Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Now that the trial phase of the Scooter Libby case is over, an odd little controversy has broken out over a brief filed by a group of prominent legal scholars. I think it's a good example of how simpleminded partisanship can lead one to leapfrog over the need to think rationally and reach an unjustified conclusion. The brief can be found here. It was filed by a group of 12 prominent legal scholars including Robert Bork, Randy Barnett, Vikram Amar and Alan Dershowitz, and it argues that the appointment of Fitzgerald as special counsel may be unconstitutional.
The reasoning revolves around a highly technical matter of constitutional law, whether the position of special prosecutor is an "inferior officer" under Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution or whether he is a "principal officer." There is no doubt that Fitzgerald held an "inferior office" as the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, but under the law he cannot be elevated to a position as a "principal officer" without a separate Senate nomination and confirmation.
So the question is whether the office of Special Prosecutor that he was appointed to is inferior or principal. It also revolves around the differences between a special prosecutor and an independent prosecutor. The key difference is that an independent prosecutor is required by law to follow all DOJ procedures, while a special prosecutor is explicitly exempted from them (or at least Fitzgerald was, in this case). That suggests that his appointment may constitute a principal office rather than an inferior one.
As I said, all of this is really quite technical and none of it is particularly ideological. Thus, it's not surprising that the law professors who signed this brief are from across the political spectrum, ranging from very conservative to very liberal to libertarian. But that hasn't stopped some folks from trying to make it a partisan issue. Take a look at this post by "emptywheel" at The Next Hurrah titled Bork Tries to Fire Another Prosecutor. Yes, it's a good snark if one knows Bork's history with the Saturday Night Massacre in the Nixon administration, but it's absolute nonsense.
Why focus on Bork's presence among a list of a dozen eminent legal scholars? Whatever his motivations, is emptywheel going to pretend that the liberal Vik Amar and the liberal Alan Dershowitz were brainwashed by him as part of some evil partisan scheme? Or that Akhil Amar and Lawrence Tribe, both liberal legal scholars upon whose scholarship the brief largely relies, are out to get Scooter Libby off and help out the Bush administration? This is an example of someone using a cognitive shortcut, cutting out all that pesky critical thinking to leap right to a clearly false conclusion.
So eager is emptywheel to make it in to a partisan political issue that he criticizes Dershowitz for not making the same argument against Ken Starr. After noting that Dershowitz appeared on CNN and answered a question by saying that he would have made the same argument if it involved the Clinton administration rather than the Bush administration. He writes that he wishes he could have done the interview so he could have followed up with this question:
You said you would have filed the same brief against Special Prosecutors in the Clinton case. But you didn't. Instead, you chose to combat the prosecution on political terms, not legal ones. So why did you file the brief this time, and why didn't you file the same brief when Ken Starr was going on a rampage?
Well I'm not Alan Dershowitz, but I think I can answer the question: because Ken Starr was not a sitting US Attorney at the time of his appointment. That makes it an entirely different legal question. The question in this case revolves around assigning the duties of a principal office to someone who was confirmed to an inferior office. The simpleminded comparison of the two situations ignores the relevant legal questions and is sloppy, if not outright silly.
It should also be noted that the judge in the case, Judge Walton, allowed the brief to be filed but rejected its findings. This will undoubtedly be a major issue on appeal, and that was the whole point of the brief. The scholars are arguing that Libby has a good chance of winning his appeal on that issue and thus should be allowed to remain free pending the outcome of the appeal; it should be noted that this fits with standard liberal and libertarian legal opinion.
But Judge Walton did not just reject their argument, he chose to engage in a bit of sarcasm in discussing it. In a footnote to his order allowing the brief to be entered in the case, Judge Walton writes:
It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.
This is nothing more than an attack on the integrity of the scholars who filed the brief and it is simply out of line for the judge to have said it. All of the scholars who signed that brief have done pro bono work on behalf of legal principles they feel strongly about and they will likely all do so in the future. Even worse is emptywheel's silly reaction to it:
Ouch! You think maybe he didn't appreciate the heavy-handed intervention into his case? You think maybe he didn't appreciate having 12 fancy lawyers suggest he can't make his own decision in this matter?
This is not some county hanging judge in Jerkwater, Alabama getting mad at "fancy big city lawyers" telling him what to do. This is a Federal judge handling a very high profile case in the public eye. He may be acting like some local yokel being lectured by pointy-headed intellectuals, but no reasonable person should be applauding that attitude. He was out of line. Eugene Volokh gets it right:
The point of amicus briefs is to express the signatories' views on some matter that they especially care about, in which they have a special interest or on which they have special expertise. A pro-abortion-rights organization, for instance, may file such a brief in an abortion rights case. Constitutional law professors who believe the Constitution, properly interpreted, supports abortion rights may do the same. No-one pretends that it's an "impressive show of public service," except insofar as any not terribly difficult action on behalf of a legal view that you think is the right view is a form of public service.Such amici (whether advocacy groups or professors) surely incur no professional or moral obligation to start helping other litigants who raise other issues about which the amici don't are, or on which they lack expertise. Would you demand that a pro-abortion-rights professor who filed a pro-abortion-rights brief also file a brief in an assisted suicide case? Would you demand that he file such a brief even in an abortion rights case that raises a different issue? I would hope not -- there's just no reason to think that because someone cared strongly about issue X he must now express his views about issue Y, or even that his views about issue Y would be helpful. The same applies here.
Now perhaps Judge Walton was suggesting that these amici would somehow have to file this brief only in cases that raise the same issue -- the constitutionality of independent counsel. But while that's one way of interpreting his reference to "similar questions," it's not consistent with the rest of his footnote, in particular the preceding sentence: He's referring to "numerous litigants, both in the Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions" -- but independent counsel prosecutions are not "numerous" (especially "throughout the courts of our nation"), and generally do not tend to involve litigants "who lack ... financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions." That's why I doubt that Judge Walton was only talking about the amici's supposed duty to file similar briefs only in independent counsel cases.
Yet even if he did mean this, what's the point of the sarcasm? I take it many of the signatories would be happy to express the same view in a future case raising the same issue. Some might not -- and according to standard professional conventions, they are entitled to decide which litigants to speak on behalf -- but many might. (Why would Amar or Dershowitz, to take the most obvious examples, treat a future Democratic special prosecutor target any worse than a future Republican?) The snideness thus seems at the very least premature.
