[post deleted]

elChato wrote:

Maybe we shouldn't celebrate ANYONE who expressed an opinion on the merits without knowing any of the facts, even if the opinion later turned out to be right.

Did you read my post? I wrote:

The women of the Duke lacrosse team knew that their friends on the men’s team were innocent because they had talked with them, they knew that the rape story was implausible, one of the men had an airtight alibi, and, of course, the Duke suspects had already been exonerated by the DNA evidence.

The Women's lacrosse team did not wear the armbands of support "without knowing any of the facts," as you claim. It was already public knowledge that the prosecutor sought DNA evidence which would exonerate the innocent, and that none of the 46 players matched the supposed rapists' DNA. Most of the women's lacrosse team also knew that the three men charged didn't fit the description given to the police, that the lineup was intentionally designed not to get reliable IDs, and that one indicted player had multiple airtight alibis. Then there is the physical improbability of the woman's account in such a tiny bathroom.

Beyond the presumption of innocence, the women knew that their friends were innocent for most of the same reasons that we (who were not following the case) now know that the players were innocent.

Jim Lindgren

I am a bit surprised at the "We're as tough as the men" stuff, as my understanding is that the men's and women's lacross are different as to the amount of physical contact involved. At least here in CO at the HS level, the boys cross-check, and the girls do not. The boys are thus a lot better padded, including full helmets, and the girls are not. The boys' game is thus a lot more physical than the girls' game is. Indeed, the girls playing LAX here in HS seem thinner, lighter, and faster than the girls playing soccer (I was surprised to hear girls picking soccer over lacross because there was less running involved). We didn't have woman's lacross when I was in college (it was added since then), but the pictures I see of college lacross seem to indicate that this distinction in the amount of physical contact between the sexes playing lacross continues.

It is time to push back a bit, Mr. Lingren. Your response has given given a plausible rationalisation for some of the campus' egregiously inappropriate responses. They knew that DNA had been taken, and the State agent assigned with prosecutorial duties had not come out with an innocent test result in a timely fashion. In many minds this would be an indication of guilt. The players had originally got themselves "all lawyered up" before talking to authorities too. I am not claiming that this was wrong or that the act implied guilt; quite the contrary, I recommend it whenever one is forced to deal with an agent of the government in an official manner. Still many of the American Public viewed this as another laser pointer aimed in the direction of the players guilt, and who is to blame for that virus spreading through the datastreams and infecting the collective consciousness; the right or left side of the political bipolarity?

When contemplating effective manipulation of the American public opinion in this subject, the Duke Student Body's and Faculty's roles were minor. I readily admit that I have not been a regular reader of this forum for very long, and it was Mr. S. Horton's honourable stand against the current administration's unjust acts toward the detainees of Mr. Bush's War Upon Terror, that caused me lurk around here recently, and I may well have missed it. So I am respectfully asking that you point me to your outraged posting about a principle spreader of this reprehensible disinformation across America, the despicable Nancy Grace.

Or is your motivation instead to use an argument of reverse class/race as a vehicle to bootstrap your personal ideology up upon a soapbox, and into the spotlight? It is damn fortunate that the kids in this instance are the progeny of wealth, whose families could afford capable and aggressive attorneys for their defense.

Had it instead been Hispanic cafeteria workers at Duke falsely charged with rape, with representation from a young, overworked, inexperienced, under-compensated, and poorly budgeted public defender's office caught in the withering enfilade fire coming from an overzealous prosecutor, and a led by the media hub in their nose public, they would most likely already be serving long sentences at a North Carolina Penal Institution after copping a plea, which despite their innocence, was the best option available for them to choose.

Prosecutors will abuse their State power if allowed, they will hide behind a defense of antinomianism if discovered, and the media pundits will let them walk free. This a real source for the ills which brought this hell upon the Duke Lacrosse Players, yet you attack at the periphery, while the disease within America's legal system continues to metastasise. The real culprit is an unmuzzled leviathan, and an acquiescent citizenry unwilling to struggle in the worthy effort of will and force to compel our government to act justly; to apply fairly and equally, due process of law to all. This must assuredly reach to the government's treatment of those perceived as America's foes.

Our beast must again be chained, or America will be eaten alive.

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Thomas Paine, "Dissertations on First Principles of Government", 1795, published online by the School of Cooperative Individualism

1). Don't cheapen the history of the award by giving it to the women's lacrosse team. Acknowledge their statements publically if you like, but don't cheapen award for others who have really done something to win it:

...whose contributions to the Duke and larger communities have significantly impacted University life. Students whose efforts demonstrate an understanding of the responsibilities of effective university, communal and global citizenship are eligible for this award.

Further, unless you want all future high-profile athletic and celebrity legal cases tried in the media, maybe hold off on the proclaimations of "innocence" (which is not the same as "not guilty") until the legal process runs its course, Mr. Lindgren? Or should we cherry pick the cases that you are sure can be tried in the press, with the high-priced lawyers never needing to step inside a courtroom?

Ditto Loki13. Mr. Lindgren sounds a bit... emotionally involved, rather than really caring much about Duke or those "whose contributions to the Duke and larger communities have significantly impacted University life."

What is your source for the claim that the women's lacrosse team knew of the exculpatory DNA evidence back in May? This story claims that defense attorneys were not made aware of the DNA report until October.

It seems like if one is going to praise the women's lacrosse team, to the point of commending them with awards, one should have some sort of conclusive evidence that their defense of the men's team was principled and well reasoned rather than reflexive circling the wagons. At least one women's lacrosse player in May explained her wearing the "innocent" headband by saying, "All the athletes at Duke all kind of stick together,. To be fair, the only other student quoted gives a more reasonable "innocent until proven guilty" defense, but nothing in any story I've seen shows that the women's lacrosse team had any sort of special knowledge that the accused were innocent, or that there had been any sort of prosecutorial misconduct.

Perhaps jumping to a conclusion of innocence based on character assessments is less egregious than jumping to a conclusion of guilty based on victim's statements; but aren't the real people deserving of praise here those who withheld all judgement until the facts were in?

To have stood up for justice and the best principles of the Duke community in the face of opposition from some members of the faculty, the administration, and the press was an act of bravery that should be rewarded. When one compares their behavior to the usual activities for which such prizes are given to students, these student-athletes engaged in actions that risked real sacrifices of the kinds that one can't list as credentials on applications to graduate or professional schools--risking their own grades, reputations, and honor.

