Obama Administration Divided on Legal Tactics.

April 2, 2010 at 12:23 A.M. An advertisement was again attached to this blog without my consent or permission and against my will, falsely claiming to originate from "Ads by Google." Perhaps this is part of a deliberate harassment campaign?

"Academy of Massage Serving New York & New Jersey, Become a Licensed Massage Therapist. http://www.academyofmassage.com/ "

Ironically, a 7 year-old female was gang raped in Trenton, partly at the instigation of her 15 year-old sister, not far from the State House, and rumors are swirling of prominent lesbian participants in these events. This does not surprise me in a state with New Jersey's history. Beth Defalco & Aaron Morrison, "Police Say Teen Sold Sister, 7, For Sex," in The Star Ledger, April 1, 2010, at p. 1 and Beth DeFalco & AAron Morrison, "Teen Charged With Selling Little Sister for Sex," in The Record, April 1, 2010, at p. 1. (New Jersey has been described as the child-porn and -prostitution capital of America.)

"Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Anne Milgram Does it Again!" then "Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey."

I am afraid that we can expect more cybercrime and harassment from Trenton. I will continue to write. Paula, a.k.a. "Pamela" Dow, New Jersey Attorney General, may wish to provide those torture files to me soon. ("Judges Protect Child Molesters in Bayonne, New Jersey.")

April 1, 2010 at 8:01 P.M. Possibly as an expression of disdain for people of color -- or President Obama -- the following advertisement has been attached to this blog without my consent and against my will:

"New Yorker Official Site Subscribe to New Yorker Magazine [I thought it was The New Yorker?] for $39.95 1 yr. & get a free tote. http://www.newyorker.com/ "

Is this advertisement genuine? Is this trademark infringement? New Jersey? Do you realize the ill-will that you will create for this publication? ("New Jersey's KKK Police Shocker" and "We don't know from nothing.")

April 1, 2010 at 11:25 A.M. "Errors" continue to be inserted in these writings with impunity by New Jersey's hackers. I will continue to make the necessary corrections. Ms. Dow, this reflects poorly on your office. These continuing incidents may go a long way towards explaining a legal "culture of corruption" (Mr. Christie) making the gang rape of 7 year-olds not so unusual.

Is this New Jersey's legal "ethics," Mr. Rabner? Have New Jersey lawyers been involved in systematic and organized cybercrime at my sites, directed against me, making use of public funds, on the basis of my opinions or because they don't "like" me? OAE? ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")

April 1, 2010 at 7:20 A.M. My mechanism for counting hits has suddenly begun registering individual hits at these blogs. I wonder what could have happened? An obscene phone call was received at 5:19 A.M. from the following originating number: 212-544-8891. A second similar call from that number was received at 5:22 A.M. A word was deleted from this essay overnight. I have now corrected that inserted "error." Is someone trying to intimidate me? I wonder why?

March 31, 2010 at 7:45 P.M. A call was received from "Nina" at "Aids Walk New York." The originating number was 415-438-5195. How nice of "Nina" to call to confirm my personal information, including my home and e-mail addresses. Does this number belong to Aids Walk New York? No, it does not have any association with Aids Walk New York? What a surprise?

March 30, 2010 at 3:36 P.M. "Error" inserted and corrected since earlier this afternoon when I first posted this essay. I cannot say how many other essays have been vandalized.

March 30, 2010 at 8:55 A.M. The following message appeared on my computer screen as I attempted to access my blogs this morning under the heading -- "Error 502":

"Google

Error

Server Error The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request.
Please try again in 30 seconds."

I doubt that this message comes from Google. Trademark infringement? Regrettably, cybercrime and continuing censorship will result in disfigurement of this text through the insertion of "errors" on a daily basis. I will do my best to correct these inserted "errors," also on a daily basis. Tell your friends in many countries about this revolting spectacle of American public governmental censorship and criminality over a period of years that continues to go unpunished. Men and women in the U.S. military are dying for the Bill of Rights which New Jersey authorities are pleased to use as toilet paper. Shameful, Mr. Rabner. No American jurisdiction's government can be permitted to remain an adjunct to the mafia. ("Mafia Influence in New Jersey Law and Politics.")

When may I expect some action from your court to remedy these grievous wrongs, Mr. Rabner? Each day that the cover-up continues further aggravates the harm for which your tribunal and the OAE are responsible. Does this concern you at all, sir? Do you have any desire to alleviate the suffering caused by this disaster? Give my regards to Mr. Prisco, Stuart. Apathy or complicity with such heinous illegality (through cowardly silence) is a public violation of legal ethics by the state's Chief Justice. ("What is it like to be tortured?")

