Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits

Advice from a Spokane, WA Public Defender

The following was posted on craigslist on "2009-04-26, 7:43AM PDT." It's fascinating, because it shows you the side of law most people don't hear from--the under-appreciated and overworked public defender. Enjoy.

First, let me say I love my job and it is a privilege to work for my clients. I wish I could do more for them. That being said, there are a few things that need to be discussed.

You have the right to remain silent. So SHUT THE F*** UP. Those cops are completely serious when they say your statements can and will be used against you. There's just no need to babble on like it's a drink and dial session. They are just pretending to like you and be interested in you.

When you come to court, consider your dress. If you're charged with a DUI, don't wear a Budweiser shirt. If you have some miscellaneous drug charge, think twice about clothing with a marijuana leaf on it or a t-shirt with the "UniBonger" on it. Long sleeves are very nice for covering tattoos and track marks. Try not to be visibly drunk when you show up.

Consider bathing and brushing your teeth. This is just as a courtesy to me who has to stand by you in court. Smoking 5 generic cigarettes to cover up your bad breath is not the same as brushing. Try not to cough and spit on my while you speak and further transmit your strep, flu, and hepatitis A through Z.

I'm a lawyer, not your fairy godmother. I probably won't find a loophole or technicality for you, so don't be pissed off. I didn't beat up your girlfriend, steal that car, rob that liquor store, sell that crystal meth, or rape that 13 year old. By the time we meet, much of your fate has been sealed, so don't be too surprised by your limited options and that I'm the one telling you about them.

Don't think you'll improve my interest in your case by yelling at me, telling me I'm not doing anything for you, calling me a public pretender or complaining to my supervisor. This does not inspire me, it makes me hate you and want to work with you even less.

It does not help if you leave me nine messages in 17 minutes. Especially if you leave them all on Saturday night and early Sunday morning. This just makes me want to stab you in the eye when we finally meet.

For the guys: Don't think I'm amused when you flirt or offer to "do me." You can't successfully rob a convenience store, forge a signature, pawn stolen merchandise, get through a day without drinking, control your temper, or talk your way out of a routine traffic stop. I figure your performance in other areas is just as spectacular, and the thought of your shriveled unwashed body near me makes me want to kill you and then myself.

For the girls: I know your life is rougher than mine and you have no resources. I'm not going to insult you by suggesting you leave your abusive pimp/boyfriend, that you stop taking meth, or that your stop stealing sh*t. I do wish you'd stop beating the crap out of your kids and leaving your needles out for them to play with because you aren't allowing them to have a life that is any better than yours.

For the morons: Your second grade teacher was right: neatness counts. Just clean up! When you rob the store, don't leave your wallet. When you drive into the front of the bank, don't leave the front license plate. When you rape/assault/rob a woman on the street, don't leave behind your cell phone. After you abuse your girlfriend, don't leave a note saying that you're sorry.

If you are being chased by the cops and you have dope in your pocket, dump it. These cops are not geniuses. They are out of shape and want to go to Krispy Kreme and most of all go home. They will not scour the woods or the streets for your 2 grams of meth. But they will check your pockets, idiot. 2 grams is not worth six months of jail.

Don't be offended and say you were harassed because the security was following you all over the store. Girl, you were wearing an electronic ankle bracelet with your mini skirt. And you were stealing. That's not harassment, that's good store security.

And those kids you churn out: how is it possible? You're out there breeding like feral cats. What exactly is the attraction of having sex with other meth addicts? You are lacking in the most basic aspects of hygiene, deathly pale, greasy, grey-toothed, twitchy and covered with open sores. How can you be having sex? You make my baby-whoring crack head clients look positively radiant by comparison.

"I didn't put it all the way in." Not a defense.

"All the money is gone now." Not a defense

"The b*tch deserved it." Not a defense.

"But that dope was so stepped on, I barely got high." Not a defense.

"She didn't look thirteen." Possibly a defense; it depends.

"She didn't look six." Never a defense, you just need to die.

For those rare clients that say thank you, leave a voice mail, send a card or flowers, you are very welcome. I keep them all, and they keep me going more than my pitiful COLA increase.

For the idiots who ask me how I sleep at night: I sleep just fine, thank you. There's nothing wrong with any of my clients that could not have been fixed with money or the presence of at least one caring adult in their lives. But that window has closed, and that loss diminishes us all.

Tasers

A police officer, whom I consider a friend, recently pointed me to a taser that also records all incidents. See here for more on the Taser Axon. Although the Taser Axon is a step in the right direction, I dislike the ease with which the public has allowed these weapons to the police. We can argue about whether the taser is a potentially lethal device--many police officers will tell you that the taser only kills people who are on drugs or who have serious pre-existing conditions; however, tasers can and have killed people, making it a deadly device. After all, just because you shoot someone in the leg with a gun doesn't mean a gun is non-lethal, right?

Some people might argue that even if tasers and guns are both potentially lethal, it is clearly better for officers to use tasers instead of guns. I am not sure I agree. It is too tempting to resort to taser use instead of less violent means to subdue someone. Most human beings, when given an easier way to do a task, will take the easier route. That's the basis behind most innovation--making hard tasks easier. For example, once you get a washing machine, you won't wash clothes by hand, even if hand-washing will prolong the clothes' durability. By the same token, the taser makes subduing people much easier and much quicker. In the past, an officer might have tried to talk someone out of doing something or tried to explain why he was doing something, but now, there is no need. At the first sign of trouble, the officer can claim someone is resisting arrest and then use the taser.

Opinions on tasers vary, but perhaps we can analyze the issue through a few questions:

1. If the taser isn't an option, how should an officer react when someone fails to obey his/her commands immediately?

2. How did officers control and subdue people who disobeyed them pre-taser days? Has there been a significant change in officer safety since the introduction of the taser? What about citizen safety?

I think the answers to the questions above dictate how we feel about tasers.

Muhammad Ali: The Whole Story

I recently watched Muhammad Ali -- The Whole Story (1996), an incredible six hours journey through the life of Muhammad Ali. Here are some of my thoughts:

1. The only boxer who could go toe-to-toe with Ali was Ken Norton. No one else could handle Ali without getting beaten badly. When Ali was in his prime, only Joe Frazier and Ken Norton beat him. There are differences, however, in how Frazier and Norton won their fights. For example, Joe Frazier may have beaten Ali, but Frazier could not avoid getting hit. As a result, every time he and Ali fought, Ali's face looked clean as a whistle, while Frazier's face looked like it had been through a meat grinder. Meanwhile, Norton actually broke Ali's jaw in one fight.

2. Ali was successful at every stage of his career. He won an Olympic gold medal; won numerous amateur boxing awards; and beat every single serious professional contender through the age of 37 years old. When he went professional, he won the heavyweight championship three times, something no one else has ever done.

3. When George Foreman was younger, he seemed like nothing more than a surly thug. At one point, we see Foreman walking with his entourage in Zaire prior to the "Rumble in the Jungle." Someone, presumably a fan, asks to shake Foreman's hand, but Foreman's friend keeps her away and then happily reports he told her "she could shake my hand." Foreman sees what has happened and keeps walking. It is impossible to imagine the gregarious Muhammad Ali behaving similarly towards any of his fans. It is also incredible how Foreman completely reinvented himself in his old age, transforming from a reserved thug to a grandfatherly figure who sells fat-reducing cooking grills.

4. Before Larry Holmes became heavyweight champion, he was Muhammad Ali's training partner.

5. Were it not for Muhammad Ali, we would all be talking about Joe Frazier. When Frazier was young, he wasn't just an incredibly tough boxer--he was also gregarious and fun. Whereas other boxers took Muhammad Ali's comments seriously, Frazier played along with Ali. At one point, Frazier even tried to up Muhammad Ali's star power by singing a poem, and he displayed a surprisingly soulful voice.

6. When Ali was young, he was so quick, no one could hit him. After fifteen rounds in the ring, Ali's face would be unmarked. That's why he kept saying, "I'm pretty." Richard Pryor once remarked, "His punches are so fast you don't see 'em until they're coming back." It's hard to really understand the power and grace of Ali's speed until you see someone trying to hit him and failing miserably.

7. Ali's poetry: "I'm so bad, I make medicine sick."

Vienna Teng

Two events I must recommend: Vienna Teng in concert, and the comedian Jim Breuer live. Here is Vienna Teng meeting with fans after her recent Palo Alto concert.

Utah Police and Tasers

Bonus: see here.

Lawyers and the Recession

The NYT recently had a great article on the recession and lawyers (8/25/09, "Downturn Dims Prospects even at Top Schools"):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/business/26lawyers.html

Intelligent Cops Need Not Apply?

I'm not sure I want to be anywhere near New London, CT. Apparently, they reject police officers who are too intelligent:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_56314.html [link outdated--see below]

A U.S. man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.

Perhaps this doesn't apply to California. California's police unions do very well in salary/pension demands and in court.

Update on January 31, 2012: link above is outdated--try this one: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-connecticut-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores.html

"Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination."  

CIA and FBI: Results of My FOIA/FOIPA Request

Lately, the FOIA is getting good press. The FOIA and FOIPA allow Americans to gain access to information government agencies have about them. Previously, USAG Ashcroft instructed lawyers to do whatever they could to deny requests for information, such as charging high fees for file searches or copies. President Obama, on the other hand, has promised change, and part of this change is more transparency. I wanted to see whether government agencies were complying with President Obama's message, so I recently sent FOIA and FOIPA requests to both the FBI and CIA. Their handling of my requests was starkly different, even though I sent the same letter to both agencies.

All government agencies should have similar responses to FOIA and FOIPA requests for personal information. The two laws are not overly complicated, so they shouldn't be interpreted differently depending on whichever agency is handling the request. Therefore, a valid request for personal information should result in a similar response from all federal agencies--i.e., the agency must produce relevant documents to you if such documents exist.

The procedure is simple: agencies must respond within 20 days and acknowledge they have received your request. Then, the agency must do a search for your documents and if it finds relevant documents, it must provide you with those documents. In some cases, an agency may redact sensitive information on documents. (Note: under Bush II/Ashcroft, the DOJ improperly and excessively redacted information, which effectively gutted the FOIA and forced multiple appeals).

In my case, in terms of responsiveness, the FBI passed with flying colors. Not only did the FBI acknowledge my request in less than a week, it even waived the normal fees and included an FBI Fact File Sheet (one sample fact: "The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States."). Then, it did the search for relevant documents the very next day and mailed me a written update. Someone at the FBI even personally initialed both letters.

The FBI's substantive response was interesting. No documents existed on me, but "Records which may be responsive to your Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request were destroyed on February 14, 2005." I believe I applied for the FBI's Special Agent trainee position around 1999. Thus, it appears the FBI destroys applicant/personnel files after six years. The FBI letter even told me exactly how to appeal the decision; where to send the appeal; and the exact statute of limitations (60 days from the date of the letter). In terms of professionalism and responsiveness, the FBI seems to be complying with President Obama's transparency directive.

In contrast, the CIA appears to be following Dick Cheney's philosophy of concealing information. Although it did respond to my request, I received their response on the twentieth day. Also, although the CIA's letter is dated August 20, 2009, the envelope shows that the letter was not mailed until August 24, 2009--four days after it was written. As of today, the CIA has refused to provide me with any information.

The CIA cited 32 CFR 1901.13, which states, "In the case of an individual who is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, said individual shall provide his or her alien registration number and the date that status was required." I am a naturalized U.S. citizen, not an alien or permanent resident. The plain language of the code section uses the present tense, not the past tense to refer to a person "who is an alien." Somehow, the CIA is claiming I need to comply with legal language that applies to non-citizens, even though I am an American citizen.

I used the same written content for both FOIA/FOIPA requests. Only the CIA denied my request and demanded more information. In denying my request, the CIA also referred to legal code that doesn't apply to American citizens. The FBI's fulfillment of my request supports my belief that the CIA is incorrectly throwing up a hurdle to deny me information. In addition, the CIA failed to respond to my fee waiver request.

Two different agencies, the same laws, and two entirely different responses. I am debating whether I should give the CIA the information they want, or whether I should tell the CIA I will take them to court if they don't grant my request. My gut tells me to provide them with the information, but I may change my mind. [Update: go to the bottom of this post to see what eventually happened.]

My letter to the FBI is below:

ORIGINAL SENT BY MAIL

Attn: FOIA Request
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Record Information/Dissemination Section
170 Marcel Drive
Winchester, VA 22602-4843

Dear FBI:

Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. subsection 552 and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. section 552a, please furnish me with copies of all records about me indexed to my name. To help identify information about me in your record systems, I am providing the following required information:

Full name: X
Current address: X
Date and Place of Birth: X
Citizenship status: X

If you deny all or any part of this request, cite each specific exemption forming the basis of your refusal to release the information, and notify me of appeal procedures available under the law.

