Many DUers are suddenly aware of the risk to our Constitution that the denial of habeas corpus presents. This is not a sudden risk but is a gradual evolution that evolved from other threats before terrorism. BushCo no doubt thinks the country is ready for the degradation if not the out-right cancellation of some rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What would make him think so?
A post like this always has to qualify itself with a disclaimer, and that in itself should be warning enough that the Constitution is in danger. "I'm defending the Constitution, not predators" should be a matter of course, but is not.
We get a flagrant example of this in last night's
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15130487/">To Catch a Predator:
"Prominent men caught in Petaluma sting
"The latest 'Predator' investigation uncovers some prominent men caught in what police say are criminal acts. These men risk losing their jobs... and in some cases, perhaps even their freedom"
What
police say are criminal acts? Is the implication that Dateline and Hanson never say that? The most prominent is the one pictured, a doctor. It is easy to reject any sympathy for these men in the same way we have no sympathy for Foley, but the doctor sting raises important legal questions, no sympathy required.
1. He didn't want to meet with the "girl" but she repeatedly encouraged him to do so, or as Chris Hansen put it, she encouraged him like a 13-year-old teen might. What? Setting aside the implication that real 13-year-old might be mature enough to rationally encourage a meet, what of the entrapment implications? We assume that the doctor, like Foley, probably has "multiple victims," but there is NO evidence of this. If the doctor would never have met without this encouragement, was it entrapment? The counter argument is that he would have met a real teen if not arrested, but that assumes real teens would engage in those conversations and follow through even if the man didn't want to. Just because we do hear of cases like this, that does not prove they are probable, or that the doctor probably would find a real victim. The difference between a chat and following through with an arranged meeting is tremendous, both legally and morally. So just because the doctor wasn't technically entrapped with the chat, that doesn't mean he wasn't entrapped in the most serious crime, the meeting, making it a felony. That the decoy had to encourage him 4 or 5 times after he said "No" is highly suspect.
2. Chris Hanson acts as an agent of the police, and interviews "
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/civright/107/">under color of law." This truth has powerful moral and legal implications. When Hanson seeks confessions, does he act as an agent of the police? If so, is the suspect already detained for purposes of Miranda rights? (You have the right to remain silent, blah, blah, blah.) Though Hansen says "You are free to go," is that really true? It is obvious to those of us who have seen the show before that Hansen may as well lead the suspect out to his arrest by the arm. This is no trivial matter. The conservative right chipped away at the Miranda warning piece by piece until it is almost non-existent. It is debatable whether that is a good or bad thing, but should a "journalist" be in the middle of it?
3. After his arrest, the doctor immediately says he wants a lawyer, and the cop says something like, "Okay, then I cannot legally question you." But the cop tries at least four more times to get the doctor to talk. Who cares, you say, the cop is a good guy and the doctor is a predator. True enough, and the police can use and are encouraged to use lies and deceit in interrogations, but does that mean they can step on the constitution when the suspect is a monster? Yes, it does. In fairness, the U.S. Supreme Court has clouded this issue, and the continuing pressure after the doctor asked for a lawyer may or may not be legal.
So we have three potentially very disturbing issues and that may have constitutional implications: 1) entrapment, 2) journalists acting as agents of the police, and 3) denial of the right to remain silent (with the Hanson interview and with the police).
There was some irony in last night's show with the Foley clips, but maybe the clips and the show itself warn us of something larger. Maybe they are both telling us that if we keep going at this pace habeas corpus may become "just a comma" in our history.
It is not easy to separate the crime from the legal issues, but what do you think?