What we see with the protests demonstrates exactly how that works. The
police force - the instrument of law enforcement - is being used to
protect powerful criminals who have suffered no consequences for their
crimes. It is simultaneously used to coerce and punish the powerless:
those who are protesting and who have done nothing wrong, yet are
subjected to an array of punishment ranging from arrest to pepper spray
and other forms of abuse.
That's what the two-tiered justice system is: elites are immunized for
egregious crimes while ordinary Americans are subjected to merciless
punishment for trivial transgressions.
War on Terror Justifies Limitless Executive Power and Civil Rights Abuse
Republicans are being consistent by cheering for limitless executive
power and civil liberties abuses carried out in the name of fighting
Terrorism, but now, Democrats are either indifferent to those actions or
outright supportive because they're now being carried out by their own
party's leader. Bush's radicalism was seen as controversial right-wing
dogma, but Obama has transformed it into bipartisan consensus, and thus
strengthened it.
GG: Both parties - and successive Presidents - benefit from elite immunity. They know that if they protect each other, then they, too, can commit crimes with impunity.
Many of them have spent their whole careers as lawyers serving power. They are corporate lawyers, or prosecutors, or party activists. So their empathy and understanding is reserved exclusively for those in their circles: the powerful. They also know that their future career aspirations as judges - especially lower court judges looking to advance - depend on their not alienating those in power. That produces high levels of deference to the powerful and an instinct to protect large institutions over powerless individuals. Again, there are some exceptions, but this is largely what the federal judiciary has become, and that is the opposite of what it should be: it was meant to level the playing field by applying blind justice, not exacerbating it through insular, self-regarding socio-economic biases.
During the Gore vs Bush election debacle the SCOTUS illustrated how corrupted the judiciary has become and how far astray they are from how they are supposed to function.
It has, of course, always been the case that being rich and powerful bestows advantages in every aspect of American life, including in courts and under the law. The nation was founded steeped in extreme inequality. But even when that was true, we at least affirmed the principle of blind justice - of equality under the law - as an aspiration, even when we violated it. It was affirming that principle which enabled the advances of the last century in terms of legal equality. What has changed is that we no longer even affirm the principle.
The elitist propaganda teaches, we need Wall Street tycoons (or CIA torturers, or NSA eavsdroppers) for our own security and prosperity, so shielding them from punishment is in the common good. The rationale for elite immunity is really that Orwellian.
Benjamin Franklin warned that creating a privileged legal class would produce "total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections" between rules and those they ruled. One of their principal grievances against the British King was his power to exempt his cronies from legal obligations. Almost every Founder repeatedly warned that a failure to apply law equally to the politically powerful and the rich would ensure tyranny; in many ways, that is the definition of tyranny. That failure - to apply law equally - has clearly come to define the core of American justice.
This post is a series of quotes from Glenn Greenwald. My comments in bold are intended to simplify and extend the narrative.
GG: Both parties - and successive Presidents - benefit from elite immunity. They know that if they protect each other, then they, too, can commit crimes with impunity.
GG: The Iran-contra travesty was the first time the
template of elite immunity - solidified by Ford's pardon of Nixon - was
applied to a new case. Basically, just a month before he was to leave
office after being defeated by Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush pardoned
his Defense Secretary, Casper Weinberger, and four other defendants,
just as they were about to go on trial. What made that so remarkable was
not only, as you say, that the case against them was so airtight:
Weinberger got caught red-handed telling multiple lies to investigators
in order to protect himself and Reagan when a diary he never turned over
was found. Far worse was that Bush himself was implicated in many of
these crimes, so these pardons were really a way of ending the
investigation and thus protecting himself.
But no matter. Most media stars and outlets banded together to praise
the pardons. After all, Cap Weinberger was one of them: a member in good
standing of Washington's elite class. He did not belong in prison, even
if he committed serious crimes. Of course, the fact that they live in a
city - Washington, D.C. - where huge numbers of mostly poor and
minorities are consigned to prison every day for far less serious
infractions (such as minor drug offenses), and they never object to any
of that, isn't something that concerned them. That's the two-tiered
justice system personified.
Judges Function for the Elite
Many of them have spent their whole careers as lawyers serving power. They are corporate lawyers, or prosecutors, or party activists. So their empathy and understanding is reserved exclusively for those in their circles: the powerful. They also know that their future career aspirations as judges - especially lower court judges looking to advance - depend on their not alienating those in power. That produces high levels of deference to the powerful and an instinct to protect large institutions over powerless individuals. Again, there are some exceptions, but this is largely what the federal judiciary has become, and that is the opposite of what it should be: it was meant to level the playing field by applying blind justice, not exacerbating it through insular, self-regarding socio-economic biases.
During the Gore vs Bush election debacle the SCOTUS illustrated how corrupted the judiciary has become and how far astray they are from how they are supposed to function.
It has, of course, always been the case that being rich and powerful bestows advantages in every aspect of American life, including in courts and under the law. The nation was founded steeped in extreme inequality. But even when that was true, we at least affirmed the principle of blind justice - of equality under the law - as an aspiration, even when we violated it. It was affirming that principle which enabled the advances of the last century in terms of legal equality. What has changed is that we no longer even affirm the principle.
The elitist propaganda teaches, we need Wall Street tycoons (or CIA torturers, or NSA eavsdroppers) for our own security and prosperity, so shielding them from punishment is in the common good. The rationale for elite immunity is really that Orwellian.
Benjamin Franklin warned that creating a privileged legal class would produce "total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections" between rules and those they ruled. One of their principal grievances against the British King was his power to exempt his cronies from legal obligations. Almost every Founder repeatedly warned that a failure to apply law equally to the politically powerful and the rich would ensure tyranny; in many ways, that is the definition of tyranny. That failure - to apply law equally - has clearly come to define the core of American justice.
This post is a series of quotes from Glenn Greenwald. My comments in bold are intended to simplify and extend the narrative.
This article is the third in a series I call The Return to Serfdom.
ReplyDelete1. Hayek: Loss of market morals reduces us to Serfdom...
2. Self-Defeating Austerity - Paul Krugman
3. Will Our Tyranny Plunge into Anarchy?