I believe I am a representative of the news media and this request is made part of news gathering and not for commercial use. I publish a blog at willworkforjustice.blogspot.com that posts, among other items, articles about the government. I will be writing about my experience requesting information from your agency on this blog. This matter affects a public interest because it will show Americans how to access their information from government agencies. It will also test President Obama’s statements about whether the federal government is more open to granting FOIA requests.

If you do not deem me to be eligible for a fee waiver, then I agree to pay reasonable fees/costs incurred in the copying of these documents up to the amount of $30. If the estimated fees will be greater than $30, please contact me by telephone (xxx-xxx-xxxx) before such expenses are incurred. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me by telephone. Thank you for your assistance.

Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that I am the person named above and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1001 by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of Title 5, U.S.C., Section 552a(i)(3) as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not more than $5,000.

Date: ________________________________

Signature _____________________________

FYI: CIA's address and fax number are as follows:

Information and Privacy Coordinator
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505
fax: (703) 613-3007

Update on September 15, 2009: on September 7, 2009, I decided to give the CIA the information they wanted. I told them if I did not hear back from them by September 15, 2009, I would assume that they had a policy of treating naturalized citizens differently (read: more harshly) than native-born citizens. I have not heard back from the CIA yet.

Update on September 27, 2009: on a letter post-marked on September 21, 2009 and written on September 17, 2009, the CIA finally responded to my request: "We were unable to identify any information or records filed under your name. Regarding your request for a fee waiver, it is the policy of this agency to not charge fees for Privacy Act searches."

Bonus I: more "loveliness" from the CIA here.

Bonus II: see comments section for ODNI request and result.

Bonus III: see HERE for a summary of CIA Director Leon Panetta's speech at SCU (2010).

Bonus IV: see below for the most recent update. Everyone knows what "Neither confirm nor deny" means, especially with several watchlists not subject to truly independent oversight. See, for example, FISA court resignations.

Bonus V: after cleaning my room, I found this old envelope. An intelligence agency, ODNI, misspelled my middle name. I realize a secretary may have made the mistake rather than an analyst or officer, but I also suspect secretaries or similar level employees/contractors were the ones inputting data--including names on security lists--into computers and databases before artificial intelligence. 

CIA Engaged in Torture

The Economist has an interesting article on the CIA's role in torture. See here. The CIA used pistols and power-drills to threaten detainees. One detainee was told that "interrogators would sexually abuse his female relatives in front of him."

Leave it to a British magazine to report on American war crimes. Where are the New York Times and Wall Street Journal on the topic of CIA-sponsored torture?

Stimulus Money: Where Does It Go? (Part 2)

Two links showing the location of the bailout monies:

http://bailout.propublica.org/main/map/index

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/2009/08/21/the-stimulus-maps/

Police Officers May Legally Lie about Being Sick

In California, a police officer who lies about being sick and gets caught not only gets to keep his job, but can force his employer to give him prior notice of a status check. Don’t you wish the private sector worked like this?

When police officer Paterson called in sick, his supervisor was suspicious. He therefore sent Legaspi to Paterson’s home to check on his status. When he arrived, Paterson was absent. Legaspi then telephoned Paterson on his cell phone and Paterson claimed to be home, sick. Paterson sued for violation of his rights under the Public Safety Officers’ Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, §§ 3300-3313). The trial court ruled for the city, holding that the Act did not apply to a “sick check.” However, the Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that the police department’s actions amounted to an investigation and interrogation. As such, according to the California Court of Appeal, Officer Paterson should have been given prior notification of the investigation under the Act. See Paterson v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1393.

In short, the Appeals Court ruled that a public safety officer should be told in advance whether someone is going to verify a sick day--which makes it impossible for employers to effectively check whether a California public safety officer is lying about being sick.

Bill Maher Making Sense

Bill Maher making sense here:

If in your eyes America can do no wrong, you should really look into Lasik surgery. There's the rational, mature assessment of our country: that it's a great nation -- especially if you like fried foods -- but it also has its faults. And then there's the Republican view: that it's perfect and pure in every way and it's always right all the time, just like Leviticus and Ronald Reagan.

Now if only he'd apologize for Howard Bloom in Religuous... :-)

Stimulus Money: Where Does It Go?

Interesting story in the LA Times re: stimulus funds. See here.

Over the next three years, California is expected to get $26 billion in stimulus funds for projects including building highways and bridges, developing education programs and stabilizing the state's finances, according to a private research group. About $5.6 billion in spending in the state has been approved so far by the federal government, according to state officials. Transportation makes up a big share of the stimulus projects already approved.

And still, no BART from San Jose to San Francisco.

Miss Manners on Love

Ms. Manners always gives great relationship advice:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060203316.html

When a romance gets to the point where the other person asks to be left alone, talking does not help. Suggesting relationship material does not help. Apologizing for calling does not help. All that makes it worse. Your only hope is to leave him strictly alone.

It's counter-intuitive, but she's right.

Religious Assimilation

My response to this post:

It's sad to see a reputable website publicize a re-hashing of Samuel Huntington's false Clash of Civilizations thesis. First, if some sort of clash between Islam and the West is inevitable, why hasn't America experienced major issues with integrating Muslims? "Muslim Americans, like Arab-Americans, have fared well in the U.S. The Zogby survey found that 59% of American Muslims have at least an undergraduate education, making them the most highly educated group in America...[Also] 21% of Muslim Americans intermarry...close to the national rate of 22% of Americans who marry outside their religion" See WSJ article (Stephens/Rago, 8/24/05).

Second, is it fair for anyone to judge an immigration pool after just one or two generations? It typically takes at least three generations to assimilate--and this is true of all immigrant pools, not just Muslims.

Third, isn't Europe's "problem" of integration its own doing? Europe needed immigrants to do tough jobs for low pay. It voluntarily imported low paid men without any long term plans on how to integrate them into a society far different from their homelands. Is it any wonder that, in the absence of a welcome alternative, these men gravitated towards similarly situated ethnic and religious groups? Or did Europeans expect these immigrants to speak the Queen's English and order pints within a few months?

Fourth, when will we learn from history? These exact same objections were made against Jewish immigrants; against Irish Catholic immigrations; against Italian Catholic immigrants; and against Latino Catholic immigrants. All have integrated into American society. Moreover, despite suffering persecution in Europe, non-Christians, including Jews and atheists, are now accepted as fully assimilated European citizens and still retain their own identity--so why should the experience of Muslims be any different in the long run? Mind you, assimilation isn't the only path to prosperity. American-born Mormons may have actually done better by not fully assimilating in American society and now have the state of Utah to show for it.

In the end, religion isn't a reliable factor for any future projections, because it is practiced in so many different ways all over the world and by so many different people. For example, a religiously-focused person may claim African-American Christians are the least assimilated group in America based on their segregated living patterns, lower education, and lower income levels. Does this mean Christians cannot be assimilated in America? One immediately sees the absurdity in making this kind of argument.

I am saddened by Mr. Cowen's seeming endorsement of this book, especially on a date so close to Ramadan.

Bonus: another blogger's take on European Muslim immigration is here.

Bonus II: below is my response to another comment on Marginal Revolution, which alleges Muslims are somehow different than previous generations of immigrants because they self-identify as Muslims rather than their ethnicity. In other words, the writer's (unsupported) theory is that German immigrants were more likely to identify as Germans rather than Christians, but a Syrian Muslim is more likely to identify as a Muslim first and a Syrian second. The (unproven) theory is that this form of self-identification apparently creates problems because nationalism and patriotism are better suited to assimilation than religious identification. The writer also made a comment that Islam is more politicized today than other religions.

My response: Assimilation is a long, gradual process. Thus, no matter how immigrants self-identify, it's the third generation that assimilates, making data about the first and second generation of limited relevance.

Also, so what if some Muslims in 2009 self-identify as Muslims instead of an ethnic background? Take your theory and replace Muslims in 2009 with Jews in 2009. Is there a difference between the groups in favoring religious over ethnic self-identification? Probably not. Thus, the real question is whether there will there be a difference by the third generation in terms of self-identification. To the extent a host country provides its immigrants with a reasonable chance of upward mobility and political representation, cultural assimilation should not be a problem by the third generation.

I don't understand your second point. To the extent you are saying religious conservatives fight with secularists, so what? This same "fight" happens in America, especially between Southern states and non-Southern states. The key issue isn't religion, but balancing separation of religion and state with freedom of religious expression. On this issue, America seems to be doing a much better job than Europe. For instance, most American elected officials strive for tolerance, while European elected officials seem to openly criticize non-Christians. America's ideal of tolerance, including religious tolerance, may assist America in assimilating its American Muslims. At the end of the day, it seems like Europe is repeating its mistakes--or did you forget that Europe's failure of religious tolerance spawned modern-day America?

