RSS FeedThe Power of a Guilty Plea
“You mean,” he said, this look of absolute unbelief working across his face, “you mean, if I’m guilty I get out today?”
“Right.”
“And if I’m innocent I stay locked up?”
“You got it, man. So what are you gonna be, guilty or innocent?”
James Mills, One Just Man, Simon and Schuster
2009, the End of Bushisms
via AP
-”I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.” – September 2000, explaining his energy policies at an event in Michigan.
-”Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?” – January 2000, during a campaign event in South Carolina.
-”They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander-in-chief, too.” – Sept. 26, 2001, in Langley, Va. Bush was referring to the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.
-”There’s no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail.” – Oct. 4, 2001, in Washington. Bush was remarking on a back-to-work plan after the terrorist attacks.
- “It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of human cloning to come out of that chamber.” – April 10, 2002, at the White House, as Bush urged Senate passage of a broad ban on cloning.
- “I want to thank the dozens of welfare-to-work stories, the actual examples of people who made the firm and solemn commitment to work hard to embetter themselves.” – April 18, 2002, at the White House.
-”There’s an old saying in Tennessee – I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee – that says, fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.” – Sept. 17, 2002, in Nashville, Tenn.
-”Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” – Aug. 5, 2004, at the signing ceremony for a defence spending bill.
-”Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.” – Sept. 6, 2004, at a rally in Poplar Bluff, Mo.
- “Our most abundant energy source is coal. We have enough coal to last for 250 years, yet coal also prevents an environmental challenge.” – April 20, 2005, in Washington.
- “We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job.” – Sept. 20, 2005, in Gulfport, Miss.
-”I can’t wait to join you in the joy of welcoming neighbours back into neighbourhoods, and small businesses up and running, and cutting those ribbons that somebody is creating new jobs.” – Sept. 5, 2005, when Bush met with residents of Poplarville, Miss., in the wake of hurricane Katrina.
-”It was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship. After all, 60 years we were at war 60 years ago we were at war.” – June 29, 2006, at the White House, where Bush met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
-”Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die.” – Dec. 7, 2006, in a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
- “These are big achievements for this country, and the people of Bulgaria ought to be proud of the achievements that they have achieved.” – June 11, 2007, in Sofia, Bulgaria.
- “Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction. Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit.” – September 2007, in Sydney, Australia, where Bush was attending an APEC summit.
-”Thank you, Your Holiness. Awesome speech.” April 16, 2008, at a ceremony welcoming Pope Benedict to the White House.
-”The fact that they purchased the machine meant somebody had to make the machine. And when somebody makes a machine, it means there’s jobs at the machine-making place.” – May 27, 2008, in Mesa, Ariz.
-”And they have no disregard for human life.” – July 15, 2008, at the White House. Bush was referring to enemy fighters in Afghanistan.
- “I remember meeting a mother of a child who was abducted by the North Koreans right here in the Oval Office.” – June 26, 2008, during a Rose Garden news briefing.
-”Throughout our history, the words of the Declaration have inspired immigrants from around the world to set sail to our shores. These immigrants have helped transform 13 small colonies into a great and growing nation of more than 300 people.” – July 4, 2008 in Virginia.
- “This thaw – took a while to thaw, it’s going to take a while to unthaw.” Oct. 20, 2008, in Alexandria, La., as he discussed the economy and frozen credit markets.
h/t Nour El-Kadri of UofO Association of Part-Time Professors Board of Directors
Daphna Golan on Israeli Students, Academics
Dr. Daphna Golan, Professor of Law at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, explains in Haaeretz today why the academic establishment in Israel should oppose the Gazan assault,
The students’ fight against the tuition increase, the lecturers’ struggle over their salaries, and the battle of the institutions of higher education over budgets – all were good reasons for repeated strikes over the past two years. But now, when – over a few days of an unnecessary and cruel war – hundreds of people have been killed and a fortune has been wasted that could certainly compete with the annual higher education budget, no one is talking about a strike…
We should actually have gone on strike many years ago – in the days of the first intifada, when the Israel Defense Forces closed the schools and universities in the territories for months on end. They told us then not to bring politics onto campus, and that the army knew what it was doing; they told us we couldn’t let the Palestinians throw stones, and so we kept teaching…
Now too, we are continuing as usual, as the same leaders who failed and repeatedly chose force over dialogue are bombing and killing, just like Hamas. It’s not too late to call for dialogue, with Hamas and with any Arab leader prepared to talk with us.
Would Sid Ryan ban this legal academic too?
