When they came for the Baptists . . .

This wasn't supposed to happen here

[Reprinted from Issues & Views October 20, 2003]

Anyone who claims that law enforcement saves its most punitive weapons only for the coloreds, and especially for blacks, should pay attention to the case of Matt Hale. [See I&V article of November 2000.] Of course, any misguided notion of white-on-white tolerance at the hands of the law should have been disabused by the cruelties inflicted on the victims at Waco and the unnecessary crimes committed by representatives of the law against Randy Weaver's family.

If you still have any lingering doubts about the dying state of the Constitution, the treatment of Hale should remove those doubts. Even people who despise the teachings of Hale and his World Church of the Creator express astonishment at what is being done to an American citizen, whose primary offense is the thought crime of "hate."

If you're unfamiliar with the case, here is a barebones outline: In 1998, Matt Hale graduated from the law school of Southern Illinois University, and passed the state's bar exam. Because he was already well known in Illinois for his strong racist views, and thereby deemed a "hater," the Illinois State Bar denied him a license to practice. It had been Hale's determined wish to be able to represent others like himself, who found themselves harassed by law enforcement because of their views on race.

Hale's attempts to get the State Bar to reverse its decision and to get his case reviewed by the Illinois Supreme Court all failed. The outright discrimination against Hale, after his stellar performance as a law student and his success in passing the bar, unhinged Benjamin Smith, a member of Hale's organization. One day, in a rage, Smith took to the streets and shot several people, killing two and then himself.

Until the recent determination by the current U.S. Attorney General's office to make Hale its target, it was acknowledged by police investigators in Illinois that Smith had flipped out and gone berserk, due mainly to his anger at Hale's treatment by the authorities and to his own exasperation of having been hassled by the police on occasions when he distributed flyers containing the church's white nationalist message. Never had the "terrorist" tag been applied to Hale before the disasters of 9/11 made it convenient to slap this label on any and all perceived troublemakers.

The recent decision to prosecute Hale for exhorting the racialist message of his organization, with claims that he might have influenced others to engage in violent behavior, conjures up all kinds of similar possibilities. For example, the impressionable parishioner of a Baptist church hears a rousing sermon one Sunday morning, when the preacher is in his cups, shouting about the evils of sin, the worthlessness of wicked sinners, and how the world would be better off without them. Said parishioner internalizes and processes this message to mean that he would be committing a godly deed if he were to rid the world of some of these sinners. He goes home, gets his rifle, and guns down several known "miscreants," thereby, in his view, making the world a better place.

Should that church minister be held accountable for his errant church member? Where is the line drawn between the way we process information and the behavior in which we choose to engage? "The Devil made me do it?" As a consequence of one member's deviant behavior, could that Baptist congregation withstand being legally redefined as a "gang," as has been done to Hale's group, in order to stifle it accordingly? Is it only members of today's unacceptable "out" groups who do not warrant the protection of the Constitution? Are Baptists protected . . . for now? Or at least until an Attorney General comes along who might not share their view of the universe?

This country endured decades of civil rights ranting against particular laws that had been concocted especially to target, bully, and penalize blacks; in many cases, there were clear perversions of the legal system. In response, hundreds of public demonstrations and protests, the eradication of old laws and the making of new ones, were intended to bring blacks under the umbrella of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Although there was disagreement among Americans on the tactics employed to bring about reform, most shared the view that every citizen is to be treated equally and fairly under the law -- that there should be no abuse of law by the powerful, to bully the weak. Americans thought they were sending a message to those who administer the law, i.e., you cannot use the legal system arbitrarily and you do not have carte blanche to target groups to persecute.

Yet now we live in a state of siege, whereby ordinary citizens are fearful of simply attaching their names to a petition, or contributing to a legal defense fund, much less staging demonstrations to support the constitutional rights of someone like Hale. This has nothing to do with loving Hale or his beliefs, but everything to do with what the editors of the Peoria Journal Star (10/5/03) call "breathtaking" legal power.

In "Constitution under attack in Matt Hale's case," the editors make it clear that they abhor what they call Hale's "odious" beliefs. No sympathy is requested for Hale, a resident of East Peoria. "The only sympathy sought here is for the Constitution of the United States. It is taking a battering in the federal government's treatment of Matt Hale," the Journal Star editors write.

For lack of evidence, earlier prosecutors had found it impossible to tie Hale to the Benjamin Smith shootings, but the Attorney General found a way around the impasse, and has now accused Hale of conspiracy to kill a federal judge. Arrested by agents of something called the "Joint Terrorism Task Force," Hale, denied bail, has been in prison since February. Even people who are eager to think the worst of him suspect that the single so-called witness and participant in an "incriminating" conversation with Hale was planted to entrap him.

The Journal Star editorial continues:

Remember that the Constitution says government will not deprive people of "life, liberty or property" without due process. Remember that it says the accused will be allowed to prepare a defense. And remember, too, that Hale has been convicted of nothing; he is only accused. Now consider that since February the Department of Justice has held Hale in what his attorney, Thomas Durkin, calls a "Gulag." Hale's right to communicate is severely constricted. . . .

The vehicle that permits the government to do this is called Special Administrative Measures, SAMs for short. They have been used rarely in the past and, with one or two exceptions, against persons believed to be spies or terrorists, such as the man responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Attorney General John Ashcroft argues that SAMs are necessary in Hale's case to keep him from committing or soliciting violence. . . .

Hale's attorney argues that the SAMs make it difficult for his client to defend himself, and deliberately so. Among other things, he can't raise money to pay for his defense if he can't communicate; Durkin cites a letter seeking funds that Hale was not permitted to send. . . .

What worries us is the ease with which the federal government is able to exercise powers breathtaking in scope and frightening in implication. Without judicial review, and without proof of probable cause, the signature of the attorney general alone can keep someone from making bail and can let the government monitor virtually everything he says and does. . . .

Those who believe that the government always gets the right man, and never the wrong one, will have no problem presuming that Matt Hale is being punished for crimes he has committed, though such a presumption does make a trial moot. Those who believe that innocent people have nothing to fear should pause to wonder how they would prove their innocence under circumstances like these. Those who are glad to see Hale get what they believe he has coming shouldn't be quite as delighted with unfettered government authority to do unto others as it is doing to him. . . .

If Matt Hale is convicted, it should be on the strength of the evidence, and not because John Ashcroft is using his authority to insure against any other outcome.

In addition to attempts by law enforcement to fabricate whatever case it can against Matt Hale, the U.S. District Judge, whom Hale is accused of plotting to kill, stripped his World Church of the Creator of its name, forcing him to hand over for destruction all of the group's publications -- books, magazines, all written literature, as well as all other items or products that might bear the organization's logo. The domain name of the group's websites has also been confiscated, in order to make it difficult for inquirers or potential supporters to locate Hale -- as if to nullify his very existence. An official of the B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation League, which played a large role in the overkill against Hale, expressed delight that the court effectively destroyed the brand name that the group had so assiduously built up.

In denying Hale due process of law, the court has destroyed much more than an organization or a man.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views