motz stressed that the court analysis was limited to those who have substantial connections to the United States and are seized and detained within its borders. A dissenting judge in today’s decision, Henry E. Hudson, visiting from the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, wrote that President Bush “had the authority to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant or belligerent” because “he is the type of stealth warrior used by Al Qaeda to perpetrate terrorist acts against the United States.” Jonathan Hafetz, the litigation director of the Liberty and National Security Project of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law and one of Mr. Marri’s lawyers, said of the court’s decision : “This is landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for unchecked executive power. It affirms the basic constitutional rights of all individuals — citizens and immigrants - in the United States.”Writing for the majority, Judge Motz ordered the trial judge in the case to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the Pentagon “within a reasonable period of time” to do one of several things with Mr. Marri. He may be charged in the civilian court system; he may be deported; or he may be held as a material witness; or he may be released. “But military detention of al-Marri,” Judge Motz wrote, “must cease.” Source: NYTimes tinyurl.com/3xf4cg
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 19, 2007 15:45:08 GMT 4
Report: Bush "Signing Statements" May Have Affected Implementation of LawsBy Paul Kiel - June 18, 2007, 1:06 PM President Bush has claimed that his executive powers allow him to bypass more than 1,100 laws enacted since he took office -- in what are called "signing statements." But what has been unclear ever since The Boston Globe's landmark story on the statements (which won Charlie Savage a Pulitzer) is just what effect these obscure little statements, published in the federal register, have. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) wanted to know just that, so they asked for an analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, of last year's appropriations bills. The report, released today, is sure to lead to further investigation.The agency examined a sample of appropriations bills from last year, focusing on 19 provisions that were affected by a presidential signing statement added to a bill -- in each case, Bush invoked the "unitary executive" theory or some other justification for disputing the bill. The result: of the 19 provisions, six were not executed as authorized by Congress.Now, there's a major asterisk to these findings in the report and that's this: "Although we found the agencies did not execute the provisions as enacted, we cannot conclude that agency noncompliance was the result of the President’s signing statements." In other words, it's not clear that the agencies disobeyed the law because the president said they could disobey it. And it's also worth adding that of the six examples cited in the report, none of them have to do with the controversial assertions of presidential power dealing with issues of torture, domestic surveillance, etc. But the report does strengthen the argument, originally made in Savage's piece, that bureaucrats might take the president's word over Congress' when implementing laws. And in issues as vital as the conduct of special operations, treatment of detainees, and others, that's a worrisome thought.Both Conyers and Byrd, reacting to the report, are calling for more digging. “This study calls for an extensive review of these practices, something the Administration has so far refused to do," says Conyers. Sen. Byrd, saying that the "Administration cannot be in the business of cherry picking the laws it likes and the laws it doesn’t," said that the GAO report "underscores the fact that the Bush White House is constantly grabbing for more power, seeking to drive the people’s branch of government to the sidelines.... We must continue to demand accountability and openness from this White House to counter this power grab."Source: www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003457.php------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note from Michelle: You can view the Boston Globe article mentioned here on the previous page [page 3] of Constitutional Law which is followed by another post on Bush's "signing statements." Look for the following replies:Re: Constitutional Law « Reply #32 on May 2, 2006, 7:30pm » Bush Challenges Hundreds Of Laws President Cites Powers Of His Office Bush Has Quietly Claimed The Authority To Disobey More Than 750 Laws Enacted Since He Took Office, Asserting That He Has The Power To Set Aside Any Statute Passed By Congress When It Conflicts With His Interpretation Of The Constitution. By Charlie SavageRe: Constitutional Law « Reply #33 on May 7, 2006, 2:37pm » Sign Language Why does the press hold Bush to one constitutional standard and itself to another? By Michael Kinsley Updated Friday, May 5, 2006, at 6:21 AM ET
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 22, 2007 17:34:24 GMT 4
Cheney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don't Apply to HimGet this one. Vice President [sic] Dick Cheney has asserted his office is not a part of the executive branch of the U.S. government, and therefore not bound by a presidential order governing the protection of classified information by government agencies, according to a new letter from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to Cheney. What a boob the VP is! I wonder if he keeps the rock he crawled out from under in his office?!....Michelle Thursday, June 21, 2007 Administration Oversight Vice President Exempts His Office from the Requirements for Protecting Classified InformationThe Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.” As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President's position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President's executive order. In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. ... t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials." A fact sheet prepared by Chairman Waxman describes other instances in which the Vice President's office has sought to avoid oversight and accountability. [see link below]Source: oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1371------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fact Sheet: The Vice President's Efforts to Avoid Oversight and AccountabilityBy Rep. Henry A. Waxman Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 21 Jun 2007 Go To:oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621095118.pdf
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 27, 2007 13:38:09 GMT 4
Supreme Court Slams Courthouse Doors Shut on Taxpayers in Religious Liberty Case 6/25/2007 The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation limits the standing of individual taxpayers to challenge government expenditures that violate the Establishment Clause. It’s a bad day for the First Amendment. The Supreme Court just put a big dent in the wall of separation between church and state. This ruling will make it more difficult for citizens whose tax dollars are being unlawfully spent to subsidize religion to bring a complaint in court. It is also consistent with a broader strategy by right-wing judges and activists to restrict standing for average Americans to challenge powerful government and business interests.Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation was the first real opportunity for the Roberts Court to shape church-state law. It’s the Roberts Court’s first case concerning President Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Read more on this epic battle over the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. See today's post at:Re: Separation of church and state? yea right! « Reply #10 on 06/27/07 at 1:11pm » Supreme Court Slams Courthouse Doors Shut on Taxpayers in Religious Liberty Case tinyurl.com/yq7mtl