Such obviously deserved prizes would show real contrition on the part of the administration.

Jim, as a Duke grad myself (MS '88) I have two reactions: (1) you're right, and (2) fat chance. At least until some rich alum threatens to cut back on a contribution. (Melinda Gates, are you listening?)

ReVonna, it's "innocent until proven guilty", not "not guilty until proven guilty."

Loki, I've worked as a public defender. My outrage at unfair treatment in the criminal process is roughly in proportion to the likelihood that a particluar individual is getting railroaded.

Most ong term members of the defense bar I have asked about it will say they've seen one or two really innocent defendants in a few decades' work. You've watched way too many movies if you think the courts are littered with innocent defendants. Most appear in court about as often as the average judge. I did have a couple clients who were mischarged for their (admittedly culpable) actions (like getting popped for car theft when it was really carjacking), and one or two who were only marginally capable of forming mens rea, but I never had a question about whether the client had been involved in something seriously bad; any doubts (due to protestations of innocence) were usually quickly dispelled when I did my factual investigation to prepare their case. In spite of being Matlock Jr., Lawyer of the Damned, I did pretty fair work for them. While money may get you a white shoe firm, it doesn't necessarily get you better representation; sometimes it just gets you overbilled. I managed to get a lot of rotten, vicious guilty bastards set free because the state couldn't carry its burden or manage to comply with basic procedural requirements - simple and fairly cheap legal defense work. You don't like it, move to France where they don't have such procedural due process niceties. My favorite client (who should have asked for a bulk discount on court fees and bail deposits) was a recidivist car thief / rapist who always protesting his innocence - the only problem is he kept coming up on surveillance films, DNA tests and in possession of stolen goods. It's tough to make a public case you're being railroaded, when the boxcars are full of physical evidence. His career highlight occurred on a single day when I represented him in two separate matters. First thing in the morning, I got a car theft case against him dismissed on procedural grounds, as the state mishandled some evidence and lost other evidence. Later that day, I managed to keep him out of jail in a parole revocation hearing related to the morning proceeding, even though there were felony charges pending against him in a neighboring county (the state failed to ask about that, and it wasn't my duty to volunteer the fact). Later that afternoon, he was picked up in another stolen car in a third county on his way to go rape a 13 year-old. (Long story... not a terribly attractive one).

Mmmmmm... now that's some tasty social justice, don't you think Loki? You think lots of people in the criminal justice process are completely innocent and getting railroaded? I suggest you take a job as a public defender to help win justice for some of these poor underserved folks. Let me know how that works out for you.

Had it instead been Hispanic cafeteria workers at Duke falsely charged with rape

A hispanic worker would not get falsely charged with rape under these circumstances, because the whole prosecution and trial-by-media owes itself to the PC idea that these guys must be rapists because they are white male frat boys.

To be fair, the only other student quoted gives a more reasonable "innocent until proven guilty" defense

Isn't that enough? It was more than most were capable of.

For many observers, the main lesson learned from this case was that if you're the scion of a rich white family that can afford excellent counsel, then you will achieve justice. As the previous poster noted, that is not often the case. Where is the outrage for all the other victims of baseless prosecution?

I've seen this sentiment expressed a number of times in different ways and there is some truth to it, but it misses the bigger point. Certainly the mix of race, sex, violence, and athletics that made this a big story is immaterial to the moral issue of guilt and innocence. Certainly there are many victims of baseless prosecution who deserve a better defense whose cases will never receive such attention.

But the bigger point is that justice is not a zero-sum game. Anyone who cares about justice can use the Duke case as leverage. If one prosecutor runs amok, use it to call attention to others.

Once you dismiss the Duke case into an example of identity politics, you lose that chance.

The players had originally got themselves "all lawyered up" before talking to authorities too.

This is an out &out lie.

All of the players cooperated with the investigation and were refused on several occasions to meet with Nifong.

the main lesson learned from this case was that if you're the scion of a rich white family that can afford excellent counsel

Er, one of the kids falsely accused has the "rich" background of his dad being a city fireman in NY.

You are a pompus, ill-informed jackass.

Your emotional investment is embarrassing.

At universities like Duke, athletes and ROTC (if any) are the students who are /least/ likely to have parents paying their way. I am an Notre Dame alumn, and I can vouch for the fact that the average non-athlete comes from an upper-MC home. Many, many atheletes, even in more "preppy" sports like LAX and tennis, come from LMC homes. And in the "prestige sports"--i.e., footbal, m and w basketball--it's lower than that.

Mr Woodbury,

"Isn't that enough? It was more than most were capable of. "

It is. Medal-worthy, I don't know. In any case, it's clear from the other girl's statement, as well as statements made by the coach, that many (if not most) of the girls made their decisions based not on universal principles, but on loyalty, and because the character of the boys was such that they couldn't have possibly done such a thing. That strikes me as understandable, but not necessarily rational, and certainly not medal worthy. The fact that they were eventually shown to be right (about the boys' essential innocence, if not of their strong character) doesn't prove their reasoning was sound or commendable.

The Ace,

Do you mean Colin Finnerty? His mother's grandfather was a NYC firefighter. While others on the team do, in fact, claim a direct firefighter patrilineage, I was not aware that they were charged. And, without getting into the payrates of NYC firefighters...

The boys sure did pay for some good attorneys. Which makes me happy, as it appears they were innocent, and people end up getting the Civil Proceedure they can afford.

More sophistry.

"I think you are blurring the line between what you know now and what the women really knew then."

How can you make this statement if YOU do not know what the women really knew then? Are you omniscient? First though, can we assume the women at least followed the situation via public reports and court documents? We knew then from public statements and court documents that none of the laxers or anyone else in the party left DNA evidence on the woman's person or clothing, yet we did know that there was a sperm sample insider her from another source (alleged source was boyfriend) notwithstanding her claim that she had no sexual contact in the prior week (we did not know of the multiple other male samples on her until months later courtesy of Nifong's withholding of evidence, but that's another topic altogether). We knew then that the line-up proceedings did not follow state guidelines (again another topic). We knew then there were inconsistencies in her description of the alleged attackers and the laxers she picked out of the lineup. We knew that she had given multiple and inconsistent accounts of the alleged attack. We knew then that the "leaked" information of the extent of the alleged victim's injuries were incorrect and that there were no rips, bleeding, tears or other injuries consistent with a brutal vaginal/anal rape but rather only "diffuse edema" which is consistent with numerous activities, including casual sex. We knew then that the initial reports that the laxers refused to cooperate were bogus and in fact they offered polygraph tests. We knew then that Reade Seligmann filed an alibi motion based on a timeline that matches the initial account of the accuser (now conveniently changed) and independent witnesses. We knew that there were odd proceedings from the DA (improper public statements) and LE (trial of the cabbie). We knew then that Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans were the indicted laxers.

