Supreme Court Drives Dagger into Corpse of Fourth Amendment.

In a 5-4 decision, with Justice Scalia in the lead, the Republiscam majority of the Supreme Court held today that non-compliance with constitutional “knock notice” rules did not require suppression of subsequently seized evidence. In practical effect, this means that Am'urkans have now attained the same status as Iraqis under U.S. liberation.    [continue reading]

Supreme Court Drives Dagger into Corpse of Fourth Amendment.

In a 5-4 decision, with Justice Scalia in the lead, the Republiscam majority of the Supreme Court held today that non-compliance with constitutional “knock notice” rules did not require suppression of subsequently seized evidence. In practical effect, this means that Murkans have now attained the same status as Iraqis under U.S. liberation.

A little background for those who may have been ignoring the Fourth Amendment for the past decade or two. The amendment requires a judicially issued warrant before government agents can forcibly enter your home, make a mess of it, and seize what they say is evidence of a crime. After all, we all can remember the melodramas of Wehrmacht soldiers stomping around in hobnailed boots, kicking down doors, and we wouldn’t want that in God’s Country now, would we?

As ancillary to the warrant requirement (have-warrant-can-enter), the high court held, in Wilson v. Arkansas, (1995) 514 U. S. 927, that police are also required to knock and give notice of their entry before kicking in doors. The reason is as simple as it is obvious: a warrant to search for evidence of crime is not a license to act like a thug. For this reason, the Court has held that the “reasonableness” of a search and seizure depends as much on the “method of an officer’s entry” as it does on the grounds for entering at all.

As most people have heard, at least from the raving hysterics on Fox News, a violation of the Fourth Amendment requires suppression of the illegally seized evidence. This has been the rule since Weeks v. United States, (1914) 232 U. S. 383. The reason is also as simple as it is obvious: Why have a constitution at all if it can be violated with impunity?

The Constitution requires a president to be 36 years of age when elected. If a 12 year old were elected would it be so absurd to say he should be excluded from taking office? What is not constitutional simply ought not to be, and ought not to be recognized “in contemplation of law” as the quaint but incisive phrase used to have it.

However, in the 1960’s, when the high court was all gaga with this thing called sociology, it invented more scientific sounding reasons for the exclusionary rule. It held that exclusion of illegally seized evidence was required because by loosing otherwise good evidence, cops would be taught an object lesson in good behavior. The prospect of loosing their case because they failed to comply with the constitution would act as an incentive to follow the law.

Of course not only is that sort of heteronomous reasoning a lot of stuff and nonsense, it is also a sword that cuts both ways. Needless to say court conservatives, in lockstep with their boys-in-blue, were quick to argue that evidence should be suppressed only “where its remedial objectives” would be “most efficaciously served,” United States v. Calandra, (1974) 414 U. S. 338, 348) and “where its deterrence benefits outweighed its ‘substantial social costs.’” (United States v. Leon, (1984) 468 U. S. 897, 907.) What these marbles in-the-mouth meant was that if judges could think of some plausible sounding reason why cops did not need to have their knuckles wrapped, the evidence need not be suppressed.

So now we come to today’s decision in Hudson v. Michigan (June 15, 2006) No. 04–1360. Looking to maximum efficaciousness, the Republiscam majority held that suppressing evidence on account of police failure to give knock notice was outweighed by the “social costs” of doing so.

Hudson was not a case involving terrorism. Why it was not even a case involving code purple Kiddie Porn. It was a garden variety drug seizure case. If the social costs of loosing a routine drug case outweigh unconstitutional behavior, it is hard to see what kind of misbehaviour the cops have to commit in order to warrant a constitutional sanction.

The majority was evidently troubled by the subjectivity of this how high is too high approach; and so it fashioned a test which was just as bad. It held that evidence should not be suppressed unless the illegality complained of was the “but for” reason for the seizure. In plain language, if the cops lied in order to get the warrant and if the warrant was the basis for seizing the evidence, then the exclusionary rule would take effect. On the other hand, if the police used a SWAT team to blast away the front of a house as the method for serving the warrant, that misbehaviour would not call for a constitutional sanction. How the warrant is served is something different from why the warrant was served, and the Bill of Rights protects only the “why” not the “how”. At least, thus sprach Scalia.

Every day, Iraqis are subjected to having their homes burst into without so much as a knock... at least not that kind of knock that doesn’t come from the heel of a boot. Without an effective deterrence on thug-behaviour, Murkans can expect little more from the Kevlar Boys patrolling their streets.

But not all hope is lost. The Republiscam majority did continue to recognize that the primary reason for the “knock notice” rule “is the protection of human life and limb, because an unannounced entry may provoke violence in supposed self defense by the surprised resident.” Supposed? There is little to “suppose” about a smashing sound at the door. The court recognizes that people who smash down doors court the risk of being blown away by people on the other side who have a natural, human and constitutional expectation of security in their own homes.

