G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Cola Crime: A Survey of the Intolerable
By Zbignew Zingh
Created Jun 16 2007 - 10:44am
The judge threw the book at Joya Williams, a former Coca-Cola company
secretary. In May 2007, U.S. District Court Judge J. Owen Forrester
sentenced the 42-year-old African-American woman to eight years in prison, a
sentence substantially longer than that suggested by the federal sentencing
guidelines. Her crime? Conspiring to steal and sell the formulas for several
"top secret" Coca-Cola beverages.This is the kind of offense that cannot be
tolerated in our society [1]."
So, let's do a quick inventory of what other offenses can and cannot be
tolerated in our society:
Government wiretapping of its own citizens without warrants and
eavesdropping [2] on private email traffic? Apparently not a problem.
Happens all the time.
The kidnapping and years-long detention of "suspects [3]" without charge or
access to legal counsel or proof of wrongdoing? Hardly intolerable, say our
President and Vice President.
The police beating peaceful demonstrators [4] and our soldiers raping and
murdering with abandon [5]? Nope, boys will be boys.
The US government either operating its own or out-sourcing secret torture
dungeons around the world? Certainly not intolerable, eh, Professor John Yoo
[6]?
Shredding the Geneva Conventions? Not a problem, according to Alberto
Gonzales [7]!
Washington's promotion of civil war1 [7], invasions and instability
throughout Africa and the Middle East in the name of "democracy" and "free
trade"? Unh uh.
The Congress's evisceration of the Bill of Rights and the gutting of the
centuries old doctrine of Habeas Corpus? Nope, doesn't register a blip on
America's "intolerable" meter.
Blatant election manipulation, gerrymandering, vote caging and outright
voter disenfranchisement? Ho hum, that's just "business as usual".
Lying the nation into an imperial resource war and continuing to fund it in
the name of "supporting our troops"? Not a thing wrong with that, say
Democratic and Republican party honchos.
Murdering Black New Orleans through not-so-benign neglect, criminal
abandonment or malice aforethought? Apparently there's nothing intolerable
about that in our society.
Complicity in the murder of union organizers in Colombia [8]? No, that's
hardly unacceptable, especially as compared to stealing and selling
Coca-Cola's secret formulas.
So, is anything else "intolerable" behavior in our society, other than
conspiring to swipe soda pop recipes? We cannot forget that in America the
law applies equally to all, high and low, rich and poor.
Well, kinda, sorta.
Come to think of it, there certainly seems to be more law for the masses and
less law for more important people. It actually seems like the lower down
the rungs of society and the closer "justice" gets to the common people, the
tougher and more certain are the legal consequences of stepping out of line.
Thus, the exceptional eight year sentence dished out by the judge in Atlanta
(not coincidentally, the corporate headquarters of Coca-Cola) to the
employee who violated the property rights of her corporate employer. Thus,
the seven year prison sentence for Daniel McGowan [9], an Earth Liberation
Front activist, labeled by Oregon US District Court Judge Ann Aiken as an
"eco-terrorist" for his property-damaging acts of arson in defense of the
environment. But will Boeing be labeled an "eco-terrorist" for the
environmental harm wreaked by its war machines? Will Monsanto be charged
with "eco-terrorism" for polluting Nature with pesticides, herbicides and
genetically modified seed? Has Coca-Cola been held responsible for its
property damage to farmland in India because its bottling operations have
sucked the water table dry [10]. And as for those individuals and
corporations who have pocketed millions, billions of dollars, profiteering
from American munitions that have destroyed lives and property all around
the globe, will they be prosecuted for the damage they have caused? Nahhh,
don't even think about it.
But all is not gloom and doom in the corridors of the law. There are some
bright flickers on the intolerability meter.
Federal District Judge Reggie B. Walton (himself a George W. Bush
appointment) sentenced Scooter Libby to 2 years in prison and publicly
stated that Libby had "failed to meet the bar [11]" of the high level of
respect required of public servants. Time will tell whether Mr. Libby's
friends in high places get him pardoned before he trades Brooks Brothers for
an orange jump suit2 [11]. But it's encouraging, nonetheless, to recognize
that some judges, like the Honorable Reggie B. Walton, are, indeed, able to
administer justice without (so far) kowtowing to political patronage.
