Published on Friday, October 23, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
'Booked on Suspicion'
In Louis Jordan’s classic song, “Saturday Night Fish
Fry,” which recounts a riotous party on Rampart Street eventually
raided by the police, the hapless protagonist is nabbed by the cops
and “booked on suspicion.”
Anyone who remembers TV cop shows, like “Dragnet” and “Highway Patrol,” recalls dozens of bad guys hauled up “on suspicion” by Sgt. Joe Friday or Chief Dan Matthews. When I was a kid absorbing all this jurisprudence, I had no idea that “suspicion” was not an actual crime that could send you up the river. Even today, I don’t know if “suspicion” was the authentic argot of real cops in those innocent days.
Regardless of the era, if the police say they’re arresting a guy on “suspicion of burglary” or some such pretext, they still have to muster enough evidence for a real arraignment. This rule applied to even pre-Miranda cops like Joe Friday. Without a charge, the suspect, no matter how suspicious he looked, had to be cut loose.
American justice has always been exceptionally clear on this point: Suspicion by the forces of law and order against an individual implies no guilt whatsoever. Official suspicion confers on the State no right to accuse, pursue, arrest, detain or imprison. Anyone. This principle survived two centuries of challenge, ‘til September 11, 2001.
After that day, a pall of fear settled over America, rendering it acceptable for the State to suspect, seize, convict and imprison people for contemplating crimes they never committed, never actually organized and were not — most of the time — remotely capable of committing.
After reading about several such cases, all involving dark-skinned males of Middle Eastern origin, I thought of the O.J. Bar & Grill on Amsterdam Avenue. Now and then, a professional burglar named John Dortmunder would meet in the O.J.’s back room with his confederates — Andy Kelp, Tiny, Murch and Murch’s mother — to plot the capers chronicled in a brilliant series of comic novels by Donald E. Westlake. I thought of the O.J. Bar & Grill because — although Dortmunder’s crew actively conceived crimes, planned them openly and assembled all the equipment necessary to commit the crimes — they remained entirely guiltless of any crime ‘til they actually pulled the job — picked the lock, disabled the alarm, entered the premises, cracked the safe, etc.
At least this was so until September 11, 2001. It was certainly true for Dortmunder, Kelp, Tiny, Murch and Murch’s mom. They didn’t actually need to hunker in the back room at the O.J. Bar & Grill to plan their crime, because planning a crime is no crime. If it were, Donald E. Westlake, author of at least a hundred crime novels, would be guilty of at least a hundred imaginary crimes — as would authors like Elmore Leonard and Ed McBain, and Hollywood crooks like Newman, Redford and Edward G. Robinson.
Imagination — even when devious — is not a crime in America.
Well, WAS not. Now, it is.
In the past eight years, a number of Swarthy-Americans, many as openly hostile to the U.S. government as Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Patriot movement, have been arrested for “material support of terrorism,” or — in Jack Webb’s terms — “booked on suspicion.” But, unlike all those outlaws swept up in “Dragnet,” the Swarthy-Americans jailed after 9/11 were not charged with a more serious, tangible, evidence-associated crime after the 24- or 48-hour “suspicion” pretense had expired.
Indeed, they were kept in jail, without bail. They were indicted, tried, and convicted of “suspicion.” Their juries of non-Swarthy peers had been convinced by the Feds that pondering a break-in, a murder or a bombing is the exact same as carrying it out.
If you thunk it, you done it. And you were, in several of these cases, sentenced to federal prison for the rest of your life.
There have been controversies since 9/11 about some of the extra-legal, dubiously constitutional and Draconian measures imposed on Americans by the so-called Patriot Act. But there’s been nary a squawk, from politicians or even from lawyers normally willing to defend serial murderers and child molesters, about these “material support” convictions — most of which involved no “materials” and boil down to tossing people into the dungeon for Being Brown and Thinking Bad Thoughts.
The Christian foundations for these expanded prosecutorial privileges are myriad and easy to find. Matthew 5:28 and Thomas Aquinas are popular. But I prefer the Baltimore Catechism of my grade-school days, wherein “material support” would be a “sin of intent,” or “a sin committed in wish but not in reality.” For instance, if I — at age 14 — had imagined myself fondling my buxom algebra teacher, but never actually laid a finger on her, nor had even the remotest hope of ever doing so, God was not concerned with practicalities. By thinking about Mrs. Thompson’s boobs, I had sinned against Mrs. Thompson’s boobs. I had to shlep that transgression to the confessional and admit my sin. After that, a handful of Hail Marys and Our Fathers and a sincere Act of Contrition squared me with God and send me back to math class with a clean conscience…
… Until the next time Mrs. Thompson got careless with her top button.
The latest example of an imaginary terrorist lusting in his heart after Mrs. Thompson’s boobs just showed up in court. From 2001 to 2008 — without actually DOING anything — a Swarthy-American named Tarek Mehanna thought about attacking a shopping mall, or else U.S. soldiers overseas, or maybe a politician or two. He wasn’t really sure. He vetted his idea with “terrorist groups abroad.” They laughed in his face. He tried to acquire guns, something almost anybody in America can do. He couldn’t get ‘em. After eight years of thinking — and talking — about a crime, Mehanna owned not one item necessary to attempt any felonious or terrorist act, or even a misdemeanor. He had recruited only two “co-conspirators,” one of whom was a federal informant. Eight years of impure thoughts and the guy was still miles away from Mrs. Thompson, his only pal was a stool pigeon, and he was looking at life in Leavenworth.
Sgt. Friday would be embarrassed to arrest this putz. He couldn’t get a seat in the back room at the O.J. even if he paid the tab. Father, tell him his penance, and let him go.
Anyone who remembers TV cop shows, like “Dragnet” and “Highway Patrol,” recalls dozens of bad guys hauled up “on suspicion” by Sgt. Joe Friday or Chief Dan Matthews. When I was a kid absorbing all this jurisprudence, I had no idea that “suspicion” was not an actual crime that could send you up the river. Even today, I don’t know if “suspicion” was the authentic argot of real cops in those innocent days.
Regardless of the era, if the police say they’re arresting a guy on “suspicion of burglary” or some such pretext, they still have to muster enough evidence for a real arraignment. This rule applied to even pre-Miranda cops like Joe Friday. Without a charge, the suspect, no matter how suspicious he looked, had to be cut loose.
American justice has always been exceptionally clear on this point: Suspicion by the forces of law and order against an individual implies no guilt whatsoever. Official suspicion confers on the State no right to accuse, pursue, arrest, detain or imprison. Anyone. This principle survived two centuries of challenge, ‘til September 11, 2001.
After that day, a pall of fear settled over America, rendering it acceptable for the State to suspect, seize, convict and imprison people for contemplating crimes they never committed, never actually organized and were not — most of the time — remotely capable of committing.
After reading about several such cases, all involving dark-skinned males of Middle Eastern origin, I thought of the O.J. Bar & Grill on Amsterdam Avenue. Now and then, a professional burglar named John Dortmunder would meet in the O.J.’s back room with his confederates — Andy Kelp, Tiny, Murch and Murch’s mother — to plot the capers chronicled in a brilliant series of comic novels by Donald E. Westlake. I thought of the O.J. Bar & Grill because — although Dortmunder’s crew actively conceived crimes, planned them openly and assembled all the equipment necessary to commit the crimes — they remained entirely guiltless of any crime ‘til they actually pulled the job — picked the lock, disabled the alarm, entered the premises, cracked the safe, etc.
At least this was so until September 11, 2001. It was certainly true for Dortmunder, Kelp, Tiny, Murch and Murch’s mom. They didn’t actually need to hunker in the back room at the O.J. Bar & Grill to plan their crime, because planning a crime is no crime. If it were, Donald E. Westlake, author of at least a hundred crime novels, would be guilty of at least a hundred imaginary crimes — as would authors like Elmore Leonard and Ed McBain, and Hollywood crooks like Newman, Redford and Edward G. Robinson.
Imagination — even when devious — is not a crime in America.
Well, WAS not. Now, it is.
In the past eight years, a number of Swarthy-Americans, many as openly hostile to the U.S. government as Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Patriot movement, have been arrested for “material support of terrorism,” or — in Jack Webb’s terms — “booked on suspicion.” But, unlike all those outlaws swept up in “Dragnet,” the Swarthy-Americans jailed after 9/11 were not charged with a more serious, tangible, evidence-associated crime after the 24- or 48-hour “suspicion” pretense had expired.
Indeed, they were kept in jail, without bail. They were indicted, tried, and convicted of “suspicion.” Their juries of non-Swarthy peers had been convinced by the Feds that pondering a break-in, a murder or a bombing is the exact same as carrying it out.
If you thunk it, you done it. And you were, in several of these cases, sentenced to federal prison for the rest of your life.
There have been controversies since 9/11 about some of the extra-legal, dubiously constitutional and Draconian measures imposed on Americans by the so-called Patriot Act. But there’s been nary a squawk, from politicians or even from lawyers normally willing to defend serial murderers and child molesters, about these “material support” convictions — most of which involved no “materials” and boil down to tossing people into the dungeon for Being Brown and Thinking Bad Thoughts.
The Christian foundations for these expanded prosecutorial privileges are myriad and easy to find. Matthew 5:28 and Thomas Aquinas are popular. But I prefer the Baltimore Catechism of my grade-school days, wherein “material support” would be a “sin of intent,” or “a sin committed in wish but not in reality.” For instance, if I — at age 14 — had imagined myself fondling my buxom algebra teacher, but never actually laid a finger on her, nor had even the remotest hope of ever doing so, God was not concerned with practicalities. By thinking about Mrs. Thompson’s boobs, I had sinned against Mrs. Thompson’s boobs. I had to shlep that transgression to the confessional and admit my sin. After that, a handful of Hail Marys and Our Fathers and a sincere Act of Contrition squared me with God and send me back to math class with a clean conscience…
… Until the next time Mrs. Thompson got careless with her top button.
The latest example of an imaginary terrorist lusting in his heart after Mrs. Thompson’s boobs just showed up in court. From 2001 to 2008 — without actually DOING anything — a Swarthy-American named Tarek Mehanna thought about attacking a shopping mall, or else U.S. soldiers overseas, or maybe a politician or two. He wasn’t really sure. He vetted his idea with “terrorist groups abroad.” They laughed in his face. He tried to acquire guns, something almost anybody in America can do. He couldn’t get ‘em. After eight years of thinking — and talking — about a crime, Mehanna owned not one item necessary to attempt any felonious or terrorist act, or even a misdemeanor. He had recruited only two “co-conspirators,” one of whom was a federal informant. Eight years of impure thoughts and the guy was still miles away from Mrs. Thompson, his only pal was a stool pigeon, and he was looking at life in Leavenworth.
Sgt. Friday would be embarrassed to arrest this putz. He couldn’t get a seat in the back room at the O.J. even if he paid the tab. Father, tell him his penance, and let him go.
Posted in civil liberties, Equality/Justice
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
18 Comments so far
Show AllThe Consitution, Amerika' best known and cheapest brand of toilet paper since 2000.
I detest the American idea of considering everyone in the country suspicious of terrorism when it would be so much more democratic and easy to just stop making enemies by killing people all over the world. Stop that and you won't have terrorists trying to kill Americans. It really is just revenge and unfortunately if you review the history you will note that the US started it and it's been tit for tat ever since.
The Fed hypocrites should put their money where their mouths are and, right now, arrest every R-nut freak who has ever pondered, planned and/or plotted - or is doing so at the moment - the assassination of BO, and/or Pelosi, Reid, etc.
What wrong, Freddie - can't find em? Just stop by any R-nut website and browse the comments section on any BO/Dem piece. Many proudly offer their dreams of killing the President, of executing all liberals, and of blowing up all kinds of stuff, like Hollywood, and San Fran, etc...
Seriously - some even openly carry assault rifles at political events. Legal or not, it's safe to assume, at one point or another, they thought about drawing down and squeezing the trigger...
Go, Freddie - arrest them all right f@#king now. The for-profit prisons could use the influx of new, long-term product...
Clarence Darrow once famously quipped that under the majestic wisdom of the common law, if two little boys went into a store and stole candy, they would be guilty of the misdemeanor crime of petty larceny and could go to jail. But if the same two little boys merely sat on the front stoop of the store, talked with one another and agreed to go inside and try to steal candy but never actually even stood up to go inside and do so, then they would be guilty of the felony of conspiracy - and they could be sent to prison or even to the gallows.
Another twist on the Tarek Mehanna factual setting to keep in mind: if indeed "his only pal was a stool pigeon", in most jurisdictions there simply is no conspiracy.
A conspiracy requires a meeting of two or more minds, forming an agreement to commit a criminal act. Nobody can conspire with an undercover government informant. Because the snitch intends to bust the defendant rather than actually commit the crime, there has been no mutual meeting of the minds and hence, no conspiracy is possible.
Ain't these law school hypos fun? Too bad the human stakes are so high in the real world.
Bill from Saginaw
Clarence Darrow's justifiable contempt for criminal "conspiracy" laws came to my mind also.
Far lower down the cultural rung, I happened to watch a "Star Trek TNG" rerun in the wee hours of this morning; the plot revolved around an inquisitorial admiral conducting a witch hunt for enemies on the Enterprise. Naturally, Captain Picard quickly realized that the admiral was out of control, and made several dramatic speeches during the episode defending "The Federation"'s commitment to civil liberties and the rule of law.