Exactly right. It's nothing but an immature bit of snideness that has no place in a legal ruling. And frankly, it's only being cheered because some people are so blinded by political considerations and their zeal to see Libby in jail that they're willing to denigrate anyone who dares to suggest otherwise. And for the record, I think Libby should go to jail too; I just don't think that has anything to do with the validity of this brief or the motivations of the men who filed it.
Emptywheel is not alone in his simpleminded rejection of the brief based solely on the perceived political positions of those who wrote the brief. The Anonymous Liberal, for example, dismisses it as the work of "twelve right-leaning law professors" and opines thusly:
The truth, of course, is pretty simple. These right-leaning professors view Libby sympathetically and don't want him to go to jail.
He presents no evidence for this, of course, and he ignores the presence of Dershowitz, Vik Amar and Barnett among the scholars and the views of Akhil Amar and Lawrence Tribe. This is a great example of what I have called the argumentum ad labelum; he has applied the label of "right leaning" to the group of scholars who filed the brief and used that label to ignore the substantive issue entirely and impugn their motives rather than engage the substance of the brief and the legal issues involved.
Is he seriously going to pretend that Randy Barnett and Vik Amar aren't sincere in their positions here but are rather motivated by their desire to see a man they almost certainly don't know and who works for an administration they do not support go free? If so, he's out of his mind. It's exactly the sort of simpleminded, partisan-inspired thinking that, ironically, he accuses those law professors of engaging in. Their mistake appears to be presuming that those who filed that brief are as unreasonable and partisan-motivated as they themselves are.
I think my longtime readers have figured out by now that I pretty much despise Robert Bork. I would love nothing more than to be able to slam him over this or any other issue. But the facts just don't support it. It should also be noted that Randy Barnett and Alan Dershowitz have both been fierce and outspoken critics of most of Bork's ideas. That's all the more reason that, when they combine forces to make a constitutional argument despite their enormous differences of opinion, they should be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand by simpleminded partisans. They are making exactly the same kind of empty argument that pedestrian conservatives make when they dismiss an argument as "typical liberal thinking"; unfortunately, they don't seem to realize that.
Comments
Re Alan Dershowitz
Mr. Brayton may find this hard to believe but Prof. Dershowitz, despite being a life long civil libertarian and supporter of liberal causes, is more hated in left wing circles then is Robert Bork or even Clarence Thomas. This is because he has the temerity to support and defend the State of Israel in books, interviews, and written media. In left wing circles, Israel is considered the apotheosis of all that is evil in the world, something to be equated with Nazi Germany. To defend this state is to place oneself beyond the pale of civilized conversation. For example, he has been the target of a false smear campaign by the left wing counterpunch web site over allegations of plagiarism. Thus the presence of Prof. Dershowitz, even more then Robert Bork on this brief will act as a lightning rod to attract the negative attention of the left.
Posted by: SLC | June 13, 2007 9:57 AM
Judge Walton is way out of line here. Among other things, Robert Bork is retired from the DC Circuit bench, and hence Walton's direct superior.
As for the merits, any time Bork and Amar are on the same side of a contested Constitutional issue, they're probably right. As for Scooter, he's just staff. Powerful and highly placed, but staff, eminently replaceable (and already replaced). He was never the target of the investigation, so if he must be set free, I'm not losing any sleep.
Have the Senate take a confirmation vote on SCs from now on. End of debate.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 13, 2007 10:02 AM
Scooter Libby should be shot as a traitor, not jailed as a liar.
His boss, ElDuce should be shot and then hung from a lamp post
Posted by: ed pefferman | June 13, 2007 10:07 AM
This issue has significant implications even beyond Scooter Libby's case. It's the issue (I agree, it is constitutionally substantial and really very interesting, with a couple of possible directions indicated by Supreme Court precedent) that keeps Libby out of jail pending appeal. Judge Walton should grant his motion because it is a substantial legal question.
I say it has implications beyond Libby's case for this reason. President Bush's worst nightmare in Libby's case is that the motion gets denied. Bush is under enormous political pressure to pardon Libby, as well as enormous pressure not to do so. If a pardon must come, Bush wants it to be on January 19, 2009 after Libby (who's remained free on bond pending appeal) is headed off to serve his sentence (if that is the outcome -- not certain given the issue of Fitzgerald's appointment). Worst case scenario for Bush: motion denied, DC Circuit denies immediate review, Libby must begin serving his time within 45 days. Now Bush has to decide -- pardon Libby and piss off the moderate Republicans and independents the GOP will very much need in '08, or don't pardon Libby and piss off the GOP base that the GOP also very much needs?
You can bet Bush includes Judge Walton in his prayers every night before bed: "God, please tell Judge Walton to grant Scooter's motion..."
Posted by: Dan | June 13, 2007 10:14 AM
emptywheel is a she.
Posted by: nal | June 13, 2007 10:26 AM
I think AL makes a good point:
It sure looks that way. Their timing may justify the judges's ridicule.
Posted by: nal | June 13, 2007 10:49 AM
Look, respectfully, you quoted one line from a very, very long post and you completely ignored my argument to make your point. Here's just part of what I wrote (and you ignore):
There are often cases involving criminal defendants (or accused terrorists) in which the importance of the legal question being decided far outweighs the significance of what ends up happening to the individual defendant. For instance, those who submitted briefs on behalf of Salim Ahmed Hamdan were not vouching for him personally but rather were standing up for the rule of law and against executive overreach. As an amicus party, you are generally fighting for a principle, not a person.
But this is not one of those situations. Even assuming that these professors have some genuine interest in the question of whether Patrick Fitzgerald's appointment was constitutional, that question is going to be decided by the D.C. Circuit, not Judge Walton. All that Walton is deciding is whether Libby will be granted bail while his appeal is pending. In other words, whatever Walton decides, it will have no impact whatsoever on the resolution of the constitutional question. Which means that this brief was submitted not to vindicate a legal principle, but rather to assist Libby personally.
