**SCOTUS insanity: We will strip naked the American people like Jews in Aushwitz

[oyashango]

Supreme Court: Justices Approve Strip-Searches for Any Offense

April 2, 2012
By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs but also public health and information about gang affiliations.

About 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails, Justice Kennedy wrote.

Under Monday’s ruling, he wrote, "every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed."

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, said strip-searches were “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” and should be used only when there was good reason to do so.

The decision endorses a more recent trend, from appeals courts in Atlanta, San Francisco and Philadelphia, in allowing searches no matter how minor the charge. Some potential examples cited by dissenting judges in the lower courts and by Justice Breyer on Monday included violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support.

The Supreme Court case arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed an outstanding warrant based on an unpaid fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)

Mr. Florence was held for a week in jails in two counties, and he was strip-searched twice. There is some dispute about the details but general agreement that he was made to stand naked in front of a guard who required him to move intimate parts of his body. The guards did not touch him.

“Turn around,” Mr. Florence, in an interview last year, recalled being told by jail officials. “Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks.”

“I consider myself a man’s man,” said Mr. Florence, a finance executive for a car dealership. “Six-three. Big guy. It was humiliating. It made me feel less than a man.”

The federal courts of appeal were divided over whether blanket policies requiring jailhouse strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses violate the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches. At least seven had ruled that such searches were proper only if there was a reasonable suspicion that the arrested person had weapons or contraband.

Justice Kennedy said the most relevant precedent was Bell v. Wolfish, which was decided by a 5-to-4 vote in 1979. It allowed strip-searches of people held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York after “contact visits” with outsiders.

As in the Bell case, Justice Kennedy wrote, “the undoubted security imperatives involved in jail supervision override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from the more invasive search procedures at issue absent reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon or other contraband.”

The majority and dissenting opinions drew differing conclusions from the available statistics and anecdotes about the amount of contraband introduced into jails and how much strip-searches add to pat-downs and metal detectors.

“It is not surprising that correctional officials have sought to perform thorough searches at intake for disease, gang affiliation and contraband,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “Jails are often crowded, unsanitary and dangerous places.”

“There is a substantial interest,” he added, “in preventing any new inmate, either of his own will or as a result of coercion, from putting all who live or work at these institutions at even greater risk when he is admitted to the general population.”

In separate concurrences, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. emphasized the limits of the majority opinion. Chief Justice Roberts, quoting from an earlier decision, said that exceptions to Monday’s ruling were still possible “to ensure that we ‘not embarrass the future.’ ”

Justice Alito wrote that different rules may apply for people arrested but not held with the general population or whose detentions had “not been reviewed by a judicial officer.”

In his dissent in the case, Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945, Justice Breyer wrote that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to prohibit strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses not involving drugs or violence unless officials had a reasonable suspicion that the people to be searched were carrying contraband.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

[Effie Trinket]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/02/10982324-supreme-court-strip-searches-in-jail-ok-even-for-minor-offenses

Supreme Court: Strip searches in jail OK even for minor offenses

By Pete Williams, NBC News chief justice correspondent

WASHINGTON -- Siding with security needs over privacy rights, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that jailers may subject people arrested for minor offenses to invasive strip searches.

By a 5-4 vote, the court rejected a challenge from a New Jersey man who argued it's unconstitutional to force everyone to strip down for inspection. Albert Florence was arrested by a state trooper because of an error in the state's records that mistakenly said he was wanted on an outstanding warrant for an unpaid fine. Even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey.

Florence was held for a week in two different jails before the charges were dropped. But at each jail, he was required to shower with delousing soap and undergo a strip search.

Florence's lawyers argued such searches are unconstitutional unless police have reason to believe the subject is carrying a weapon or drugs.

But the court's majority said it's difficult for jail officials to know who's dangerous and who isn't among the 13 million prisoners they process each year because criminal records are often not available at the time of intake. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The court also noted that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was initially arrested for not having a license plate on his car and that one of the 9/11 terrorists was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93. "People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," the court said.
____________________________________
And there's people that think that SCOTUS can somewhat redeem themselves *if* they go against Deathcare?  Why the f*ck would they even care about that when they just blatantly made this insane pro-New World Order ruling, and cited 2 false flag attacks as official legal justification.  We are really f*cked when things have gotten to the level they have.

P.S.  This illegal ruling will green light DHS/TSA to go full bore with all out molestation and rape now with zero legal consequences possible against them.

[Dig]

Justice Kennedy said the most relevant precedent was Bell v. Wolfish, which was decided by a 5-to-4 vote in 1979. It allowed strip-searches of people held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York after “contact visits” with outsiders. As in the Bell case, Justice Kennedy wrote, “the undoubted security imperatives involved in jail supervision override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from the more invasive search procedures at issue absent reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon or other contraband.” The majority and dissenting opinions drew differing conclusions from the available statistics and anecdotes about the amount of contraband introduced into jails and how much strip-searches add to pat-downs and metal detectors. “It is not surprising that correctional officials have sought to perform thorough searches at intake for disease, gang affiliation and contraband,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “Jails are often crowded, unsanitary and dangerous places.” “There is a substantial interest,” he added, “in preventing any new inmate, either of his own will or as a result of coercion, from putting all who live or work at these institutions at even greater risk when he is admitted to the general population.”

=

In his memoirs, Rudolph Hess described the process of tricking the Jews into entering the gas chambers. To avoid panic, they were told they had to undress to be washed and disinfected. The Nazi guards used a “Special Detachment Team” (other Jewish prisoners) to help keep an air of calm and to assist those who were reluctant to undress. Children often cried, but after members of the Special Detachment team comforted them, they entered the gas chambers, playing or joking with one another, often still carrying their toys.
http://facts.randomhistory.com/holocaust-facts.html
JUSTICE KENNEDY...
YOU ARE A F*CKING NAZI!
YOUR OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION HAS TURNED INTO AN OATH TO DESTROY AMERICA AND PUT THE FORTH REICH IN HER PLACE! THIS RULING IS 100% ILLEGAL, UNENFORCEABLE, AND ONLY SERVES TO HAVE THE COPS AND THE PEOPLE AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER, BY DESIGN. COPS NEED TO READ THIS RULING TO UNDERSTAND THEY ARE BEING SEDUCED INTO THINKING THEY HAVE BEEN GRANTED NEW 'SUPER-CONSTITUTIONAL' POWERS BY SCOTUS. IT IS NOT TRUE, THESE RULINGS ONLY INTEND TO DESTROY THE TRUST WITHIN COMMUNITIES BETWEEN PEACE OFFICERS AND THE CITIZENRY. THIS IS THEIR INTENTION, TO ASSIST THE BANKSTERS IN FULFILLING ROCKEFELLERFOUNDATION2012 PROMISE OF MARAUDING GANGS AND DESPOTISM EVERYWHERE.

[Dig]

Another Nazi operation of torturous experimentation on the population is conducted under the same premise as Kennedy's argument.

In Israel, over 100,000 jewish children were tortured with massive radiation experiments to continue the eugenics experiments from Nazi Germany:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMp1tef4lg4

[Dig]

If Kennedy gave a crap about overcrowding prison populations (which has nothing to do with a ruling on constitutionally protected inalienable rights), then he should declare the DEA and all of the anti-American drug laws unconstitutional. We have the largest per capita prison population in the world, more than North Korea. Maye we should read the constitution once in a while and see what constitutes federal authority over criminal activity.

[Dig]

"Early in May 1944 we were all paraded and ordered to strip naked. All inmates were run before him and he sent them right or left, to which side the old, weak and defective or juvenile were sent. Two days later they were separated, placed on good wagons and were joined by the 250 children in the camp. The outcry was stifled by SS guns pointed at us all, and loudspeakers played lullabies. More than 1200 adults and 250 children were taken to Auschwitz and the death chambers. One boy of 12 or 13 named Jerzy Spiro managed to escape and hid all day in the cesspit at the latrine, with only his head uncovered. I do not know whether he survived the war .."

http://www.auschwitz.dk/goeth.htm

[Dig]

THIS IS AN EPIDEMIC AND SCOTUS WAS PAID OFF TO DESTROY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INALIENABLE RIGHTS!

COPS ARE BEING TRAINED TO STRIP PEOPLE FOR NO REASON AND SCOTUS IS GIVING THEM THE FRAUDULENT IMPRESSION THAT IT IS LEGAL WHEN IT NEVER WILL BE.


Suit alleges strip-search violations
2 women claim they were left nude in county jail cells
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141x1812
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 20, 2004

Two women have accused Marin County jailers of strip-searching them and leaving them nude in their cells after arrests for minor crimes, the fourth such suit filed in a Northern California county.  The proposed class-action suit, filed last week in U.S. District Court, follows similar complaints against San Francisco, San Mateo and Sacramento counties, all alleging that strip-search policies violated privacy guarantees in state law and the U.S. Constitution.  One of the Marin plaintiffs, Darcelle Chatoian of Mill Valley, said she was arrested in November on suspicion of drunken driving and was taken to the jail at San Rafael, where she was stripped by three male officers and searched, then put in a cell without clothes for six hours.  Co-plaintiff Cynthia Tasca said she was arrested at her Kentfield home last summer on a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace and was taken to jail, where she refused to remove her clothes and was then forcibly strip- searched and left nude in a cell for an hour.Comment from thread:

What has become of America? Have we become a nation of sadistic perverts? You give someone a little bit of authority and they think they have the right to strip people naked? Ke-rist! 'A few bad apples?' I don't think so! We need to be reminded that stripping prisoners naked was one of the first things the Germans did to people arriving at their concentration camps. It's done for the sole purpose of dehumanizing the prisoner. Once you've done that, anything goes, as we've seen at Abu Ghraib.  As a society, we need to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that this kind of treatment of human beings will not be tolerated!
Edited on Tue Jul-20-04 09:48 AM by liberalmuse

[Dig]

It is very important that all 300 million Americans realize how illegal this ruling is. According to paid off NWO slaves on SCOTUS, the following is 100% 'legal':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zk4nksdrbo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKnYzhzUcuw

[Jackson Holly]

The GD SCOTUS should be arrested forthwith
and jailed. The very thought of this outrage!
The dirty rotten SOBs cannot bring such
thuggish, vulgar improprieties into our
civilized society in this manner ... by an
injudicious sweep of the pen. If our beloved
President was truly a man of the people
and had any balls whatsoever
he WOULD today have them arrested ...
they are a clear and present danger.

[pac522]

This can be your mother, your wife, your daughter. Dig's absolutely right, that this is going to cause a great division between law enforcement and the general public.

