Chickens Coming Home to Roost, Scene 42b: The Obama Doctrine


Just a quickie here today to tie together Jhwygirl’s recent uncovering of another of Missoula’s nanny state laws and the shrinking 4th Amendment with Lizard’s ongoing analysis of foreign policy American Imperialism and the democratic party, and Political Nihilism.

For those who pay attention to such things, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last week to cement in place some foreign policy tactics in a withering of 4th Amendment protections. David Bromwich does an excellent job connecting the dots between democrats’ lilly-livered approach to both reigning in American Hegemony, and  protecting civil liberties in his recent article “Strip Search Nation (Including The Authoritarian Catechism):”

What might easily not be known about this case [Florence v. County of Burlington]… is that the Obama administration sided with the authoritarians on the court in supporting the right of prison officials to command a strip search. A Justice Department lawyer, Nicole A. Saharsky, offered these words to clarify the view shared by President Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder: “When you have a rule that treats everyone the same, you don’t have folks that are singled out. You don’t have any security gaps.” The Obama case for abrogation of the fourth amendment in prison thus turns on a lofty non-discriminatory aim: the safety and democracy of prisons. A level playing field of humiliation.

But is it true to say that no “folks” are “singled out” by such a procedure? Albert Florence [whom had been arrested for not paying a fine, which in fact he had already paid] is a black man. In 2009, blacks made up 13.6 percent of the U.S. population, but they were 39.4 percent of the prison population. So let us say it straight. The Obama-Holder view favors the universal application of the strip-search to a situation where some folks, after all, have been singled out as an observable pattern of the usual practice of the system.

Well, of course we all want to say this could never happen to any of us, but here is what the Obama Administration just acquiesced to for treatment of any of us being brought into custody for any reason–yes even a cell phone texting, non-fine paying warrant, in Missoula:

Petitioner [Florence] claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, armpits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting.”

So think about that next time you get all cocky about thumbing your nose at Missoula’s nanny laws.

But to link this move with our country’s foreign policy escapades, Bromwich offers the following:

“Foreign policy has come home in the form of pepper spray, Tasers, and strip searches. But there is a practice closer to the Florence case. A mass experiment in the reduction of political self-respect occurs and is reinforced every day, in every airport in the country, in the body scans and pat-downs performed by the TSA. Some of the latter work is necessary, of course, while a strip search of a man with a parking ticket is not necessary. Still, the common experience and the exceptional one are clearly related. The government wore people down and achieved acceptance of the first practice, and that prepared the way for official endorsement of the second. Once again, a political and moral aberration has been redescribed and turned into an approved policy…

Justice Breyer wrote in his dissent: “such a search of an individual arrested for a minor offense that does not involve drugs or violence — say a traffic offense, a regulatory offense, an essentially civil matter, or any other such misdemeanor — is an ‘unreasonable search’ forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, unless prison authorities have reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual possesses drugs or other contraband.” You do not have to be an elaborately educated or refined reader of the Constitution to judge that such indeed is the meaning of the fourth amendment.

The words are great and they deserve to be remembered. Here is what the fourth amendment says:

~The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.~

How steep is the descent from these words to the new rule by which a majority of the Supreme Court, with a president and an attorney general at their side, have now elected to challenge the constitutional presumption against arbitrary searches and seizures? We will know for sure when we see the next in the series of anti-Constitutional experiments begun by Bush and Cheney and continued by Barack Obama.”

I’ll leave you all with this wonderful little ditty Bromwich included (after the jump), to remind you of your place in the democrat version of the New World Order:

The Authoritarian Catechism

1. There are good people and bad people.

2. A designated function of the police and prison officials is to determine who is good and who is bad.

3. If you are arrested, it may safely be assumed that you are one of the bad.

4. If, at the time of arrest or afterward, you protest your innocence loudly, or speak with indocility to an officer of the law, you have committed an offense graver than many crimes on the books.

5. Breaches of politeness toward authorities form a legitimate part of a record stored up for future use regarding the conduct of all Americans.

6. Authorities must keep such a record because Americans, through our tacit consent to laws passed or changed since 2001, have affirmed that we think nothing more important than our safety.

7. The duty to keep America safe, and to “protect” all Americans, outweighs the duty to see that existing laws under the Constitution are faithfully executed. Apparent violation of an existing law by a designated authority, so long as it can be seen as consistent with the higher duty of the maintenance of safety, is itself a sufficient reason for a change of law to accommodate the violation.

8. When not already effected by Congress, such changes will be executed by the Supreme Court.

9. There is a proper trade-off between unalienable rights and collective safety, just as there is a trade-off between the moral commandment not to commit injustice and the human desire to live as long and comfortable a life as we possibly can.

10. Whenever safety and comfort require that injustice be done to individuals, injustice is tolerable and should be supported by other Americans.

11. For an accused person, there is a correct and an incorrect posture.

12. The incorrect posture is to be indignant at things done to you, such as the imposition of unnecessary force or humiliation. The correct posture is to be grateful to authority for the things that have not yet been done.

Have a wonderful day. And if you get caught texting and driving, make sure you perp prep yourself for a strip search and body cavity exam. And don’t forget to say please and thank you.

And does anybody question the notion that the terrorists are still winning with every chink taken out of the Constitution by our Administration and the SCOTUS?

Empire comes at a cost, and that cost is now apparent: we will be treated at home as we treat others abroad. It’s the Obama Doctrine.

  1. evdebs

    I’m terribly disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision. Even one of the Gang of Five had reservations about it. But I would note that Obama, for all his myriad faults, has appointed as many women to the Supreme Court as all his precedessors combined. His two appointees joined Clinton appointees Ginsberg and Breyer.

    Writing for the dissenting opinion on behalf of the liberal justices, Justice Stephen Breyer said there was little evidence that the strip searches lead to the discovery of contraband that less invasive procedures could not detect.

    Breyer called the procedures “inherently harmful, humiliating, and degrading” and concluded that “the harm to privacy interests would seem particularly acute where the person searched may well have no expectation of being subject to such a search, say, because she had simply received a traffic ticket for failing to buckle a seatbelt, because he had not previously paid a civil fine, or because she had been arrested for a minor trespass.”

  2. mahmet7

    The Rubicon was crossed long, long ago. These exhibits listes above are the particulars. While far from unique, America’s terrorists are largely taxpayer funded, and yes they are winning.

  3. carfreestupidity

    We’re an Empire… no need for civil right protections when you have to protect ill gotten gains. Now move along, nothing to see here.

  4. Steve W

    Foriegn policy is domestic policy.

    That was the topic of a talk I heard back in 1992. And it just keeps getting truer as time passes.

  5. jack ruby

    Grab your ankles and give me two good coughs

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,851 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • April 2012
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: