Viurzdzy, April 12,1:: 1
Tl o
n
O
lie
1
Electronic surveillance
i 1
- : v
A
svsx mm
V
-1 "
1
J
(i
Hi
, 0
J
fiULKIHS! VOU KNEW WS NO OSCAR CATEGORY FOR A
Judicial elections undesirable
A petition to elect, rather than appoint
state Supreme Court and district court
judges could be detrimental to Neb
raska's justice system.
Charles Gove, chairman of the Neb
raska Coalition to Elect the Judges,
said in an Omaha World-Herald article
that his group wants judges elected
every four years. Judges currently are
appointed by the governor and stand
for a retention vote every six years,
according to the merit system adopted
in 1962.
Gove, a retired Air Force lieutenant
colonel from Denton, said the merit
system has isolated the judiciary from
the electorate. If chosen by popular
election, judges would be more respon
sive to the people, he said.
However, Gove's reasoning contradicts
the purpose of the judicial system.
Judges are supposed to decide the law
and protect the rights of individuals,
rather than "be responsive" to the
majority.
Another problem with elections is
that few people would take the time to
review each judge's record. The election
would become a popularity contest.
In his second arguement for popular
elections, Gove said he thought the
merit plan violated the 14th Amend
ment. The 14th Amendment, Section Two
states:
But when the right to vote at any
election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice President of the
United States, Representatives in
Congress, the Executive and Judicial
officers of a State, or the members of
the Legislature thereof, is denied to
any of the male inhabitants of such
State, being 21 years of age, and
citizens of the United States, or in
any way abridged, except for partici
pation in rebellion, or other crime,
the basis or representation therein
shall be reduced in the proportion
which the number of such male
citizens shall bear to the whole num
ber of male citizens 21 years of age
in such State.
Although Gove is correct in his rend
ing of the 1 4th Amendment, the second
section is not used today.
"This provision has never been en
forced by Congress, and may today be
regarded as obsolete through disuse,
and also, possibly through obvious dis
harmony with the 19th Amendment,"
states Understand the Constitution,
third edition, by Edward S. Corwin and
Jack W. Peltason.
Judges are supposed to be unbiased
third parties who decide questions
and form authoritative opinions. Popu
lar elections would destroy judicia
fairness because judges would be force
to cater to the majority opinion ii
order to be re-elected.
Vicki Itohga
poses privacy thre
Thirty years ago, Earl Warren be
came Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme
court and helped put the Fourth Amend
ment prohibiting unreasonable
searches and seizures back in the
Constitution. The New Yorker editor
wrote in the October 24, 1983 issue
that under Warren's leadership," the
Supreme Court made life in our coun
try notably less oppressive."
The 1 9GG Miranda vs. Arizona deci
sion, which requires police to inform
suspects of their right to remain silent
and obtain a lawyer, is only the most
r
Eric
Peterson
well-known of a number of Supreme
Court cases which corrected tradition
al abuses of police power. In 1957, the
Warren Court stated that congression
al investigative committees had to dem
onstrate the relevance of their ques
tions to a specific legislative need; in
1961, there was a further restriction of
warrantless searches in Mapp vs. Ohio.
Recent court decisions on electronic
surveillance what the American Civil
Liberties Union has called "the most
intrusive and inherently unreasonable
form of search and secure" have
eliminated the judicial safeguard
against arbitrary searches which exist
ed in the past. The Supreme Court has
upheld the warrantless use of bumper
beepers electronic tracking devices
placed on cars and pen registers,
which record numbers dialed on tele
phones, according to the April 1984
Progressive. Federal judges have recent
ly ruled that eavesdropping with a
parabolic microphone does not need a
warrant.
The collaboration of courts with cops
in the assault on the Fourth Amend
ment takes more troubling forms yet.
After the Foreign Intelligence Surveil
lance Act was passed in 1978 to stop
the CIA and FBI abuses uncovered by
the late Idaho Senator Frank Church's
Select Intelligence Committee, a spe
cial court, with judges appointed by
Chief Justice Warren Burger, was creat
ed to monitor and approve electronic
surveillance made for national secur
ity reasons. As documented in "A Court
that Never Says No," also in the April
1984 Progressive, the Foreign Intelli
gence Surveillance Court in its five
years of existence and 1,422 cases, has
never turned down an administration
request for a surveillance warrant.
This court's operations are kept ab
solutely secret and its only published
opinion was one which renounced its
own jurisdiction over physical break
ins, or "black bag jobs," and left that
technique to the discretion of the at
torney general and the president.
The current surveillance act allows
this court-approved (rubber stamped)
electronic surveillance if there is "prob
able cause" that the target is an "agent
of a foreign power." This comes in
handy for a president who has said the
nuclear freeze movement is a Soviet
tool and questions the motives and
patriotism of those who attack Ameri
can aggression in Central America
The extensive and illegal attacks
made on the anti-Vietnam war move
ment were, of course, justified by the
Nixon administration for national sec
urity reasons. And the circles of enemy
subversion widen like ripples in the
water.
The case for using electronic surveil
lance at all is not that strong. Twenty
three states, including California and
Illinois though not Nebraska for
bid wiretapping by the police; and it
would be hard to show they're worse
off because of this restriction.
Former U.S. Attorney General Ram
sey Clark questions the overall effec
tiveness of wiretapping. "IVe never
thought electronic surveillance was
necessary," he told Progressive. "It's
damaging to the investigative function,
and very inefficient and expensive."
Civil rights lawyer William Kunstler
agrees. "The police don't need these
things for effective law enforcement,"
he says. "All they need to do is a little
more legwork."
It is time for the nation's federal
courts to swing back toward protect
ing individual privacy and the regular
ity of police investigation. There is no
strong evidence that electronic sur
veillance is more than marginally bet
ter than conventional police methods;
and the potential for abuse is, like the
flowing fountain we sang about in
Sunday School, deep and wide.
