Pelosi and the Logan Act

Some JinC commenters have suggested or outright said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi violated the Logan Act while cozying in Damascus with the brutal dictator Bashar Assad.

Those commenters got strong support yesterday from Robert F. Turner who served in the Reagan administration as an acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs. Turner's also a former chairman of the American Bar Association’s standing committee on law and national security.

Turner writes in a WSJ op-ed:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."

Turner goes on to provide detailed background on Congress’ intent in passing the Logan Act. That background, Turner says, “helps [us] understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble. …”

Turner concludes:

[What Pelosi did] violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

The entire op-ed is here.

I doubt the Logan Act will be enforced, although I think it should be in this case.

A JinC commenter has said former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, has also violated the Logan Act. I don’t know the details of that situation but if Turner or someone with credentials similar to his were to say Hastert violated the Logan Act, I’d favor treating him the same way Pelosi should be treated.

At the least, Pelosi should be subjected to strong public condemnation and ridicule from “the people and the press.” Hastert too, if he did something as odious and partisan as Pelosi did.

Hat tip: Mike Williams

The Churchill Series – Apr. 6, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

The preceding two series posts concerned Churchill biographer Martin Gilbert’s account of his evacuation as a child in 1940 from England to Canada; and then his return to England in the summer of 1944.

Gilbert doesn’t mention it, but at the time of his return German V-1 and V-2 rockets were falling on London and surrounding areas. Yet the ship on which he sailed from New York, the Mauretania, carried hundreds of children who, like Gilbert, had been evacuated for their safety from England during the first years of W.W. II, in some cases even before German bombing had begun.

Why then, were the children being brought back to an England still under air attack?

The simplest answer is that their parents or others responsible for them now wanted them back in England, and the British government, with Churchill’s strong endorsement, was willing to do all it could to bring them back.

And that answer points us to something at once interesting, complex and very understandable: The British government initially supported a policy of child evacuation from areas most threatened by German bombing, but it soon adopted what we might call a “parental choice/ whatever works model.”

In 1939/40 the government encouraged families in rural areas in the north of England and Scotland to “take in” children. Parents in the most threatened places, such as London, were urged to send their children to those areas or to North America. Gilbert himself was evacuated as part of a government sponsored program.

Many parents in the threatened areas initially rushed to get their children signed up for evacuation transportation and into the safer areas.

But government directed child evacuation policies, with their necessarily attendant and restrictive rules and regulations, soon proved unworkable. The Cockney parents who just a month ago were so relieved to see their children safely off at King’s Cross station for Scotland now wanted the government to bring them home. And they insisted the government pay for the return trip.

Meanwhile, the “lovely, middle-aged, childless couple in Ayrshire” who so eagerly received the children last month were now even more eager to return them to London, especially as two of the kids were bed-wetters and another kept playing with matches in the barn. Whatever were the town councilors thinking of when they supported the evacuation scheme?

Churchill’s government never gave in to the Nazis, but it did to Britain’s parents. It adopted, as I’ve mentioned, a “parental choice/whatever works model.” In some instances evacuation “worked” with children sent to relatives or strangers who became as family to them. But for the most part, the British people in the most dangerous areas chose to face those dangers with their children beside them.

I drew on many books for this post. One that was especially helpful is Philip Ziegler’s London at War: 1939- 1945, published in Great Britain by Mandarin Paperbacks.

I hope you all have a wonderful Easter weekend.

John

AP "weasels"

Since late March, 2006 most of my media-related blogging has had to do with the Duke Hoax and frame-up coverage, principally that of the Raleigh News & Observer which, with a March 25 story the N&O knew was a fraud, presented to other media and readers Nifong's frame-up story a full two days before Nifong himself first began telling it in public on March 27.

So I'm "out of touch" with a lot of what MSM has been doing this past year.

But what I've read of MSM reporting doesn't suggest it's getting better. In fact, what I read at blogs - Instapundit, Betsy's Page, Powerline, Newsbusters, to name a few - suggests, if anything, MSM reporting is getting worse.

Something else.

The AP has gotten a number of important stories wrong, and then been reluctant to admit it. What's more, when its errors have been so blatant it's had to say something, the AP’s usually weaseled rather than straight out admitted its mistakes.

This JinC post from July, 2005 suggests it's "same old, same old" at the AP.
________________________

The AP has issued the following correction:

LONDON - In a July 9 story about Prime Minister Tony Blair's comments on overcoming global terrorism, The Associated Press erroneously reported that he spoke of easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Blair did not specifically mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his interview with the British Broadcasting Corp.

Instead of using a weasel phrase like "Blair did not specifically mention the Isreali-Palestinian conflict," the AP should just say:

"Blair never mentioned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Associated Press made that part up and sincerely regrets having to acknowledge that."

The AP's correction's here.

Hat Tip: Littlegreenfootballs.com
___________________________________

The Churchill Series – Apr. 5, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Yesterday’s post contained historian and Churchill biographer Martin Gilbert’s recollections of how, as a three year old in 1940, he was sent by his parents from England to Canada, where he would be safer. Today, Gilbert tells us about his return to England, four years later when he’s about age seven:

I hated Canada, not the country but the separation from my parents, and while the war was still being fought, I returned to Britain. It was Churchill himself, I later learned, who had noted, in his regular scrutiny of ships in transit and in port, that the ocean liner Mauretania, then a troopship, as sailing from New York in the summer of 1944 with several hundred empty berths. He at once suggested that several hundred children be rounded up and brought back.

As a result of his intervention I found myself all alone, with an identification tag round my neck, on the night train from Toronto to New York, arriving bewildered in the yawning cavern of Grand Central Station, clutching my brand new Canadian passport (“valid duration war”) and standing in a long, slow-moving line by the quay-side on a sweltering New York summer afternoon.

I did not know, as we steamed across the Atlantic towards Liverpool, that Churchill had specifically asked the Admiralty to make sure (amidst his many other cares in the immediate aftermath of the Normandy landings) that there were enough lifeboats on board for all the extra children.

All that I can recall was a game with the American troops on board, throwing the lifejackets in the air and trying to catch them before they sailed over the side and into the sea.

I want to say more about issues relating to the evacuation of children from London and other high-risk areas during the war but time presses. I’ll say more tomorrow.

BTW - Some of you may recall stories you heard or read of soldiers who crossed over to England on troops ships so crowded the men often had to share berths and sleep in rotations. Those stories are true.

In that case, why was the Mauretania going to sail with hundreds of empty berths?

Much of the doubling up on berths occurred during the first years following America’s entry into the war. There were then fewer troopships available, and the great troop buildup in England before D-Day placed urgent and enormous demands on the ships’ carrying capacity.

By the summer of 1944, the troop buildup was slowing and ship-carrying capacity had greatly increased. So Martin Gilbert and the other kids on the Mauretania got to play with the Americans and the lifejackets Churchill had made sure they had.
_______________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, In Search of Churchill: A Historian’s Journey. (John Wiley & Sons) pg. 2

Pelosi & "Country before party"

Democrats such as former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and Senators Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy say they hate it when President Bush “divides America.”

Never mind that in Britain’s Parliament a vote is called a “division;” or that on the eve of WW II President Roosevelt had the political courage and sound judgment to push a military draft bill through Congress that passed the House by just one vote.

Carter, both Clintons, and Ted Kennedy insist they oppose President Bush because “he divides us.”

So instead they support their own Democratic Party leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, about whom the liberal Washington Post editorial writers said today:

[…] Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration … of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad.

After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria.

What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well.

Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started.

"We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said. …

”We expressed…”

Who knew that when America got its first woman House Speaker, she would use the royal “we?”

We certainly didn’t – uh, I mean - I didn’t.

The Post went on to point out some very serious problems with Queen Nancy’s proclamation:

The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office.

In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel."

In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda. …

The Post added:

As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri.

The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. (emphasis added)

Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq.

Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish. (emphasis added)

Overall, the Post has it right and is speaking for all of us who put country before party.

But I’d have made a few changes in the Post’s editorial.

Instead of the Post's:

“The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president,”

I’d have said:

”The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of our country’s president.”

And instead of ending, as the Post did, with:

“But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish,”

I’d have ended with:

“Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency reminds us all of why we need to select leaders who put country before party.”

What do you folks think?

And before you answer, I hope you take a look at what Betsy Newmark has to say about it all here and here.

The Chronicle & Goestenkors' Leaving

Duke’s women’s basketball coach Gail Goestenkors’ leaving is a great loss for the University and for Durham. She did more than build a championship program. With intelligence, drive, good -humor and genuine care for others, she’s modeled what Duke is supposed to be about.

Many at Duke and in Durham are going to miss a great coach; even more we’ll miss a great person, neighbor and friend.