[Effie Trinket]

This can be your mother, your wife, your daughter. Dig's absolutely right, that this is going to cause a great division between law enforcement and the general public.

This is a way for them to prevent the American people from utilizing the police as a power to help fight the globalist elite.  The elite are so incredibly cowardly, that they must throw as much cannon fodder pawn chess-pieces in front of us as possible, because the last thing they want is for people to be able to directly deal with them toe-to-toe.

[Optimus]

[DireWolf]

This will end badly for both sides.

[TahoeBlue]

The Supreme Court case arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed an outstanding warrant based on an unpaid fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)

Mr. Florence was held for a week in jails in two counties, and he was strip-searched twice. There is some dispute about the details but general agreement that he was made to stand naked in front of a guard who required him to move intimate parts of his body. The guards did not touch him.

“Turn around,” Mr. Florence, in an interview last year, recalled being told by jail officials. “Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks.”

“I consider myself a man’s man,” said Mr. Florence, a finance executive for a car dealership. “Six-three. Big guy.

It was humiliating. It made me feel less than a man.”

[Dig]

Justice Kennedy is an APT PUPIL!

[Satyagraha]

Think the Prison Industrial Complex giants had anything to do with this?
Read on. You might wonder who paid for that decision...

Prison industrial complex


===========================================

GAMING THE SYSTEM:
How the Political Strategies of Private Prison Companies
Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/gaming_the_system.pdf&sa=U&ei=hkZ-T4PVHomk9AS_hMi6Dg&ved=0CAoQFjAD&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFTpVbHO8R5IeDcqNAw2h6WpvZpIw

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE | JUNE 2011

Justice Policy Institute is a national nonprofit organization that changes the conversation around justice reform and advances policies that promote well-being and justice for all people and communities.

1012 14th Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
TEL (202) 558-7974
FAX (202) 558-7978
WWW.JUSTICEPOLICY.ORG

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

At a time when many policy makers are looking at criminal and juvenile justice reforms that would safely shrink the size of our prison population, the existence of private prison companies creates a countervailing interest in preserving the current approach to criminal justice and increasing the use of incarceration.¹

Approximately 129,000 people were held in privately managed correctional facilities in the United States as of December 31, 2009²; 16.4 percent of federal and 6.8 percent of state populations were held in private facilities. Since 2000, private prisons have increased their share of the 'market' substantially: the number of people held in private federal facilities increased approximately 120 percent, while the number held in private state facilities increased approximately 33 percent. During this same period, the total number of people in prison increased less than 16 percent. Meanwhile, spending on corrections has increased 72 percent since 1997, to $74 billion in 2007.³

The two largest private prison companies, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group, combined had over $2.9 billion in revenue in 2010.⁴.

While private prison companies may try to present themselves as just meeting existing 'demand' for prison beds and responding to current 'market' conditions, in fact they have worked hard over the past decade to create markets for their product. As revenues of private prison companies have grown over the past decade, the companies have had more resources with which to build political power, and they have used this power to promote policies that lead to higher rates of incarceration.

The pro-incarceration policies that private prison companies promote do nothing to improve communities or cut costs, and may actually have the opposite effect. Policymakers should be focused on long-term solutions to improving public safety, saving money and promoting healthy communities by looking at ways to reduce the number of people in prison, not increase them, and by finding ways to keep people out of the justice system before they become involved. Private prison companies are in it for the money. Policymakers should be in it for healthy, safe communities.



The Triangle of Private Prison Political Influence

While there are many pieces of the for-profit private prison industrial complex, this report will focus on for-profit private prison companies’ political strategies to influence legislators responsible for criminal justice policy and, in some cases, influence legislation and policy, themselves. Therefore, any use of the term private prison refers only to for-profit private corrections companies and facilities.

For-profit private prison companies primarily use three strategies to influence policy: lobbying, direct campaign contributions, and building relationships, networks, and associations.⁵

Over the years, these political strategies have allowed private prison companies to promote policies that lead to higher rates of incarceration and thus greater profit margins for their company.

In particular, private prison companies have had either influence over or helped to draft model legislation such as 'three-strikes' and 'truth-in-sentencing' laws, both of which have driven up incarceration rates and ultimately created more opportunities for private prison companies to bid on contracts to increase revenues.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. FEC further facilitates this influence by allowing corporations to engage freely in paid political speech such as television and radio ads and programs.

As policymakers and the public are increasingly coming to understand that incarceration is not only breaking the bank, but it’s also not making us safer,⁶ will this shrink the influence of the private prison companies? Or will they use their growing financial muscle to consolidate and expand into even more areas of the justice system? Much will depend on the extent that people understand the role for-profit private prison companies have already played in raising incarceration rates and harming people and communities, and take steps to ensure that in the future, community safety and well-being, and not profits, drive our justice policies. One thing is certain: in this political game, the private prison industry will look out for their own best interests.

What is a for-profit private prison?

While the private sector provides services to correctional institutions including health care, education, transportation and counseling, for the purpose of  this report, a for-profit private prison is a facility managed by a for-profit organization through a public-private partnership with a government contract.