That's what they would have known publicly. But there is no one here that can state for sure what else they know or don't know. Its been reported Colin Finnerty also has an alibi for the timeline and he later went to a restaurant. I don't know if that's true or not, and neither does Professor Muller. If it is true again neither of us know what company he was with at the restaurant. Neither of us know if possibly a women's laxer was present if the event took place. Neither of us know whether or not a women's laxer had a phone conversation with any of the male laxers that evening or otherwise know of any other information. We do know that one women's laxer, Catherine Krom, is the sister of a male laxer. Neither of us know of they had any conversation or other contact that night. We just don't know anything, yet Professor Muller can insinuate "what the women really knew then?" Its pure speculation on what any of them know or don't know.


We knew And I also think you're omitting things that the women actually knew then, including their male counterparts' well-earned reputations for drunken excess and one male team member's much-publicized sexually sadistic and homicidal fantasies.

Friends deserve praise for standing up for friends. Absolutely. But friend-for-friend loyalty isn't the same thing as omniscience, and it isn't usually the stuff of campus service awards.

"And I also think you're omitting things that the women actually knew then, including their male counterparts' well-earned reputations for drunken excess and one male team member's much-publicized sexually sadistic and homicidal fantasies. "

Complete obsfucation, but that's pretty much the only thing left for people who've hitched their political and philosophical capital to a sinking ship. Its almost a year later, Nifong has effectively been removed from the case and faces serious ethical charges, the alleged victim's story has changed (yet again), we know more of more DNA evidence that was eventually turned over, but its not about rape at all, its about drunk rich, white boys and a meathead that sent a stupid e-mail. Ridiculous.

For many observers, the main lesson learned from this case was that if you're the scion of a rich white family that can afford excellent counsel, then you will achieve justice. As the previous poster noted, that is not often the case. Where is the outrage for all the other victims of baseless prosecution?

Let's say that another way, paraphrasing Gore Vidal (?). It is not that an innocent black person be acquitted or exonerated. But rather, for many of these people, an innocent "scion of a rich white family" (any scion of a rich white family), must be found guilty.

That it takes the means of the rich family to bring such broader misconduct to light, is immaterial.

Bill_C,

I saw your post after I posted. I don't think it will change a thing.

-This is all Nifong's fault.
-This is a rogue prosecutor.
-Nifong will face sanctions.
-The criminal justice system works, because the boys got off!

And then all of these angry posters (after making their gratuitous digs at the mainstream media, and the PC college campuses, and gratuious references to the African-American studies department) will go back into complacency without any structural reform.

I assk the question here-

why the outrage?

Because there was outrage from the "they're guilty" contingent (e.g., Nancy Grace) from the beginning. Initially, before Nifong was disgraced and when many commentators believed him, there was a great hue and cry regarding the lacrosse team's conduct for weeks. You can't then uncork the genie of news coverage when the facts don't fit the original narrative--once something's news, it's news.

(full disclosure--I graduated from Duke last spring and my perspective may be somewhat skewed regarding the initial news coverage)

And I also think you're omitting things that the women actually knew then, including...one male team member's much-publicized sexually sadistic and homicidal fantasies.

This doesn't strike me as fair, as the author of this email was not one of the indicted players, as I recall. What does that have to do with the women's players supporting the accused three?

>>I assk the question here-why the outrage?

Loki, you are really missing the point. As one Duke professor (I believe) has stated, the lacrosse players were not prosecuted despite the fact that they were white male athletes at an elite university, but because of that fact. The outrage, as you call it, stems from the despicable conduct of not just the DA, but also the potbangers, the Gang of 88, the NC NAACP, and others, who are so quick to point out the real or imagined bigotry and prejudices of others, yet who rushed to judgment so quickly and publicly based upon little more than their own bigotry and prejudices.

It seems to me that many of the groups Al cites in the upthread post missed a great chance to talk about systemic issues: that argument might go something like this: Look at the system: when "wealthy white boys" can get railroaded, think about all the other folks who can't "lawyer-up." etc etc. Rather than casting the issue narrowly it could have been framed to enlist wider support to examine prosecutorial/police misconduct that might everyone. (Please note I am not saying that prosecutorial or police misconduct is the norm--all I am saying is, that this case could have been used to greater effect than it was by the potbangers, NAACP, etc)

"Other than (as I wrote above) the 'man bites dog' aspect of this case (a prosecutor going after affluent white defendants) this was an unexceptional case. "

You're right, this case is completely typical. Its every day that a DA faces disbarment for his actions in a case including making prejudicial statements and witholding exculpatory evidence, every day that faculty members at a top tier university make public comments concerning criminal proceedings involving their students, and every day that a sexual assault case gets this much media coverage that turns a 180 once the initial judgment period ended and the facts arrived. You've already discussed your ignorance on the last point (and thus, the entire case), but surely by now you're cognizant of the first two, right?

Why would you be outraged about this case? After all you know nothing about it.

But... so? Our criminal justice system is unfair.

Wow, the persuasiveness of this is mind boggling!

The facts!

The evidence!

Seriously dummy, why. are. you. commenting?

the main lesson learned from this case was that if you're the scion of a rich family (or a middle class friend of said scion that is charged at the same time) that can afford excellent counsel

Better?

Um, no.
No statement you've made on this matter is true.

Al Maviva:

Bravo to you for injecting the real world into this discussion. People like loki13 seem to live in a Hollywood world where the white guy is is the real culprit while the innocent member of your favorite group of the month gets railroaded until Columbo sets everything straight.

So I am respectfully asking that you point me to your outraged posting about a principle spreader of this reprehensible disinformation across America, the despicable Nancy Grace.

As a matter of fact, the first place I ever read about Nancy Grace, and about her irresponsible commentary, was here at TVC.

Loki13:

When you're in a hole stop digging. People will respect you more. Or do you feel the need to play the fool here?

I became suspicious of the allegations when the 911 called was played BEFORE the DNA tests came back empty. One of the talking heads actually pointed out how something sounded fishy about the call.

Maybe we should ask the women's lacrosse team if they've got a plan for Iraq?

Being they're so heroic and all.

My how our standards have fallen...

"Once again- all this outrage for three Duke students who were exonerated and served no time. How many posts on volokh about Tulia (0)? "

Funny, I didn't realize all the charges have been dropped. Last time I checked there are still allegations of sexual assault and kidnapping, and their lives are still on hold.

At least you're consistent about getting facts wrong. Since you're so knowledgable about Tulia why don't you petition the VC to make a post so you can comment and educate all of us there, and leave the discussion here to people who are at least courteous enough to do some background research before telling other posters how they should think.

ReVonna, are you even trying to make sense? The women's team bucked the trend by supporting their friends when it would have been much easier to throw them to the slavering wolves of political correctness, which is what many Duke faculty not only did, but are proud to this day for doing.

Okay, I'll take the bait. But once again, why?

Why does so many people here have so much, um, angst, over this case? I can think of dozens (yes, really, dozens) of cases of prosecutorial misconduct that have had a much worse effect on the people wronged than this one. But it seems that a certain segment of the population is really getting their knickers in a twist over this. Why? Because of the NAACP was involved? Because of the mainstream media? It cannot be just because of the prosecutorial misconduct, because that's usually ignored.

*shrug*

Obviouisly we hate black people.

No, it's not obvious. Sometimes it's subtle.

'The law in its majesty forbids the millionaire as well as the bum to sleep under bridges.' -- Anatole France

The notion that because the Duke 3 'are exonerated' (though I have not heard that a court has done that), they have suffered no injury is absurd.

K.C. Johnson reports that legal expenses have been running $80K/mo, and this has been going on now for almost 10 months. That's per person, as I understand, and it appears that even non-charged players have run up legal bills, though I am not clear why.

At any event, if someone transferred $750,000 out of my pocket, I wouldn't consider that I hadn't been injured.

I can think of dozens (yes, really, dozens) of cases of prosecutorial misconduct that have had a much worse effect on the people wronged than this one.

Yet you fail to name one.

We're shocked.

Yeah, that George W. Bush, such a delusional conspiracy theorist.

I'm sorry, I should have phrased it clearer:
The same crowd who thinks there are secret prisons in America and that people are "disappeared."

Happy now, clown?

Do you believe this is a one-off, or, if this is a systemic problem, what measures can be taken to ensure that it is less likely to occur in the future?

Yes, have fewer Democrats run for DA offices nationwide.

Just imagine if a Republican had falsely accused 3 black kids like this in order to get elected.

I'm sure you'd be asking "why the outrage?" and such.

Loki, I think the commentary is a reaction to the commentary, just as your repeated posts on the subject are a reaction to the many other posts.

Eric, can you tell me if we could know that the accuser was a "victim of sexual violence" in May? The post you say you agree with (save for the one point) says we knew that then. The same post says that we couldn't know whether the accused were innocent or not. As it happens, there was plenty of evidence making clear that the accused were innocent, and we never "knew" that the accuser was a "victim of sexual violence" because she wasn't in fact such. It seems to me you're still wanting credit for believing a false accusation, and wanting to denigrate these young women who rightly didn't believe it.

Loki,

You consistently miss the point.

1)When a gross injustice occurs, people of all stripes should stand up and speak up against it. If you think there are greater injustices in the world, then stand up against them as well. This whole attitude of "why care about these privileged white youths when so many other less fortunate suffer" presupposes that these kids don't deserve fair treatment because of the color of their skin, and is, well, offensive.

2) People can be horrified about what happened without having a constructive, or even specific proposal to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. Frankly, I'm not sure that there is a nationwide, systematic problem of prosecutorial misconduct like this. But the solution here is quite simple: drop the charges against the boys, prosecute Nifong for his misconduct, and expose the so-called "Duke 88" for their flagrant rush to judgment. The best way to prevent Nifong from bringing politically motivated charges without any bases is obviously to fire Nifong. I think this will satisfy those "so horrified" by the situation. Does this answer your question?

------------------

Also, as a duke alumni, and friend of many former female and male lacrosse players, I agree with Jim that it would be appropriate to honor the girls lacrosse team for taking such a principled and unpopular stance in support of their classmates and friends (although I think it is unlikely that they will be so honored).

On another note, I don't take anything Steven A. Smith takes seriously, and I'm not sure he does either.

ReVonna, are you even trying to make sense?

I was responding to the language from another blog that linked to this one. He compared the women's lacrosse team's courage to Sen. Hagel's courage.

Funny how the standards have fallen.

The fact that they were eventually shown to be right (about the boys' essential innocence, if not of their strong character)

Again, my how character standards have fallen if this is what we think is "strong".

Nice catch Thomasly, in McCann's post in his comments he states clearly:

"And no, this isn't about writing a law review article; it's about using common sense and showing decency towards a victim of sexual violence. "

It would appear that he seems to "know" that she was indeed a victim of sexual violence, yet I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant to put in "alleged" and just neglected to in the comments section. Call it a UVA alumni gift.

Still, both McCann and Muller are making assumptions that the women truly don't "know" what happened. Unless they are omniscient I don't see how either of them can make that claim. "Professors" of a feather flocka together?

1) Cite a legitimate media source (i.e., other than some 15-year-old "anarchist's" Myspace page) that makes that assertion;

More lies

they can detain you without charges indefinitely, granting you no legal recourse except to a military tribunal, and, under the proposed bill, "disappear" and torture you.

Go ahead and call that an illegitimate source now clown.

Loki13 wrote:

But it seems that a certain segment of the population is really getting their knickers in a twist over this. Why? Because of the NAACP was involved? Because of the mainstream media?

Well ... yeah, actually. We depend on the mainstream media for virtually all of our information about that part of the universe that isn't personally accessible to us. When the mainstream media get the facts wrong, in such a spectacular and egregious fashion, then it's worthwhile to understand this and to try to discover how and why false information was spread. And when a media outlet such as the New York Times not only gets the facts wrong but fails to update its readers' perceptions of the case with the truth when it becomes glaringly obvious ... well, I think that's worth paying attention to as well.

And the NAACP? I think it's noteworthy when a formerly admirable organization, one that I'd wager most of the folks who post here have supported, is taken over by people who spread racially inflammatory lies.

Um, let's go here.

