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

So, my law school application process is complete — not that I’ve heard from every school, but I’ve made my decision.

In the end, I withdrew from Emory Law School, Duke Law School, and Vanderbilt Law School because, well, they were too slow (and in the case of Duke, they just really sucked).

I ended up perpetually waitlisted at Georgetown University Law Center — which I lost all desire to attend after their turn-your-back-on-the-Attorney-General stunt, and Northwestern School of Law, which was just too hippie for me anyway (even with Steven Calabresi and John McGinnis on faculty).

Fortunately I have had a number of great options to choose from. I was accepted at George Washington University Law School, University of Virginia School of Law, University of Michigan Law School, and, making it very difficult, University of Chicago Law School — home to such geniuses as Judges Posner and Easterbrook.

This all might’ve left my final destination up in the air still given that I haven’t yet heard from Columbia Law School, Penn Law, Stanford Law School, and of course, the much revered Yale Law School.

But in the end none of that matters. Why? Because in the fall, I’m heading up to:

(more…)

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

Also posted at Scott from Slantpoint’s amazing new NYC Republican-HQ, Urban Elephants.

From The Man:

Top 10 Uses For the UN Building

The Onion published the perfect solution for NYC’s UN problem. I have a few more suggestions for the site.

Top 10 Uses For the UN Building

10. Additional nesting space for Pale Male’s bitches
9. Yet another Starbucks in the area
8. NYC’s first Wal-mart Supercenter
7. Anything other than the UN
6. The new Iraqi embassy
5. World’s largest bodega
4. More overpriced apartment studios
3. Headquarters for the 2012, 2016 Olympic bid committee.
2. New York City’s GOP Headquarters (probably only needs a few hundred square feet)

and the #1 use for the UN building
1. An East Side Football Stadium

If you have anything you would like to see on the site, add it to the comments section.

How about a public shooting range?

Claudio

WaPo editorialist William Raspberry writes about something novel to the Black community: the destruction of the Black family.

The absence of fathers means, as well, that girls lack both a pattern against which to measure the boys who pursue them and an example of sacrificial love between a man and a woman. As the ministers were at pains to say last week, it isn’t the incompetence of mothers that is at issue but the absence of half of the adult support needed for families to be most effective.

Interestingly, they blamed the black church for abetting the decline of the black family — by moderating virtually out of existence its once stern sanctions against extramarital sex and childbirth and by accepting the present trends as more or less inevitable.

They didn’t say — but might have — that black America’s almost reflexive search for outside explanations for our internal problems delayed the introspective examination that might have slowed the trend. What we have now is a changed culture — a culture whose worst aspects are reinforced by oversexualized popular entertainment and that places a reduced value on the things that produced nearly a century of socioeconomic improvement. For the first time since slavery, it is no longer possible to say with assurance that things are getting better.

I don’t want to come across too sarcastic; I do applaud these ministers and Mr. Raspberry for highlighting such an important and devestating phenomenon. However, I do believe that this more ubiquitous and dangerous trend (almost) is the trend to every-couple-of-months-or-so bring up the topic and talk about how much needs to be done within and from outside of the Black community and then forget about it for another couple of months (wasn’t Bill Cosby saying this stuff a couple of months ago? And what was the outcome of all the media hoopla? A condemnation of Cosby, and no progress for Black families).

Sorry, but I’ll be less negative when I start to see more and more Black communities take action against this phenomenon. This cannot be a top-down operation (and by that I mean government-led or so-called-Black-leader-led). No amount of government programs or inspirational MLK, Jr. quotes mouthed by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton is going to keep my old friends in Charlotte from making babies, smoking weed, and dropping out of school (not always in that order). What will, however, make a difference is community and church outreach, and the example being set by young blacks such as Ambra Nykol, myself, and my boy Travis Mason: young Blacks that prove it pays to let God lead you, complete your studies, be real about your responsibilities and work hard to help others. My boys in NC joke that I left them to become a nerd and go to college in New York, but I know at least that I am setting an example for them. I can only hope and pray that more young Blacks will, in the cliche words of Spike Lee, “Do the right thing.”

