Comments on: Shameful http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/shameful/ Firedoglake weblog Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:17:46 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Sebastian Dangerfield http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/shameful/#comment-52969 Sebastian Dangerfield Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:05:15 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/15/shameful/#comment-52969 <p>Having read throught the e-mails in their entirety now, I am struck by the degree to which they dump on the way the prosecutors were setting up the case. This was reported, but I certainly did not get a full sense of what Martin’s complaints were and how serious they were. She not only accuses the prosecuotrs of overreaching, she is basically sayinf (to be fair to her, in an area of her own expertise) that the lynchpin of the government’s syllogism — i.e., that the FAA had the capability to turn on a dime if the FBI had alerted them to the danger of shosrt-bladed knives and create a screening system that would have prevented those weapons from getting on any plane anywhere in the U.S. — is factually incorrect, even leaving aside the tenuous chain of “ifs” that stack up before you even get tothe FAA’s role. Martin says that the FAA — her client (and she has experience, having been involved in the Lockerbie matter) quite simply could not have done what the government said it not only could have but *would* have done. (And, in any event, she notes that determined hijackers, trained in hand-to-hand combat may well ahve been able to pull it off without box-cutters, which also is a fair point: if you’re determined and brutal enough you can do awful things with a ball-point pen after all.)</p> <p>So, setting aside the witness-tampering aspect of things for a moment, I think it pays to note that Martin’s criticisms of the prosecution strategy — which amount to an accusation that the prosecution either negligently or deliberately painted a false factual picture of the FAA — are both serious and, at least on the face of things, pretty damn persuasive. </p> <p>This gets me to thinking . . . Perhaps the reason why the prosecuotrs (who are themselves no Boy Scouts in this case by a long shot) decided they had to out Martin is that she was not being a team player, not going along with their game plan, quibbling about mere facts as to what her client was and was not capable of doing in response to a warning from the FBI. She was undermining their version of the case by insisting on a different narrative — one that, in her view, would impugn Moussaoui while doing less violence to the actual facts. </p> <p>To follow this speculation further, I wonder if the prosecution would have been so quick to out Martin if her coaching had been in line with thier own theory of the case. Even from their letter, you get the sense that they can’t help basically admitting that in their view, her sin was to second-guess their judgment rather than the much greater actual sin of coaching witnesses in violation of the sequestration order. </p> <p>Something to ponder.</p> Having read throught the e-mails in their entirety now, I am struck by the degree to which they dump on the way the prosecutors were setting up the case. This was reported, but I certainly did not get a full sense of what Martin’s complaints were and how serious they were. She not only accuses the prosecuotrs of overreaching, she is basically sayinf (to be fair to her, in an area of her own expertise) that the lynchpin of the government’s syllogism — i.e., that the FAA had the capability to turn on a dime if the FBI had alerted them to the danger of shosrt-bladed knives and create a screening system that would have prevented those weapons from getting on any plane anywhere in the U.S. — is factually incorrect, even leaving aside the tenuous chain of “ifs” that stack up before you even get tothe FAA’s role. Martin says that the FAA — her client (and she has experience, having been involved in the Lockerbie matter) quite simply could not have done what the government said it not only could have but *would* have done. (And, in any event, she notes that determined hijackers, trained in hand-to-hand combat may well ahve been able to pull it off without box-cutters, which also is a fair point: if you’re determined and brutal enough you can do awful things with a ball-point pen after all.)

So, setting aside the witness-tampering aspect of things for a moment, I think it pays to note that Martin’s criticisms of the prosecution strategy — which amount to an accusation that the prosecution either negligently or deliberately painted a false factual picture of the FAA — are both serious and, at least on the face of things, pretty damn persuasive.

This gets me to thinking . . . Perhaps the reason why the prosecuotrs (who are themselves no Boy Scouts in this case by a long shot) decided they had to out Martin is that she was not being a team player, not going along with their game plan, quibbling about mere facts as to what her client was and was not capable of doing in response to a warning from the FBI. She was undermining their version of the case by insisting on a different narrative — one that, in her view, would impugn Moussaoui while doing less violence to the actual facts.