There have been other instances of appropriately recognized intolerable
behavior. In Ali al-Marri v. Commander Wright, Consolidated Naval Brig [12],
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held on June 11, 2007 that the President
does not have the authority to strip a person of constitutional rights
merely by labeling him an "enemy combatant." This is good news even though
the 2-1 split decision is likely to be appealed to a higher court. An
additional bright flicker: former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham is now
doing eight years in prison for his conspiracy to commit fraud, bribery and
tax evasion3 [12]. Unfortunately, the attorney who helped nail Duke
Cunningham, Carol Lam [13], was one of those federal prosecutors forced out
of their jobs, apparently because United States Attorney General, Alberto
Gonzales, considers the prosecution of political crooks and cronies to be
another offense that cannot be tolerated in our society4 [13].
Messrs. Libby and Cunningham should account themselves lucky that they
committed their crimes in the United States. In Japan, Toshikatsu Matsuoka
[14], the Minister of Agriculture, apparently hanged himself hours before
his appointed grilling by parliament about corruption in the seamy
government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.5 [14] On the Asian mainland, in
China, a court has meted out a death sentence to Zheng Xiaoyu [15], The
former government minister of Food and Drugs was condemned to die because he
had sold out the public's interest in safe food and medicine in return for
bribes. Although I generally oppose the death penalty, one wonders: would
the USDA so actively suppress testing for Mad Cow Disease [16]; would the
FDA so complacently approve deceptions as labeling irradiated food as "cold
pasteurized [17]"; would the FCC so compliantly approve corporate media's
consolidation - would any of this happen if death was the penalty for
succumbing to industry lobbying or for dereliction of public duty?
It is a confusing, contradictory situation, with charges and sentences
ranging all the way from non-existent to extreme. Ordinary people really
want to know: how does the legal system decide what behavior in our society
is intolerable, if committed by one person, but worthy of silent pats on the
head, clemency or executive pardon, if committed by another person? For most
ordinary people aggrieved by the political and economic system that
dominates the United States, the road to justice is a twisty, pot-holed path
through a dark forest, expensive to travel, full of unexpected tolls,
quicksand, and legal cul-de-sacs, all creeping along toward an uncertain
destination. For "important people", however, the road to justice seems to
move at a different speed and in an altogether different direction.6 [17]
Thus, the low level perpetrators of the depravities at Abu Ghraib [18] were
prosecuted and sentenced, but not the Secretary of Defense [19], his toady
generals or the doctors and psychologists who facilitated it. Lt. Ehren
Watada [20], refuses an illegal order to deploy to an illegal war and he is
prosecuted; yet those who obey that same illegal order and who wreak mayhem
in its service, are funded and encouraged with the cry of "Support Our
Troops!" How does the legal system determine what is tolerable and what is
not?
The answer is that, individually, there are judges, lawyers7 [20] and
prosecutors of impeccable integrity and courage throughout the country,
regardless of their political party affiliations, just as there are, more or
less, equal numbers of the opposite cast. Institutionally, however, the
justice system's deck is stacked, deliberately so to preserve the status
quo, to maintain in their fixed orbits and relationships the constellations
of commerce, class and political-economic power.
Historically, it was the English Court's role to enforce the King's
authority and domains. Similarly, the American legal system was created to
provide a bulwark against democratic (and therefore "demagogic") tendencies
and to provide a bulwark for the protection of commerce and property. Shay's
Rebellion [21] (1786-87) and the Whiskey Rebellion [22] (1791-94) are early
examples of the courts working in tandem with the executive branch to
squelch, violently if necessary, all non-passive resistance to government
oppression.
Take the case of slavery. The English High Court, in Somersett's Case [23]
in 1772, declared slavery morally repugnant and illegal, four years before
the Declaration of Independence.8 [23] By contrast, the American
Constitution institutionalized slavery in 1788 as part of a shabby
political-economic accommodation. The US Supreme Court not only did not
abolish slavery when it had the chance, but it gave it the Court's blessing
in Dred Scott vs. Sandford [24] in 1856. It took John Brown's [25]
"terrorist raid" on Harper's Ferry and the Civil War he precipitated to
finally end the legal basis for an abhorrent economic institution that the
Supreme Court never had the courage nor the wisdom nor the moral fiber to
stamp out.
