Comments on: About to Meet Bibi, Jews Say: ‘We’ve Got Your Back, Mr. President!’

By: Jeanne Capozzoli

Jeanne Capozzoli — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:08:14 +0000

Just when I was feeling depressed about the ability of Obama to stand up to Israel (knowing that Congress has always taken the side of Israel over 9 US Presidents), I read your blog — which gives me hope. Finally, American Jews are organizing to support an American President who has pledged to support a viable and contiguous Palestinian state. It is 42 years late, but better late than never. Thanks for the good news, Richard.

By: Margaret

Margaret — Mon, 18 May 2009 02:07:25 +0000

Count me in. United Way doesn’t get anything this year.

By: fiddler

fiddler — Sun, 17 May 2009 22:04:10 +0000

@Suzanne: I’m sorry to hear about your sister.
I’m not saying the existing system of civilian and military courts (under the UCMJ) is perfect, far from it. But it’s also true that several terrorists have been convicted in federal courts – Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Zacharias Moussaoui, Ramzi Yousef, Richard Reid, John Walker Lindh come to mind (though also the highly dubious case against Jose Padilla). There’s no such success for Bush’s kangaroo courts.
AFAIK, one of Obama’s changes is that coerced statements will not be admissible any more, which is no doubt a good thing. But that’s not the core of the criticism, it’s that this new, lesser tier of the judiciary is specifically tailored to ensure convictions of certain defendants, effectively on the executive branch’s say-so, instead of independently and fairly evaluating the evidence. If this is not so, then why have military commissions at all? The existing system may be flawed, courts and juries do make mistakes, but why should we believe the President was any less fallible? It’s not like the current system was overly prone to err on the side of acquittal after all – unless you want to believe the US has by far the largest prison population on earth because Americans are the most criminal people in the world.

I remember OJ Simpson – and I prefer 10 OJs being wrongly acquitted to 1 innocent being wrongly convicted. Remember the rule of law exists to protect the people from the government, not the other way ’round. All those procedural rules you dismiss as “technicalities”, the Miranda rights, the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard (“may still be motivated” is no good enough by a long shot) exist for this reason.

By: Mary Hughes-Thompson

Mary Hughes-Thompson — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:20:33 +0000

Jenny – to which checkpoints in Israel are you referring? I have spent a lot of time in Israel and Palestine, and saw very few checkpoints in Israel. The problem that Palestinians (and I) have with Israeli checkpoints is that they all seem to be well inside Palestine. This is what creates terrible hardship on people trying just to get to school, or to work, or to the hospital, or to tend their fields and groves.

By: rfjk

rfjk — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:20:33 +0000

“…(which means ultimately for everyone) he’s a major let-down…”

Not for me. I purviewed every remark, statement and campaign promise out of Obama with the skepticism of a sleeping Greek – one eye closed and the other bug eyed open. So for me this Obama character ‘rocks.’

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Sun, 17 May 2009 11:49:11 +0000

@fiddler : gutting of due process for terrorism suspects (which means ultimately for everyone) he’s a major let-down, continuing with only minor changes the absolutist policy of his predecessor.

Obama’s military tribunal is going to expand rights for the accused, “prisoners of war”, so that they can defend themselves better. We don’t know what all these expanded rights are nor have I heard a discussion about it. So I can’t jump up and down about it. But I don’t see how this means that we all are subject to less justice than we have.

One of the problems with our normal court system is that murderers or other criminals that have willingly confessed to their crimes can be excused because of technicalities, like being subjected to harsh treatment or not being read their rights. What also brought that home to me was my sister’s murderer (no doubt about it) was “not guilty” in the eyes of the jury that was selected from a pool that was bound to favor him. In another trial, his accomplice got 25 years ( out in 3). This murderer could have just as easily been an innocent but convicted by a jury that was so inclined. Remember OJ Simpson? That’s our system too.

So if you are dealing with people who may still be motivated to commit horrendous crimes, crimes of mass proportion, there is a fine line to be walked regarding due process.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Sun, 17 May 2009 07:31:35 +0000

ads cost money.

You bet, maybe $150,000 for a full pager. IPF donors put up BIG BUCKS for that! Good for them too.

By: Margaret

Margaret — Sun, 17 May 2009 07:01:08 +0000

Yes, the IPF ad was good – really felt like a step forward seeing that.

Hmmm – ads cost money.