Weekend Linkfest

Linkfest:

http://www.tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/

http://www.creativeclass.com

http://www.marginalrevolution.com

Scott Burns

Clay Bennett

Tom Toles

http://youngprofessionalandbored.blogspot.com/

http://employerslawyer.blogspot.com/

http://thedashingfellows.com/

Kitchen Confidential

I recently read half of Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential. Some food tips: avoid mussels; do NOT order fish on Monday; and go out to eat on Tuesdays and Thursdays, when the chefs are rested from the weekend.

Warren Buffett: the Greenback Effect

Warren Buffett had an op-ed piece in the NYT this week. See here. Mr. Buffett is concerned about our deficit:

This fiscal year, though, the deficit will rise to about 13 percent of G.D.P., more than twice the non-wartime record. In dollars, that equates to a staggering $1.8 trillion. Fiscally, we are in uncharted territory.

Interesting to see Krugman and Buffett at odds.

Dept of Labor Consumer Spending Chart

Predictably, housing is the main expense, following by transportation, food, and insurance/pensions. How much does the average American spend on reading? Just $118 a year.

Supreme Court Justices: Bobblehead Doll Edition

Thanks to some friends in D.C. and the George Mason School of Law, I am now the proud owner of Justice David Souter, Fidel Castro, and Justice Louis Brandeis bobblehead dolls. (Bet you never thought you'd see those three names in the same sentence.) I am not materialistic, but I love collecting things that are associated with good memories. Justice Brandeis and Justice Souter are two of my favorite Justices. I don't have any good memories relating to Castro, but it's the GTMO version, and I received it from a former law school classmate who is representing GTMO detainees. To me, it represents due process of law, or at least a reminder that America owes all its detainees some form of a fair trial.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasions of their liberty--by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis Brandeis

JUSTICE BREYER: On that question, suppose that you are from Bosnia, and you are held for six years in Guantanamo, and the charge is that you helped Al-Qaeda, and you had your hearing before the CSRT [Combatant Status Review Tribunal].

And now you go to the D.C. Circuit, and here is what you say: The CSRT is all wrong. Their procedures are terrible. But just for purposes of argument, I concede those procedures are wonderful, and I also conclude it reached a perfectly good result.

Okay? So you concede it for argument's sake. But what you want to say is: Judge, I don't care how good those procedures are. I'm from Bosnia. I've been here six years. The Constitution of the United States does not give anyone the right to hold me six years in Guantanamo without either charging me or releasing me, in the absence of some special procedure in Congress for preventive detention.

That's the argument I want to make. I don't see anything in this CSRT provision that permits me to make that argument. So I'm asking you: Where can you make that argument?

GENERAL CLEMENT: I'm not sure that he could make that argument.

JUSTICE BREYER: Exactly.

Parents are known to overreact to protect their children from danger, and a school official with responsibility for safety may tend to do the same. The difference is that the Fourth Amendment places limits on the official, even with the high degree of deference that courts must pay to the educator’s professional judgment. -- Justice David Souter

Movie Quote

"Stop talking about love. Every a**hole in the world says he loves somebody. It means nothing. What you feel only matters to you. It's what you do to the people you say you love--that's what matters. [Indeed] It's the only thing that counts."

-- from The Last Kiss, the best part from an otherwise terrible film

Best Non-Famous Movies

I love movies. Anyone who knows me knows I do three things with my free time: watch movies, play basketball, and read. Here is a list of incredible films--in no particular order--you've probably never heard of:

