Free Speech and Torture in America.

February 12, 2010 at 11:04 P.M. A word was deleted from this essay posted hours ago. I cannot say how many other essays have been altered. I will do my best to discover the "errors" inserted in my writings and to correct them as soon as possible. I run a complete scan of my computer several times per day. My updating feature and television signal are often blocked by hackers.

Leona Beldini's welcome conviction in Jersey City may explain the wave of attacks against my blogs. More alleged pending indictments of other prominent members of the Hudson County political scene and bar association may be expected to follow this conviction. AP, "Jersey City Official Is Convicted In First Trial in Corruption Sting," in The New York Times, February 12, 2010, at p. A28. Mr. Ginarte?

Greetings to Ms. Beldini's counsel, Brian Neary, Esq. with recollections of many courtroom conversations. I wonder whether Brian has visited my sites? I think so. Brian was always very perceptive about judges and others. I will quote some of Brian's comments soon.

February 12, 2010 at 2:43 P.M. An essay examining the t.v. series "Alice" was vandalized and has been corrected. I expect that this newly-posted essay and other works at these blogs will continue to be altered and damaged, despite copyright protection and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Nydia Hernandez, Esq.? ("What is it like to be censored in America?")

This level of cybercrime, committed publicly over so many years, is not possible without the cooperation of government. We must decide whether "free speech" applies to human beings, as persons, or only to corporations that fund Republican candidates. The violations of my free speech rights is the loss of your rights to freedom of expression and access to speech. Is our concern for dissidents in China, Cuba, or anywhere equal to our concern for dissidents in America? I am referring to dissidents who are not wealthy corporations. ("Senator Bob Struggles to Find His Conscience" and see the film, "Bob Roberts.")

Ronald Dworkin, "The 'Devastating' Decision," in The New York Review of Books, February 25, 2010, at p. 39.
Julie Bosman, "For 800 Youths Jailed by State, Not One Full-Time Psychiatrist," in The New York Times, February 11, 2010, at p. A1.
John F. Burns, "Losing Legal Fight, Britain Reveals Detainee 's Treatment by the U.S.," in The New York Times, February 11, 2010, at p. A12.
Adam Liptak, "Right to Free Speech Collides With the Fight Against Terror," in The New York Times, February 11, 2010, at p. A18.
Benjamin Weiser, "U.S. Told to Review Files on Terror Case Detention," in The New York Times, February 11, 2010, at p. A28. (I told you so.)

"Against the opposition of their four colleagues, five right-wing Supreme Court justices have now guaranteed that big corporations can spend unlimited funds on political advertising in any political election. In an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, the Court overruled established precedents and declared dozens of national and state statutes unconstitutional, including the McCain-Feingold Act, which forbade corporate or union television advertising that endorses or opposes a particular candidate."

"This appalling decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was quickly denounced by President Barack Obama as 'devastating'; he said that it 'strikes at our democracy iself.' In his State of the Union speech on January 27, he said, 'Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections.' He is right: the decision will further weaken the quality and fairness of our politics."

The continuing spectacle of sanctioned censorship that you are witnessing, over a period of years, is much more offensive to the First Amendment than any issue of so-called "corporate speech." Unlike corporations, we Internet writers are not "fictional" but actual persons with "real" free speech rights, especially when expressing opinions on political and philosophical issues that are controversial.

I never expected that it would be controversial in America to object to being raped and stolen from, censored and insulted regardless of a victim's political opinions. I never thought that requests for a state's torture files by a victim could be so easily ignored. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "What is it like to be tortured?")

I "concur" with the opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens, who is aware that it is the lone individual arguing against majority views whom the Framers were primarily concerned to protect -- presumably, even from the mafia in New Jersey. The Garden State happens to be where two Justices, Alito and Scalia, spent their early days. Neither of these men, fortunately, dwelled in Hudson County where former Justice William J. Brennan spent his early days and many nights, too, before escaping to the greener fields of the nation's capitol. ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")

"The Court has given lobbyists, already much too powerful, a nuclear weapon. ..."

They'll use it soon.