That's why I think Judge Walton's sarcasm was justified. If the constitutional question raised by Fitzgerald's appointment was actually being litigated, i.e., this amicus brief was submitted to the D.C. Circuit as a part of the appeals process, I wouldn't have any problem with it. But it wasn't. It was submitted in connection with a hearing over whether Libby should be granted bail. The only possible reason for submitting a brief at that stage is to help Libby get bail, something the professors disingenuously state in their brief that they are not trying to do.
The "right-leaning" comment was an aside in a very long, substantive post, not an example of argumentum ad labelum. I'd encourage your readers to read my post and see if your characterization of it is a fair one. My point was that the only conceivable motivation for submitting an amicus brief in connection with a bail hearing is to try to influence that bail hearing. I don't see how that can even be argued.
Posted by: A.L. | June 13, 2007 11:18 AM
A.L.-
I don't think your argument is the least bit convincing. Has it never occurred to you that there is a principle at stake here quite apart from any personal or political considerations about Libby? That principle should be rather obvious: that it is unjust to imprison someone pending appeal when he has a good chance of winning that appeal. This, by the way, is very standard liberal (and libertarian) legal thinking. One has to wonder why you are so eager to jettison it in this one case. If it was an indigent defendant with a strong case for appeal, I doubt you would be making the same argument (at least I would hope you wouldn't be).
Now, it might be that there are a few hypocrites among those who signed the brief. There may well be one or a few of them who care more about partisan considerations than about the principle the brief defends. But you're merely assuming that to be the case, not making an argument for it, and you're lumping them all together as "right wing professors" when 1/3 of them are not right wing at all. You're making the same assumption that pedestrian conservatives make all the time, that anything said by those whose view you oppose simply must be said disingenuously and with an ulterior motive. And while it may be true that some portion of the men who filed that brief may be biased by their partisanship, it's quite obvious that you are behaving in precisely the same manner by just casually dismissing the effort as the product of "right wing professors" (ignoring the others and their possible motivation), by presuming a bad motive rather than providing evidence of one, and by refusing to even consider either the substantive issues raised in the brief or the principled arguments for submitting it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 13, 2007 11:36 AM
Amicus brief:
If the issue is a close one, then there is not necessarily a good chance of winning on appeal.
Posted by: nal | June 13, 2007 12:14 PM
Ed, respectfully, I still think you are missing the point. You write:
Has it never occurred to you that there is a principle at stake here quite apart from any personal or political considerations about Libby? That principle should be rather obvious: that it is unjust to imprison someone pending appeal when he has a good chance of winning that appeal.
I fully agree, and I wrote in a previous post that I have no objection to Libby being granted bail if Judge Walton determines that his appeal has a good chance of prevailing. But it's important to keep in mind that MOST people are not granted bail pending appeal and that this isn't a case of an indigent defendent lacking the ability to articulate his argument. Libby is ably represented by a dream legal team which is more than capable of making the necessary arguments.
If it was an indigent defendant with a strong case for appeal, I doubt you would be making the same argument (at least I would hope you wouldn't be).
And if things were different, they wouldn't be the same. Libby isn't an indigent defendant (and I don't think his appeal is very strong, but that's another story).
An amicus brief is a brief submitted by party that has an interest in the outcome of whatever is being litigated. My point was that the only thing currently being litigated is whether Libby gets bail. In other words, the only possible relevant interest these academics can have is an interest in seeing Libby get bail.
And that's fine if they were honest about it. But they're not. They specifically state in their brief that they "take no position" on whether Libby should be granted bail. But that makes no sense. It's disingenuous.
You're absolutely right that my "right-leaning" comment was sloppy (I said so myself in my own comment section), but it was also a minor aside. Whatever their general political ideology, these people are seeking to intervene in a bail hearing, not an appeal. I think it's fair to infer from that they are motivated more by personal sympathy for Libby than any constitutional principles (which aren't even before the court). It's fine to have such sympathy, but they could at least be straight-forward about it.
And though it's only a minor point, I think it's fair to classify both Dershowitz and Barnett as right-leaning when it comes to foreign policy issues (which might explain the sympathy for Libby). I don't know enough about Vik Amar to comment intelligently on his political leanings.
Posted by: A.L. | June 13, 2007 1:16 PM
Prof. Dershowitz, despite being a life long civil libertarian and supporter of liberal causes, is more hated in left wing circles then is Robert Bork or even Clarence Thomas. This is because he has the temerity to support and defend the State of Israel in books, interviews, and written media
uh, no.
Dershowitz is just one in a long line of people who chose to overlook the utter lack of evidence supporting the decision to go to war in Iraq and instead cheer along with the rush to invade as loudly as he could. that's enough to earn him a place in the pantheon of Those Who Should Be Ignored. it's not about Israel.
unless... maybe you'd like to assert that "defending Israel" was the goal behind the invasion ?
Posted by: cleek | June 13, 2007 1:34 PM
A.L.-
You still are ignoring the one issue that should matter: the validity of the principle the brief defends. Regardless of whether Libby is a Republican and regardless of whether he is a rich white guy, should we imprison people pending appeal when that appeal has a good chance of overturning their conviction and they are clearly neither a flight risk nor a danger to others? Liberal legal theory clearly says no to that question. If you think that Randy Barnett is defending that principle because he has sympathy for Libby specifically, you clearly don't know him and are just casting aspersions based solely upon your vague notion that he might be "right-leaning" on some issue. Yes, this is a case of argumentum ad labelum. You clearly think that as long as you can find a way to attach that label to the men who wrote the brief, that alone is enough to impugn their integrity without any actual evidence. If that was not the case, why would you make a point of trying to justify attaching that label to Barnett and Dershowitz? The label is controlling your reaction, not any sober analysis of the legitimacy of their argument. Focus on the argument, not on your rejection of their political positions. You are engaging in precisely the behavior you are accusing them of doing.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 13, 2007 1:41 PM
Sorry, Cleek, but the hatred of much of the left for Dershowitz is about Israel. You can tell because it long preceded the invasion of Iraq and because the bulk of it since the invasion of Iraq refers specifically to his support for Israel. To take but one example, Norman Finkelstein's attack on Dershowitz, supported by figures including Noam Chomsky, is all about Israel.