©Barfo 2006.

Meanwhile Back At Camp I-Rock

Marines held a hoot n' hodown singing and laughing over their exploits in wasting iraqi women and children. According to BBC News (14 June 06), a video of the performance was posted on the web. Needless to say, the Marine Korps was investigating....

Will Any Senator speak out against Torture?

The world cries out in protest against US brutality at Guantanamo, but Congress lies supine and silent.

Dear Senator,

In March of 2004, before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, I wrote you a letter calling your attention to the abuse of detainees at Guantanamo. I noted that information leaking out from the camp plus reports of attempted suicides coupled with the officially admitted facts and decrypted government double-talk, all pointed to the conclusion that people who had never be shown to be guilty of anything were being institutionally and routinely abused and tortured.

Since then you have said nothing... not even on your web site, not even read into the Congressional Record at 3.45 a.m. The International Red Cross has broken its 100 year tradition of non-comment and has condemned the mistreatment of the Guantanamo detainees; but you have said nothing. The United Nations has called for the closure of this infamous torture center; but you have said nothing. Our own and only ally in this sordid affair has called for the release of the detainees; but you have said nothing. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has condemned the illegality of the detentions; but you have said nothing. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, scores of NGOs, legal organizations and the Holy See itself have cried out against the infamy taking place at Guantanamo; but you and your supine colleagues in Congress have remained silent.

It now turns out that after five long years of degradation, torture and hopelessness three detainees have committed suicide; and, in a shocking statement that bespeaks the moral putrefaction that rots throughout the United States Government, Rear Admiral Harris has dismissed these suicides as “acts of war.” The Government has called them a “PR” move that shows “no regard for life”. The depravity and perversity of these remarks is without rival in the annals of history, except perhaps for the SS guards who may have laughed at Auschwitz prisoners who electrocuted themselves on the barbed wire while trying to escape.

Suicide horrifies because it goes against the most fundamental grain of all living things, which is to live. Suicides are not “playing games” nor are they “attacking” anyone. They are simply and pathetically ending a life that has been filled only with the certainty of pain and despair.

As the Vatican statement reminds us, even criminals and even enemies are human beings that warrant fair and humane treatment. Even more, detainees who have never been charged must less shown to be guilty of anything.

Ignoring these fundamentals of decency, the United States tortures people to suicide all but openly in the global forum. It does so indifferently to the universal outcry against it. It shrugs off the suicides with a moral depravity and lack of humanity that is beyond belief.

When are you and your supine colleagues going to show some impulse other than craven ambition and political cowardice? When will you recover a sense of shame? When will rise up and speak out against the depravity of this Administration and the culture of thuggery that has seized Washington?

©Barfo, 2006

The News: For many months, the Israelis have been pounding away at open areas such as fields and orchards in an effort to prevent Palestinian militants using them to fire their home-made missile into crudely made missiles into nearby Israeli territory. (BBC)

The Note: “Prevent” ...? I.e. they are doing it pre-emptively, routinely destroying orchards and fields so that no one will think of using them. Of course that also means that no one can farm them. It also means that crops are destroyed. We know that this is preemptive because “for many months” there have been virtually no missile attacks on Israel from Gaza.

They are also bombing beaches. Clearly this is an attempt to intimidate the civilian populace.

©Barfo, 2006
.

Preventive Pacification

The News: For many months, the Israelis have been pounding away at open areas such as fields and orchards in an effort to prevent Palestinian militants using them to fire their home-made missile into crudely made missiles into nearby Israeli territory. (BBC)

The Note: “Prevent” ...? I.e. they are doing it pre-emptively, routinely destroying orchards and fields so that no one will think of using them. Of course that also means that no one can farm them. It also means that crops are destroyed. We know that this is preemptive because “for many months” there have been virtually no missile attacks on Israel from Gaza.

They are also bombing beaches. Clearly this is an attempt to intimidate the civilian populace.

©Barfo, 2006
.

Making Clear Points

Item: "I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." -- Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

Item: We will bring you back to the pre-industrial age", James Baker to the Iraq's Deputy Premier Tariq Aziz on January 9, 1999 in Geneva)

©Barfo, 2006
.

Consubstancialismos

The Noticia: "Algunos evangelistas se incomodarán", comenta Gael. "Pero es una buena introspección sobre la fe y también muestra que la fe puede salvar a una persona, pero cegar a otra. La religión me interesa: después de todo soy mexicano, y muchas de mis películas examinan la naturaleza de la institución religiosa. "Mi personaje en La mala educación deja de creer en Dios por lo que le ocurrió; luego hice de sacerdote en El crimen del padre Amaro, y ahora esto, pero la fe siempre ocupará un lugar en cualquier historia que sea honesta, aunque sea subliminal." (Jornada)

La Nota: “Después de todo soy mexicano” Pues asi tambien lo dijo mi primo Hector -- “ser mexicano y católico es consubstancial”. Lo habra leído Gael?

