After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race by hyping a false national security issue -- whether terrorists arrested in the US with their pants on fire should receive the Miranda warnings (answer: yes, after they get debriefed under the "public safety" exception to the rule of Miranda v. Arizona), members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, Mayor Bloomberg of New York , and various New York civic associations have reopened the issue of where the trial of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks should be tried. This is truly unfortunate.
We Americans justlly pride ourselves on our venerable Constitution. Adopted in 1787, it has stood the test of time. The preamble to the Constitution announces that among its purposes is to "establish Justice." Establishing Justice even comes before "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence." The American colonists had suffered at the hands of a monarchy that did not shrink from hauling colonists across the sea to be tried for offenses before strangers on foreign shores, The Declaration of Independence, chastized the King for "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses." In Article III, Section 3, clause 2, the framers enshrined the right to be tried by a jury drawn from the vicinity where the crime occurred. It says that in America, one must be tried ". . . in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed in any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed"
The controversy will require the Justice Department to research the right of a defendant to be tried in the place where the crime occurred -- in this instance, it is either New York City or Arlington, Virginia. or near the resting place of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. Being somewhat expansive, since the target of Flight 93 was the US Capitol, the case could be brought in the US District Court in Washington, D.C.
The right to be tried in the federal district where the crime occurred is a right of Constitutional dimensions. No prosecutor wants to give the defense side a sure-fire basis for appeal before the case even starts. While the pressure to move the trial is substantial, the Justice Department should have the last word on this question. It is simply not a political issue.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Public Safety Exception to the Miranda Requirement
My fellow denizens of the world of law enforcement and administration of justice have been amazed at the consternation that has followed the disclosure that the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was given Miranda warnings following his arrest at the Detroit airport on December 25th. In our country, since the enactment of the Bill of Rights, every person has a right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The purpose of the right to remain silent is not to frustrate any eventual prosecution. Rather, it is to make sure that the prosecution proves its case without any evidence provided by the defendant in violation of the US Constitution. A defendant does have the right to waive the right to remain silent, but such a waiver must be knowing and voluntary. Forty-five years ago, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1964), our Supreme Court announced the rule which has been followed ever since that requires that before such a waiver may be knowing and voluntary, a person in custody must be advised of his right to remain silent, that any statements made by him could and will be used against him in a court of law, that he has a right to the advice of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney that one will be provided for him free of charge.
Commentators and pundits have suggested that it was wrong not to allow Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to be debriefed for intelligence purposes prior to providing him with Miranda warnings. While the extent of the pre-Miranda warnings questioning of the would be bomber have not been disclosed, such an interrogation would have been perfectly proper under an exception to the Miranda requirement announced in the case of New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). In an opinion by Justice Rhenquist, the Court provided a narrow exception to the Miranda requirement when the facts of the situation reasonably prompt a law enforcement officer to interrogate the defendant because of a concern that there is an imminent danger to public safety -- such as the unknown whereabouts of a loaded gun discarded by the arrestee.
In the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, it does not take a lot of imagination to conjure up the possibility that there were comrades on their way to the U.S. or elsewhere with similarly explosive materials secreted in their underwear. So, if the pre-Miranda interrogation of the "crotch bomber" is ever challenged in court, I predict it will be upheld by the judge.
Commentators who decry giving arrested terrorists the same rights as accorded to anyone else arrested within the United States are missing the point. We should be proud of our ability to prosecute fairly and squarely anyone who arrives on our shores with criminal intent and engages in acts that endanger public safety. It is only when the rules are not followed that our ability to prosecute and appropriately convict and punish terroristx is thwarted. The population incarcerated in the prison at Guantanamo Bay has not been significantly diminished as was hoped last year precisely because the evidence against those prisoners has been tainted and cannot be used against them in court or before military commissions. The actions of the interrogators of those prisoners have created not enemy combatants but stateless combatants who cannot be prosecuted and, unless new homes can be found for them, cannot be deported.
