The Justice Department is once again being threatened with contempt of court after United States District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan found that they withheld evidence from the defense that a witness in a “significant” number of cases was mentally disturbed. Judge Sullivan found that the testimony of the detainee was unreliable, could be challenged in other cases, and could be the basis for a possible contempt order against the government.
In the wake of the Stevens case, this ruling in the case of Aymen Saeed Batarfi, a Yemeni doctor, received little attention. However, like Stevens, the Justice Department has announced that it would no longer seek to detain the doctor. As in Stevens, the move appears to protect the Justice Department from further judicial inquiry over the misconduct of government officials and, also like the Stevens case, there is no indication that the responsible officials will be disciplined or fired.
In the hearing, Sullivan stated “To hide relevant and exculpatory evidence from counsel and from the court under any circumstances, particularly here where there is no other means to discover this information and where the stakes are so very high . . . is fundamentally unjust, outrageous and will not be tolerated . . . How can this court have any confidence whatsoever in the United States government to comply with its obligations and to be truthful to the court?”
Judge Sullivan refused to allow the government to continue to play games with the system and called its actions “still another ploy . . . to continue with his deprivation of his fair day in court.” He ordered review of the case every 14 days and threatened to impose a contempt sanction if the Justice Department continued to violate federal rules.
For the full story, click here.
Losing what? If you win, do get a free pass to Magic Mountain or better still a family coupon to Fuddrucker’s.
I love trolls trying the false consensus tactic.
Time
and
time
again.
Try harder. You’re still losing.
I love to listen to Buddha’s verbose nonsense, I wonder if he believes half of what he says and can even understand the mumbo-jumbo that erupts from his pie hole.
Brilliant. Brilliant Dr. Wales. You are spot on!
Brilliant, brilliant Dr. Wales. I can attest to much of what you have disclosed regarding the inept legal system and even more dysfunctional and maladaptive attorneys who parasitize the sick and mentally ill in order to satiate there own egocentrism.
Bron, MD means they are schooled in the physical aspects of the patient-not the mental. ps. I graduated from Northwestern. You’ve probably never heard of it.
——————————————————–
Mike, I appreciate your story. And I realize there are good lawyers out there. But they are few and far between as the system drags them down. Perhaps you could say the same about my discipline. However, I am certain, having practiced for some time now, you are painfully aware of how many good people wind up nearly destitute from the adversarial nature of law. I too have counselled a great many of these in my practice and have been deeply disappointed in how heavy-handed the courts can be in simple cases where a computer might have better served all the parties involved. The courtroom is theatre for law, the players introject their needs into the needs of the case in ways that undermine the proces entirely. Frequently the attorneys are more knowledgable in the subject matter than the judge, ten times more motivated and a hundred times better compensated. You need more oversight in your business.
Mr. Wales, I find your comments extremely distressing and, well, despairing. I have practiced law for thirty-five years. Although that has included representation of large entities and extremely wealthy people from time to time, the vast majority of my practice has involved assisting middle class individuals and small businesses in the normal daily struggles against liars, cheaters and assorted con artists. I have experienced many frustrations in that endeavor and have dealt with more than my share of deceitful lawyers, incompetent judges and indifferent public officials. But I have never doubted the importance of the effort. When I do feel sorry for myself, I remember a small case I handled almost thirty years ago. A young single mother was referred to me as a legal aid client. She had spent her last $1,500.00 on a used car. Of course, the car had died within a few days of its purchase. She could not get to her job without a vehicle and the dealer had refused to even speak with her. I sued, we won and all of her money was recovered. I didn’t make a dime, but I have never forgotten the gratitude she expressed. She made me understand for the first time what it means to be a lawyer. More importantly, that young woman came away with a renewed confidence in the law and in herself. She knew that she was not powerless, that justice does have meaning and that it is not a commodity sold to the highest bidder, unless we let it be. If this sounds maudlin, so be it. But the law is all we have in the end. So I’ll continue to believe and, when I get frustrated (which will probably be by mid-morning tomorrow), I’ll try to remind myself why I’m doing this (other than because I’m not qualified to do anything else). Since you are a clinical psychologist, I know you understand the symptoms of depression. Maybe you just need a break.