Charlie Savage, "An Appeals Panel Denies Detainees U.S. Court Access: A Victory for Obama," in The New York Times, May 22, 2010, at p. A1. ("Victory?")
Jennifer Steinhauer, "Arizona Law Reveals Split Within G.O.P. -- Quick Political Impact Over Immigration," in The New York Times, May 22, 2010, at p. A1.
Charlie Savage, "Obama Team Split on Tactics Against Terror," in The New York Times, March 29, 2010, at p. A1.
Charlie Savage & James Risen, "N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Unlawful, U.S. Rules: Executive Power Limit," in The New York Times, April 1, 2010, at p. A1. (" ... Obama administration effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies of former President George W. Bush" rejected by federal courts.)

"Senior lawyers in the Obama administration are deeply divided over some of the counterterrorism powers they inherited from former President George W. Bush, according to interviews and a review of the legal briefs."

It is a well-established principle of American politics that power which is given (or taken) by officials is rarely surrendered voluntarily. Painful legal processes are sometimes required to correct a "mistake" or usurpation of unconstitutional authority, which may be part of the problem with New Jersey's current illegal tactics against me.

Power is addictive and cruelty is a source of delight to some sick people, especially when such cruelty is a behind-the-back matter. ("Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?" and "Senator Bob Struggles to Find His Conscience.")

"The discussions, which shaped classified court briefs filed this month, have centered on how broadly to define the types of terrorism suspects who may be detained without trials as wartime prisoners. The outcome of the yearlong debate could reverberate through national security policies, ranging from the number of people the United States ultimately detains to decisions about who may be lawfully selected for killing using drones."

Much of this discussion seems surreal to many simple persons, like me, from all over the world, who wonder how persons can be held without trial at all in a Constitutional democracy, especially when there is no "battlefield" confrontation or military action resulting in captures but only detentions on city streets in foreign countries? The very idea of "lawfully selecting" persons to be "killed" arbitrarily -- and illegally -- has a Kafkaesque feel to it. America's Constitution is pretty explicit: "No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law." ("American Doctors and Torture.")

Guantanamo, legally, is US territory and persons in the custody of the US military should receive the minimum protections afforded to ALL persons under basic principles of American law. Certainly, we should extend to "foreign combatants" the same decency and protections we expect and request for American soldiers in the hands of the enemy.

Nothing makes it O.K. to torture an American soldier doing his or her duty who is not responsible for policies to which you may object. Worse, is to torture the family members of someone you dislike. I say this as someone who has been tortured in an American jurisdiction and who endures criminal censorship with the blessings of a corrupt government on a daily basis. ("Captured American Tortured on Video by Taliban" and "More Tortures of Captured American Soldier.")

The discussions, as framed in this article, exude a "Monty Python" quality: When and how may slavery be permitted? Is it O.K. to deny the humanity of detainees or torture people (denial of legal rights is a kind of torture) on Mondays and Tuesdays, but not during other weekdays? These are typical lawyers' questions avoiding the crux of the issue of principle involved in this ethical and political controversy. Slavery is the denial of freedom to any person without legal justification. In my opinion, the untried detainees in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are SLAVES as well as torture victims. President Obama's stand on slavery must be firm and clear opposition to all denials of human dignity. ("What is it like to be tortured?")

Does America enslave and torture persons? Does Mr. Obama wish to be associated with such actions? Does America deny, say, freedom of expression to Internet critics like me? Do WE cover-up atrocities, like rape, or allow public officials and cops to steal from so-called "targets," including "targets" who happen not have committed any crimes? When is theft by state agents permissible? ("An Open Letter to My Torturers in New Jersey, Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli" and "Crimes Against Humanity in New Jersey.")

Is it O.K. to kill people indiscriminately in a village? Let us say that the "Village" is in Manhattan. A decision must be made by a foreign government to use a robot bomb because one of the persons who may be in the area is an individual associated with what that government considers a terrorist group. Is it permissible for that foreign government that is not at war with us to fire a drone weapon killing 100 people in lower Manhattan with the hope that one of those persons killed is their intended target? Is such "collateral damage" acceptable? I do not think so. However, this is essentially what we are doing in Pakistan. We are firing robot bombs at villages hoping to kill "terrorists" despite the innocent persons we know will certainly be killed. Is that O.K. with you? Do you believe that such a policy of indiscriminate murder of innocent persons intended to result in the deaths of terrorists comports with international laws or basic human decency?

Denial of due process to any detainees takes us back to the 10th century in legal history. Obviously, this is one theme of the recent "Robin Hood" movie. ("Habeas Corpus.")

The "collateral damage" any time there is censorship in America is the U.S. Constitution. Each time you see a word or letter deleted from this text, there is a further defecation on the Bill of Rights for which American service people are being tortured and are dying. The alteration of my writings is an insult to those men and women in uniform, and to the memory of those service people who have died to protect our freedoms. This reality seems not to concern American authorities unwilling or unable to control this public criminality. Mr. Christie, these crimes are your responsibility now. Mr. Obama, due process is central to America's values. As the first African-American president of the U.S. do you wish to be associated with any form of imprisonment without due process or slavery? I hope not. ("How Censorship Works in America.")

