On November 21, 2009, the Desert News published Jonathan Gurwitz’s editorial, titled, “Obama’s duel system of justice is bizarre.” His essay is another example of the ignorant, fear-generated hysteria that arises whenever we seek to bring to justice those who commit unspeakable atrocities. This highlights the failure of legal scholars and our educational system to instill within the American public an understanding and respect for our system of justice. This is no easy task. When we are confronted by humans who murder in cold blood, on a gut level, it is hard to resist our inclination to resort to cursory legal processes, vigilantism and summary executions.
Under such situations, most, like Jonathan Gurwitz, ask: why should criminals, especially those who, “flagrantly violate the laws of war,” and are “mass murderers” have a right to the same justice system that is “constitutionally guaranteed to the citizens” of the United States? Mr. Gurwitz further suggests that to try alleged terrorists in our federal courts will grant them, “far greater rights — and,” will place, “far greater burdens on the prosecution,” then they deserve.
This sounds so emotionally attractive in the abstract, but what is he talking about? What rights should human beings be stripped of and when? Should prosecutors not bare the burden of proving a human being’s guilt? Should human beings, based upon accusations, be deemed guilty and summarily executed?
Mr. Gurwitz goes on to suggest that the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution were not designed to encapsulate universal rights but to create privileges to be earned or obtained through the royal birthright of U.S. citizenship. This, however, is where he and many others falter and then wallow in the mire of our most base human proclivities.
The Geneva Conventions were not promulgated as a model of human civility. They were an attempt by the then participating international community to bring a small measure of watered-down civility, to an uncivil, institutionalized human-atrocity: war. They only created minimum standards of conduct that could be agreed upon by many nations and followed even by countries less advanced and progressive than our own. The United States was a signatory thereof only in hopes that some of the excesses and consequences of war could be ameliorated and thereby not experienced in future conflicts by our citizens and soldiers. They were never meant to be a standard and beacon of appropriate behavior and civility. It was therefore unfortunate that the late Bush administration saw the Geneva Conventions as an impediment that had to be disregarded through legalistic distortions and the redefinition of torture into euphemisms. In fact, it is frightening to imagine what atrocities would have been committed by the Bush administration, in our name, had they and other laws not existed all together.
Contrastingly, the U.S. Constitution was crafted by our founding forefathers, not as a screed of transient guidelines only peculiar to the inhabitants within our borders, but as a declaration of universal and inviolate principles that all nations, peoples and communities should embrace and adhere to--not with begrudging indifference, but with exuberant alacrity. In fact, as a nation, we have often engaged in foreign wars with the very purpose of extolling and implementing these universal principles abroad. Why then do intellectuals such as Mr. Gurwitz and leaders such as the late President Bush seek to impose their own, bizarre duel systems of thought by reasoning that U.S. Citizens should only be entitled to these universal rights while all others as lesser human beings are only entitled to our baser instincts? Applying this bizarre, Mr. Gurwitz argues that these lesser humans should be tried only in military tribunals. He justifies this analysis by claiming that it is no less than what would be done by Presidents George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.
Aside from the inaccuracy and inapplicability of this historical over-generalization, the problem is that most military tribunals are inherently unfair. Why? Because military tribunals lack many of the universal hallmarks of a fair criminal justice system as embodied in our constitution. These hallmarks were acknowledged and made law by Thomas Jefferson because we are fallible and prone to our worst reactive natures. A few of the indispensable components of this system are: (1) the right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the right against self-incrimination, (3) the right for to a trial by an independent adjudicator, (4) the right to representation, (5) the right to confront and call witnesses, and (6) the right to secure and access evidence.
Military Tribunals often do not contain these hallmarks. In fact, Military Tribunals are akin to appointing the victims or of a crime or their close relatives to conduct the investigation, apprehension, trial and sentencing of the alleged perpetrator--a process that although it would be emotionally satisfying for the victims, is, for obvious reasons, fraught with peril and the potential for abuse and injustice.
In conclusion, the civil rights that are distilled and made incarnate within the U.S. Constitution are not blessings to be bestowed upon only those deemed worthy by the “High Priests” of this nation, whether they be Mr. Gurwitz, Presidents, Justices, Professors, Pundits or victims. They are not convenient benefits that must be obtained by purchase, birthright, baptism, or even proper behavior-- they are universal human rights. That is why, as a civilized nation and standard bearer to the world, we should even extend to those who, “flagrantly violate the laws of war,” and are “mass murderers” the same rights that are “constitutionally guaranteed to [our] citizens (i.e., even Timothy McVeigh).”
In so doing, at the end of the day, implementing the principles of the U.S. Constitution in our retribution against even those we accuse of terrorism, does not, as argued by Mr. Gurwitz, “compromise vital intelligence,” “give terrorists battlefield Miranda rights,” “handcuff U.S. prosecutors in evidentiary proceedings,” nor “put the United States and, especially, the policies of the Bush administration on trial.” To the contrary, it reinforces our sacred belief in the phrase that some think Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin wrested from the mouth of God--and that is this: “We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all [Human Beings] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” When this inspired phrase is no longer the guiding creed for our thoughts and actions, we will be no better than the terrorists we are seeking to condemn.
Loren M. Lambert, Midvale Utah
© November 22, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Taxpayer Tea Bag Tax Protesters Cause More Taxes
I attended the Tea-Bag Tax Protest this April 15, 2009, by accident. I was on my way to conduct a little business with Uncle Sam at the Federal Building. While miffed that I couldn’t find a parking spot nearby, I had to admire the enthusiastic, mostly middle-aged, upper-income crowd exercising their freedom of speech. But it all seemed just a little pointless and a little too slick on the part of those using the protest for political grandstanding.
It’s like having a rally against death. After the Star Spangled Banner is belted to get great applause, who’s going to say you’re wrong when you deliver a diatribe calling upon Congress, the President, Mother Teresa and President Monson to pass a resolution banishing death and/or taxes for all time? And what counterculture is going to stand across the street and heckle you and plead for God to heap upon them more death and taxes? Yeah, it’s a no-brainer.
Consequently, although it looked like a crowd with which I didn’t agree politically, I couldn’t exactly tell them they were wrong. Instead, I just chatted with a few of them. Some were pretty level-headed and just took issue with the extent of taxation. Others, however, of the crackpot-Unabomber-vintage anarchist type, were of the notion that somewhere in some unknown land there has been a tax-free era of human history to which we must return.
For fear of being strung up, I didn’t mention I was about to advocate on behalf of a coal minor who, after twenty-eight years of arduous labor resulting in a worn-out back, mangled limbs and blackening lungs, was petitioning his government for social security benefits. Nor did I argue that ever since humans banded together in social societies there have always been "taxes." This is true whether paid in sweat equity while assisting in a communal hunt, pitching in to rebuild the neighbor’s home that was demolished in an earthquake, or paid in blood protecting our liberty. No, I just congratulated them for their concern and went on in to do my job.
When I was done and exited the building, the rally was over. The Taxpayer protesters had all left. They had all gone home in their cars fueled by gas secured by American taxpayers and paid for by too many soldiers’ blood. They drove over American taxpayer constructed roads, past taxpayer paid law enforcement officers while on their way to pick up their children from the taxpayer funded schools. The only thing left behind was dozens of tax protestors’ signs and their garbage – all to be picked up at the taxpayer’s expense.
Loren Lambert,
April 16, 2009©
It’s like having a rally against death. After the Star Spangled Banner is belted to get great applause, who’s going to say you’re wrong when you deliver a diatribe calling upon Congress, the President, Mother Teresa and President Monson to pass a resolution banishing death and/or taxes for all time? And what counterculture is going to stand across the street and heckle you and plead for God to heap upon them more death and taxes? Yeah, it’s a no-brainer.
Consequently, although it looked like a crowd with which I didn’t agree politically, I couldn’t exactly tell them they were wrong. Instead, I just chatted with a few of them. Some were pretty level-headed and just took issue with the extent of taxation. Others, however, of the crackpot-Unabomber-vintage anarchist type, were of the notion that somewhere in some unknown land there has been a tax-free era of human history to which we must return.
For fear of being strung up, I didn’t mention I was about to advocate on behalf of a coal minor who, after twenty-eight years of arduous labor resulting in a worn-out back, mangled limbs and blackening lungs, was petitioning his government for social security benefits. Nor did I argue that ever since humans banded together in social societies there have always been "taxes." This is true whether paid in sweat equity while assisting in a communal hunt, pitching in to rebuild the neighbor’s home that was demolished in an earthquake, or paid in blood protecting our liberty. No, I just congratulated them for their concern and went on in to do my job.
When I was done and exited the building, the rally was over. The Taxpayer protesters had all left. They had all gone home in their cars fueled by gas secured by American taxpayers and paid for by too many soldiers’ blood. They drove over American taxpayer constructed roads, past taxpayer paid law enforcement officers while on their way to pick up their children from the taxpayer funded schools. The only thing left behind was dozens of tax protestors’ signs and their garbage – all to be picked up at the taxpayer’s expense.
Loren Lambert,
April 16, 2009©
How the Bush Administration Killed All The Lawyers
The recently released "Torture Memos," largely penned by Federal Judge Jay Bybee, should cause us all great shame. Even without regard to the horrors committed under their cloak, the very existence of these memos should be of grave concern to all US attorneys and especially those graduates, as I am, of the J. Reuben Clark Law School where Judge Jay Bybee obtained his degree. Although certainly less horrific, the memos are nonetheless more reminiscent of documents from Hitler’s Germany than from the beneficiaries of the Declaration of Independence, in which it was declared, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
These "Torture Memos" detract from one admirable reputation that lawyers have fostered that is typified, in a backhanded way, by Shakespeare’s play "King Henry the VI" in which its fictional character Dick the Butcher, a follower of anarchist Jack Cade, whom Shakespeare depicts as "the head of an army of rabble and a demagogue pandering to the ignorant," proclaimed, "the first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers." Shakespeare knew what we often forget, that lawyers first and foremost must and should be the front-wave defenders of democracy. They must stand as soldiers defying any person, entity and government who would destroy our democracy or deprive us, or any human being, of our inalienable rights and liberty. In so doing, we should take pride in the reality that we lawyers thereby often become the targets of tyrants who must marginalize us, as was recently attempted in Pakistan, or who must round us up for extermination, as occurred during the communist revolutions in Russia, China and Cambodia.
It is this view of lawyering that inspired the Declaration of Independence and gave us the Bill of Rights. These "unalienable" rights, among others, include: the right to be secure in our persons and property; the right against unreasonable searches and seizures; the right against self incrimination; the right of due process of law before being deprived of life, liberty, or property; the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; and the right to an attorney. These rights have been identified and given the force of law to ensure that even in the most trying times, and in those moments of our greatest need – during war, famine, upheaval, or in high-profile criminal proceedings – we will not succumb to our worst natures and thereby perpetuate the very horrors and crimes we seek to eliminate.
The rule of law and the Bill of Rights are not walls that confine us, but windows to a better world for all mankind. It is only through adherence to these same rights that we, as a people, can stand proudly as leaders of all humanity. Contrarily, it is the disregard for those same rights, no matter who asserts claim to them, that drags us down to the level of the enemies of democracy and equality – to the same level as those we deem terrorists and murderers.
Henry Lewis Mencken defined a lawyer as, "One who protects us from robbers by taking away the temptation." Another way to put this is that a lawyer is one who protects us from terrorists and torturers by taking away the temptation, or as one who protects us from the tyranny of authority by adhering to, upholding and enforcing our inalienable civil rights.
Also, in describing the legal profession, John W. Davis observed, "True, we build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures – unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men’s burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state." These two quotations express the important roles of lawyers in crafting, employing and executeing the law in a manner that promotes justice, equality and tranquility for all humankind.
As a law student at BYU many years ago, my legal ethics professor agreed with this assessment, and in an attempt to achieve these ends, he admonished myself and other students that we were not hired guns to be mindlessly welded to do one’s bidding without question or pause, nor were we self-righteous moralists who should deprive others we deemed inferior or less worthy of the benefits and protections of the law. No, even when it meant a loss of income or putting potential clients at a disadvantage, we were to be both defenders of the defenseless and downtrodden, and we were to decline our skills, if not our services, to those persons and entities who would employ us to justify the unjustifiable and to engage in the unethical.
But this isn’t what Judge Jay Bybee learned at BYU. Just the opposite. Judge Bybee and the lawyers who justified torture for the Bush administration failed to uphold these traditions. They deserve our disdain and censure. In fear of losing their jobs, or in giddy drunkenness with their own power and intellect, they first became self-righteous moralists who deemed that other human beings had no rights and protections under the law, and they then allowed their souls and senses of propriety to be seduced by the Bush administration, which welded them like lethal weapons against the defenseless.
Hence, instead of "protect[ing] us from robbers, [terrorists and tyrants] by taking away the temptation," and "smoothing out difficulties, relieving stress, correcting mistakes and taking up other men’s burdens and thereby making possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state," they sullied and corrupted those agents who carried out the torture, inflicted horrors upon the defenseless, and made us more vulnerable in future conflicts when our sons and daughters will be swept up and tortured in the name of some foreign sovereign’s security. In the mordant words of Ambrose Bierce, their only skill was, "in circumvention of the law."
So although President Bush and his administration did not first kill all the lawyers so it could run amuck among humanity, it systematically eliminated lawyers and others who voiced any dissent, and replaced them with lawyers who were morally dead, and were therefore willing to dehumanize those they wished to rob of basic rights and to justify the unjustifiable. Therefore, while the Obama administration may not prosecute them, they should be censured, impeached and stripped of their licenses to torture the law in order to circumvent it.
Loren M. Lambert
April 22, 2009 ©
These "Torture Memos" detract from one admirable reputation that lawyers have fostered that is typified, in a backhanded way, by Shakespeare’s play "King Henry the VI" in which its fictional character Dick the Butcher, a follower of anarchist Jack Cade, whom Shakespeare depicts as "the head of an army of rabble and a demagogue pandering to the ignorant," proclaimed, "the first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers." Shakespeare knew what we often forget, that lawyers first and foremost must and should be the front-wave defenders of democracy. They must stand as soldiers defying any person, entity and government who would destroy our democracy or deprive us, or any human being, of our inalienable rights and liberty. In so doing, we should take pride in the reality that we lawyers thereby often become the targets of tyrants who must marginalize us, as was recently attempted in Pakistan, or who must round us up for extermination, as occurred during the communist revolutions in Russia, China and Cambodia.
It is this view of lawyering that inspired the Declaration of Independence and gave us the Bill of Rights. These "unalienable" rights, among others, include: the right to be secure in our persons and property; the right against unreasonable searches and seizures; the right against self incrimination; the right of due process of law before being deprived of life, liberty, or property; the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; and the right to an attorney. These rights have been identified and given the force of law to ensure that even in the most trying times, and in those moments of our greatest need – during war, famine, upheaval, or in high-profile criminal proceedings – we will not succumb to our worst natures and thereby perpetuate the very horrors and crimes we seek to eliminate.
The rule of law and the Bill of Rights are not walls that confine us, but windows to a better world for all mankind. It is only through adherence to these same rights that we, as a people, can stand proudly as leaders of all humanity. Contrarily, it is the disregard for those same rights, no matter who asserts claim to them, that drags us down to the level of the enemies of democracy and equality – to the same level as those we deem terrorists and murderers.
Henry Lewis Mencken defined a lawyer as, "One who protects us from robbers by taking away the temptation." Another way to put this is that a lawyer is one who protects us from terrorists and torturers by taking away the temptation, or as one who protects us from the tyranny of authority by adhering to, upholding and enforcing our inalienable civil rights.
Also, in describing the legal profession, John W. Davis observed, "True, we build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures – unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men’s burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state." These two quotations express the important roles of lawyers in crafting, employing and executeing the law in a manner that promotes justice, equality and tranquility for all humankind.
As a law student at BYU many years ago, my legal ethics professor agreed with this assessment, and in an attempt to achieve these ends, he admonished myself and other students that we were not hired guns to be mindlessly welded to do one’s bidding without question or pause, nor were we self-righteous moralists who should deprive others we deemed inferior or less worthy of the benefits and protections of the law. No, even when it meant a loss of income or putting potential clients at a disadvantage, we were to be both defenders of the defenseless and downtrodden, and we were to decline our skills, if not our services, to those persons and entities who would employ us to justify the unjustifiable and to engage in the unethical.
But this isn’t what Judge Jay Bybee learned at BYU. Just the opposite. Judge Bybee and the lawyers who justified torture for the Bush administration failed to uphold these traditions. They deserve our disdain and censure. In fear of losing their jobs, or in giddy drunkenness with their own power and intellect, they first became self-righteous moralists who deemed that other human beings had no rights and protections under the law, and they then allowed their souls and senses of propriety to be seduced by the Bush administration, which welded them like lethal weapons against the defenseless.
Hence, instead of "protect[ing] us from robbers, [terrorists and tyrants] by taking away the temptation," and "smoothing out difficulties, relieving stress, correcting mistakes and taking up other men’s burdens and thereby making possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state," they sullied and corrupted those agents who carried out the torture, inflicted horrors upon the defenseless, and made us more vulnerable in future conflicts when our sons and daughters will be swept up and tortured in the name of some foreign sovereign’s security. In the mordant words of Ambrose Bierce, their only skill was, "in circumvention of the law."
So although President Bush and his administration did not first kill all the lawyers so it could run amuck among humanity, it systematically eliminated lawyers and others who voiced any dissent, and replaced them with lawyers who were morally dead, and were therefore willing to dehumanize those they wished to rob of basic rights and to justify the unjustifiable. Therefore, while the Obama administration may not prosecute them, they should be censured, impeached and stripped of their licenses to torture the law in order to circumvent it.
Loren M. Lambert
April 22, 2009 ©
Friday, March 20, 2009
Mr. Geneva Steal Dog Piles on the American People
The Deseret News March 19, “In Our Opinion Editorial,” titled, “Dog Pile on AIG,” spews the apologia, out-of-touch-with-reality tripe that is indicative of the irrelevance of many a failing newspaper across the country. It’s no coincidence that these newspapers are written by the Joseph A. Cannon’s of the world who try to dazzle us with their shellacked and spray painted bullshit.
So what bit of patronizing pap does Mr. Geneva Steal have for us? He states that the AIG, “debacle is so complicated the average American, including many members of Congress, can’t understand it.” Hence, the 165 million in bonuses the derelict company has dished out to its stalwart leaders should be yawned away because, “as the Washington Post noted this week, the bonus-takers are the only people on earth who truly understand what they have done and who are capable of undoing it.”
Whoa! Good job Mr. Cannon. Way to launch on to this pithy bit of homespun downright incontrovertible wisdom. Reminds me of that show, “It Takes a Thief.” Or, using another bit of folksy, down home wisdom--my farmer uncle always said that the Fox is the only one that can revive all the chickens in the hen house that it has ravaged. I mean, gnashing and ripping hens apart is such a complex and complicated thing that the average American, including many a Deseret news editorialist, can’t understand it.
Therefore, don’t shoo the poor sharp-toothed mangy little bastard away. No, invite him in to play with the kids and give him his own little Fox den right in the hen house and if he chews up a few hundred more chickens, no biggie. Just have the dumb American tax payer--who can’t understand the complexity of death or the loss of a 165 million chickens--supply the cute little Fox with a few hundred more hens every other week.
Gee, thank you so very much Deseret News for helping me understand this complex world we live in. I don’t even have to think any more. I, and everyone else now realizes that the AIG bonus-takers in the AIG chop shop and the Fox in the hen house are right where they should be.
Loren Lambert, March 19, 2006 (C)
Midvale Utah (801) 568-0041
The Deseret News March 19, “In Our Opinion Editorial,” titled, “Dog Pile on AIG,” spews the apologia, out-of-touch-with-reality tripe that is indicative of the irrelevance of many a failing newspaper across the country. It’s no coincidence that these newspapers are written by the Joseph A. Cannon’s of the world who try to dazzle us with their shellacked and spray painted bullshit.
So what bit of patronizing pap does Mr. Geneva Steal have for us? He states that the AIG, “debacle is so complicated the average American, including many members of Congress, can’t understand it.” Hence, the 165 million in bonuses the derelict company has dished out to its stalwart leaders should be yawned away because, “as the Washington Post noted this week, the bonus-takers are the only people on earth who truly understand what they have done and who are capable of undoing it.”
Whoa! Good job Mr. Cannon. Way to launch on to this pithy bit of homespun downright incontrovertible wisdom. Reminds me of that show, “It Takes a Thief.” Or, using another bit of folksy, down home wisdom--my farmer uncle always said that the Fox is the only one that can revive all the chickens in the hen house that it has ravaged. I mean, gnashing and ripping hens apart is such a complex and complicated thing that the average American, including many a Deseret news editorialist, can’t understand it.
Therefore, don’t shoo the poor sharp-toothed mangy little bastard away. No, invite him in to play with the kids and give him his own little Fox den right in the hen house and if he chews up a few hundred more chickens, no biggie. Just have the dumb American tax payer--who can’t understand the complexity of death or the loss of a 165 million chickens--supply the cute little Fox with a few hundred more hens every other week.
Gee, thank you so very much Deseret News for helping me understand this complex world we live in. I don’t even have to think any more. I, and everyone else now realizes that the AIG bonus-takers in the AIG chop shop and the Fox in the hen house are right where they should be.
Loren Lambert, March 19, 2006 (C)
Midvale Utah (801) 568-0041
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)