Grandstanding In Sanford

Waiting for Godot. A clown show. These are facts: Unarmed, wearing a hoodie, and carrying Skittles and a cell phone, 17 year old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman on February 26, 2012 in Sanford, Florida. George Zimmerman has not been arrested. And he has not been charged. Today is the 43rd day since the shooting. Beyond that, is an ocean of speculation, spin, outright lies, opinion masquerading as fact, and lots and lots of “analysis.”


Today, George Zimmerman’s lawyers quit. They didn’t send a discreetly worded, carefully drafted, simple press release saying that they were no longer representing the notorious client. No. Instead, they had a press conference to which they invited the cameras. And at the press conference, they talked entirely too much, and elaborated entirely too much, and ultimately revealed some astonishing facts: that they had never met with their so-called client, that he was no longer in Florida, that he had telephoned the special prosecutor (against their advice), that he had called Sean Hannity (who wouldn’t tell them what was said), and that he was not a racist. Oh, yeah. And it was self defense. Hablando bla bla bla. Put simply, their client was out of control and not taking direction in a fashion oddly reminiscent of his February 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin. No matter. They couldn’t promote him and his “defense” any more, so they promoted themselves, just in case anyone else in Central Florida had a really big, high profile case and wanted to pay for a badly handled, lawyerish public relations campaign. Exeunt omnes. I imagine that members of the Trad media howled at this. Who could they talk to now?

Not to be outdone or elbowed out of the spotlight or excluded from the incipient drama, the special prosecutor, Angela Corey, announced that she would have some bon mots of her own “within 72 hours.” Oh the anticipation. Oh the waiting. Oh the speculations. Oh the drama. According to ABC:

A special prosecutor promised "new information regarding the Trayvon Martin shooting death investigation" within 72 hours, prompting speculation that the alleged shooter, George Zimmerman, could be charged soon.

The announcement that the prosecutor, State Attorney Angela Corey, would soon hold a news conference came just hours after Zimmerman's lawyers said they would no longer represent him.

Corey said Monday that she will not present the case to a grand jury; she retains the power to decide herself whether to press charges against Zimmerman in the shooting.

“Prompting speculation” indeed. Of course, the prosecutor had previously said she will have nothing to say until she reaches a decision about charging George Zimmerman, so her announcement strongly implied that she would announce her decision. On the other hand, that isn’t what she said she would do. No. She said she would have “new information”. Is this case about dueling press conferences? Nobody really knows what she might means by “new information.” Or why it would take 3 breathless days of anticipation to announce it. Maybe she’s going to tell us that George Zimmerman is in the Bahamas and will resist extradition like Robert Vesco. At this point, almost nothing can surprise people following this case.

And where, pray tell, is Joe Oliver, the family friend cum former talking head, the guy who was such a close friend, who assured us that George Zimmerman was not a racist and had black friends? Gone, apparently. Replaced by Zimmerman Pere, a former magistrate judge from Virginia, who has repeatedly portrayed his shooter son as the victim in the February 26th incident and has taken up and expanded all of Oliver’s talking points, which may have originally been his own talking points. No one has claimed authorship for the baloney Team Z has spewed for 6 weeks.

Enough of this. Enough of the press conferences. Enough of the leaks. Enough of the spinning and lies and waiting. Enough. Basta ya. Enough analysis. The prosecutor needs to bring the curtain down on this ridiculous clown show, and she needs to do it immediately. Right now. She needs to announce that she has charged George Zimmerman, and she needs to have him arrested and start the judicial process. That will hopefully shut Team Z up. I hope she will do that.

But it’s not quite that simple, I'm afraid. Yes, I have a gnawing fear at the base of my skull about this case. I’m afraid that the reason the National Guard has been mobilized in Sanford, and the reason for the delay in making the announcement is that the Special Prosecutor has a little Republican surprise of her own for us. I'm afraid that she is going to announce that George Zimmerman will not be charged. I hope I’m wrong about that. I really do. I’d like to be shown to be wrong. Maybe it’s just that the clown show has gone on for so long that I’m looking for an unusual, surprising twist in the plot. Maybe. I hope that’s all it is. This whole matter has been handled in the most grotesque, unprofessional, despicable matter so far. And that's a reason to expect it to result in an injustice. In a travesty. In a disgrace. Why should the fruit be different from the tree?