Among those socially conscious in the 1960s, there is a nostalgia for the
exceptional years when Justices Thurgood Marshall [26] and William O.
Douglas [27] sat on the Supreme Court and championed the causes of social
justice. However, the day of the mythical "liberal" Supreme Court was but a
thin slice of time sandwiched between prior and later court decisions like
those that invalidated restrictions on the use of child labor,9 [27]matters
of anti-labor bias. that endorsed the power to intern ethnic Americans in
the name of national security,10 [27] and that validated the appointment,
rather than the election of the President.11 [27]
Thus the 1960s might only have been an aberration coincident with years when
oil was plentiful and cheap, when middle class standards of living were
rising and not falling, when Americans knew no bounds, and when the door to
Justice for the oppressed, women and people of color seemed to crack open
just a little bit.
But that was then, this is now. The apocalyptic horsemen of resource
depletion, rampaging world capitalism, climate chaos, and wars without end
stalk the land; and that courthouse door once slightly ajar is now barred,
bolted and guarded by a reactionary Cerberus of relatively young,
doctrinaire Supreme Court [28] jurists-for-life, nominated by royalty
wannabes and confirmed by compliant "bipartisan" politicians who thought (if
they thought at all) that the integrity of the third branch of government
was not worth the filibuster.
For better or worse, many of the most significant issues concerning personal
rights and liberties, social equality, labor, the environment, property
rights versus civil rights, police powers, war powers, democracy versus
aristocracy, wend their way upward to that same US Supreme Court where "law"
is the candy wrapper for a policy of cultural, political and social
counter-reformation. Inexorably are the modest judicial gains of the 1960s
being deliberately chipped away, and despite the best efforts of those
earnestly seeking justice in the highest court of the land, they seem often
to be tilting at windmills.
So at this Last Bus Stop of American Justice, have we found the place where
the most intolerable legal offenses against our society occur? Is this where
idealism and hope are disappointed, where all good causes finally go to die?
Perhaps, but it is a salutary revelation to know that not all things can or
will be solved in the courthouse. The legal system is simply too grindingly
slow, too finely focused and too atavistic to effect the fundamental changes
that current crises cry out for.12 [28] Of course, those who pursue justice
in the courts should continue to so for the simple reason that, sometimes,
good things can and do come of it. Nevertheless, the legal tack can be only
one of many, and, if history is any indicator, it certainly is not the most
likely to make the most profound changes. Electoral politics, street
protest, petitions to Congress and letters to editors also fit into the same
category of well-intended hard work that usually yields less than the effort
expended on it.
The truth is that the most intolerable offense in our society is not the
theft of proprietary soda formulas, nor lying to a grand jury, nor even the
gradual unwinding of good case law from the '60s. The most intolerable
offense in our society is delegating to others - be they lawyers, judges,
politicians or the media - the responsibility for changing our world. As
Henry David Thoreau said in his essay "Civil Disobedience": "Cast your whole
vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence."
There is no secret formula. The impetus for change has to effervesce up from
below. Like a shaken can of cola. Like a shaken can of cola.
1.. The US has funded and encouraged Ethiopian troops to occupy Somalia,
disrupting the social stability that had finally been achieved by the
Islamic Courts Union. The US is also, directly or through proxies, providing
arms to Fatah in occupied Palestine so that it can fight with Hamas, and
providing weapons to "terrorist" groups in Lebanon to undermine Hizbollah.
