The United States federal officials demonstrate their lack of respect for the rest of the world:
India Is Furious Over US Strip Search Of Diplomat Facing Fraud Charges
The “fraud charges” consist of this:
US authorities say she not only paid a domestic servant a fraction of the minimum wage but also lied in a visa application for the employee, an Indian national who has since absconded.
Somehow I copied and pasted way to much into my previous comment.
Anyways here is another blog post from Gary Weiss.
http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2013/12/preet-bharara-pours-gasoline-on-fire.html
@Petros
The Supreme Court has specifically authorized cavity searches by corrections officers for the purpose of maintaining the order and safety of detention facilities. This also applies to pre-trial detainees.
@all
Maybe FATCA will not be in the cards for India. 🙂
These incidents are often only the tip of the iceberg.
Tim, you did! I hope what I deleted is my correct assumption. Thanks for the additional comment.
FATCA = Financial Cavity Search
@JE Guitierrez, I am not sure what your point is. Is it to say that it is legal to strip and cavity search without reasonable cause?
The US Supreme Court often makes decisions which are contra the People; they are after all appointed by a politically elected official and thus act according to political ideologies in their “interpretation” of the Constitution.
However, when I maintain an interpretation of the 4th Amendment that would have protected the Lady Diplomat, I was just using what is called “exegesis” — a method of interpreting texts according to the intent of the writers–who represented the People and the States–who were attempting to place limits on the Federal Government which they were creating; these Founders knew that they were potentially creating a beast worse than King George. To my knowledge, cavity searches of “our women” was not listed in the grievances explicitly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Had the British been searching for contraband in the vaginas of colonial women, I’m sure they would have listed that as a reason for separating themselves from the British.
@Petros
The point is that the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that cavity searches on pre-trial detainees conducted for the purpose of preserving order and safety in detention facilities is entirely legal.
The Founding Fathers were very aware that the Constitution could not by itself address all cases and circumstances that would arise in the future. They therefore entrusted the Supreme Court to interpret the Consitution precisely for this purpose. Justices are appointed by the Executive and confimed by Congress, ie. by elected representatives of the People.
You may not like or agree with the treatment of this person, but it should be very obvious to you that due legal and constitutional process has been followed.
J.E. Gutierrez says “You may not like or agree with the treatment of this person, but it should be very obvious to you that due legal and constitutional process has been followed.”
I recognize that something may be perfectly legal but remain completely and utterly immoral and wrong. Say for example that Congress passed a law saying that it is perfectly legal to assassinate US citizens without a trial. Then the president stacks the US Supreme Court that then decides that the due process requirements of the US Constitution are no longer important when it comes to the war on Terrorism. Would the ethical and moral ramifications of assassination not still be debatable? Why then does the media criticize Kim Jong Un’s execution of his uncle? Did this man not commit “crimes” for which he received the death penalty? The problem isn’t whether it is legal to kill his uncle: the problem is arbitrary authority doing as it pleases: and if there is no law to suit their crimes, they simply create new ones, and then stack the Supreme Court with immoral men to make sure that that their immoral laws are not found unconstitutional.
I believe that there is in fact a higher court than the US Supreme Court. All of the justices will one day have to face judgement at that court, as will presidents, lawyers, and legislators. All will have to answer for their crimes, whether their crimes were “legal” or no.
I also maintain that it is perfectly ugly and despicable for US Marshal to cavity search a woman for whom there is no reasonable suspicion that she has a weapons in her body’s crevices.
When government ceases to protect its citizens, and instead turns to violating the rights of citizens, it completely loses all moral authority. The United States government has lost its moral authority, in the same manner as the North Korean government has lots its moral authority.
@Petros
@JE
The treatment of this particular woman is NOT the real issue here (although it has showcased what the real issue is). The real issue is that the U.S. proudly defends its conduct on the basis that in the US:
All people are subjected to this kind of search. We treat ALL people this way. The assumption is that the only issue is whether everybody is treated this way and NOT whether the treatment itself is justified (which it obviously is NOT). Put it another way: The SUBSTANCE of the law doesn’t matter what matters is the equal APPLICATION. Injustice is okay as long as it’s equally applied.
This is a feature of American culture – a culture that equates law with morality (if it considers morality at all). This is what happens’ when you have a country with so many laws, so many crimes, therefore so many criminals and such a lack of respect (if not outright contempt for the dignity of the individual). The easiest way for America to develop a moral sense would to get rid of some of its laws.
Petros is absolutely correct in making the distinction between law and morality. It’s as though the U.S. has evolved into a country where morality doesn’t matter – what matters is law.
JE’s comment that:
is extraordinary.
He/she offers this as evidence that the treatment of this woman was LEGAL and therefore JUSTIFIED. Of course, law is morality. If it’s legal then it’s moral. The issue here is (and this is why the Government of India is so furious) is the morality of the conduct.
Now, I want to comment further on the meaning of a statement from the Supreme Court to the effect that:
“The Supreme Court has specifically authorized cavity searches by corrections officers for the purpose of maintaining the order and safety of detention facilities. This also applies to pre-trial detainees.”
