Posted on 11/30/2002 8:13:00 PM PST by redrock
The end of America?
by Louis James
Most police officers, it is said, oppose the right to remain silent. It would certainly be more convenient for them if people did not have a right to remain silent, and perhaps, the police could then be more effective at bringing criminals to justice and preventing crimes. But a society with laws made for the convenience of the police, not the people, is a police state, not a free country.
Consider the right to remain silent for a moment -- what does that mean?
It's not really about silence. It's about torture. If you don't have the right to remain silent, then that implies that the police can force you to speak. And the art of forcing people to speak is what we call torture.
The Bill of Rights doesn't list silence, but it does prohibit torture. The famous fifth amendment is the one that recognizes people's right not to be forced to testify against themselves, but it's the fourth that affirms the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.
In today's policy debates, most people concerned about the erosion of fourth amendment protections in the U.S. are focused on the "houses, papers, and effects" part. The so-called Patriot Act and the new Homeland Security legislation contain provisions that are very bad news for the security of people's "houses, papers, and effects."
It's a good thing for people to worry about mass wiretapping without warrants and other such rights-violating measures, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't worry about the "secure in their persons" part.
I can imagine some people objecting right away: "Louis, you're exaggerating again. Civilized people don't torture prisoners. Cruel and unusual punishment is banned. That can't happen in America."
But it *can* happen in America.
It has happened; the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case that could overturn Americans' rights to remain silent -- often referred to as "Miranda" rights -- and the Bush administration is arguing for that reversal.
Below is a link to a news story about this particular case, but here are the basic facts:
o In Oxnard, California, two police officers arrested a farm worker (Mr. Martinez) they suspected of drug law violations.
o Though the man had not resisted until the police tried to take his strawberry-picking knife, they shot him five times, three times in his legs, once through his spine, and once through his head, which blinded him in both eyes, but left him conscious.
o Another officer, (Sgt. Chavez) arrived with a tape recorder and got into the ambulance with the wounded and handcuffed Martinez. For 45 minutes, Chavez tried to get Martinez to admit that he had tried to grab one of the arresting officers' guns, even pursuing the questioning in the emergency room after ER staff asked him to stop and leave several times.
o Martinez can be heard screaming in pain on the tape, saying he is choking and dying, saying that he doesn't want to answer any more questions. Chavez can be heard responding repeated variations of: "OK. You're dying. But tell me why you were fighting with the police?"
o Martinez survived (blinded and unable to walk) and sued the Oxnard police for, among other things, coercive interrogation. With the suit still pending, Oxnard refuses to pay for any of Martinez's therapy and the three officers received no disciplinary action (all three are still on the force).
o Oxnard police say that there is no "constitutional right to be free of coercive interrogation." The Miranda decision means only that information gained that way can't be used in court.
o The case was appealed by Oxnard to the U.S. 9th Circuit before it could go to trial, and Oxnard lost. Now it's on appeal to the Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments on December 4.
o According to U.S. Solicitor Gen. Theodore Olson and Michael Chertoff, chief of the DoJ's criminal division, police can force people to talk, so long as their incriminating statements are not used to prosecute them.
While one ally of the Oxnard police has said that Sgt. Chavez's interrogation was "relatively benign," I can only call it torture. It's easy to imagine such a thing happening -- many officers would look after their troopers before considering the feelings, needs, or rights of those they are supposed to "serve and Protect."
But in this politically correct day and age, when you can face serious legal consequences for hurting people's feelings with insensitive remarks, it's mind boggling that anyone can fail to condemn Sgt. Chavez' actions after the adrenaline moment was over.
I'm not so crazy about the quintuple shooting, but it was dark, and the man had a knife. On the other hand, the dogged pursuit of the just blinded and lamed man onto the very operating table by a man who ignores the victim's pleas and cries of agony ... that's straight out of the inquisition. Or Auschwitz.
How can the Oxnard officials defending Chavez look in the mirror in the morning? How could the Supreme Court agree to hear such a case after the 9th Circuit slapped Oxnard down so appropriately? How could the Bush administration side with a torturer and his apologists?
Now, I know that many people, even libertarians, think that many of the measures that the president has called for, even the ones that bother civil libertarians, are necessary in the post-9/11 world. But surely we can agree that becoming a police state -- complete with legal sanction for torture -- will not end terrorism in America? It seems much more likely to simply end America.
It's something I think many would rather not think about. But, if we shirk that responsibility, we'll deserve what we get.
Louis
For more on the Martinez case, see:
http://www.free-market.net/rd/770959979.html
redrock
p.s....other EXCELLENT articles HERE
redrock
Shots through the spine and head, and this guy is still alive? Does the Oxnard P.D. issue .32 ACPs?
redrock
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I could not get past the first Paragraph. The reason we have the right to remain silent is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Not being a witness against oneself has been interpreted to mean that one cannot be compelled to answer any questions - it has nothing to do with torture.
..and the Bush Administration is ACTIVELY PROMOTING THAT IDEA!!!
Kinda scary.....to say the least.
redrock
So, if the police beat a person and tear out his fingernails, that is not "compelling," someone to answer questions? Do you think the framers of the Constitution were unfamiliar with the way most people have been "compelled" to testify against themselves?
Maybe what you are saying is it is OK to torture someone, so long as you don't ask him any questions. Is that it?
Hank
OH -- MY -- GOD!!!!!
Get a grip. Oh, wait, I'm sorry - GWB, obviously, knew everything about this particular incident. I'm sure he was on the hot line - oh, conferenced in with Mr. "I will take all your rights away" John Ashcroft - to the local law enforcement bubbas.
GWB called all the shots - right?
In the spirit of the Holiday's, please forward your address and I'll donate a role or two of aluminum foil.
Your ability to make a tin foil hat is assumed.
This is series stuff!!!!
LVM
I do not agree. I think both the fourth and fifth amendments pertain to one's bodily security and protection against physical threat to obtain testimony.
On the other hand, the whole question is somewhat pointless, since the intent of the constitution is the last thing the government is concerned with, and no piece of paper exercises any contol over anyone with the exclusive right to initiate force. If anyone really wants protection from the government or their hired thugs (police), the constitution is the last place to look for it.
Hank
If the Justice Dept (which is PART of the current Administration)...is on the side of the Oxnard Police Dept..and is actively defending the actions of the Oxnard Police Dept.....well...maybe even someone like you can 'connect the dots'.
..as for the rest of your drivel.....keep it.
redrock
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779
Seems to fit.....
redrock
Miranda has nothing to do with that. Miranda is simply a police recitation of rights held by the person being arrested to people that should know those rights themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.