In Quick Hits, counterspin spotted an incredible outrage,--citing a story from The Telegraph--something we'd all expect from the Bush DOJ, but never imagine from a "progressive" Harvard Law Review Democratic President. To wit: The Obama DOJ is arguing against the position--established in a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that police may not interview suspects who have a lawyer or have asked for one.
There's just two problems. First, it appears that this isn't true. A little digging around and I discovered Patterico says it's dead wrong and various commentators on this DKos diary say it's much more nuanced question than that. I quickly concluded that I wasn't going to get certainty on this anytime soon, but that the initial portrayal was definitely mistaken, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the actual position, once it's finally clear to me.
But that still leaves Problem #2: after trying to keep part of Bush's secret prison system going, and taking a stand against enforcing anti-torture treaties, I had no good reason not to believe this when I first read it. Sadly enough, the Obama Administration has created such an air of moral ambiguity and uncertainty that it's almost as if Karl Rove and/or Robert Bork were writing their script for them.
Rule of law, people. Once you blur that, you've blurred everything.
Nudge. Blur. It's all part of the same ill-defined, morally fuzzy universe that I, for one, want absolutely no part of. Yes, there really is such a thing as an intractable moral dilemma. And I deeply love literature--from the ancient Greeks to Josh Whedon's Dollhouse that deals with this aspect of our existence. But it's precisely because such dilemmas do exist that we want to hold on to all the moral, ethical and legal certainty that we possibly legitimately can.
After all, there is always time for mercy, forgiveness and atonement after judgment has been rendered. But if one cannot trust judgments in the first place, then everything imaginable has been made uncertain for no good reason whatsoever.
I spent three and a half hours on Friday morning in a Long Beach Courthouse, most of it huddled in the back with a small group of mostly middle-aged and older working-class blacks, the friends and family of two young defendents who had been held without bail since last May.
Garret Marks and Saquana Scott had been part of a neighborhood crowd outraged at the police cold-blooded murder of Roketi Su'e, a sometimes erratic, but harmless schizophrenic who was terminally ill with cancer. Roketi Su'e was Samoan. Marks and Scott are both black. Neither was arrested on the spot. But hours after the incident, police came knocking on doors, asking people what they had seen, what they knew about the event. And that was when they arrested Marks and Scott--both of whom had records--supposedly for "making terrorist threats" and "resisting arrest" among other charges.
Put simply, they were arrested as part of an aggressive strategy of pushback against any accountability whatsoever for the murder of Roketi Su'e. Long Beach police have a habit of murdering working-class schizophrenics of color. They do it every couple of years or so, just as a matter of pride or principle, or whatever. It's just what they do.
But the arrests and ongoing prosecutions of Garret Marks and Saquana Scott went significantly farther in the way of premptive coverups than had previously been the practice. Marks, in particular, faced the prospect of up to eight years in prison, due to a previous "strike" for a crime that my managing editor, who has been covering the case, believes he did not do.
Last weekend was a bit of a wild ride, and I didn't get to do a couple of diaries I had planned. This is one of them. It was spurred by my work work, editing our year-end issue, and thinking back over the stories we have covered, where they came from, where they are leading. One story, in particular, struck me in juxtaposition to a rather heated discussion here on Open Left, the discussion of Eric Holder representing Chiquita Banana. A number of commentators got quite upset with David Sirota, saying that he was threatening the Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer.
I think that's bull. Chiquita Banana is always going to have lawyers to defend it. They will be lining up around the block.
But then there was Garrett Brown Marks. Scooter Libby got off scott free. Garrett Brown Marks is facing eight years. Eight years for witnessing a murder. A police shooting of a harmless schizophrenic.
You want I should start at the beginning? There is no beginning. Long Beach Police have been killing people since the dawn of time. Or close enough for anyone walking around right now. On May 17 they shot an unarmed man in the back. His name was Roketi Su'e. He was a Samoan. Good natured usually, but schizophrenic and sometimes suicidal. He was terminal ill with cancer. That can do it to you. Not a threat to anyone but himself.. Police had been called before by family, usually the same officers who knew him. Not this time, though. This time, they shot him dead.
The day after the first presidential debate, I want to shift focus from those who aspire to the most powerful office on the face of the earth to those who are most forgotten. I want to talk about those in prison. In Matthew 25 we read:
34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
40 And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
Yet, for all the talk about being "a Christian nation" we seem utterly determined to ignore what Jesus said. This is not just a nice "spiritual" admonition. In the process of demonizing criminals, we feed a process of starving what is best about us. We legitimize a punitive state, in place of one that seeks to develop the best in each of us. The prison/industrial complex grows as the welfare state shrinks. (More on this below.)
