Is there a difference between being anti-corruption within the government and that of being anti-government?
The question may first appear to be simplistic enough under ordinary terms but in our current post September 11 era it is not a question that can be answered easily. Predominately because one must carefully weigh the interest of the government to protect our county by that of the citizens right to engage in lawful political speech or associations.
Sir Robert Peel, who is widely known as the founder of law enforcement once stated “the public are the police and the police are the public”, which essentially means that there is a shared responsibility in ensuring a peaceful society exists by in part, confronting police corruption. And post 9-11 the words of President Ronald Reagan have become even more true when he said, “The nine most feared words in the English language are “I’m with the government and I’m here to help.”
In a recent lawsuit settled out of court by a Consent Decree, American Friends Service Committee et al v. City and County of Denver (Case No 02-N-740 (CBS) (Colo. Dist. Ct. 2003). Discovery of the Denver Police Department’s 100, 000 spy files that focused on First Amendment associations sent chills around the country among civil liberty organizations and those who engage in peaceful protest. In part, because a very large number of these spy files were kept on citizens and organizations having no ties to criminal activity or terrorist groups but rather merely for exercising their First Amendment rights or liberties on political subjects. As a result of this as well as the events taking place in many other police departments across our country, political profiling has taken on a new meaning that is serving to hack away at the hard earned civil rights we have achieved in this country.
In theory the Supreme Court’s expansive construction of the First Amendment-based right of association, as originally defined in NAACP v. Alabama and delineated most recently in Boy Scouts v. Dale can protect groups engaged in First Amendment conduct from unjustified political or religious surveillance that causes them cognizable harm. However, the revised Patriot Act seeks to strip away all consent decrees enacted between police departments and organizations that serve to protect our civil liberties. In order to reestablish police power to engage in domestic investigations that many times travel outside the scope of criminal activity.
In the case of NAACP v. Alabama, supra note ,at 460, The Court held in part, “Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly [citations omitted]. It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable part of the . . . freedom of speech.”
In 1924 Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone once stated, “When a police system passes beyond these limits, it is dangerous to the proper administration of justice and to human liberty, which it should be our first concern to cherish . . . . There is always a possibility that a secret police may become a menace to free government and free institutions because it carries with it the possibility of abuses of power which are not always quickly apprehended or understood.”
Political profiling is certainly nothing new nor is it new for police to be involved in collecting data on those who chose to engage in political associations or speech. What is new however, is that the concept of domestic security is being used to overtly attack and brand law-abiding citizens on many levels, as being anti-government merely for exercising their civil rights or liberties. Rather than recognizing the inherent differences existing between being anti-government and that of being anti-corruption within our government.
Is there a legitimate need to protect our country from terrorism, clearly there is though it is not clear what is the best method to accomplish this while at the same time not infringing upon civil liberties all together. And while conservatives might argue that we need to attack civil liberties swiftly and harshly, they must remember that in doing so their civil liberties will also be attacked. And yet, to be overly lax in addressing potential terrorist gathering places or associations on the premise that the First Amendment gives an open-ended right to do and say what you want is a concept guaranteed to bring about another terrorist attack.
So where do we draw the line? Well, ideally this would arrive where criminal activity exists in the exercising of one’s civil liberties of political speech, expression or association or where there the reasonable suspicion standard is [legitimately] applied for police involvement. Defining reasonable suspicion however is about as easy as defining anti-government verses anti-corruption in the government in our post 9-11 era. Because it has become all too easy to accuse someone of being anti-government that police are willing if not overzealous to forego customary and prudent investigative techniques and act upon ambiguous third party hearsay claims.
I am somewhat familiar with a few of the more oppresive parts of the Patriot Act. Although it was passed with good intentions, those parts have turned our nation into a country which has less and less freedom.
To wit: In this morning's paper I read the story of three nuns who painted a prayer on the top of a nuclear silo and then sat and prayed until they were arrested......and sent away to prison for years! Is this justifiable in the Post-911 Era?
Apparently, some of the more questionable arrests are being done at the urging of Attorney General John Ashcroft's demand for "body counts" using the Patriot Act. Until our Congress reins in and modifies the Patriot Act, anyone can be surreptiously spied on and arrested. Feels like a Police State to me.
On 22 July 2004 I had three State Highway Patrol officers come to my home in a show of force to interrogate me in an attempt to enact my arrest.
The accusation made against me, by the Mayor whom has routinely been engaging in potential unlawful and illegal acts...claims that I said "I could get a confession out of the Mayor" and that this was perceived by the Mayor as being a threat made against him.
The statement, which I did not make, fails to demonstrate criminal intent or a threat that a reasonable person would perceive. In fact, because it is ambiguous one could easily argue that it was nothing more than a subjective belief stated out of ones confidence in their investigative skills.
The interesting part here is that the Mayor's claim was entirely third party heresay, since the Mayor was not directly involved in the conversation and had no actual knowledge of what was said. Law enforcement made no effort whatsoever to contact the person who was involved in the conversation to either credit or discredit the alleged statement I am said to have made and that such was intended as a threat.
The day of the Officers came to my home, two other officers began investigating my protected First Amendment associations with a local group that is composed predominately of senior citizens. The contacted one of the members and asked if he knew me and he said he knew of me. They asked if I was a member of this group and he said no I am not. According to this person, the officer portrayed me as being some psycho that would hurt the Mayor. In response, this pereson told the officer that while he believes I am angry, it is not that kind of anger.
I was not arrested or issued a summons, but it was clear that the underlining intent of the event was to impinge upon my rights by threats, intimidation or coercion inflicted by law enforcemnent.
On 29 July 2004 I delcared my intent to sue city officials...in response, one of the asst city attorneys sent me an email informing me that city officials have been instructed to delete my email communicaitons without reading them...
While a government may impose restrictions upon free speech, such restrictions must be reasonable and demonstrate a compelling governmental interest. See e.g. Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 53-54 (1982).
Communication over the Internet (including e-mail) is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. See e.g. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (striking down the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.S. Sec. 223, for violating the First Amendment).
The attorney's email marks an overly broad and vague restriction being imposed upon my free speech so as to also encompass political speech and speech pertaining to normal government business, operations, services and issues for redress. But it certainly helps me in showing that there is a custom, pattern or practice of City officials attacking First Amendment rights, liberties or privileges or retaliating against a person for having so exercised their rights, liberties or privileges.
On Monday the City Counsel is going into a closed session to discuss legal matters... my lawsuit is guaranteed even if I have to file it myself.