Private prison companies contract with federal and state governments to either take over management of a state-run facility or to house people in a privately constructed prison. Private prisons generally charge a daily rate per person incarcerated to cover investment, operating costs, and turn a profit.⁷   This daily rate varies depending upon facility, population and security level, but usually pays for correctional officers, support staff, food services, programmatic costs and partial medical care among other services.⁸

THE PLAYERS: Two Companies are at the Center of Private Prison Political Influence

In 2022, the major players of the political game to sustain incarceration are the Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group, having recently acquired Cornell Companies in 2010. These companies have the most to gain by influencing legislation that could lead to more or less incarceration.

The involvement of the private sector in public corrections dates back to the late 18th century, when local jails were run by for-profit providers paid by local governments to hold people awaiting trial.⁹ The shift from private for-profit run jails to a government-run penitentiary system began with the first U.S. state prison established in Philadelphia in 1790.¹⁰  Shortly after government assumed the role of incarcerating people, private firms began contracting with prisons for the use of labor,¹¹ as well as to provide medical, food and a variety of other services.¹²

Correlating with the increased use of incarceration, prison overcrowding, and rising corrections costs, private sector involvement in prisons moved from contracting of services to complete management and operations of entire prisons.¹³

The incarceration rate of people sentenced to more than a year of prison more than tripled over the past 30 years, growing from 139 people in prison per 100,000 in the general population in 1980 to 502 per 100,000 in 2009.¹⁴ The number of people in state and federal prisons alone increased 722 percent since 1970 from 196,429 people to 1.6 million people in 2009.¹⁵

The incarceration explosion created two practical problems: where to put the increasing number of people being sentenced to prison and how to pay for it.   In 1984, Hamilton County, Tennessee and Bay County, Florida were the first local governments in modern times to enter into contracts with the private sector for operating correctional facilities.¹⁶ With the promise of comparable corrections services at a greatly reduced cost,¹⁷ state, federal, and local governments have increasingly contracted with the private sector for the financing, design, construction, management, and staffing of prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities.¹⁸



The basis for the belief that private prisons would be more economical is that market competition would drive down costs.¹⁹ And since private firms must compete not only with industry rivals, but also the government, it was assumed they’d have increased incentives to develop less expensive corrections practices and streamlined operations in order to win government contracts.²⁰ 

Despite no conclusive evidence in the cost savings of private corrections,²¹ and growing evidence of significant collateral expenses borne by the public of incarcerating people in private prisons,²² the trend of for-profit prison privatization continues.

Today, two companies own and/or operate the majority of for-profit private prisons, with a number of smaller companies running facilities across the country.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

Founded in 1983, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the first and largest private prison company in the U.S.²³ According to the company’s website, CCA specializes in owning, operating, and managing prisons and other correctional facilities. In 2010, CCA operated 66 correctional and detention facilities, 45 of which they owned with contracts in 19 states, the District of Columbia and with the three federal detention agencies: Bureau of Prisons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Marshal Service.²⁴

In 2010, CCA saw record revenue of $1.67 billion, up $46 million from 2009.25 The majority of that revenue (50 percent or $838.5 million) came from state contracts, with 13 percent ($214 million) from the state of California;²⁶ approximately 10,250 people from the state of California are held in prisons run by CCA.²⁷ The other significant portion of their revenue was from federal contracts, which accounted for 43 percent of revenue in 2010.

CCA HAD POLITICAL CONNECTIONS FROM THE BEGINNING.

A  prime  example  of  the  influence  underscoring the  private  prison  industry  is  the  development of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA cofounder, Tom Beasley, then-chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party, had served on a committee tasked with choosing a new state corrections officer.²⁸  Beasley's research uncovered a system plagued by overcrowding, tight budgets and high turnover, convincing him that with a few simple applications of business practices the corrections system could be transformed from an inefficient bureaucracy to a profitable business.²⁹  Joined by two friends, Doctor Crants, a lawyer and MBA Harvard graduate and Don Hutto, who at the time was the president of the American Correctional Association, CCA entered the market by attempting to take over the entire Tennessee prison system.³⁰ The combination of Beasley‟s political connections, Crants‟ business savvy, and Hutto's correctional credentials allowed for easy access to the necessary contacts and investors to launch America‟s first private prison company.

GEO GROUP (FORMERLY WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS CORPORATION)

According to their website, the GEO Group is a private corporation that specializes in correctional and detention management, community residential re-entry services and behavioral and mental health services.³¹ Currently, GEO operates 118 correctional, detention, and residential treatment facilities encompassing approximately 80,600 beds in the United States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.³² The U.S. Corrections Business Unit is the company’s founding operating unit and accounts for over 60 percent of GEO’s total annual revenue.³³

Founded in 1984 under the name Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, the company solidified its first contract, the Aurora ICE Processing Center with the Bureau of Immigration and Custody Enforcement, in 1987.³⁴

Wackenhut was acquired by Group 4 Falck (now G4S) in 2002, and a year later repurchased all of its stock shares to become an independent company.

In 2003 Wackenhut Corrections Corporation officially changed its name to The GEO Group, Inc.³⁵ As of 2010, GEO contracts with 13 states, the Federal Bureau of Prison, the U.S. Marshals Service, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.³⁶

In 2010, 66 percent ($842 million) of GEO’s $1.27 billion in revenue was from U.S. corrections contracts.³⁷ Of the $842 million in revenue, 47 percent came from corrections contracts with 11 states.³⁸

On August 12, 2010 the GEO Group acquired Cornell Companies—a for-profit private prison company with revenues of over $400 million in 200939—in a merger estimated at $730 million.⁴⁰ The acquisition of Cornell by GEO signifies a change in the landscape of the private prison industry with the majority of private prisons now under the management of either GEO or CCA.

