Adolfmadinejad

I just watched the speech by achmyrimjoberdo at Columbia University. The segment where he states there are no homosexuals in Iran is hilarious and I am glad he was laughed at vociferously. I originally thought it was a bad idea to have him come speak, and I still think it is kind of stupid to let him make a propoganda film out of a visit to America, but after seeing that he was publicly humiliated and made to look like an ignorant fool, I think there might be a positive effect to his visit.

But before I say what I think was good about his speech, I should say that this speech was not about the First Amendment. Because this is a legal blog, I should make some attempt to make a legal point. The First Amendment does not say that we have to give a platform for all views. It simply protects someone who expresses views that may be contrary. Almost all of what we consider the fundamental rights are less positive rights than negative restrictions on what the government can do to you as an individual. So his speaking at Columbia has nothing to do with a First Amendment right, except that he was not arrested for what he said.

But what he said was both extreme and dangerous. The best thing that might have come from the speech is that more people will realize what a crazy tyrant Adolfmadinejad really is. He denies the holocaust on the basis of needing academic freedom, he denied well documented torture and killing of homosexuals and women by claiming that homosexuals don't exist in Iran and that woman are beautiful creatures, and that the moderator was insulting him because he asked the simple question of whether he believed Israel should be wiped off the map (which he ha said many times in the past but avoided today by talking about the plight of Palestine.)

Basically, after watching that speech, I have the following question. . .would you rather have America trying to establish order in Iraq or this guy?

2-L Dilemna

I feel a bit of a quandary right now. I don't feel the same enthusiasm about the law that carried me through my first year and part of the second. Maybe this is simply the 2-L doldrum before seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. My 3-L friends are all talking about graduation. Yes, the terror of the bar exam looms silently over their graduation party plans, but there is an overwhelming sense of relief when they talk about law school. We, the 2-Ls, law school's middle child have only another year of school ahead of us.

Work has also not helped. I have only been able to work a day or a day and one half each week all year long. This places limits on how involved with work I can become. It feels like I go in, spend a few hours remembering what I was doing, do a little bit of work, and then am gone for another week. One thing I look forward to this summer is being able to work 5 days a week.

Until then, all I can do is just push through the next three weeks. I have to write a 25 page paper on treason and terrorism, give my oral argument for legal writing, take my evidence exam, and write a take home exam. If the end of this semester goes as past have, I will probably be blogging more frequently.

Apropos blogging. We had a panel of journalists in our constitutional law and terrorism class yesterday. One of the journalist made reference a couple of times to those uncredible bloggers. I do not claim to be journalism, but as a blogger for the past couple of years, I feel a bond with those other self-made publishers and it is interesting to see how those in traditional arbiters of information feel threatened by rogue writers. However, one thing bloggers could probably use is some editors. There should exist a consortium of bloggers who also function as editors for each other's works. The same logic applies for movie directors who produce their own movies. (did you see that horrible Kong!) Without editors, we tend to just ramble on, so I will stop now.

Is School Over Yet?

It is getting harder and harder to stay motivated for school.  I can only imagine how ready I will be for law school to be over next year.  A colleague of mine just came by and said he felt like he was living Groundhog day and my girlfriend woke up this morning and said in half-consciousness but full earnestness: "isn't it Sunday?"



For those of you who read this and who go to school with me, stop by the Men's Law Caucus table and buy some baked goods for our bake sale.  We are also selling those cancer bracelet things to support research for testicular and prostate cancer.  One student already came up and said she has a friend who had testicular cancer and how goes by the nickname "one-nut." 



In other news, the prosecutor  scandal keeps going on.  I  had the opportunity to go have some beers with McKay last week under the auspice of discussing paper topics for his class.   We did not talk about the scandal at all and it  seems like he is ready for this whole thing to blow over; although people at the bar were buying us beers, so I didn't really complain.  We mostly talked about terrorism and whether or not it is a serious problem.  I did not think there was much debate about that and most of the public debate was on how to deal with terrorism, but it seems some people do not think terrorism is that big of an issue.  At a different event this weekend, I was accused of being Dick Cheney, because I said the issues of terrorism and the law will be important and changing for most of my legal career.  It has taken over four years for some of the prisoners at Guantanamo to get charged and sit before a commission.  Considering that fact, I do not know how anyone thinks these issues will go away anytime soon.  This is an important and changing area of law exactly because terrorism exists now as a particular form of violence against civilians which has grown in our fast moving media environment.  Never before could a band of armed rebels bomb a nation's soldiers thousands of miles away from home and have the news reach millions of citizens within hours.  Terrorism, as we know it, is only possible because the means of communication allow terror to spread. 

Prosecutor to Professor

In our Constitutional Law and Terrorism professor's own words, he was subject today to the "seemingly unbridled powers of the legislative branch." As pictured above, our professor, otherwise known as former U.S. Federal Prosecutor for the Western District of Washington, John McKay was called to Washington today to appear before a Senate Judiciary sub-committee. The most interesting part of his testimony that I watched this morning on C-SPAN was his comment that he and his fellow prosecutors would have stepped down quietly if it had not been for the Senate making a big stink. He also stated that he did not think there was a Federal Prosecutor, currently serving or in the past who would give in to pressure of the executive or a Senator and sacrifice their prosecutor's independence. While I am not sure I can fully believe that statement, human nature what it is, but I certainly know it is true for him. We have had guest speaker after guest speaker in his class that have all described Mr. McKay as one of the most brilliant, innovative, and ethical U.S. Attorney's to ever serve. These compliments were not simply bestowed by other government employees but by the lead federal defense attorney for Washington who stood repeatedly on the opposite side of the courtroom from Mr. McKay. I feel incredibly lucky to have the opportunity to be one of his students and Seattle University is very lucky to have snatched him up for a professorship. I do not know what kind of deal they have, but the school should seriously consider making his position permanent.

Most Senate hearings are the same. Each Senator is given ten minutes. The first eight minutes they usually use to fill with their own thoughts in the form of a long winded question. Then the answer comes and in most cases, I am sure the answers have been mulled over long before the hearing. Remember that in situations such as the hearing today, you are looking at possibly four of the countries greatest criminal prosecutors. They are unlikely to fumble an answer. It is the same way with nominations to the federal bench or when Condoleeza Rice testifies.

One thing I have had further reinforced from following this story is that you should never get your information for the media. From what I have learned from McKay and from the assistant U.S. attorney that taught our class today is that McKay was fired for a political reason when he had a disagreement with a higher up in the department of justice. This in itself might be unfair and a loss for their office, but it is hardly unusual. He has a political appointment and people get fired all the time because they prove incompatible with a person higher up in the chain of authority. Now, on the other side of this issue is the change to the PATRIOT Act that allows the Executive to appoint temporary Federal Prosecutors indefinably, thus circumventing the Senate confirmation process. For this we really have the Congress to blame because they let this slip into the Act and are all upset now that the Executive is exercises the power that Congress gave it when the PATRIOT Act was amended. Yes, it sucks that the DOJ feels it necessary to get rid of their political enemies, but it is Congress that let them.

(I am going to be a little selfish here and say that this whole thing has worked out really well for me because McKay is now teaching. I also get the feeling that McKay is pretty happy with the teaching gig).

Read more about today's hearing.

more

The more I read about this detainee bill, the more I don not like it. Not only do I dislike the Bill, but I think the reasons why the Bill is being pushed through quickly are entirely political. Why is it that a democrat cannot raise concerns about the passage of this Bill without facing condemnation from the Republicans that he is soft on terror. Isn't it possible that those two concerns are not mutually exclusive. A person could wish to fight terror and even wish for a Bill to clarify exactly what powers the executive has, while at the same time not want to pass this Bill. The way campaigns are run now make it impossible for candidates to actually voice nuanced positions without being rolled over by broad and mostly false smear campaigns. I am not saying that there are not some Democrats that are soft on terror, and even if I did not want to get into this war in Iraq, we are there now and have to figure out how to deal with the consequences, but right now we can't even have a discussion.

Some more reading One from the New York Times editorials and one from the other side's perspective, well, I went to Foxnews.com to find a story on the passage of the detainee Bill and guess what: I couldn't find a single story discussing today's debate on the Bill. Either they don't think that this is an important issue, or they would never report anything that might question the President's authority under this new Bill. Maybe the New York Times just likes the futility of reporting on a Bill that has not chance of not being passed. Ahh, I have to go to class now and the more I follow this story, the more frustrated I get. (I entreat anyone to point me to articles, blogs, etc. that think the passage of this Bill as it is is really good)