The priority of our criminal justice system continues to be national security. We should not succumb to fears being inflamed by those pundits who do not know the proper procedures for enforcing the federal criminal code. They should not second guess the decisions made by our trained intelligence and law enforcement officers based upon sheer speculation and political hype.
Commentators and pundits have suggested that it was wrong not to allow Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to be debriefed for intelligence purposes prior to providing him with Miranda warnings. While the extent of the pre-Miranda warnings questioning of the would be bomber have not been disclosed, such an interrogation would have been perfectly proper under an exception to the Miranda requirement announced in the case of New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). In an opinion by Justice Rhenquist, the Court provided a narrow exception to the Miranda requirement when the facts of the situation reasonably prompt a law enforcement officer to interrogate the defendant because of a concern that there is an imminent danger to public safety -- such as the unknown whereabouts of a loaded gun discarded by the arrestee.
In the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, it does not take a lot of imagination to conjure up the possibility that there were comrades on their way to the U.S. or elsewhere with similarly explosive materials secreted in their underwear. So, if the pre-Miranda interrogation of the "crotch bomber" is ever challenged in court, I predict it will be upheld by the judge.
Commentators who decry giving arrested terrorists the same rights as accorded to anyone else arrested within the United States are missing the point. We should be proud of our ability to prosecute fairly and squarely anyone who arrives on our shores with criminal intent and engages in acts that endanger public safety. It is only when the rules are not followed that our ability to prosecute and appropriately convict and punish terroristx is thwarted. The population incarcerated in the prison at Guantanamo Bay has not been significantly diminished as was hoped last year precisely because the evidence against those prisoners has been tainted and cannot be used against them in court or before military commissions. The actions of the interrogators of those prisoners have created not enemy combatants but stateless combatants who cannot be prosecuted and, unless new homes can be found for them, cannot be deported.
The priority of our criminal justice system continues to be national security. We should not succumb to fears being inflamed by those pundits who do not know the proper procedures for enforcing the federal criminal code. They should not second guess the decisions made by our trained intelligence and law enforcement officers based upon sheer speculation and political hype.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Practice of Law -- as not experienced by law firm associates.
I always have liked the idea of law practice -- that's why we call it law practice, I always say; Eventually we'll be perfect.
The life of an associate at a large law firm these days is anything but law practice or perfect. First, associates must locate themselves within the firm heirarchy. One might be closeted in a "war room" with other lawyers who may be "contract lawyers," "staff attorneys" or "counsel" but virtually never "partners." Then, associates must accustom themselves to being at or near the bottom rung of the ladder where the work is mind numbing. The role of the associate is to review cartons or databases of documents and try to associate documents with facts and people in a case. However, the associate is not privy to all of the documents or even all of the lawyers working on the case and must rely upon others to correctly line up the dramatis personnae with the operative facts of the matter under investigation. Then the associate must link the facts and the actors analytically to the documents that the associate is reviewing. I once did this in a criminal case in which the co-conspirators each had four different names and the associated documents and wiretap communications had to be linked with each street name, given name, religous name, and nickname. In the world of corporate fraud, the name issue is not quite so complicated and so it can be crushingly boring. If the firm has jettisoned the contract lawyers who do this type of document review day after day for 10 hours a day for a pittance and no hope of professional advancement, the real associates must do it.
Meanwhile, the associate must be up to date on the gossip within the firm and on the street about whether there might be layoffs and, if so, which level in the heirarchy may be affected. If the associate is responsible for feeding a family and paying a mortgage, the prospect of layoffs makes the associate adopt a "humble" demeanor and to be respectful to those ahead of the associate in the heirarchy. Complaints about the lack of windows in the war room, the lack of variety and stimulation of the work, and the paucity of guidance from the elders are never voiced. Thoughts of escape permeate the room and discussions ensue about alternative careers -- what they might do if they were not lawyers shackled to the war room. If one is lucky and without spouse, dependents, law school loans, or mortgages, one might save money for a life of travel and triumphantly announce "I QUIT!" to the amazement of fellow denizens of the war room who are more economically challenged. For others in the room, a breakout moment might be when, after briefing the counsel on the status of document review, the counsel agrees to take the associate along while the counsel briefs the partner. Face time with the partner is prized.
