 sj |
||
|
||
POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber
|
|
|
Subject: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: GUEST,Greg F. Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:10 AM Don't worry- we're only going to ignore the rights of "Non Americans"---for now. Emphasis mine. Best, Greg -------------------
WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS PLANS FOR SECRET TRIALS
CRAWFORD, Texas -- Senior Bush administration officials on Wednesday
Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft and White
Bush issued the order permitting military tribunals with little fanfare late
Cheney, addressing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, said
Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union in
Murphy said the order could result in "secret trials without a jury
Bush's five-page order permits admission of any evidence that |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: GUEST Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:17 AM After handing our civil liberties over to the White House terrorists, Congress is apparently having some second thoughts (civil liberties, pick one?): Congress bristles at military trials Click for complete story Wednesday, 14 November 2001 18:15 (ET) Congress bristles at military trials By MARK BENJAMIN WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 (UPI) -- Some lawmakers Wednesday bristled at President George W. Bush's announcement that terrorist suspects might face military tribunals, building momentum in Congress to investigate a possible erosion of civil liberties during the administration's war on terrorism. "I'm concerned about the potential breadth of the plan to use military trials for suspected terrorists," Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a statement released Wednesday evening. Kennedy noted a wartime precedent for such tribunals, "But we need to proceed very carefully before using such procedures for trials in this country. Fundamental constitutional rights are at the heart of our democracy and our liberty, and they deserve to be respected and protected." House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, D-Mich., said the tribunals -- along with other recent government moves in the war on terrorism -- raise "serious questions" about civil liberties that require congressional oversight. "Indeed, the very purpose of the directive appears to be to skirt the usual constitutional and criminal justice rules that are the hallmark of our democratic form of government," Conyers wrote in a letter Wednesday to Committee Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. Conyers calls for hearings that would include an investigation of a new administration plan to monitor communication between some defendants and their attorneys. Conyers said Congress should also look into the mysterious status of 1,000 suspects detained in the government's probe of the Sept. 11 attacks, some of which have reportedly been released. On Tuesday, Bush signed an order that would allow the government to try foreigners accused of terrorism in special military tribunals set up by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that would not be subject to judicial review. Conyers' request comes one day after United Press International reported that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., might soon hold hearings on the new government policy on monitoring communication between defense attorneys and their clients, and the status of the detainees. Leahy twice sent letters to Ashcroft on Oct. 31 and Nov. 9, containing pointed questions about the government detainees and the policy to monitor lawyer-client relations, but has received no response. Sensenbrenner did not return calls seeking comment and has not scheduled any hearings, but congressional sources said he has asked for a private briefing on the detainees, but has not received one. Democrats said on condition of anonymity that lawmakers are increasingly uncomfortable with the possible erosion of civil liberties stemming from the government's activities, but have also kept their powder dry out of concern over impeding that war -- or facing untoward political consequences for questioning the government's motives during such a sensitive period. That could be changing. "World public opinion can go south on this [war] really fast. I'm not sure how long it might take for American public opinion to go the same way," one staffer following the investigation said. "We also have received no cooperation from the Justice Department in our effort to obtain information regarding the 1,000 plus immigrants who have been detained in connection with the terrorism investigation, as reflected in a letter that several Democratic Members transmitted to the Attorney General on October 31, 2001," Conyers wrote to Sensenbrenner Wednesday. "We would be remiss in our duties, however, if we did not also oversee the extent to which the Department may be abusing its authority and wrongfully targeting innocent Americans."
-- Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved. --
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: kendall Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:17 AM A high approval rating still doesn't make him any smarter. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: JedMarum Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:31 AM Since when do we extend "fundamental constitutional rights" to non-citizens? |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: GUEST Date: 15 Nov 01 - 10:23 AM Jed, I believe the phrase in the U.S. Constitution is "that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights"- it doesn't say only AMERICAN men- unless Dumbya's changed it in secret. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Whistle Stop Date: 15 Nov 01 - 11:33 AM Greg, I believe that line is from the Declaration of Independence -- a very different document, written for a very different purpose. Moreover, the generally articulated rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" do not necessarily speak directly to what form of trial a defendant may be entitled to under specific circumstances. I agree that we have to watch this carefully, but I also feel that we ARE in a war, and ought to act like it. There are reasons why a military tribunal may make sense in the context of a military conflict, where lengthy public trials (and appeals) involving the discussion of sensitive information may in fact be contrary to the overall war aims. We need to balance a number of cometing considerations on this issue, but I don't think the option of using military tribunals to try non-US citizens for war crimes should be taken off the table. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: CarolC Date: 15 Nov 01 - 12:06 PM Democrats said on condition of anonymity that lawmakers are increasingly uncomfortable with the possible erosion of civil liberties stemming from the government's activities I find it particurly chilling that these people felt the need for anonymity in order to be able to express their concerns. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Whistle Stop Date: 15 Nov 01 - 12:42 PM Carol, to the extent that is true, I think it's more likely they are remaining anonymous because they are scared of the political implications of speaking their minds. In other words, they don't say what they think because they're afraid of losing public support, and possibly losing the next election. I don't think they are worried that they'll be killed or hauled off to jail for dissenting; they just want to make sure they don't suffer in the public opinion polls. If I'm right, shame on them -- it's their duty to speak out, whatever the consequences. As I indicated before, I'm not all that worried about the supposed erosion of our liberties; I just don't see that happening. But if a Senator or Congressman is worried about it, but doesn't speak up because he/she doesn't want to be unpopular -- well, that's a person who has no business being in Congress in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Irish sergeant Date: 15 Nov 01 - 12:48 PM If we are to keep ourselves above reproach in what I consider a just fight, I don't believe secret military tribunals are the answer. Isn't this just what the terrorists want? An erosion however slight of American liberties is a victory for them. SHould the government have the option to try Osama and the boys? Yes. SHould it be by military tribunal, I don't know but it should be open for the American people and the world to see that our cause is just and that we are the aggrieved party. Kindest regards, Neil |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: CarolC Date: 15 Nov 01 - 12:51 PM Whistle Stop, I suspect that if it were just an issue of losing the support of their constituents, they wouldn't have spoken up at all, anonymously or otherwise. Being killed or hauled off to jail aren't the only ways that people can be punished for speaking their mind in the US. I know this from personal experience. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Charlie Baum Date: 15 Nov 01 - 12:55 PM When a Commander-in-Thief who takes power through a judicial coup (elected by the Supreme Court 5-4) arrogates power to himself to round up and jail even long-term resident aliens (lthe Canadian whose been married to a US friend for a couple of decades now and living in America without changing her citizenship qualifies as a "non-citizen"!) and give them secret military kangaroo trials and even sentence them to death (as Gov. Bush so often liked to do!), I worry about dictatorship. So does William Safire. This in a country where we currnetly have more than a thousand desaparecidos. If any other country, like Peru or China, grabbed an American and gave them a secret trial, we'd be complaining. Are we now to say "go ahead and try them in secret and give themthe death penalty--we do that in America, too."? --Charlie Baum |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: InOBU Date: 15 Nov 01 - 01:19 PM Well said Irish Sargent. Jeb! Beyond Constitutional rights, there are basic HUMAN RIGHTS! Now, my concern is that the secret courts are to be conviend to cover up Americas involvement in things we may never know about. One can't have democracy in the dark of night. How can we judge the report in Le Figaro that the CIA station cheif for the region met with Bin Ladin two weeks before the WTC event, if we don't have public trials. When assaination, as in the case of Oswald, or secret trials rob us of open justice, than we are left living in fear of our government, it ain't democracy . Cheers Larry |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Bennet Zurofsky Date: 15 Nov 01 - 01:26 PM The relevant Constitutional language is from the Fourteenth Amendment, which expands upon similar language in the Fifth Amendment and which, among other things, extends the Fifth Amendment rights to the States as well the Federal Government. In both instances the Constitution makes reference to "persons," a category that has been held to include even those who enter the country illegally. Here is the relevant guarantee as it appears in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: ". . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is interesting to note that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" which appears in the Declaration of Independence does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, where it has been replaced with the single word "property." The administration's creation of these "Star Chamber" proceedings, as well as a number of other assaults on Due Process recently announced by Ashcroft and others, such as the taping of otherwise-privileged attorney-client conferences, are grave assaults upon the American values that we are theoretically bombing Afghanistan to protect. We should all fight them vigorously. Among other things, these assaults upon our liberties are being justified on the basis that "terrorists don't deserve anything better." This, however, assumes what should be the result of the proceedings, i.e., the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact a terrorist. Thus, the accused is assumed to be a terrorist from the outset of the proceedings and is therefore denied the ordinary right to a public trial, properly admissible evidence, confrontation of the witnesses against him or her, and the other attributes of Due Process in the very proceeding that is supposed to determine whether he or she is in fact guilty of the crime charged. Ordinary Due Process requires the hearing before the rights are denied. Denying the rights before the hearing means that there never will be a fair hearing as our laws have come to define it. We should be outraged, and we should let our leaders know we are outraged. The precedents cited by the administratrion, such as certain military tribunals established in connection with the Civil War and World War II, have all been long discredited among reputable Due Process scholars. Our nation has engaged in many acts which were held to be Constitutional by the then-sitting Supreme Court (e.g., slavery, state-sponsored segregation of the races, violation of Indian treaties, internment of Japanese residents, police coersion of confessions). Most of us who care about the law, however, expect the maturity of our nation's approach to Due Process and the rights of persons to recognize and learn from our past errors rather than multiply them. I urge all to air their concerns beyond The Mudcat. -Bennet D. Zurofsky, Esq. A Member of the New Jersey Bar |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: mousethief Date: 15 Nov 01 - 01:33 PM Prove they're terrorists in a fair and open trial and THEN throw the book at them. Taking away the rights of innocent people (you can't tell me that all 900-odd people we have locked up right now without habeas corpus are guilty) serves no-one except the wagging tongues of our enemies. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: InOBU Date: 15 Nov 01 - 02:11 PM Dear Bennet D. Zurofsky, Esq. !!!!!!!!!!!! Jew Jersey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am impressed. I have spent many years looking for progressive lawyers in NJ, there are some, I must admitt, but when one is in the need of one, well, it is not for nothing that the few Guild members from NJ meet in NY! A number of us are activists beyond Mudcat. It is good to hear a sane voice in the dark void of the present day US. Larry Otway - (JD from NYU and retired Political Scientist) |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: DougR Date: 15 Nov 01 - 02:34 PM Bennett D. Zurofsky, Esq.: your comment about military tribunals being discredited by reputable Due Process scholars interests me. Which of the two scholars quoted in USA Today (today's edition) is reputable? Catholic University law dean, Douglas Kmiec, who supports the notion of military tribunals. "They are violating the laws of civility and the laws of war. The president's order is not extraordinary when one places it in the context of historic military campaigns." Or: Harvard (surprise!) law Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter, who counters: "President Bush has said this is a war to bring terrorists to justice. So the real question is: What is justice? That requires a fair trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is not the aim of a military tribunal." I know which one you and Larry agree with, but I want to know which of the two is not credible? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Charlie Baum Date: 15 Nov 01 - 02:43 PM Doug-- Are you confusing accreditation by disreputable scholars with discreditation by reputable scholars? Logical confusion... --Charlie Baum |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Whistle Stop Date: 15 Nov 01 - 02:55 PM Bennet, I appreciate the intelligence of your post. Not sure I agree with it entirely, but you make some compelling points. I think that this will not play out too badly in practice; we have a lot of checks and balances in place in our government, and a lot of people watching very closely to see that our government does not abuse its authority. I suspect that the option to try non-citizens before a military tribunal will be used sparingly, and only when there is a compelling reason to do so. this does not mean that I am complacent about this, or unaware that our government has gone too far in the past. But I recognize the reasons why this approach may be necessary, and I'm not all that uncomfortable with it at present. Carol, I understand that there are other ways of punishing people for speaking their minds. I haven't heard of any Congressmen actually being disciplined in these "other ways" for raising concerns about current administration policy, but for the sake of discussion I will accept your suggestion that it could happen. Still, we are placing a lot of trust in our elected representatives, and they should be prepared to rise to the occasion as so many others have. We have people putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan, and in responding to attacks here at home. If our Congressmen aren't willing to take the slight risk that people will be unhappy with them for speaking out on an important issue, they are unworthy of the trust we have placed in them, and should resign. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: CarolC Date: 15 Nov 01 - 03:28 PM Whistle Stop, the kinds of ways I'm talking about, you wouldn't necessarily hear about even if they did happen. Or if you did hear about them, you probably wouldn't know that there was any connection.