Buddha:
I dont think he is a Regents grad, otherwise he would have praised Bush and Co. Although it could be a diversionary tactic.
rofl
Now THAT’S funny!
Oh, wait, you were serious?
rolfmao
If your choice is to slander mespo’s intellect, you have pitiful target selection in addition to a conflicted style of presentation. A weak ad hominem and condescendingly elitist retort after a serious round of contradictory doublespeak . . . that’s just plain sad. Now where was that Ph.D. from again? Oh yeah, it’s from the school that defines “humanitarian” as “I would like to see all attorneys shipped to Iraq and put into combat regardless of age, gender, race.” I’m betting you’re a Regents grad.
Mr. Wales
I infer from the recent post that someone does not like lawyers. However a good lawyer can keep you out of trouble. My father in-law and his partner are very decent people and advocate for their clients to the best of their ability.
I think you are a tad too hard on lawyers in general and need to limit your condemnation to those you know are inadequate.
I have been told by more than one MD that psychologists know just enough to be dangerous but that dosent mean that all are bad. Like every profession you have some good, some not so good and some truly bad.
You have had the misfortune to observe the legal profession with all of its “warts”.
mespo
This is too fine a conversation for a mind like yours.
“….If they are people at all. I know you are seeking some technical argument-as readers of this site often are-my position is one of humanity not of citations. The mind of the attorney seeks to discredit, find a typo, anything and then reduce a human to an object and kill them. I would like to see all attorneys shipped to Iraq and put into combat regardless of age, gender, race. Let them fend for themselves in an environment they do not understand.”
*******************
I am relieved to hear that yours is the humanitarian position else I would have thought you a maniacal fool who incessantly contradicts his own words a sentence or two later.
rcampbell
My issue with law is that it is wholly corrupt. For each article you read about some judge ‘standing up’ there are thousands of transgressions being committed against innocent people. As a clinical psychologist, retired young, I became sick seeing the number of good people coming into my consult room in NYC who were utterly destroyed by some dopey lawyer colluding or leading a pea-brained judge to someones destruction. The level of payola was astounding as well as simple favors being traded, ie.,accontants, additional lawyers and all the other slime that lurk in the bowels of the justice buildings in this good country. The US has been smothered by law and the empty words they use to feather their own nests. I view law and its practitioners as evil, dysfunctional, self-serving and a complete waste of time. As for the Constitution, we no longer have one. It has been beaten down over time and finally and formally retired by Bush & Co. And, even here, we had lawyers protecting the ruin of the precious constitution with ‘signing statements’. Give it a name and it is ok in law? Paraphrasing Jefferson; the evil the government does far outweighs the harm of any one individual. I am for the abolishing of law altogether. People are better than the law – just as they are. I would rather deal with the street king than a cop, judge or any attorney. While I do enjoy Jonathan Turley and his constitutional arguments, I feel he is an isolated case, a bubble-boy and rendered meaningless in that if he does take a case, he is such a celebrity that his cases are atypical in that they are actually followed by the public and the media. The cases I speak of are the thousands and thousands of unimportant-but-decent-people who get rolled in a dark room with a judge, a couple of boot-licking attorneys and a cop with a gun there to make certain ‘all goes well’. And all venerated with American flags and plaques of the state or county present to shore up the bogus activities of the court. I apologize for being a bit strong here but I have so much personal experience with people after attorneys destroy them that I honestly no longer have any feelings for them – at all. Use to. Lost it. After all, I was he guy who had to deal with them for months and years to try to re-establish some sense of order in their lives. Once faith in law was gone, they hated eberything and everyone. I found it all very disturbing-obviously. And so many good children ruined, just collateral fodder to some case or another. Kids and women permanently locked out from the american dream because some lowly lawyer nedd to make a car payment or get those dopey alligator shoes the bigtime attorneys wear. What kind of people are these?