Ten years ago, there was a conference held in Berkeley to focus on the prison-industrial complex. It was called "Critical Resistence." The conference was so successful that it gave birth to an organization, which in turn has helped fuel a movement to fundamentally alter criminal justice policy in America. Like the Abolitionists or the Suffragettes, this is a long-term movement. And this weekend it turns 10, with another conference to take stock of where we are. A new report aids in doing that.
Last month the Appeals Court of Massachusetts issued two decisions regarding prisoner access to health care, both of which have vast implications for prisoner rights. Through their rulings, the court affirmed two critical American values: redemption, the belief that humans are evolving beings who warrant the chance for rehabilitation when they falter, and healthcare as a human right. The cases, Sullivan v. Correctional Medical Servs. et al. No. 07-P-964 72, 2008 WL 2552982 (Mass. App. Jun. 27, 2008) and Kilburn v. Dept. of Corrections et al., No. 07-P-987, 2008 WL 2566382 (Mass. App. Jun. 30, 2008) concerned claims of negligence due to poor dental care provided to prisoners by private health care contractors hired by the state. Part of the case for the prisoners' claims rested on an appeal to third-party beneficiary rights. Third parties in contracts have the right to sue if they can prove that they are the intended beneficiaries of the contract and are reliant on the contract. Through their rulings, Massachusetts courts suggest that prisoners have standing as third party beneficiaries and can thus sue private health care providers despite their exclusion from the contract between the state and these private contractors.
In Kilburn v. Dept. of Corrections the Court ruled that the state cannot simultaneously deny responsibility for those healthcare duties delegated to its contractors and claim that those contracts were not meant to benefit the prisoners. The fact that the state would make this argument to begin with is reflective of the larger shortcomings of the prison-industrial complex. By contracting out the care of prisoners to private entities, the state claims that it is not liable for inadequate care provided by these groups. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts took a stand for the right of prisoners to proper healthcare, and more generally to fair treatment, by stressing the state's responsibility in prisoner care. It went further to argue that inmates' lack of standing to sue as a third party beneficiary of the contract does not make the state immune from liability or free from responsibility. Simply because prisoners do not have the means to raise claims does not absolve the state of its duties.
While the decisions do not explicitly grant prisoners third-party beneficiary rights, they mark an important
step in this direction. They document the receptiveness of the court third-party claims in government contracts on the part of prisoners. Moreover the rulings affirm that the state cannot divorce itself from its responsibility to prisoners. Practicing redemption means providing the conditions that allow people to develop, to rebuild, and to take full responsibility for their lives after misfortune or mistakes. Through its decisions, the court asserted the state's own responsibility in providing these conditions for prisoners. This particular case concerns dental care, but it opens the door for an invigorated conversation about the fundamental human rights of those people behind bars, and the responsibility of the state in caring for those prisoners such that they may one day reenter society and have the opportunity to achieve their own, full potentials.
This morning, Democracy Now devoted a full program to the Jena Six, a group of black high school boys in Jena, Louisiana, charged with attempted murder, conspiracy and related charges that could put them in prison for up to 100 years for a schoolyard fight that ordinarily would be punished with suspension.
It occurred in the context of extreme racial tension, iniated when black high school students sat under a tree at school formerly used for shade exclusively by white students, and white students responded by hanging nooses from the tree. The white power structure alternately trivialized, ignored and exacerbated the situation until an opportunity arose to massively overcharge a group of black students who now face life in prison for what would normally be punished by a school suspension.
While the events in Jena (see below) are terrible, they are hardly unusual. Statistically, we know that hundreds of thousands of black and Latino men and women are in prison who would not be there if they were white. Usually, however, it is not so easy and clear-cut to see on ongoing situation in which biases involved are so nakedly and specifically displayed. And the nakedness of ths display creates an opportunity--not just to fight back in this instance, but to spearhead a broader fight for racial justice in the criminal justice system.
It is an opportunity, in particular, for predominantly-white sectors of the progressive blogosphere to work together bloggers of color and help bring attention and resources to bear in support of an isolated black community that desperately needs help and attention in fighting conditions that seem little changed since the 1960s.
In addition to direct support for the defendents specifically, and those fighting for them on the ground in Jena, calling for Congressional hearings would definitely be in order. (Contact info below)