PART 3
THE STAKES: More Prison Means More Revenues for Private Prisons

(Please continue reading)

[Satyagraha]

Sunday, 5 February 2012
The Economics of Incarceration
http://nilebowie.blogspot.com/2012/02/economics-of-incarceration.html
Written by Nile Bowie

For anyone paying attention, there is no shortage of issues that fundamentally challenge the underpinning moral infrastructure of American society and the values it claims to uphold. Under the conceptual illusion of liberty, few things are more sobering than the amount of Americans who will spend the rest of their lives in an isolated correctional facility – ostensibly, being corrected. The United States of America has long held the highest incarceration rate in the world, far surpassing any other nation. For every 100,000 Americans, 743 citizens sit behind bars. Presently, the prison population in America consists of more than six million people, a number exceeding the amount of prisoners held in the gulags of the former Soviet Union at any point in its history.

While miserable statistics illustrate some measure of the ongoing ethical calamity occurring in the detainment centers inside the land of the free, only a partial picture of the broader situation is painted. While the country faces an unprecedented economic and financial crisis, business is booming in other fields – namely, the private prison industry. Like any other business, these institutions are run for the purpose of turning a profit. State and federal prisons are contracted out to private companies who are paid a fixed amount to house each prisoner per day. Their profits result from spending the minimum amount of state or federal funds on each inmate, only to pocket the remaining capital. For the corrections conglomerates of America, prosperity depends on housing the maximum numbers of inmates for the longest potential time - as inexpensively as possible.

By allowing a profit-driven capitalist-enterprise model to operate over institutions that should rightfully be focused on rehabilitation, America has enthusiastically embraced a prison industrial complex. Under the promise of maintaining correctional facilities at a lower cost due to market competition, state and federal governments contract privately run companies to manage and staff prisons, even allowing the groups to design and construct facilities. The private prison industry is primarily led by two morally deficient entities, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the GEO Group (formerly Wackenhut Corrections Corporation).  These companies amassed a combined revenue of over $2.9 billion in 2010, not without situating themselves in the center of political influence. (continued)

====================================

And why would CCA and GEO want increased strip searches?
Along with increasing the prison population size (lobbing for harsher drug penalties to increase prison population), these prison profiteers seek to have legal backing for increasing the dehumanization of prisoners. If you strip away someone's humanity, you will have more control: more 'cost effective' control of the population.  SCOTUS has basically given carte blanche to CCA and GEO to treat human beings like animals.

[Dig]

One of the major reasons for this obviously anti-constitutional ruling (besides the Prison Industrial Complex) is planned mass arrests suring protests of G20 meetings, WTO meetings, RNC, DNC, etc...


Experts shocked by arrest, strip search of Sean Salvati prior to G20
http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/article/1014982--experts-shocked-by-alleged-arrest-strip-search-of-sean-salvati-prior-to-g20
2011/06/24 23:40:00

The arrest and alleged strip search of a Toronto paralegal three days before the G20 summit has left some Canadian legal experts shocked. Some even suggested police may have left the man naked for 48 minutes to humiliate him and teach him respect. For David Tanovich, a University of Windsor law professor, it's hard to imagine what the grounds would be for a strip search, “let alone dragging him, carrying him, moving him around the cell, like the picture shows on the front page of the Star, naked. There's absolutely no justification.” The Star reported Friday that Sean Salvati, 33, has filed a lawsuit claiming police illegally arrested and imprisoned him last June. Salvati alleges he was denied access to a lawyer and forcibly strip-searched and beaten while in custody. The lawsuit alleges Salvati was arrested for public intoxication, then taken to a downtown police station where he was held overnight, questioned on the G20 by two unidentified men, escorted naked past a female officer and placed in a cell for 48 minutes before his clothes were returned. The claims appear to be supported by footage from 52 Division surveillance cameras, which Salvati's lawyers obtained through freedom-of-information requests. A charge against Salvati was never ultimately filed in court. He is now suing the Toronto Police Services Board, the attorney general of Canada, and four police officers for at least $75,000, alleging unlawful arrest and imprisonment, assault and battery, and a violation of his Charter rights. The allegations have not been proven in court and no statements of defence have been filed. Tanovich said he finds Salvati's allegations shocking. In 2001, he successfully argued a Supreme Court case that has since established national guidelines for strip searches. “The law is pretty clear,” he said. “You can't strip-search someone in custody unless you have strong grounds to believe that they pose a danger to themselves or to officers.” The Supreme Court has ruled that strip searches are never justified when the arrest is unlawful, as Salvati is alleging his was. Canada's highest court has also ruled that strip searches conducted to punish or humiliate are always unreasonable and that they violate one's Charter rights when carried out without a compelling reason.G20 Toronto Police Rape Threats + Strip Searched - Amy Miller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcXhEd_mDt4Eye Witness Accounts Pre-G20 Atrocities by: Sean Salvati
http://www.g20justice.com/stories.asp?stypeid=1&sid=143Naked Man paraded before female cops, Bill Blair makes excuses
http://christopherdiarmani.com/2727/police-misconduct/naked-man-paraded-before-female-cops-bill-blair-makes-excuses/Torontonians still angry a year after G20 summit
http://canada.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/88220
by Tahir Mahmoud (Sunday, July 24, 2011)
"The police had already decided how they were going to treat protesters. Three days before the G20 summit, paralegal Sean Salvati had a run-in with RCMP and Toronto police that he says resulted in him being arrested, beaten, stripped and marched naked in front of a female officer (the scene was captured on police video and obtained by his lawyer through Freedom of Information request). All he did, he says, was make some cheeky remarks to two RCMP officers — and he found himself in an 11-hour ordeal being interrogated about G20 protests that he had nothing to do with....There are no answers from the police or different levels of government. All that the people have had is stonewalling. And they are upset."