Phyllis Bennis on Israel and International Law
Phyllis Bennis, Senior Analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies, and author of Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis, Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power, and Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer,
Calling a TV station pro-Hamas does not make it a military target
Pro-Israel faculty members launch air raid on CUPE
Following an announcement by the Canadian Union of Public Employees calling for a ban of Israeli academics from Ontario campuses, Israeli faculty in Ontario have begun an intensive aerial assault. Casualties among CUPE members stand at roughly 300, with the number expected to climb.
Correspondents at the scene also report that faculty troops are amassing near the borders of CUPE headquarters, fueling speculation of a possible faculty ground assault.
In response to global uproar, pro-Israeli faculty leaders called the campaign a “perfectly proportional” response to CUPE’s continued attacks and offered no further comment.
In related news, York University students will return to classes tomorrow.
CUPE Seeks to Ban Israeli Academics from Ontario Campuses
In the latest idiotic move by CUPE, the union representing striking York University graduate students and contract faculty, the university workers committee will be lobbying in favour of banning Israeli academics from Ontario campuses due to the escalating crisis in Gaza.
Sid Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario, said that:
“Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general. It’s a logical next step, building on policy adopted by our provincial convention in 2006.”
The previous policy that Ryan refers to is Resolution 50, which favored divestment and boycotting of Israeli and Israel-related companies (like Caterpillar and Hewlett Packard?).
According to a press release published on January 5, the union now seeks a ban on “Israeli academics doing speaking, teaching or research work at Ontario universities.”
Ryan, who failed to see the irony in his own words, told the Globe and Mail that:
“Attacking an institution of learning is just beyond the pale. They deliberately targeted an institution of learning. That’s what the Nazis did.”
The solution that CUPE proposes to this “attack on an institution of learning” is, of course, to attack academic freedom.
Prof. Costanza Musu, who presently teaches International Relations courses at the University of Ottawa, points out the obvious absurdity and academic harm inherent in CUPE’s position:
As professors we have a duty to teach our students to think autonomously, analyze information critically and listen to others’ opinions. As someone who teaches the Arab-Israeli conflict I cannot think of any more useful pedagogical tool than integrating in my classes lectures (as well are readings, or should articles and books be boycotted too?) by people from both sides in order to expose students to different points of view and narratives… I cannot fathom how I would be fulfilling my duty as a professor if I decided to stop inviting Israeli speakers and to prevent students from listening to them and form their own opinion.
…
What about those who might teach information technology, or neurosciences, or astrophysics? They would have to stand in front of their audiences and start their talk with a short speech in condemnation of the Government of Israel?
Prof. Emanuel Adler, chairman of Israeli Studies at the University of Toronto, echoes Musu’s concerns:
“Students should receive the message that the situation is very tragic for both Israelis and Palestinians, but the conflict and the violence should not be brought inside the university… If there is a place that some solution should come out of other than government it should be a place where creativity can lead to a peaceful resolution of conflict.”
The other problem with CUPE’s proposal is that they seek to ban academics on the basis of national origin. Fortunately, CUPE has no actual power to hire or fire academics on University campuses. If they did, this would smell like a human rights violation.
For now, this just smells like stupidity.
Say what you will about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; unions should stick to representing their workers, not meddling in international politics.
h/t to Eivor Cormie at the University of Western Ontario.
The “Art” of the Cross-Examination
- Be brief.
- Use short questions, plain words.
- Always ask leading questions.
- Don’t ask a question to which you do not know the answer.
- Listen to the witness’s answers.
- Don’t quarrel with the witness.
- Don’t allow the witness to repeat his or her direct testimony.
- Don’t permit the witness to explain his or her answers.
- Don’t ask the “one question too many.”
- Save the ultimate point of your cross for summation.
How much is 2 + 2?
A businessman was trying to choose a lawyer, but was being very careful about it. He scheduled appointments to interview three lawyers.
At the first lawyer’s office, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the businessman said, “Okay, let’s get down to business. I have an important question for you, and I want you to think carefully before answering. How much is two plus two?”
The lawyer raised his eyebrows. “two plus two is four.” The businessman thanked him for his time, and proceeded to his next appointment.
The second lawyer, who was also a CPA, seemed a bit more particular than the first lawyer. After an initial discussion, the businessman again announced that he had a very important question, and asked, “How much is two plus two?”
The second lawyer went over to a computer, and entered figures into a spreadsheet. “According to my calculations, two plus two is approximately four.” The businessman thanked him for his time, and proceeded to his next appointment.
