James Gorman, "Unlikely Partners, Freeing Chimps From the Lab," The New York Times, July 9, 2013, p. A1. (Apes used in experiments may have greater protections than inmates used as lab rats or detainees at Guantanamo.)
Scott Shane, "Soldier's Lawyers Ask Judge to Acquit On Aid to the Enemy," The New York Times, July 9, 2013, p. A11. (Publishing videos of U.S. soldiers and pilots murdering innocent civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan is deemed "aiding the enemy." Bradley Manning's whistle blowing makes him a traitor? Or a hero? It is admitted that what is depicted in the tapes is accurate and illegal. Private Manning was obligated to disclose the crimes under the rules of war.)
Charlie Savage, "Judge Urges President to Address Prison Strike," The New York Times, July 9, 2013, p. A12. (Judge recognizes that forced-feeding is torture, but due to a possibly unconstitutional order from Congress, federal judges cannot determine Guantanamo detainees' rights. This judge asks President Obama to "do something about ending these American tortures of detainees." Silence from Mr. Obama.)
Benjamin Weiser, "Pataki Changes Lawyers to Fight Suit by Men Confined After Prison for Sex Crimes," The New York Times, July 9, 2013, p. A17. (After serving their full sentence, inmates will be confined, indefinitely, without new charges or convictions.)
Morsi Secret, "Prosecution Backtracks In Sex-Abuse Case: Another Issue For Brooklyn District Attorney," The New York Times, July 9, 2013, p. A16. (Sam Keller, Orthodox Jew, paid children to lie about being molested, allegedly, in order to help prosecutors get convictions. Terry Tuchin? Diana Lisa Riccioli? John McGill?)
Al Baker, "Lawsuit Says 2 Rabbis Abused Boys at Jewish School," The New York Times, July 9, 2013, p. A17. (19 former students at Yeshiva High School may have been molested by their rabbis. No interrogational torture by Terry Tuchin of the culprits? "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Jennifer Velez is a Dyke Magnet!")
"The Laws You Can't See: The federal surveillance court operates in secrecy as the reach of its rulings grows," (Editorial) The New York Times, July 9, 2013, p. A20. ("Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")
Calling a group of people a "court" does not magically constitute that group of persons as a legitimate tribunal in accordance with the fundamental law of the land nor with basic principles of political theory and/or jurisprudence.
A tribunal must be open to public perception or witnessing of its operations, that is, in terms of transparency as well as due process criteria for its rulings.
Decisions of courts should and must be based on evidence tested for reliability and upon genuine legal argument, placed on a permanent record, a record that may be examined for cogency by legal professionals, academics, concerned citizens and all others affected by decisions. ("Maurice J. Gallipoli and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")
When courts make mistakes in written decisions -- something the U.S. Supreme Court does all the time -- these errors can be detected and pointed out to judges, so that corrections and reversals may take place.
This is about people's lives and not, primarily, about tender judicial egos which may be bruised by the disclosure of occasional stupidity, much less is the overriding concern to ensure that bureaucrats cover their asses so as to avoid responsibility for great blunders. ("Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?" and "Legal Ethics Today.")
A secret or closed proceeding by one party, acting UNILATERALLY, is not a valid legal proceeding, because it is offensive to basic notions of legality in an adversary system and may constitute the crime of obstructing justice. These principles have defined the Common Law system and America's Constitutional Republic for centuries:
" ... the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has for years been developing what is effectively a secret and unchallenged body of law on Fourth Amendment issues" -- are these decisions subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court? -- " ... the court is opaque as it is powerful."
This "tribunal" now becomes a super-Supreme Court creating a body of case law that is not seen by the nine Constitutionally-appointed justices who may rule differently on identical Fourth Amendment issues. ("Is Union City, New Jersey Meyer Lansky's Whore House?" and "New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court.")
What court's rulings will be controlling, the "Supremes" or the new secret judges? Whatever.
Only one party is represented or appears, is or can be heard, by this self-styled or so-called "court" -- the federal government. This makes it very difficult for the government to lose before this secret court, which is made-up of federally-paid officials, who are anonymous and without opposition, or even participation, from anyone beyond the federal government.
All participants in proceedings before the shadowy court are in the executive branch. If you are the only litigant and decision-maker in a case, then chances are excellent that you will your suit.
Opinions by this court -- some opinions are said to be more than 100 pages long -- are not published in any court reports and cannot be read by lawyers, judges, members of the public or anyone else, except the people writing the opinions and "arguing" the cases. This makes the likely criticisms of the court's reasoning very slight or non-existent. Secrecy on this level surpasses the fevered dreams of Kafka, Orwell, or Huxley. ("The Allegory of the Cave" and "'The Matrix': A Movie Review.")
These people (are they "judges"?), whoever they may be, decide whether Americans and others will be tortured or killed for reasons that are never disclosed, without affording victims notice, an opportunity to respond to accusations (there are none), rumors, slanders, innuendos, or anything else. ("Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution.")
There is no attempt made to comply with the confrontation clause or 6th Amendment right to counsel, 14th Amendment due process, nor with any other civil rights protections, allegedly. Among those affected by these secret court decisions are billions of persons who do not live in America.
No effort is made to correct errors, if any are made and admitted to, nor to fix inaccurate perceptions and misinterpretations of a person's actions or character. This is similar to New Jersey's, allegedly, "secret" Ethics Committee proceedings that are subject to political and other pressures, bribes, influence, sexual favors perhaps. ("New Jersey's Unethical Judiciary" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
I wonder who was present at the interrogation sessions imposed upon me -- while I was under hypnosis -- at 512 42nd Street, Union City, New Jersey during the eighties and nineties? Alex Booth? Terry Tuchin? Mr. Ryan? John McGill? Manuel R. Diaz? Marilyn Straus? ("Sexual Favors For New Jersey Judges" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" then "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
"As outrageous as the blanket secrecy of the surveillance court is, we are equally troubled by the complete absence of ANY adversarial process, the heart of our legal system. The government in 2012 made 1,789 requests to conduct electronic surveillance; the court approved 1,788 (the government withdrew the other)." ("American Doctors and Torture" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
Rubber stamp? Who is looking out for the civil rights of Americans or billions of persons throughout the world who may be directly affected by these surveillance decisions given today's technology? What are the limits of this secret, extra-judicial, unconstitutional tribunal? How about flipping a coin, Mr. Obama?
This kind of unaccountable power in the hands of any group of officials acting outside the boundaries of law is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution feared and called "tyranny." I agree with them.