And for more distortions on the matter here

Happy now?
If you think this idea isn't prevalent among the modern libearals you're lying to yourself.

Unfortunately I can't read "shadowmonkey.net" through my office web filter, so I'm unable to comment on that link. As to the Salon article, perhaps I'm not quite clear on what, precisely, is the idea that you believe is "prevalent among the modern libearals [sic]." Is it that the Bush administration asserted the authority in the Padilla case, under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, to designate a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant" and hold that individual in military custody indefinitely? That strikes me as a pretty fair reading of the government's argument (try reading it again: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-1027.pdf. My description seems pretty accurate unless, of course, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist was one of those nasty liberals out to besmirch the government's noble intentions?), and, moreover, I note that your Revised Second Characterization of the Wild-Eyed Liberals' Baseless Slander is still does not describe Salon's fairly accurate summary of the government's position in Padilla. To the extent that the "libearals" seem to think that there are not-quite-secret military holding cells in which the government has claimed authority to detain American citizens without criminal charges, then their position seems well-grounded in reality. To the extent that you characterize that position as a belief that a secret network of federal prisons exists, and that American citizens are being snatched off the street and whisked away in the dead of night by men in black to never be heard from again, then you're simply erecting a straw man.* Either way, your criticisms are unfounded.

Um, as I already stated: a mindless liberal dipshit is here arguing "what's the big deal" while at the same time believing in the falsehoods perpetrated against the Bush adminsitration regarding "civil liberties"

So to slow it down for you since you have obvious problems with logic:

It's
The
Hypocrisy
Stupid

Again, seems like a pretty tenuous connection to me, especially since, as I noted above, the descriptions of the administration's policy in Salon and Time seem generally accurate, if we assume that CJ Rehnquist can be trusted to describe that policy fairly in Padilla. In any case, I think that a persuasive argument could be made that an officially acknowledged policy of the executive branch of the United States government is somewhat greater cause for concern about institutionalized disregard of due process than are the aberrant actions of one North Carolina prosecutor, who now faces disbarment because of those actions.

Except I wasn't wrong, clown.

Then why did you feel the need to revise your position to say something entirely different, after I cited a quote from the President himself showing your first argument (i.e., that secret CIA prisons are a liberal myth) to be completely inaccurate?

More lies

Can you please explain to me how asking a question, an act which does not involve any kind of affirmative representation or statement of fact, can possibly be a "lie"?

* I note that the Time blog you cite contains basically the same accurate description of the administration's detention policy.

To the extent that you characterize that position as a belief that a secret network of federal prisons exists, and that American citizens are being snatched off the street and whisked away in the dead of night by men in black to never be heard from again, then you're simply erecting a straw man.*

Problem is, I provided a link which says exactly that.

* I note that the Time blog you cite contains basically the same accurate description of the administration's detention policy.

Um, no it doesn't.

The DTA states:

`In this chapter:

`(1) ALIEN- The term `alien’ means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.

`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter

`Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

`(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

As you can clearly see, that doesn't apply to US citizens.

* I note that the Time blog you cite contains basically the same accurate description of the administration's detention policy.

Another comical comment.

Of course when you believe in "disappearing" and "torture" (which you can't define accurately) then maybe you actually believe this.

Actually the 3 named defendants are from very wealthy (in some cases very wealthy) families. Finnerty's dad is loaded. Evans' father is a partner at Reed Smith DC and his mom seems to be pretty high up in the DC social scene. Seligmann is the kid whose family had trouble making bail, but I'd still describe his family as pretty wealthy, but with 4 sons in various stages of private school I can see how cash can be tight.

In fact, for conspiracy theorists KC Johnson at one point posted the average (or possibly median) incomes for the various cities the laxers were from and these 3 guys were from the top 6-8 (don't remember the actual number) cities. Us ex-mathematicians can calculate the probability that someone would select 3 people randomly in this subset.

Kazinski,

You've nailed it. The women's team deserves admiration because given the despicable self-promoting savagery of substantial elements of the soft-side Duke faculty (and let's not forget their whack-job students) the atmosphere
would have been highly intimidating. As a young kid you
don't have the tools at hand to successfully deal with academic thugs.

I was initally impressed that none of the faculty in the non-whack job departments signed the outrageous nonsense from the gang of 88, who were all drawn from the departments involving thumb-sucking and navel-gazing "science" and the like. However,on reflection I have come to the conclusion that the non-signers are mostly just the same old cowards who wait until it is safe to come out (as was the case in the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam). So, given no powerful Duke faculty condemnation of the bizarre gang of 88 (said Duke U being embedded in a Democracy with a "Bill of Rights") one must admire these young women even more, not less than the Duck apologists and generalized detractors propose.

A reasonable person would have expected more from them,
if indeed the Duke faculty as a whole were among the best and brightest, and it should have been instantaneous and reflexive. Yet there was little from these losers, er, collegial Doctors of Philosophie.

The actions of these young women rose well above defending friends (loki 13 take notice)
because people who are jackasses to begin with, like the 88 and their friends, are likely to also take names of those who are dissagreable to them (what else would you expect of they who's very existence as faculty is based on egregious rubbish). Indeed, such funklty owe their existence on campus to the gutlessness OF THE OTHER faculty and administration, who tolerate these posers and
their idiotic, made-up departments/disciplines. It is easier to "go along to get along" in academia, rather than be true to demands for character and scolarship.
Thus you get gangs of 88 extruding their apalling, juvenile, vicious behaviors and "scholarship" (have you ever read some of their shit...incredible!).

What we know about these young lacrosse women is that
they are righteous in the face of risk, and their gonads (philosophically speaking) have descended a lot further than the punk Duck faculty and the wimps running the show, and most of you as well.

Admirable. Absolutely admirable.


Revonna! Back on your meds.

The above is opinion only, and marked "Entertainment".

Well Armed Coward:

You don't give community prizes just because people act logically and loyally like this, even if they're women.

Now if I were you, I would gush for paragraphs and paragraphs here to make my point. Stay inside and think up another special award for these women, maybe if you want to see them honored for their special works?

Revonna,

Are you Duck faculty?

It's pretty clear that I was indeed offering up my admiration for people who act logically and loyally.
On your other issue, I don't give a rat's ass if they get a community prize. That suggestion was pretty obviously a vehicle, a device in the original post, not really meant.
That's been used a lot in the structure of discoursive argument in literature over the last 300 years.