The third lawyer sat behind a big mahogany desk, and smoked a cigar. He seemed rather self-important as compared to the other two, but at the same time appeared to be much more successful. The businessman again announced, “I would like you to answer a very important question for me, before I decide whether I should use your services. How much is two plus two?”
The lawyer pulled the shades, locked the door to his office, and asked in a hushed voice, “How much do you want it to be?”
h/t Eddie at ELawyer Malaysia
Law is Cool Contributor Among Top 25 Political Blogs in Canada
Devin Johnston, who contributes to Law is Cool, was recently mentioned in the top political blogs in Canada.
We’re glad to have him on board, even if he shares some very unsavoury company on that list.
Could Osgoode Law Students Sue Over Strike?
Most of our readers would be aware of the ongoing strike at York University led by CUPE 3903. York administrators have also indicated serious financial difficulties.
What people may not have realized is that the strike also affects law students at Osgoode Hall.
A second-year Osgoode student, Thomas Wisdom, shares the challenges some of his peers are facing,
First- and second-year students with summer jobs: A lot of people are ecstatic about the fact that they will be gainfully employed at law firms in the summer months… [but] they face the frustration of renegotiation start dates with their employers.
Daniel Simard, also in his second year, points out how graduating students are also impacted,
…third year students could potentially be detrimentally impacted if they have to complete their studies well into the month of May; the period perennially allotted for the fulfillment and preparation of licensing requirements mandated by the Law Society of Upper Canada, including Bar Admissions.
Parents and students have also expressed that the reputation of York University, and by extension, Osgoode Hall, may be affected.
But do all these concerns give a right to sue? The Globe & Mail mentioned yesterday that some of the families are considering a class-action lawsuit against both York University and the union.
See the rest of the post at Slaw; Simon Fodden points out that classes have resumed at Osgoode, but could a cause of action be made in the future, depending on the fallout from these students’ legal careers?
Seven Years of Imprisonment and Zero Charges Later, Canada Frees Syrian Terror Suspect
Syrian terror suspect Hassan Almrei was released Friday by Canadian authorities after spending seven years in custody without being formally charged.
Justice Richard Mosley of federal court said in a written statement that the continued detention of Almrei, accused of being a threat to national security, can no longer be justified. “It is difficult to find any cases in the common-law world where a person detained on security grounds has been held for so long,” Mosley J. said.
Almrei was arrested in October 2001 for being connected to an individual suspected by U.S. officials of being linked to the September 11 attacks. That individual was never convicted of terrorism but was convicted of an immigration violation and deported to Syria.
According to the Associated Press,
Almrei was the last remaining terror suspect being held under Canada’s national security certificate law, which allows the government to detain and deport immigrants without charges if they are deemed a threat to national security. The law was enacted shortly after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.
Almrei’s counsel argued that indefinite detention without charge or trial amounted to cruelty.
The judge said that Almrei should be released but closely monitored by authorities until it can be determined whether the security certificate is reasonable and whether he can be deported to Syria or another country.
Everybody May Get Stoned
A marijuana decriminalization law goes into effect today in the state of Massachusetts. The law, approved by voters in a November referendum, makes possession of one ounce or less of marijuana legal, though subject to a $100 fine.
Minors caught with one ounce or less of marijuana must pay the fine and attend a drug abuse counseling course, or have the fine increased to $1,000.
In Canada, marijuana is classified as a “controlled substance” under the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Act makes possession of marijuana a criminal law offence. However, since 2000, a series of court decisions in Ontario have invalidated (and then validated) the prohbition of marijuana based on the insufficiency of the exemptions provided for legitimate medical users of the drug. Despite these rulings, prosecutors can still pursue charges against marijuana users. Furthermore, the Act will likely continue to be modified in an effort to conform to constitutional requirements found by the courts. As the Act changes, it’s uncertain if the courts will continue the trend towards decriminalization.
Lastly, while the majority of Canadians support the legalization of marijuana, the newly elected minority government of Canada campaigned on a “National Anti-Drug Strategy,” which considers marijuana possession illegal and includes a much more restrictive law with higher minimum penalties.
Awards
Partners
sLaw- The Court
- British Columbia (Ministry of Education) v. Moore: Comparing Approaches to Comparator Groups in the Context of Anti-Discrimination Legislation
- So You Got Punched By a Cop: Disciplinary Action or Civil Suit? Issue Estoppel in Penner v. Niagara (Police Services Board), 2010 ONCA 616
- The ‘Return to Unanimity’ in Insite and Division of Powers Jurisprudence: Chief Justice McLachlin’s ‘Oversight’
- UofT
- UofC
- UofA
- LexMonitor
- blawg