But the summer became a sizzler when Alexander Butterworth, the man responsible for communications at the White House, appeared on the witness stand before the late great Sen. Sam Ervin and then U.S. Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee. No one in the media knew why he was there.
But then under questioning by the great Sam Dash, Democratic attorney for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Butterworth testified to the existence of taping devices in the Oval Office. A year later, Nixon resigned the presidency. And it was the "smoking gun" tape that Nixon was forced by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court to release that showed he had ordered the coverup in the Watergate case. That was a high moment for our republic.
I preface this column post with that bit of history to point out that in every controversial story, journalists look for the "smoking gun." And I believe there is one in the torture of Mrs. Juana Villegas (DeLaPaz) by Nashville authorities.
The following report by Christine Maddela for WKRN Channel 2 reveals the spokesperson for the sheriff's department admitting that Mrs. Villegas was pulled over for driving without an operator's license. You don't have to believe me. Listen and watch the video.
Mrs. Villegas says she was never told why she was pulled over. So Maddela asked the sheriff's department -- which decided to torture Mrs. Villegas before and after childbirth -- why. The spokesperson says she was pulled over on "a driver's license charge."
How can you tell a person does not have a driver's license to operate a vehicle while a car is moving?
When an audibly stunned Maddela gave the spokesperson another chance to answer the question, she backtracked and told Maddela to ask the Berry Hill Police Department. It has told other media that the arresting officer was only following proper procedure.
It would easy to say the spokesperson just made a mistake. But often the first answer is the most truthful one, and she did nothing wrong in telling the truth.
Tennessee has a history of racial profiling, which is also quite recent. A review of Tennessee State Highway Patrol stops showed Hispanics and American-Indians were the most likely to be pulled over, even ahead of African-Americans. Yet Hispanics and American Indians make up very little of the population in this Southern state.
And the governor -- a Democrat -- now is allowing the highway patrol to start using the heinous 287g deportation program to question and incarcerate immigrants over long periods of time.
That's why Driving While a Woman, Driving While Hispanic and Driving While Immigrant is dangerous in Nashville and the state of Tennessee. You don't know what the local sheriff will end up doing to you under powers that should only belong to the federal government. The good ol' boy network is alive and working in Tennessee.
Yet Shelby County, home to our largest city of Memphis, does not have 287g. Its sheriff says he doesn't need it. Then why does Nashville?
There is a new federal law outlawing racial profiling. Hedy Weinberg of the Tennessee ACLU has gotten involved in Mrs. Villegas' case to determine whether federal law has been broken. The video proves it has been as does the review of state highway patrol stops.
Besides Maddela, WKRN reporter Amy Napier Viteri deserves a lot of credit for airing the initial story on Mrs. Villegas in the mainstream media.
The national media hit its high-water mark during Watergate. The scandal involving Republicans teaches us that people with titles and high offices make mistakes when things go wrong. And trying to cover up wrongs only makes things worse.
Sheriff Daron Hall made a big mistake in bringing 287g here and grossly misleading the public on its true intent for personal political gain. Mayor Karl Dean and Congressman Jim Cooper deserve rebuke for their silence over the outrage of 287g and the torture of Mrs. Villegas, not to mention her newborn son.
Where is their sense of decency? Where are their loyalities to the progressive people who put them in office? Where are the voices of the progressive people who put them in office? Or maybe "progressive" is not what I believe it means? These three elected officials also are Democrats, or what passes for one in the South.
Here's the link to the text and video. Be sure to click on the video.
Hispanic woman claims racial discrimination
You can watch and listen to the truth. Remember, the whole world is beginning to watch and wonder whether Nashville and Tennessee are still part of the Old South when it comes to human rights.
8 comments:
The truth, Tim, is that comment was a mistake. I should have said that she was "brought to jail" for driving without a license. Since the sheriff's office is not involved in traffic stops, I don't have the information as to why someone is "pulled over" by any police officer. What I do know is information found in the jail management system and that would be her charge. There have been many half truths in this column, but I could not let the fact go that you would make my words the "smoking gun" when the exact words I chose were incorrect. That is my fault, but the sensationalism in much of what you write is yours.
KWeikal, Nashville, TN
Ms. Weikal,
There have been so many official excuses in this case. The video speaks for itself.
If a spokesperson of mine had supposedly made such a mistake, he or she would no longer be speaking for me and my department.
But you remain speaking for the department. That to me tells a lot.
And that the sheriff does not have the integrity to regularly speak to the TV media for his own policy, Mrs. Villegas' torture and his department says a lot, too.
I will let readers across this country make their own decision after viewing the video.
I did not notice any sympathy for Mrs. Villegas in your note but only concern for yourself. That tells me a lot, too.
If Nixon had admitted he simply did wrong in the beginning before any hearings, the American people would have forgiven him, and he'd be considered one of the greatest presidents of all time -- particularly with the Beijing Olympics.
It is when we don't admit wrong that we get more in trouble. That's a difficult lesson to learn, but it is one the sheriff, you and your department have brought about on your own.
It is sad that you have been put in that position of speaking for someone who won't come out and speak for himself.
Thank you for reading and commenting.