In Dafur, the US (and whoever is funding the mega-campaign for the
disingenuous "humanitarian" exercise) is determined to prevent the outbreak
of peace by fanning the flames of sectarian war. Genocide? No, it's all
about oil [29]. ? [29]
2.. AIM activist Leonard Peltier [30] will not be pardoned. Nor will Gary
Tyler [31], imprisoned in the Louisiana State Prison for a murder he did not
commit. But many government officials have been pardoned. President George
H. Bush pardoned a half dozen in one fell swoop to cover up the Iran-Contra
[32] arms for hostages scandal. In cases like the Iran-Contra conspirators,
as in the case of Mr. Libby, the purpose of the pardon is demonstrate to
others who might be criminally indited how those who lie in support of one's
conspirators in crime will be protected from any serious repercussions. It
is an extension of the Mafia law of omerta. ? [32]
3.. Note that the length of Cunningham's prison sentence is about the same
as the Cola culprit received. ? [32]
4.. Although the Republicans have acted shamefully in firing state
attorneys general who would not do their bidding, it is naive to regard this
as purely GOP behavior. Both halves of the ruling party do this type of
thing. The reason why Democrats have seized this particular issue is because
it is a scandal - unlike the War on Iraq - that does not have any Democratic
fingerprints on it. ? [32]
5.. The ruling party in Japan was extremely annoyed that Mr. Matsuoka was
prepared to bare all of his (and his party's) transgressions in testimony
before Parliament. His suicide (or was he helped along in his decision to
"save face"?) occurred only hours before he was scheduled to testify.
Another corrupt businessman involved in the same bribery scandal, Shinichi
Yamazaki, committed suicide the very next day by "jumping" out of his
condominium, or so it was reported. ? [32]
6.. Who can resist comment on the jailing of Paris Hilton? Bobble-heads
like Ms. Hilton are not normally worth serious attention. However, it is
fascinating to observe how easily the media can distract the public from a)
the implications of the felonies committed by Mr. Libby in furtherance of
the cover-up of a political hatchet job to b) the totally insignificant
traffic offense committed by Ms. Hilton. Personally, I take no Schadenfreude
in jailing the young and feeble-minded, even when they are rich and bratty
like Ms. Hilton. Perhaps the neo-con PR onslaught depicting the Passion of
Scooter Jesus can be turned on its head by a counter-campaign: Pardon Paris!
Lock Up Liar Libby! ? [32]
7.. The pro bono defense attorneys who represent the forgotten souls of
Guantanamo are among the heroes of this profession, as are the military
defense lawyers who dare to stick out their jaws in JAG judges' faces. ?
[32]
8.. Of course, this happened as England was evolving from a purely
agrarian society into an industrial one, as "free labor" was becoming the
new beast of capital's burden, and as the tentacles of empire were beginning
to wrap around new overseas resources, markets and, yes, colonial
slave-substitutes. Although slavery itself was banned in 1772, Parliament
did not eliminate the slave trade until the early 19th Century. ? [32]
9.. Bailey vs. Drexel Furniture Co., 1922. For more references to ? [33]
j.. Korematsu vs. United States, 1944. ? [33]
k.. Bush vs. Gore, 2000. ? [33]
l.. Sometimes individuals ultimately "prevail" after years of civil rights
litigation. Too often, however, the monetary damages awarded to successful
litigants pale in comparison to the harm that cannot be recompensed. Thus,
Mr. Korematsu was eventually "exonerated" in 1998 for his "crime" of not
assenting to imprisonment in a Japanese-American concentration camp during
WWII. But that did not occur until decades after the government accomplished
what it wanted to do: lock up West Coast Americans of Japanese ancestry for
the duration of the war. The $20,000 damages eventually paid to Japanese
Americans cannot repay them for the lost years of freedom or for their lost
farms and homes. Worse, the original Supreme Court case that ruled against
Mr. Korematsu, although founded on false evidence presented by government
prosecutors, continues to be "good law" that is cited even today in support
of the current pograms against Muslims, Asians and people of Arab, African,
Caribbean or South American ancestry. Likewise, if those incarcerated by the
US in its myriad secret prison sites are ever released, or, at least, ever
charged and tried, it will have come too late to spare them the pain of
torture, too late to mend the holes in their lives, too late to salvage the
myth of due process of law. ? [33]
_______
About author Zbignew Zingh can be reached at: Zbig@ersarts.com [34]. This
Article is CopyLeft, and free to distribute, reprint, repost, sing at a
recital, spray paint, scribble in a toilet stall, etc. to your heart's
content, with proper author citation. Find out more about Copyleft and read
other great articles at www.ersarts.com [35]. copyleft 2006
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Zbignew Zingh
Created Jun 16 2007 - 10:44am
The judge threw the book at Joya Williams, a former Coca-Cola company
secretary. In May 2007, U.S. District Court Judge J. Owen Forrester
sentenced the 42-year-old African-American woman to eight years in prison, a
sentence substantially longer than that suggested by the federal sentencing
guidelines. Her crime? Conspiring to steal and sell the formulas for several
"top secret" Coca-Cola beverages.This is the kind of offense that cannot be
tolerated in our society [1]."