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 28, 2007 16:01:40 GMT 4
Color me happy! Cheney's in the spotlight tap dancing his way around lie after lie. You can refer to « Reply #47 on Jun 22, 2007, 5:34pm » Cheney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don't Apply to Him for more background info on the VP's staring role of a lifetime.....MichelleDems force Cheney to flip-flop on secret docs By: Mike Allen Jun 27, 2007 08:47 AM EST Updated: June 27, 2007 06:17 PM EST Dick Cheney's office is abandoning a justification for keeping the vice president's secret papers out of the hands of the National Archives, while asserting a new argument for withholding them.Officials working for Cheney had tried to claim he is separate from the executive branch, but they will no longer pursue that defense, senior administration officials tell The Politico. The decision follows a threat by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the No. 3 House Democrat, to try to cut off the office's $4.8 million in executive-branch funding, and a letter from Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) asking for the reasoning behind the argument.The dispute arose after House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) posted an eight-page letter he had written to Cheney taking issue with what he said was an assertion by the vice president's office last year that he is "not an 'entity within the executive branch' and hence is not subject to presidential executive orders." The vice president also serves as president of the Senate, a function that is part of the legislative branch. At issue was an executive order giving the National Archives oversight over the government's handling of classified information. David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff and counsel, wrote in a three-paragraph response to Kerry on Tuesday that the executive order on classified national security information does not give the archivists authority over the president or vice president.Addington said that therefore it "is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning." That amounted to throwing in the towel on the claim that the vice president is distinct from the executive branch, according to administration officials speaking on condition of anonymity, and the White House has no plans to reassert the argument. Kerry posted Addington's response on his Senate website, calling the letter "legalistic" and a continued attempt to "duck and dodge on agency scrutiny, classified documents." [see letter below]Two senior Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the rationale had been the view of the vice president's lawyers, not Cheney himself. White House spokespeople have been struggling to answer questions about the argument without repeating, amplifying or embracing it. Blogs, comics and pundits feasted on the neither-fish-nor-fowl argument, with Jon Stewart joking on "The Daily Show" Tuesday night that the vice president may be "half she-wolf." Now, a senior administration official tells The Politico: "It's a moot point to get into executive functions and legislative functions because of the executive order's intent. That trumps all, because it is what the president intended." Emanuel, who has scheduled a vote on Cheney's funding for Thursday, said the change makes it clear that the White House "told Cheney that he would have to come up with another excuse -- that this was not sustainable in the public arena." Emanuel said the vote is still planned and the new argument means the vice president needs to comply with National Archives requirements. White House press secretary Tony Snow read from the Addington letter at his briefing on Tuesday but said he was going to leave the constitutional parsing to others. "The vice president is the president of the Senate," Snow said. "It is a wonderful academic question and I'm just not going to go any further than we've gone to date." Kerry's office says it has sent Addington a letter with more questions. A senior Senate aide said Kerry had considered the Cheney contention to be "Orwellian."UPDATE: Kerry called the Addington letter "legalistic" and a continued attempt to "duck and dodge on agency scrutiny, classified documents." He has posted it on his Senate Web site. In his original letter, dated Monday, Kerry said: "In the interest of transparency I request the reasoning behind any claims that the Office of the Vice President does not fall under the executive branch. Additionally, given that the Office of the Vice President has not been issuing reports or allowing inspectors to verify any safeguards, I would like to know what steps the Office is taking to protect classified information." Source: www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4679.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Link for the Addington letter:kerry.senate.gov/newsroom/pdf/Addington_Letter.pdf------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Senators subpoena White House over illegal surveillance programme By Leonard Doyle in Washington Published: 28 June 2007 The Bush administration may soon face a courtroom showdown over its secret eavesdropping programme after subpoenas were issued to the White House, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and the Justice Department. There is a storm gathering over Mr Cheney in particular, with increasingly vocal demands for his impeachment for "political crimes against the nation".
The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to know the legal basis, if any, for the placing of wiretaps on American citizens without court warrants, as part of the war on terror.These taps were placed by the National Security Agency, which runs a vast international electronic eavesdropping and codebreaking web with Britain's GCHQ. When reports emerged in the media of the wiretaps, it provoked widespread anger. The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy gave the Bush administration until 18 July to hand over documents which the White House described last week as highly classified and off limits.Senator Leahy wrote: "Over the past 18 months, this committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorisation of and legal justification for this programme." The eavesdropping programme began after the attacks of 11 September 2001. It allowed monitoring of terror suspects' phone calls, emails and financial transactions in and out of the US. It is not known how many intercepts were made, nor how widely the net was cast or whether it included opponents of the US invasion of Iraq. An increasingly aggressive Congress is now focused on Mr Cheney. He is identified as the driving influence over President Bush in America's war on terror - blamed for allowing the US military to torture terror suspects in their custody and for sweeping away a longstanding ban on assassinations.