1. Elling (2001, Norway)
2. La Haine (1995, French)
3. A Peck on the Cheek (2002, Indian)
4. Street Fight (2005, American)
5. Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (1974, German)
6. Kiki's Delivery Service (1989, Japanese)
7. Farewell My Concubine (1993, Chinese)
8. Swimming to Cambodia (1987)
9. The Orphanage (2007, Spanish)
10. Shower (1999, Chinese)
11. The Lives of Others (2006, German)
12. Pelle the Conqueror (1987, Danish)
13. Sweet Land (2005)
14. Gallipoli (1981, Australian)
15. Children of Heaven (Persian)
16. Color of Paradise (Persian)
17. Misfits (1961, American)
18. Two for the Road (1967, American)
19. The Message (1976)
20. Muhammad Ali - The Whole Story (1996)
21. Night of the Hunter (1955)
22. No Man's Land (2001)
23. Coraline (2009)
24. A Taxing Woman (1987, Japan)
25. American Teen (2008)
26. Lilies of the Field (1963)
27. The Lion in Winter (1968)
28. Battle of Algiers (1966)
29. Winter Light (1963)
30. Jim Thorpe, All American (1961) [In memory of Westmont High School Wrestling Coach Patrick "Terry" Vierra]
31. Taxi to the Dark Side (2007) [This documentary is not for the squeamish. Also, I recommend watching The Oath (2010), before watching Taxi to the Dark Side.]
32. Through Deaf Eyes (PBS 2007)
33. Gideon's Trumpet (starring Henry Fonda)
34. McCarthy Years (hosted by Walter Cronkite) (1991) [not scintillating, but included because of its high American historical significance]
35. The Good, the Bad, the Weird (2008, Korea)
36. Lars and the Real Girl (2007)
37. The Wrestler (2008)
38. Splendor in the Grass (1961)
39. Persepolis (2007) [dedicated to my grandmother, Mamani]
40. The Garden (2008) (documentary)
41.  Deliver Us from Evil (2006) [difficult documentary to watch, but included, because one rarely sees the banality and cluelessness of evil so vividly]
42.  Source Code (2011).  One of the best modern movies I've ever seen. Jake Gyllenhaal is part of a new military program designed to prevent future attacks. Is he merely part of a simulation or something more?  Similar to Spielberg's Minority Report, but with two love stories--one romantic, one familial--as its foundation.
43.  A Separation (2011) (Persian)
44.  City Lights (1934) (Charlie Chaplin film)
45.  The Edge of Heaven (Auf der anderen Seite) (2007)
46.  Ken Burns' Unforgivable Blackness: Jack Johnson (2005).  Jack Johnson, a boxer in the early 1900s, was Muhammad Ali before Muhammad Ali.
47.  White Light/Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (2007)
48.  Somewhere Between (2011)
49. About Time (2013), a love story.
50.  Coal Miner's Daughter (1980)
51. La La Land (2016) (this movie absolutely broke my heart, which leads me to my next suggestion...) 
52.  Southside with You (2016) (excellent dialogue from the beginning of a love story for the ages) 
53.  The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2009)
54.  My Son the Fanatic (1999)
55. The Time that Remains (2009)
56. A Man Called Ove (2015, Sweden)
57. Shoplifters (2018, Japanese 万引き家族)
58. Aftershock (2010) (唐山大地震, Chinese)
59. The Fifth Element (1997) [perhaps the least defensible choice on this list, but I loved everything about it.]
60. Cities of Last Things (2018) by Wi Ding Ho (featuring the songs Drone (Omnibus) and Omnibus One)
61. Harold and Maude (1971) [this is a famous movie, but I decided to include it when I realized non-Western audiences may not have heard of it.]
62. Mike Birbiglia: My Girlfriend's Boyfriend (2013)

63. Star Trek: Insurrection (1994)  

64. Once Upon a Time in China (1991) (Hong Kong)

65. Queen's Gambit (Netflix, 2020) 

66. Past Life (2016, Israel, החטאים) 

67. Star Trek: Prodigy (2021, American series) 

68. Undone (2019, Amazon series) 

69. Zana (2019, Kosovo) 

70. Slumberland (2022)

71. Russian Doll (2019), Season One only

72. Maniac (2018)

73. The Magician's Elephant (2023), excellent for children 

74. Australia (2008), Faraway Downs (2023)

75. Heat (1995)

Bonus I: HERE is a list of my favorite books.

Bonus II: HERE is a list of excellent horror films.

Bonus III: a list of great movie quotes is HERE.

Sunday Sportswrap: Iran Beats China

Iran's Hamed Haddadi crushed China 70-52 in the 2009 Asian Basketball Championships. Yao Ming did not play, but NBA players Yi Jianlian, Wang Zhizhi, and Yue Sun represented China. More here.

Also, try to guess the first non-Caucasian basketball player in the NBA. Would you believe it was Wat Misaka? More here.