The Chronicle editorial board told readers why it thinks Coach G is leaving: the Chronicle says the administration is to blame and provides examples of what it’s talking about.

But the Chronicle overlooked some very important matters which may well have contributed to Coach G’s leaving.

They’re the kind of matters which, while not important to some people, are always very important to quality people like Gail Goestenkors.

I’ll explain by first presenting “main points” from the Chronicle’s editorial. Then I’ll identify matters I think are very important to Coach G which the Chronicle decided not to mention if it thought of them at all. Then, it’s up to you.

From the Chronicle editorial:

Coach G was a jewel in the athletic department. …

The loss of such a successful coach is an embarrassment to Duke, in particular because the athletic department completely mismanaged its efforts to retain Goestenkors.

Top administrators did a poor job of demonstrating to Goestenkors how much they valued her contributions to the University.

Neither President Richard Brodhead nor Director of Athletics Joe Alleva showed up at a March 29 rally outside Coach G's office, even though Brodhead was a conspicuous participant in a similar 2004 rally to persuade men's basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski to stay at Duke.

The symbolism was clear: women's basketball will never be as important as men's basketball, and the top brass couldn't be bothered to stop by a rally to support one of the best coaches in the game. …

To be sure, the Longhorns have a stronger women's basketball infrastructure than Duke does. Texas has its own women's athletics director-Chris Plonsky, a longtime acquaintance of Goestenkors'-and the women's team practices in a 44,000-sq. ft. facility, which includes a court exclusively for its use. At Duke, the women's team is forced to share court space in Cameron Indoor Stadium with the volleyball and men's basketball teams.

Brodhead and Alleva were correct to point out that non-financial considerations influenced Coach G's decision to migrate to the Lone Star State.

But that is precisely the problem. When her salary options were equal, Goestenkors chose to leave-what was once, at least-one of the most prestigious athletic departments in the country on the heels of the greatest regular season in the history of ACC women's basketball.

The athletics department must learn from its mistakes in the Goestenkors bidding war if it hopes to stay competitive in the contest for great women athletes and coaches.

The Chronicle editors excoriate the administration for other “mistakes” I didn’t “snip.” The entire editorial is here.

The Chronicle never considers whether the University’s conduct concerning the Hoax and the frame-up of three students might have contributed to Goestenkors leaving Duke.

Does the Chronicle think Goastenkors wasn’t very concerned by the University’s failure to speak up on May 18, 2006, or since in response to threats, including death threats, directed at a Duke student in Durham in broad daylight not a mile from campus.

I’m speaking about the threats shouted repeatedly at Reade Seligmann, his family and his attorney, the late Kirk Osborn, both outside and within Durham County Superior Court Judge Ron Stephens’ courtroom.

Neither Duke’s President, Richard H. Brodhead, nor any member of the board of trustees, nor any senior Duke A&S faculty member has spoken out publicly to condemn those making the threats; or to express a willingness to stand with Seligmann and his family in the face of those threats.

Last Spring one group at Duke realized the Hoax had led to the frame-up of innocent students. The group said exactly what needed to be said: “Innocent!”

And how were the coaches and members of the Women’s lacrosse team treated for saying, “Innocent?”

They were trashed.

The Atlanta Journal quoted a “national expert” who said:

“These are stupid, spoiled little girls. It smacks of high school. Maybe one day when they’ll read about one of their friends who was raped. Then they’ll rethink this.”

A Boston Globe columnist wondered whether with all the stress they’d been exposed to, the women were in any shape to make serious judgments.

Professor Karla Holloway reflected a wide swath of Duke’s faculty culture when she said:

I wanted to write to them to ask if they might, instead, consider writing the word "justice" onto their gear, a word whose connotations run deeper than the team-inspired and morally slender protestations of loyalty….”

Recently a Duke alum asked in a “don’t miss” post you can read at Liestoppers:

Did Duke professors choose to support these female students dismissed as “little girls” in the press? Was calling collegiate women “little girls” a social disaster? Apparently not.

Has anyone come forward now that the women’s lacrosse team was obviously correct to acknowledge their heroic courage and apologize for the response they received?

No one senior in the Allen Building or on the A&S faculty spoke out in support of the Women’s lacrosse team when it was trashed last Spring.

There are other instances of Duke actions and inactions since the false witness was first made that have concerned and upset people who love Duke and left them wondering where it’s headed.

I don’t know whether, as the Chronicle suggests, Brodhead and Alleva’s failure to show up at a March 29 rally outside Coach G's office influenced her decision to leave.

But I feel very confident that given a choice, Gail Goestenkors would’ve much preferred Brodhead and Alleva show up at a rally condemning those who threatened Seligmann than at a rally pleading for her to stay at Duke. That’s just the kind of person she is.

And she didn’t need Brodhead and Alleva spending time with her telling her about their commitment to students, especially student-athletes. She knows about that from watching them this past year.

Message to Gail Goestenkors: Thank you for all you did here. All the best at Texas.

Message to the Chronicle editorial board: I want to ask you again why you’ve never explained to readers your refusal to editorialize on any of the following:

1) the threats directed at Seligmann, his parents, and attorney;

2) the University’s silence in response to those threats;

3) the Chronicle’s decision to say nothing supportive or to defend the Women’s Lax team last Spring when so many in media trashed them;

and 4) the University’s silence in response to the trashing of the women students.

Please respond, editorial board members. It's almost graduation time

The Churchill Series – Apr. 4, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

I often quote Sir Martin Gilbert, one of the twentieth century’s greatest historians and Churchill’s official biographer. So I thought you’d be interested in reading something of Gilbert’s own WWII experiences, including what he says about how he missed a chance to hold one of Churchill’s letters in his hand:

In the summer of 1940 my father, who was then serving with an anti-aircraft gun battery on Hampstead Heath, took advantage of a British Government scheme to send children across the Atlantic to safety.

My parents were not well off, and it seemed to them that I would be better cared for there. That July, a month after the fall of France, when the German Army was on the cliffs between Calais and Boulogne, I sailed in the care of an aunt with several hundred other children, to Canada.

Our boat, the Duchess of Bedford, was in a convoy of fifty ships. In mid-Atlantic, after the destroyer escort had turned back, the convoy was attacked and five ships were sunk by the Germans. The Duchess of Bedford sailed on safely, via the iceberg-dotted sea off Labrador, to Quebec. Those icebergs, marvelous for a child to behold, are among my first memories. Shortly afterwards another boat with child evacuees on board, the City of Benares, was sunk and seventy-seven children drowned. The scheme was then abandoned.

I was only three years old. Many years later I learned that at the time of the sailing of the Duchess of Bedford Churchill had been asked by the organizers of the scheme to give the oldest child a letter to Mackenzie King, the Canadian Prime Minister, thanking him for receiving us. He was so opposed to any children being evacuated to Canada (he saw it as a “scuttle”) that he refused to write the letter, telling the minister concerned: “I will not send any message through the eldest child, or through the youngest child either.”

Thus I missed the chance to hold a Churchill letter in my hands, and to deliver it, though there were, I suppose, several children on board even younger than myself.

Gilbert goes on to say he hated his years in Canada, not because of the country and its people, but because he was separated from his parents. In Summer, 1944, just weeks after the Normandy landings, Gilbert got to return to England. Churchill had something to do with his return. That story and a bit about the evacuation of children from London during the 1940 /41 Blitz make up tomorrow’s post. _____________________________________________________

Martin Gilbert, In Search of Churchill: A Historian’s Journey. (John Wiley & Sons) pg. 1-2

Stossel on "dangers"

What makes John Stossel one of the most important reporters in America?

For one thing, he reports what most other MSM reporters ignore or underreport.

You learn things from Stossel you don’t hear very often from other reporters.

Would you like to know more about the current risk to Americans from bird flu? How about child safety and guns? Read on:

For the past two weeks I've written about how the media -- part of the Fear Industrial Complex -- profit by scaring us to death about things that rarely happen, like terrorism, child abductions, and shark attacks.

We do it because we get caught up in the excitement of the story.

And for ratings.

Worse, because many reporters are statistically illiterate, personal-injury lawyers get us to hype risks that barely threaten people, like secondhand smoke, or getting cancer from trace amounts of chemicals. Sometimes they even con us into scaring you about risks that don't exist at all, like contracting anti-immune disease from breast implants.

Newsrooms are full of English majors who acknowledge that they are not good at math, but still rush to make confident pronouncements about a global-warming "crisis" and the coming of bird flu.

Bird flu was called the No. 1 threat to the world. But bird flu has killed no one in America, while regular flu -- the boring kind -- kills tens of thousands. New York City internist Marc Siegel says that after the media hype, his patients didn't want to hear that.