Of course, there is virtually no hope of ever becoming a partner since, in the up and out system, very few associates actually become partners. Instead, they are passed over, despite stellar credentials and years of hard labor, only to be told to find other employment. Those who do make partner are under pressure to produce "business" rather than "professional services." So, is it too late to go to medical school? To become an artist, starving or otherwise? How about a foodie? A sommelier? A lifeguard? A solo practitioner?
The life of an associate at a large law firm these days is anything but law practice or perfect. First, associates must locate themselves within the firm heirarchy. One might be closeted in a "war room" with other lawyers who may be "contract lawyers," "staff attorneys" or "counsel" but virtually never "partners." Then, associates must accustom themselves to being at or near the bottom rung of the ladder where the work is mind numbing. The role of the associate is to review cartons or databases of documents and try to associate documents with facts and people in a case. However, the associate is not privy to all of the documents or even all of the lawyers working on the case and must rely upon others to correctly line up the dramatis personnae with the operative facts of the matter under investigation. Then the associate must link the facts and the actors analytically to the documents that the associate is reviewing. I once did this in a criminal case in which the co-conspirators each had four different names and the associated documents and wiretap communications had to be linked with each street name, given name, religous name, and nickname. In the world of corporate fraud, the name issue is not quite so complicated and so it can be crushingly boring. If the firm has jettisoned the contract lawyers who do this type of document review day after day for 10 hours a day for a pittance and no hope of professional advancement, the real associates must do it.
Meanwhile, the associate must be up to date on the gossip within the firm and on the street about whether there might be layoffs and, if so, which level in the heirarchy may be affected. If the associate is responsible for feeding a family and paying a mortgage, the prospect of layoffs makes the associate adopt a "humble" demeanor and to be respectful to those ahead of the associate in the heirarchy. Complaints about the lack of windows in the war room, the lack of variety and stimulation of the work, and the paucity of guidance from the elders are never voiced. Thoughts of escape permeate the room and discussions ensue about alternative careers -- what they might do if they were not lawyers shackled to the war room. If one is lucky and without spouse, dependents, law school loans, or mortgages, one might save money for a life of travel and triumphantly announce "I QUIT!" to the amazement of fellow denizens of the war room who are more economically challenged. For others in the room, a breakout moment might be when, after briefing the counsel on the status of document review, the counsel agrees to take the associate along while the counsel briefs the partner. Face time with the partner is prized.
Of course, there is virtually no hope of ever becoming a partner since, in the up and out system, very few associates actually become partners. Instead, they are passed over, despite stellar credentials and years of hard labor, only to be told to find other employment. Those who do make partner are under pressure to produce "business" rather than "professional services." So, is it too late to go to medical school? To become an artist, starving or otherwise? How about a foodie? A sommelier? A lifeguard? A solo practitioner?
Friday, April 17, 2009
How do we investigate ourselves? We cannot ignore the record of torture at US secret prisons.
Yesterday the President and Attorney General announced their intention to not prosecute members of the intelligence community that may have participated in activities involving torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as long as the activities were performed after being advised they were legal and were performed reasonably and in good faith. I believe that this decision did not adequately take into account United States' obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture which makes investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution of torture committed by their nationals required of any nation that has ratified the Convention. See the op-ed piece I wrote on this topic at www.legaltimes.com which should be online as of April 18, 2009.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Bring Back Government in the Sunshine! It's the best disinfectant. . . .
Do you remember the "Government in the Sunshine Act?" It was passed in 1976. Basically the idea was something like a Freedom of Information Act for what Government agencies do on behalf of the citizens. It requires advance notice of meetings and meetings open to the public. We could use a lot more sunshine on what our Government has been doing in our name around the world that has brought our reputation to such a tarnished state.