Posted by: Bill Poser | June 13, 2007 1:45 PM
Sorry, Cleek, but the hatred of much of the left for Dershowitz is about Israel.
with all due respect, i am doubtful of your mass-mind-reading ability. for instance, i know pretty much nothing at all about Dershowitz's Israel support, but i do know that he was a vocal Iraq war cheerleader back in the day - and that alone distinguishes him as an idiot, when it comes to foreign policy.
in addition, he's also a vocal supporter of torture. is that what you'd expect from "a life long civil libertarian and supporter of liberal causes" ?
Posted by: cleek | June 13, 2007 2:13 PM
I'm with Ed on this one: I'm not willing, under the circumstances, to impute any sinister motive or hidden agenda to the amicus writers in this instance. I'll freely admit that as to most of them, I give them the strong benefit of the doubt out of respect for them and their scholarly reputations. But even if I do my best to put all that aside, I still don't see anything improper at work here.
Let me begin with the caveat that I'm not a crim pro expert, and what I say about the requirements of the federal bond statute and stay pending appeal is all from rather distant memory. As I recall, there are two primary issues. First, does Libby pose a flight risk? The parties agree he does not. (As an aside, imagine the hilarity that would ensue from an O.J.-like flight scene -- Scooter laying down in the back of a Secret Service SUV, Cheney at the wheel, talking on his cell phone to Bill O'Reilly while driving thru the streets of DC: "He's got a gun...says he's despondent...wants Air Force One to fly him to Cuba...says he's got his passport and cash...he's wearing a clown wig and floppy shoes as a disguise...I think he's serious.")
The second requirement is that the appeal will raise a substantial, unsettled question of fact or law. Libby doesn't have to prove he has a "good" chance of winning on appeal; that is not the standard. He simply has to show a substantial, unsettled question of law, and that it is a "close call" (not from the statute, but as I recall, an accurate description of the standard). If that is so, then clearly the issue of the constitutional validity of Fitzgerald's appointment fits the bill. Under Morrison, the Court's functionalist approach suggests that Fitzgerald in his capacity as special prosecutor would be an "inferior" officer, meaning his appointment would be valid. The more formalist approach by Scalia in Edmond (one can only be inferior if one has a superior -- a problem under the terms of Fitzgerald's appointment) seems to dictate the opposite conclusion. Like it or not, this is a substantial legal question, one that only the Supreme Court can definitively resolve.
Why the need for the amicus brief? Perhaps because Judge Walton has already considered the issue once and rejected the constitutional challenge. Like the authors of the brief, I see it as too close to call for a district court judge. Libby's motion should be granted, and he should remain free pending appeal.
Posted by: Dan | June 13, 2007 3:07 PM
Ed - I think you are off base in evaluating Walton's commentary.
Assume you are a judge on a criminal bench - federal or state, it doesn't matter. Let's just take your average federal judge for example. Nobody on a special docket, just good old Judge Brayton who handles day to day criminal matters. 100 new cases a year - a completely average judge. (Each case lasts around 7 months, so you are probably carrying a good 150 cases at any given moment. Statistics from www.uscourts.gov.)
Most of the criminal defendants appearing before you will have no money. It's cool. You have public defenders you appoint in those cases. Good public defenders for the most part. You have confidence in most of them. Some are not so great, some are terrific, and which one any particular indigent criminal client gets is not really up to you.
You know that a good defense lawyer assists not just the client, but the system, because you can be assured that valid arguments will be made and presented thoroughly and there will be no shady dealings which might taint the proceedings.
And although they're fine people, you know in your heart of hearts that the public defenders you are appointing have extremely limited budgets and more importantly, extremely limited time due to their overwhelming caseload.
Then into your courtroom waltzes some dickshit whose expensive privately retained attorneys are annoying fuckups who have no business being in front of you and, big fucking surprise, he gets found guilty and you sentence his ass to prison.
Now you have to make a decision as to whether he gets to go free pending appeal.
You have to make hundreds of these decisions a year. Some are argued capably and some not so capably. You know that the public defenders do what they can, some are good and some are not, all are thoroughly overworked and have very limited resources.
And out of nowhere, twelve superrich academics ask you if they can help argue this case. This case? THIS case? If they're so fucking concerned, why aren't they volunteering to help out in other cases? You'd LOVE to have top-notch academics, judges and lawyers coming down to help argue legal points on behalf of the government and defendant but guess what, nobody cares, nobody ever cares about what happens in the cases you handle. Why should they care? It's only liberty on the line, it's only the Constitution at stake, it's only life and death, it's only the fate of a defendant, their family, it's only the rule of law and the safety of the community on the line.
The day to day workings of your court is not enough to get these dingbats out of their ivory tower. They want ink. They want to suck up to those in power. They want money. They have no more respect for what happens every day in your courtroom than they have for the dogshit they accidentally step in on the way to work.
What other possible response to them is there other than "some fucking 'friends of the court' you are - where are you when the court needs you?"
Posted by: Jason | June 13, 2007 3:12 PM
I'm with ed pefferman at #3. This is handwaving from the Beltway Entitlement Fucks who just cannot BEAR to hear anyone say that, yes, the Rule of Fucking Law applies to them.
Libby is a felon and a traitor. The only reason Cheney and Rove aren't under arrest right now is because this weaselly turd obstructed the investigation into their treason.
2 1/2 years in Club Fed? Fuck that shit. He should be airlifted into the North Atlantic with a plank of rotten wood and a shark-bait life preserver.
Posted by: stogoe | June 13, 2007 3:15 PM
Alan Dershowitz is neither a liberal nor a civil libertarian. He's a publicity hound known for being involved in a series of high-profile, big money cases where he happened to be on the side of the defendant -- beginning with Klaus Bulow and ending with O.J. Simpson -- so maybe that's how he's supposed to be a "civil libertarian". This is another "high profile" case for his publicity hound image. As for the "conspiracy", I'm sure the common element is simply that they're getting paid, and politics has nothing to do with it. The judge's bit of sarcasm about the "public service" of these lawyers says it all, and I'm a little puzzled about why Brayton didn't get it.