So, let's do a quick inventory of what other offenses can and cannot be
tolerated in our society:
Government wiretapping of its own citizens without warrants and
eavesdropping [2] on private email traffic? Apparently not a problem.
Happens all the time.
The kidnapping and years-long detention of "suspects [3]" without charge or
access to legal counsel or proof of wrongdoing? Hardly intolerable, say our
President and Vice President.
The police beating peaceful demonstrators [4] and our soldiers raping and
murdering with abandon [5]? Nope, boys will be boys.
The US government either operating its own or out-sourcing secret torture
dungeons around the world? Certainly not intolerable, eh, Professor John Yoo
[6]?
Shredding the Geneva Conventions? Not a problem, according to Alberto
Gonzales [7]!
Washington's promotion of civil war1 [7], invasions and instability
throughout Africa and the Middle East in the name of "democracy" and "free
trade"? Unh uh.
The Congress's evisceration of the Bill of Rights and the gutting of the
centuries old doctrine of Habeas Corpus? Nope, doesn't register a blip on
America's "intolerable" meter.
Blatant election manipulation, gerrymandering, vote caging and outright
voter disenfranchisement? Ho hum, that's just "business as usual".
Lying the nation into an imperial resource war and continuing to fund it in
the name of "supporting our troops"? Not a thing wrong with that, say
Democratic and Republican party honchos.
Murdering Black New Orleans through not-so-benign neglect, criminal
abandonment or malice aforethought? Apparently there's nothing intolerable
about that in our society.
Complicity in the murder of union organizers in Colombia [8]? No, that's
hardly unacceptable, especially as compared to stealing and selling
Coca-Cola's secret formulas.
So, is anything else "intolerable" behavior in our society, other than
conspiring to swipe soda pop recipes? We cannot forget that in America the
law applies equally to all, high and low, rich and poor.
Well, kinda, sorta.
Come to think of it, there certainly seems to be more law for the masses and
less law for more important people. It actually seems like the lower down
the rungs of society and the closer "justice" gets to the common people, the
tougher and more certain are the legal consequences of stepping out of line.
Thus, the exceptional eight year sentence dished out by the judge in Atlanta
(not coincidentally, the corporate headquarters of Coca-Cola) to the
employee who violated the property rights of her corporate employer. Thus,
the seven year prison sentence for Daniel McGowan [9], an Earth Liberation
Front activist, labeled by Oregon US District Court Judge Ann Aiken as an
"eco-terrorist" for his property-damaging acts of arson in defense of the
environment. But will Boeing be labeled an "eco-terrorist" for the
environmental harm wreaked by its war machines? Will Monsanto be charged
with "eco-terrorism" for polluting Nature with pesticides, herbicides and
genetically modified seed? Has Coca-Cola been held responsible for its
property damage to farmland in India because its bottling operations have
sucked the water table dry [10]. And as for those individuals and
corporations who have pocketed millions, billions of dollars, profiteering
from American munitions that have destroyed lives and property all around
the globe, will they be prosecuted for the damage they have caused? Nahhh,
don't even think about it.
But all is not gloom and doom in the corridors of the law. There are some
bright flickers on the intolerability meter.
Federal District Judge Reggie B. Walton (himself a George W. Bush
appointment) sentenced Scooter Libby to 2 years in prison and publicly
stated that Libby had "failed to meet the bar [11]" of the high level of
respect required of public servants. Time will tell whether Mr. Libby's
friends in high places get him pardoned before he trades Brooks Brothers for
an orange jump suit2 [11]. But it's encouraging, nonetheless, to recognize
that some judges, like the Honorable Reggie B. Walton, are, indeed, able to
administer justice without (so far) kowtowing to political patronage.
