Saturday, May 30, 2009


Ya, I know some of my posts are a bit heavy. No one got the one on the "gift of hunger." But here I go again.

I have had the chance over the last 55 years to teach a lot of courses. One of my favorites was "Introduction to the Constitution." But I know now(thanks to Cheney/Bush) that I was wrong. Let me explain.

I taught that the "legal protections" in that document were there because they helped our system of justice find the truth. For example, facing your accusers, right to counsel, 5th Amendment, habeas corpus and the rest were aids in finding the truth. I thought these 'protections' were not there to aid criminals get away with what they did. But, you see, I was wrong! Cheney/Bush have made it clear that these 'protections' are NOT, repeat, are NOT, useful in finding the truth. They are just things that we Americans have to thwarth justice. They are not aids in finding the truth. How do I know this. Well Cheney/Bush clearly point out that the detainees can't use these 'protections.' Becuase if they use them, they are thwarting justice and hiding the truth. So for Americans, these legal 'protections' are just ways we have as Americans to commit crimes and not be punished for them. They have nothing to do with finding the truth. They are there to hide the truth. And that's why the detainees can not be allowed to use them.

Thank you Dick/George for setting me straight. Jack


  1. Never thought of it this way. I see what you are saying. Wish Cheney knew the Constitution.

  2. Jack, I don't think I would call your post heavy, that might be a weak term. But I would certainly agree that they are provocative :).

    I have to admit, I never thought of these protections as being there to help bring out the truth. I always thought of them as protection from being steamrollered by people like Cheney/Bush. But you are right, they force the system to dig out the truth and present proof of that truth.

    Such hard work must be very frustrating to some of those that think their power should be unlimited and that anyone that frustrates them should be punished.

    I would bet, however, that if Cheney/Bush types end up on the other end of the system they will demand that these protections be honored to the greatest extent possible.

    Keep up the good work.

    Mike L

  3. Mike, in a way they have two functions: Find the truth and protect the INNOCENT. The two are tied together. But are really ONE.For example hearsay is not allowed in our courts because there is no chance to face the accuser, which is necessary to find the truth. Jack

  4. Hey Jack! I got "IT" "gift of hunger" You're hungry for the truth, the way and the light and that's why you became a Catholic so you could learn more about "Jesus". :)

    Hang in there with all your cells Jack and we'll keep praying that God Our Heavenly Father and His Trinity of Angels cut you a little slack now and then!

    I hear ya! While you're at "IT" Victor see what He can do for you!

    What do you mean by that Jack?

    Nothing Victor and sinner vic so go figure!

  5. It is not just Cheney-Bush. Years ago, Bobby Kennedy (yes that Bobby) pushed for a law permitting wire taps at the discretion of the investigators. His argument was neatly summarized by Bill Maldon: if we legalize wire taps we will eliminate illegal taps!

    Yup -- is is simply the corruption of power. That is why I am reluctantly coming to believe in term limits. They all get the disease after a while.


  6. Jim, I agree. The Kennedy's were in the McCarthy gang for a while back then.

    I do oppose term limits. It makes the secon term of a president, for example, a sure disaster. Just wait four years and the guy will be out. As you know term limits were put in by the Repubs to spite Roosevelt. Not a good reason to amend the Constitution.


  7. Jack

    Did it ever occur to you that a fair trial is useless to a guilty person? Whether the Star Chamber plays poker behind close doors for half hour for appearances or he found guilty after a careful and deliberate consideration of the evidence, the figurative rope is just as tight. An unfair trial in their favor is what they would like.

    The rights of due process protect the innocent from false conviction, protect society from making mistakes, and yes help determine truth. But more to protect the innocent than determine truth.

    And it is true that some guilty persons or their attorneys use the system to be falsely acquitted, which though bad is not as bad as false convictions. And sometimes this greatly annoys people, especially if they have the responsibility to protect people from criminals..

    Since you did not provide the link I’m not sure you got the quote right, agree with them or not they are usually more nuanced. Were they expressing frustration or recommending throwing out due process?

  8. Hank, I am not clear as to what you are saying. And to what "link" are you referencing?

    Good to hear from you. Jack

  9. Hello. Trying to find a blog.