Of course, in congress, it can be as simple as a negative form of quid pro quo.
Here's just a small example of how these things can work... I was involved in a matter in family court (custody battle) several years ago. My attorney made it clear to me that he couldn't advocate for me to the extent that he thought I deserved, because it would probably hurt his ability to function in the legal environment of the community in which he practiced.
He told me that since I was a woman without any powerful connections, and the case was being heard in an area where the "old boys' network" was very much a reality, I was going to just have to live with the fact that I didn't have access to the same amount of justice as a man or someone with connections would have. He knew that to challenge the prevailing culture would put his ability to get good results in future cases in jeopardy. This man was a good lawyer. It wasn't a lack of skill as an attorney or lack of backbone led him to advise me the way he did. He just knew what all of the probable consequences were, and he was doing the best he could within that reality. This is not an unusual scenario. It happens at all levels of our society and in all kinds of contexts. And sometimes the consequences can be much more extreme. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Bennet Zurofsky Date: 15 Nov 01 - 03:54 PM I did not mean that the reputable Constitutional scholars are unanimous. Lawyers are trained to assert contrary positions and many certainly say some silly things while remaining reputable. However, most of the matters that I specifically referred to have been rejected as legitimate exercises of governmental power, and the Constitutional doctrines upon which they were premised have been overruled by more recent Supreme Court decisions. The notion of an open public hearing before one is deprived of significant rights established by pre-existing law is pretty basic to any view of Due Process. The Catholic Church, or a Law School that is part of a Catholic University, however reputable it may be, does not strike me as the place to go for explanantions of Due Process that are sympathetic to the accused. It was the Catholic Church, after all, which refined and developed the secret trial through its inquisition. Its official position on the United States Constitution, as exemplified by its view of abortion, is that it is subordinate to the Church's view of God's law and the Church therefore rejects much well-established doctrine. An institution built upon the declared infallibility of its leader is not likely to be very high on the notion of due process (except where its infallible leader says its due). With regard to Dean Kmiec's comment as quoted by DougR above (which is all I know about what he said since I have not seen the USA Today article), it really does not differ with anything that I have said, and I do not disagree with it. All that he says is that the President's order is not extraordinary when placed in the context of military campaigns. Many things, such as burning villages, killing women, children and even male non-combatants, the destruction of hospitals and other civilian facilities is not unusual in the context of military campaigns. That does not mean that those are good things. Neither does it mean that it is proper and right for such things to occur even in the context of military campaigns. We are not living under martial law here at home and war has not even been formally declared abroad. Add to these facts some of the definitions of terrorist that have been thrown around by the Administration and those close to it, which would label as a terrorist just about anyone who has attended a demonstration and not immediately followed a police officer's direction to move or keep quiet, and the fact that most of those detained seem to have been picked up more on the basis of a racial profile than anything else, and you have a recipe for tyranny. Our Courts function quite well in trying matters of great importance without sacrificing the ordinary requirements of Due Process. Our present situation does not cry out for an abandonment of such process. To the contrary, when I see the flag I think of our freedoms and our system of due process as among the most important things that it symbolizes. Take protection of those things away from the definition of what the flag symbolizes and the Country is about and we do not have a flag or a Country worth feeling patriotic about. In thinking about these issues one can only achieve clarity of thought by considering the innocent person falsely accused and placing one's self in those shoes. What is fair? What is just? What process is due? If one takes the opposite approach and assumes that only guilty people are charged by our system, then one can justify almost anything. Those who applaud the administration's military tribunals for terrorists are those who cannot imagine themselves, or anyone who is not in fact a terrorist, ever being accused of such a dastardly status by our government. History, however, is replete with examples of the government persecuting and prosecuting the wrong person(s), even here in the U.S.A. -Bennet D. Zurofsky, Esq. P.S. I am from New Jersey and a Jew and I do not care for the anti-semitic pun on my State's name made above, however humorously it may have been intended. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: SharonA Date: 15 Nov 01 - 05:19 PM Scary stuff in troubling times. I can appreciate not wanting public trials for terrorists; the proceedings against those involved in the 1993 bombing of the WTC allowed anti-terror tactics of the government to be made public, and they also allowed the terrorists to abuse due process. It's the broad definition of "terrorist" in this executive order, and the broad powers to convict and condemn, without the declaration of war by Congress that's bothering me greatly. Perhaps someone could explain the process of issuing an executive order. Does it need to have Congressional approval; can Congress strike it down; does it override the legislative and judicial branches of government? Can a President simply give an executive order and "make it so"? |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: InOBU Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:04 PM BROTHER ZEROFSKY!!! I JUST LOOKED UP THE PAGE TO SEE WHAT YOU MEANT! AS YOU CAN SEE BY ALL MY POSTS MY SPELLING IS A RESULT OF A LEARNING DYSABLITY!!! I HIT THE WRONG KEY AND DID NOT CATCH IT!!! IN POINT OF FACT, ON ME MUM"S SIDE, I'M HALF JEWISH AND HALF ROM (GYPSY). FORGIVE THE MISSPELLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! mORTIFIED lARRY |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: InOBU Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:09 PM PS In point of fact, I would guess that the majority of Guild members have been Jewish traditionaly, and where would the state of civil rights law be without the heroic fight of Jewish American lawyers. Check my past several years of posts, and you will see that this was an error in typing, not in manners or mens rea. Chears and angain sorry for the typo. Larry |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: InOBU Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:12 PM PPS... please note that the J and N keys on the key board are both hit by the same finger. Cheers. Larry |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: BH Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:17 PM All points covered I will be brief. There must be something to re-incarnation---looks like Old Joe McCarthy arises as a Phoenix in the guise of a not very bright---but surrounded (as Joe) by "advisors"---Geo. II Bill H
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: DougR Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:20 PM Bennett: the article (reprinted in the Arizona Republic from USA Today) makes it quite clear that Dean Kmiec favors the military tribunal to deal with the terrorists. You evidently missed that in my post. As you point out, there obviously will be a great deal of division within the legal community as to which method of dealing with the terrorists is most appropriate. As Sharon points out, and as pointed out in the USA article, "Several analysts noted that military tribunals could be a way for U. S. authorities to conduct trials of terrorists without having to disclose state secrets. administration officials want to avoid a repetition of the federal court trials of those involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, when rules of evidence required the U. S. government to reveal details about how it collects intelligence on terrorist activities." DougR |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Greg F. Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:20 PM Constitution, Declaration, schmeclaration, whatever. Sorry about that ridiculous error- was in a hurry this AM on a strange computer. My misquote doesn't make it any less of abrogation of human rights. And thanks, Bennett, for posting the correct quote. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: InOBU Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:24 PM OOOOOOOOohhhhhhhhhhhh, then I go and spell your name wrong Zurofsky Zurofsky Zurofsky Zurofsky... me writing it 100 times on the black board after school. I think I am going to go take an asprin and a nap. Ooooooooooooohhhhhhh...... Larry |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: SharonA Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:25 PM Bennet Z: Larry ("InOBU") really is a fine man and an avid crusader for many ethnic groups (and a good Quaker!). And he's right; he can't type for beans! :^) If you go to the top of this page, to the "Quick Links" pop-up, scroll down to "Member Photos & Info" and then click on "Profiles"; you'll find out a lot about all the good works this man does. (yes, Larry, I peeked!) So for what it's worth, I'm absolutely certain, beyond doubt, that Larry simply made a coincidentally embarrassing typo! Sharon |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: CarolC Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:32 PM I'll vouch for Larry (InOBU) also. My automatic assumption, based on my experience of Larry in the forum, was that it was just a mistake. DougR, I saw a legal expert on television last night who said that there are provisions within US law that permit withholding the type of sensitive information that you're talking about. So that appears to be a non-issue. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: DougR Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:42 PM Well, Carol, I doubt the opinion of a "legal expert" on TV will settle the question because it probably would be no problem at all to dig up another "legal expert" who will disagree with that legal expert. It evidently is well documented that the government was required to reveal information related to how terrorist activities are investigated at the 1993 trials. This is information that should not be made public as the war on terrorism continues and as terrorists are captured and tried. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: CarolC Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:49 PM I guess what I would want to know is if there have been any changes in the laws since the 1993 trials. If there have been, that could be why the person last night said what she did. Any of our legal eagles in the Mudcat know the answer to this question? |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: InOBU Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:51 PM Thanks Carol and Sharon... the noise you hear off in the distance is me still banging my head against the wall.... Ooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Larry |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: DougR Date: 15 Nov 01 - 06:54 PM I have no idea, Carol, and I'm certainly not a "legal eagle" but if there has been, there would be no argument, over it, right? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: CarolC Date: 15 Nov 01 - 07:01 PM ten-four, DougR. If there have been any changes that would allow the government to withhold sensitive information in the trials of suspected terrorists, then that particular argument for military trials holds no water ;-) Larry, I really feel for you. But I think you can probably stop banging your head against the wall now. Have you tried sending Mr. Zurofsky a PM? That might make you feel better. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: InOBU Date: 15 Nov 01 - 07:12 PM I did send a PM.... but actually, I am begining to enjoy banging my head against the wall, it is kind of musical! Cheers Larry |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: DougR Date: 15 Nov 01 - 07:12 PM I choose to believe Mr. Zurofsky hasn't read Larry's post yet. If he has, and is still miffed, well ... Cheer up Larry, all of us know you wouldn't intentionally insult BZ,Esq., his religion, or his state. DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: InOBU Date: 15 Nov 01 - 09:33 PM NO! DougR I would insult his state! I do every weekend, becasue all the kids who come through the tunnels get drunk here on St. marks Place... because we don't proof in the bars here.... My wife is from Pompton Lakes NJ... But, I would pick on New Jersey's lack of a Lawyer's Guild branch of its own! I'd pick on the smell of Elizabeth NJ... and after Genie wacked me, I'd point out how lovely Southern Jersey is, and how we see so little of it, and don't get enough time to appreciate the Pine Barrons.... but then I'd go off again on ragging on its corrupt republican politics, and Genie would remind me about our corrupt democratic machine.... but I would have to have my head examined if I intentionally made an anti semetic remark, as I'd kick my own butt... Cheers Larry |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: DougR Date: 16 Nov 01 - 01:31 AM Ok, Larry, so you don't like New Jersey! I've only driven through the state, and I found it rather pretty. That was many years ago though and, oh well ... DougR |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: katlaughing Date: 16 Nov 01 - 02:38 AM I expect that the good Lawyer from NJ will be back. A quick check on google show's he has had a hand in celebrating the music of Paul Robeson through some pretty major sounding events, so how could he stay away fomr the Mudcat, now that he's found it? FWIW, I heard the news of the thread's subject with an instant chill in my heart. The average American is so self-center, I don't think they realise the erosion which continues. BDZurofsky, thank you very much for your postings and please do forgive our InOBU, he's always had trouble with typos due to a disability which he in no way tries to hide. I know it was just an unfortunate finger-mixup and not intended as slur. Welcome to the Mudcat, kat |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: English Jon Date: 16 Nov 01 - 07:54 AM I had to read Larry's post six times before I noticed the typo... That sort of thing is not Larry's style of humour, Bennet. Genuine Typo. Hope you'll be back. EJ |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Whistle Stop Date: 16 Nov 01 - 08:07 AM Well, I think our Mr. Zurofsky could have done what I did upon seeing that post -- look at the keyboard, note that the J and N keys are adjacent to one another, and assume this was a typo. I always wonder about people who leap to the conclusion they are being insulted, when there is another fairly obvious explanation close at hand. [I also wonder about lawyers who write "Esq." after their own names -- this is very bad form. "Esquire" is a form of address, not a title one applies to oneself.] But I hope that InOBU's many mea culpas have been satisfactory, and we can move beyond this. As for Executive Orders, Carol, my