There have been other instances of appropriately recognized intolerable
behavior. In Ali al-Marri v. Commander Wright, Consolidated Naval Brig [12],
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held on June 11, 2007 that the President
does not have the authority to strip a person of constitutional rights
merely by labeling him an "enemy combatant." This is good news even though
the 2-1 split decision is likely to be appealed to a higher court. An
additional bright flicker: former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham is now
doing eight years in prison for his conspiracy to commit fraud, bribery and
tax evasion3 [12]. Unfortunately, the attorney who helped nail Duke
Cunningham, Carol Lam [13], was one of those federal prosecutors forced out
of their jobs, apparently because United States Attorney General, Alberto
Gonzales, considers the prosecution of political crooks and cronies to be
another offense that cannot be tolerated in our society4 [13].
Messrs. Libby and Cunningham should account themselves lucky that they
committed their crimes in the United States. In Japan, Toshikatsu Matsuoka
[14], the Minister of Agriculture, apparently hanged himself hours before
his appointed grilling by parliament about corruption in the seamy
government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.5 [14] On the Asian mainland, in
China, a court has meted out a death sentence to Zheng Xiaoyu [15], The
former government minister of Food and Drugs was condemned to die because he
had sold out the public's interest in safe food and medicine in return for
bribes. Although I generally oppose the death penalty, one wonders: would
the USDA so actively suppress testing for Mad Cow Disease [16]; would the
FDA so complacently approve deceptions as labeling irradiated food as "cold
pasteurized [17]"; would the FCC so compliantly approve corporate media's
consolidation - would any of this happen if death was the penalty for
succumbing to industry lobbying or for dereliction of public duty?
It is a confusing, contradictory situation, with charges and sentences
ranging all the way from non-existent to extreme. Ordinary people really
want to know: how does the legal system decide what behavior in our society
is intolerable, if committed by one person, but worthy of silent pats on the
head, clemency or executive pardon, if committed by another person? For most
ordinary people aggrieved by the political and economic system that
dominates the United States, the road to justice is a twisty, pot-holed path
through a dark forest, expensive to travel, full of unexpected tolls,
quicksand, and legal cul-de-sacs, all creeping along toward an uncertain
destination. For "important people", however, the road to justice seems to
move at a different speed and in an altogether different direction.6 [17]
Thus, the low level perpetrators of the depravities at Abu Ghraib [18] were
prosecuted and sentenced, but not the Secretary of Defense [19], his toady
generals or the doctors and psychologists who facilitated it. Lt. Ehren
Watada [20], refuses an illegal order to deploy to an illegal war and he is
prosecuted; yet those who obey that same illegal order and who wreak mayhem
in its service, are funded and encouraged with the cry of "Support Our
Troops!" How does the legal system determine what is tolerable and what is
not?
The answer is that, individually, there are judges, lawyers7 [20] and
prosecutors of impeccable integrity and courage throughout the country,
regardless of their political party affiliations, just as there are, more or
less, equal numbers of the opposite cast. Institutionally, however, the
justice system's deck is stacked, deliberately so to preserve the status
quo, to maintain in their fixed orbits and relationships the constellations
of commerce, class and political-economic power.
Historically, it was the English Court's role to enforce the King's
authority and domains. Similarly, the American legal system was created to
provide a bulwark against democratic (and therefore "demagogic") tendencies
and to provide a bulwark for the protection of commerce and property. Shay's
Rebellion [21] (1786-87) and the Whiskey Rebellion [22] (1791-94) are early
examples of the courts working in tandem with the executive branch to
squelch, violently if necessary, all non-passive resistance to government
oppression.
Take the case of slavery. The English High Court, in Somersett's Case [23]
in 1772, declared slavery morally repugnant and illegal, four years before
the Declaration of Independence.8 [23] By contrast, the American
Constitution institutionalized slavery in 1788 as part of a shabby
political-economic accommodation. The US Supreme Court not only did not
abolish slavery when it had the chance, but it gave it the Court's blessing
in Dred Scott vs. Sandford [24] in 1856. It took John Brown's [25]
"terrorist raid" on Harper's Ferry and the Civil War he precipitated to
finally end the legal basis for an abhorrent economic institution that the
Supreme Court never had the courage nor the wisdom nor the moral fiber to
stamp out.