"On the most generous understanding the decision displays the five justices' instinctive favoritism of corporate interests. But some commentators, including The New York Times, have suggested a darker interpretation. The five justices may have assumed that allowing corporations to spend freely against candidates would favor Republicans; perhaps they overruled long-established precedents out of partisan zeal. If so, their decision would stand beside the Court's 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore as an unprecedented political act with terrible consequences for the nation."

Equally grave harm may result for the credibility of America's courts. Dworkin's elegant and pained discussion of the issues raised by this unfortunate decision makes two additional telling points:

"Chief Justice Roberts takes every opportunity to repeat what he said, under oath, in his Senate nomination hearings: that the Supreme Court should avoid declaring any statute unconstitutional unless it cannot decide the case before it in any other way. Now consider how shamelessly he and the other justices who voted with the majority ignored that constraint in their haste to declare the McCain-Feingold Act unconstitutional in time for the coming midterm elections."

To suggest that these considerations were "irrelevant" will be unbelievable to many Americans today. This lack of credibility or "skepticism" may be another unfortunate side effect of Bush v. Gore. Do we still believe that the reasoning in U.S. judicial opinions explains results? ("Charles Fried and William Shakespeare on Interpretation" and "Ronald Dworkin's Jurisprudence of Interpretation.")

New Jersey's Supreme Court has certainly reached levels of criminal incompetence and complicity in atrocity as to defy First World standards of jurisprudence. Politics and organized crime control judicial outcomes in Trenton. New Jersey's disgusting criminality and tainted judiciary as well as law enforcement have become damaging to the credibility of all U.S. courts and police everywhere in this nation. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court.")

Finally, in assessing this lamentable free speech decision, Dworking notes:

"The main theoretical flaw in Kennedy's opinion is different, however. The opinion anounces and perpetuates a shallow, simplistic understanding of the First Amendment, one that actually undermines one of the most basic purposes of free speech, which is to protect democracy. The nerve of his argument -- that corporations must be treated like real people under the First Amendment -- is in my view preposterous. [emphasis added] Corporations are legal fictions. They have no opinions of their own to contribute and no rights to participate with equal voice or vote in politics." ("Metaphor is Mystery.")

Let alone to participate in politics with a "superior" voice or vote, thanks to lots of corporate money. Further indication of America's lack of credibility on free speech, human rights, and torture issues in the post-Bush/Cheney era comes from the United Kingdom:

"The British government lost a protracted court battle on Wednesday to protect secret American intelligence information about the treatment of a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, and immediately published details of what it called the 'CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT' administered to the prisoner by American officials."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton urged the British government to argue against disclosure on the ground that the U.S. would be reluctant in the future to share intelligence information that might be revealed by the Brits. However, the information in question had already appeared in American and other media. Hence, this argument was not found persuasive by British judges. The attempt to extend secrecy protection beyond America's borders was unattractive to UK courts.

The attorney for the horribly tortured and innocent victim, Clive Stafford Smith, spoke bitterly to world media of his client's experience of psychological torture and said:

"Suppressing any evidence of government criminality on the grounds of national security sets a very dangerous precedent." ("U.S. Courts Must Not Condone Torture.")

Mr. Rabner, the continuing betrayal of your judicial oath in refusing to supply the truth concerning the crimes committed against me, as well as sanctioned cybercrime and censorship of my writings for which your tribunal bears responsibility, undermines the remaining credibility of your court -- if any -- and threatens America's Constitution. Deleting a word or letter from this essay, again, will help to prove my point. ("Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

Have you no sense of shame, sir? Do you not appreciate what is at stake in this matter? Do you have no regard or respect for the sacrifice of American lives taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan with the expectation that Americans' Constitutional freedoms are protected at home by U.S. courts? Judges defecating on the American Constitution in New Jersey is much worse than a laughing matter. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")

This legal protection for controversial speech is especially needed not by corporations, but by PERSONS. Your continuing abdication of your duties, Mr. Rabner, provides the world with a sad spectacle of one soiled American jurisdiction's plunge into corruption and criminality. Do your job, Mr. Rabner.