Welcome to my blog! I'm Victoria, and I love liberty, individual rights, and writing about politics, trials, and current events. Read more about me here.
Let’s take a break from law and politics this morning to wish a very happy (belated) 100th birthday to the home of the Red Sox, Fenway Park. Watch part of the ceremony, featuring Red Sox legends from past and present, above.
Jennifer Robinson, lawyer to Julian Assange, tweeted that she is now on the “inhibited fly list” and is not allowed to travel without permission from the Australian government. While flying back to her native Australia from England after meeting with Assange, she was temporarily barred from boarding her flight at Heathrow Airport. ”I think if it is happening it is a real concern that human rights lawyers who are doing their jobs are under surveillance,” she said.
The Australian Lawyers Alliance said in a statement, ”Lawyers must be able to act for their clients without fearing that they will be harassed by government agencies, either in their own country or overseas. An independent legal profession is a hallmark of a democratic society and the UK and Australian Governments’ actions towards lawyers, such as Ms Robinson, undermines that.”
On a slightly related topic, swimsuit model Bar Refaeli tweeted her outrage about an intrusive pat-down that she was forced to undergo, possibly at the same airport.
Read about various famous people who have spoken out against airport security excesses here.
Julian Assange’s TV show, The World Tomorrow, recently premiered on Russia Today. His top-secret guest turned out to be the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah. The two controversial activists, who both happen to be staying in undisclosed locations for security reasons, chatted about Israel, the Arab Spring uprisings, religion, and possible corruption within Hezbollah, among other topics. Assange asked Nasrallah some tough questions, but they were very civil and cordial with each other and even shared a laugh.
Despite what some self-proclaimed experts may say, I think this show is great. Yes, it takes place in the house where he’s staying while on bail, as opposed to in a professional studio, and it’s a little weird that his guest is on a computer screen instead of actually with him. Plus, Assange and RT are an unlikely combination, especially when you add Nasrallah into the mix. But it’s cool to see Assange as an interviewer as opposed to being interviewed. And Nasrallah certainly lived up to all the hype. There aren’t many people as controversial as he is, and this was his first interview in Western media in 6 years. The video is well worth watching, either above or on YouTube.
Update: Glenn Greenwald wrote a great defense of Assange and RT, smacking down this somewhat disdainful review by the New York Times.
Photo by Paul Weiskel
There has been something of a brouhaha, in the Boston area at least, about the above picture, showing a confrontation between a police officer and an Occupy Boston member who was protesting against the Massachusetts Tea Party Coalition‘s tax day rally. For a cop to grab someone by the neck seems extreme at first. But when you think about what the protesters were doing, it actually doesn’t seem too unreasonable.
There is a difference between voicing your views and preventing anyone who disagrees with you from voicing theirs. I am all for protesting – holding up signs, chanting, circulating petitions, holding sit-ins, etc. But I am not in favor of protests that are so disruptive that they effectively take away the freedom of speech of the people they are protesting. I admit that I did not attend this year’s Tea Party rally. And I admit that this is a fine distinction. But judging by photos, videos, and news reports, I think the anti-tea-party protesters were on the wrong side of it. They certainly were last year, when they pushed their way between the audience and the stage and held up signs and banners to deliberately block our view of the speakers that we had gathered to watch. Contrast this with a protest that I was a part of, against President Obama’s visit to Northeastern University to support Martha Coakley’s senate campaign in 2010. We lined the streets, held up signs, chanted, and marched around, but we did not, for example, burst into the hall where Obama was speaking, drown out his words, or hold up signs blocking his face.
This is not just about keeping order, it is about protecting the freedom of speech of minorities against a majority who would drown them out. And in Boston, conservatives are certainly a minority. It is heartening that the Boston Police acted to protect the rights of Tea Party activists to hold a rally in a political climate where their views are unpopular among the majority of people.