Among those socially conscious in the 1960s, there is a nostalgia for the
exceptional years when Justices Thurgood Marshall [26] and William O.
Douglas [27] sat on the Supreme Court and championed the causes of social
justice. However, the day of the mythical "liberal" Supreme Court was but a
thin slice of time sandwiched between prior and later court decisions like
those that invalidated restrictions on the use of child labor,9 [27]matters
of anti-labor bias. that endorsed the power to intern ethnic Americans in
the name of national security,10 [27] and that validated the appointment,
rather than the election of the President.11 [27]
Thus the 1960s might only have been an aberration coincident with years when
oil was plentiful and cheap, when middle class standards of living were
rising and not falling, when Americans knew no bounds, and when the door to
Justice for the oppressed, women and people of color seemed to crack open
just a little bit.
But that was then, this is now. The apocalyptic horsemen of resource
depletion, rampaging world capitalism, climate chaos, and wars without end
stalk the land; and that courthouse door once slightly ajar is now barred,
bolted and guarded by a reactionary Cerberus of relatively young,
doctrinaire Supreme Court [28] jurists-for-life, nominated by royalty
wannabes and confirmed by compliant "bipartisan" politicians who thought (if
they thought at all) that the integrity of the third branch of government
was not worth the filibuster.
For better or worse, many of the most significant issues concerning personal
rights and liberties, social equality, labor, the environment, property
rights versus civil rights, police powers, war powers, democracy versus
aristocracy, wend their way upward to that same US Supreme Court where "law"
is the candy wrapper for a policy of cultural, political and social
counter-reformation. Inexorably are the modest judicial gains of the 1960s
being deliberately chipped away, and despite the best efforts of those
earnestly seeking justice in the highest court of the land, they seem often
to be tilting at windmills.
So at this Last Bus Stop of American Justice, have we found the place where
the most intolerable legal offenses against our society occur? Is this where
idealism and hope are disappointed, where all good causes finally go to die?
Perhaps, but it is a salutary revelation to know that not all things can or
will be solved in the courthouse. The legal system is simply too grindingly
slow, too finely focused and too atavistic to effect the fundamental changes
that current crises cry out for.12 [28] Of course, those who pursue justice
in the courts should continue to so for the simple reason that, sometimes,
good things can and do come of it. Nevertheless, the legal tack can be only
one of many, and, if history is any indicator, it certainly is not the most
likely to make the most profound changes. Electoral politics, street
protest, petitions to Congress and letters to editors also fit into the same
category of well-intended hard work that usually yields less than the effort
expended on it.
The truth is that the most intolerable offense in our society is not the
theft of proprietary soda formulas, nor lying to a grand jury, nor even the
gradual unwinding of good case law from the '60s. The most intolerable
offense in our society is delegating to others - be they lawyers, judges,
politicians or the media - the responsibility for changing our world. As
Henry David Thoreau said in his essay "Civil Disobedience": "Cast your whole
vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence."
There is no secret formula. The impetus for change has to effervesce up from
below. Like a shaken can of cola. Like a shaken can of cola.
1.. The US has funded and encouraged Ethiopian troops to occupy Somalia,
disrupting the social stability that had finally been achieved by the
Islamic Courts Union. The US is also, directly or through proxies, providing
arms to Fatah in occupied Palestine so that it can fight with Hamas, and
providing weapons to "terrorist" groups in Lebanon to undermine Hizbollah.