Yesterday's move is the most assertive by Congress since the Democrats took control of the House last year. It all emerged from the extraordinary testimony to the Senate last month in which a justice official described a confrontation with the former attorney general John Ashcroft when he refused to give legal cover to the secret surveillance activities. The whistleblower, James Comey, described a furious row between top White House emissaries and Justice Department officials over the wiretaps.Ever fearful of being branded soft in the war on terrorism, this testimony gave the Democrats the opening they needed to discover whether President Bush broke the law when ordering the surveillance. The Vice-President is accused of grasping and exercising presidential powers, dodging political accountability and violating the Constitution.Most recently he refused to respond to an order governing classified documents, by claiming that because of his role as president of the Senate he was not part of the executive branch of government. At a stroke he argued that he was above and beyond the Constitution. Source:news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2717306.ece
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 19, 2007 14:06:47 GMT 4
Another Set up For The American People: Searching Your Home Without a Warrant
'The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause.' Here we go again, folks, they're testing the waters of public reaction to another violation of your Constitutional Rights. They'll single out low-income, high crime populations at first and bank on the fact that many Americans will say, "Well, this doesn't pertain to me, and they're only making our streets safer.".......Wake up! They always use society's undesirables in this manner to push this type of action until it becomes acceptable to the general population and then....they come for us ALL..............MichelleBoston, Tucson embrace the police state with a lingering French kiss "Take my house keys. Come back any time you like."Sunday, November 18, 2007 by Mark Yannone Marketed as a tool to empower parents, warrantless door-to-door police searches for drugs and weapons have come to Boston.In theory, the groups of three plain-clothed police officers will ask for permission to conduct the searches, and if the parents refuse, then they will simply leave. But when three cops knock on their doors, will parents be too intimidated to stand on their constitutionally protected rights to tell them to go to hell? If Boston is anything like Saint Louis, the answer is yes. The very first year they tried this in Saint Louis, a full 98 percent of the households approached opened their doors wide and said, "Come on in!"Ninety-eight percent. Not even a Stop sign gets that level of cooperation.Americans are schooled but uneducated--completely unaware of their rights and responsibilities--so this ruse is easy to pull off. It's even easier in Tucson, Arizona, a state in which scholastic achievement is renown for being just about the worst in the nation. There the parents actually call the police to inspect their eight-year-olds' bedrooms. "9-1-1. What is your emergency?" "Uhh, could you send over some cops to look under Bobby's bed? I think he might have a baseball cap with a gang symbol on it, maybe. Who knows what he might have under there?" "Yes, ma'am. Three officers have been dispatched." Tucson markets this as an educational tool. It's just what you might expect when an uneducated generation gives birth and then tries to teach the new generation. The blind are leading the blind, as time permits. Low productivity and high cost of government guarantee that most of the adults' non-TV time is consumed by commuting and working for a paycheck to pay taxes, so there's not a lot of free time to spend on guidance, supervision, and other such luxuries of child rearing. That's a shame because the goal of the state, which has seized control of education, is to make sure that increasing numbers of otherwise productive individuals are prevented from being educated, in order to boost compliance with state authority and to increase the state's prison population.A 98 percent compliance rate, the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and a population of some of the stupidest people this country has ever seen show those who can still read that the state has been wildly successful. [see post on education, especially the 2nd part of my commentary here: tinyurl.com/36ll42 ]Now, unless you're watching the game and having a Bud, get back to work. You have new government programs to pay for. Sunday, November 18, 2007 Source:yannone.blogspot.com/2007/11/boston-tucson-embrace-police-state-with.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Police to search for guns in homes City program depends on parental consentBy Maria Cramer, Globe Staff | November 17, 2007 Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms. The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households. In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave. If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide. The program was unveiled yesterday by Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis in a meeting with several community leaders. "I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution," said Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who now teaches criminology at Boston University. "The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."
Critics said they worry that some residents will be too intimidated by a police presence on their doorstep to say no to a search.
"Our biggest concern is the notion of informed consent," said Amy Reichbach, a racial justice advocate at the American Civil Liberties Union. "People might not understand the implications of weapons being tested or any contraband being found."But Davis said the point of the program, dubbed Safe Homes, is to make streets safer, not to incarcerate people. "This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case," said Davis, who met with community leaders yesterday to get feedback on the program. "This is a seizing of a very dangerous object. . . . "I understand people's concerns about this, but the mothers of the young men who have been arrested with firearms that I've talked to are in a quandary," he said. "They don't know what to do when faced with the problem of dealing with a teenage boy in possession of a firearm. We're giving them an option in that case." But some activists questioned whether the program would reduce the number of weapons on the street. A criminal whose gun is seized can quickly obtain another, said Jorge Martinez, executive director of Project Right, who Davis briefed on the program earlier this week. "There is still an individual who is an impact player who is not going to change because you've taken the gun from the household," he said. The program will focus on juveniles 17 and younger and is modeled on an effort started in 1994 by the St. Louis Police Department, which stopped the program in 1999 partly because funding ran out. Police said they will not search the homes of teenagers they suspect have been involved in shootings or homicides and who investigators are trying to prosecute. "In a case where we have investigative leads or there is an impact player that we know has been involved in serious criminal activity, we will pursue investigative leads against them and attempt to get into that house with a search warrant, so we can hold them accountable," Davis said. Police will rely primarily on tips from neighbors. They will also follow tips from the department's anonymous hot line and investigators' own intelligence to decide what doors to knock on. A team of about 12 officers will visit homes in four Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods: Grove Hall, Bowdoin Street and Geneva Avenue, Franklin Hill and Franklin Field, and Egleston Square. If drugs are found, it will be up to the officers' discretion whether to make an arrest, but police said modest amounts of drugs like marijuana will simply be confiscated and will not lead to charges. "A kilo of cocaine would not be considered modest," said Elaine Driscoll, Davis's spokeswoman. "The officers that have been trained have been taught discretion." The program will target young people whose parents are either afraid to confront them or unaware that they might be stashing weapons, said Davis, who has been trying to gain support from community leaders for the past several weeks. One of the first to back him was the Rev. Jeffrey L. Brown, cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, who