poohcarrot said:
The latest from the "Land of the free"
Guardian said:
In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.
Yes, we should always trust a British newspaper to accurately summarize American legal precedents. But here is the real story.
Strip searching: Yes, this horrible conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws permitting police to
strip search those who were arrested and were going to be put into jails for any reason were constitutional. While, on the surface, this is designed to keep prisoners from being contraband into jail, the wide latitude of the court's ruling makes it possible for someone to be strip searched for unpaid parking tickets. This is one of the worst rulings of this nefarious court since the Dredd Scott case of 1857, which essentially said slavery was legal. Note, however, that this is not a law passed by Congress; it is a ruling on state jurisdiction.
NDAA: This act allows the U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely imprison those suspected of participating in and planning terrorist activities. However, it is not clear whether under which circumstances this applies to people in the U.S. A bad federal law that should not have been signed by the Obama administration, yet one that was probably forced upon him to justify U.S. acts of killing Osama Bin Ladin and other terrorists.
Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011: This is not a new law, but simply a revision of a law that has been on the books since 1971, that makes allows the arrest of anyone who knowingly "enters (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance." The difference between the old law and the new law is the removal of the word "willingly," which has caused conjecture that someone who knew that the President was somewhere and peaked into the building could get arrested even if he didn't do this for hostile intentions. Note that there is nothing here that restricts anyone from protesting anywhere where the president doesn't happen to be. Given the history of assassinations in the U.S., and the fact that at least three people have fired at the White House since President Obama took office, I personally don't think this is an unreasonable law.
But, yes, taken together, all three of these laws do point to a regrettable curtailment of certain civil rights. Yet, the fact that numerous organizations on the left and the right have the complete freedom to protest them in person, in print, or on the web ald pressure their representatives to change these laws or vote out the president for supporting them demonstrates that the U.S. is still one of the freest countries on the planet, warts and all.