I don’t know the case. I haven’t read the decision. But, I would bet that this decision does NOT direct these kinds of searches to be performed. What the decision means is that under certain circumstances, this kind of search, does NOT violate the 4th amendment. This is NOT the same thing as saying that the search is moral, legal in all circumstances. What it means is that, in certain circumstances, this bodily search does NOT violate the 4th amendment.
Therefore, when JE offers this Supreme Court this decision as justification, he/she is confirming that MORALITY is NOT the issue. The issue is whether there is a constitutional restriction on the nature of the government conduct, and as long as there is no constitutional restriction, government should be able to do it. (Shades of the JE justification for FATCA. IT’s legal. We can do it. You have no choice but to follow it …)
This kind of thinking demonstrates why constitutional rights are necessary.
To put it simply, in the America of today:
The government will do anything as long as it is NOT prohibited from doing it. We will do things as long as we can.
You may recall Bill Clinton asked in connection with the Monica Lewinsky episode said (to paraphrase):
“I did it because I could, and this is the least morally defensible reason for doing something.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-cheated-because-i-could-16-06-2004/
The clearest evidence of the erosion of empire is when law becomes a substitute for morality.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/03/22/when-law-becomes-a-substitute-for-morality/
@JE: The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes longer.” (Henry Kissinger)
Just make deplorable constitutional and everything’s just hunky dory. No need for it to take longer.
@USCitizenAbroad
Of course the law should be completely separated from morality. The former should be a code on which people should be able to rely without subjective interpretation. The latter is a product personal views and judgments: Citizen A’s sense of morality varies greatly form Citizen B’s and may be in direct conflict with Citizen C’s. It would be impossible to conduct public affairs on the basis of every citizen’s sense of morality. We rely on the law (and beyond that on the Constitution) as the ultimate guarantee of our freedom.
@JE
Thank you for confirming your position that morality is irrelevant to law. This is precisely the problem with America today. The question of whether something is an unreasonable search is a moral question. Don’t you understand that the Supreme Court is NOT authorizing a “cavity search”. It is simply saying that NOT ALL cavity searches do NOT violate the 4th amendment.
So, I take it that you would be perfectly content with the following scenario:
Imagine a law that says (and I could imagine this in the U.S.)
Any person who wears blue after 6:00 p.m. on Fridays is guilty of a crime.
You are walking home on Friday at 6:01 p.m. wearing blue. A police car pulls up beside you and arrests you for wearing blue. You are arrested and subjected to the same kind of body cavity search that this woman was subjected to.
You ask:
Why am I being searched?
The searcher replies, well the Supreme Court has authorized it. But, you say:
But, surely this is unreasonable.
They say too bad. It’s the law.
Look this is the argument you are making. The “reasonableness” of the search is a moral question and the law cannot be interpreted outside a set of moral principles. So, law is NOT and CANNOT be independent of morality.
What the law does is to prescribe OUTER LIMITS on conduct. It is not intended to regulate things that don’t reach those limits. It means that under circumstances that reach the OUTER limit a cavity search does NOT violate the 4th amendment.
Think about this.
Law cannot be separated from morality.
I just read the last part of your comment:
“We rely on the law (and beyond that on the Constitution) as the ultimate guarantee of our freedom.”
Do tell.
@USCitizenAbroad
Your example is extremely poor, because the law you hypothesize is blatantly unconstitutional.
Anyway, that is not the main point of your argument: you seem to indicate that the arresting officers in the case of this (kind of) diplomat should have made a morality-based decision to administer (or not) a cavity search. Now, please elaborate on what basis she should not have received that treatment, whilst others do.
Is it because of her occupation? Should people in certain positions be exempt from searches?
Is it because of her national origin? Should foreigners receive a different treatment from nationals?
Is it because of her income bracket? Should rich people be exempt, and if so from what threshhold?
Is it because of her race or religion? Should certain people be treated differently based on the color of their skins or their worshiping habits?
@JE
1. What if the courts have NOT said the law is unconstitutional. There are plenty of laws that are unconstitutional that are applied until they are struck down. The person arrested has to deal with the reality of the arrest. The example stands.
2. You simply do NOT get it. The whole problem is that in the U.S. (as you are so aptly demonstrating) that all laws are applied to all people, all the time (unless you are sufficently connected). The Supreme Court decision says that there are CIRCUMSTANCES in which a body cavity search does NOT violate the 4th amendment. So the question is the appropriateness of subjecting, in a particular set of circumstances, somebody to the search.
3. So, the mechanism to decide the question is I suppose, whether there might be some evidence (other than the mere ACCUSATION of having committed a crime) that would warrant that kind of search. For example, what are they being arrested for? There is NOTHING about the arrest of this woman (or in the example I gave) that suggests facts that are related to any justification for ANY body cavity search. That’s the reason for not doing the search. Maybe NONE of the people arrested (on any given day) should be subjected to the search. You have this obsession with treating everybody exactly the same in terms of some kind of mindless mechanical application of the law.
A great judge once said:
“The true interests of equality may require differentiation in treatment.”