If they are people at all. I know you are seeking some technical argument-as readers of this site often are-my position is one of humanity not of citations. The mind of the attorney seeks to discredit, find a typo, anything and then reduce a human to an object and kill them. I would like to see all attorneys shipped to Iraq and put into combat regardless of age, gender, race. Let them fend for themselves in an environment they do not understand. Let them see how the average person feels in a courtroom. Even our precious constitution states article, the 14th I think, against cruel and unusual punishment. The courts routinely mete out the most cruel and unnecessary findings, think themselves sterile and above their work. And so, when I read one good deed by some judge, I can only think of all the times he/she/it crushed some poor soul wholly absent of the anonymity of the black robe. Judges are egomaniacal, self-serving and get their asses kissed so often they think they are truly gifted. The only good thing about the economy crashing is that attorneys are feeding upon themselves in new and creative ways. And that is a good thing. Perhaps the beginning of the end of the perversion of justice.
Yasher koach, Professor Turley.
God bless you, Sir. God bless us every one.
🙂
For the victims of open-pit burning at Nellis Air Force Base and all those that suffer under the mantle of U.S. violence.
Peace of the Eternal Be on All of You.
Merci pour votre attention. 🙂
Robert Wales:
From the original artcle:
The government censored parts of the records, but enough has been made public that it’s clear that the witness, a fellow detainee, was being treated weekly for a serious psychological problem and was questioned about whether he had any suicidal thoughts.
Please expand your post. To whom are you referring? What is your issue with following the Constitution?
Great. The mentally ill declaring others mentally ill.
Judge Sullivan, I salute you. You and others like you are the thin robed line between the people and an out of control executive branch.
I call shenanigans. This is the same DOJ that wishes to imprison Binyam Mohamed’s lawyer for “leaking classified documents” the content of which was the header of his letter to Obama detailing the torture Mr. Mohammed and other detainees were subjected to under Obama’s “leadership”. The DOD redacted the contents of the letter before sending it on to Obama so he could maintain implausible deniability regarding its contents.
The Obama govt. is engaging in a level of secrecy that rivals and in some cases surpasses that of cheneybush. Threatening one lawyer with jail for no real reason other than to protect the executive and send a message to anyone else who might dare to question the actions of Obama, while protecting the actions of those who engaged in his unlawful bidding–this should alarm people. If these were the actions of a President McCain there would be no silence on the left concerning the wrongness of these actions. Principles do not change because of leaders. Obama and his DOJ are threatening the rule of law in this nation. They have failed to prosecute where mandatory prosecutions exists: 1. for war crimes 2. for financial crimes.
Their argument Friday, on the ability to spy on our citizens, (described by Glenn Greenwald in his column of yesterday), goes beyond claims made by Bush.
The treatment of our prisoners in Gitmo is illegal, immoral and it will blowback in our face. If we do not care about the disparity of justice for the poor/helpless verses the rich/connected then we have abandoned our own Constitution and our own conscience. There are too many ways this govt. works in secret against our citizens. We have to stand firm, look at things squarely for what they are, and take action to protect the heart of what used to make this a great nation–the rule of law.
Psst. Obama! That “taking the moral lead” thing? You should really look into that if you’re interested in repairing our international standing.
Seconded.
Although apologists for the Bush administration will undoubtedly consider this a stretch, I firmly believe that the prosecutorial abuses described are a direct result of the administration’s entire approach to terrorism:
1. Round up as many people as possible, using bounties if necessary to finger potential miscreants.
2. Place them in locations, including Guantanamo and elsewhere, where they are isolated and unable to communicate.
3. Secure legal opinions from pre-screened, friendly lawyers authorizing torture as a legitimate interrogation method.
4. Flood the DOJ with lawyers who have met ideological requirements, regardless of their academic backgrounds or commitment to the rule of law.
5. Create evidence to justify the detentions, even if it is suspect or the product of torture.
6. Devise methods predicated on “national security” grounds to prevent the disclosure of the evidence to the detainees or their counsel.
When all of these ingredients are mixed together, the result is what we see now, a highly politicized DOJ and out-of-control prosecutors, a thoroughly discredited justice system, and a population of detainees held for years without charges and without legal justification for their imprisonment. It will be years before we know the extent of the damage and years more to undo it. Pres. Obama needs to appoint a special prosecutor without any further delay so that we can start unraveling the mess and take the moral lead in war crimes prosecution.