|
|
|
Editorial: Government InformersBy Richard Geffken, prisoner of the drug warAs a government becomes increasingly oppressive, its dependence upon informers also increases. Citizens turning in their neighbors became so rampant during the French Revolution that in desperation people elected an Emperor. Nazi Germany used paid informers so extensively and ruthlessly that post-war states of Europe developed a rule establishing that if any reward is given for testimony, the words spoken are inadmissible in court. A similar rule is needed today in the USA. The drug war made the manipulation of informers so commonplace that when a federal court ruled the practice violated bribery statutes, prosecutors across the country wailed that they couldn't get convictions without extensive ratting. If that is a sad confession, it is even sadder that the courts yielded to their whining.
Using totally illogical reasoning, the US Eleventh Circuit reversed itself. It suddenly claimed those government grants of money and benefits were not bribes after all. Interested students of law should compare US v Singleton, 144 F2nd 1343 (11th Circ.1998) with 165 F3d 1297 (11th Circ.1999). Now comes the war on terrorism -- a war on ideas. This strange war advocates widespread use of informers and the use of prison gulags, such as Guantanamo Bay, to isolate and torture opponents of the current US ruling regime. Is this not a pattern familiar to factions in ancient Rome dealing with the buildup and aftermath of its Empire years? Once upon a rosier time, the US Supreme Court ruled, "The use of informers, accessories, accomplices, false friends, or any of the other betrayals which are 'dirty business' may raise questions of credibility." In Lee v. US, 72 S.Ct 967, 973 (1952). Years later in 1993 a federal court in California was still concerned with credibility of testimony, "By definition, criminal informants are cut from untrustworthy cloth, and must be watched to prevent them from falsely accusing the innocent, from manufacturing evidence against those under suspicion of crime, and from lying under oath in the courtroom." US v Bernal-Obeso, 989 F2d 331, 333 (9th Circ.1993). In Bernal-Obeso the government paid a rat $3 million for 100 convictions, not one of which was later found to have any factual basis. Each convicted defendant served an average of three years. This well-rewarded informant received complete immunity for lying on behalf of government prosecutors. The Singleton debacle opened a store of evil futures, and since betrayal has happened to someone else already, what are the odds it won't be happening to you and your friends when you least expect it? |
|
|