4. You see, I am thinking it might be a good idea for those involved in the so called “administration of justice” to use their heads and exercise some judgment.
You seem to think that the purpose of the law is to remove any exercise in judgment from the decision. I would imagine that you are also in favor of mandatory minimums in jail sentences and other things …
The horrific part for me is that someone who hasn’t been convicted of a crime would be subjected to this kind of dehumanizing violation. I understand that once charged, all must be treated equally, however, I also believe that the US has a more “ready, shoot, aim” approach to law enforcement, that would include charging people on some pretty flimsy evidence. Not a lawyer here, but there’s evidence in the fact that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world. This is certainly not because the US does a better job at catching criminals than say Canada does. Too many dumb laws, too many people unable to defend themselves once charges are brought against them.
@USCitizenAbroad
I believe it is you who do NOT understand: it is precisely because we (at least in concept) apply the law in the same manner to all our citizens that those citizens accept to subject themselves to the law. The moment that the state strays away from that essential concept, it loses any authority to enforce its laws. Just imagine what other detainees would have said if the (kind of) diplomat had not been searched.
@USCitizenAbroad
Your comment that “The clearest evidence of the erosion of empire is when law becomes a substitute for morality” is very poor.
It precisely when morality, subjective judgment and other arbitrary forms of justice substitute for the rule of law that we lose the freedom we so much love.
This “rant” starts of “What has happened to Canada?” starts with the recent Canada Post decision to discontinue home delivery. Whatever you may think of that, the rest of it is something ALL Canadians might want to think about — and it will include what the Government of Canada decides to sign in their negotiation with the US on FATCA. http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/ID/2425307251/
Do we believe that one of the main principles of Canadian society is that we want to look after each other? Or, do we want to look more and more like the US?
@JE
@U.S.Citizenabroad.
“all laws are applied to all people,” except when discretion is allowed, and then they are NOT applied.
I am not sure where the statute is that says all those arrested must, without exception, be cavity searched. I kinda doubt there is one, but even if there was, there would be the language of ‘may’ not ‘shall’, and as USCitizenabroad says, there is no requirement, just no prohibition on Constitutional grounds. In some cases, I am sure, cavity searches are warranted, but certainly not all cases. Set aside morality, and what is legal and just apply some common sense for gods sake!
There was certainly discretion available in this case, and in ALL arrest procedures. The take away from this for me, is there are probably in millions of cavity searches that are happening to ordinary folks all the time and totally unnecessary for the mission. This cases pulls back the curtain for us to see the mold behind the window covering. We do it to ALL, it is lawful, so never mind. And then the apologist like @JE, (probably an attorney) for the procedure try to hide behind a Constitutional argument and wonder why Indian national pride is offended. Geez
It is good to know, that apparently, cavity searches are NOT going to fall into the discretionary realm, regardless of the alleged crime. The Constitution says we can, so we will. Good to know what I have to look forward to next time I am arrested.
Wonder if the the Financial Titans of Wall Street will ever get cavity searched?
The Financial Crisis: Why Have No High-Level Executives Been Prosecuted?
The U.S. Attorney in this Indian case as had plenty of opportunity, but I guess discretion applies here, but not there?
Very interesting Wikipedia entry on strip searches:
Regulations covering strip searches vary considerably, and may be mandatory in some situations or discretionary in others…
Another legal issue is that of blanket strip searches, such as in jails where detainees are routinely strip searched prior to conviction of a crime. Courts have often held that blanket strip searches are acceptable only for convicted persons. For detainees pending trial, there must be a reasonable suspicion that the detainees is in possession of weapons or other contraband before a strip search can be conducted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search
Did Penny Pritzker get arrested and stripped and cavity searched when she failed to report $80 million in income to IRS. Nope. One day after she revealed her “clerical error,” she became U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324659404578499951071913328
So much for treating everyone the same.
@Blaze
Penny Pritzker was not arrested and your question is therefore redundant. Anyway I don’t feel that you were expecting an answer.
That’s the point isn’t it? Penny Pritzker should have been arrested. But, of course, she was an Obama fundraiser, so no IRS penalties or arrests for her.
@JustMe
It is unnecessary to accuse me of being an “apologist”. I have made the very reasonable point that the same treatment must be applied to all persons charged with a crime, because to do otherwise would necessarily introduce arbitrary judgments in the conduct of law enforcement operations.
Maybe I should ask you on what basis you would have exempted the (sort of) diplomat from the treatment applied to all detainees. Is it her national origin? her religion? her occupation? her income?
You are making a perplexing reference to the office of DA Preet Bharara, and questioning his impartiality. You should note that the DA’s office is not responsible for the management of correctional facilities, and so he had no influence on the decision to perform the search. On the other hand, the DA is empowered with representing the People’s interests the application of the law: in this case, there has been little dispute about the validity of the charges brought against the (kind of) diplomat.
Finally, note that “titans” also get a little roughed up before and after trial. Conrad Black had some humorous stories to tell about his prison experiences: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/08/vanity-fair-exclusive–conrad-black-on-life-in-prison–maintaini Enjoy.