Um, as I recall there are examples of that even in Wilder's "Our Town" (1938) and, of course, in the works of our pal Will.

Well, this has been fun. Gotta go, a test tube is calling.

C'mon now, Michael B and others.
Me thinks you're leg is being pulled a bit here.

The William J. Griffith University Service Award will be presented to a select number of graduating students whose contributions to the Duke and larger communities have significantly impacted University life. Students whose efforts demonstrate an understanding of the responsibilities of effective university, communal and global citizenship are eligible for this award.

How have these female lacrosse players significantly impacted University life?

They haven't. Be honest now, and fair to previous winners of this award. We get the point.

You're using the Duke women's lacrosse team to make a statement on the ill treatment of the men's team. Message received.

Now stop tainting such awards with silly suggestions that these women have actually qualified for it on their own merits. You might just get some gullible suckers believing you are serious.

Or worse, equating the award to some kind of military or political courage, in another leap of logic in connecting dots that aren't there. Silly litttle point, but then, that's all some of you have now, eh? Indeed.

Gotta go, a test tube is calling.

People are so public about their wanking these days...
Heh.!

And no, this isn't about writing a law review article; it's about using common sense and showing decency towards a victim of sexual violence.

Uh,huh. A victim. Kinda like Tawana Brawley, Victoria Price, and Ruby Bates?

ReVonna,

The award was not being equated with anything.

And given the description of the award, the women's lacrosse team is deserving, and then some. Obviously, since the politically correct atmospherics (both within academe and the legal community and within society more generally) constitute a substantial aspect of the systemic b.s. that needs to be consciously and honestly confronted, coming to terms with the practical implications of that honesty is not going to be easy for everyone (wink) involved.

So, ReVonna, which students would be more deserving of the award?

How about the students that held up the "Castrate!" sign outside of the lacrosse players' house?

Oh ReVonna, oh my, oh dear, oh ...

"whose contributions to the Duke and larger communities have significantly impacted University life. Students whose efforts demonstrate an understanding of the responsibilities of effective university, communal and global citizenship are eligible for this award."

They meet those qualifications to a substantial, to a notable and heightened degree. They witnessed to a common decency and basic humanity while others stepped aside, granting deference to vacuous PC standards instead.

But more's the credit to them, when they're among the very few who are standing up.

Give them credit galore, Mr Eager,
but don't cheapen the William J. Griffith University Service Award by seriously suggesting that the women's team actions here make them deserving.

That's all.
Maybe stop reading into things? You know nothing of my scorn, except for giving these women a prize here.

They meet those qualifications to a substantial, to a notable and heightened degree.

I give up Michael B.

You've cheapened the idea of service awards and lowered your standards already, I can see.

Thanks for your words about true victims, Great Unknown. I can see it now:

Duke University --
Where Victims are Made.

Sad sad sad

No, you've effectively established a cynically dismissive redoubt. It's a matter of making neither too much, nor too little, of what has transpired.

Btw, to refer to fallen standards, in the midst of Nifong and all the bathos, posturing, evasiveness, social "caution" and "carefulness," etc. that has characterized so many critical players - and all this while peoples lives are being violated and potentially ruined in substantial part - is to fail to place primary, secondary and lesser qualities back into perspective. I.e. it's to render only a token acknowledgement of what has transpired, both practically - and symbolically in a manner that has broad social import.

(They will, almost certainly, not be given the award, the redoubts of PC rectitude are too firmly established. Hence the point being made is for purposes of rhetorical effect. Sad, sad, sad, oh my, oh dear. Gosh.)

In the spirit of conciliation, here you go: As a bona fide liberal, and a genuine, card-carrying member of the ACLU, I hereby state, declare, avow, and even exclaim that I am concerned about the civil liberties of the defendants in the Duke rape case.

I think you're missing part of the reason why there are calls for liberals to be concerned about the defendants. The reason is that *your side's causes were the motivation for railroading the defendants*. Feminism. Minority rights versus white privilege. Exploitation of the poor by the rich.

Can you recognize *that*?

I think you're missing part of the reason why there are calls for liberals to be concerned about the defendants. The reason is that *your side's causes were the motivation for railroading the defendants*. Feminism. Minority rights versus white privilege. Exploitation of the poor by the rich.

Can you recognize *that*?

Yes, that's true. It seems likely that much of the public jumped to conclusions about this case because the story initially told by the alleged victim fit so snugly into the themes of the themes of racial and socioeconomic oppression that the left has developed over the last several decades. I don't think that this instance undermines the general validity of those themes, but it should certainly be a lesson to us all that we shouldn't rush to believe something simply because it fits with our preconceived ideas about the world.

Wow, JD, that was one of the few posts you've made that I can agree with unconditionally. And I thank you for making it.

Ref lax &$.

I played lacrosse back when the sticks were made of wood. Tried to convince a couple of high school laxers of that and they refused to believe me. As if the Indians had aluminum and composites. But then they didn't know about the Indians, either.

We got a start--first year at Mich State--with an equipment loan from the Midwest Coaches'Association. I was surprised at how expensive it was to outfit a laxer. Not quite football or hockey, but, considering its competition is baseball, quite substantial.

Even given the increase in general prosperity, getting ready to lax is expensive. Remember all the time you spent throwing the baseball around with your dad or brother or buddies on the block? You had to do that for a cumulative hundreds of hours to be good enough to play any kind of organized baseball. Well, same thing for lax. You have to show up not needing to be taught elementary stick handling and ball control. That means you have a stick in your hand at about nine. And if you're going to do a bit of scrimmaging, you need a helmet. Maybe gloves. Money.
That's why, when I watch the NCAA quarterfinals and up, most of the guys seem to have come from someplace that sounds like St. John's Academy, instead of Schenactady Consolidated.
Schen Con's guys would have been passing time as little kids with baseball and basketball. Cheaper.
Our team was made up of easterners who knew how to play and a bunch of midwestern bandits who had no idea but liked hitting. I was in the latter crowd. Which didn't come from the same money the easterners did.

Even today, when people think nothing of going to Starbucks for fifteen cents worth of material and paying four bucks for the experience, effecivtely putting $3.85 into the shredder without a thought, lax is still not the poor kids' game.

There will be a social and economic difference.

The interesting thing is, we have supposedly the effete upper class playing a game that, one anthropologist told me, the Indians invented for when they had no prisoners to torture. I played two years and was only in the hospital for a week.