[Effie Trinket]

One of the major reasons for this obviously anti-constitutional ruling (besides the Prison Industrial Complex) is planned mass arrests suring protests of G20 meetings, WTO meetings, RNC, DNC, etc...

Good observation.  Look at this blast from the past:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100812205740/http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html
August 4, 2010 4:00 AM PDT
Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."

Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.

Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.

This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA's body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.

These "devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET. "We think it's significant."

William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, acknowledged in the letter that "approximately 35,314 images...have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine" used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse. In addition, Bordley wrote, a Millivision machine was tested in the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse but it was sent back to the manufacturer, which now apparently possesses the image database.

The Gen 2 machine, manufactured by Brijot of Lake Mary, Fla., uses a millimeter wave radiometer and accompanying video camera to store up to 40,000 images and records. Brijot boasts that it can even be operated remotely: "The Gen 2 detection engine capability eliminates the need for constant user observation and local operation for effective monitoring. Using our APIs, instantly connect to your units from a remote location via the Brijot Client interface."
TSA's millimeter wave body scan

TSA's millimeter wave body scan
(Credit: TSA.gov)

This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners--and how they're being used in practice--is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else.

A 70-page document (PDF) showing the TSA's procurement specifications, classified as "sensitive security information," says that in some modes the scanner must "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data" over the network. (It also says that image filters will "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.")

"TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices," Rotenberg said. "This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion--I think it's outrageous." EPIC's lawsuit says that the TSA should have announced formal regulations, and argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches.

TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz told CNET on Wednesday that the agency's scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions turned off. "We're not recording them," she said. "I'm reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport."

The TSA maintains that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: "The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events."

This post was updated at 2:25 p.m. PDT with a comment from a TSA spokeswoman.
______________________
http://web.archive.org/web/20100812175853/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20012785-504083.html
August 5, 2010 1:33 PM
Feds Store Body Scans; US Marshals Saved 35,000 Images from Just One Courthouse

TSA's millimeter wave body scan (TSA.gov)
NEW YORK (CBS/CNET) Homeland Security has announced that body scanners will appear at virtually every major airport in the United States; however, not everyone is happy with what critics call a "virtual strip search," especially since a government agency has recently admitted to saving the images of people in their birthday suits.

The Transportation Security Administration and other government agencies have insisted that the "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded," but apparently the U.S. Marshals Service have figured out how to do just that, reports CNET.

Just this week the U.S. Marshals admitted to saving tens of thousands of images recorded at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

An associate general counsel with the Marshals Service acknowledged that they had saved more than 35,000 images from the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse.

According to CNET, body scanners are able to penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image of one's anatomy, including the good and the bad.

The U.S. government likes the scanners because they are able to detect concealed weapons better than other methods.

On the other hand, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and its executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET that these "devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshal Service is doing. We think it's significant."

EPIC has filed a lawsuit asking that a federal judge pull the plug on the TSA's body scanning program, says CNET.

"TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices," Rotenberg told CNET. "This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion--I think it's outrageous."

A TSA agent maintains that the recording function is turned off and that they are "not ever activating those capabilities at the airport."

Still, the debate over how much loss of privacy is too much seems likely to intensify, as the deployment of the millimeter wave body scanners is poised to take off.

[America2]

[starvosan]

"....strip searches conducted to punish or humiliate..."

That's really what it's all about.  It has nothing to do with safety.  The message is:  "Your ass belongs to us."

Even the kids are being subjected to his abomination:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf104.htm
"Yamhill County, Oregon District Attorney Brad Berry is charging two seventh graders, Ryan Cornelison and Cory Mashburn, ages 12 and 13, who attend Patton Middle School in McMinnville, Oregon with five counts of sex abuse in the third degree which are class A misdemeanors for butt whacking.

"....this charge requires sex offense registration if convicted. If they would be convicted of more than one of the three accounts, they would never be able to get out of the registration. .....

"The other attorney, Rachel Negra, said it was scary. The boys, who had been Mirandized, were visibly shaken and stripped searched multiple times after they met with the attorneys to make sure they weren't carrying any contraband back. ..."


/

[JT Coyoté]

"....strip searches conducted to punish or humiliate..."

That's really what it's all about.  It has nothing to do with safety.  The message is:  "Your ass belongs to us."

Even the kids are being subjected to his abomination:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf104.htm
"Yamhill County, Oregon District Attorney Brad Berry is charging two seventh graders, Ryan Cornelison and Cory Mashburn, ages 12 and 13, who attend Patton Middle School in McMinnville, Oregon with five counts of sex abuse in the third degree which are class A misdemeanors for butt whacking.

"....this charge requires sex offense registration if convicted. If they would be convicted of more than one of the three accounts, they would never be able to get out of the registration. .....

