Freedom of Speech means something

I don’t blog often these days, in part because of my role. However, I am taking a moment to do so to pay tribute to U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens and Career Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, who were killed this week at their posts in Libya, alongside two other Americans. All four served their country for the purpose of furthering not only the interests of the United States, but also those of Libya.

Members of the U.S. foreign service do not get paid well, in comparison to those of us in industry. They do the job out of a sense of duty and service to humankind, with the idea that dialog between peoples is the best way to avoid conflict, that all of our interests are served when differences are resolved peacefully. These people prevent wars, saving not only American lives, but the lives of those who would be lost or irrevocably harmed through conflicts.

Many people in the Middle East are upset over an “anti-Muslim” film. I have not seem this film. While words matter (whatever they are), they are no excuse for violence, especially violence against people who have probably not even seen or heard of the movie! But many outside the U.S., and perhaps even many inside the U.S., don’t understand the meaning of the freedom. It’s is easy listen when one isn’t saying something controversial. Nobody cares about a freedom when we’re all saying nice things.

Freedom of speech is needed by those who speak that which everyone else might find repugnant, outrageous, or simply rude. It’s the only way to insure in a free society that nobody has the right to judge, in an effort to control a political outcome, what should be spoken and what shouldn’t.

This freedom is not universally agreed to nor is it absolute. In the United States, you cannot yell “Fire!” in a movie theater, and in Germany you can’t go around espousing the views of Hitler. But even when people do espouse such views, you have the right to tell them where to go – but peacefully. You also have the right to ignore kooks and wingnuts, and sometimes that is the best response.

Yeah, NJ: Governor Christie screwed you (again)

The New York Times reports that a forthcoming GAO report shows the government distorted the facts, made misstatements, and said whatever he needed to say to cancel a tunnel project that would make the lives of hundreds of thousands of people better. Good going, Governor!

Governor Christie of New Jersey — Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey (courtesy: Luigi Novi)

Back in 2010, I wrote about how foolish and shortsighted Governor Chris Christie was being when he cancelled a new tunnel project for trains between New York City and New Jersey on practically the same day that the Swiss broke through a new mountain tunnel on either side. The contrast was nothing short of sad, from an American perspective.

But now it turns out that Christie was being very loose with the facts, according to the New York Times. It says that in a forthcoming GAO report, the governor misrepresented both the total cost for the tunnel, and New Jersey’s share of it. That’s a shame. Anyone who commutes by train into New York knows that it doesn’t take much for trains to run late. That gets more people into cars, the long term results being more pollution, more asthma, and more traffic for New Jersey and New York. Good going, Governor Christie! Thanks for making the lives of people in New Jersey more miserable. I’m sure that’s why you’re there.

Should you go to prison just for lying?

I tell my child, as we all tell our children, that lying is wrong. A lot of things are wrong. But does that mean you should go to federal prison? Guess what: that is exactly what can happen if you lie in a federal investigation. What’s more, you might not even know that there’s an investigation! Today’s Wall Street Journal has as the next installment in its serious of the criminalization of America the woeful tale of marine biologist Nancy Black, is facing a $100,000 legal bill and criminal charges for lying, when she didn’t know there was an investigation, and she didn’t believe she was either lying or misleading anyone. In fact she thought she was cooperating with someone from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

How could this be? Here is what 18 USC 1001 has to say:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

The breadth of this law is staggering, and the results could be perverse. While the jury should have a good view of this, why would anyone not assert their 5th amendment rights when talking to anyone from the federal government? After all, who knows if there’s an investigation? Want to end up with a $100,000 legal bill finding out?

This is a law that prosecutors under administrations of both parties have used. So what should it say? Perhaps there needs to be a tie to a conviction of an actual crime we care about. Perhaps the standard otherwise needs to be such that only sworn statements are applicable, in which case isn’t the existing purgery law enough? And it has the added benefit of putting someone on notice that they could be held accountable for lying.

Catholic Church Still Doesn’t Get It: Blame the Victims

It is simply impossible to imagine how someone feels after they have been raped or abused, unless you’ve been there yourself. But we hear from many victims of the shame and isolation they have felt. In the case of abuses by the Catholic Church, one organization victims have turned to is the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). SNAP offers support services to victims, providing guidance and pointers to both support groups and therapists. They have also has filed a lawsuit against the Catholic Church for human rights violations, and have assisted victims in their legal pursuits.

One would think that the Church would have learned from their earlier attempts to excuse their behavior. Instead, The New York Times reports that the Catholic Church is fighting SNAP, having subpoenaed all manner of records from this organization, as part of their legal defense. Attacking a victim’s support organization itself demonstrates the continued denial of their own misdeeds under which the Church labors. The attack has taken the form of a costly legal battle with an organization that has almost no resources.

As if to prove the point, Mr. William Donahue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights made the statement that, “SNAP is a menace to the Catholic Church.”

Wrong.

Again.

Such statements as the one above are a menace to the Catholic Church. The sooner these people realize that their harboring and shuffling of sick priests was aiding and abetting of criminals, the sooner they make restitution to abused individuals, the sooner, they can demonstrate they have learned from their mistakes.

The Catholic Church has been its own worst enemy, and apparently continues to be so. How can people put their faith in a group of such people who first and foremost are out for themselves and not for justice of their flock? SNAP should be a resource the Church uses to weed out bad priests. Victims should be counseled, and not harassed or embarrassed.

To be sure, this is not about God. It’s about the failure of men.

Pardons in the Kingdom of Mississippi

I’m a pretty liberal guy. I wear the label proudly. To me “liberal” means, amongst many other things, belief in the system of checks and balances. Today, the Mississippi Supreme Court abrogated their responsibility as part of that system in that state.

The Press is widely reporting that the Mississippi Supreme Court has refused to overturn nearly 200 pardons issued by former Governor Haley Barbour on his way out of town. At issue is a provision in Article 5 §124 of the Mississippi State Constitution that says the following:

but no pardon shall be granted before conviction; and in cases of felony, after conviction no pardon shall be granted until the applicant therefor shall have published for thirty days, in some newspaper in the county where the crime was committed, and in case there be no newspaper published in said county, then in an adjoining county, his petition for pardon, setting forth therein the reasons why such pardon should be granted.

Let’s put aside the consequences to the convicts and to the families of those who were harmed by them. While I don’t like the provision, it’s there. We can even argue about what it means. Who should ultimately decide? I would think the Mississippi Supreme Court. Apparently not. Here is what Chief Justice William L. Waller, Jr. had to say in a 6-3 decision:

Certainly, no one would argue that a court could investigate and determine the wisdom or propriety of a governor’s acts, including pardons. However, the constitutionality of a governor’s acts, including pardons, is a question which the court must determine.

As it happens, my last blog entry talked about how former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich challenged the notion of Marbury v. Madison, where they reaffirmed their responsibility and authority to be the final judges on the meaning of the Constitution. That logic, that separates presidents from kings and queens apparently does not apply in Mississippi.

There are some missing bits of information. How could the court have veered so far from this cornerstone of American jurisprudence? What other provisions of the Constitution would they choose not to enforce? Why, for instance, are they receiving a paycheck?