"I say, 'You need a flu shot.' You know the regular flu is killing 36,000 per year. They say, 'Don't talk to me about regular flu. What about bird flu?'"

Here's another example. What do you think is more dangerous, a house with a pool or a house with a gun? When, for "20/20," I asked some kids, all said the house with the gun is more dangerous. I'm sure their parents would agree. Yet a child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than in a gun accident.

Parents don't know that partly because the media hate guns and gun accidents make bigger headlines. Ask yourself which incident would be more likely to be covered on TV.

Media exposure clouds our judgment about real-life odds. Of course, it doesn't help that viewers are as ignorant about probability as reporters are.

To demonstrate that, "20/20" ran an experiment.

You can read the rest of Stossel’s column here.

The Churchill Center – Apr. 3, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Paraphrasing “From one small nut a mighty oak can grow,” we might call this post “From a few scribbles a great collection can grow.”

Courtesy of the Churchill Centre we read:

Donald Carmichael, of Buffalo, New York, has likewise broad interests. "My first 'collected' Churchill item is an autograph he sent me dated 1.12.27," Don says, "I was writing to Mr. Churchill for his autograph in connection with a school project, which required seeking the signature of a 'famous' person -- reminiscent of the idea expressed by James Boswell speaking to the elder Pitt: 'Honour me now and then with a letter . . . to correspond with a Paoli and with a Chatham is enough to keep a young man ever ardent in the pursuit of virtuous fame.'

At that time in the middle Twenties, when the project was initiated, I wrote first to Calvin Coolidge at the White House - and received a prompt and courteous reply from him. Without drawing any comparisons, it is interesting to note that the great J. Pierpont Morgan Collection was started when, in 1853, young Morgan wrote to President Millard Fillmore, seeking his autograph.

"As a result of this boyhood project and the fun, knowledge, and enthusiasm that flowed therefrom, I developed a substantial autograph collection of world leaders through direct correspondence. (One chain, lasting for five-plus years on such subjects as the "War Guilt," the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations, was with the ex-Kaiser, Wilhlem II, in exile at Doom!)

"A nice letter from Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt sparked the start of a major concentration. Around FDR, I have a large collection of books and memorabilia, including several letters to me and many inscribed books written by him; just about everything written about him in English; and 125 items under glass - photographs, caricatures and associated items, still, after 55 years, I continue to add to this regularly.

"I began also dealing with veteran autograph dealers: Thomas Madigan, Forrest Sweet and Mary Benjamin, focusing on the Presidents of the United States, all of whose autographs-in-office I have with the exception of William Henry Harrison.

"During the Thirties, I read Churchill in magazines, biographies, Great Contemporaries - the plant was coming to bud. About 1940 I began to buy Churchill first editions from a New York bookseller named In-man.

With my autograph collecting bent, I favored English first editions of his writings, inscribed at a date close to publication, and preferably for someone with whom Churchill was associated in a meaningful way. Later, in London, Sotheran's, Sawyer's and Sotheby's auction rooms helped me greatly.”

There’s more as they say. You can read it here.

Do any of you collect autographs? Or Churchilliana?

This made me smile

I left something out I should have put away. (We bloggers aren't perfect, you know)

My wife, the most wonderful person in the world, called me on it.

"Im sorry. I meant to put it away."

"Sure. And my mother was a Bishop."

GoDuke.com & “Vigilante” Questions

CORRECTION: In my letter below to Duke University's Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta, I identify him has the highest ranking Duke administrator present at a March 25, 2006 meeting with the lacrosse parents. In fact, Executive Vice President Tallman Trask III was the senior administrator present.

I apologize for my error and thank John Burness, Vice President for Student Affairs and Government Relations, for calling it to my attention.

John
__________________________________________

Readers Note: For background to the letter below, see these posts and other posts to which they link:

"Duke's Silence on 'Vigilante' and 'Wanted' posters"

"Letter to DUPD Director Dean"

"To DUPD Director Dean - 3/28/07"

DUPD and "Vigilante" Questions

John
__________________________________

Larry Moneta, Ed.D.
Vice President for Students Affairs
Duke University

Dear Dr. Moneta:

I’m a Duke alum who blogs as John in Carolina. I’ve published often on aspects of the Hoax and frame-up, including the “Vigilante” poster.

Those who created and distributed the “Vigilante” poster perniciously targeted students who were members of Duke’s 2006 Men’s lacrosse team, as evidenced by the poster’s prominent display of the 43 face photos of lacrosse players which were pulled from GoDuke.com.

The “Vigilante” poster also placed at risk the safety of every other Duke student who might be an unintended victim of unstable individuals and hate groups incited by the poster and the praise its “activist” creator(s) and distributors received from many, including some in leadership positions at Duke.

I want to ask you questions relating to the poster. I’ll publish your answers in full at JinC and leave your answers there free of my commentary for at least a day so the alums, parents and students, Duke staffers, journalists, and others reading the blog can read your response free of my commentary.

It’s my understanding you were the senior Duke administrator present at the lax parents’ meeting on Saturday, March 25, 2006; and that a parent request was made that the University remove from GoDuke.com the face photos of all the lacrosse players.

Was such a parent request made? If it was, what did the University do in response?

If you or another administrator responded positively to the parent request, when were the photos removed from GoDuke.com?

As you know, it’s been reported that Duke only began to remove the students’ photos when it realized they were actually being pulled from GoDuke.com. A USA Today report puts the date as Monday, March 27.

Some months back sports information director Jon Jackson confirmed in a phone interview that, out of concern for the students’ safety, Duke did pull all the lacrosse players’ photos from GoDuke.com before the poster creator(s) got the last 4 players photos, but obviously not before the creator(s) had already gotten 43 photos.

Do you know when Duke removed the students’ photos? Or should I direct that question to someone in IT?

If the question should be asked of someone in IT, please direct me to that person.

Have you or anyone in student affairs or elsewhere at Duke sought to identify the individual(s) who pulled the students’ photos that wound up on the “Vigilante” poster?

If yes, what have you learned?

If not, why not?

There are other questions I want to ask concerning student affairs' response to the “Vigilante” poster’s circulation on campus but this letter is getting long.

I’ll hold those questions for another day.

The post title containing this letter is: GoDuke.com & “Vigilante” Questions.

I’m cc’ing to other University officers because I plan to contact them concerning aspects of the “Vigilante” poster.

Thank you for your attention to this letter.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

Cc: Robert Steel, chair, board of trustees, DU
Richard Brodhead, president, DU
John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations, DU
Aaron Graves, associate vice president for campus safety and security, DU
David Jarmul, associate vice president of news and communications
Robert Dean, director, DUPD

The Churchill Series – Apr. 2, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill,)

Just fun today.

From William Manchester’s The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill; Alone: 1932-1940:

[Churchill] tells of how, crossing Parliament Square, he ran into Lord Londonberry, his cousin and frequent adversary. Londonderry, hoping to drive home a point, had asked him: “Have you read my book lately?”

Winston chortles his reply: “No, I only read for pleasure or profit.”

In the House of Commons he had remarked upon Sir Stafford Cripp’s “look of injured guilt.”

So many cabinet ministers wanted ennoblement that he had protested: “They can’t all have peerages; there ought to be some disappearages.” (pgs. 25-26)

And two others from memory concerning Cripps, an austere teetotaler, vegetarian, and frequent object of fun for Churchill.

During WWII, Churchill’s plane was forced to make an emergency landing at an airfield in the North African desert. The heat was intense and the desert bare without a blade of grass: “God, how Cripps would love this place.”

It was with a nod toward Cripps as he walked by that Churchill told a colleague: “There but for the grace of God goes God.”

Blogger problems and more

Folks,

I was just thinking of posting something like:

"You know, folks, with the new Blogger support system there are so many fewer problems. Have you noticed JinC hasn't been 'down' for months?"

Then, "Kaboom!"

Down, and spending lots of time getting back up.

Blogger's engineers tell me everything is now fine.

I'll see if this works as a test message.

If it does, it will be the first and last post for today.

If you see this message, please come back tomorrow, April 3, around noon when I should be posting.

Fingers crossed, and with thanks for your understanding,

John

Talking to Regulars & Readers – 4/1/07

(A post in the old web log tradition: notes for those familiar with the material. Don’t look for background information or links in this post.)

Those of you commenting on my letter to DUPD Director Dean containing “Vigilante” poster questions “got” what I tried to do: ask concise and on point questions. You also “get” the institutional context in which a reply, if one is forthcoming, will necessarily be framed.

To readers new to efforts within and outside Duke to obtain more information from the University regarding first, its response to the false witness against the students; and then to their public trashing by media led by the Raleigh N&O, by Nifong, and by many at Duke; and finally to the frame-up which the trashing did so much to enable; please keep in mind when you assess what Dean has said so far and may say in response to the DUPD/“Vigilante” questions that:

President Brodhead has never said word one as to why he refused to meet with the lax parents on Mar. 25 and has refused to meet with them since.