What Richard Aubrey said. I've never played the game, but recall reading that it's the only college sport in which hitting people on the head with sticks is a legitimate part of the play.

I think the Injuns used their ordinary war clubs in the game.

Supposedly, Pontiac captured a British fort by offering to play a lacrosse game just outside. The Brits opened the gates, went out and watched, and hey presto, on secret signal the Injuns ran into the fort, braining with their "lacrosse sticks" any and all, and took the place

and, of course, the Duke suspects had already been exonerated by the DNA evidence.

This is just plain wrong.

The State's case has largely fallen apart, but the suspects were not "exonerated by DNA evidence." There are a lot of people in prison for rape today who were convicted even though none of there DNA was found in the alleged victim.

As some of my clients have discovered to their chagrin, the absense of a suspect's DNA evidence in an alleged victim's vagina does not prove that the suspect did not have sex with that victim. Even the presence of someone else's DNA only shows that the victim had sex with someone else, not that she did not have sex with the suspect. (Sorry for the multiple negatives.)

There are plenty of reasons to believe that the suspects are not guilty, but the lack of DNA evidence is only one piece of that puzzle. It is just plain wrong to say that the lack of DNA "exonerated" the defendants.

Also, to prove kidnapping charges, the State likely only has to show a very slight restriction on the stripper's liberty. If a jury believes that the students who were there held her down for even a few seconds, a kidnapping charge might succeed.

I apologise for the part of my previous post which caused anyone to misunderstand my intent in using the term 'lawyered up'. Upon rereading it tonight, I realised this conclusion could be rationally made. My intent was to convey how it had been portrayed in the news, and how this is often misconstrued as a pretrial indicator of guilt; not my personal belief. Still, I strongly recommend that anyone under investigation by any agent of the government request to have counsel present when questioned, especially if it involves a Federal Investigator, because the rules are inherently unfair. They can deceive with impunity, irrespective of intent, but a dishonest reply, even to an immaterial query can be construed as a felony.

I am not an attorney, nor do I possess a strong educational background in Constitutional Law, so maybe my analysis is provincial, but that is the clear instruction I received when reading Scalia wittily opining No Problemma defending the government's abuse of prosecutorial powers in "Brogan v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 805 (1998)". Maybe I'm just too thick-headed to find humour when activists disguised in a cloaking shawl of conservatism, yield more power to the state, but those always hilarious situationalists at The Federalist Society got a good chuckle.

I also will to state that I did not imply that the financial burden for the families of the Duke lacrosse players for retained counsel was not, because of class onerous. Instead, because of class, it was an unjust yoke which was able to be shouldered. There is no justice to be found in this event, nor is there likely to be even a partial remedy of relief from the injustice. My points of contention are one; that is it the right-side of the bi-polity which has distorted the exercising of the constitutional right to counsel as an finger of guilt, unless of course, it is them or theirs under indictment. It is the right-side generally responsible for legislative enactments which have severely limited an individual's ability to possess standing in court seeking redress for an injury, both in Civil, and Criminal appellate cases. Two; the allegation that this is an unusual prosecution in this country is specious. There are classes of indictments which carry with them a strong presumption of guilt. One class is sexual offenses, while another is terrorism. If you allege the State acts improperly prosecuting one class, but not the other, you are a hypocrite, and an enabler, because any acceptance of prosecutorial overreach will soon choke liberty in the ensuing darkness of kudzu dreams. It will spread across the imaginary barrier of citizenry. It cannot be released, then subsequently constrained within boundaries. Understand your fate will be to reap the whirlwind, for the seeds you now sow into the howling wind.

To any who were offended because of personal affiliation to Duke University, I offer a dated bit of humour that still is considered blasphemous out in this part of the west:

Q: Why does Duke University have an unfair advantage against UNLV when they compete in a basketball game?
A: The Duke players are able to read and write before they receive their scholarships...

Specifically, I address Al Maviva here, if he is present for qualifiers. I found troubling implications within some of your statements:

*...one or two really innocent defendants in a few decades' work
*You've watched way too many movies if you think the courts are littered with innocent defendants. Most appear in court about as often as the average judge
*...clients who were mischarged for their (admittedly culpable) actions
*...never had a question about whether the client had been involved in something seriously bad
*...the state couldn't carry its burden or manage to comply with basic procedural requirements
*...You think lots of people in the criminal justice process are completely innocent and getting railroaded?

I know that this was not addressed to me, and yet I am left wondering a bit about it anyway. Are you implying that even if a convicted defendant was not guilty of the actions presented in the indictment, he was still, judging from your knowledge of past behaviours, guilty of past crimes, and therefore, deserving of the sentence? Also, if this is the case, are you claiming a justification for this is because the state employs enforcement officials and prosecutors who are slothful and/or incompetent? A dangerous pathway to traverse. It seems that far to many state agents, elected or otherwise, believe their own personal acts in performance of their duty are not restrained by the very laws they claim to uphold and enforce. An egregious example, which many will find inflammatory, is a LAPD homicide detective, I believe named Van Adder, who investigated the Nicole Simpson/Ron Brown double murder cases. In the subsequent murder trial of O.J. Simpson, he testified that OJ was not a murder suspect when they went warrantless over the wall of his residence. Quite the contrary, OJ was believed to be a potential victim. Does anybody believe this lie stated under oath? This is the behaviour that many state actors believe to be proper. It is unacceptable. Persons who have life liberty and/or property stripped from them in an American Court must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges placed before them by a state which is truly sincere in their Constitutionally mandated provisioning of due process for the defendant, before it is legitimised. This transcends citizenship, because the compulsion is not based upon rights which the state has extended, but are rights which all humans were in universality endowed with at birth by their personal ideation of the Creative, and remain unalienable.

A knight: I'm not getting how you think it's an abuse of prosecutorial powers to punish someone for lying to the police, given that there's a statute that criminalizes lying to the police.

These ladies are heriones. They do Susan B. Anthony and their mothers proud. The reporters (most of them black) who condemed them are the stupid, silly and non thinking ones. For all the agenda driven female ex-prosecutors (why do these folk not have a job?) who called a 28 and 31 year old strippers "young ladies" and "exptoc dancer" -Keep showing folks how stupid you are.

In re the award, I don't think Jim is arguing that the WLAX team deserves a CMoH.

