Letters to the Editor
-
ATF memo
Glenn,
you show the June 2006 ATF memo twice (once with some text marked, once without).
-
Glenn, you criminal-loving twit
You want the DEA -- the DEA! -- to adopt a tool that would make testilying far more difficult for them? Does your lefty heart bleed for the "rights" of druggies?
-
Thinking Outside the (Jury) Box
GG: Charlton cited numerous prosecutions where his office either lost a jury trial or had to accept an inadequate plea bargain
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that the Administration's solution to this unfortunate problem was to suggest eliminating jury trials and limiting them to trials by judges (appointed by them).
Somehow I knew you'd be wending your way through this document dump today, Glenn. Thanks!
-
desert father, brief thanks (off topic, sadly)
I'm very behind on my reading, so nothing of substance to add here at present other than I wanted to extend a quick note of thanks to desert father in the comments from several days ago for a correction to my inaccurate rendition of an Aramaic name, when I referenced Eshua bar Yohosef as Yeshua ben Yosef. Thanks for the clarification, and sorry it took me so long to get back here (been swamped with lots of projects).
No kings,
Robert
-
Standard Operating Procedure
Glenn, I agree with your assertions and arguments on the reluctance of DOJ and the agencies to institute taping requirements and how it affects the outcome of trials, evidence and jury perception (and the empirical evidence in those states that do tape is overwhelmingly positive). But while I would love to pile more on the Bush administration, this practice and attitude isn’t solely attributable to the past 6 years - this has been SOP for as far back as I know, and was how things were (and how the agencies felt) even when I was at DOJ in the early ‘90s. It is typical agent reticence to having their actions scrutinized, and the only thing that will alter it is top-down change from the AG. Of course, that won’t happen in the next 2 years, but perhaps someday in the near future....
-
one-upping Mona
Typical ACLU criminal/terrorist loving lefty. Where's your outrage over the innocent Americans killed on 9/11, Greenwald? Huh? You never hear a moonbat say anything about that, because moonbats hate America and want the terrorists to kill US citizens.
But the moment a the US does anything - and I mean anything - to try to stop terrorists from killing US citizens the moonbats fight it tooth an nail. What's the matter Glenn, are you afraid that we might be able to catch a terrorist before he kills some US citizens?
Like Ann Coulter said, the default position for a liberal is always to destroy human life, unless its human life that hijacks planes and flies them into building.
-
Nick:
But while I would love to pile more on the Bush administration, this practice and attitude isn’t solely attributable to the past 6 years - this has been SOP for as far back as I know, and was how things were (and how the agencies felt) even when I was at DOJ in the early ‘90s.
I didn't say it was solely attributable to the past 6 years. Excessive power vested in federal law enforcement -- in particular, but not only, the DEA and ATF -- has been a problem for decades.
Still, there is an added irony to the refusal to tape record from an administration which loves surveillance more than any other. Also, it is true that recording has become much cheaper and more technologically feasiable than it was in, say, 1983 or even 1993, which renders the logistics far easier.
-
O/T, but it made me laugh
Sandy Levinson @ Balkinization on Gonezo(gate?) -
"Get the Medal of Freedom Ready"...
-
Confessions en route
Even if some suspects confess en route, when taping facilities are not available, that's hardly a reason not to tape the interviews when equipment is available. This illogic on the part of the gummint is embarrassing.
Cheers,
-
And I concur...
w/ what I consider to be the underlying premise of GG's post. The only plausible explanation for the resistance to taping the confessions is - to minimize the potential for contradictory evidence when the Feds later lie under oath about their conduct.
-
Double standard.
In seeking to conceal their behavior in obtaining confessions, these agents are creating a double standard for surveillance. They want a surveillance society, but don't want to be subjected to it. But, the genie is out of the bottle and I doubt that they can put it back in.
What Charlton has done is both encouraging and scary at the same time. His premise shows that eventually everyone will become part of the surveillance society. I don't want to live in such a society, but if I have to, so should they. But alas, these agents prefer to keep the scales of justice tipped in their favor.
I can envision a time when civilians will arm their cars with cameras the same way police do.
The other thing that seems laughable is the idea of a suspect playing to the camera. Most interrogation rooms (at least the ones on TV) have one way mirrored windows. This is the original form of camera obscura. In other words, they are already playing to a percieved audience that they can't see. This is also the principal behind the panopticon used in the architectural features of law enforcement apparatus in built form. The idea being that nobody knows when they're being observed, or by whom.
-
Nit picking
Glenn,
I'm a long time reader and big fan, but I have to nitpick here.
You write: "They engage in conduct that they know is improper and that Americans would find repellent. "
But where in the postings is it shown that they know their conduct is improper? They seem, in fact, to be arguing the opposite: that THEY think it proper (because it's legal), but that WE (juries, the public) might still be upset by it.
The distinction seems crucial. Too many conservatives will jump on any minutely sloppy point as a way of dismissing an entire, thoughtful argument, and since your arguments are almost always thougtful and well-reasoned (also very well written), they shouldn't have any cause for quick dismissal.
Paul