I hope there will be justice for Trayvon Martin. And I hope it will come this week in the form of charges against George Zimmerman. In the meanwhile, I just wish all of the clowning and all of the media games would just stop. It’s enough. Trayvon Martin and his family deserve better. And those of us who care about serving justice deserve better, too.

My Impatience: Where Is Justice For Trayvon?

These are facts: on February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. You already know all about these facts and have been debating their significance for a couple of weeks: Trayvon Martin was 17 years old, unarmed, and had with him a cell phone, iced tea, and Skittles; George Zimmerman had a gun. The Sanford, Florida police refused to arrest George Zimmerman, claiming I think incorrectly that Florida law prevented his arrest. He’s been at liberty since. He’s been uncharged since. Almost a month later, on March 22, 2012, when no arrest had been made and public opinion about the case was boiling over in demonstrations and media attention and criticism, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey took over from the local Prosecutor. She will be the one who decides what charges, if any, are warranted. The whole world is watching. And the Feds are doing their own parallel investigation to decide whether to bring a civil rights prosecution in federal court regardless of what Angela Corey decides. We are now 37 days after the death of Trayvon Martin. We are now 9 days after the appointment of Angela Corey. And there is still no arrest.


I’m impatient. And fearful. I wonder aloud whether the delay in making this arrest is stupidity, incompetence, racism, politics, or a combination of some or all of these. I wonder why justice is delayed in this case. I wonder why George Zimmerman has not been arrested. And I am sorry to admit that I fear that the delay means that Florida will not charge George Zimmerman with a crime.

How long does it take to decide whether to charge George Zimmerman with a crime?

Even if one were to discard virtually everything from the initial Sanford Police investigation, even if one were to start all over again from the top with new, more detailed interviews of the very few witnesses who saw or heard anything, even if one were to review and re-examine whatever forensic evidence there is, how long can it possibly take to develop enough information to make a decision, to decide whether to charge George Zimmerman with a crime?

And how long can it possibly take to decide whether to charge police officials with obstruction of justice or official misconduct or tampering with witnesses? How long can all of this take? Apparently it can take a very long time. How long should this actually take? Not long.

This isn’t a complex bank or securities fraud or terrorism conspiracy case. No. This is, sad to say, an all too common homicide case. We know who the victim is. We know who the shooter is. We have some witnesses who saw or heard something. We have whatever physical evidence was accumulated. We have whatever medical and other forensic evidence there is. This, when all is said and done, is not a complicated case. It’s a sensitive case, yes. It’s an important case, yes. But above all else, it’s not a complicated one.

Let’s remember, if we possibly can, that the ultimate decision about whether George Zimmerman is guilty is definitely not the decision prosecutors now face. That ultimate decision, the decision of whether Zimmerman committed a crime, has to be made by a court or a jury, and his guilt has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by competent evidence at a trial. And that’s not the decision the prosecutor now faces. It’s not. The present decision is simply this: charge Geroge Zimmerman with a crime, or don’t.

You can formulate this question in other ways. You can ask whether there is enough evidence to charge George Zimmerman with a crime. Or you can ask whether there’s enough evidence to believe that Zimmerman probably committed a crime. You can parse the standard. You can evaluate the words. You can formulate the words in many different ways. But ultimately it’s not complicated: the prosecutor has the discretion to charge George Zimmerman if she believes there is probable cause that he committed a crime. She’s not required to charge him with anything.

How long can it possibly take to make that relatively simple determination? Not long. In routine homicide cases, the decision is usually made within hours. And then there’s an arrest. In more complicated homicide cases, there’s an arrest and a prompt grand jury presentation, usually within days. How many cases can anybody cite in which it’s taken more than a month to decide whether to charge a shooter (who is not a policeman) with a homicide? How many cases can anybody think of that are in this category? I’ll tell you: I can’t think of one. Tell me I’m wrong if you can find a single one.

