User:Rebecca394/SCAD

= State Crimes Against Democracy =

State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD) are conceptually the action or inaction by government insiders intended to alter the democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty. Although SCADs can occur at virtually any level of government, the one’s that have  gained scholar interest have been the one’s undermined in the highest office because of their potential to challenge political institutions and entire government or branches of government. Although only a few high-level SCADs have been officially recognized in historically, increasing evidence demonstrates American democracy becoming vulnerable to subversion by top leaders since World War II. Over the years professionals and scholars of the American government have always recognized the dire need to protect against antidemocratic forces, but even with protective reform problems with vulnerabilities still arise and corruption has ultimately expanded over time. To determine antidemocratic vulnerabilities of the American government, one has to first conceptualize the underlying theories as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution. “The Federalists” explains that theory behind the Constitution of the was destined to protect against three dangers treacherous public officials of any rank, oppressive parties, and misguided popular opinions. Major tyranny was to be obstructed by federalism, divided powers, and checks and balances. Still with much protection and precaution made necessary, the foundation of the constitution has always been vulnerable to political insiders.

Recently, the rises of political-economic factors have had the ability to waver the priorities in the political party systems as a whole. The assumption that oppressive control wouldn’t be able to take over completely is under that notion that power is fragmented into different level and fields. The numerous levels are all controlled by different parties, so in theory it would be impossible for one partisan to have total control. As time passed, scholars of public administration started to recognize that not all policy arenas and stakeholders are the same. Between stakeholders, corporate interests were present and active in virtually all policy areas which influenced public policy in the themes of labor, consumers, the environment, and other interests as a second face of power. At the same time, policy regarding national defense and military action had gained importance and has greatly persuaded all other areas of policy. As President Eisenhower had warned in a going away speech; “leaders in military and armament manufacturers have formed an intricate bond capable of influencing the direction of American government. And during his time, the military-industrial complex has grown in comparison to other similar integrated industries. Energy, finance and pharmaceutical have interests that have grown over the past years exerting their strategic importance in society.

Obstructions to SCAD Investigations and Prosecutions
There are several impediments as to why exactly many state crimes go unpunished or undetected. To begin with, it is the complexity and nature of the crimes themselves. High-level corruption can be intertwined with people of high class fields like the FBI and the CIA like in the Watergate scandal involvement. Their intelligence experience allowed to electronic surveillance devices to be custom made to prevent signals being picked up by police radios and receivers. The offenders were only seized because of the failure of one of the low-level operatives who left a strip of evidence on a stairwell door lock. Most of the time intelligence offenders have connections with legal experts who can help them avoid prosecution.

Secondly, SCAD by high officials are less likely to be investigated is because the agencies that are tasked with investigating the crime may either be responsible for some of the blame or has some involvement with the events that have occurred.

Furthermore another factor that obstructs investigating SCAD is the powerful societal norm that denies corruption in high-office. Without considerable evidence, it’s just dismissed as a conspiracy theory. This sort of attitude of mass denial is engraved in the characteristics of our culture; patriotism, respect for authorities, and believing in the civility of the Western society. Even when there is substantial evidence to present a case against a high official, the public still remains hesitant about it.

Lastly, investigations into SCAD can be impeded by presidential pardons and plea bargains (exchange for lesser penalty for a plea conviction) For example when Gerald Ford (38th president of the U.S.) pardoned Richard Nixon preventing a full investigation on all of Nixon’s potential crimes.

Some famous SCAD cases include the Watergate break-ins and cover-ups, the secret wars in and, the illegal arms sales and covert operations in Iran-Contra, and the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson by uncovering his wife’s intelligence agent status. Quite unfortunately there have many political crimes which involve high officials that have gone not investigated or unpunished. Some suspected SCADs have included fabricated attacks on ships in the  of, the “October Surprises” in the presidential elections of 1968 and 1980, the election breakdowns in 2000 and 2005, and the misrepresentation of intelligence to justify the invasion and occupation of. Corruption by high officials is predicted by a number of theoretical traditions in public administration and policy that discover antidemocratic tendencies in modern government. “Control Frauds” are what economists and criminologists have referred to 1930’s rise of possible political criminality under the examples of Harold Lasswell’s garrison-state construct, C. Wright Mills’ theory of the power elite, and Jurgen Habermas’s critical theory. Occurring periodically, these types of large-scale frauds, such as the raiding of the saving and loan companies in the 1980's, lead by corporate officers with the implied approval of high ranking officials whose support has been bribed out by campaign contributions and other rewards. Public officials tend to downplay the severity of criminal activity in high office, despite an incredible amount of overwhelming implications. With that in mind, it is easy for many criminal activity suspected to not go investigated unless there is valid evidence present. The process of prosecution along with the removal from office is also likely to be meddled by political pursuance and other strategic calculations. Needless to say this type of resistance to suspect and confirm public official election breakdowns, intelligence failures, breaches of secrecy, and other cover-ups stand in the way of creating reform to prevent them from happening in the first place. When policies can be implemented Liberal Democracies can reduce their vulnerabilities to antidemocratic threats.

Legislative Efforts
The War Powers Act was enacted after the Watergate scandal designed to prevent presidents from using military involvement without first approval of Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Act, which limited video surveillance of citizens.

Conspiracy findings
After some of the affairs of the Watergate scandal were revealed in the 1975, the Frank Church committee uncovered a type of weapon dubbed a "heart attack gun" designed to induce a heart attack by pelleting a frozen bullet full of shellfish toxins. No one knows exactly who could have died from such an infliction as the intended use was to assassinate without being detected. It was design to cause death and cover any trace in an autopsy that would lead to an external infliction.