Yesterday’s New York Times brings us the story of Albert Holland, Jr., who was sentenced to death for first-degree murder in 1996 after a trial, and later a retrial, in Florida. After he exhausted his state-level appeals, he filed a habeas corpus petition, which eventually went to the Supreme Court and was granted in 2010. Recently, a lower court awarded him a third trial. The reason for all these appeals? Holland has had to deal with one incompetent lawyer after another and was not allowed to represent himself. One ended up in jail for domestic violence and drug use, and later died of an overdose. The next was a friend of the first lawyer, who in addition to representing Holland, also represented his predecessor when he sued Holland for $40,000 in legal fees. Another lawyer filed the habeas petition 5 weeks late, despite repeated letters from Holland reminding him of the importance of the deadline, and failed to answer Holland’s questions about the status of his case.
Due in large part to Holland’s knowledge and advocacy, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and ultimately ruled in his favor, overruling the district court and appeals court’s’ decisions to deny the petition because it was late. A lower federal judge, Patricia Seitz, then paved the way for a new trial when she ruled that the state court had violated his Sixth Amendment rights by denying his repeated requests to represent himself.
Although he has been described as mentally ill, Holland has served as an excellent lawyer for himself. Justice Breyer praised him for keeping track of the deadlines for appealing death sentences better than his lawyers had. Holland also pointed out that the crime of attempted felony murder, which he had been indicted on, did not exist under Florida law. And he made the (ultimately successful) argument, supported by established precedent, that legal training is not a requirement for someone to be allowed to represent himself.
This case shows that persistence can pay off, and that sometimes ordinary people can do a better job than experts. Good for Holland for having the intelligence and the wherewithal to make sure that his legal rights were protected when his attorneys were unable and/or unwilling to do so.
Norwegian right-wing radical and self-proclaimed resistance fighter Anders Behring Breivik went on trial today for the shooting spree and bombing last summer that killed 77 people. “I admit to the acts, but not criminal guilt and I claim self-defense,” Breivik said in an Oslo courtroom. He refused to stand as the judge entered the room, saying that he does not recognize her authority. According to news reports, he showed no emotion or remorse as prosecutors outlined the deaths and the evidence against him. But he burst into tears as a nationalistic video that he had posted on YouTube was played.
Breivik has never denied that he carried out the bombing of a government building and shooting spree at a summer camp for teenagers organized by Norway’s Labor Party. He claims that he acted in self-defense, as part of a war against communism, multiculturalism, and immigration, which he believes are destroying Europe. And he plans to call fellow right-wing extremists and, from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, radical Muslims, to provide support for his views. Not surprisingly, although Norway has a legal principle of preventative self-defense, experts are skeptical of Breivik’s arguments.
Whether Breivik is competent to stand trial has been a matter of debate. One psychological evaluation concluded that he was insane, while a more recent one found him competent. Breivik himself strenuously objected to the initial findings, saying that spending the rest of his life in a mental institution would be worse than death and that deeming him mentally ill would destroy the political message that he is trying to give voice to. If Breivik’s competence is upheld, he faces up to 21 years in prison, but the sentence could be extended as long as authorities consider him a danger to society.
I actually agree with Breivik on this. If he chose to do what he did, and wants to be judged accordingly, then he should be. To treat someone as “sick” when they break the law implies that they lack freedom of choice, and treats them as less than a person. Instead, criminals should be treated as people who have free will and chose to do wrong. In every legal case, defendants should receive whatever punishment, if any, is determined to fit their actions. To overrule Breivik’s expressed beliefs about his own mental state and his desire to be held accountable for his actions is not only disrespectful to him, but is unjust for the victims and the general public.
Back in December, Tarek Mehanna was convicted in federal court of supporting Al Qaeda and conspiring to murder U.S. troops in Iraq. He had posted numerous writings and videos on the Internet that the government characterized as pro-Al Qaeda and pro-jihad. In 2004, he traveled to Yemen, allegedly looking to attend a terrorist training camp (which he never attended).
On Thursday, he was sentenced to 17 years in prison for these actions. He also gave a long, defiant speech in which he described his upbringing, the books and historical figures that influenced him, and his dedication to defending people who are being oppressed, which he says is happening to Muslims at the hands of the U.S. Here are some excerpts: