NYC: Law enforcement repeats abuses of the British Monarchy
AUthorities
US Constitution
Declaration of Independence
340 US 290
429 US 97
489 US 378
490 US 386
530 U.S. 703
Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265 (S.D.Tex. 1980), aff'd in relevant part, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 (1983).
Stun Shields
Discussion
They have not done a good job of protecting and serving.
The Declaration of Independence mentions the cumbersome burdens which the Parliament imposed on the Colonies--asking that the representatives go long distances at unusual times. Ref
The colonists had been waging a fierce battle against the British Empire after many home invasions.
Our Constitution was founded on the idea that government intrusions need to be reasonable, and that we be afforded the right to adequate notice when dealing with the government.
This government chooses to repeat the abuses of the British Monarch.
Searches and seizures need to be reasonable. Yet, this law enforcement in NYC has randomly taken prisoner those who had nothing to do with any unlawful activity.
The FBI has also issued subpoenas against those who planned to travel many miles to NYC to express their views. These subpoenas are unreasonable and they unfairly burden the population with unreasonable notice to appear at unreasonable times.
The subpoenas also interfere with commerce, the free movement of people, things, and ideas.
The ARticles of Confederation suffered from the weakness of having no central authority to regulate trade; ref. This leadership is usurpring the power of Congress to regulate trade, and defining things that are unlreated to criminal activity as something that the ~executive~ can regulate.
NYC has also exposed our fellow citizens to unhealthy prison conditions. Officers knew, or should have known that the people under their custody were not adequately clothed to bear the burden of the unheated cells. Ref
The "Guantanamo on the Hudson" is appropriate. No citizen should be exposed to these conditions. No person for that matter.
The treatment of the prisoners amounts to deliberate indifference to their rights to be reasonable accommodation of their medical needs. No youth should be required to sleep on a cold, oily floor, with nothing to protect him but a t-shirt; nor should they be required to fend for their own medical treatment with merely a soggy cloth.
To assume "others have not complained" or "these conditions do not traditionally cause problems" misses the point. The studies outlining "no impact" from solitary confiement were conditioned upon there being easy access to medical assistance, adequate sleeping arrangements. The abuses of these conditions is not the core problem; rather, because these conditions do not exist, one may not credibly argue that solitary confinement in these conditions is not cruel or unusual.
It is the combination of lack of adequately medical and sleeping arrangements combined with solitary confinement within these conditions that amounts to deliberate indifference. WRef Here there are clear standards, and the state fails to provide that service or meet that standard, there is a cause for action. Ref
They have been released. Yet it was only by the order of the court that they had been detained for more than 48 hours without adequate reasons.
Hamdi case reminds us that the Constitution and write of habeous corpus still exist. Ref "All agree suspension of the writ has not occurred here." See p8 of 98; also "But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties" page 29 of 99; and "The President, regardless whether he is a moron or a fascist, must respect "...the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns ... " Ref
It is a shame that we must continually remind this government of the Constitution Ref, October 1990 [Dated]; and remind the world that no one is safe from arbitrary detention, unreasonable requirements to appear, nor the threat of being detained in unhealthy conditions.
These are the standards to which we oppose when we invaded in Iraq; yet, we now are asked to accept that these are the acceptable conditions to which our fellow citizens must assent.
This must change. As must this "leadership." As so too should the oversight of the law enforcement.
Law enforcement needs to explain why it has to be reminded of what is so clear; of the requirement to adequately house and medicate; and the basis for detention.
Law enforcement may not use the reasonable public monitoring of their well-entrenched habit of "ignoring the law" as the basis to engage in prior restraint. [Ref: Ward content-neutrality test, Ref] Ref
Nor may law enforcement use someone's political speech as the prior restraint to deny them the chance to speak, assemble, and voice their opinion. Ref
This nation does not protect the ~right~ to speech; it protects the ~individual~ in their right to exercise that free speech. Ref
Government may make no law abridging that right; nor may government use the content or potential content of that speech to issue subpoenas and interfere with commerce; nor compel individuals to appear at times, places that are inconsistent with free trade and commerce.
We have yet to understand what information "justified" issuing these subpoenas. What is clear is that the law enforcement against must be reminded that before they can enforce the law, they must demonstrate they are capable of both understanding and following the law.
Law enforcement has shown an incredible arrogance toward the public not just in NYC, but across the country. We can only guess what memoranda have been coordinated through the White House general counsel and DoJ Attorney Generals that "justify" harassment of those who dare hold another view.
With time, the courts will evaluate to what extent prisoners were exposed to conditions that showed a deliberate management indifference to their rights in the "Guantanamo on the Hudson."
The court should not be celebrated for reviewing matters that should never come to pass. We fought a revolution over these matters 200 years ago.
It is a shame that anything short of war does not energize this nation's leadership to move. When we speak of social problems at home, they wave their sticks; but when there is the possibility to rally the nation to war in distant lands, the contractors appear and the chorus gleefully hails that which they later guilt-ridden condemn.
The time to speak out is now, not after the damage is done. The time to create credible changes is now, not "next time."
The Magna Carta was brought before a King who recognized what must be done. So too should a new set of codes be brought before President Kerry that would severely curtain the government power in these matters.
There need to be effective mechanisms to compel government to act; that government, not the people, be forced to bear the costs of its own oversight; and that the real oversight be independent.
There needs to be a fourth branch of government. The people's branch. One that is loyal only to the People; not as Congress is loyal to the lobbyists.
A fourth branch that ensures the other three are actually challenging themselves; a fourth branch that ensures the police actions are consistent with the law of the land, not of man.
These three branches have failed us prior to 9-11. And through no fault of our own, the people have been compelled to assent to that which need not be assented: Tyranny by three branches against the population.
Where were the courts in checking the Congress and the President; there was nothing stopping the Justices from appearing before Congress to ask that legislation be enacted to ensure there were mechanisms in place to target government inaction and malfeasance prior to 9-11.
But no, this Judiciary sits with the boon-dogs in law enforcement pretending that the "problem" is something "other than" which is the primary enforce of that law.
This three-branch system of government has shown it's limits. The three branches have refused to check eachother, they simply assent to the other two over the word of the population.
This needs to end. When we discuss real reforms, let us move beyond what the British Monarchy drove this nation to do over 200 years ago.
Let us think of a truly responsive government. One that is responsive to the people, not simply to itself, or the corporate lobbyists.
posted by Constant @ 3:22 PM
<< Home