Posted by: paul mccarthy | June 13, 2007 3:35 PM
Paul McCarthy wrote:
It's highly unlikely that any of them were paid to file that brief.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 13, 2007 3:51 PM
cleek,
Hate to agree with anyone on the Israel-can-do-no-wrong front, but other posters are right: much of the left's antipathy for Dershowitz has to do with his radically pro-Israel stance. It's nothing to apologize for, IMO, since his support for the Iraq war, torture, and military action against Iran are all tied into his political advocacy on the part of Israel.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 13, 2007 3:53 PM
Jason wrote:
First of all, the notion that these are all "superrich lawyers" is patently absurd. None of them are poor, to be sure, and Dershowitz is probably very well off (possibly Bork too, but I don't know that for sure). The rest of them are just your average law professors. Most of them are eminent scholars, to be sure, but professional respect hardly equates to being rich. Second of all, many of those scholars do a great deal of pro bono work in cases they feel passionately about, like Randy Barnett taking the Raich case all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for the rights of sick people in California. Most importantly, you - like virtually everyone else throwing a hissy fit about this brief - don't even attempt to address the merits of the brief or the principles behind it. Like the rest, you are content to presume bad motives and impugn their integrity with no evidence whatsoever. The principle that brief defends is an important one. It's a principle that liberal and libertarian legal scholars have always supported, that it is unjust to imprison a man when his appeal has a reasonable chance of succeeding and he is not a risk to flee or a danger to others. And it's incredible to me how quickly some people are willing to jettison that principle because the argument is made by people they consider political enemies.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 13, 2007 4:03 PM
Cleek,
Your defense of your belief about left wing antipathy to Dershowitz appears to be that you know nothing much about him. That's not much of a defense. Think about it.
My "mass-mind-reading ability" derives from my ability to read the numerous critiques of Dershowitz to be found all over the place, and to have read them since long before 9/11. I already gave you the example of Finkelstein, but Google or a peak or Dershowitz's own web site will easily produce more.
And yes, Dershowitz does indeed have a long civil-libertarian record.
You might begin with the article about him in Wikipedia. For example, he has a long record of defense of free speech rights, including the successful appeal of actor Harry Reems' conviction for distribution of obscenity for his role in the movie Deep Throat and is well known for his defense of the right of Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois. He has published an entire book attacking the Supreme Court's "hijacking" of the election of 2000, hardly a right-wing position. Far from being a "vocal supporter of torture", he has written a carefully reasoned argument that torture may be ethical under certain, very limited, circumstances. Agree with him or not, it isn't even remotely an apologia for torture in the general case. It's about the "guy who we know knows the location of the atomic bomb about to go off" scenario and how far that scenario extends.
So, yes, Dershowitz has a well established track record as a man of the left and advocate of civil liberties who is hated by many on the left because he does not share their hatred of Israel. There may be a few people who knew nothing about him until recently and base their opinion of him entirely on his views on the Iraq war, but they are certainly Johnnie-come-latelies to the anti-Dershowitz parade.
Posted by: Bill Poser | June 13, 2007 4:30 PM
Your defense of your belief about left wing antipathy to Dershowitz appears to be that you know nothing much about him. That's not much of a defense. Think about it.
my own knowledge of Dershowitz and politics (specifically on foreign policy, and not as a celebrity lawyer) comes from his moonlighting as a pro-war, pro-torture pundit. since the Libby case is grounded in that war, his advocacy for the war colors his defense of Libby.
i'll get to "left wing antipathy" in a second.
Far from being a "vocal supporter of torture", he has written a carefully reasoned argument that torture may be ethical under certain, very limited, circumstances.
i think you'll find a number of people who flatly disagree with the notion that torture is ever "ethical". his argument is that torture should be legalized and institutionalized - that puts him out there in Yoo/Gonzalez territory - not where you'd expect to find a champion of civil rights.
and yes, i'd say he's "vocal" about it, he's made the argument many times, over and over, in print and in interviews. the one sure way to not be know as a vocal supporter of X is to not advocate legalizing X in interview after interview.
It's about the "guy who we know knows the location of the atomic bomb about to go off" scenario and how far that scenario extends.
it extends down multiple slippery slopes. and he should know that.
There may be a few people who knew nothing about him until recently and base their opinion of him entirely on his views on the Iraq war, but they are certainly Johnnie-come-latelies to the anti-Dershowitz parade.
and are they entitled to protest when they're lumped in with those who have an anti-Israel axe to grind ? is it odd that they would say, "hey, wait a minute - i think Dershowitz is an uber-hawkish pro-torture dink, and that has nothing to do with his feelings on Israel and everything to do with the fact that he uncritically repeated the Bush administrations obvious lies and distortions about Iraq" ?
and, as for "a few": do you know the percentage ? do you have any stats at all to back-up that quantification ? do you have a graph showing the before/after numbers and positions ? because, before Iraq, i suspect most people's opinions of him came from the OJ trial not from Finkelstein (whoever that is). since then he's made a name for himself as yet another pro-torture hawk.
Posted by: cleek | June 13, 2007 5:41 PM
You still are ignoring the one issue that should matter: the validity of the principle the brief defends. Regardless of whether Libby is a Republican and regardless of whether he is a rich white guy, should we imprison people pending appeal when that appeal has a good chance of overturning their conviction and they are clearly neither a flight risk nor a danger to others?
Actually I'm not ignoring this principal. I said I agreed with it and that I will have no problem whatsoever if Judge Walton finds that Libby should be granted bail.
If you think that Randy Barnett is defending that principle because he has sympathy for Libby specifically, you clearly don't know him and are just casting aspersions based solely upon your vague notion that he might be "right-leaning" on some issue. Yes, this is a case of argumentum ad labelum. You clearly think that as long as you can find a way to attach that label to the men who wrote the brief, that alone is enough to impugn their integrity without any actual evidence.
Rubbish. If you take that entire line out of my post, my point is still clear. It's not about labels. I was merely explaining the significance of the fact that this "amicus brief" was submitted in connection with a bail hearing. That's REALLY weird and strongly indicative of a desire to assist Scooter Libby personally (while grabbing headlines) as opposed to stand up for some principle they care deeply about.
How often do Randy Barnett and his colleagues on the brief stand up for this cherished principle? Literally thousands of people with decent appeal arguments (often ones much stronger than Libby's)are sent to prison every day without bail. And most don't have anywhere close to the caliber of lawyers Libby has defending him. Have these academics ever once intervened in the bail hearings of these poor schmucks?