©Barfo, 2006
.

Bette's Chickens Come Home

The News: Speaking of the U.S. denial of visas to certain foreigners, James Edwards, an adjunct fellow with the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan policy research organization in Washington said, "We've always allowed ourselves the right to keep people out." Edwards explained, "Our government's job is to protect Americans, including from ideological extremists who promote ideas intended to harm the US. Free speech is an internal family discussion." (Truthout.org)

The Note: Incredible. It is unbelievable anyone would think this way. But as I said years ago, when that poor slob got run out of Bette's Diner by a bunch of enraged Bezerkeley feminists for reading Playboy this would be the result of mind sets that wanted to outlaw “assaultive speech” and “verbal rape”.

©Barfo, 2006

The News: Regarding a diplomatic letter from Iran, Ms Rice said: "There's nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any different course than we were before we got the letter." (BBC)

The Note: They key to decrypting shitspeak is the word “we”. Once it is understood that the word “we” means Ah'murka and does not include Iran, the meaning becomes clear: there is nothing in the letter to suggest that the United States has altered course in seeking war and/or destruction of Iran. Condi also said of the letter : “This is not it” --- “It” meaning total capitulation to U.S. demands Of course the drooling retards in the press will never figure this out.

©Barfo, 2006
.

The News: About 400 “disoriented” dolphins washed up dead in Zanzibar. This follows a story two weeks ago about a dead whale washed up in Barcelona. (AlJazeera)

The Note: It is clear that ThugStaat Murka and its submarine sonar is behind this. He who destroys creation for his own safety deserves his own eradication.

©Barfo,  2006
.

Like Poison Like Chocolate

The News: reported on how the Mossad killed a terrorist by poisoning his chocolates. The poison left no trace; it looked as if the victim had leukemia.

The Note: Didn’t Arafat have a “rare” leukemia? Now, if the US did similar things, I’m pretty sure we would have heard about it by now. I think Israel is the only one who has developed this degree of poison sophistication. In all events what it shows is that Israel is another Thug State -- an extremely malevolent, duplicitous, conspiratorial and utterly self-serving tribe that leaves no stone unturned in its effort to control things. Their operatives are everywhere, poisoning discourse, policy, academia, the press, people’s minds and bodies. Years ago I laughed at Anna Valero’s aunt with her Protocols palaver......

©Barfo, 2006

.

Respecting Jewish Sensibilities

The News: A free speech controversy erupted at Boston's Brandeis University over the removal of an exhibition featuring the paintings by Palestinian youths. The exhibit’s 17 paintings depicted the young artists’ perspectives on life under Israeli military occupation. But just four days into a two-week run, the exhibit was removed by Brandeis officials after several complaints from students. A university spokesperson said the school would consider re-mounting the paintings if they were to appear alongside paintings showing an Israeli perspective. The exhibition was curated by an Israeli Jewish student who said she wanted to showcase a Palestinian perspective on campus. The student, Lior Halperin, said: ''This was an opportunity to bring to Brandeis the Palestinian voice that is not spoken or heard through an Israeli or an American Jew, but directly delivered from Palestinians. Obviously that was just too much for Brandeis." (DemocracyNow.org)

The Note: Another example of : "You don’t get to be heard unless we get to shout you down."

©Barfo, 2006
.

A True Son of the Chiapas Soil

The News: “Meanwhile in Mexico, the Zapatista leader Marcos spent May Day marching with thousands of others to show solidarity to the undocumented immigrants protesting in the United States. "(We call on) those who mobilized against the war in Iraq, to the inheritors of Emma Goldman, John Reed, Julius Rosenberg, Malcom X, Martin Luther King, the Indian people of North America who are tied to us with ties of pain and rebellion and all of the Chicano community, for supporting this workers' fight,” Marcos said." (DemocracyNow.org)

The Note: What a fucking UNAMoron. As if the Chiapencan Indians have the remotest idea or any real interest in knowing who the hell Emma Goldman was.... And Julius Rosenberg ???? PULEEZE. This is what happens when the privileged make revolution from below.

©Barfo, 2006

Imperial Reach

The News: The Sheraton in Mexico City refused to give berth to a Cuban delegation. In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Sheraton in Mexico City was a subsidiary of a US-owned hotel group and therefore subject to US laws and regulations. Mexico's Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez insisted that US law could not be applied in a third country.

The Note: If all U.S. citizens anywhere are always subject to U.S. laws and requirements they are effectively U.S. agents/agencies abroad. If a U.S. law prohibits contact with a Cuban in Paris, it can also require a U.S. citizen to report the attempted contact. Most Americans are probably blissfully unaware of whatever reporting duties they may be suspected of being engaged in by resentful natives.