Tim Chavez
Kweikal, you have a legitimate beef with respect to your words being utilized to support a writer's pre-disposition. However, part of the real problem with this entire issue is that NO ONE in the Sheriff's Dept, or Metro police is willing to acknowledge that street level officers are viewing the 287(g) program as a way to provide cover for their own prejudices. Abuse exists, and hiding behind jurisdictional restrictions appears to interested outsiders as wink wink, nudge nudge(we know we are on shaky ground here, but, you know, nobody will care).
How much better would it have been for a high-level Sheriff's dept official to say "we agree that the actions by the jailers in this case went well beyond the intent of the Departmental S.O.P., and we intend to review and ultimately change how we treat women in our care, regardless of their citizenship status?"
This sends two messages: first that we acknowledge that Mrs. Villegas came to us in a vulnerable position, and we failed to treat her with at least the minimum level of care any human being deserves, and, second, that while we have no control over who ends up in our care, we are committed to the highest level of professionalism when dealing with them.
I've been shouted down for raising valid concerns by Sheriff Hall after being invited to be a member of his 287(g) Advisory Council, so I think I am allowed in this forum to make a few observations that I could not make during our meetings.
Ms. Weikal,
I, too, appreciate the position you're in. But I hope you can appreciate the concerns many of us have.
Of course, no one expects that the Sheriff's department has any control over who the local police departments arrest or why. But you must see how, from where we're standing, it looks very suspicious, like local police officers know that, if they arrest someone, they can ensure that person will be subjected, at the least, to a hassle all out of proportion to the act they're accused of committing.
I have met quite a few people who work for the Sheriff's department and none of them appear to be fools. I then must reckon that your boss is also not a fool and he must have anticipated, when he agitated for 287(g), that the potential for abuse would be enormous.
And so, while I appreciate that your boss isn't the one making these arrests, he is the one who worked towards instituting 287(g) when overzealous police officers arresting Hispanics just so that they'll be run through your system is a likely foreseeable outcome. And it would be nice to have some acknowledgment of that.
But second, to move away from the woulda/shoulda/coulda Constitutional issues, a lot of us are very concerned that what happened to Mrs. Villegas was indeed pretty much what happens to pregnant women who are in the Sheriff's custody--that they're shackled, not allowed to properly tend to their hygiene needs, nor provided with the medical equipment necessary to pump their breasts and thus protect against infection.
If Villegas's treatment is indeed standard treatment, then we, as a community, need to help y'all come up with some different standards for treatment.
And my hope is that we haven't gotten so caught up in angry hyperbole that we overlook these two concerns.
If you will listen to this report, the reporter says, "even the Sheriff's Office doesn't know why DeLaPaz was pulled over."
We can argue all day long over what people think about the correctional treatment of a female in custody. But my words in this particular report should not be twisted to meet an agenda.
Fair enough. I think it's clear from the video that you were answering about how she ended up in the Sheriff Department's custody, not why she was arrested.
We can argue all day long over what people think about the correctional treatment of a female in custody. But my words in this particular report should not be twisted to meet an agenda.
Except, Kweikal, there really is no argument to be had, is there? Is this really what the Department wants to be talking about? Can you honestly say that you don't find that deflection just a tad disingenuous?
I realize that you are the spokesperson, and do not set policy or influence procedure, but good Lord, move the story! Get the Sheriff to acknowledge that there are flaws in the implementation of the program, and that many innocent people have suffered needlessly, but that the Department is moving quickly to ensure that the Program is performing as promised....As a tool to identify and remove threats to the citizens of Davidson County, and, as such, should be treated as a laser, not a sledgehammer. Watch the support roll in.
We can argue all day long over what people think about the correctional treatment of a female in custody.
Ms. Weikal,
I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but in coverage of this case I seem to have read a couple of statements from you that suggest that we should indeed be arguing about the treatment of pregnant women in custody, because lack of more general outrage is being used as justification for her treatment.
From the Tennessean (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807150336):
"She also said Villegas' case was not unusual. 'People want to ignore the fact that we have 500 females incarcerated every day,' she said. 'Currently, there are 25 females who are pregnant in jail.'"
I for one do not want to ignore this fact, and do not believe that not being "unusual" is a legitimate justification for the shackling of pregnant women in labor. Labor is an extremely vulnerable time, and one in which being allowed a bit of movement often makes the process less painful for many women. I am also troubled by reports that the guard is reported to have removed her telephone line, denied her access to a breast pump, forced her to change clothes in his presence, and denied nurses' request to allow her more freedom of movement for personal care.
I would like to hear a statement on whether these things are accurate. I am of the understanding that there have not been any documented instances of women attempting to escape during labor anywhere in the U.S., so I would also like to know why these measures have been implemented.
Regardless of the specifics of Ms. Villegas's case, I believe women should be treated with dignity and appropriate care during this very vulnerable event, and it does not appear that this happened. I urge the department to reconsider its practices, and to address the assumed need for them.
If you haven't heard much objection to these practices until now, it is likely because local citizens were not fully aware of them. There are local women I have spoken to recently who were shocked that this happens. However, there are national organizations working to end exactly this type of treatment. As Mack suggests, I find the "well, nobody cares about these other women" argument to be deflection rather than a legitimate rationale for current practices.
Post a Comment