Snitching for visas

This wasn't supposed to happen here

[Reprinted from Issues & Views December 3, 2001]

Years before the tragedy of 9/11 and its ramifications on liberty, Paul Craig Roberts, in his syndicated columns, was warning about overzealous prosecutors already run amuck. His book, written with co-author Lawrence Stratton and published last year, The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice (available on this website), should be read closely.

Among many cases, Roberts highlights three notorious ones, that of bond trader Michael Milken (indicted via vague, undefined regulations for infractions that had never before been defined as "crimes"), hotel realtor Leona Helmsley (convicted on the false testimony of a former employee who was in trouble for an unrelated case), and members of the Amirault family (anonymously accused of impossible physical abuses against children).

These unfortunate targets, who were legally ensnared by ambitious prosecutors with agendas, found themselves at the wrong time (post-constitutional USA) and in the wrong place (land of a gullible, apathetic citizenry). Roberts writes:

When a prosecutor is intent on a frame-up or the Justice Department on a cover-up, not even money and exposure can stop the process. In high-profile cases, clever prosecutors protect themselves by first convicting their victim in the media. With the public aroused against the victim, the prosecutor has a free hand.

There is little that can be done to rein in an abusive prosecutor. An assistant attorney general, attorney general, or president can rein in a U.S. attorney, but intervention is difficult once the prosecutor has won the public relations battle in the media. Judges often dress down offending prosecutors but have no real means of holding them accountable when they commit crimes such as suborning perjury. Congress could investigate cases but lacks the fortitude. A Congress with such fortitude would soon find it had no time for any other business.

Another author, whose book, also published last year, is right in step with current news, is Jim Redden. In Snitch Culture: How citizens are turned into the eyes and ears of the state [Encounter Books], Redden writes:

Obeying the law is no protection against informants. Snitches frequently set people up, tricking them into breaking the law. Or they simply lie, making up stories and swearing to events that never happened. Criminals routinely perjure themselves in exchange for special treatment, sending innocent people to jail and even Death Row. Many people have lost their jobs, been thrown out of their homes, gone to jail--even lost their lives--because of lies told by informants. . . .

The Snitch Culture did not come about by accident. It was deliberately created by Democrats and Republicans alike, working with law enforcement officials to build a nationwide intelligence-gathering network which is impossible to escape. This surveillance system did not spring to life overnight. It was assembled in pieces over the past century in reaction to one manufactured threat after another, each requiring new laws, new police agencies, and new informants to catch the lawbreakers. Our political and law enforcement leaders repeatedly seize on bizarre but isolated incidents to create the image of a country under attack from all sides. The threats have ranged over the years from anarchists to marijuana to Communists to heroin to Muslims to methamphetamine to white supremacists, but in each case the government's response has been the same--a new domestic war. The War on Crime. The War on Drugs. The War on Terrorism. The War on Youth Violence.

The establishment press plays along with the charade, creating a parallel universe where death and destruction waits around every corner. With the advent of satallite trucks and 24-hour news channels, the result is a constant media bombardment.

The message is clear: Americans must spy on each other, reporting all signs of suspicious activity or aberrant behavior to the authorities. And if the people won't tattle, the government will monitor their every waking moment anyway.

And, almost without skipping a beat, we learn from today's news that the Justice Department has launched the "Responsible Cooperators Program," whereby an immigrant might have his visa status upgraded if he provides "useful and reliable information" about other immigrants who will then be investigated for possible ties to terrorists. The Washington Post reports,

Some [non-citizens] could qualify for special visas that would allow them to stay in the United States for as long as three years, while others might have deportations put on hold. People overseas who offer valuable information might be offered easier routes toward securing entry visas.

The plan is described as a "pathway to citizenship." The Post also reports that James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute, states that he fears the new incentives might reward those with terrorist ties, while punishing those with none. He says, "We are deporting good people just because they're out of status, but here we might be rewarding truly awful people because they're involved with terrorists and have information to trade. I would like to see incentives, but they should be fair to everyone."

The Times of India puts it this way: "The United States is dangling offers of visa and citizenship to foreigners who bring in useful information on terrorism. . . . The number of visas is restricted to 50 and the criteria to qualify for an "S" visa requires the applicant to have placed his or her life in danger as a result of providing that information and to be eligible to receive a government reward."

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views