So I am impatient. It’s a truism that justice delayed is justice denied. And now, here we are, nine days into the second prosecutor investigating the case, and more than a month from the death of Trayvon Martin, and still no arrest. And no communication from the prosecution. This is a disgrace. And it’s a dishonor to Trayvon Martin and his family. So I am impatient.

And I regret to say that I have begun to fear that the quest for justice for Trayvon Martin will include the refusal of Florida prosecutors to charge George Zimmerman with a crime. What else, I ask you, could take this long?

Harsh Sentence For Iraq Shoe Thrower

Reuters reports:

An Iraqi reporter who hurled his shoes at former President George W. Bush was convicted of attempting to assault a foreign leader on Thursday and jailed for three years, dismaying many Iraqis who regard him as a hero.

Muntazer al-Zaidi, 30, who pleaded not guilty to the charge, told the Baghdad court: "What I did was a natural reaction for the crimes committed against the Iraqi people."

Outside the courtroom, wails erupted from Zaidi's family and other supporters when they heard the verdict. One of his brothers fainted and his sister Ruqaiya burst into tears, shouting: "Down with Maliki, the agent of the Americans."

Zaidi earned instant global fame in December when he threw his shoes at the visiting U.S. leader, who spearheaded the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and called him a dog at a news conference.

Dhiaa al-Saadi, the head of Zaidi's defense team, condemned the sentence as harsh and said it would be appealed.

The sentence is harsh. But it's not as harsh as the initial press reports about Zaidi, in which the Iraqi government suggested that they might want to give him fifteen years for his insolence. A fifteen year sentence in this case would have been an obvious travesty and a mockery of justice.

The actual, 3-year sentence, if I may parse it, is an attempt to show that the Iraqi government would like to appear as a moderate, just state, one that, after pressure and on reflection, does not impose extreme punishments. Rather, it gives punishments only slightly harsher than the US itself might give in a similar circumstance. That's what Iraq is trying to say to us.

In 1980 I represented one of two young men, members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, who went to the UN Security Council with red paint, and threw the red paint on both the US and USSR ambassadors while they were in the Security Council Chamber. They then shouted slogans and were arrested. Both were charged with conspiracy and a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 112. That United States statute, a part of which arguably would apply to throwing two shoes at a visiting head of state and missing him twice, permits a 3-year term of imprisonment if someone "assault, strikes, wounds.. or offers violence" to an official guest of the US or a 6-month sentence if someone harasses or attempts to harass a foreign official.

Is throwing a shoe at an official guest, but missing him an attempted assault under the US statute, one that could be given a 3-year sentence? Probably. See, e.g., United States v. Gan, 636 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1980).

That's the comparison Iraq appears to be trying to make. But it's not really a fair comparison.

Unfortunately, the beating Zaidi received upon his arrest, his alleged torture after arrest, his being kept from family and friends and his lawyers while he was awaiting trial all don't figure in the belated Iraqi public relations offensive. All of that has been swept under the rug.

Zaidi should be immediately released. He's served enough time.

Obama Dishes Up A Cup Of Same Old Same Old

What a colossal disappointment. Remember when Barack Obama was going to severely curtail the use of the "state secrets" doctrine, throw the windows open, and let the sun shine in, dispersing Bushco's unnecessary secrecy? Forget about it. That was just eyewash.

Yesterday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit the Obama Justice Department astonished the three judge panel by sticking with Bushco's "state secrets" argument in the case of Binyam Mohamed. The New York Times reports:

In a closely watched case involving rendition and torture, a lawyer for the Obama administration seemed to surprise a panel of federal appeals judges on Monday by pressing ahead with an argument for preserving state secrets originally developed by the Bush administration.

