Over 16,528,172 people are on fubar.
What are you waiting for?
I have recently written separate commentaries on two jailed journalists. One, Roxana Saberi, has received a great deal of attention from the mainstream media and her case has been widely reported on and disseminated across the globe. The other case is that of Sam Dodson. His case has gotten virtually no attention from the mainstream media. As he languishes in a jail cell refusing to eat his plight has only been discussed on few liberty oriented blogs. I begin to wonder why this should be and thought an examination of the differences between the two cases might shed some light on this phenomenon.
It was interesting to note, as I researched these cases, that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that last year there were 125 journalists jailed worldwide as of their census of Dec. 1st, 2008. Yet one must wonder exactly how accurate their count is in these times when the Internet provides a means for anyone to become a journalist. The CPJ itself makes an interesting statement on its website that the United States will hold journalists in jail for a few days without charge and then release them. These journalists apparently are not counted in the census, so the true scope of the problem is clearly unknown and severely under reported. I suppose Roxana Saberi and Sam Dodson could count themselves lucky to be getting any attention considering how much attention the other 123 journalists are getting.
That said, why is it that Roxana Saberi gets so much attention while Sam Dodson´s case seems to be followed by only a few – shall we say – lesser known news outlets? Well, perhaps it´s because Ms. Saberi´s case is taking place in Iran whereas Mr. Dodson´s case is playing out in these United States of America, in New Hampshire to be exact. It is always easier to point out the imperfections in one´s neighbor than it is to see the same faults in one´s self. In the same manner, I suppose it´s always easier to see the tyranny and injustice in another´s government than it is to see the same in one´s own.
Roxana Saberi´s case is unusual on many facets. For one thing, she is a dual citizen, so even though she was born in America, the Iranians may feel that perhaps they have more jurisdiction over her since she´s been living there for six years now. Why someone would want to subject themselves to the dictates of two such different arcane and arbitrary sets of law is anyone´s guess, but I imagine Ms. Sebari felt it would help her better perform her work. In any case, her citizenship status has helped to spark international attention. Still, one might wonder, would such attention have been given to her had the United States of America arrested her? Before you claim that such a thing could not possibly happen in this nation keep in mind that many huge laws have been passed since Sept. 11th, 2001, such as The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act, which empower the executive branch of our government to ignore human rights and do exactly what is being done to Ms. Saberi. In fact, the last I heard, as of January 2009, a journalist named Ibrahim Jassam is still being held without charges by the US military.
Even the Iranians seem able to do better than that. Ms. Saberi was charged with espionage and tried in an Iranian court of law. This is exciting stuff, the kind of story novels are written about. Granted, the trial was held behind closed doors and in secret, for national security reasons we are told. Of course, the US is not to be outdone by Iran and has created provisions so that the same thing may be done here simply by the executive branch of our illustrious government accusing someone of being an enemy combatant in the war on terror. But at least Ms. Saberi was charged, tried and sentenced which is more than the US has done in several cases when imprisoning journalists, recently holding one without trial for six years.
Please don´t get me wrong, I think what is happening with Ms. Saberi is a terrible, criminal act and that the Iranian authorities should be held accountable for their actions. I´m just trying to put a little perspective on it. It seems to me there is far too much hypocrisy in this world. Ms. Saberi was arrested on unrelated charges constituting a victimless crime and is now sentenced to have eight years of her life stolen from her. Indeed, her life could be forfeit for she has gone on a hunger strike in support of her claim that she is innocent. There is much outrage and support expressed for her.
I am glad to see that the plight of jailed journalists is finally getting coverage, yet the same type of thing can and has happened under US auspices and I continue to wonder just how much attention this matter would have been given if the US was holding Ms. Saberi. Would we see the same level of outrage and support had she been arrested for a seatbelt violation and was then accused of being a spy, handed over to federal authorities, labeled an enemy combatant, held for a time without charges, possibly tortured, tried in a secret military proceeding and finally sentenced? Such a thing is a possibility because government personnel are not held accountable when they ignore their own rules that were supposed to protect individuals from exactly this type of tyranny.
The case of Sam Dodson is a good example. His case may not be as glamorous as Ms. Sebari´s. He may not have been accused of spying for a foreign government or tried for espionage, but the implications of his case are far more important, in my opinion. His case is one based on the power of civil disobedience in an attempt to expose the inherent violence in the system. He has purposely decided to take a principled stance to hold the authorities accountable for following their own rules and regulations.
Mr. Dodson was arrested for refusing to remove a video camera from an area in a building supposedly owned by the public. He did this because he felt the order was unlawful due to the fact that not only was it unconstitutional, but the written order posted on the wall of the building was unsigned. Mr. Dodson was quickly and harshly subdued and arrested for trying to assert his individual rights and for asking the policing authorities involved to do their correct job by enforcing the law as written in the constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.
