Supreme Court Takes a Small Steps for Privacy and Feeedom!

Thursday, January 26th, 2012
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

SOME OCCASIONAL COMMON SENSE FROM THE SUPREME COURT

Is privacy dead in America? Many of us thought it was after a disastrous year of almost total usurpation of both freedom and privacy by the federal government. Since the founding of our country more than 200 hundred years ago, Americans have enjoyed the core rights and liberties that have made our country not just unique, but exceptional in protecting basic freedoms. But no more! Under the guise of protecting Americans from terrorism, congress and the past two presidents have stripped away many of the protections guaranteed to American citizens under the Bill of Rights.

Recently, Republicans and Democrats, alike have ignored Benjamin Franklin’s admonition made over 200 years ago when he said, “Security and freedom are not the same thing….in fact just the opposite. The more security you seek, the less freedom you have. The people with the most security are in jail. That’s why they call it maximum, security.”

First came the Patriot Act. Simply put, the Patriot Act is one of the most egregious acts against rights and liberties that we have witnessed in our lifetimes. The President and many members of Congress will argue that their primary job is to keep America safe. But that’s not the starting point. Their primary job is to see that the Constitution is enforced, and that means keeping us free.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano said on his Fox News program recently, the job of these federal officials is to keep us “Free from tyrants who sought and claimed power from thin air; free from prince-like federal agents who could behave without constitutional or legal restraint; free to live with a government that obeys its own laws. Any president who keeps us safe but unfree is ignoring his oath to the American people.” And doesn’t keeping us safe include keeping us safe from the tyranny of our own government?

The abuses under the so called Patriot Act began almost immediately. Two U.S. Senators have sent out early warnings. Senator Mark Udall from Colorado, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee warned: “Americans would be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out.” His concerns were echoed by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, also a member of the Intelligence Committee, who charged: “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry.”

Then, during an unwatched hour on New Year’s Eve, when most Americans were focused on revelry and football, President Obama signed the latest assault on our freedoms. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 gives the President the authority to have American citizens arrested and detained indefinitely, without due process. We fought the British for our freedom, and as Judge Napolitano points out, even King George did not have the power to indefinitely detain any citizen. I gotta say it again. American citizens can be arrested on American soil and imprisoned indefinitely on the basis of accusations alone.

There is little good news, but every now and then, there’s a glimmer. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court, often notoriously blind to the cause of individual rights, unanimously decreed that a search warrant is necessary before law enforcement officers can use a GPS device to track and follow a criminal suspect. The Court used a little common sense for a change in ruling that despite advances in surveillance technology, the Fourth Amendment still applies.

But what if the police can track an individual without installing equipment? Many new cars have GPS devices factory installed. Do the same privacy rules apply?
How about the fact that current technology allows the government to track the locations of millions of cell phones at will? The court “punted” on any clarification here, and said they would consider these issues at a later time. Is your cell phone activity and location being tracked right now?

The basic freedoms and protections of American citizens under the Bill of Rights have never before been under such assault. The stripping of these freedoms began following 9/11 under the Bush Administration. Under the Obama Administration, civil liberties have been further cut to the bone. Lenin summed up the direction our nation is heading, well, when he said, “It is true that liberty is precious, so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

There was a small step towards the protection of privacy in the Supreme Court decision this week. But if the call for security smothers the rights of privacy, and the right to be free, then the terrorists do win. How can America issue a call for freedom in other countries, while deserting it here at home? Our freedom train is off the track. We have some adjusting to do. Before the essential principles on which our country was founded disappear right before our eyes. Edmund Burke said it this way, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

*****

“Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.” Benjamin Franklin

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers and websites throughout the country. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.

An Ugly Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court

Thursday, April 7th, 2011
New Orleans, Louisiana

DEATH ROW, NEW ORLEANS, AND THE
SUPREME COURT’S BETRAYAL OF JUSTICE.

There is an aura of myth that surrounds Lady Justice, who is pictured standing tall with the balanced scales of justice in her hands. She is blindfolded to assure impartiality and fairness. But if she read the decision about the death row inmate from New Orleans that was handled down by the U.S. Supreme Court last week, one could only wonder whether she dropped her scales, pulled off her blindfold, and wept.

If there was ever any doubt about the lack of fairness, competence and fundamental decency among the current majority composition of the Supreme Court, such doubt was put to rest by a decision that would make any oppressive and dictatorial government proud. Heavy words, that’s true. But one would have to look long and hard to find a more repugnant decision.

Here are the facts. New Orleanian John Thompson was convicted back in 1982 of first degree murder and given the death sentence. He came within days of being executed after spending 14 years on death row and 18 year’s total in prison. Five different prosecutors were involved in the case and all knew that a blood test and other key evidence had been hidden that showed Thompson was innocent.

On his death bed dying of cancer, one of the prosecutors confessed to a colleague that he had hidden the exculpatory blood sample. The colleague waited five more years before admitting that he too knew of the hidden evidence. Thompson, after 18 years, received a new trial, and his lawyers were finally able to produce ten difference pieces of evidence that had been kept from Thompson, that overwhelming showed he was innocent. The new jury took less than 35 minutes to find him not guilty.

Hiding evidence that can find the accused innocent is nothing new for prosecutors in New Orleans, both in state and federal court as well as with the FBI. The Innocence Project of New Orleans reviewed a number of convictions over the past 25 years in the city and concluded that prosecutors gave a "legacy" of suppressing evidence. The project said 36 men convicted in Orleans Parish alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Nineteen have since had their sentences overturned or reduced as a result.According to the Innocence Project in New Orleans, favorable evidence was concealed in a quarter of the murder convictions from 1973-2002. In 19 of 25 non-capital cases, the prosecutors withheld favorable evidence; in the other six cases, the courts ruled that evidentiary hearings were needed.

With full justification, Thompson sued the prosecutor’s office in New Orleans for ripping away and stealing 18 years of his life. He had two sons that he never saw grow up. A New Orleans jury awarded him 14 million dollars. Some said it was too much money. Would you give up 18 years of your life in solitary confinement on death row for 14 million dollars? On appeal, the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals, reputedly the most pro prosecutorial circuit in the nation, upheld the award in favor of Thompson.

But a bitterly divided Supreme Court said to Thompson “no way.” In a 5-4 decision, his case was tossed out by the Supreme Court– not because they disagree that the prosecutor’s office hid evidence (in fact all 9 justices agree on that point). Instead they tossed the case because, in their divine judicial opinion, they didn’t see any “pattern” of the prosecutor’s office doing this to other people besides Thompson (because one life ruined is apparently not enough). Sounds like a John Grisham novel with a bad ending, right? If only that were so. Unfortunately, this is real life and John Thompson gets nothing for his 18 years in jail. Not a red cent. Tough luck fella. The system failed you, but “stuff happens.”

This was not a decision based on a conservative interpretation of the law, even though the so called conservative block voted in lock step to deny Thompson’s claim. A true conservative justice would be strongly opposed to government oppression and the encroachment on the liberty of a falsely accused person. After all, when a prosecutor can operate with impunity, totally absent of any criminal or civil check on their actions, the seeds of fascism are planted. No, a true conservative judge would have held these rogue prosecutors fully accountable.

John Thompson, stunned by the Supreme Court's decision, says he intends to spend his life working to help wrongly convicted inmates. He has founded a new group called Resurrection after Exoneration. Sadly, he will not have the financial resources that the lower courts rightly concluded should have paid to help him pursue his goal.

The judicial system failed John Thompson. Along with Lady Justice, we all should shed a tear.

*******
“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.”
- Elie Wiesel

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers and websites throughout the South. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.