www.newsandletters.org
|
|
NEWS & LETTERS, NOVEMBER 2003Voices From the Inside OutLaws get more abusiveby Robert Taliaferro From utilizing the convoluted and ill-defined powers given by the PATRIOT Act, to equating the mandated removal of a monument of the Ten Commandments to treason, we have seen a new and dangerous direction being taken by people who are allegedly sworn to protect the sanctity of the law and the integrity of the Constitution. One of the most interesting aspects of this phenomenon was in the Ten Commandments monument event in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, then Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, decided to place a monument to Judeo-Christian religion within the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court. After he refused an order by a federal court to remove it, he became the central focus of a nationwide debate. Judge Moore felt that his disobedience was a “lawful response” because he felt that the federal court’s order was unconstitutional, noting that the concept of “God” was the basis of the justice system in the U.S. What is disconcerting about such statements, and what Judge Moore and his supporters seem to not understand, is that such concepts belie equity and parity in a country whose laws are quickly changing to deny rights of non-white, non-Christian peoples of the U.S. Statements like Judge Moore’s are much like the rhetoric of leaders of other countries who consider themselves to have some type of divine right to lead their particular governments. Today great barriers are being erected towards judicial equality by those who make and enforce laws. And there is a push by John Ashcroft and George Bush to enhance the already controversial and highly invasive PATRIOT Act. Such changes include provisions to bypass the judiciary in order to obtain administrative subpoenas; the ability to hold alleged terrorists without bail; and defining a presumption of guilt for prospective detainees. One of the most abusive aspects of the new laws is the risk-rating system that the government is working with airlines to enact in 2004. According to the plan this risk rating defined three categories of risk that will be assigned to prospective passengers. Though the plan is not completely outlined, if it is anything like the High, Medium, and Low risk ratings currently used in American prisons, then the opportunity to abuse such a system is phenomenal. The problem with assigning risks to people is in who makes the assignments, and the criteria used for those judgments. One would have to presume that the people making the assignments based upon some obscurely defined criteria can be unbiased. But this is a country involved in a self-defined war, and lack of bias is not something that American lawmakers, and sadly citizens, can easily claim. All we need to do is to look at the last attack on an American territory at Pearl Harbor, to see how prejudice and bias plays a part in the selective confinement and risk factors assigned to peoples of color, especially. One would presume that, based on that history, High and Medium risk subjects would be all immigrants -- especially those of Arab origin (or who look like they may be of Arab origin) and other people of color. There has to be a balance of ideas that equalize the balance of power that is swiftly moving towards the Right in this country. There is also a need for the people who are charged with enforcing the law to be held as accountable when “they” break the law, as they would expect for the average citizen to be. Neither religious beliefs nor cultural and individual bias should be synonymous or precursors to the level of justice that one receives. We’re quick to describe the mandates of a Constitutionally democratic government for others, yet we've been allowing the government to abuse those same mandates within our own country. When it comes to equitable justice and laws that are both protective and fair, we cannot afford to lessen our watch over those who are charged with the enforcement of that justice, nor can we give such elements carte blanche, for once that happens, the result is governmental anarchy. If judges, Congresspersons or police cannot follow the mandates of the law, or lawful orders of a court, then why should we. The czars of Russia also once felt that they had a divine right to rule, and did not need to follow the dictates of a duly elected representative government of the people. Enter Lenin, and revolution! |
|
Home l News & Letters Newspaper l Back issues l News and Letters Committees l Dialogues l Raya Dunayevskaya l Contact us l Search Published by News and Letters Committees |