The reason Judge Walton mocked these academics is because of their sudden, newly discovered interest in the law governing post-conviction bail hearings. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that in the entire history of time, no one has ever submitted an amicus brief for a bail hearing, particularly not one in which the defendant is already ably represented by high-priced lawyers.
I'm not suggesting that these academics are bad people or that they are wrong on the merits of their argument. I just think they deserve a little mockery for choosing to intervene in a case where it is so obviously not necessary and at a stage where no actual constitutional issues are even before the court. They also deserve a little mockery for disclaiming any interest in whether Libby recieves bail when, clearly, the only possible reason for submitting this brief was to see that he gets bail.
Posted by: A.L. | June 13, 2007 5:51 PM
Anonymous Liberal's point is, to this lawyer's eye, quite convincing. The amicus brief has the odor of rotten eggs about it.
Amicus briefs are rarely, rarely submitted at the trial level; they are almost always submitted to appellate courts. The reason why relates to the different functions of those courts; trial courts are concerned with fact-finding and the outcome of a particular case, while appellate courts are more generally concerned with legal principles and the state of the law. As you pointed out, Ed, amicus writers are usually trying to advance certain legal principles and mold the shape of the law.
If that's really what these amicus writers intended, they would have filed this brief in the D.C. Court of Appeals when this case ends up there. But they didn't. And even in the trial court, they didn't file it in a hearing on a motion to dismiss. They filed it in a bail hearing.
They've showed their hand here, Ed. The amicus writers aren't concerned so much with any legal principle (and their analysis is somewhat strained to boot), but with keeping Scooter Libby's behind out of jail.
I may be wrong, and if so I apologize, but I have the feeling from your post that you skimmed through Marcy Wheeler's (emptywheel's) post, it struck you the wrong way, and you reacted to that. Quite frankly, I think you're missing the deeper context here. The stream of op-eds and public statements and appearances and letters on Libby's behalf is a coordinated legal and PR campaign, and this brief shows all the hallmarks of being just another element of that campaign. What I will guarantee you that Marcy Wheeler understands that context far better than you or I do - she's not only written one of the most detailed books on the Valerie Plame affair, she attended and covered Libby's trial and was an important source for other journalists covering the trial.
Posted by: Kenneth Fair | June 13, 2007 6:58 PM
Ed, you misunderstand my comment. My comment is in reply to your view that the principles defended in the brief are what's really at stake. My point is that this is completely irrelevant. Those principles, and many others more important and less important, are at stake every day in that courtroom as an every day part of the workings of a system that trembles under the strain of scant resources. And these men demonstrably care nothing for the day to day workings of that courtroom, coming vaulting in blathering on and at the end of the day vaulting right out and continuing to ignore what happens there every day.
The comment above that this is a trial court and not an appeals court is crucial to understanding this.
Posted by: Jason | June 13, 2007 7:38 PM
Re cleek
Mr. cleek is obviously very unfamiliar with the left wing antipathy against Dershowitz which long pre-dates the Iraq war and even O. J. Simpson. Prof. Dershowitz has had numerous debates with Prof. Noam Chomsky of MIT on the subject of Israel going back to the 1970s. His defenses of the State of Israel and criticisms of Chomsky have raised the ire of the Israel bashers on the far left in this country and in Europe. In particular, he has come under attack from Norman Finkelstein and Alexander Cockburn for this advocacy. For the information of Mr. cleek, Norman Finkelstein is a Jewish anti-semite who is currently an Assistant Professor at De Paul University (he was just denied tenure there by the way) who hobnobs with Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazi groups and believes that the State of Israel is the apotheosis of all that is evil in the world. Cockburn is a "reporter" who has a far left wing web site called counterpunch and is a Finkelstein groupie. The two of them have made a spurious charge of plagiarism against Dershowitz which has been completely discredited by his university after an investigation. Of course, the object of this spurious charge is to discredit an effective advocate for the State of Israel, much like the swiftboaters attack on Senator Kerry. Mr. Poser is absolutely correct. The folks in the anti Iraq war crowd are indeed jonny come latelys to the hate Dershowitz marching and chowder society.
Posted by: SLC | June 13, 2007 9:57 PM
I've also heard that Norm Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky periodically buy white-slaves from various former Soviet satellite states and force them to build walls just to see if they can kick the puppies of Jewish children over them. Not saying it's true or anything, just throwing it out. Perhaps professor Dershowitz can investigate these rumors.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 13, 2007 10:35 PM
Re DiPietro
I must say that I am rather disappointed in Mr. DiPietros' rather lame attempt at humor. I see nothing funny about Prof. Finkelstein and apparently the powers that be at De Paul University also saw nothing funny about him either. The Finkelstein/Cockburn smear campaign launched against Dershowitz was no funnier then the Rove/swiftboat smear campaign against Kerry. Of course, Mr. DiPietro and his pal ex-bloger Alon Levy are not noted as supporters of the State of Israel.
Posted by: SLC | June 13, 2007 11:40 PM
SLC,
I find it very rich that a supporter of Alan Dershowitz is accusing anyone of orchestrating a smear campaign. It was that man (a supposed free speech advocate, mind you) that recently threatened to sue the University of California press if they published Finkelstein's latest book, and whom Harvard was implored by DePaul university to take action against for his constant interference in the latter's tenure decision regarding Finkelstein. (And btw, apropos to his recent tenure denial, he was recommended for tenure in a 9-3 vote by his departmental committee and unanimously by a five-member personel staff at the college level. His denial came from the top. Read about it all in the Chronicle of Higher Education).