Is it O.K. to torture the wife and child of a person whose opinions you find disturbing or wish to change in order to pressure that person into remaining silent? I doubt it. If we are "appalled" by the denial of free speech rights to dissidents in China and Iran -- or Cuba -- should we not be equally or more appalled by the abuse of government power to deny dissidents free speech in America? Is such a denial of freedom of speech or government criminality against an American dissident not a subject of concern to US media? Is the threat to America's democracy raised by such government tactics not ominous? I would say so. My response will be to focus on more celebrations of the American and Cuban revolutions. ("'Che': A Movie Review" and "Manifesto for the Unfinished American Revolution.")

"In the years after the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Bush claimed virtually unlimited power as commander in chief to detain those he deemed a threat -- a view so boundless that his Justice Department once told a court that it was within the president's lawful discretion to imprison as an enemy combatant even a 'little old lady in Switzerland' who had unwittingly donated to Al Qaeda."

I have never donated to Al Qaeda. My experiences with secret use of government power against me -- through manipulations of a tainted so-called "ethics" system -- date from long before 9/11. My opinions and continuing protests will not change. This is when New Jersey officials should remove a word or letters from this essay, again. ("Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?" and "Senator Bob Struggles to Find His Conscience.")

Mr. Obama's administration -- like every other -- loves power, but wishes to govern within the boundaries of the rule of law -- or at least, to appear to respect the Constitution and laws of the land. Hence, the dilemma: How much illegal power to claim? A little? a lot? Bush opted for a lot of illegal power. Obama wants just a little illegal power to "wet his beak."

With the appointment and possible confirmation of Ms. Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, this crisis may find its way to that tribunal. The justices would face the question of whether our commitment to fundamental values of human dignity and the rule of law permits massive levels of illegal and secret conduct by government in violation of Constitutional mandates. My view is that we can either have Constitutional government and the rule of law or massive secrecy and use of government power that is unconstitutional, but we cannot have both of those things. Secrecy may be a necessary feature of security and intelligence operations; secrecy cannot be a charactersitic of all government and judicial actions in a free society.

"With the president's directions in hand, Mr. Obama's Justice Department came back on March 13, 2009, with a more modest position than Mr. Bush had advanced. It told Judge Bates that the president could detain without trial only people who were part of Al Qaeda or its affiliates" -- Who makes this determination concerning status and on what evidence will it be made? What if this determination is mistaken? -- "or [it could detain Al Qaeda's] affiliates, [like the ACLU?,] or their 'substantial' supporters. [That little old lady in Switzerland?] The department rooted that power in the authorization granted by Congress to use military force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. And it acknowledged that the scope and limits of that power were defined by the laws of war, as translated to a conflict against terrorists." ("American Doctors and Torture.")

This is pretty much the power claimed by Bush with a more elaborate song and dance to obscure the reality. I am a supporter of President Obama. However, this policy is disappointing and sad. Incidentally, the policy also seems to have been endorsed by Secretary of State Clinton who does not wish to be seen as "soft on terrorism." In addition, we have increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. If the usual pattern holds we may expect more suicide bombings in the summer, both in Iraq and elsewhere. Over 6,000 American deaths may now be counted in this ten-year war and several hundred thousand or more persons, mostly civilians, have died in the region since the first Gulf War. Do we really wish to send more troops to this conflict that is spreading to Pakistan and Northern India? Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers.

I wonder where Ms. Kagan stands on this issue? A little illegality against brown persons from funny countries is O.K., but not if the victims have attended Harvard Law School and are females? Please discuss.

We are clearly not seeing this controversy as most of the world, including the global legal profession which is invited to witness my continuing struggle for freedom, sees the matter. Legally, it is difficult for me to find (much less "evaluate") a plausible legal basis for America's sanctioned disregard for the fundamental human rights of "little brown people." Under the circumstances, the conclusion by Obama's lawyers seems unwarranted that --

" -- The United States ... can now defend its national security policies as fully compliant with domestic and international law under 'common and universal standards, not double standards.' ..."

This conclusion continues to mystify lawyers from all over the world and to undermine the regime of international law for which generations of American and other jurists struggled after the Holocaust. We are gambling with hard-won fruits of a painful effort that engaged generations of lawyers by throwing away America's respect in the world. This is very unwise.

Certainly, the censorship and harassments which you are witnessing will inspire not only anger but disgust in intelligent observers who will be moved to reject the "anti-Cuban Revolution politics" of the sort of persons (Jose Diaz-Balart?) engaging in this psychological torture of an American dissident with the assistance of corrupt U.S. politicians. These tactics may be counterproductive for your so-called Right-wing "cause." ("Havana Nights and C.I.A. Tapes" and "Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")

A good place to begin to restore credibility on due process issues and genuine respect for free speech is by insisting that New Jersey, for once, comply with its own laws and the US Constitution by providing its torture files to victims, like me. Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner? Mr. Menendez? Does the word "hypocrisy" have any meaning for you distinguished and successful "gentlemen"? ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "What is it like to be tortured?")