Brodhead’s never explained why he said nothing critical of the “activists” who on March 29 circulated “Wanted” and “Vigilante” posters on campus and made threats against the Duke students.

And, of course, The Chronicle has never urged Brodhead to speak out on those matters or his silence regarding the events of May 18.

One of my goals for today, Sunday, Apr. 1, is to work up a draft letter to vice president for student affairs Moneta concerning “Vigilante” matters.

I’ll begin with a reference to the Mar. 25 meeting with lax parents at which he was the senior Duke administrator present; and at which I’m told a request was made by at least one parent for the removal of the players’ face photos from GoDuke.com.

I plan to ask Moneta questions concerning what Duke did in response to that parent request, and when Duke began removing the face photos from GoDuke.com.

Some months back I confirmed with Duke SID Jon Jackson what had been reported in the press (USA Today, 3/29, for instance): Duke removed the photos when it realized the poster creator(s) was actually in the act of pulling the photos, but the poster creator(s) had already gotten 43 of the students’ photos which subsequently appeared on the poster. Duke removed the photos USA Today reported and Jackson confirmed out of concern for the players’ safety.

I didn’t know enough at the time to ask Jackson when Duke removed the photos.

I plan to ask Moneta about that as well as what he and student services have done to learn about the production and distribution of the “Vigilante” poster, and act with regard to any and all who engaged in those activities.

Also, I’ll ask about what student services did in response to “activists” “Vigilante” actions on Mar. 29 described by Lorenz (see latest Dean letter) and others I spoke with on campus on Mar. 30.

I hope to have a final letter posted and on its way to Moneta by Monday morning.

Another goal for later today is to post concerning the N&O’s Mar. 25 story.

( “Not again, John” )

Yes, I’ve posted on that false and malicious story before, but I think my latest post will leave many of you saying, “I’ve thought of that before and wondered why JinC and other haven’t said more about it.”

The short of the post: It was “a big product” involving many at the N&O, not just the reporters, Anne Blythe and Samiha Khanna, who’ve taken most of the heat for what was a fraud story (Khanna especially has taken heat.)

Moving on and responding to some Reader comments concerning people connected to at least the distribution of the “Vigilante” poster.

Thank you for that information.

Each piece of information I receive helps me and will often contribute to a post but sometimes not for many months.

Example: Months ago someone sent me a link to a Guardian article that was basically a slam of the lacrosse players. But the Guardian’s writer sat in the same Durham County Superior courtroom on May 18 with Reade Seligmann, his parents and Seligmann’s attorney, the late Kirk Osborn.

From the Guardian article:

“One of the accused, Reade Seligmann, 20, sat in a suit at a court hearing. From the gallery one onlooker shouted: 'Justice will be served, rapist!' Seligmann largely ignored the taunts, but as he left came the call 'Dead man walking!' and he blanched.”

More than one hate-monger shouted threats at Seligmann that day. Besides others of such ilk in the courtroom that day, they were outside the courthouse shouting threats, including “Justice will be done, Rapist.”

I plan to use the Guardian quote in a letter I’ll write this week to Duke’s Chapel Dean, the Rev. Canon Dr. Sam Wells, concerning his silence last May 18 and, so far as I know, since.

As you’d guess, I plan to urge Wells to speak out; and to do so before the end of the academic year.

Some Duke administrators and a good number of faculty initially told me last May there was no University response then because “it was such a bad time.” They meant the academic year was over, etc., etc. There were assurances something would be said after regular classes resumed in August.

You know how that played out.

My point to Wells: Don’t let the academic year end and the seniors leave Duke without hearing you condemn the racists who shouted threats at a Duke student; and don’t let the year end without you expressing words of solidarity and comfort to Seligmann and his family regarding what they endured.

Moving on ---

In the next few days, I’ll post the final Addison Series post, “Sue who?”

But first you all have to promise something: You’ll believe me when I say when I worked up the title for that post, I didn’t know Dean Sue was a CS board member when the “Wanted” poster was created and distributed.

I’ll post another Talking post tomorrow.

Liestoppers has some April Fools’ fun

Liestoppers today has a wonderful April Fools’ post.

I learned about it when I got a call early this morning from Duke’s President, Dick Brodhead.

“John, there’s this really, really confusing post at Liestoppers. The facts keep changing, and it says I’ve resigned.

I don’t recall Bob Steel or Karla Holloway telling me to do that.

Do you think John Burness would’ve issued a resignation press release without first telling me?”

“No, I don’t. Who wrote the post?”

“Joan Foster and Baldo.”

“Oh, they have wonderful senses of humor. I’ll bet it’s just an April Fools’ joke.”

“Well, whatever they did was bad enough. But if you say it was just a joke, then I look forward to them proving their innocence at their trial.”

“AT THEIR TRIAL?!!!”

“Yes, just before I called you, I called Mike Nifong and …..”

Hat tip: James B. Duke
_______________________________

Folks, don’t miss the post. You’ll laugh unless you’re a disciple of the 88.

An excellent book review

Readers Note: Commenter Cliff picked up my misspelling of "pedantic" as "pedentic."

I corrected it and said, "Thank you, Cliff."

Then, a few hours later I received from TombZ this:

Umm, now it's 'padantic'.

Damn gremlins.

I wish it was gremlins; but it was me.

Thanks, TombZ, for having the kindness to offer me an "escape route."

DA Mike Nifong needs someone like you.

And thanks for your many comments here (or is it "hear?”) at JinC. I always appreciate them.

John
________________________________________

Don’t judge a book by its cover. Sure

But don’t judge a book review unless you’ve read the book? That’s not the same thing.

Yes, you really need to read the book to decide if the reviewer “got it right,” at least from your perspective.

But a book review can be a well-written essay that conveys a good deal of information with ease and grace.

And that’s what Thomas Pavel does in his excellent Mar. 29 WSJ review of Hugh Brogan’s just released biography, Alexis de Tocqueville (Yale University Press). Pavel begins:

In France, people on both sides of the political spectrum generally agree that a strong central government is the best means of achieving two lofty purposes: national grandeur and job security. True, French politicians, often just before elections, talk about the need for drastic change, yet few of them are ever willing to oppose the state's long habit of intervening everywhere in France's economy and culture.


As it happens, the greatest French political thinker, Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59), had no great sympathy for this statist mind-set. He was a passionate champion of freedom -- society's freedom from state control, the citizen's freedom from government interference.

Little surprise, then, that Tocqueville's work, although well known and tirelessly quoted in America, is less influential in his own country. Hugh Brogan's superb biography helps to explain why.

The reality of French politics, throughout Tocqueville's career, seemed almost willfully at odds with his ideals.

The French Revolution turned upside-down the life of his father's and mother's families, both aristocratic and sympathetic to Louis XVI. Several close relatives were guillotined. Alexis' father was given a reprieve from his own death sentence only because Robespierre was beheaded a few days before, stemming the Terror's blood tide.

Napoleon's dictatorial empire, a few years later, wasn't much more hospitable to the members of Tocqueville's family. They vainly hoped that constitutional monarchy, established in 1815 with the restoration of the Bourbons, would solve France's problems. The young Alexis, in the meantime, read the Enlightenment philosophers, studied law and served, in the 1820s, as a legal apprentice at Versailles.

Are you struck by how easily and concisely Pavel conveys information without seeming at all pedantic?

Pavel continues:

At another time, Tocqueville might well have gone on to become a politician of some influence, but his class was rapidly losing relevance. Ultimately, he had more opportunities to think about public life than to participate in it. He was lucid enough to see that the world was changing irreversibly -- that the aristocracy of which he was a part could no longer presume its supremacy -- but he was too proud to join in any of the groups that were seizing on these changes for their own advantage.

The violent July Revolution of 1830, ending Bourbon rule, left him with divided feelings. He made the decision, fateful in politics, to keep himself independent of a particular sect or party.

I admire that last sentence: “He made the decision, fateful in politics, to keep himself independent of a particular sect or party.”

There’s not a needless word in it; and Pavel uses just the right word, “fateful,” to describe Tocqueville’s decision to remain free of sect or party.

Here’s the rest of Pavel’s review:

In the early 1830s, Tocqueville traveled to America, discovering there a stable and peaceful democracy unlike anything that he had seen in France. The U.S. hadn't experienced revolutionary terror, military adventurism, monarchic restorations and a sequence of turbulent regime changes.

Tocqueville attributed this happy situation to the American form of political liberty: From town meetings to federal elections, it dispersed power. Citizens had a wealth of opportunities to participate in their own democracy and to check those who might abuse it.

