Jewell shows warrants are frauds

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

There was yet another item on Richard Jewell today on the national news.  If 
our goal is to return this country to allowing the government to do only the 
"reasonable" searches that the Constitution allows, we shouldn't miss the 
opportunity to take the Jewell case and shove it up their...well...use it to 
our best advantage.

The _theory_ is that the only way the government could have gotten a warrant 
against Richard Jewell ONLY by showing some likelihood that evidence of the 
crime would be found.  The facts, the end result is quite the opposite; the 
FBI has had a full opportunity to do their investigation and they've 
found...nothing.  Or, at least nothing they're now willing to leak.  
Nothing, certainly, which they feel justifies filing charges.

So they're probably going to just drop the investigation of Jewell.  But at 
this point, we should consider that practically an engraved invitation:  The 
theory behind ALL warrants is that they are granted only upon a showing to a 
judge of a legally satisfactory reason to grant the warrant.  Given the 
outcome, it is almost certain that no such showing ever occurred.  What 
happened, on the other hand, was probably just another fraud.  Some 
prosecutor or investigator did some magic dance in front of a judge, 
pretending to tell the truth, and the judge pretended to believe him.  The 
difference with this case, however, is that a few hundred million people 
heard about it.  That's why this case, unlike nearly all others, presents a 
marvelous opportunity.

All of the various Clipper/GAK proposals are based, ultimately, on the same 
weakness:  The idea that we, the people should be able to trust some 
overpaid government-thug-sympathizer in a black robe to decide whether or 
not a given set of evidence is sufficient to decide to grant a warrant.  
Perhaps the best challenge to this idea is to show a clear example of how 
the system fails, precisely when it's expected to WORK!

The Jewell incident is a good test-case, if for no other reason that it was 
highly publicized and many if not most people know the basics.  In addition, 
unlike a case which was thought insignificant before and only later became 
well-known, all of the officials who had anything to do with it were, 
presumably, fully aware how important it was and could be expected to be "on 
their toes" about ensuring that they do their jobs correctly.

Quite simply, the authorities had every reason to get this one RIGHT, as 
opposed to getting it wrong.  They got it wrong.  We should insist that the 
details of this disaster be exposed to show them for the lying frauds they are.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com