attended yesterday's meeting. "What I like about this program is it really is a tool to empower the parent," he said. "It's a way in which they can get a hold of the household and say, 'I don't want that in my house.' " Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, whose support was crucial for police to guarantee there would be no prosecution, also agreed to back the initiative. "To me it's a preventive tool," he said. Boston police officials touted the success of the St. Louis program's first year, when 98 percent of people approached gave consent and St. Louis police seized guns from about half of the homes they searched. St. Louis police reassured skeptics by letting them observe searches, said Robert Heimberger, a retired St. Louis police sergeant who was part of the program. "We had parents that invited us back, and a couple of them nearly insisted that we take keys to their house and come back anytime we wanted," he said. But the number of people who gave consent plunged in the next four years, as the police chief who spearheaded the effort left and department support fell, according to a report published by the National Institute of Justice. Support might also have flagged because over time police began to rely more on their own intelligence than on neighborhood tips, the report said. Heimberger said the program also suffered after clergy leaders who were supposed to offer help to parents never appeared. "I became frustrated when I'd get the second, or third, or fourth phone call from someone who said, 'No one has come to talk to me,' " he said. Residents "lost faith in the program and that hurt us." Boston police plan to hold neighborhood meetings to inform the public about the program. Police are also promising follow-up visits from clergy or social workers, and they plan to allow the same scrutiny that St. Louis did. "We want the community to know what we're doing," Driscoll said. Ronald Odom - whose son, Steven, 13, was fatally shot last month as he walked home from basketball practice - was at yesterday's meeting and said the program is a step in the right direction. "Everyone talks about curbing violence," he said, following the meeting. ". . . This is definitely a head start." Maria Cramer can be reached at mcramer@globe.com. Source: www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/17/police_to_search_for_guns_in_homes/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cops offer to search children's bedrooms Parents' OK could bust kids as young as 8 under new TPD anti-gang effort By Dale Quinn and Josh Brodesky arizona daily star Tucson, Arizona | Published: 11.04.2007 The long arm of the law knows no limits ¡ª especially when it comes to searching through the belongings of Tucson's troubled youths. With the consent of parents, the Tucson Police Department's newly-formed gang-outreach unit is searching the rooms of kids in the program. The searches, police and City Council members say, are meant to be educational, showing concerned parents signs of gang activity. But they've raised the eyebrows of several neighborhood leaders, who view the searches as intrusive and heavy-handed ¡ª particularly since the gang unit deals with kids as young as 8 years old and the searches could lead to arrests. "Ultimately our goal is to help these kids stay away from gangs," said Sgt. Greg Mammana, who heads the gang unit. "It's all done on a consent basis. ¡ There is nothing in terms of us going in there to identify stuff to arrest anyone."
But Mammana acknowledged that if criminal evidence was found, police would take appropriate action. [?? DoubleSpeak!] Both parents and their children sign a consent form before the search takes place, Mammana said, and the youngsters don't have to agree to the search to stay in the program. But all of the teens involved in the program have agreed to the searches. So far, no arrests have resulted. There are eight children now in the fledgling program, ranging in age from 8 to 16, and three more are interested in joining. Councilwoman Nina Trasoff said the searches might sound a bit over the top, particularly given the ages of the kids. But she said the searches will help parents better understand their children. "Sometimes, it takes that kind of intervention to identify the fact that there really is a problem so that parents get involved," she said. "And the program, it's not just this. ¡ It is the police working on education projects, enrichment projects and working with the family to help strengthen the family." And while she expressed some moderate concern about the technique's being invasive, she said she "would hate to have that one element isolated out" from what she sees as a good program. But several community leaders, who live in neighborhoods that have seen more than their fair share of gangs, were skeptical about the searches.
"It's easy to understand that trends change and keeping people up to date is important, but when you are doing something inside someone's home, that's kind of like a teacher coming to your house and saying, 'Do you have a space set up for Johnny?' " said Joe Miller, president of the Southwest Side Midvale Park Neighborhood Association.
Miller said he could easily see a situation where an arrest was made, and what was supposed to be a positive relationship with police became adversarial.
Margaret McKenna, president of the Barrio Hollywood Neighborhood Association, on the city's West Side, said she hadn't heard of the searches, but she didn't think it was something she would personally support.
"I'm an advocate for TPD because of what they helped us accomplish in Barrio Hollywood, but I don't know about this searching. I don't think so." James Quinn, vice president of the Miracle Manor Neighborhood Association, has worked hard to reduce crime in his North Side neighborhood. The intent of the gang-outreach unit ¡ª helping divert children from the wrong track ¡ª sounded good to him. But the room searches come "real close to some problem areas," he said. Some parents might need the extra help, he said. Parents are busy and it can be difficult to keep track of what children are up to, especially when a lot of children intentionally try to deceive their parents. Educational or not, invasive or not, there is nothing illegal about the searches, said Gabriel "Jack" Chin, a professor at the University of Arizona's James E. Roger College of Law. "The rules regarding consent say if the person has control over the area, they can allow the police to search it," he said. As such, it's not uncommon to hear spouses or partners calling in the police to search the rooms and belongings of their significant others. If adults can call in searches on other adults, parents can call in searches of their kids. "There's the question of whether the law should be that way," Chin said. "But in terms of what the law is today, that's legal." ¡ñ To contact reporters: Dale Quinn, 629-9412 or dquinn@azstarnet.com; Josh Brodesky, 807-7789 or jbrodesky@azstarnet.com. Source: www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/209842.php
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Aug 21, 2008 13:46:16 GMT 4
Do Native Americans Have First Amendment Rights?Wednesday 20 August 2008 by: Leslie Thatcher, t r u t h o u t | Interview Ninth Circuit rules effluent does not defile sacred space. Forest Service argued skiing on treated sewage "a compelling government interest." The San Francisco Peaks of Northern Arizona "are sacred to at least 13 formally recognized Indian tribes ... and this religious significance is of centuries duration."(1) In February 2005, the US Forest Service issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision approving a proposal to make artificial snow using treated sewage effluent at the Snowbowl Resort located on Humphrey's Peak, the highest and - to the tribes - most holy of the San Francisco Peaks. That decision was appealed by the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation and the White Mountain Apache Nation. The Circuit Court ruled for the Forest Service. In February 2007, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court unanimously overturned the lower court's decision. On Friday, August 8, 2008, the en banc majority of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that "using treated sewage effluent to make artificial snow on the most sacred mountain of southwestern Indian tribes does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ('RFRA'). It also holds that a supposed pleading mistake prevents the tribes from arguing under the National Environmental Act ('NEPA') that the Forest Service failed to consider the likelihood that children and others would ingest snow made from the effluent."