Tocqueville's admiration for America was nevertheless qualified by his suspicion of equality. For Tocqueville, human diversity is always present and always desirable, but it is also vulnerable, especially in democratic societies, to a withering quest for uniformity.

The future belonged to democracy, he concluded, but it was unclear whether it would evolve toward liberty or a new kind of despotism.

When in 1848 France overthrew the July Monarchy and became a republic once again, Tocqueville did all he could to help his country create a lasting democratic regime. His career as an independent deputy in the National Assembly, and his short stint as a minister of foreign affairs, came to an end, however, when the republic's new president, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, the nephew of Napoleon I, abolished parliamentary rule and appointed himself emperor.

Mr. Brogan narrates with great verve this stormy period, which forms the principal subject of Tocqueville's "Memoirs" (published posthumously), probably the smartest, cruelest and most accessible description of French political mores.

The Second Empire turned out to be less oppressive than the first. Nonetheless, in Tocque-ville's eyes, Napoleon III's coup d'état was a criminal act. Shockingly, the new emperor, who put an end to democratic representation, enjoyed wide popular support. To Tocqueville's grief, France seemed to like being ruled from above and to care little about freedom.

How could this be the case, he wondered, in a country that had risen up so spectacularly against monarchy in 1789, 1830 and 1848? What if, in fact, the French Revolution was less a fight for liberty than an appeal for a powerful centralized state? From this angle, the Revolution could be seen as an effort to continue rather than challenge monarchy's long struggle to bring France under full control.

Tocqueville's last (unfinished) book, "The Old Regime and the Revolution," is the work of a disappointed man who had hoped that liberal democracy could make its way in France during his lifetime but now had to admit that the urge to control from the center had prevailed.

It did so, he argued, because the monarchy had created a set of political habits that permeated the French mind. Although Tocqueville still believed that democracy would win out in the end, he realized that the centralizing impulse was not going to vanish soon.

Mr. Brogan's book is wonderfully learned and intelligent. He emphasizes Tocqueville's humanity, his attachment to his family, his lifelong friendships and, in particular, his love for his wife, Mary Mottley, an Englishwoman and a commoner who did not enjoy the approval of Alexis' family when he first met her in his 20s. Since according to French law at the time a man before the age of 30 could not marry without the consent of his parents, the story of their romance is a moving example of patience and mutual devotion.

By contrast, Mr. Brogan shows only limited sympathy for Tocqueville's political thought, too often missing its depth and prophetic character.

The strength of the book comes from Mr. Brogan's narrative talent and remarkable knowledge of Tocqueville's life and times.

The biography reads like a novel, combining humor and urbanity with erudition and insight. It should be translated into French.

The tag identifies Pavel as a member of the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago.

The Churchill Series – March 30, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

That night “stands out in my memory," Churchill would later say. He was speaking of October 14, 1940, when London was in the fifth week of the Great Blitz which would last until the following May:

We were dining in the garden room of Number 10 when the usual night raid began.

The steel shutters had been closed. Several loud explosions occurred around us at no great distance, and presently a bomb fell, perhaps a hundred yards away, on the Horse Guards Parade, making a great deal of noise. …

The kitchen at Number 10 Downing Street is lofty and spacious, and looks out onto one of the courts of the Treasury through a large plate glass window about twenty-five high. The butler and parlour maid continued to serve the dinner with complete detachment, but I became acutely aware of this big window, behind which Mrs. Landemare, the cook, and Nellie, the kitchen maid, never turning a hair, were at work. …

[I] ordered the cook and other servants into the shelter, such as it was.

I had been seated again at table only about three minutes when a really very loud crash, close at hand, and a violent shock showed that the house had been struck.

My detective, [Inspector Thompson,] came into the room and said much damage had been done. The kitchen, the pantry and the officers on the Treasury side were shattered.

We went into the kitchen to view the scene. The devastation was complete. The bomb had fallen fifty yards away on the Treasury, and the blast had smitten the large, tidy kitchen, with all its bright saucepans and crockery, into a heap of black dust and rubble. The big plate glass window had been hurled in fragments and splinters across the room, and would, of course, have cut its occupants, if there had been any, to pieces.

Everyone in Number 10 survived the night but three members of the Home Guard on duty at the Treasury were killed.

Churchill's account of the night is found on pages 346 & 347 of Their Finest Hour (The Riverside Press), the second of his six volume history of WW II.

Many of us have had close calls. Some of us have had severe and depressing shocks, as when a house is destroyed by fire or storm. Or perhaps we’ve had our homes broken into and robbed.

And, of course, we’ve all witnessed via media people struggling the day following Katrina.

Recalling such events in our own lives, and recalling how tough it is in such circumstnaces to carry on with our normal activities, gives us some appreciation for the magnifcent determination, psychological strength and courage Churchill and the people of London displayed as they endured and fought on during the nine months of the Great Blitz.

BTW – Re: The first sentence that begins the paragraph: “I had been seated at table only …”

I didn’t leave out a “the” between “at” and “table.” Churchill was speaking in the form the Brits will often use as when they say: “She’s now in hospital.”

Have a very nice weekend. On Monday, I hope you're all seated here at blog.

John

Grin Or Groan (Updated)

The March 29 USA Today contained an article concerning the price of corn.

It seems the price of corn has recently risen sharply.

USA Today even had a ten-year price chart illustrating the recent sharp price rise.

The graph was headed: Corn Prices Pop
_________________________________________________

The above post was first titled: "Grin or Grown"

A few hours after posting, I received this comment:

Shouldn't that be "Grin or Groan"?

DukieInKansas

Oops! Sorry about that.

I've updated.

Thank you, DukieInKansas.

DUPD and “Vigilante” questions

Readers Note: For background to the letter below, see these posts and other posts to which they link:

"Duke's Silence on 'Vigilante' and 'Wanted' posters"

"Letter to DUPD Director Dean"

"To DUPD Director Dean - 3/28/07"

John
_______________________________________

Dear Director Dean:

This letter contains questions concerning DUPD and the false and inflammatory “Vigilante” poster which last spring circulated on campus, directly targeting and endangering Duke students on our Men’s lacrosse team, and also placing at greater risk students who could have been unintended victims of unstable individuals and hate groups incited by the poster to target white members of the lacrosse team.

You know that firsthand because of the work you and DUPD did last spring under very difficult circumstances to provide as safe an environment as possible for students and others on campus, even as vice president for student affairs Moneta was alerting students with a campus-wide email concerning their safety and President Brodhead was adding his name to full-page newspaper ads calling on the public to remain calm and let justice take its course.

Most people admired and were grateful for DUPD’s fine work. I’m one of them. Thank you.

My questions are information seeking only; they imply no criticism of DUPD.

While I’m a tech dummy, tech knowledgeable people say it’s a relatively simple matter to ID the computer used to pull from GoDuke.com the face photos of the 43 white lacrosse players which appear on the “Vigilante” poster.

Has DUPD done that? If yes, what can you say publicly about what you learned? If not, can you say why not?

What has DUPD done to investigate the production and distribution on campus of a poster that targeted a particular group of students while heightening the risk for all?

Concerning the March 29 Take Back the Night rally on the Chapel steps, most participants spoke and acted in ways we would both affirm. But there were, as you know, a good number of “activists” there who engaged in actions described by one of the TBTN organizers, Geoffrey Lorenz, in an April 2 letter to the Raleigh News & Observer in which he said in part:

As one of the organizers of the March 29 Take Back the Night (TBTN) march and speak-out at Duke University, I want to clarify that we did not plan, nor do we endorse, the distribution of names and pictures of members of the Duke men's lacrosse team.

The distribution of the pictures, the targeting of the lacrosse team, and the violence implicit in the defacement of the pictures are nothing less than violations of the space that TBTN exists to create. The event is neither a protest of the kind we've witnessed recently, a forum for accusation nor a place to target and defame.

What was DUPD’s role with regard to TBTN?

I have one final question, but I want to be as clearly understood as possible when I ask it. So this brief, italicized preface:

I usually avoid getting into matters in the “rumor” category. But the question I’m about to ask has been so frequently talked about on campus, in the community, and at blogs that I don’t think I’m spreading a rumor by asking it.

I’d be surprised if you and most others at Duke and elsewhere who have followed the Hoax and frame-up haven’t heard the rumor already, perhaps many times.

It is that a Duke employee, “free-lancing” and with no University foreknowledge whatsoever, is the prime producer of the endangering “Vigilante” poster; and that the employee did so, at least to a significant extent, using University IT resources, in particular for pulling the students’ face photos from GoDuke.com.

My question: Has any senior Duke administrator asked DUPD to determine whether there's any truth to the rumor?

My hope is that Duke will refute the rumor.

If it turns out part or the entire rumor is true, the University can take appropriate action.