And about me not being a supporter of the state of Israel. Well, let me say that I'm no more an Israel supporter than I am an Italy or a Germany supporter. I am not a Jew, or a Zionist and I feel no obligation to have any special solidarity with Israel. With regard to the Israel/Palestine dispute I am neutral in the same way I am with the recent Serbia/Kosovo. That is, it's none of my business. My beef comes from the fact that Israel and their amen corner in the states are engages in a constant effort to conscript American resources into fighting their battles.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 14, 2007 12:14 AM
Ken Fair wrote:
But that IS a legal principle, the principle that you should not imprison someone while their case is under appeal if they've got a realistic chance of winning that appeal and having the conviction overturned. And as I keep pointing out with no response, this is a principle that liberals ought to and usually do support. And if they're going to make that argument, it must be made now, not in the appeals court (they will likely file a brief on the merits of the constitutional issue in the appeals court as well). So why doesn't it apply here, because Libby is a conservative? If that principle is correct, and I think it is, then it is correct regardless of who advocates it, why they do so or who it benefits in this particular circumstance. People keep saying "they're just trying to keep Libby out of jail while the appeal is pending" as if that was a bad thing, and I think that's hypocritical; I doubt it's a position they would take if it was not a Republican benefiting in this particular situation. And I find it ironic that this is being done while simultaneously accusing those who signed the brief of doing the same thing.
Then please explain why Vik Amar and Randy Barnett signed the brief. Are they part of a PR campaign for a party they don't support? Or could they actually be making a principled argument that they believe is valid (and which no one, to this point, has even bothered to dispute)? AnonymousLiberal is so grasping for an answer to that question that he's straining to find some way to apply the "right wing" tag to Barnett so he can dismiss him (and here's the key) without actually engaging the principle he is defending.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 14, 2007 12:19 AM
Ed wrote:
But that IS a legal principle, the principle that you should not imprison someone while their case is under appeal if they've got a realistic chance of winning that appeal ... And if they're going to make that argument, it must be made now, ...
This may all be true which makes it confusing as to why they specifically say, "Amici take no position ...on whether this Court should grant or deny bail pending appeal." Why file this brief now if they're not taking a position on whether to grant bail? Perhaps this obvious contradiction is what irritated the judge.
Posted by: purl | June 14, 2007 1:09 AM
This is a really interesting thread. I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with nearly everyone.
As far as the issue of the post, as much as I loathe Libby and pretty much everyone else connected with the bush administration, I daresay that this brief has serious merit. I certainly believe that if a person is quite likely to get off on appeal, they should not go to prison to wait it out. This is how I would feel if it were an indigent, it's how I would feel if it were someone who shares very similar political views and as I am not a hypocrite, it is how I feel in this case.
As for Libby being a traitor. Sure, I would like to see him go down, but I would rather see the real criminals go down. I think a lot of people like to use Scooter as an outlet for all of their frustrations over the outing of Plame and the larger systemic corruption of the bush administration. They feel like the only blood they'll get is Libby's and are all too happy to gun down any principal that might get in the way.
Now for Dershowitz. As far as I am concerned, his support of the war in Iraq and his support of torture, are reason enough to loathe him. The fact that he is a pro-Israeli extremist, is just something else to dislike. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-Israel. I am just damned tired of my country pouring money and weapons into a country that has spied on us, stolen the research to develop a nuclear arsenal and has basically dictated our mid-east foreign policy, in far too many ways.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 14, 2007 1:11 AM
Frankly, most of this thread has been off topic. Whether Alan Dershowitz is right or wrong about the Iraq war or about his support for Israel or his defense of torture simply has nothing to do with the contents of the brief and the arguments it makes. Whether Libby is a horrible person or a wonderful person is, again, completely irrelevant to those questions. The political beliefs of those who wrote the brief - also totally irrelevant to the validity of what it says. And that was precisely the point I was trying to make with the post, that it is the validity of the argument that matters, not the political beliefs of the person making it or the incidental question of who it benefits.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 14, 2007 1:50 AM
And that was precisely the point I was trying to make with the post, that it is the validity of the argument that matters...
No, what matters is that the issue should have been raised by Libby's lawyers after indictment, but before trial. If Libby's lawyers raised the issue before trial, and it was decided against them, then it became the "law of the case" at the trial court level, but was an issue that was preserved for appeal if Libby was convicted.
If Libby's lawyers did not raise the issue before trial, then, as far as I can tell, they waived the issue. I don't know whether they can bring an issue that they had not raised at the trial level on appeal. Usually you can't (or aren't supposed to be able to), but the situation may be different for a constitutional issue.
BTW, I'm no expert in criminal procedure, but it seems to me that Libby's lawyers, after sentencing but before the sentencing is executed, can file an immediate appeal, and move the appeals court to stay Libby's sentencing. The brief could have been submitted then in support of Libby's motion.
Going up a bit, I agree with one commenter, I agree that Dershowitz is a publicity hound. And, going back to the first comment, there is a subtle, but very real difference between being an advocate for the state of Isreal, and being an advocate for the policies of the current and recent governments of Israel. Dershowitz is the latter.
Posted by: raj | June 14, 2007 6:57 AM
I gotta agree with the "It was a BS brief" side.
Why would ANYONE file this brief, at the bail hearing if they weren't trying to influence the bail decision? (Which they claim they are not).
This brief should have been filed after indictment, or at appeal. It's a non-starter for a bail hearing, unless their purpose is to state "Look, there's disagreement here and you should grant the guy bail because it's at least possible the whole thing will get kicked out".
Which is fine, if they didn't start with "We're not trying to argue anything about bail, or trying to influence the bail decision, we're just going to submit a brief that has nothing to DO with the bail decision and is totally pointless in the context of the decision we're filing about -- unless we're lying about why we're filing it".
If I were a judge and got that brief, I'd be a little pissy too. The people filing made it obvious they thought Walton was too stupid to realize why they filed it -- when it was blindingly obvious.
Posted by: Morat20 | June 14, 2007 8:37 AM
I am in agreement with Mr. Brayton that the issue of Dershowitz is off topic and I probably shouldn't have brought it up. All I was trying to do was point out why his presence among the attorneys filing the brief was a lightning rod for the far left. However, we are where we are and considerable back and forth has now occurred. However, there are a couple of things in Mr. DiPietros' comment and one thing in Mr. duwaynes' comment that cannot be allowed to pass without response. However, I will understand if Mr. Brayton decides to pull this comment as being off topic.
Re DiPietro
1. Mr. DiPietro has charged that Dershowitz tried to convince the Un. of California to not publish Finkelsteins' book and threatened a tort action if they did. The reason for that is that Finkelstein repeated his spurious plagiarism charge in that book which is certainly a legitimate cause for a tort action.