(2) On August 18, Leslie Thatcher, of Truthout, spoke with the Navajo Nation's lead attorney in the case, Howard Shanker, who is also running in the Democratic primary for Arizona Congressional District One, the seat currently held by retiring Representative Rick Renzi (R-Arizona), presently under indictment for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering, and other charges related to an Arizona land deal. Leslie Thatcher, for Truthout: Howard, what do you consider the most important issues in the Snowbowl case to be? The San Francisco Peaks are federal land and the government has documented for years that the Peaks - especially Humphreys where Snowbowl is located - are sacred to local tribes. Nonetheless, the Feds issued a special use permit to operate a ski resort there that was unsuccessfully challenged in the 1970's. Most recently, the Forest Service ruled that the resort could pipe up to 1.5 million gallons of treated sewage effluent to the resort for snowmaking in winters when natural snowfall is inadequate. The tribes have appealed that ruling. The central issue that's going on and that's really important is that Native tribes have no First Amendment rights when it comes to government land-use decisions. And the federal government holds thousands of acres of land across the country that the tribes hold sacred. Up until we used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA] successfully, there was no way for the tribes to challenge federal use of sacred lands. Now, they have to show there is a compelling government interest and that they are using the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest when government action substantially burdens the exercise of religion. The current ruling is that there is no substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The judges have said there is no objective evidence of impact on religious belief and practice. Short of producing God in the courtroom, there's no way to produce "objective" evidence. A Navajo elder testified that putting effluent on the mountain would be like raping his mother. Other testimonies - the sincerity of which were never challenged - described the disruptions to the spiritual world and contamination of the ritual purity of materials essential to Native ceremonies that spraying the effluent would result in. The en banc court adopted a very restrictive reading of "Sherbet and Yoder" that does not seem to speak to the statute. In any event, spraying the Peaks can certainly be interpreted as a form of punishment or coercion. The tribes appealed the Forest Service decision under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rather than the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Can you explain how the RFRA differs from the First Amendment and why Congress passed the act? In "Smith," the Supreme Court said laws of general application can't constitute a general burden under the Constitution. So then, Congress passed RFRA to say that even though a law may be of general applicability, if it results in a substantial burden to the exercise of religion, you have to do this balancing of interests. Then in 2003, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act [RLUIPA] amending and broadening RFRA's definition of "exercise of religion." The Ninth Circuit Court dissent, written by Judge Fletcher, joined by Judges Pregerson and Fisher, notes that "Under our prior case law, a 'substantial burden' on the 'exercise of religion' exists where government action prevents an individual 'from engaging in [religious] conduct or having a religious experience' and the interference is 'more than an inconvenience.'" Can you explain how spraying up to 1.5 million gallons of effluent a day on the sacred mountains burdens the various plaintiff tribes' exercise of religion? For the Hopi, the Mountain is where the Katsina live; that's their only sacred mountain; the Katsina are responsible for making the moisture that is essential to Hopi life. It was on Mt. Humphreys that the Hopi had their revelation and they return there for pilgrimages. For the Navajo, it's one of four sacred mountains, but it is essential to all blessing way ceremonies which depend on ritually pure materials gathered from the mountain. The tribes see the Peaks as a single living entity; this is a living being. You can't poison just one part of it without poisoning the whole. One man testified that current ski runs are like a scar on the body, something the body can live with, but that putting effluent on the Peaks is like a toxic injection. For the Apache, the mountain is where souls go after death; the transfer station of souls to Heaven and the spraying will interfere with that operation. For both the Hualapai and the Navajo, the mountain is their Garden of Eden, where life started. The government has never questioned the specific special holiness of these mountains to the Native tribes. In fact, in the very beginning, the National Historic Preservation Act uses the Peaks as an example of a sacred space. Do I understand correctly that the Forest Service essentially admitted the burden to the tribes' exercise of their religion, but argued there was a "compelling government interest" in allowing snowmaking? What interest is that? The lower court found that we didn't show substantial burden, but it also found that the federal government had compelling interest in skier safety. That makes no sense since the best way of eliminating the possibility of accidents would be to ban skiing entirely. The lower court found there was a compelling government interest - you have to understand, compelling government interest is a very heavy-duty term, the kind of thing they wield to prevent epidemics - in government land management, although the Forest Service specifically said that the absence of snowmaking would not prevent recreational land use. Finally, the lower court ruled that there was a compelling interest because NOT spraying artificial snow would create "religious servitude," as though failing to injure a religion created religious servitude. In the dissent, Judge Fletcher writes, "The Majority's misunderstanding of the nature of religious belief and exercise as merely 'subjective' is an excuse for refusing to accept the Indians' religion as worthy of protection under the RFRA." Can you explain the difference in the three-judge panel understanding of what religion is versus that of the en banc majority? I don't know; is that the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Seriously, the majority of the en banc panel becomes arbiters of religion, whereas what they're supposed to do is make a determination that a religion is sincere and then rule in accord with the law. The last thing we want is for our judges to become arbiters of religion. The majority ruled that the use of effluent on the Peaks would change only the tribes' "subjective spiritual experience." In the dissent, Judge Fletcher suggested a thought experiment: What if the government ordered that all water in baptismal fonts had to be this same treated sewage effluent? How can non-Native people be sensitized to the Peaks' position as Sinai, Jerusalem, the sole source of living waters, the home of the deities for the plaintiff tribes? I don't know the answer, but that's exactly right; that's what needs to happen. I'm outraged; I get all choked up when I talk about it or think about it. As a nation where we pay lip service to and pride ourselves on religious freedom and religious diversity, it's outrageous that we designate Native Americans and their religious beliefs for lesser treatment, and that's one reason I'm running for Congress. I understand that all across the United States, the Snowbowl case is a primary concern of Native Americans in their dealings with the United States government and its agencies. What possible repercussions does this case have locally and nationally? Native Americans have no First Amendment rights and can't protect their sacred sites. Of course they're upset about it. It's a politically charged issue. In the end, you have a for-profit, private, federal government bailout for a private corporation doomed by global warming at the cost of desecrating land sacred to hundreds of thousands of people. The majority also disallowed a pleading in violation of NEPA for technical legal reasons. What specific issues did the NEPA fail to address? The Environmental Impact Study did not address the probability of children and others eating the