"The other attorney, Rachel Negra, said it was scary. The boys, who had been Mirandized, were visibly shaken and stripped searched multiple times after they met with the attorneys to make sure they weren't carrying any contraband back. ..."

This illustrates in bold relief the wholesale recruitment of the next generation of criminals from within the school system under the color of law.  The local community should gather in mass, by the hundreds and hopefully thousands, outside of the homes of the county commissioners, and the county sheriff, demanding the arrest and incarceration of those involved. Warrants should be issued for the school officials, police, jail personal, and a very special warrant for the district attorney Brad Berry...

As for the Supreme Court ... They are not all-powerful ... only when idiots like Berry implement this kind of thing as if the Court's opinion were lawful federal or state legislation ... which is not ... it is merely a court opinion and nothing more.

In a more sane time in our history the Supreme Court ruled that like the President, it does not have the power to make law, nor does it have the power to enforce, only Congress has these powers.  An enactment of executive or judicial opinion without legislation is called "Color of law." Any enactment or action based upon these opinions into a type of overreaching usurpation on the part of federal, state, or local officials, without the debate and a vote of the people's representatives in Congress and in the state legislature, is a blatant and obvious violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments and clearly unconstitutional.

Folks need to not just wake up, but take action... the governmental idiots are cowards really, and will back down right-now in the face of a righteously angry crowd... nothing else will stop them.

Oldyoti

"An Unconstitutional Act is not a law;
it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
it affords no protection; it creates no office;                                                  
it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative
as though it had never been passed."
~U.S. Supreme Court,
Norton V. Shelby County
118 U.S. 425, 442

[empire]

As an outsider it truly amazes me what is happening in America right now.
It's like ever other week or month a new law is passed and yet another part of what makes that country great is stripped away piece by piece.

And it seems those who should be taking notice, the wider American public, have become distracted by reality TV "celebrities" and Hollywood bullshit.

It will be really sad if the majority only wake up to their plight when they're busy being corralled into FEMA camps.
When that happens the likes of Anthony M. Kennedy better make sure they have been afforded a safe little hideaway courtesy of the NWO masters.

[Satyagraha]

As for the Supreme Court ... They are not all-powerful ... only when idiots like Berry implement this kind of thing as if the Court's opinion were lawful federal or state legislation ... which is not ... it is merely a court opinion and nothing more.

Thank God.

[Jackson Holly]

This has upset me more than almost
ANY recent event ... sexual humiliation
now codified in the USA ... we are living
in an insane asylum.

Here is Naomi Wolf's take on it:

http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/10831-sexual-humiliation-a-tool-to-control-the-masses



EXCERPT:

Sexual Humiliation, a Tool to Control the Masses

By Naomi Wolf, Guardian UK
06 April 12
 

n a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Is American strip-searching benign? The man who had brought the initial suit, Albert Florence, described having been told to "turn around. Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks." He said he felt humiliated: "It made me feel like less of a man."

In surreal reasoning, justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this ruling is necessary because the 9/11 bomber could have been stopped for speeding. How would strip searching him have prevented the attack? Did justice Kennedy imagine that plans to blow up the twin towers had been concealed in a body cavity? In still more bizarre non-logic, his and the other justices' decision rests on concerns about weapons and contraband in prison systems. But people under arrest – that is, who are not yet convicted – haven't been introduced into a prison population.

[empire]

In surreal reasoning, justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this ruling is necessary because the 9/11 bomber could have been stopped for speeding. How would strip searching him have prevented the attack? Did justice Kennedy imagine that plans to blow up the twin towers had been concealed in a body cavity? In still more bizarre non-logic, his and the other justices' decision rests on concerns about weapons and contraband in prison systems. But people under arrest – that is, who are not yet convicted – haven't been introduced into a prison population.

That is some of the most perverted logic I've heard.
These fools truly are a world away from the founders.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin

[JT Coyoté]

The people of Yamhill County Oregon remind me of the cattle in a holding pen, vacuously staring through the rails in the fence, snot dripping as their tongues swap nostrils, mindlessly chewing their cud as they watch one or two of their calves being hooked by their hind legs to the front bucket of a tractor, raised high and then their throats slit to bleed out in kosher slaughter...

You are Yamhill cattle, fatuous and ripe for slaughter and you are allowing the reapers to destroy your children. Get out of your ma-laze. You should be all over these bastards, unrelenting with boots and spurs...stomping their evil to dust.

Oldyoti

"The liberties of our country, the
freedom of our civil Constitution,
are worth defending at all hazards."
~Samuel Adams

[Satyagraha]

This has upset me more than almost
ANY recent event ... sexual humiliation
now codified in the USA ... we are living
in an insane asylum.

Here is Naomi Wolf's take on it:

http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/10831-sexual-humiliation-a-tool-to-control-the-masses



EXCERPT:

Sexual Humiliation, a Tool to Control the Masses

By Naomi Wolf, Guardian UK
06 April 12
 

In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Is American strip-searching benign? The man who had brought the initial suit, Albert Florence, described having been told to "turn around. Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks." He said he felt humiliated: "It made me feel like less of a man."

In surreal reasoning, justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this ruling is necessary because the 9/11 bomber could have been stopped for speeding. How would strip searching him have prevented the attack? Did justice Kennedy imagine that plans to blow up the twin towers had been concealed in a body cavity? In still more bizarre non-logic, his and the other justices' decision rests on concerns about weapons and contraband in prison systems. But people under arrest – that is, who are not yet convicted – haven't been introduced into a prison population.