2. Dershowitz was perfectly within his rights to point out to the powers that be at DePaul University what he considered to be inadequacies in Finkelsteins scholarly achievements, provided that he was correct and accurate in his statements. Just as Finkelstein was within his rights to point out to the powers that be at Harvard Un. what he considered to be deficiencies in Dershowitzs' citations in his book, again provided that these statements were correct and accurate. Unfortunately, Finkelsteins' statements were incorrect and inaccurate and were found to be such after an investigation by Harvard. On the other hand, the deficiencies pointed out by Dershowitz have been proven to be absolutely correct and accurate.
Re duwayne
The characterization of Dershowitz as an extremist supporter of Israel is totally incorrect and inaccurate. For the information of Mr. duwayne, Dershowitz is a scrupulous defender of the rights of Palestinians in Israeli court rooms and is a strong supporter of a two state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
Posted by: SLC | June 14, 2007 9:26 AM
I'm not sure if anyone is still reading this thread, but in case they are I want to make one last point:
Ed writes:
Anonymous Liberal is so grasping for an answer to that question that he's straining to find some way to apply the "right wing" tag to Barnett so he can dismiss him (and here's the key) without actually engaging the principle he is defending.
As I've stated repeatedly, my point was never about putting a "tag" on anyone. And I'm not trying to "dismiss" these academics. All of them are very bright and I respect their legal acumen. My only point was that, in this particular case, the brief they signed onto was disingenuous and worthy of at least a little mockery.
You keep accusing me of not "engaging" their argument. But that was never my intention. I was mocking their priorities and their disingenuous disclaimer that they "take no position" on whether Libby should receive bail.
I think that convicted criminals SHOULD be granted bail if they pose no danger and have a strong chance of winning on appeal. And if Judge Walton determines that to be the case here, I'll have no problem with it. But Libby's dream team of lawyers is more than capable of making that argument on their own, without the intervention of these luminaries.
I find their unprecedented attempt to intervene in a bail hearing to be rather odd. How many other post-conviction bail hearings (which happen by the thousands every day) have these professors sought to intervene in? I'm going to guess zero. Why is Libby so special? Why did they think his lawyers weren't capable of making these arguments? Why are they pretending they don't care whether Libby gets bail when that is the only possible reason for submitting a brief at this stage.
Again, I'm not saying that Libby should be denied bail or that these academics are wrong about the constitutional question that will eventually be raised on appeal. I just think they're decision to intervene at this stage, in this case, is worthy of at least a little mockery.
Posted by: A.L. | June 14, 2007 11:44 AM
A.L. -
Why then, would those who have no partisan ties, in fact who's partisanship rests in opposing directions have signed on to it, if not for the principle behind it? I am going to make the conjecture that rather than wanting to see Libby go free, they chose this case, because they would then avoid accusations of partisanship. Operating on the assumption that they feel strongly about this issue, what better time to make a statement with real impact, than in a case that involves someone they loathe.
Cases that involve independent counsel (correct me if I'm wrong) are almost always political cases, if not always. Everything that gets filed, everyone who gets involved, inevitably gets accused of partisanship. While I am certain that some of the people involved in this brief probably do want to see Libby go free (though I could be wrong, just because they may be sympathetic to Libby's politics, doesn't mean they automatically want to give him a pass), I would guess that some of them find Libby and his politics, possibly even what he did to land him here, repugnant. Still, this case involves a principal they feel strongly about, so rather than using a case where they have partisan sympathies, they choose to file it in this case, thus avoiding (reasonable) claims of partisanship.
SLC -
Actually, it was raj who made the comment, connecting Dershowitz to supporting the recent Israeli government. It isn't all that surprising to me that he would support the rights of Palestinians in Israeli courts. I have never heard evidence that he is a hypocrite and doing so would be a sign of consistency on his part.
No, my claim that he is a rather extremist supporter of Israel stems from exactly what I said. People who turn a blind eye to Israel's crimes against the U.S., happily giving it a "wink, wink, nudge nudge, lets keep dumping money and weapon on them," are what I consider extremists.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 14, 2007 12:46 PM
Question (if Ed's still reading this thread in spite of its off-topicness):
Does it really matter in the specifics of the Libby case? Yes, the special prosecuter may have not been legally/constitutionally within his grounds to have the privileges he had to conduct the investigation, but Libby had no way of knowing that. Libby was not prosecuted for the leak - he was prosecuted for lying under oath, which is a relatively "objective" crime: we all saw him do it. There's no hiding it.
Is perjury a specific situation where only the attorney prosecuting the case is allowed to call for a perjury indictment as well, or is the evidence supporting Libby's guilt in this objective enough that it doesn't matter what prosecutor brought the charges forward (in which case, it wouldn't matter if the S.P. was constitutional in his original investigation).
Just one of those weird cases - had it been on the charges the prosecutor was originally investigating (the leak itself), that would be one thing. But Libby perjured himself and as a result interfered with an investigation (regardless of the constitutionality of the investigation).
Should any of that make any difference?
Posted by: Joe Shelby | June 14, 2007 4:35 PM
Re DuWayne
Well, I guess we are really getting far afield, having gone from some attorneys who submitted a brief about Libby to alleged crimes committed by Israel against the US. I have to assume that Mr. DuWayne is referring to Pollard, the two former AIPAC officials and possibly the USS Liberty incident which are the only alleged crimes I can think of.
1. In the first place, the two AIPAC officials haven't yet been convicted of anything. Their claim is that the information passed on was, in fact, freely available in newspapers articles. I think we should wait for the trial to see if this claim is accurate.
2. On the issue of Pollard, on whose behalf Dershowitz has been litigating, clearly he was guilty of spying. My information is that he could have been paroled from prison years ago but he has refused to apply for parole and has insisted on a pardon, in which case his continued incarceration is his own fault. The shrimps will learn to whistle before he gets a pardon.
3. I happen to have inside knowledge relative to the USS Liberty incident which indicates that there was, indeed, a cover up as alleged by the crew members but that the cover up was not of Israeli actions but of a royal clusterfuck by the US State Department, the US Navy Department, and the CIA. It's a fairly long story and I don't think that Mr. Brayton would appreciate my taking up any more of this thread to relate it.
Posted by: SLC | June 14, 2007 8:11 PM