snow. The court ruled against us on all our environmental issues. The first panel ruled in our favor on the NEPA issue that no analysis had been conducted on snow eating, so the en banc Ninth Circuit concocted a procedural irregularity rather than ruling. We had also pleaded that the NEPA never considered the impact of withdrawing the present daily discharge into the Rio de Flag versus spraying it on the mountain. The other NEPA issue was that there was no adequate response to the report by Dr. Paul Torrence on endocrine-disrupting and other chemical residues in the treated effluent. After the sewage is treated, what chemicals, bacteria and viruses remain in the effluent that will be used to make snow? Detectable levels of enteric bacteria, viruses and protozoa, including Cryptosporidium and Giardia. There's not only a host of what they call endocrine-disruptors, which feminize amphibians, but also traces of birth control drugs, Viagra, Prozac, Valium, Claritin and other pharmaceuticals. There is Triclosan, which breaks down to become dioxin, the active agent in Agent Orange, and a number of other chemicals. The lawyers for the other side got up and declared that the effluent meets drinking water standards, but the fact is that when they test drinking water, they don't test for the stuff that's in industrial or other waste water, so that was a completely misleading statement. Did the Forest Service evaluate the impact of long-term exposure to the effluent for humans or the environment? No. The NEPA was contracted by the Snowbowl owner to a company that specializes in the development and construction of ski areas. Did the case address the inherent conflict of interest of having the environmental impact assessed by a company reasonably likely to profit from a specific outcome? No, that's what they always do. The three-judge panel questioned the Justice Department lawyer as to whether the Justice Department or the Forest Service were getting money, but that didn't go anywhere. What do you think? I think the whole thing stinks. I think the Forest Service never should have approved this in the first place. In the lower court, we also had a number of other allegations. Now we're just talking about the ones that went up on appeal. Do you expect the tribes to appeal the current decision to the Supreme Court? I do. Would you expect the Supreme Court to hear the case? You know, they hear very few cases, but I suspect they might hear this one. How do you think it would go? If we don't think it'll go well, we'd have to talk about whether to do it or not. But I think my clients are pretty adamant about appealing. This is really important to them. Howard how have you been personally affected by arguing this case? This has been a learning experience for me and a growing experience for me and I am personally committed to doing whatever it takes to continue this struggle. The fight for justice didn't begin today, but it also doesn't end today, You live and work in Flagstaff. What attitudes characterize non-Native American locals to the snow-making issue? It's depends. There are a lot of non-Natives and people of all walks of life, people of conscience, who support the tribes. There are some people who are just skiers and that's the beginning and the end of it for them. Then there are some people who are opposed. The Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce is collecting money and giving it to the millionaire's consortium to fight this case. Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce President Julie Pastrick argues that the decision will lead to year-round job creation and higher winter receipts at local businesses. Is that accurate so far as you know? The record shows Snowbowl pays no city taxes and accounts for less than 1 percent of the Bed Board and Beverage taxes collected by the city. There is literally no correlation between Snowbowl doing well and local businesses doing well. Studies actually show Flagstaff does better when streets are clear in the winter since it's a regional shopping hub. Channel 2 came and asked me about that, and when I showed them the statistics, they went back to the Chamber of Commerce and they said the Chamber said, "Shanker should mind his own business." You know the Chamber organizes the Fourth of July parade, and when I signed up to put in a Shanker for Congress float, they put it last in the parade and told me any money I gave would go to the "Reclaim the Peaks" campaign. There's a lot of racially-driven commentary and whispering campaigns, like, "the Indians really want to keep everybody out," which is ridiculous since "everybody" is already there, and that they want to build a casino on the Peaks, which is even more ridiculous when you know the parties involved. There's a rumor that Sunrise Resort in the White Mountains uses reclaimed water, but that mountain is not sacred; that land is not federal and the water being used is not sewage. You are running in the September 2nd primary to become the Democratic candidate to represent Arizona's First District. What led you to enter the race? As I said earlier, this case has been a big factor. What are the most serious issues facing the District at this time? How does your approach differ from that of the other Democratic candidates? This is the largest geographic district in the nation that's not one state and it's incredibly diverse. The district comprises the Navajo Nation and other tribes, Flagstaff and Sedona, the mining towns of Miami and Globe and a new residential division south of Phoenix, so there are a lot of different issues facing the different parts of the District. I've been really honored by some of the endorsements, like that of the Diné Hataalii Association (Navajo Medicine Men) who have never endorsed a candidate before. I also represent the Navajo on uranium contamination issues. My approach is really not driven by party affiliation or ideology and I found out it is much more progressive. I've been endorsed by the Progressive Democrats of America. I'm running as a Democrat, but I frankly think both the Republicans and the Democrats running have an interest in maintaining the status quo. And the status quo is broken. Thank you, Howard Shanker. Thank you. And please remind any registered Democrats in Arizona's District One to vote in the September 2 primary! End Note: Judge Fletcher concluded his dissent from the majority opinion: The San Francisco Peaks have been at the center of religious beliefs and practices of Indian tribes of the Southwest since time out of mind. Humphrey's Peak, the holiest of the San Francisco peaks, will from this time forward be desecrated and spiritually impure. In part, the majority justifies its holding on the ground that what it calls "public park land" is land that "belongs to everyone." Maj. op. at 10042. There is a tragic irony in this justification. The United States government took this land from the Indians by force. The majority now uses that forcible deprivation as a justification for spraying treated sewage effluent on the holiest of the Indians' holy mountains, and for refusing to recognize this action constitutes a substantial burden on the Indians' exercise of their religion. RFRA was passed to protect the exercise of all religions, including the religions of American Indians. If Indians' land-based exercise of religion is not protected by RFRA in this case, I cannot imagine a case in which it will be. I am truly sorry the majority has effectively read American Indians out of RFRA. (1) (1) Dissent in Navajo Nation v. USFS. pp.10077-78. (2) Ibid., p. 10076. (3) Ibid., p. 10137. --------- Leslie Thatcher is Truthout's French Language Editor. Source:www.truthout.org/article/do-native-americans-have-first-amendment-rights------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note From Michelle: I'm going to give Howard Shanker a plug here. He has been endorsed by the Progressive Democrats of America and I like the new breed of candidates they are introducing. Howard Shanker has a masters degree in public administration and a law degree from Georgetown. At one time he worked for the Department of Justice and more recently President Clinton appointed him to serve on the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Enforcement Subcommittee. His law firm specializes in civil rights, natural resources and environmental work and he's an adjunct professor at ASU Law School where he teaches courses on environmental justice and environmental litigation. As a private citizen, he has done much in regard to preserving the quality of life and the environment in his area.