To follow this speculation further, I wonder if the prosecution would have been so quick to out Martin if her coaching had been in line with thier own theory of the case. Even from their letter, you get the sense that they can’t help basically admitting that in their view, her sin was to second-guess their judgment rather than the much greater actual sin of coaching witnesses in violation of the sequestration order.

Something to ponder.

]]> By: Sebastian Dangerfield http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/shameful/#comment-52957 Sebastian Dangerfield Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:34:42 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/15/shameful/#comment-52957 <p>Because Brinkema was already reversed once by the 4th Circuit when she earlier ruled that the death penalty is off the table, she is probably (and justifiably) a bit gun-shy about doing that again. I think she took the risk-averse path, which may well have the effect of killing the government’s already tenuous case in any event.<br /> This reeks of high-level pressure to secure a death sentence by any means necessary, in order to attempt show that this maladministration is fighting terra. That they are putting up this show trial with a Al Quaeda flunky (who also is, to use the clinical term, cuckoonuts) is just shameful.</p> Because Brinkema was already reversed once by the 4th Circuit when she earlier ruled that the death penalty is off the table, she is probably (and justifiably) a bit gun-shy about doing that again. I think she took the risk-averse path, which may well have the effect of killing the government’s already tenuous case in any event.
This reeks of high-level pressure to secure a death sentence by any means necessary, in order to attempt show that this maladministration is fighting terra. That they are putting up this show trial with a Al Quaeda flunky (who also is, to use the clinical term, cuckoonuts) is just shameful.

]]> By: David Finley http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/shameful/#comment-52882 David Finley Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:19:37 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/15/shameful/#comment-52882 <p>Christy,</p> <p>Did Jane not pass along the bit I forwarded about how Martin got her training working as Chief Clerk on Dan Burton’s witch-hunt committee, alongside good ol’ Babs Comstock?</p> <p>David Finley</p> Christy,

Did Jane not pass along the bit I forwarded about how Martin got her training working as Chief Clerk on Dan Burton’s witch-hunt committee, alongside good ol’ Babs Comstock?

David Finley

]]> By: tejanarusa http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/shameful/#comment-52809 tejanarusa Wed, 15 Mar 2006 06:43:22 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/15/shameful/#comment-52809 <p>I just read the NYT article about Martin linked to above– horrifying. She didn’t “HEAR” the judge’s order??? It’s a WRITTEN order! Yes, Redd (er, Christy), as one who has been on the defense side of the courtroom, I find this utterly amazing. And apparently this is not the first time she’s tried to flout the basic rules, trying to keep secret a motion for summary judgment, from the OPPOSING PARTY!<br /> I was about to say, of course she will be fired, but then again, no-accountability for egregious mistakes is the norm for this administration. Had a judge ever said of me what Brinkema said of Martin, I would have just sent in my resignation from the Bar and moved out of state within the day.<br /> Sigh.</p> I just read the NYT article about Martin linked to above– horrifying. She didn’t “HEAR” the judge’s order??? It’s a WRITTEN order! Yes, Redd (er, Christy), as one who has been on the defense side of the courtroom, I find this utterly amazing. And apparently this is not the first time she’s tried to flout the basic rules, trying to keep secret a motion for summary judgment, from the OPPOSING PARTY!
I was about to say, of course she will be fired, but then again, no-accountability for egregious mistakes is the norm for this administration. Had a judge ever said of me what Brinkema said of Martin, I would have just sent in my resignation from the Bar and moved out of state within the day.
Sigh.

]]> By: orangejumpsuit http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/shameful/#comment-52771 orangejumpsuit Wed, 15 Mar 2006 06:02:22 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/15/shameful/#comment-52771 <p>Christy Hardin Smith has a very nice ring. Any relation to John Wesley Hardin, immortalized by Bod Dylan with the eponymous album?</p> Christy Hardin Smith has a very nice ring. Any relation to John Wesley Hardin, immortalized by Bod Dylan with the eponymous album?