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.

Following, the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to be the next justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) sent a letter to President Bush expressing his deep regret that President Bush had not nominated a woman to fill the vacancy. He then rethought his position, and amended it as follows:

July 21, 2005

Dear President Bush:

I do not know yet how I will vote on the confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. I will honor the processes of the Senate in considering his nomination. The fact you have not selected a distinguished woman Hispanic, Black, Native American mixed handicapped lesbian midget is not a reason for disqualification. However, I want to express my disappointment that you have missed an opportunity to help create an America that includes women Hispanic, Black, Native American mixed handicapped lesbian midgets at all levels of our nation’s government.

If your nominee to the United States Supreme Court is confirmed, the face of the United States Supreme Court, with nine justices, will have only one woman, and no Hispanic, Black, Native American mixed handicapped lesbian midgets. And in an America that has struggled over her history to include women, I do not believe this is a healthy portrayal of the kind of America we should be building.

Twenty-four years ago, President Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman justice of the United States Supreme Court. She served in that role with distinction. Justice O’Connor’s appointment created a milestone in history that was the culmination of the work and struggles of men and women over centuries to ensure that women received fair and equal treatment in America. As we all well know, women were not granted even the right to vote in America until the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. To this date, Hispanic, Black, Native American mixed handicapped lesbian midgets are still underrepresented in the highest levels of the American federal system.

You and I both have two daughters. The profound message we should be giving to them is that their gender creates no limitations for them to live up to their God-given potential. Yet, I fear that with the loss of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor from the United States Supreme Court, we are sending the opposite message.

Respectfully,

Ken Salazar
U.S. Senator

cc: Sen. Arlen Specter
Sen. Patrick Leahy

What in the world was President Bush thinking nominated another angry, white male to the Supreme Court?! Where is bell hooks or Sistah Souljah when you need them!

Claudio

I guessed I should’ve let y’all know that I would be outside of Budapest from Thursday until Saturday and thus unable to blog. But then I remembered: nobody cares. So keeping with that mentality, I will now ramble on about my weekend for a while before I resume normal posting.

Thursday: Feeling sick as a result of the previous night. Good time freestyle battling three Hungarian rappers. Left for the boondocks (aka: Kiralyret, Hungary) on a big bus, played with my PSP.

Friday: Did a bunch of outdoors-y stuff like building a raft from barrels, rods, and rope. Actually did pretty well - must be the effect of all the time I spend around my engineering friends (big shout outs to Seth, Andrew, Aron, Robert, and others). Got real cool with some students from Prague and Warsaw. Had Polish vodka (it has grass in it like tequila has worms - go figure). Wasn’t a bad night at all; ended up defending Bush and the War in Iraq before a table of drunk Poles and Czechs.

Saturday: Came back to Budapest, played basketball with John, my boy from Atlanta. Found a beautiful court that overlooks the city. Came home, chilled on my balcony for the sunset with John and talked politics and film. Went downstairs to Marxim’s, the neighborhood’s “Cheers.” Everybody knows my name. Met up with the Czechs and Poles, talked about New York. Exchanged emails and promises to visit. Left Marxim’s for Dokk Club: dance club with pool and jacuzzi in the center. Got crazy, jumped in the pool, jumped in the jacuzzi, jumped out and jumped into broken glass. Cut my foot badly, kept partying, went home, went to sleep.

Sunday: Woke up 6 pm. Inspected damage to foot - OUCH - blood soaked sock not cool. Cleaned wound, dried clothes. Hobbled to store, bought bandaids. Called girlfriend, called John. John comes through. Watch another sunset, talk politics. Talk movies: he now must see Lost in Translation and The Professional, I have to watch for subliminal political commentary in Starship Troopers. Watched Coming to America in Hungarian. Was still funny since between the two of us, we knew most of the lines. Mourned the loss of Eddie Murphy (how does one go from Beverly Hills Cop to Haunted House or whatever that movie was?!). Mourned the loss of Arsenio Hall (woo! woo! woo!). Received a call from girlfriend, went to sleep happy, had weird dreams/nightmares.