understanding is that an EO is intended to direct Executive branch members in matters that are within the purview of the Executive branch. They cannot legitimately be used to make new laws, or overrule either the Legislative or Judicial branches in matters that are within their purview. I don't doubt that this point has probably been "stretched" by the Executive from time to time, but that's my understanding of how these things are supposed to function. Also Carol, I don't wish to belabor the point, but our society only really works if people in positions of authority have a backbone and a willingness to stand by their principles, even if they are concerned about some vague potential "consequences" down the road. This goes for Congressmen who may disagree with a popular President, and it also goes for lawyers who are expected to be zealous advocates for their clients. If your attorney told you that he was effectively willing to sacrifice your case so that he could avoid making the "old boy network" less hospitable in the future, you probably should have sought representation elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: CarolC Date: 16 Nov 01 - 09:53 AM He didn't sacrifice my case, Whistle Stop, but he (and I) had to go along with some provisions that were very problematic in the long run. Things worked out well in the end despite the way the deck was stacked, but it was a lot more difficult for me than it would have been for a man or someone with good connections, and I had to rely on my own resourcefullness a lot. About your philosophy on leadership, I think in an ideal world, that is the way I would prefer to see things be done. But it sounds to me like you haven't spent very much of your life with your back up against the wall. That position gives one a whole different perspective. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: JedMarum Date: 16 Nov 01 - 09:56 AM Well let's just hope that justice finds these bastards on the battlefield. Then we don't have to worry about how they 'tried' by our legal processes. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Whistle Stop Date: 16 Nov 01 - 10:26 AM Thanks for the explanation, Carol, but your assumptions about me are wrong. I have spent a good portion of my life with my "back up against the wall," so to speak, and a substantial amount of time in courtrooms -- including time spent as a defendant in juvenile court, civil and criminal courts, in a variety of situations where I did not have the upper hand. I also went through a divorce, custody proceedings, etc., and I know how difficult it is for both sides to obtain what they feel is justice. I spent eight years in the US military, never in combat but in some difficult and dangerous situations nonetheless. And I am now a government official, who has seen both bravery and cowardice in the public arena. Elected officials have an important job to do, and if they aren't willing to do it, even at some risk to their careers, they should get the hell out. However, I also know that it is easy, and often tempting, to excuse one's failure to speak out by pointing to some vague and unseen threat or conspiracy that will target you for doing so. I personally do not believe that any Senator or Congressman in the country today has a great deal to fear from speaking out for what they believe is right concerning the Justice Department's current initiatives. They may find that they lose votes, and perhaps lose office, by expressing opinions that are at odds with the opinions of a majority of their constituents. But that's a price they should be willing to pay, don't you think? |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: InOBU Date: 16 Nov 01 - 10:29 AM THere was an excellent coment on the news this morning, actually two good observations, forget by whom, but that the Executive branch, the president directly has the power to bring someone before this tribunal, and the judges are beholden to the Pres. as the comander in chief, bad carreer move to find other than guilty. Also, as to our most sacred traditions, the British solders who fired on unarmed civilians at the Boston Massacre were defended by John Addams. They were aquitted. Again we should remember the words of Franklyn who said those who trade liberty for security deserve niether. Let's be Americans again. It has been awhile. Larry |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: SharonA Date: 16 Nov 01 - 10:42 AM Jed: It's not the bastards on the battlefield I'm worried about (by all means, they should be tried!). It's the average American citizen who happens to say the wrong thing at the wrong time, and winds up in front of a tribunal being condemned to death! I just don't want to see a return to the McCarthy era, with "terrorists" being substituted for "communist". I don't want a witch hunt. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: CarolC Date: 16 Nov 01 - 10:45 AM I guess you and I are not in substantial disagreement, Whistle Stop. Where we differ, I think, is that while I am willing, and I think people in positions of authority should be willing to stand up for what we/they believe under any circumstances, I also believe that we and they need to have the wisedom to know when the greater good will not be achieved if this is done.