]]> By: Susan in Iowa http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/shameful/#comment-52729 Susan in Iowa Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:29:25 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/15/shameful/#comment-52729 <p>I think that Judge Brinkema deserves a lot of credit for the way she has handled this extraordinary case. If you have been following the writhings of the crazy defendant, his off-again on-again legal team, and the pitches the government has been throwing to her, you have to admire her. She has what used to be called, back in the day, “judicial temperament.” She wants the defendant to have a fair trial. She does not appear to care what the result is as long as it is fair. She has kept her cool through some really incredible provocation from both sides. She has resisted the urge, if she had one, to throw something. If only there were more like her on the federal bench we wouldn’t care who appointed them or what their politics are.</p> I think that Judge Brinkema deserves a lot of credit for the way she has handled this extraordinary case. If you have been following the writhings of the crazy defendant, his off-again on-again legal team, and the pitches the government has been throwing to her, you have to admire her. She has what used to be called, back in the day, “judicial temperament.” She wants the defendant to have a fair trial. She does not appear to care what the result is as long as it is fair. She has kept her cool through some really incredible provocation from both sides. She has resisted the urge, if she had one, to throw something. If only there were more like her on the federal bench we wouldn’t care who appointed them or what their politics are.

]]> By: Brian Boru http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/shameful/#comment-52717 Brian Boru Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:18:22 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/15/shameful/#comment-52717 <p>Sy Hersch wrote some months ago that the next phase of the war would be increased air strikes. It’s not at all clear who the strikes are against unless they’re just blowing stuff up to prove that they can do it.</p> Sy Hersch wrote some months ago that the next phase of the war would be increased air strikes. It’s not at all clear who the strikes are against unless they’re just blowing stuff up to prove that they can do it.

]]> By: A. Citizen http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/shameful/#comment-52687 A. Citizen Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:53:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/15/shameful/#comment-52687 <p>This is why the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Dumbsfeld et. al. are so heinous. They are setting the standards for honesty for the whole country and what a low standard it is.</p> <p>Lying…OK, no problem.</p> <p>Flout international law…OK, no problem.</p> <p>Violate the Geneva Convention…OK, no problem.</p> <p>And with human scum such as Alberto Gonzales and John Woo to spout the most egregarious bullshit they have gotten away with it until now.</p> <p>Perhaps no more….</p> <p>Although I fail to understand why the Judge is persisting in going on with this farce. Should be a mistrial by my, admittedly amateur, perspective.</p> <p>The defense will be appealing this sucka for years and years.</p> This is why the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Dumbsfeld et. al. are so heinous. They are setting the standards for honesty for the whole country and what a low standard it is.

Lying…OK, no problem.

Flout international law…OK, no problem.

Violate the Geneva Convention…OK, no problem.

And with human scum such as Alberto Gonzales and John Woo to spout the most egregarious bullshit they have gotten away with it until now.

Perhaps no more….

Although I fail to understand why the Judge is persisting in going on with this farce. Should be a mistrial by my, admittedly amateur, perspective.

The defense will be appealing this sucka for years and years.

]]> By: Frank Probst http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/shameful/#comment-52684 Frank Probst Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:50:31 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/15/shameful/#comment-52684 <p>I like Debbie Stabenow’s slogan: “Dangerously incompetent”. Granted, she’s talking about Bush (I think.), but it applies to this case, too. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like these are things you’d know not to do after you’ve been through orientation at law school.</p> I like Debbie Stabenow’s slogan: “Dangerously incompetent”. Granted, she’s talking about Bush (I think.), but it applies to this case, too. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like these are things you’d know not to do after you’ve been through orientation at law school.

]]> By: Gaby http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/14/shameful/#comment-52681 Gaby Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:48:38 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2006/03/15/shameful/#comment-52681 <p>Mack-</p> <p>I certainly hope your 6 year old is not prosecuting terrorists. </p> <p>I agree with whoever said above (I can’t find it now) but will paraphrase - This is the problem with a leader who is able to disregard the rules, it trickles down and everyone becomes corrupt.</p> <p>It seems like this dumb TSA lady somehow convinced herself the rules do not apply to her for some reason. </p> <p>I get better from my 15 year old (who is already smarter than I am).</p> Mack-

I certainly hope your 6 year old is not prosecuting terrorists.

I agree with whoever said above (I can’t find it now) but will paraphrase – This is the problem with a leader who is able to disregard the rules, it trickles down and everyone becomes corrupt.

It seems like this dumb TSA lady somehow convinced herself the rules do not apply to her for some reason.

I get better from my 15 year old (who is already smarter than I am).

]]>