Mr. Dodson is still being held in jail because he refuses to give up his rights. He refuses to help his jailors any more than he is required to. He refuses to give them his correct name because it is not required of him. The judge in the case admitted as much in a recent decision when he wrote Sam would not reveal information "as expected" of suspects, not "as required." He has already graciously cooperated by allowing his person to be fingerprinted and his picture to be taken, as required by law. The authorities know who he is, where he lives, what he does, etc. and yet they continue to hold him simply because he has decided to exercise his right to remain silent, simply because they can´t coerce him into confirming their suspicions with his own voice, hence waiving his fifth amendment rights.
The judge in this case has declared that Mr. Dodson will be held indefinitely until such a time as he provides his name as "expected" of him. His sixth amendment rights have been violated because he refuses to obey a request that doesn´t have to be obeyed. He will continue to languish in jail until he succumbs to the dictates of the authoritarian judge or until a higher court rules on a writ of habeas corpus that has been filed. He was arrested for a victimless crime and continues to be held for trying to hold the individuals who support the system accountable for their actions. He has effectively been given a life sentence for refusing to do something that is not required of him. Indeed, he feels so strongly about seeing to it the authorities respect the rights of the individual that he has engaged in a hunger strike to protest his continued imprisonment. If things continue as they are and in the worst case scenario, Mr. Dodson´s life could be forfeit in an attempt to preserve the respect for individual rights as codified in the Constitution that government officials claim to regard so highly and take an oath to uphold.
Ironically, Mr. Dodson was originally arrested for an activity which if allowed in Iran may have prevented Ms. Saberi´s incarceration. There is no reason judicial proceedings should be secret. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed and that there are victims or intended victims involved then that evidence should be presented for all to see. Allowing independent press agents to video record in public courtrooms ensures that actions taken against any defendant, not just journalists, are justifiable and in accordance with the rules set forth by the system itself. In fact, the very insistence of secrecy should in and of itself make one suspicious of the activity undertaken.
In the US constitution, the idea behind the judicial branch of government was to ensure the protection of individuals against unwarranted and intrusive authoritarian government. It was supposed to serve the populace. Unfortunately, it is not succeeding in fulfilling its role. The decisions being made on a daily basis show that the courts are now more concerned with maintaining the façade of government legitimacy than they are with protecting individual rights. We see this as judges refuse to explain to juries that it is their duty to judge the law as well as the defendant. We see this as judges continue to uphold victimless crimes and collect fines for the state. We see this as judges in courts everywhere consistently change the rules as they see fit and as is convenient for the state. Courts worldwide have become nothing more than tools of government to elicit obedience from the populace rather than a protection for the individual against a much more powerful state apparatus. It´s a shame that it takes such events to shine a light on the corruption of the system. It´s a pity that more judges and officials aren´t principled enough to prevent such occurrences in the first place.
You have most likely broken the law. As you sit there right now, reading this, you are probably doing or have done something recently that has transgressed some statute, some rule of government. You haven’t done anything to harm another, you haven’t stolen or damaged the property of another, and yet it is likely that those who rule over you have written some words down on a piece of paper somewhere, called it a law, and now they expect you to know this and obey its dictates. The absurdity of this system is clear for all to see, and yet you are at the mercy of those who call themselves “servants” of the people but then act as if they are the masters. They are a frightening group of people and if they set their sites on you, for whatever reason, you will end up being punished in some way.
If you have somehow violated some “code” (a very appropriate word for small details to a larger law or set of laws since normal English speaking people can’t understand much of what is written and only those well versed in the arcane language known as “legalese” have any idea of the “code’s” true meaning) then perhaps you have only to pay a small fine and the mean, nasty government people will leave you alone. Most of us ordinary folks simply pay these fines without question, even though we resent them, for a couple of reasons. First off, most of us realize that if we try to fight such a fine it will end up costing us more in time and money than if we just pay it, and then we might have to pay the original fine in addition anyway. Secondly, most of us realize that if we try to ignore the fine that eventually the government gang will catch up to you, perhaps kidnap and throw you in a confined space known as a jail cell, and make you stand before some guy in a black robe (who is paid by and owes his allegiance to the state) and explain to him why you were so rude and ignored their requests for money.
Should you find yourself in the grasp of government agents or in one of their courtrooms pleading with one of their judges don’t try to use the excuse that you didn’t know you were breaking a law. They don’t care. Of course you didn’t know you were breaking a law, how could you possibly know all the laws that have been written? It is a human impossibility. No one could possibly know what all the laws not only because so many have been written, but they are in a constant state of flux. What’s legal one day can be illegal the next and vice versa. Yet these people, when you stand before them, will tell you that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That may have worked when the law was simple and only involved other human beings as victims, but when it only involves state entities as the complaining parties then it should not only be an excuse, it should be understandable and expected.
