Courts: Do they rely on questionable information to justify unlawful government conduct?
Bad information to justify bad conduct.
The American government likes to [a] use unreliable information to [b] assert there are "reasonable" foundations to [c] engage in what are arguably unjustified intrusions.
Intelligence problems during the Vietnam war, in hinsight, would not have justified Johnson's request for an escalation.
In a similar vein, it remains to be understood to what extent the US government claims in re terrorism are equally based on bogus, unrelaible claims. We've seen plenty of examples of US propaganda:
It's curious the burden of proof is on the public to disprove what the government asserts to be going on. The government, we believe, fails to meet any credibility test before the court.
It is not unthinkable that people make misleading statements before the court. Ref Ref Ref
Law enforcement lies all the time. Ref
They make rules against doing things like lying to the court because people violate them when they perceive there is an interest in doing so: Avoiding sanctions for war crimes -- Execution. It appears as though many people have known about, and failed to report, the alleged war crimes; rather than say, "We're involved," it's easier to say, "We were justified because of the threat of terrorism," more so when the court is inclined to accept, without credible basis to believe the government, that the assertions are valid.
Also, the intelligence gets spun -- contractors have a vested interest in "desired outcomes" to justify follow-on contracts. [See: December 3, 2005 -- EXCLUSIVE -- Intelligence "cooking" in re MZM.] Remember, their job is to sell programs and "justify" the dollars; they're competing with other program managers that "do the same". Truth is irrelevant -- they key is to protect "their" money, or make someone else lose "their" money first.]
Remains to be seen to what extent the forced-interactions simply become a pretext to engage and detain innocent. If "standing up for your rights to be left alone" is actionable, where are they going to keep these people?
If the UN or EU gave the US enough notice, that would mean the US could clean up the detention camps, then say, "Leave us alone, there's nothing here." Where did the US ship the prisoners after they "clean up" the detention centers in Eastern Europe?
What's unusual about the ruling is that it is premised on random searches.
However, the Miami searches are 100% of all people entering or exiting a facility.
Using the Miami approach is the default-conclusion that "to Preserve the American way of life we must have a police state."
Thank you, Winston Smith -- this is starting to look alot like Fallujah.
One of the curious references in Judge Berman's ruling that the threat was real, and the intrusions minimal, stating the ACLU's data had been unscientific.
Consider: Federal Evidence which courts rely on -- FBI Falsifies terror evidence -- FBI whistleblowers about DoJ misconduct retaliated against.
. . . prime informant had misled agents about the terrorism angle in the case and that "there was no viable terrorism case."Ref
Whistleblower: German's statement, and video.
DoJ IG report: WaPo coverage -- Summary.
The ACLU plans to appeal the ruling giving police the right to randomly search bags.
Tips if you are stopped; and how to approach questioning.
Discuss here.
Let's take a broad view of the case in the context of the Constitution, the alleged threat, and the pattern of government conduct.
Of concern is the ruling appears to hinge on the rebuttable assumption that there is a bonafide threat. We do know two things: Bogus information has been used to justify intrusions -- the fruit of apparently illegal torture was used to "justify" stops on the subway.
Also problematic is the fundamental assumption about terrorism which is flawed: That there are terrorists running around, unwatched. Strange, the "fact" that there are terrorists running around has been used both ways:
So much for the American constitution protecting the contrary rights to public trials, burden on government, and a presumption of innocence.
Also is the apparent twist of legal burden on the ACLU, not the government, to prove its case.
Let's recall that it is DOJ that has targeted the ACLU; it seems odd that the ACLU would have to "prove" that the government conduct was not unconstitutional; rather, the government should have the burden of proof to justify confidence.
Let's consider the government's pattern of conduct of fabricating evidence to justify stops; then using bogus threats of terror to engage in more intrusions in NYC.
It is a concern when the advocate for liberty has a greater burden than a government which self-evidently is opposed to the American Constitutional protections.
The issue is: Do the court rely on bogus information to justify unconstitutional government intrusions?
Apparently, yes.
How can the court find that an "intrusion is reasonable" when the premise of that intrusion is based on faulty evidence?
It is curious that the public has to endure public intrusions over information the law enforcement has fabricated, will not share, and has asserted to be "beyond what the public can see or examine."
It's a concern when the government can [a] create non-sense to [b] create an illusory threat, and [c] affect the court and [d] public rights.
It remains to be seen how the court can justify the threat of terrorism, however manufactured, is real while the intrusions, however unreasonable relative to that speculative future that, are minimal.
The government, not the public, has the burden of proof to justify:
We argue the government has failed to meet its burden of proof, yet the Court appears to have lowered the threshold on government while increasing the intrusions on the civilian population.
The ACLU is appealing.
posted by Constant @ 2:28 PM
<< Home