Now I’m back at it. Hobbling, but back at it.

Claudio

Christopher Hitchens CANNOT BE STOPPED:

We know very well what the “grievances” of the jihadists are. The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won’t abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor’s liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.

Claudio (Hat Tip: The Corner).

Spanish PM Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (yes, let-us-pull-out-of-Iraq-and-give-the-terrorist-what-they-want Zapatero) has penned a “how-to” guide in light of the London terrorist attacks. Always open to consider an argument on the merits, I thought we here at T(v)RWC should give Zapatero’s strategy an open-minded reading.

Zapatero writes that the first step to defeating terrorists is: trying to understand them.

We must begin by making an effort to comprehend the conditions that facilitate the spread of fanaticism and support for terror. We cannot ignore conflicts that have become entrenched or the enormous economic, political and social divides in many societies, which occasionally serve as false pretexts for terrorist violence. It is unrealistic to aspire to peace and stability in a sea of universal injustice.

Sounds great! Maybe we should have one big pow-wow in which we invite the terrorist leaders to an Outward Bound activity in the woods. We can have heart-to-hearts around the campfire.

The next step in Zapatero’s brilliant strategy? Talk about it at the United Nations.

The appropriate forum to consolidate the political consensus against terrorism has to be the United Nations. The organisation must be given the means – including a legal framework and the operational tools – to lead the international fight against terrorism, enabling it to be waged more effectively.

Exactly! Because if we would just talk through our problems, and say, take advice on how to conduct this war on terror from somebody morally justified — such as, Cuba, for example, we would be on the right track! I mean, it isn’t like we’ve tried to deal with terrorism before at the United Nations and found out that we couldn’t even agree on a friggin’ DEFINITION!

The third step in Zapatero’s fail-safe strat is to sign a treaty!

On the legislative front, the adoption of a global convention against terrorism cannot wait any longer. On the operational level, we must reinforce mechanisms for co-operation among police forces, courts and intelligence services, in order to prevent new strikes and to isolate and close down terrorist organisations, as well as all those who support, fund and justify them.

Yes. Because it isn’t already illegal to conduct terrorist acts, we should have every country in a world sign a document that essentially says, “terrorism is bad!” We’ll all go and “re-affirm” our commitment to defeating this scourge, just like Chirac has recently done (and then we’ll all go home and do absolutely nothing, just like…well, Chirac has recently done).

Next, we will convince terrorists that terrorism is bad.

The fight against terrorism is also a battle for people’s minds. We must work to spread the belief that nothing can justify terrorism. No idea, no matter how legitimate it may be or may appear to be, can serve as an alibi for murder. Which is why, as a phenomenon, it is not the exclusive preserve of any one civilisation, culture or religion. For this very reason, at the UN general assembly I proposed an alliance of civilisations, based on conviction, understanding and respect for others. If we do not manage to embed in all nations the belief that tolerance is indispensable, our battle will be made all the more difficult.

Yes, yes. We will get all of Western Civilization to come together and proclaim loud and clear to the terrorist world, “You can kill us, but we will kill you with our love!” Kill ‘em with kindness.

Finally, Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero recommends that we all come together…especially Europe. In a world were terrorists need global cover in order to operate, the best thing we can do is…INTEGRATE FURTHER!

This global effort must, naturally, be complemented by regional and bilateral co-operation. In the case of Europe, it has become clear that, in view of the terrorist threat we all suffer, the European Union must offer much deeper integration: real-time interconnection of intelligence services, joint investigation teams, immediate handover of those charged with crimes, immediate enforcement throughout the Union of rulings of courts in a member state and decisive action to control the financial flows that feed terrorism. The EU must become without delay a single security area, leaving no loopholes for terrorists. We must do away with ring-fenced judicial and policing systems that criminals continue to exploit for their ends.

I mean, we could go to the countries that are producing terrorists (Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq) and deal with the problem here, but I agree that the much better idea is to sit on our behinds, wait for the next attack, and just make sure that we are really integrated and prepared to deal with the criminal investigation in the aftermath.

Right.

I like this Zapatero guy. He has all the right ideas.

Claudio