I just learned this afternoon that the Supreme Court has ruled that someone who claimed to be a victim of "extraordinary rendition," Khaled el-Masri, cannot get a trial in the United States on his claims of violation of his 5th Amendment right to due process of law before being subjected to treatment that "shocks the conscience" or deprives him of his liberty. In addition, Mr. el-Masri asserted claims against the CIA and various private companies that allegedly cooperated in his abduction and interrogation that they had violated his rights under the Alien Tort Statute not to be abducted and subjected to prolonged, involuntary detention and to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment prohibited by customary international law. The high Court declined to hear Mr. el-Masri's case on appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond. The appeals court upheld the decision of the trial judge that the "state secrets doctrine" prohibits disclosure of the truth about what happened to Mr. el-Masri.
Years ago I worked in the Office of International Affairs in the US Department of Justice. That office is responsible for shepherding all international extradition cases involving US requests to prosecute people who are abroad but wanted for prosecution in the United States and vice versa. These extraditions are governed by US treaties with other nations (mostly bi-lateral treaties negotiated by the two nations involved) and US law that implements the treaties. The US has a statute that provides our federal courts with a road map of the finding that must be made, based upon limited evidence, that the person is a fugitive from justice (or just plain wanted for prosecution by the lawful authorities based on a warrant) in the Requesting State, that the person before the court is the one that is wanted, and that there is probable cause to believe that he committed a crime that is a crime at the felony level under the law of both nations. The implementing laws in other countries are similar to ours. The procedure followed in the US is simple. The person wanted for extradition who is found in the United States is afforded a hearing before a US magistrate judge, and the right, if found extraditable, to challenge the decision by way of a writ of habeas corpus (basically a complaint that states he is being held unlawfully) and finally, an appeal directly to the US Secretary of State.
When I was at DOJ, however, every once in awhile, when there was a high stakes "target" and extradition was unlikely or would take too long, the FBI or DEA or other agency would arrange with some cooperative third government to have the target lured there, arrested and quickly put on a plane to, say, Miami where a coterie of US Marshals would be waiting at the airport outside of town. Back in those days, the targets were usually major drug dealers who hailed from Colombia during the days when it was the policy of the Colombian government not to extradite its own nationals who happened to be among the most sought after global criminals. Because of what is known as the "Ker-Frisbie" doctrine (named after a couple of old Supreme Court cases), a US court will not look behind the fact that someone arrived in the US to question whether they got here lawfully. So, a criminal defendant who is the subject of an "extraordinary rendition" basically has no way of challenging the way he arrived in the US as a reason to throw his case out of court.
But el-Masri's case was different. What he said was that the US Government and its agents and cooperating companies that arranged for his secret and secure transportation abducted him in Macedonia and arranged for him to take an involuntary trip to Kabul, Afghanistan where he was subjected to interrogation techniques that were much worse than the ones my father used to use on me when I got in late at night. Basically, el-Masri sought the assistance of the US courts to expose the practice and condemn it and award him damages. Forgeddaboutit, said the American judges. If we let our countrymen and the world know what happened to you, it would expose a program or a technique that is important to national security according to what the Government lawyers told us --- hence, it is a state secret.
As more of these operations go forward to spirit away people wanted for interrogation in a manner that would not pass the smell test in the US, our reputation in the world, in my view, sinks lower and lower. Why do we think that the world is fooled simply because we outsource our interrogations to places and sometimes interrogators who are, as my mother would say, "not our type, dear." Do they think that these operations are not totally under our control? As a potential client said to me, part of my career cannot be discussed because it never officially happened. Isn't that chilling (not to mention unhelpful when it comes time for promotion).
An Italian magistrate has issued warrants for the extradition of CIA agents who were believed to have been involved in a similar abduction in Italy. It is hard to believe that anything goes on in Italy in law enforcement without the complete knowledge and cooperation of our two governments. In the days when Ed Meese was Attorney General, he loved to go to the biennial meetings with his Italian counterparts to manage the bilateral cooperative effort against the Mafia, drug traffickers, and the occasional terrorist. However, the magistrate, who acts like a grand jury in Italy, was sufficiently outraged that he wants to apply the law to what is alleged to have been done to a Muslin cleric, Hassan Osama Nasr, who was abducted in Milan. He has even arrested the deputy head of Italy's military intelligence service and put his predecessor under house arrest because they allegedly cooperated with the CIA in the operation. The affected CIA agents, if they were involved at all, have had their utility limited as they undoubtedly cannot travel outside the US without being subject to being arrested for extradition to Italy.
Ronald Reagan famously described the United States of America as a shining city on a hill. The image was an apt one because it summed up the admiration that he had for the land he loved -- the land of the free and the home of the brave. While I was never a big fan of President Reagan, his simple words had a way of saying what we as a nation are supposed to stand for. I am certain that he would be appalled at the abuses at Abu Ghirab which were exposed. I am not so certain what he would think about what our courts have done to protect the black hole of extraordinary rendition from Government in the Sunshine. My hope is that the United States under the next administration will once again become the admiration of all the world -- one that believes in and adheres to the norms of international law that it fought to develop. It is hard to remember that we were the ones who led the fight for the Geneva Conventions beginning at the end of the 19th century through the founding of the United Nations.
I remember being invited to be part of the faculty at a program sponsored by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Minsk, Belarus many years ago -- before there was even a McDonald's in Minsk. The topic of the conference, for Belarussian government officials, was "Human Rights and Police Procedures" with an emphasis on United Nations policy documents governing those issues . Many of the UN resolutions on these topics drew heavily from the US Constitution and caselaw. When I arrived in Minsk, I discovered that half the invited faculty had not shown up. I was asked to give the keynote speech at the last minute. I did so. The next day, about half of the attendees who had been present at the previous session did not return. The translator told me they were afraid to be identified as attending a conference where such dangerous concepts as due process of law and universal human rights to avoid cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment were being discussed. The Government of Belarus was then, as now, a monument to Communism. Local human rights protesters had to be clever (announcing their demonstration for a particular place and then holding it elsewhere, for example. It was suggested that I not attend the protest because I did not come fully equipped -- I did not bring my own bandages!). I felt proud to be bringing concepts accepted the world over through the United Nations to the attention of a people long subjected to dictatorial rule.
It is very troubling that our Government is now in need of the same lecture on human rights and police procedures. No matter how hideous and dangerous our opponents, we must hold our system of Government up as an example -- not just as something that is expedient when the threat level is lower than "yellow" or "orange." Democracy is very fragile; we must fight every day to support its principles. Bring back Government in the Sunshine!
I just learned this afternoon that the Supreme Court has ruled that someone who claimed to be a victim of "extraordinary rendition," Khaled el-Masri, cannot get a trial in the United States on his claims of violation of his 5th Amendment right to due process of law before being subjected to treatment that "shocks the conscience" or deprives him of his liberty. In addition, Mr. el-Masri asserted claims against the CIA and various private companies that allegedly cooperated in his abduction and interrogation that they had violated his rights under the Alien Tort Statute not to be abducted and subjected to prolonged, involuntary detention and to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment prohibited by customary international law. The high Court declined to hear Mr. el-Masri's case on appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond. The appeals court upheld the decision of the trial judge that the "state secrets doctrine" prohibits disclosure of the truth about what happened to Mr. el-Masri.
Years ago I worked in the Office of International Affairs in the US Department of Justice. That office is responsible for shepherding all international extradition cases involving US requests to prosecute people who are abroad but wanted for prosecution in the United States and vice versa. These extraditions are governed by US treaties with other nations (mostly bi-lateral treaties negotiated by the two nations involved) and US law that implements the treaties. The US has a statute that provides our federal courts with a road map of the finding that must be made, based upon limited evidence, that the person is a fugitive from justice (or just plain wanted for prosecution by the lawful authorities based on a warrant) in the Requesting State, that the person before the court is the one that is wanted, and that there is probable cause to believe that he committed a crime that is a crime at the felony level under the law of both nations. The implementing laws in other countries are similar to ours. The procedure followed in the US is simple. The person wanted for extradition who is found in the United States is afforded a hearing before a US magistrate judge, and the right, if found extraditable, to challenge the decision by way of a writ of habeas corpus (basically a complaint that states he is being held unlawfully) and finally, an appeal directly to the US Secretary of State.
When I was at DOJ, however, every once in awhile, when there was a high stakes "target" and extradition was unlikely or would take too long, the FBI or DEA or other agency would arrange with some cooperative third government to have the target lured there, arrested and quickly put on a plane to, say, Miami where a coterie of US Marshals would be waiting at the airport outside of town. Back in those days, the targets were usually major drug dealers who hailed from Colombia during the days when it was the policy of the Colombian government not to extradite its own nationals who happened to be among the most sought after global criminals. Because of what is known as the "Ker-Frisbie" doctrine (named after a couple of old Supreme Court cases), a US court will not look behind the fact that someone arrived in the US to question whether they got here lawfully. So, a criminal defendant who is the subject of an "extraordinary rendition" basically has no way of challenging the way he arrived in the US as a reason to throw his case out of court.
But el-Masri's case was different. What he said was that the US Government and its agents and cooperating companies that arranged for his secret and secure transportation abducted him in Macedonia and arranged for him to take an involuntary trip to Kabul, Afghanistan where he was subjected to interrogation techniques that were much worse than the ones my father used to use on me when I got in late at night. Basically, el-Masri sought the assistance of the US courts to expose the practice and condemn it and award him damages. Forgeddaboutit, said the American judges. If we let our countrymen and the world know what happened to you, it would expose a program or a technique that is important to national security according to what the Government lawyers told us --- hence, it is a state secret.
As more of these operations go forward to spirit away people wanted for interrogation in a manner that would not pass the smell test in the US, our reputation in the world, in my view, sinks lower and lower. Why do we think that the world is fooled simply because we outsource our interrogations to places and sometimes interrogators who are, as my mother would say, "not our type, dear." Do they think that these operations are not totally under our control? As a potential client said to me, part of my career cannot be discussed because it never officially happened. Isn't that chilling (not to mention unhelpful when it comes time for promotion).
An Italian magistrate has issued warrants for the extradition of CIA agents who were believed to have been involved in a similar abduction in Italy. It is hard to believe that anything goes on in Italy in law enforcement without the complete knowledge and cooperation of our two governments. In the days when Ed Meese was Attorney General, he loved to go to the biennial meetings with his Italian counterparts to manage the bilateral cooperative effort against the Mafia, drug traffickers, and the occasional terrorist. However, the magistrate, who acts like a grand jury in Italy, was sufficiently outraged that he wants to apply the law to what is alleged to have been done to a Muslin cleric, Hassan Osama Nasr, who was abducted in Milan. He has even arrested the deputy head of Italy's military intelligence service and put his predecessor under house arrest because they allegedly cooperated with the CIA in the operation. The affected CIA agents, if they were involved at all, have had their utility limited as they undoubtedly cannot travel outside the US without being subject to being arrested for extradition to Italy.
Ronald Reagan famously described the United States of America as a shining city on a hill. The image was an apt one because it summed up the admiration that he had for the land he loved -- the land of the free and the home of the brave. While I was never a big fan of President Reagan, his simple words had a way of saying what we as a nation are supposed to stand for. I am certain that he would be appalled at the abuses at Abu Ghirab which were exposed. I am not so certain what he would think about what our courts have done to protect the black hole of extraordinary rendition from Government in the Sunshine. My hope is that the United States under the next administration will once again become the admiration of all the world -- one that believes in and adheres to the norms of international law that it fought to develop. It is hard to remember that we were the ones who led the fight for the Geneva Conventions beginning at the end of the 19th century through the founding of the United Nations.
I remember being invited to be part of the faculty at a program sponsored by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Minsk, Belarus many years ago -- before there was even a McDonald's in Minsk. The topic of the conference, for Belarussian government officials, was "Human Rights and Police Procedures" with an emphasis on United Nations policy documents governing those issues . Many of the UN resolutions on these topics drew heavily from the US Constitution and caselaw. When I arrived in Minsk, I discovered that half the invited faculty had not shown up. I was asked to give the keynote speech at the last minute. I did so. The next day, about half of the attendees who had been present at the previous session did not return. The translator told me they were afraid to be identified as attending a conference where such dangerous concepts as due process of law and universal human rights to avoid cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment were being discussed. The Government of Belarus was then, as now, a monument to Communism. Local human rights protesters had to be clever (announcing their demonstration for a particular place and then holding it elsewhere, for example. It was suggested that I not attend the protest because I did not come fully equipped -- I did not bring my own bandages!). I felt proud to be bringing concepts accepted the world over through the United Nations to the attention of a people long subjected to dictatorial rule.
It is very troubling that our Government is now in need of the same lecture on human rights and police procedures. No matter how hideous and dangerous our opponents, we must hold our system of Government up as an example -- not just as something that is expedient when the threat level is lower than "yellow" or "orange." Democracy is very fragile; we must fight every day to support its principles. Bring back Government in the Sunshine!
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
On Liberty -- Revisited
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." -- John Stuart Mill
President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University is to be commended for providing a forum by which the President of Iran could engage in some interchange with Americans. Undoubtedly Bollinger's guest does not get the opportunity for robust debate at home. However distasteful his views and his government's actions as a state sponsor of terrorism, it is better for him and for us to be exposed to each other's views so we may better understand them. My only question is whether President Bollinger's "introduction" might have been better had he respected George Washington's admonition, "Use no Reproachful Language against any one neither Curse nor Revile." Our first President said this about how to deal with low lifes,
"Never express anything unbecoming, nor Act against the Rules Moral before your inferiors."
Perhaps a few words of welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave might have been in order to mark the solemnity of the occasion of the introduction of the visiting despot to academic discourse -- American style. While President Bollinger was certainly justified in condemning President Ahmadinejad's dictatorial regime, the tone was certainly not one that would impress the visitor that he was welcome to express his views -- however untutored and unpopular they might be. Ironically, it was Columbia that in 1968 suppressed dissent of its students by inviting the New York Police Department to force more than a thousand encamped protesters out of five buildings at Columbia -- an action that ended a seven day siege but may still rank as the largest police action ever undertaken at an American University. While President Bollinger has little in common with his stuffy and insufferable predecessor, Grayson Kirk, he might have considered the idea that President Ahmadinejad, like his university, might be better educated with civility and reason than self-righteousness and ridicule.
President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University is to be commended for providing a forum by which the President of Iran could engage in some interchange with Americans. Undoubtedly Bollinger's guest does not get the opportunity for robust debate at home. However distasteful his views and his government's actions as a state sponsor of terrorism, it is better for him and for us to be exposed to each other's views so we may better understand them. My only question is whether President Bollinger's "introduction" might have been better had he respected George Washington's admonition, "Use no Reproachful Language against any one neither Curse nor Revile." Our first President said this about how to deal with low lifes,
"Never express anything unbecoming, nor Act against the Rules Moral before your inferiors."
Perhaps a few words of welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave might have been in order to mark the solemnity of the occasion of the introduction of the visiting despot to academic discourse -- American style. While President Bollinger was certainly justified in condemning President Ahmadinejad's dictatorial regime, the tone was certainly not one that would impress the visitor that he was welcome to express his views -- however untutored and unpopular they might be. Ironically, it was Columbia that in 1968 suppressed dissent of its students by inviting the New York Police Department to force more than a thousand encamped protesters out of five buildings at Columbia -- an action that ended a seven day siege but may still rank as the largest police action ever undertaken at an American University. While President Bollinger has little in common with his stuffy and insufferable predecessor, Grayson Kirk, he might have considered the idea that President Ahmadinejad, like his university, might be better educated with civility and reason than self-righteousness and ridicule.
Monday, September 24, 2007
What a life!
I just learned of the passing of a long time friend and colleague, Whitney Adams -- a true pioneer in the law. Whitney was 61 but her true age was more like 41. She was a bundle of energy.
I first met Whitney when we were in the US Attorney's Office in DC. She was in the generation ahead of me which meant that she was among the first 25 women ever hired by the Office (I found out years ago that I was #25). We became good friends when she left Rogers & Wells to set up her own practice and we had adjacent offices at 888 16th Street. While I showed her some of the "ropes" for solo practice, her practice took off almost immediately due to her wide circle of friends and professional contacts. We shared lots of laughs and good times there before she eventually decided to move her office to McLean. She was always the source of good advice and she had terrific instincts about how to handle just about any situation. Eventually she became inhouse counsel to a technology firm.
Whitney was a trailblazer for women in so many ways. She was one of the founders of the Independent Women's Forum. While I did not agree with Whitney's politics, I was happy to support her when she ran for office in Virginia. Unfortunately for the voters there, she was unsuccessful in her run for state office. She also joined the Women's Economic Alliance that promoted breaking the glass ceiling with assertiveness training.
Whitney was a devoted mother to her two sons, Taylor and McLean, and often took them with her to professional events. She was so proud of them and their achievements. She was a real soccer mom. Taylor graduated from Princeton. McLean is a senior at UVa.
The only thing that Whitney could not conquer was breast cancer. As I recall from our conversation about it, she was misdiagnosed and the delay in her treatment caused the recurrence of it some years later. I sincerely hope that she got some justice before she passed. She fought the cancer with dogged determination.
Last week as she lay in her hospital bed, two friends of ours, Carol Bruce and Liz Medaglia, told her what an inspiration she had been to other women. Whitney wanted to make sure that her message got out to other women, "You need to tell them they can do it! They can do it!" she said.
Whitney, you did it. With style!
I first met Whitney when we were in the US Attorney's Office in DC. She was in the generation ahead of me which meant that she was among the first 25 women ever hired by the Office (I found out years ago that I was #25). We became good friends when she left Rogers & Wells to set up her own practice and we had adjacent offices at 888 16th Street. While I showed her some of the "ropes" for solo practice, her practice took off almost immediately due to her wide circle of friends and professional contacts. We shared lots of laughs and good times there before she eventually decided to move her office to McLean. She was always the source of good advice and she had terrific instincts about how to handle just about any situation. Eventually she became inhouse counsel to a technology firm.
Whitney was a trailblazer for women in so many ways. She was one of the founders of the Independent Women's Forum. While I did not agree with Whitney's politics, I was happy to support her when she ran for office in Virginia. Unfortunately for the voters there, she was unsuccessful in her run for state office. She also joined the Women's Economic Alliance that promoted breaking the glass ceiling with assertiveness training.
Whitney was a devoted mother to her two sons, Taylor and McLean, and often took them with her to professional events. She was so proud of them and their achievements. She was a real soccer mom. Taylor graduated from Princeton. McLean is a senior at UVa.
The only thing that Whitney could not conquer was breast cancer. As I recall from our conversation about it, she was misdiagnosed and the delay in her treatment caused the recurrence of it some years later. I sincerely hope that she got some justice before she passed. She fought the cancer with dogged determination.
Last week as she lay in her hospital bed, two friends of ours, Carol Bruce and Liz Medaglia, told her what an inspiration she had been to other women. Whitney wanted to make sure that her message got out to other women, "You need to tell them they can do it! They can do it!" she said.
Whitney, you did it. With style!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