When everyone around you is behaving like a slavering pack of wolves, though, simply acting with basic common sense and loyalty and decency is extraordinary and is worthy of *some* praise. Especially when you're the least powerful member of your community.

The Griffith Award would bestow a modest honor for a modest courage.

But its impact would be large as Duke, from the highest levels, began to abjure the ways of the wolf pack.

Jim, you seem emotionally too invested. As one who has worked for and against rape charges in various cases, it seems to me that emotional over-investment is an occupational hazard for lawyers involved with prosecuting rape charges.

What we should take away from the debacle is that rape charges require sober reflection by folks like Nifong, without a lot of ranting and raving from the spectators about what is or is not "stirring" about the case or circumstances.

There were Duke student voting drives to get Nifong voted out of office (or at least voted on by more than 1000 or so of the Duke undergrads). In my view, the organizers of those drives should get the public service award.

Arm-banding is a nice gesture, though really just another sort of emotional prejudgment.

What is to be encouraged is registering Duke voters who can have a proper impact on who gets elected to serve as DA, yes?

If the women's team knew that the DNA had exonerated the men's team, shouldn't they have disclosed this to the defense team? We know that Nifong and Meehan conspired to withhold the most exonerating evidence in the May 12th report. Was the women's team part of this conspiracy? Should we be seeking to have them disbarred, or dis-crossed, or whatever you do to lacrosse players?

Mr. Nieporent, I am assuming you are responding to my stated distaste for the Brogan decision. I probably should reread it before musing about specifics, but generally, my comprehension and memory from past reading is sound. Feel free to flog me if I misstate facts.

As I recall Brogan was no martyr, and was a long term Union representative that the FBI had discovered in a unrelated bust of a business that Brogan's Union had a contractual labour relationship with, financial records that was compelling evidence of 3 different occasions Brogan had bribes during contract negotiations. It seems that a big problem in the FBI Agents' minds was that in two of these crimes, the statute of limitations had already expired. I don't think that personal beliefs regarding the propriety of statute of limitations is germane here, all that needs to be stated is that by the rule of law, these past actions were no longer a proper subject of a criminal ivestigation, and potential trial. After a successful conviction, I feel the subject would be proper used in sentencing and/or parole board hearing, btw.

FBI Agents, knowing full well that two bribes could not be construed lawfully as crime, and after identifying themselves, simply asked outright a rhetorical question which they already, because of the previously acquired evidence in their possession knew the answer too. I recall the fact was established at Brogan's original trial that his negative answer was short, possibly monosyllabic, and upon being informed by the FBI that they were already aware that his answerer had been false, Brogan immediately became quiet and in meditative contemplation of his navel asserted the Fifth. Brogan was tried and fairly convicted for the one count of bribery, and he was also tried and convicted on two more felonies for lying to a state agent who was officially engaged in an investigation, and was appealing those two felonies.

I belive that since two of the incidents of bribery were no longer prosecutable, and it was already established factually Brogan had engaged in these past acts, that the false answer to the FBI's question should not have been construed as falling under the hammer of extra criminal statute; lying in answers given to a Federal agent's queries during an official investigation. The actions' criminality had been mooted with age, and there was no proper intent of investigation from the question, since the truthful answer was already ascertained. Don't misunderstand me, for all I care about Brogan, a fitting punishment could easily have been worked out justly with a very short term served chained in the alley behind the Union Hall. My offense is that the Federal Officers created a condition to tack on the extra felonies they believed he should be convicted for, but rule of law held otherwise. They had him dead to right on the chargeable offense, there was no proper cause for the sting operation. Instead it was Law Enforcement officials, who conspired with malice and forethought, in an action with intent to violate legislative enactments under the colour of authority which flowed naturally from their employment. Although a minor distortion in this instance, it still is a reason for everybody, in any investigation, even if not a target of the investigation, to think hard about requesting legal advocacy before agreeing to be interviewed. I am not paranoid, and do not believe there is a significant likelihood of American law enforcement officers engaging in this egregious action, when interviewing anyone they do not believe is guilty of a serious crime, but on the other side, the potential for experiencing extremely negative effects from felony conviction if it were to happen, need to be considered. The Brogan decision was, at least in my mind, counter-productive to a goal of justice in society, because it offered a glimpse of an unlikely, but real potential cost from an individual's honourable fulfillment of civic duty, and offering aid in a State investigation of crime.

I again state, we need to restrain our beast. The reasons are as strong today, as they were at th the time of our country's creation. A system that has within its core modules hardwired processes of duplicitous definitions for an acts criminality, which tilt in favoritism to agents of the state, along with an inherent multiplicity of due process' applicability predicated only upon citizenship, can never be just. A people who believe that their rights originated as grants from a magnanimous state will never be free. An America which in arrogant naivete, continues playing the three monkey strategy, refusing to comprehend the damage done in our name; An America which does not leash and muzzle our leviathan that in our understandable feelings of vengefulness from the indignity and horror of September 11, 2001, we set free as mad wolf to predate upon this Earth will never know peace.

Are my fellow country persons really willing to sell our birthright for the for an illusionary tiny mound of beans; a false sense security felt when attired in our government provided padded chains?

I am aware that my rhetoric is oft pompous and comes off as hyperbole. It is without question far better than when I stood in dissent to this contemporary tyranny a few years ago. I am just a paleogeek old enough to have, once upon a time in a reality far far away, coded with punch cards. I am also old enough to have had the fortune of winning a lottery no one wanted to win, and because of that, have experienced a preponderance of futility, have existed in an environment in which there was no action which would further, all being, whether active or passive continued on within a darkness that was ever always descending, which only led to undeserved deaths of ours, our allies, our enemies, and a stalwart peasantry, chained to their meagre earthly possessions in the midst of fighting. Throughout it all I maintained my will to retain honour, and left upon duty's end with it intact.

As improbable as many seem to believe, I am sincere, at times am even capable of arguing effectively. I am also an intransigent American son who will never concede, as I am defending our Dreamtime, which is under mortal attack, and am entrenched upon the high ground in liberty's defense. There will be no retreat, no negotiation. In a future where truth and justice are not at least an iconic representation of the American Way; in which there is not even an illusion of believing in truth and justice for all; America will have ceased to be.

I will to be free, in an America that clearly understands we are without a doubt, better than the rest, and will continue on for the rest of my life. It would disgust me to live amongst a country of cowards who equivocated mightily in the face of adversity. Thus speaks duty to honour and presents the rectitude of my intentions.