His home page is: www.howardshankerforcongress.com/Here is his Plan for Economic Growth [he's so logical!!!]:www.howardshankerforcongress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=177&Itemid=53
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Aug 28, 2008 22:38:59 GMT 4
Slavery Haunts America's Plantation PrisonsGuess what, folks? Slavery is alive and well in the 'Land of the Free' and is explicitly authorized by the Constitution. There's is a little known clause in the 13th Amendment that is utilized to justify slavery-like practices in some of our prisons. My State of Pennsylvania's prisons still show signs of this once common practice until our state government said it was a form of slavery...Now, in the South, it's a different story.....MichelleSlavery Haunts America's Plantation PrisonsThursday 28 August 2008 by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report On an expanse of 18,000 acres of farmland, 59 miles northwest of Baton Rouge, long rows of men, mostly African-American, till the fields under the hot Louisiana sun. The men pick cotton, wheat, soybeans and corn. They work for pennies, literally. Armed guards, mostly white, ride up and down the rows on horseback, keeping watch. At the end of a long workweek, a bad disciplinary report from a guard - whether true or false - could mean a weekend toiling in the fields. The farm is called Angola, after the homeland of the slaves who first worked its soil. This scene is not a glimpse of plantation days long gone by. It's the present-day reality of thousands of prisoners at the maximum security Louisiana State Penitentiary, otherwise known as Angola. The block of land on which the prison sits is a composite of several slave plantations, bought up in the decades following the Civil War. Acre-wise, it is the largest prison in the United States. Eighty percent of its prisoners are African-American. "Angola is disturbing every time I go there," Tory Pegram, who coordinates the International Coalition to Free the Angola 3, told Truthout. "It's not even really a metaphor for slavery. Slavery is what's going on." Mwalimu Johnson, who spent 15 years as a prisoner at the penitentiary and now works as executive secretary of the Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana, concurred. "I would truthfully say that Angola prison is a sophisticated plantation," Johnson told Truthout. "'Cotton is King' still applies when it come to Angola." Angola is not alone. Sixteen percent of Louisiana prisoners are compelled to perform farm labor, as are 17 percent of Texas prisoners and a full 40 percent of Arkansas prisoners, according to the 2002 Corrections Yearbook, compiled by the Criminal Justice Institute. They are paid little to nothing for planting and picking the same crops harvested by slaves 150 years ago.Many prison farms, Angola included, have gruesome post-bellum histories. In the 1950s, '60s and '70s, Angola made news with a host of assaults - and killings - of inmates by guards. In 1952, a group of Angola prisoners found their work conditions so oppressive that they resorted to cutting their Achilles' tendons in protest. At Mississippi's Parchman Farm, another plantation-to-prison convert, prisoners were routinely subjected to near-death whippings and even shootings for the first half of the 20th century. Cummins Farm, in Arkansas, sported a "prison hospital" that doubled as a torture chamber until a federal investigation exposed it in 1970. And Texas's Jester State Prison Farm, formerly Harlem Prison Farm, garnered its claim to fame from eight prisoners who suffocated to death after being sealed into a tiny cell and abandoned by guards. Since a wave of activism forced prison farm brutalities into the spotlight in the 1970s, some reforms have taken place: At Angola, for example, prison violence has been significantly reduced. But to a large extent, the official stories have been repackaged. State correctional departments now portray prison farm labor as educational or vocational opportunities, as opposed to involuntary servitude. The Alabama Department of Corrections web site, for example, states that its "Agriculture Program" "allows inmates to be trained in work habits and allows them to develop marketable skills in the areas of: Farming, Animal Husbandry, Vegetable, meat, and milk processing." According to Angola's web site, "massive reform" has transformed the prison into a "stable, safe and constitutional" environment. A host of new faith-based programs at Angola have gotten a lot of media play, including features in The Washington Post and The Christian Science Monitor. Cathy Fontenot, Angola's assistant warden, told Truthout that the penitentiary is now widely known as an "innovative and progressive prison." "The warden says it takes good food, good medicine, good prayin' and good playin' to have a good prison," Fontenot said, referring to the head warden, Burl Cain. "Angola has all these." [ Yes, and back in history, some plantation owners would read from the Bible as they whipped their slaves...M] However, the makeover has been markedly incomplete, according to prisoners and their advocates. "Most of the changes are cosmetic," said Johnson, who was released from Angola in 1992 and, in his new capacity as a prison rights advocate, stays in contact with Angola prisoners. "In the conventional plantations, slaves were given just enough food, clothing and shelter to be a financial asset to the owner. The same is true for the Louisiana prison system." Wages for agricultural and industrial prison labor are still almost nonexistent compared with the federal minimum wage. Angola prisoners are paid anywhere from four to twenty cents per hour, according to Fontenot. Agricultural laborers fall on the lowest end of the pay scale. What's more, prisoners may keep only half the money they make, according to Johnson, who notes that the other half is placed in an account for prisoners to use to "set themselves up" after they're released. Besides the fact that two cents an hour may not accumulate much of a start-up fund, there is one glaring peculiarity about this arrangement: due to some of the harshest sentencing practices in the country, most Angola prisoners are never released. Ninety-seven percent will die in prison, according to Fontenot. (Ironically, the "progressive" label may well apply to Angola, relative to some locations: In Texas, Arkansas and Georgia, most prison farms pay nothing at all.) Angola prisoners technically work eight-hour days. However, since extra work can be mandated as a punishment for "bad behavior," hours may pile up well over that limit, former prisoner Robert King told Truthout. "Prisoners worked out in the field, sometimes 17 hours straight, rain or shine," remembered King, who spent 29 years in solitary confinement at Angola, until he was released in 2001 after proving his innocence of the crime for which he was incarcerated. It's common for Angola prisoners to work 65 hours a week after disciplinary reports have been filed, according to Johnson. Yet, those reports don't necessarily indicate that a prisoner has violated any rules. Johnson describes guards writing out reports well before the weekend, fabricating incident citations, then filling in prisoners' names on Friday, sometimes at random. Those prisoners would then spend their weekend in the cotton fields. Although mechanical cotton pickers are almost universally used on modern-day farms, Angola prisoners must harvest by hand, echoing the exact ritual that characterized the plantation before emancipation. According to King, these practices are undergirded by entrenched notions of race-based authority. "Guards talked to prisoners like slaves," King told Truthout. "They'd tell you the officer was always right, no matter what." During the 1970s, prisoners were routinely beaten or "dungeonized" without cause, King said. Now, guards' power abuses are more expertly concealed, but they persist, fed by racist assumptions, according to King. Johnson described some of the white guards burning crosses on prison lawns. Much of this overt racism stems from the way the basic system - and even the basic population - of Angola and its environs have remained static since the days of slavery, according to Pegram. After the plantation was converted to a prison, former plantation overseers and their descendants kept their general roles, becoming prison officials and guards. This white overseer community, called B-Line, is located on the farm's grounds, both close to the prisoners and completely separate from them. In addition to their prison labor, Angola's inmates do free work for B-Line residents, from cutting their grass to trimming their hair to cleaning up Prison View Golf Course, the only course in the country where players can watch prisoners laboring as they golf. Another landmark of the town, the Angola Prison Museum, is also run by multi-generation Angola residents. The museum exhibits "Old Sparky," the solid oak electric chair used for executions at Angola until 1991. Visitors can purchase shirts that read, "Angola: A Gated Community." [!!!...big sigh...M] Despite its antebellum MO, Angola's labor system does not break the law. In fact, it is explicitly authorized by the Constitution. The 13th Amendment, which prohibits forced labor, contains a caveat. It reads, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States." That clause has a history of being manipulated, according to Fordham Law Professor Robert Kaczorowski, who has written extensively on civil rights and the Constitution. Directly after the 13th Amendment was enacted, it began to be utilized to justify slavery-like practices, according to Kaczorowski. Throughout the South, former slaves were arrested for trivial crimes (vagrancy, for example), fined, and imprisoned when they could not pay their fines. Then, landowners could supply the fine in exchange for the prisoner's labor, essentially perpetuating slavery. Although such close reproductions of private enslavement were phased out, the 13th Amendment still permits involuntary servitude. "Prisoners can be forced to work for the government against their will, and this is true in every state," Kaczorowski told Truthout. In recent years, activists have begun to focus on the 13th Amendment's exception for prisoners, according to Pegram. African-Americans are disproportionately incarcerated; one in three black men has been in prison at some point in his life. Therefore, African-Americans are much more likely to be subject to involuntary servitude. "I would have more faith in that amendment if it weren't so clear that our criminal justice system is racially biased in a really obvious way," Pegram said. Prison activists like Johnson believe that ultimately, permanently changing the status quo at places like Angola may mean changing the Constitution - amending the 13th Amendment to abolish involuntary servitude for all. "I don't have any illusions that this is a simple process," Johnson said. "Many people are apathetic about what happens in prisons. It would be very difficult, but I would not suggest it would be impossible." Even without a constitutional overhaul, some states have done away with prison farms of their own accord. In Connecticut, where the farms were prevalent before the 1970s, the farms have been phased out, partially due to the perceived slavery connection. "Many black inmates viewed farm work under these circumstances as too close to slavery to want to participate," according to a 1995 report to the Connecticut General Assembly. For now, though, the prison farm is alive and well in Louisiana. And at Angola, many prisoners can expect to be buried on the land they till. Two cemeteries, Point Lookout 1 and 2, lie on the prison grounds. No one knows exactly how many prisoners are interred in the former, since, after a flood washed away the first Angola cemetery in 1927, the bodies were reburied in a large common grave. Point Lookout 1 is now full, and with the vast majority of Angola's prisoners destined to die in prison, Point Lookout 2 is well on its way, according to King. "Angola is pretty huge," King said. "They've got a lot of land to bury a lot of prisoners." No one knows how many of the prisoners kept in involuntary servitude at Angola are innocent. But at least one who has proven his innocence in court, overturning his conviction, is still behind bars. Please see "Declared Innocent, but Not Free." www.truthout.org/article/some-prisoners-declared-innocent-not-freeSource: www.truthout.org/article/slavery-haunts-americas-plantation-prisons
|
|