The second interesting thing about the report is that the US was aware of the meeting and Treasury was alerted. Now unless the business men cleared this beforehand with the Treasury Department that would mean the US is spying pretty intensively.

©Barfo, 2006

The Truth were n'er so well bespoken.

And to conclude the year:

Bush: "I have directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat."

-o0o-

! He's not lying.

©Barfo, 2005
.

The Cult of Outsider-hood

The News: Fran Quigley, executive director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, writes in Counterpunch, explaining why the ACLU has launched a full-scale assault on yet another Christmas creche.

"There are many more examples, because the ACLU is committed to preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all. We agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's firm rulings that this freedom means that children who grow up in non-Christian homes should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community's courthouse, legislature or public schoolhouse."

"To our "Merry Christmas" correspondents and all other Americans, we wish you happy holidays."

The Note: This is an example of precisely why the ACLU gets hated on this point. What the hell does it mean to say "made to feel like outsiders in their own community" What kind of nonsensical victim wailing is that?

If you are a religious or ethnic or sexual minority in a given society, by definition, you will always feel "not part of the majority" -- and by Venn diagram analysis, you will be "outside" the majority. That does not translate into being an "outsider in your own community" it simply means that you are a minority insider and can't be otherwise, unless you join the majority. What's the big fucking deal?

To a certain extent, all minorities suffer this kind of "exclusion". It goes with the territory. If you are gay, you are excluded from and inevitably made to feel excluded by baby showers, baptisms, mothers days, and the whole general social and economic construct built up around nuclear heterosexuality.

If you are Jewish in a Christian country or Christian in a Jewish one, you will feel like an outsider on certain holidays. In fact, you can feel like an outsider even when you are the majority. Ever try getting into a Lubovavitch dance circle as a Christian?

Diversity ends up meaning that all sorts of people are exlcuded from all sorts of things. The reason, we have secular holidays, like the Fourth of July, is so that we can have a time to celebrate our commonality and sameness, as distinct from those times when we celebrate our communion with specific portions of society.

The notion that government funding of a Christmas tree or reference to a "Christmas" tree is oppressive to the few when this is something 90% of the population celebrates is simply turning things on its head.

The idea that in order to protect people from the victimization of outsiderhood one has to suppress differences and erradicate any public display that might not coincide with a minority view is simply a perversion of the idea of the secular state.


©Barfo, 2005
.

PBS has trouble understanding The Policy

The News: PBS palaverer, David Brooks says: "No, that is ridiculous. And everyone I spoke to today was infuriated by the White House response and can't understand, by the way, why the White House can't explain their policy.

"You know, I had somebody who was on the ground there risking his life saying: Why are they AWOL on the home front; why can't they have a realistic explanation of what is going on here? Why instead are they attacking bitterly the people that are raising legitimate criticisms?

"Nobody should be questioning Jack Murtha as a person, as a figure of integrity. The problem with Murtha's speech is that nowhere in the speech does he actually consider what the consequences of withdrawal would be. There is no discussion of what Iraq would look like. There is no discussion of what the Middle East would look like, or what Zarqawi would look like."

The Note: Duh... The White House can't explain its policy because it has no "policy" you jackass. Plunder and Destroy is not a policy.

©Barfo, 2005
.

A Cryptic Confession within the Mea Culpa

The News: The New York Times offers the following -- "While this page was completely wrong in our presumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, we - and virtually everyone outside the Bush administration - warned about this danger from the beginning."

The Note: Huh? Presumption? Presumption, you say? Okay.... How do you "warn" about a presumption? So the New York Times admits not only to being wrong about its "presumption" but to urging war based on presumption. Wouldn't it be easier just to call them "bastards" and bomb them on that basis? Nice, the way they hide the real confession within the nostra culpa. What a loathsome rag.

©Barfo, 2005
.

L'echo du Likud

The News: "Racaille!"

The Note: Listening to Sarkozy it is hard not to hear the inimitable voice of the Likud. "Scum" "pressure blast" them out and deport them. Is it mere coincidence? It is clear that the protestors see him as the provocateur. So does the Conference of Bishops. The Left goes further and accuses zio-con "agents" of instigating the riots. At this point I would not put anything past Israel and its ziocons. But even assuming that no agents were at work, Sarkozy's talk and actions have all the "what me?" innocence of Sharon's tourism on the Temple Mount.

What do Sarkozy's masters want? To discredit Chirac's non-support of the Irak invasion, and to subvert liberties further by installing a "counter-terrorist" government in France; ie. one favorable to Israel, racially oppressive against "arabs" (the Jews equivalent to the Nazi's Jews) and, and, of course, hostile to anywone who looks askance at Jewish lies.

©Barfo, 2005
.