Another thing that one might consider is why one should believe that any given politician wouldn’t use his power to try to punish someone he didn’t like, or try to force someone with a divergent viewpoint to change his behavior. Perhaps one used to think the justice system could be used to keep such power crazed politicians in check, and perhaps at one time long ago when supposedly many judges were principled one would be right. But judges are fallible humans also. They can not only tell who butters their bread, they can also be bought and sold when necessary. While I’m certain that principled judges do exist, I’d just as soon they didn’t have to depend upon government to earn their paychecks when their job entails having to mediate a case that might have some impact upon that very paycheck. Until and unless viable free market arbitration and dispute resolution systems evolve, we need some form of check to see that the courts remain fair and unbiased.
One such check was supposed to be the press. Media outlets and journalists were supposed to have free rein to report on the happenings in the public sphere. This, in my humble opinion, is necessary to help ensure that corruption in the system is kept to a minimum, that the populace is informed as to the actions of their public servants, that those working with the public trust are held accountable for their actions, and that individuals’ rights are respected at all levels of government. Denying access of modern reporting technology such as video cameras and recording devices into public venues only serves to impede this necessary check to power.
In Illinois, a state more socialist than others, even still cameras are not allowed into the public buildings which house the courtrooms, let alone the courtrooms themselves. If one tries to enter a court building with so much as a camera phone that person is denied entrance and usually has to go back to their car to put it safely away. Such restrictions only make it more difficult for the ordinary person to make an accurate appraisal of how well the justice system is working. In Illinois, we are forced to depend on artists’ renditions of the participants and the accuracy of reporters’ memories and notes as twenty first century technology is not allowed to record the public events taking place inside these sacred venues and so the nuances of voice inflection and facial expression are lost to the common man’s interpretation of the event.
In New Hampshire this is not so. In New Hampshire not only are cameras and recording devices allowed in the courtrooms, it is a right supposedly protected by their state constitution. It should be protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution, in my opinion. “Congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of the press,” it says in effect. In Keene, New Hampshire, however, a judge tried to abridge this right by writing a proclamation that video recording would not be allowed in the building. Unlike the state of Illinois where the people seem willing to obey any dictate without question, some New Hampshire residents seem to have more backbone. One resident, a Mr. SamIam, decided to challenge the dictate posted, unsigned, in the Keene courthouse. He decided to disobey the orders which he felt were unlawful and was promptly arrested along with five others who quickly showed up to support his efforts.
As I write this, SamIam still sits in a jail cell to the best of my knowledge. He was busted for disobeying a judge and trying to exercise his first amendment rights. Now he’s exercising his fifth amendment right to remain silent and has been told he will remain in jail indefinitely until he decides to cooperate with his jailors and recognize their authority over him. This violates his sixth amendment right to a speedy and public trial. His disobedience continues. Unfortunately, it seems to me that government folks believe disobedience is the worst crime possible. Apparently it is punishable by life in prison. How dare anyone disobey? How dare anyone question their authority? How dare a man claim he has rights that need to be respected by government AND try to exercise those rights? This befuddles and angers the government authorities and the only way they can figure out how to deal with it is through violence and imprisonment.
Throughout history it has been shown that peaceful disobedience is a valid way of gaining more freedom. We were shown this by such historical figures as Mahatma Gandhi, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. In the 1960s during the civil rights movement tens or hundreds of thousands of activists with a little more melanin in their skin bravely disobeyed laws in the face of violent opposition from just as many angry persons of less melanin. Those common folks of darker skin peacefully sat at lunch counters and marched through streets as the lighter skinned folks screamed nasty epithets and even at times physically attacked them. These brave folks for the most part grit their teeth and did not retaliate. This led to the recognition that these folks were in fact human and entitled to the same respect for their rights as any other human, which overturned many laws that had been enacted by certain states at that time.
More Americans need to follow the examples these brave folks have shown us. We need to disobey and question unjust laws. We need to exercise our rights at every opportunity, otherwise they may atrophy like an unused muscle in the body politic. By simply obeying without question the populace becomes sheep like and allows those who would rule to stop respecting the rights of individuals and become tyrannical. As the police state grows those who would obey simply shrug their shoulders and go along to get along. How different would history and the world be if a few more Germans in the 1930s had been disobedient? We have tried electing different groups of people into government and it doesn’t seem to make a difference. We have tried working within the system and it seems no one is listening. The time has come to stop simply grumbling and complaining about injustices and to do something about it. The time has come to stop funding bad policies. The time has come to once again practice some peaceful civil disobedience to reclaim our freedoms, or at least to support those who are brave enough to do so.