As I did with your response to the “Wanted” poster questions, I’ll publish your response to the “Vigilante” questions in full and leave it free of my commentary for at least a day.

Once more in closing: I’m asking questions for information with no imputation regarding DUPD, whose professionalism I’ve admired as a Duke student, parent, contract employee and Durham resident.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina.

Cc: Robert Steel, chair, board of trustees, D U
Richard Brodhead, president, DU
John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations, DU
Larry Moneta, vice president for students affairs, DU
Aaron Graves, associate vice president for campus safety and security, DU
David Jarmul, associate vice president of news and communications

Home safe and sound

We got home from California about 1 AM this morning after of day of flight cancellations and rerouting due to weather.

We hadn’t been home for five weeks. The place sure looked good.

We loved Australia and California. (San Diego for four days on the way to Brisbane, and Santa Barbara for six days on the return.)

In the coming days, I’ll post a few more times about my experiences in Australia.

John

No posts on Thursday, Mar. 29

I have a very long travel day today.

Posting will resume tomorrow, Friday, Mar. 30.

Thank you.

John

Talking to Regulars & Readers - 3/28/07

(A post in the old web log tradition: notes for those who understand the material. Don't look in this post for background information or links. John)

This will be brief. I've a very long travel day tomorrow, starting before dawn.

My response to DUPD Director Dean's letter is posted.

I didn't say anything in it by way of response to his answers to my questions because I thought: 1) his answers were "to the point," regardless of whether one, some or all of us agreed with what Director Dean said; and 2) many commenters said just about everything I could say by way of response.

If you read my response post, you’ll see I’m going to continue to press Dean with questions, now including ones concerning the “Vigilante” poster.

Some of you may question whether I was “tough enough” in my response to Dean.

That’s reasonable.

But looking back on the post, I wouldn’t change it because I was “too light” in response to Dean.

Regarding comments per the March 25 parent meeting.

I’ve noted them all.

Thanks for the correction: “Duke Dad” instead of “Duke Mom.”

And for the other information.

I’ll post with questions to Dean on Friday.

I’ll post on related matters Sunday.

Meanwhile, you may find this post from last September of interest.

More soon.

John

To DUPD Director Dean - 3/28/07

Readers Note: If you're new to the subject matter concerning this post, be sure to use the links.

I just sent the following electronic letter to Duke University's Police Director Robert Dean.

John
_________________________________________
Dear Director Dean:

Thank you for your response to my questions concerning: 1) the Durham CrimeStoppers “Wanted” poster written and distributed last March; 2) your involvement as CS board chairmanship at the time of it’s production and distribution; and 3) your perceptions concerning senior Duke University administrators’ awareness of the “Wanted” poster.

Once more for ease of reference, here are links to the JinC post where I posted in full your responses to my questions as well as a link to the Liestoppers.com post containing facsimiles of both the Durham CS “Wanted” poster and the so-far anonymous “Vigilante” poster, as well as links to posts which provide background concerning the posters.

As I’m sure you know, subsequent to our useful letter exchange, Durham CS’s board met to discuss the “Wanted” poster with Durham Police Major Lee Russ in attendance.

I need to learn more about that meeting and would like to get a copy of its minutes before asking current Durham CS board chair Pat Ellis some questions.

I’ll also, as you suggested, ask Ellis where citizens can obtain copies of Durham CS’s 2006 IRS Form 990.

I’d appreciate your sending me Ellis’ contact phone number and email address.

Some people are now claiming the CS “Wanted” poster really isn’t a CS product.

I want you to know I refer to it as “the Durham CS ‘Wanted’ poster” because to date almost everyone, including Durham Police and Durham City, has been emphatic that it was written by Durham CS Coordinator Corporal David Addison under authority granted him by the CS board.

So what else to call it?

Also, the poster contains detailed CS contact information and an offer of a cash reward from CS for anyone's help in solving “this horrific crime,” which Cpl. Addison said in the text occurred at the party hosted by the Duke lacrosse players.

If the time comes when there’s general agreement that the poster is, in fact, not really a CS document, I’ll promptly change my wording.

At least two CS board members have said that with regard to the “Wanted” poster, Cpl. Addison was “overzealous.”

Overzealous?

We both know a police officer can be overzealous but still be acting properly within the law.

We can surely agree, for instance, an officer who reads a brief witness statement 100 times to see if there’s any information in it that’s been overlooked, is overzealous. But the officer hasn't done anything wrong from a legal or moral standpoint.

The problem with what Addison did , and now, according to what two CS board members say Maj. Russ said at a recent CS board meeting a DPD commander did regarding the distribution of the CS “Wanted” poster, has nothing to do with overzealousness.

It has to do with the false claim an “horrific crime” had been committed at the Duke lacrosse March 13 party when the evidence DPD had at the time overwhelmingly indicated it hadn't. It has to do with claims innocent citizens were libeled.

Cpl. Addison, Durham CS, DPD and Durham City should all explain fully, publicly, and in written statements just what happened with regard to the “Wanted” poster, why and how it happened, and at whose behest it happened.

It's very disturbing to realize that a year after the CS "Wanted" poster's production and distribution, they've failed to do that.

Now to the “Vigilante” poster.

I want to ask you questions concerning what DUPD’s done to learn about the who, when, where and why of the poster’s production and distribution on campus and wherever else it put students and others at risk and spread libel; and what it’s done about what it’s learned.

But I don’t want to ask those questions in this post which is already long. I merely want to outline them now as a way of letting you know what I’ll be asking.

Besides asking what actions DUPD took concerning the poster’s production, I’ll ask what actions DUPD took with regard to the “Vigilante” poster’s placement on West Campus buildings the night of March 29, 2006, and in response to the defacements of the players images on the posters and the threats made against them that night. Also, I’ll ask what DUPD has done since to identify those who created a poster which you know better than anyone increased the threat level for the players and all others who might be unintended victims of violence by unstable individuals and hate groups.

I’ll put the “Vigilante” poster questions in more precise form and send them on to you Friday.

I’m traveling tomorrow, Thursday.

Please know my purpose is to help put before the Duke and Durham communities information the University and City should have provided the public many months ago.

Thank you for your attention to this letter.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

Cc: Robert Steel, chair, board of trustees, D U
Richard Brodhead, president, DU
John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations, DU
Aaron Graves, associate vice president for campus safety and security, DU
David Jarmul, associate vice president of news and communications
Lee Russ, major, Office of the Chief, DPD
David Addison, corporal, Durham CrimeStoppers coordinator, DPD

The Churchill Series - Mar. 27, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Readers: When I'm extrememy busy I sometimes repost a "golden oldie." So today we have an "oldie" in slightly modified form. It first ran on Jun. 12, 2006.

There'll be a new post tomorrow.

Thanks for your understanding.

John
_____________________________________

Sunday, September 6, 1941

The Prime Minister journeys to Buckinghamshire. He enters a gated, fenced and heavily guarded area in the center of which is a Victorian mansion surrounded by a many small, recently constructed buildings.

Before the war the mansion and its grounds were known as Bletchley Park, but now the government owns them and the place is called Station X.

This place holds secrets. Even John Martin, one of Churchill's principal aides who accompanies him on the visit, doesn't know it is here at Station X that a most unusual group including mathematicians, chess players, crossword specialists, linguists fluent in languages ancient and modern, and even debutantes and an actress has broken German codes. Their success has enabled Churchill and a select few to read in almost real time many of the enemy's communications.

Years after the war the world learned about Station X, the heart of the Enigma Project.

On this Sunday as Churchill tours Station X he meets many people we would call "unusual.” Some stare silently as he approachs and introduces yourself. They're mentally calculating extraordinarily complex math problems and can't allow an interruption. So they stare past him. Another was once so engrossed in explaining a theory to a colleague that he reached without looking for tobacco to fill his pipe. Instead, he picked up and packed in his pipe with some of his lunch: tuna salad.

Some ways through the tour, Churchill turns and says to the officer who'd recruited many of the staff: "I know I told you to leave no stone unturned to get your staff, but I didn't expect you to take me literally."

Later in the day Churchill addresses the staffers and expresses his appreciation for their work.

He's very sincere in that. As the principal consumer of their intelligence, Churchill knows better than anyone the enormously important contribution the codebreakers are making to the war America will enter three months and one day following his visit to Station X.
__________________________________________________________
Michael Smith's Station X: Decoding Nazi Secrets (pgs. 106-107) contains all of the material found in this post except that concerning John Martin. That reference is found in Martin Gilbert, Finest Hour: 1939-1941. (pg. 1189)

Sheehan's opportunity

A year ago today Raleigh News & Observer news columnist Ruth Sheehan wrote a column (“Team’s Silence is Sickening”) attacking 46 Duke students for doing nothing more than following the advice of their parents and attorneys. Even worse, Sheehan told N&O readers the players were guilty of terrible crimes. Her column began:

Members of the Duke men's lacrosse team: You know.