Curious, I checked and discovered that the episode "First aired: 29 April 1991". Ah, that explained it! And it confirmed my suspicion-- Picard sounded so "September 10th"! Six months later, Amerika (and the Star Trek franchise) turned hard right at maximum warp.
As was and is the case with conspiracy cases, the "War on Terror" prosecutions are catnip to the prosecutorial mind-set.
When I still listened to the PBI radio show "This American Life", they did an episode about a poor fool who took an FBI (?) informant's bait to obtain weapons for a shadowy group. The fool was an older man, apparently a low-level con artist type who considered himself a "player". The informant was a particularly vile low-life; a retired FBI agent interviewed on the program said that the informant had been so thoroughly discredited years before that the retired agent was stunned to learn that the creep was again working as an informant.
The sting was so lame that the INFORMANT had to obtain a dummy "missile" from the FBI (or whatever security agency was running him) in order for the "weapons dealer" to have something to show the "buyers". That was about as close as the fool ever got to a weapon. But it was close enough to bust him and eventually get a conviction. IIRC, because of the mark's-- I mean, the "terrorist-enabler"'s age, it's effectively a life sentence.
Nevertheless, the US Attorney happily took credit for a Significant Victory in the War on Terror. It was a big feather in his cap! The little "irregularities" along the way didn't enter into it.
I expect that our burgeoning network of secret and isolated detention facilities will fill up with such hapless petty crooks and pathetic terrorist-wannabes. I'm not sure that even a latter-day Darrow could do much for them, given the draconian Patriot Act and the de facto police state Amerika has become.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Curious, I checked and discovered that the episode "First aired: 29 April 1991". Ah, that explained it! And it confirmed my suspicion-- Picard sounded so "September 10th"! Six months later, Amerika (and the Star Trek franchise) turned hard right at maximum warp.
------------------------------
What happened in October 1991? I can't recall anything in particular. Of course, I'd been going through six months of serial misery at that point so I was a bit punchy and could quite easily have missed noticing something.
Boy, did I screw that one up!
I turned "1991" into "2001", because I was so sure the episode was pre-9/11.
Even when I read Mairead's question, I had to think about it before I realized that I was only a decade off!
This error doesn't affect my overall point, but I give myself a Dope Slap and promise to be more careful!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Daddy Bush happened!
Really? How so?
Thought Crime is as American as apple pie. It came over on the first boats with the extremist christians who killed the Native Americans for being "satanists".
Jump to the 20thC and then there was McCarthyism, another ersatz christian crusade masquerading as patriotism.
This is a wonderful article but alas, surprising as it is, it has long been the case, even before 9/11, that planning a crime is a crime.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
I am not at all a fan of police and the gov but for some reason this article kinda makes me uneasy. Is the author saying that even if it is known that a person is going to commit a crime he/she should be allowed to do so and the arrested? what about the victims of that crime, if any?
But then again, I might have understood it wrong.
As an example. Citizen A plans to blow up a mall using a truckload of ANFO explosives and whoever is in charge of security is aware of it. At what point should he be stopped? When he loads the truck? When he starts driving? As he pulls into the parking lot? Or after the bomb was detonated?
The author never mentioned that that criminal conspiracy is well established in common law and by particular statutes. Common law does not require the prosecutor prove there were overt steps to commit the actual crimes, but individual statutes may. All conspiracy charges DO require proving there was a specific agreement between two or more people to commit the crime. Just someone stating that they are planning to do this or that criminal act would not be a conspiracy.
There is also crimes like attempted murder or attempted assault - but these require that it be shown the suspect at least made concrete step to do the job.
An individual merely stating a desire to do something violent is never a crime, and it appears that this is all they did to here.
And to answer your question, the obvious answer would be when the person buys or agrees to buy the explosives, in conjunction with evidence of a plot, and the person is not in any sort of occupation that uses explosives.
Excellent answer.
When I worked for the OR (pretrial release) Project in San Francisco in the mid 60s, felony arrests on suspicion were commonplace. An individual, for example, might be arrested for 10 counts on suspicion of burglary. Even though technically not a charge, to bail out required putting up standard bail ($1100 non-refundable per count) and shortly thereafter release on bail, the charges would be mysteriously dropped. Maybe one might stick. There were numerous other methods of holding without bail. I was told by the head of the northern California ACLU that if I went forward with my findings, I'd be wearing cement boots in the bay. I can't say what the process is today, but the corruption from the bench to the turnkey was rampant. we don't learn from history, especially if we are unaware of it's existence. I did choose different footware and deepsixed my report rather than my body.
Thanks for sharing that with us. I'm always interested to hear what goes on in the "belly of the beast".
Doubleplus ungood thoughtcrime! Hate hate hate!