In Dafur, the US (and whoever is funding the mega-campaign for the
disingenuous "humanitarian" exercise) is determined to prevent the outbreak
of peace by fanning the flames of sectarian war. Genocide? No, it's all
about oil [29]. ? [29]
2.. AIM activist Leonard Peltier [30] will not be pardoned. Nor will Gary
Tyler [31], imprisoned in the Louisiana State Prison for a murder he did not
commit. But many government officials have been pardoned. President George
H. Bush pardoned a half dozen in one fell swoop to cover up the Iran-Contra
[32] arms for hostages scandal. In cases like the Iran-Contra conspirators,
as in the case of Mr. Libby, the purpose of the pardon is demonstrate to
others who might be criminally indited how those who lie in support of one's
conspirators in crime will be protected from any serious repercussions. It
is an extension of the Mafia law of omerta. ? [32]
3.. Note that the length of Cunningham's prison sentence is about the same
as the Cola culprit received. ? [32]
4.. Although the Republicans have acted shamefully in firing state
attorneys general who would not do their bidding, it is naive to regard this
as purely GOP behavior. Both halves of the ruling party do this type of
thing. The reason why Democrats have seized this particular issue is because
it is a scandal - unlike the War on Iraq - that does not have any Democratic
fingerprints on it. ? [32]
5.. The ruling party in Japan was extremely annoyed that Mr. Matsuoka was
prepared to bare all of his (and his party's) transgressions in testimony
before Parliament. His suicide (or was he helped along in his decision to
"save face"?) occurred only hours before he was scheduled to testify.
Another corrupt businessman involved in the same bribery scandal, Shinichi
Yamazaki, committed suicide the very next day by "jumping" out of his
condominium, or so it was reported. ? [32]
6.. Who can resist comment on the jailing of Paris Hilton? Bobble-heads
like Ms. Hilton are not normally worth serious attention. However, it is
fascinating to observe how easily the media can distract the public from a)
the implications of the felonies committed by Mr. Libby in furtherance of
the cover-up of a political hatchet job to b) the totally insignificant
traffic offense committed by Ms. Hilton. Personally, I take no Schadenfreude
in jailing the young and feeble-minded, even when they are rich and bratty
like Ms. Hilton. Perhaps the neo-con PR onslaught depicting the Passion of
Scooter Jesus can be turned on its head by a counter-campaign: Pardon Paris!
Lock Up Liar Libby! ? [32]
7.. The pro bono defense attorneys who represent the forgotten souls of
Guantanamo are among the heroes of this profession, as are the military
defense lawyers who dare to stick out their jaws in JAG judges' faces. ?
[32]
8.. Of course, this happened as England was evolving from a purely
agrarian society into an industrial one, as "free labor" was becoming the
new beast of capital's burden, and as the tentacles of empire were beginning
to wrap around new overseas resources, markets and, yes, colonial
slave-substitutes. Although slavery itself was banned in 1772, Parliament
did not eliminate the slave trade until the early 19th Century. ? [32]
9.. Bailey vs. Drexel Furniture Co., 1922. For more references to ? [33]
j.. Korematsu vs. United States, 1944. ? [33]
k.. Bush vs. Gore, 2000. ? [33]
l.. Sometimes individuals ultimately "prevail" after years of civil rights
litigation. Too often, however, the monetary damages awarded to successful
litigants pale in comparison to the harm that cannot be recompensed. Thus,
Mr. Korematsu was eventually "exonerated" in 1998 for his "crime" of not
assenting to imprisonment in a Japanese-American concentration camp during
WWII. But that did not occur until decades after the government accomplished
what it wanted to do: lock up West Coast Americans of Japanese ancestry for
the duration of the war. The $20,000 damages eventually paid to Japanese
Americans cannot repay them for the lost years of freedom or for their lost
farms and homes. Worse, the original Supreme Court case that ruled against
Mr. Korematsu, although founded on false evidence presented by government
prosecutors, continues to be "good law" that is cited even today in support
of the current pograms against Muslims, Asians and people of Arab, African,
Caribbean or South American ancestry. Likewise, if those incarcerated by the
US in its myriad secret prison sites are ever released, or, at least, ever
charged and tried, it will have come too late to spare them the pain of
torture, too late to mend the holes in their lives, too late to salvage the
myth of due process of law. ? [33]
_______
About author Zbignew Zingh can be reached at: Zbig@ersarts.com [34]. This
Article is CopyLeft, and free to distribute, reprint, repost, sing at a
recital, spray paint, scribble in a toilet stall, etc. to your heart's
content, with proper author citation. Find out more about Copyleft and read
other great articles at www.ersarts.com [35]. copyleft 2006
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson