·:[ The (vast) Right Wing Conspiracy ]:·
• • • • •

I see an upset — Anthony Weiner will beat Ferrer but come up short of the 40% necessary to avoid the run-off with him.

My date for the evening and I shall be going to a party tonight sponsored by the Bloomberg c ampaign tonight. I’ll tell y’all about it later.

Claudio

Slow news day –> Open Thread. What is your dream ticket for the 2008 Presidential Election?

Give me Condi Rice-Jeb Bush ‘08!

Claudio

Here is a more concise version of the below post that I just sent to the New York Times Editorial page.

To the Editor:

Re: “Two Prosecutors Faulted Trials for Detainees” (news article, Aug. 1):

As a conservative Republican college student, I tend to be more zealous in my support of the war on terror than my peers.

However, I recently spent a week in Liberty, Missouri for the 2005 Truman Scholars Leadership Week. This week is held every year for winners of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship. Annually at TSLW there is a cohort of Senior Scholars: Truman Scholars from previous years who attend to support the new scholars. One of this year’s senior scholars was Major John Carr.

I had an opportunity to speak with Major Carr about his passion and commitment to justice. My impressions from my discussions with him were clear — Major Carr is a very humble, brilliant, inspirational and passionate defender of justice. If he says that something is wrong with our military tribunals, then I believe him.

This issue concerns the very core of our nation’s character. John Adams once called his legal defense of the British soldiers accused of murdering Americans in the Boston Massacre, “one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”

Major Carr’s actions are such actions. I would like to personally thank Major Carr for his service to this country.

C. Claudio Simpkins, 2005 Harry S. Truman Scholar, The City College of New York. (646) 296-6523.

Claudio

Today I get an email bringing my attention to a recent NYT article on some shady business going on with the military tribunals being held for suspected terrorists. Okay, we’ve all heard this story before: detainees are being tortured, and military tribunals don’t give a fair trial, right? I’ve never been one to give much gravity to these allegations because of the propensity of actual terrorists to cry “torture!” whenever they are caught by infidels. However, this particular case, highlighted by NYT and first reported by the WSJ is of particular interest to me.

The Times recently reported,

WASHINGTON, July 31 - As the Pentagon was making its final preparations to begin war crimes trials against four detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, two senior prosecutors complained in confidential messages last year that the trial system had been secretly arranged to improve the chance of conviction and to deprive defendants of material that could prove their innocence.

[…]

Among the striking statements in the prosecutors’ messages was an assertion by one that the chief prosecutor had told his subordinates that the members of the military commission that would try the first four defendants would be “handpicked” to ensure that all would be convicted.

The same officer, Capt. John Carr of the Air Force, also said in his message that he had been told that any exculpatory evidence - information that could help the detainees mount a defense in their cases - would probably exist only in the 10 percent of documents being withheld by the Central Intelligence Agency for security reasons.

Okay, like I said, we’ve been here before. But in this case, I actually believe the allegations. Why, you say? Because I’ve met, talked to, and spent a week with (now) Major John Carr and I believe that he is a man of utmost integrity and honesty.

A month or two back I spent a week in Liberty, Missouri with 74 of the brightest young people I’ve ever met. We were all there for the 2005 Truman Scholars Leadership Week. This week is held every year for the year’s 75 recipients of the nationally-prestigious Harry S. Truman Scholarship (yes, I got lucky). Annually at TSLW there is a cohort of “senior scholars.” These admirable scholars are Truman Scholars from previous years who have come to share their wisdom and experience with the new scholars, helping us all find our ways to public service.

One of this year’s senior scholars was Major John Carr.

I had an opportunity to sit down and speak with him about his job, his education, his politics, and his passion and commitment to justice. A graduate of both the Harvard Law School and the Kennedy School of Government, Major Carr has been with the Air Force JAG Corps for a while now, working on sensitive issues such as terrorism and national security in the Office of Military Commissions.

My impressions from sitting down and talking to him — the guy is a very humble, brilliant, and passionate defender of justice and other American ideals, and if he says that something is awry, then I believe him.

As an American — even more to the point — as a New Yorker who looked out of the window of the fourth floor of my high school on September 11, 2001 and saw the Twin Towers (where my father had worked for years) in flames, part of me wants to say, “Whatever. If they don’t get a fair trial, tough beans. The 3,000+ Americans killed that day had no trials.”

But then there is the aspiring lawyer in me and the conscientious American in me that is forced to note that if these allegations are true, then we are a long way from where we need to be as a beacon of all those virtues that make us different from the ignorantly primal Islamofascists who would kill us all. Certainly justice trumps random retribution. We should not allow our anger, zeal, or even hatred (yes, I hate terrorist murderers with all my being) to blind us to who we are.

This isn’t a Republican or Democrat thing; this goes beyond politics. IT’S ABOUT DOING THE RIGHT THING. One of the greatest — if not the greatest — conservative minds America ever produced was that of the second President of the United States of America, John Adams. John Adams was a man of principle, as all conservatives should be. He, at times, is my model of a man.

Here is a story to remind us all that the best way to defeat terrorists is to maintain a truly American America:

John Adams, in his old age, called his defense of British soldiers in 1770 “one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.” That’s quite a statement, coming as it does from perhaps the most underappreciated great man in American history.

The day after British soldiers mortally wounded five Americans on a cobbled square in Boston, thirty-four-year-old Adams was visted in his office near the stairs of the Town Office by a Boston merchant , James Forest. “With tears streaming from his eyes” (according to the recollection of Adams), Forest asked Adams to defend the soldiers and their captain, Thomas Preston. Adams understood that taking the case would not only subject him to criticism, but might jeopardize his legal practice or even risk the safety of himself and his family. But Adams believed deeply that every person deserved a defense, and he took on the case without hesitation. For his efforts, he would receive the modest sum of eighteen guineas.

The Preston case came to trial in the Queen Street courthouse in October. Adams, and his young assistant, Josiah Quincy, defended Preston against a prosecution team comprised of Josiah’s brother Samuel and Robert Paine. Adams succeeded in casting grave doubt as to whether Preston ever gave orders to shoot, and the Boston jury acquitted the captain.

More detailed records exist for the Soldiers’ trial, which commenced on
December 3. Adams presented evidence that blame for the tragedy lay both with the “mob” that gathered that March night and with England’s highly unpopular policy of quartering troops in a city. Adams told the jury: “Soldiers quartered in a populous town will always occasion two mobs where they prevent one.” He argued that the soldier who fired first acted only as one might expect anyone to act in such confused and potentially life-threatening conditions. “Do you expect that he should act like a stoic philosopher, lost in apathy?”, Adams asked the jury. “Facts are stubborn things,” he concluded, “and whatever may be our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

The jury acquitted six of the eight soldiers, while two (Montgomery and Killroy) were convicted of manslaughter and branded on their thumbs.

Initial reaction to Adams role in the case was hostile. His law practice dropped by over half. In the long run, however, the courageous actions of Adams only enhanced his growing reputation.

Adams would, of course, go on to lead a long and exemplary life that is chronicled in David McCullough’s sympathetic new biography, John Adams. He would play a pivotal role in the Revolution, serve as George Washington’s vice-president, and then become the nation’s second president. As president, Adams appointed the great John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He also most likely saved the Union, through his careful steering of a neutral course as war broke out between England and France. In the end, however, historian Sean Wilentz is probably accurate in his description of Adams as “a courageous and good man who fell out of touch with the country that he loved and that he served so diligently and often so well.” Adams saw the goal of government as a counterbalancing of classes and never really seemed to understand that the Revolution had replaced his ancient notion with a new one based on popular sovereignty.

Adams died in Quincy, Massachusetts on the fiftieth anniversary of American independence, July 4, 1826.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. — John Adams, in defense of British soldiers.

Claudio

Well, close enough:

I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

I don’t know what I think about Gov. Romney yet. If the only other Republican potential nominees are Sen. Allen, Sen. Frist, Sen. McCain, Giuliani, Pataki, and Rep. Tancredo, then I might have to give Gov. Romney a much closer look.

Claudio

This was what Democratic Mayor Mike Bloomberg had to say about petty petition challenges back in the day (2004):

It’s become a whole cottage industry of you don’t have to beat the other guy based on positions or your ability to serve; all you’ve got to do is beat him because you got a better lawyer who can get him thrown off the ballot. I think it’s time to end this ‘gotcha’ kind of technique where lawyers comb petitions to find some technical violation. [Emphasis mine.]

Right. Now fast-forward to 2005. Same Mayor Mike, but now with a real Republican potentially challenging him in a primary:

The Bloomberg campaign plans today to try to prevent a Republican primary for mayor by challenging the nominating petitions of Thomas V. Ognibene, the former city councilman who is seeking to run on the Republican line.

Bloomberg campaign aides said they had found problems with Mr. Ognibene’s petitions, including signatures of people ineligible to vote or not enrolled as Republicans, signatures that did not match those on voter registration cards, and incomplete forms. The flaws, they said, will most likely drop the number from the 8,116 signatures submitted to well below the 7,500 needed to qualify for the ballot.

By trying to halt a primary challenge by Mr. Ognibene, a conservative, the Bloomberg campaign is seeking to avoid not only a distracting primary battle, but also a confrontation with elements of the Republican Party who think Mr. Bloomberg is too liberal.

Hmmmm. Dare I say “flip-flop”? Ognibene’s response is priceless:

It seems that the only thing that Bloomberg isn’t willing to spend money on is a fair fight. Why participate in the democratic process when you can simply write a check, and buy it?

Indeed. Oh, and couple that with the fact that Democratic Mike is getting endorsements from NARAL and potentially not supporting President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge John G. Roberts (even Hilary is supporting the man for goodness’ sake!):

Mayor Mike will be endorsed by the New York chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League at a 12:30 press conference at Brooklyn’s Kings County hospital, sources say.

Key question: Will Bloomberg now take a harder stance against Bush administration Supreme Court nominee John Roberts in line with NARAL’s opposition to his nomination? (Yesterday, the mayor punted, saying he’d have to examine Roberts’ record more carefully).

Could I dislike this guy any more than I already do? Is it even possible? We’ll see in the days and weeks to come…but something tells me even now, that it is more than possible, it’s likely.

Claudio

PS - My brother Thomas will return to light-blogging here at The (vast) Right Wing Conspiracy soon. He has been interning at State Senator and Queens County Republican Chairman Serph Maltese’s office (the only county party head to endorse Ognibene) and has been able to meet with the Senator on an almost daily basis. We’ll ask him to share his thoughts and predictions regarding future clashes between Serph and Mike and the future of the Queens GOP.

Alright, good news coming from the Ognibene camp. It seems Tom has 7,800 petition signatures, 300 more than the 7,500 needed to secure a place on the ballot in the mayoral primary. Some are arguing that the signatures may not be valid as 1,000 or so of them were inherited from the now-defunct campaign of Steve Shaw (see Slantpoint comments for discussion).

I think Bloomberg’s people may try to challenge, but the petition will stand. Ognibene on the ballot means finally a chance to send a message to Bloomberg and the state GOP.

Claudio

I had this big, angry rant on the SCOTUS Kelso v New London case, but I see that everyone else has gotten their posts in first, so I am kind of deflated.

I will say this: this court decision is very wrong and we haven’t even scratched the surface of its “power” yet. I am no enemy of Walmart or “development” but I do not think that the government (local, federal, or otherwise) should have the power to give away someone else’s private property to a developer (that has probably already bought off the politicians) for a “fair price”.

If a developer wants to give people market price for their land thats one thing, but you know that is not going to happen when the government gets involved.

*Important point (possibly): Is anyone as not-shocked as I am over that fact that most bloggers (and probably most Americans) are so distrusting of their elected officials that they automatically equate this ruling with giving more power to people that are paying off politicians? Do we really hold elected officials in such low regard? Like I said, that sentiment really does not surprise me at all.

I don’t know what is making me angrier: the government taking private property and handing it over to private developers who will make a fortune and cut out the landowners from the profits OR the fact that the government is so intent on screwing over its citizens (remember…those people that put them into office?) to find new, fun sources of tax revenue to spend.

*Last point: How long will it take for this case to be used by one political party to give to developers some private property that is (was?) owned by citizens that voted against them?

Eminent domain: the new gerrymandering!

–Pat

On the occasion of the NBA Finals Game 7 (Go Heat!), and my ongoing row with some chap in the comments section regarding my post on Sen. Robert “Kill-those-Darkies” Byrd, I thought this post in order. From the always funny Ace of Spades.

Top Ten All-Time Basketball Greats, According to Senator Robert Byrd

In special reverse order — starting at 1, ending at 10 — because that’s the way they used to do it back in the old days.

1. Larry Bird

2. Jerry West

3. Bill Walton

4. Kevin McHale

5. Bill Lambeer

6. Danny Ainge

7. “Salami” from The White Shadow

8. Kurt Rambis (Oooohhhh, Rambis!!!)

9. Wayne Gretzky (started J.V. in high school)

Eight-way tie:

10. Michael Jordan
10. Julius Erving
10. Magic Johnson
10. Kareem Abdul-Jabaar
10. Wilt Chamberlain
10. Shaquille O’Neal
10. Bill Russell
10. The “Dorff” character from Dorff on Basketball

Note: Jason Kidd was not ranked, owing to the good Senator’s request for “additional information.”

LOL,
Claudio

Democratic Senator Ken Salazar is on my good side again.

He voted for the appointment of Judge Bill Pryor.

Able to break rank with the typical liberal Democratic orthodoxy? There may be hope for this Hispanic (I hate that term) yet.

Claudio