Sunday Randomness: Nataliya Dobrynska

I had an advertising idea after seeing Ukraine's Nataliya Dobrynska compete in the heptathlon. (I recommend doing a Google image search for pictures of her.) The heptathlon consists of the following events:

* 100 m hurdles
* high jump
* shot put
* 200 m
* long jump
* javelin throw
* 800 m

After Ms. Dobrynska ran the 800m, Usain Bolt broke a world record by running the 100m in 9.58 seconds. Mr. Bolt is a superstar, plain and simple. If I was a shoe or athletic company CEO, I'd want to sign him up immediately and make him the centerpiece of my advertising campaign. Although Puma currently sponsors Mr. Bolt, I don't think it's done enough to promote him in the States. Maybe Puma can sign up Ms. Dobrynska and do ads involving both Bolt and Dobrynska simultaneously. The theme could be Bolt being able to compete in any sport. One example could be Bolt trying the shot put and javelin throw, failing, and then becoming much better after Dobrynska teaches him. The same idea could be transferred to different supporting athletes with different sports, particularly soccer.

K'naan

Music video from Somalian performer K'naan, who is a cross between Bob Marley and Eminem:

Abu Ghraib

[Warning: I don't usually curse, but this occasion demands it.] 

If you ever think that "law" and "justice" belong in the same sentence, just remember Lynndie England. Apparently, Lynndie "Just Following Orders" England has a book; profited from her conduct at Abu Ghraib; and served only a year and a half (521 days) of jail time. 

So let me get this straight--a bunch of Chinese Muslims get jailed for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, aren't given due process, and end up getting deported. 

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, supporters of anti-immigrant measures found common cause with the Bush administration in justifying expansive new immigration authorities in the name of national security. the department of Justice (doJ) began focusing on immigrants almost immediately. In the weeks following the attacks, doJ implemented a new set of policies for a growing category of non-citizens who became known as special interest detainees. In total, more than 760 predominantly muslim men were held as special interest detainees. many of the detainees were held for weeks, even months, without being charged. Ultimately, none was charged with a crime related to the attacks of 9/11; many were deported for visa violations. -- The 9/11 Effect and its Legacy on U.S. Immigration Laws, Penn State Law, School of International Affairs, edited by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia (2011) 

Meanwhile, some dumb back-country b*tch destroys America's reputation, refuses to take any personal responsibility for her actions, gets knocked up by a sadist, and we're not only keeping her in the country, we're giving her a book deal? (Irony alert: Bad Apple Books, LLC is the publisher.)

Her defense? I wasn't trained as a prison guard, and the power of love (for Charles Graner) made me do it. Bulls**t. Oh yes, Charles Graner, the sadistic jackass who lacks a healthy sense of irony. He once said, "Having the lights on all of the time was torture for me." (Salon.com, Mark Benjamin, 12/1/08). F*ck you, Chucky. 

Some more interesting facts: Manadel al-Jamadi, after being tortured (including by strappado) and beaten to death, was hooked up to a fake IV to disguise the fatal beating. Andrew Ledford, a Navy SEAL accused of inflicting the fatal beating, was somehow acquitted and never served any jail time. In fact, most of the Abu Graib participants received either no jail time or less than a year's jail sentence--effectively rendering their conduct on par with a civil misdemeanor. Meanwhile, life goes on in America. 

The TSA recently detained Shah Rukh Khan, a famous Indian actor, until he made a call to the Indian consulate. The delicious irony is that Mr. Khan is making a film about a Muslim man's experience with racial profiling. I'm willing to bet the TSA won't fire anyone as a result of the improper detention. That means Middle Easterners can look forward to the following treatment at some American airports: "Um, your last name looks funny...wait here for a few hours."

Bottom line: if America wants to be taken seriously as a land of freedom for all, regardless of national origin, it must start openly disciplining government workers, especially military personnel, when they screw up. Thanks to government unions, however, if you're drunk on the Homeland Security kool-aid or the military-industrial complex, it appears you'll continue to get a free pass. God bless America? 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2009) 

Note: this post has been revised since its original publication. 

Vienna Teng Rocks

I saw Vienna Teng live today in Palo Alto, and she is an absolute delight. Here is one of my favorite V.T. songs:

Healthcare: "Death Panels"

In all this talk about "death panels," perhaps I am missing something. Don't insurance companies and hospitals already practice some form of triage when it comes to medical expenses and coverage?

Also, why would an insurance company be more compassionate in deciding when to halt treatment than a government panel? Isn't the major issue how to determine liability when the government (or insurance company) wrongfully rejects continuing treatment?