Naomi's entire article needs to appear here, so adding the rest:

Our surveillance state shown considerable determination to intrude on citizens sexually. There's the sexual abuse of prisoners at Bagram – der Spiegel reports that "former inmates report incidents of … various forms of sexual humiliation. In some cases, an interrogator would place his penis along the face of the detainee while he was being questioned. Other inmates were raped with sticks or threatened with anal sex". There was the stripping of Bradley Manning is solitary confinement. And there's the policy set up after the story of the "underwear bomber" to grope US travelers genitally or else force them to go through a machine – made by a company, Rapiscan, owned by terror profiteer and former DHA czar Michael Chertoff – with images so vivid that it has been called the "pornoscanner".

Believe me: you don't want the state having the power to strip your clothes off. History shows that the use of forced nudity by a state that is descending into fascism is powerfully effective in controlling and subduing populations.

The political use of forced nudity by anti-democratic regimes is long established. Forcing people to undress is the first step in breaking down their sense of individuality and dignity and reinforcing their powerlessness. Enslaved women were sold naked on the blocks in the American south, and adolescent male slaves served young white ladies at table in the south, while they themselves were naked: their invisible humiliation was a trope for their emasculation. Jewish prisoners herded into concentration camps were stripped of clothing and photographed naked, as iconic images of that Holocaust reiterated.

One of the most terrifying moments for me when I visited Guantanamo prison in 2009 was seeing the way the architecture of the building positioned glass-fronted shower cubicles facing intentionally right into the central atrium – where young female guards stood watch over the forced nakedness of Muslim prisoners, who had no way to conceal themselves. Laws and rulings such as this are clearly designed to bring the conditions of Guantanamo, and abusive detention, home.

I have watched male police and TSA members standing by side by side salaciously observing women as they have been "patted down" in airports. I have experienced the weirdly phrased, sexually perverse intrusiveness of the state during an airport "pat-down", which is always phrased in the words of a steamy paperback ("do you have any sensitive areas? … I will use the back of my hands under your breasts …"). One of my Facebook commentators suggested, I think plausibly, that more women are about to be found liable for arrest for petty reasons (scarily enough, the TSA is advertising for more female officers).

I interviewed the equivalent of TSA workers in Britain and found that the genital groping that is obligatory in the US is illegal in Britain. I believe that the genital groping policy in America, too, is designed to psychologically habituate US citizens to a condition in which they are demeaned and sexually intruded upon by the state – at any moment.

The most terrifying phrase of all in the decision
is justice Kennedy's striking use of the term "detainees" for "United States citizens under arrest".
Some members of Occupy who were arrested in Los Angeles also reported having been referred to by police as such. Justice Kennedy's new use of what looks like a deliberate activation of that phrase is illuminating.

Ten years of association have given "detainee" the synonymous meaning in America
as those to whom no rights apply – especially in prison.

It has been long in use in America, habituating us to link it with a condition in which random Muslims far away may be stripped by the American state of any rights. Now the term – with its associations of "those to whom anything may be done" – is being deployed systematically in the direction of … any old American citizen.

Where are we headed? Why? These recent laws criminalizing protest, and giving local police – who, recall, are now infused with DHS money, military hardware and personnel – powers to terrify and traumatise people who have not gone through due process or trial, are being set up to work in concert with a see-all-all-the-time surveillance state. A facility is being set up in Utah by the NSA to monitor everything all the time: James Bamford wrote in Wired magazine that the new facility in Bluffdale, Utah, is being built, where the NSA will look at billions of emails, texts and phone calls. Similar legislation is being pushed forward in the UK.

With that Big Brother eye in place, working alongside these strip-search laws, – between the all-seeing data-mining technology and the terrifying police powers to sexually abuse and humiliate you at will – no one will need a formal coup to have a cowed and compliant citizenry. If you say anything controversial online or on the phone, will you face arrest and sexual humiliation?

Remember, you don't need to have done anything wrong to be arrested in America any longer. You can be arrested for walking your dog without a leash. The man who was forced to spread his buttocks was stopped for a driving infraction. I was told by an NYPD sergeant that "safety" issues allow the NYPD to make arrests at will. So nothing prevents thousands of Occupy protesters – if there will be any left after these laws start to bite – from being rounded up and stripped naked under intimidating conditions.

Why is this happening? I used to think the push was just led by those who profited from endless war and surveillance – but now I see the struggle as larger. As one internet advocate said to me: "There is a race against time: they realise the internet is a tool of empowerment that will work against their interests, and they need to race to turn it into a tool of control."

As Chris Hedges wrote in his riveting account of the NDAA: "There are now 1,271 government agencies and 1,931 private companies that work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States, the Washington Post reported in a 2010 series by Dana Priest and William M Arken. There are 854,000 people with top-secret security clearances, the reporters wrote, and in Washington, DC, and the surrounding area 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2011."

This enormous new sector of the economy has a multi-billion-dollar vested interest in setting up a system to surveil, physically intimidate and prey upon the rest of American society.

Now they can do so by threatening to demean you sexually – a potent tool in the hands of any bully.

[Dig]

[Updated image by master artist Brocke]

[Femacamper]

Good point. Reminiscent of the council of nine.