We know you know. …

And one of you needs to come forward and tell the police.

Do not be afraid of retribution on the team. Do not be persuaded that somehow this "happened" to one or more "good guys."…

Later that same day, DA Mike Nifong spoke publicly about the case for the first time. He attacked the students in terms very similar to Sheehan. Like Sheehan, Nifong assured the public the players were guilty of concealing a crime and its criminals.

Many people initially bought into what Sheehan and Nifong were saying. But soon the case started falling apart. By June sensible people recognized the truth of what Duke Law professor James Coleman said in a letter to the N&O:

According to the police account of the identification, however, the police officer who presided over the proceedings told the alleged victim at the outset that he wanted her to look at people the police had reason to believe attended the party. […]

This strongly suggests that the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim an opportunity to pick three members of the lacrosse team who could be charged. Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice.

Coleman was describing a frame-up and Sheehan was “catching it” from readers who realized her March 27 column was a McCarthyite screed reeking of prejudgment and disregard for citizens' basic rights.

A few days after Coleman’s letter appeared, Sheehan wrote a column blaming Nifong for her March 27 column. Sheehan said:

To think that for a brief moment I actually pitied Nifong for the attacks on his handling of the case. What a joke.

Nifong is the one who described this thing in such incendiary terms from the start that it was impossible to ignore.

But as Sheehan knew, her March 27 “Team’s Silence is Sickening” column appeared BEFORE Nifong started publicly attacking the students. It went online shortly after midnight; and a print version was delivered to Durham driveways around 5 A.M. Nifong had plenty of time to read it before he spoke to the press later that day.

That leads to some questions we should all be asking and Sheehan needs to answer.

So I’m sending Sheehan a link to this post and asking her to answer the following questions:

1) Considering Nfong didn't speak publicly until after your column appeared, aren’t you misleading readers when you tell them all the slimes in your Mar. 27 were based on what he said?

or

2) Did Nifong or someone you trusted would tell you what he was saying provide you with “background information” BEFORE you wrote your Mar. 27 column?

In that case, while you’d still bear the heaviest responsibility for the column, you’d have some grounds for telling readers Nifong was also to blame for it.

Sheehan knows the answers to those questions. She demanded the players answer questions and tell the truth. They’ve done that even as, innocent, they’ve suffered terribly because of the actions of Nifong, certain Durham Police officers and enablers like Sheehan.

Now Sheehan needs to answer questions honestly.

To be clear about Nifong: he should be disbarred and tried. But he shouldn’t be blamed for the actions of Sheehan and many others who helped make the frame-up possible.

Sheehan has a chance to do some things that will be very important and helpful to many innocent people who’ve suffered great injustices.

She can retract both her March 27 (“Team’s Silence is Sickening”) and April 3 (“Lacrosse team out of control” ) columns.

She should apologize to the students, their families, Coach Pressler and his wife and young children. An apology is also owed her readers.

If Sheehan does all of that, she will have made a major contribution to correcting some of the wrongs that have been committed against so many innocent people, most especially David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

She will have done what she often tells readers she wants her three young sons to do: the right thing.

Kirk Osborn: A Tribute

Kirk Osborn had a well-deserved reputation as a skilled lawyer and fighter for justice. My sympathies are with his family and friends.

Obituaries have noted that Osborn represented on appeal Dawn Wilson, one of those falsely accused in the notorious Little Rascals case, which was marked by police and prosecutor abuses.

Wilson had been sentenced to life in prison based on the testimony of children that they had been sexually abused by her and others when the children were three and four year olds at the Little Rascals preschool, where Wilson worked as a cook.

The prosecution “helped” the children “remember what happened to them” by having a
“counselor” and the children’s parents do “homework” with them so they would “recover their memories.”

As with the Duke lacrosse frame-up, the Little Rascals case began to fall apart when fairly examined.

During the appeal process, the State of North Carolina offered Wilson a number of plea deals, the last one of which would have set her free based on time served. She refused, protesting her innocence and running the risk the she might remain in prison the rest of her life.

A lot of attorneys would have “leaned” on Wilson to take the state’s offer. Osborn didn’t. He respected and believed in Wilson, and was ready to “fight it out” with her.

She and he were successful on appeal for dismissal of her conviction. The state later dropped all charges against her.

You can read more about the case here and about Osborn’s involvement here.

Bill Anderson has written for years about the injustices of the Little Rascals case. I feel sure he'll write something about Osborn.

KC Johnson posts a number of tribute comments from friends, colleagues and readers at Remembering Kirk Osborn

I know others have and will update this post this evening.

This made me smile

A friend sent this on from Kim du Toit’s blog, The Other Side.

From an anonymous friend, when asked whether his wife knew he was a blogger:

“Good Lord, no. She’d kill me if she knew. She thinks I’m just surfing the Internet looking at smut.”

There you have it.

Blogging: lower than smutty pictures.

_______________________________________

I think I'll send du Toit's post on to Raleigh N&O editors Melanie Sill and John Drescher.

They'll likely run the post as a straight news story.

The Churchill Series - Mar. 26, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

From Beside the Bulldog, Scotland Yard Detective Inspector Walter Thompson's recollections of his years serving as Churchill's principal bodyguard:

In Egypt in 1921 Winston decided that he would like to paint a picture of the Pyramids.

He and I set off together and soon he was settled happily at this task. A small group of British tommies gathered at his back and watched him at work. Even though they were somewhat free with their remarks, I saw no reason to move them on, particularly as Winston seemed to be enjoying their conversation

Suddenly a young Cockney called out, "You don't half use some paint. Lucky for you, you ain't an 'ouse painter with me old boss. You'd soon get the sack."

Winston chuckled and looked around. The lad got the shock of his life. "Gawd! It's Churchill," he burst out.

This was followed by an embarrassed silence. Winston finished what he was doing, and then got off his stool and talked to the boys about their homes and their families for some considerable time.

He gained their confidence and, before he returned to his easel, everyone had a memorable experience to write home about. (pg. 52)

BTW - Thank you to Corwin for confirming Churchill took his beloved nurse, Mrs. Everest, to Harrow. More about that in a week or two when I'm home and can do some research.

Talking to Regulars & Readers – 3-26-07

(A post in the old web log tradition: notes for those familiar with the material. Don’t look for hyperlinks or background explanations in this post.)

Thank you for your affirming comments. I appreciate them and bring them to mind whenever I hear from trolls.

And thank you for comments that point out my errors and/or “add to the story.”

Many of you have done a great deal of “adding to the story.” It’s all on the threads.

There’ve been a number of stories at JinC recently. In this post, I’ll focus only on the “poster stories.” In a few days, I’ll respond to some of the other JinC stories.

One of you self-ID’ing as a Duke lax Mom who attended the March 25 lax parents’ meeting with Duke administrators ( President Brodhead did not attend that meeting and, to the best of my knowledge, has refused since to met with the lax parents) says she asked at the meeting that the players’ face photos be removed from the GoDukeGo site.

That was a very wise request given the hate speech that was already circulating among certain Duke University and Durham “activists,” and the fact that on the morning of the 25th the Raleigh N&O, for reasons its never explained, published what it knew was a false, racially inflammatory story about what it said was a night that ended in “sexual violence.”

Within a few days of Brodhead's refusal to meet with the parents and the N&O's racially inflammatory story, unstable and hateful individuals and groups at Duke and in Durham were circulating the notorious Vigilante” poster, which targeted the players, and which the N&O then published on a Sunday (Apr. 2), its largest circulation day.

I’m working up a post that asks when Duke began “pulling” its students photos from GoDukeGo.

Based on the information I have right now, the post won’t offer a definitive answer to the “when” question, but it will provide some important “connect the dots” information to which I’ll add commentary.

Meanwhile, if the lax Mom or someone else who was at the meeting reads this post, a few questions:

At what time of day was the meeting held? To which (one or more) administrator(s) was the “remove” request made?

Did the administrator(s) explicitly acknowledge the request?

If yes, how?

Was a statement made by any Duke administrator that the students photos would be removed by a certain time?

Did any administrator (my understanding is there were four there) say he or she would step aside for a few minutes and cell call Duke’s IT system person on duty and request the removal of the photos?

At what time did the meeting end?

I’ve already confirmed with Jon Jackson, Duke’s SID, what media reported last March 29: Duke pulled the photos out of concern for the players’ safety.

That’s why the “Vigilante” poster has only the photos of 43 of the 46 white Duke lacrosse players the “vigilantes” were targeting. Jackson told me Duke learned of the photo “pulling” in time to take down the photos before the “vigilantes” got all 46.

But when did Duke pull the photos? I didn’t ask Jackson that question when I first reported on the “Vigilante” poster almost a year ago.

I think the Duke Mom wants to know when Duke pulled the photos. So do I.

I'll be calling Jackson tomorrow and asking him when the photos were pulled.

If I’ve misunderstood the Mom’s question, I hope she sets me straight.

I’ll keep you posted. But if you read this thread, you may know before I know.

About DUPD Director Dean, and his response to my “Wanted” poster questions:

I’ll respond to Dean tomorrow.

In that post I’ll reference the “main point” comments on the thread. Then I’ll ask where citizens can view the minutes of Durham CS board meetings held during 2006 when he was chair.

I’ll also ask Dean if he’s still a CS board member as well as for contact information for Pat Ellis whom Dean said was the current Durham CS board chair, and to whom Dean said I could refer for a copy of the 2006 IRS form Durham CS is required to file and make easily available to the public.

I’ll follow those questions with some brief, initial questions concerning the “Vigilante” poster.

I’ll say more about all of that tomorrow.

I hope you’re back.

John

Note to Regulars and Readers

I'll be back online tonight with a post about DUPD Director Dean's comments on the "Wanted" poster.

I'll also have some comments regarding KC Johnson's report of his interviews with two CS board members.

Also, some extensive comments on the "Vigilante" poster.

And a few more items.

Since I'm in California and will be posting close to midnight here, those of you in the Eastern time zone won't see the post until ....

BTW - I got 12 hours sleep last night so I'm finally back on this side of the dateline after a wonderful three weeks in Auatralia

I hope you visit tomorrow.

This in haste and unproofed.

John

Hat tips to "skeptical," Liestoppers and ABC News

The ABC News story under the headlines:

Obama: Investigate Duke Lacrosse DA Nifong

Presidential Hopeful Says an 'Independent Inquiry Is Needed' into Durham, N.C., District Attorney Mike Nifong's Conduct

contains this paragraph:

Obama's comments were first posted on "Liestoppers," an online blog and forum on the Duke Lacrosse case. The user who posted them, known on that forum by the alias "sceptical," was the constituent who corresponded with Obama about the case.

Hat tips:

First, to citizen journalist “skeptical” for getting the story and getting it “out there.” If you “read the blogs,” you know this is just one more example of skeptical’s work on behalf of justice.

Second, to Liestoppers for providing the means for getting the news “out there.”

Third, to ABC News for being alert, picking up the story, and crediting skeptical and LS.

ABC News has given the rest of MSM and citizens an example of how an MSM news organization should function, and how blogs and MSM can together serve the public interest.

It was a pleasure to write this post.

Will the Feds come to Durham?

ABC News reports:

Another voice has joined the call for a federal investigation into the handling of the Duke Lacrosse case — this one with the punch of presidential politics.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in a written response to a constituent, said that an "independent inquiry is needed" into the conduct of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.

Nifong prosecuted and led the investigation into the alleged sexual assault of an exotic dancer at a lacrosse team party in March 2006.

Obama cited the fact that Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., has already asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for a federal investigation into Nifong's conduct. ABC News has learned that similar requests have been made by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla.

Reps. Jones, Franks, and Feeney aren’t the only House members calling for a federal investigation. By my count more than a dozen members have made that request.

Will the Feds come to Durham and investigate Nifong?

I believe they will.

The need for a federal investigation becomes more obvious almost by the day, and the demand for an investigation is building in strength and breadth.

Not only are there bipartisan calls by members of congress for a federal investigation, but the NC State Bar has now on two occasions said Nifong has violated citizens' constitutional rights.

Some weeks back I asked in a post what the special prosecutors could do if they found Nifong had committed criminal acts.

Here’s part of a response comment from Jason Trumpbour, a University of Maryland law professor whom Nifong, in typical Nifong fashion, has blamed for his State Bar ethics troubles:

Keep in mind that the most likely and most obvious criminal violations would be violations of federal law which makes it a crime to violate the civil rights of a citizen or to conspire to violate the rights of a citizen.

The special prosecutors could and should turn over the results of their investigation to the local United States Attorney if any possible violations of federal law are revealed.

Trumpbour cautioned that he thought the possibility the special prosecutors would do that wasn’t high but a lot has changed since he made his comment. And what’s changed has made clear the need for a thorough federal investigation into not only Nifong’s conduct, but that of his coconspirators.

Attorneys tell me the State Bar also could and should turn over to the federal authorities any evidence it uncovers of Nifong violating citizens constitutional rights and/or conspiring to do so.

What are your thoughts on the possibility the Feds will at some point enter the case?

BTW – Nifong blaming his troubles on Trumpbour and the outstanding organization for which he’s spokesperson, Friends of Duke University, is a lot like Nixon blaming his troubles on the people on his “enemies list.”

Introduction to a fraud

March 25, 2007 is the first anniversary of the false, inflammatory and deliberately malicious story The Raleigh News & Observer headlined across five columns on page one above the fold:

Dancer gives details of ordeal

A woman hired to dance for the Duke lacrosse team describes a night of racial slurs, growing fear and, finally, sexual violence

On March 24, as the N&O prepared its story of the night of “sexual violence,” Durham DA Mike Nifong and certain police officers helping him frame a case against Duke lacrosse players faced a major problem: there was overwhelming evidence that the charges made to support the “sexual violence” claim were false and the players innocent.

A reasonably fair, honest and accurate news report the next day by the N&O, the largest and most influential news organization in the Duke/Durham area, would expose the shallowness of “the case” Nifong and his helpers had tried to put together.

Yes, the public would wait for the results of DNA testing that Nifong’s old friend and mentor, Judge Ron Stephens, had ordered all 46 white members of the lacrosse team to submit to.

But with a fair, honest and reasonably accurate news story before them on March 25, the public would immediately begin asking why, almost two weeks after the “sexual violence” was alleged to have occurred, there were no descriptions of the woman’s attackers other than “Duke lacrosse players?” And why were there no computer generated composite face-images of the woman’s three attackers?

Detailed descriptions of alleged rapists are routinely reported by the N&O and composite face-images published.

In this case the accuser, whom the N&O told readers was “the victim,” had ample opportunity to view her attackers if you believed her story.

So why were there no descriptions and no face-images?

Reasonable citizens would be especially likely to ask those questions if the N&O itself reported on them. But it didn’t. In fact, the N&O didn’t even mention the absence of any attacker ID information other than “Duke lacrosse players.”

Instead of reporting on such important questions, the N&O, for reasons it’s never disclosed, told the public and the rest of media a story it knew was substantially false.

The N&O published on March 25, 2006, a racially charged story from which it withheld critically important information and reported what it knew was false information about a young black woman who’d been brutally beaten, gang-raped, robbed and strangled over a thirty minute period by three white Duke lacrosse players; after which the white gang-rapists’ white teammates covered up for them by refusing to tell police who they were.

To appreciate how necessary to the subsequent frame-up and how deliberately malicious the N&O’s March 25 story was, bear in mind the following:

The N&O knew on March 24 of the extensive cooperation the players had provided police. But it chose to make no mention of their cooperation in its story.

Instead, the N&O promulgated what it knew was a false “wall of solidarity” claim that within a few days gave rise to the Durham CrimeStoppers “Wanted” poster and the “Vigilante” poster which, alone among major North Carolina newspapers, the N&O would publish in large photo form.

On March 24 the N&O knew the players had asserted their innocence, but it decided to make no mention of that in its story.

False accuser Crystal Mangum told the N&O during an interview who the second dancer was and made accusations about her.

The N&O withheld that critically important news from the public and the rest of media. To this day, it won’t say what Mangum accused Roberts of.

It’s hard to understand why the N&O remains silent now on what Mangum told them last March about Roberts, other than it’s in the N&O self-interest to continue to hide that important news, much as it was in Nixon’s self-interest to hide the contents of certain Watergate tapes.

For more than 30 years I’ve had a very low opinion of the N&O’s honesty and accuracy where news stories concerning social and political issues are concerned.

But I still find it hard to understand why last March N&O reporters and editors decided to say nothing about the critically important charges Mangum leveled at Roberts during the interview.

If the N&O had reported Mangum’s charges as well as her inability to ID her attackers and the players’ extraordinary cooperation, would Nifong and his helpers have gone as far as they did with the frame-up?

Would we have had the witch hunt?

The massive injustices?

Would the players have been directly endangered and the rest of us who live in the Duke/Durham area placed at greater risk as unintended victims of unstable people and hate groups such as the New Black Panthers who came to Duke and Durham?

I think about those questions and others every time I read the N&O’s fraudulent March 25 story:

Dancer gives details of ordeal

A woman hired to dance for the Duke lacrosse team describes a night of racial slurs, growing fear and, finally, sexual violence