For instance, had my attorney fought more vigorously in my case, he might have made my fight easier. But in so doing, he might have created a situation in which he would not be able to do the same thing for future clients. About the politicians speaking on condition of anonymity, I'm not really in a position to know whether or not it was fear of losing votes or fear of reprisals that caused them to do this. But from my own experiences, of which the example I gave before is but one, I consider it a distinct possibility that they did it out of a fear of reprisals. I have worked for the government also. So I have some experience in that area as well. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Whistle Stop Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:08 AM I can't really speak to your case, Carol, since I know nothing about it except what little you have told me. I still suspect, based on your description of the events, that if your attorney truly felt you had a good case, he should have argued it case vigorously, regardless of any concern about how this would make his life more difficult in future cases. I have heard attorneys use this line of reasoning before, often insincerely ("well gee, I'd really like to do a better job for you, but it's the system, you know; I'll be persecuted for doing the right thing, and then I won't be able to help all those other poor unfortunates like yourself"). More often than not, in my opinion, that's a line of crap. If he didn't feel able to provide you with the representation you deserved, he should have said so, and resigned. If he felt that what you were seeking was inappropriate -- that your position maybe wasn't as sound or unambiguous as you felt it was -- he should have said that, too, rather than telling you that you're right but the "system" would retaliate against him for arguing your case vigorously. But again, all this is speculation, since I really don't know the particulars. As for the reprisals that elected officials say they fear for voting their consciences, I would need to hear a more compelling argument about that to believe it. Just saying it anonymously to some reporter is not enough. We have a lot of people working for our government who are called upon to show real courage in the face of real danger -- our military, police, firefighters, and others. I think we should expect at least a minimal level of courage from our elected officials as well. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: Dumbya's Star Chamber From: Bennet Zurofsky Date: 16 Nov 01 - 08:19 PM I have accepted InOBU's apology in an off-Mudcat e-mail. I only visit this site once a day, sometimes not as often, so I did not see it until about 7:30 p.m. on Friday. Whistle Stop's explanation of executive orders, set forth above, was pretty accurate. To directly answer the question asked, however, it should be noted that Executive Orders may be issued by the President at any time without approval or review from any other authority. They stand either until the same or another President issues an order "repealing" the old order or until a Court declares that the particular order is unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of the Executive or for some other reason (and the President's people either decide not to take an appeal or exhaust their appeals). I use the Esq. after my name because that has become the traditional designation of attorney status in this country. I only use it on Mudcat when I am posting on a legal subject so that readers will know that I am licensed in the field. I really do not care much for it, but it is a helpful shorthand. Government concerns over secrecy are usually over-valued. An attorney who shares my office suite recently litigated a major "secret evidence" case involving a Palestinian immigrant. As is often the case, the "secret evidence" turned out to be nothing of any worth, simply a set of unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegations made by his former wife. Once the "secret evidence" lost its secrecy cachet, it quickly became apparent that it proved nothing. The Government claimed that it wanted to protect its informants, when in fact it was covering up its unfair prosecution of a racially profiled immigrant. It was all a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes, except my colleague's client had to spend a long time sitting in jail. Our government manages to prosecute all sorts of bad people and still permit those defendants to confront the witnesses against them. Consider prosecutions of organized crime including, in New Jersey, several mobs accused of running murderous operations. In the present emergency the government's veil of secrecy seems to be more designed to prevent us all from realizing how little they have been able to learn and how shallow their work has been in identifying the truly dangerous than it is to protect secret methods of investigation that work. The government should be more concerned about hiring good investigators who speak arabic or pashtun and who know something about international culture and worry less about covering up its failures. If a particular prosecution is so important that a hitherto secret agent needs to be revealed than that spy should be brought in from the cold and replaced with someone else. If it is not important enough to do that, then perhaps we just have to accept that some criminals will go free. It will hardly be the first time that the government has forgiven some crimes because in its view some other governmental purpose is more important than that particular conviction. Think of criminal informants, some of whom have been murderers. Think of Werner von Braun and other nazis that our government protected from prosecution. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to let a few guilty people get away with their crimes over ensnaring thousands of people that the authorities in their wisdom view as suspicious in a web of secrecy that is only tested in a secret trial. Due Process and Jury Trials are worth the cost of taking some because they beat the alternative. I believe Winston Churchill once commented that anglo-american law and government created a terrible system in every way, except when compared to the various alternatives. -Bennet D. Zurofsky, Esq. |
| Share Thread: |