In the case, Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian native, and four other detainees filed suit against a subsidiary of Boeing for arranging flights for the Bush administration’s “extraordinary rendition” program, in which terrorism suspects were secretly taken to other countries, where they say they were tortured. The Bush administration argued that the case should be dismissed because even discussing it in court could threaten national security and relations with other nations. ... snip

...a government lawyer, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument [as Bushco made] on Monday, startling several judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.

“No, your honor,” Mr. Letter replied.

Judge Schroeder asked, “The change in administration has no bearing?”

Once more, he said, “No, Your Honor.” The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration,” and “these are the authorized positions,” he said.

There you go. This is "thoroughly vetted." These are "authorized positions." It's the same old. It's not exactly change you can believe in, at least not in this case.

Said a spokesperson for the Obama Justice Department:

A Justice Department spokesman, Matt Miller, ... seemed to suggest that Mr. Obama would invoke the privilege more sparingly than its predecessor.

“It is the policy of this administration to invoke the state secrets privilege only when necessary and in the most appropriate cases,” he said, adding that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had asked for a review of pending cases in which the government had previously asserted a state secret privilege.

“The attorney general has directed that senior Justice Department officials review all assertions of the state secrets privilege to ensure that the privilege is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations,” he said. “It is vital that we protect information that, if released, could jeopardize national security.”

That review, folks, isn't worth a cup of warm spit. Evidently, it doesn't matter that the court papers

describe horrific treatment in secret prisons. Mr. Mohamed claimed that during his detention in Morocco, “he was routinely beaten, suffering broken bones and, on occasion, loss of consciousness. His clothes were cut off with a scalpel and the same scalpel was then used to make incisions on his body, including his penis. A hot stinging liquid was then poured into open wounds on his penis where he had been cut. He was frequently threatened with rape, electrocution and death.”

Evidently it doesn't matter that everybody in the world already has access to virtually everything about Binyam Mohamed's illegal extradition, torture, and continuous confinement. Pointing out how widely reported Binyam Mohamed's case has been, Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the A.C.L.U., told the judges that what the government was trying to keep secret by asserting the "state secrets" doctrine isn't secret at all. The details of the administration’s "extraordinary rendition program" (read: illegal extraditions) have already been told, as have how those facts applied directly to the plaintiffs. “The only place in the world where these claims can’t be discussed,” Mr. Wizner said, “is in this courtroom.”

Maybe the moderate/liberal panel of the Ninth Circuit that heard this case will overturn it. I hope so. But my disappointment at the position taken by the Obama Justice Department leaves me shaking my head in sorrow. This isn't change we can believe it. It's not old wine in new bottles. It's just the same old same old. And it still stinks.

Another Sham Trial In Iraq

Oh please. The New York Times says that a trial date has been set for "the Iraqi Shoe-Thrower" for February 19. But this trial is unlikely to resemble anything you'd call fair. Let us parse the news together:

Lawyers for the journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, 29, had tried to reduce the charges stemming from the incident, which made him a folk hero in much of the Arab world and beyond, but in setting a trial date a higher court let the most serious charges stand. If convicted, he could face as many as 15 years in prison....snip

Security guards quickly subdued him, as he continued to shout about the fate of widows and orphans, and he has remained in detention ever since. His relatives and lawyers say he has been tortured in custody, and complain that they have been allowed minimal opportunities to see him or to discuss his case.

The incident occurred on December 14, so Mr. al-Zaidi has been incarcerated now for almost 2 months without reasonable access to counsel. And he's been tortured. That sounds like a fair trial in the making to me. Not.

The Times ends its brief article with this remarkable zinger:

His trial could become an important — and highly visible — test of Iraq’s still-evolving judicial system. It was not clear how much of his trial, if any, will be open to the public.

"Still-evolving" has to be one of the most remarkable euphemisms of all time. "Still-evolving" in this case means that the accused can be tortured, kept away from family and counsel for almost two months, tried in secret, and then sentenced up to 15 years. I wouldn't exactly call that "still-evolving." Or justice. Truth be told, we should call it what it is, a sham.