What to think about CIA Destroyed Tapes

Posted March 2, 2009 by thelegalmuse
Categories: Law, Politics

Unless you live under a rock, you already know that the CIA acknowledged that it destroyed over 90 videotapes post 9/11 that recorded interrogation of suspected terrorists.  The CIA reported this as part of a request relating to a civil litigation. The ACLU takes the stand that the destruction of the evidence confirms that the Agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court’s order.

The details of CIA interrogations, and the existence of tapes documenting those sessions, have become the subject of long fights in a number of different court cases. In the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then acknowledged after the trial was over that two videotapes and one audiotape had been made.

The Dassin letter, dated March 2 to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, says the CIA is now gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents and the identities of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they were destroyed.

But the lawyers also note that some of that information may be classified, such as the names of CIA personnel who viewed the tapes.

This is a very delicate matter for the CIA. I understand that the CIA needs to feel and be reassured that classified information will never reach the ears and eyes of individuals who may use the information for ill gains.  How do we marry both the need for transperancy and the need to have secret/classified operations/information in order to keep this country safe?

I am anxiously waiting to see what comes next!

Even in this downturn Economy for Lawyers- Securities Litigation and Regulation Remains HOT

Posted February 26, 2009 by thelegalmuse
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , ,

The am law litigation daily reported today that there is “more activity in litigation departments than meets the eye.” This means hiring and not firing.

In January, Eolis International Group surveyed 200 lawyers at 130 firms to find out what’s happening in litigation departments around the country. Many firms are looking to hire partners and associates with experience in securities litigation.
The survey revealed that firms–particularly non-New York firms–are bulking up their regulatory capabilities, especially when it comes to securities. (A tribute, perhaps, to the prosecutorial experience of new SEC enforcement chief Robert Khuzami?) “All that gearing up for additional regulatory work is happening in litigation departments

This is very good news for us securities litigation and regulatory attorneys.
Have you heard of any similar news?

How did Bobby Jindal Do last night?

Posted February 25, 2009 by thelegalmuse
Categories: Law, Politics

This post is in no way a sign of disrespect for Lousiana. Some of my favorite people are from Louisiana.   However, I expected much more from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Surprisingly, most of the trashing that I have read online has been from those in his own party.   We all know that Obama is a tough lead to follow, but Mr. Jindall, you could have done much better.  Like a friend of mine said on facebook- He looked like a 4th grader in a debate class.

 Jindal is often mentioned these days as a possible challenger to Obama in 2012. He was on John McCain’s short list for vice president. His selection to give last night’s official GOP response was a reward and a bet that he could be a big part of the party’s emerging future. But with such an introduction, I am not so sure.

Some people said the following:

“A wonderful human being, I like him very much, but he is a horrible speaker,” conservative commentator Laura Ingraham said on the radio this morning. “You can’t go on TV and counter Obama with that.”

New York Times columnist David Brooks blasted Jindal’s performance, saying that the governor offered a “stale” argument and called the message “a disaster for the Republican Party.”

 On Fox News after the speech, the consensus among the commentators was that Jindal had not done well.

And the criticism was savage on the Internet. Amanda Carpenter of Townhall.com tweeted that “Ok, some conservative needs to start a campaign to fire whoever wrote this cheesy response and coached him to talk like this. I can’t watch.”

But the performance Tuesday was not up to that par, according to most of the reviewers.

 

Your thoughts?

Personally, I saw it online and I couldnt even finish listening to it….

enuff said..

Guantanamo Detainees seek Habeas- Should they?

Posted February 25, 2009 by thelegalmuse
Categories: Law, Politics, Uncategorized

Guantanamo detainees are arguing that that they should still be able to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in U.S. court, even though they have already been released from American custody.

The detainees claim that they have a right to contest the enemy combatant label through habeas hearings, just as American convicts are often entitled to try and clear their records after being released from prison.

Defense lawyers say that, of the detainees who have been released, many are being held in “proxy detention” by foreign countries with the encouragement of the U.S. Many others have to cope with severe limits on their personal freedom, such as travel restrictions that keep them from making religious pilgrimages. Still more have not been able to find work, and blame the stigma attached to having been held at Guantanamo.
The case is filed in the U.S. District Court in DC. The Justice Department argues that the Supreme Court has only extended the most basic habeas rights to the detainees, which do not include access to the courts after they have been released or transferred. They also say that detainees in foreign custody are beyond the reach of U.S. courts.

The issue of Foreign custody is a perplexing one where we will see much litigation- no doubt about that.

Boys and girls- what do you think?

Palin’s Failing

Posted October 21, 2008 by thelegalmuse
Categories: Law, Politics

Tags: , , ,

Peggy Noolan and I do not often see eye to eye, but the post below speaks for not only me, but many women out there.  I, too, have tried to have an open mind about Palin. As a woman, I have given her a chance, but every time she dissapoints.. over and over and over again..  Read and enjoy:

“Sometimes the leak is so bad that even a plumber can’t fix it.” This was the concise summation of a cable political strategist the other day, after the third and final presidential debate. That sounds about right, and yet the race in its final days retains a feeling of dynamism. I think it is going to burst open or tighten, not just mosey along. I can well imagine hearing, the day after Election Day, a lot of “You won’t believe it but I was literally in line at the polling station when I decided.”

[Declarations] AP

John McCain won the debate, and he did it by making the case more effectively than he has in the past that Barack Obama will raise taxes, when “now, of all times in America, we need to cut people’s taxes.” He also scored Mr. Obama on his eloquence, using it against him more effectively than Hillary Clinton ever did. When she said he was “just words,” it sounded like a bitter complaint. Mr. McCain made it a charge: Young man, you attempt to obscure truth with the mellifluous power of your words. From Mrs. Clinton it sounded jealous, but when Mr. McCain said it, you looked at Mr. Obama and wondered if you’d just heard something that was true. For the first time, Mr. Obama’s unruffled demeanor didn’t really work for him. His cool made him seem hidden.

There is now something infantilizing about this election. Mr. Obama continued to claim he will remove wasteful spending by sitting down with the federal budget and going through it “line by line.” This is absurd, and he must know it. Mr. McCain continued to vow he will “balance the budget” in the next four years. Who believes that? Does even he?

More than ever on the campaign trail, the candidates are dropping their G’s. Hardworkin’ families are strainin’ and tryin’a get ahead. It’s not only Sarah Palin but Mr. McCain, too, occasionally Mr. Obama, and, of course, George W. Bush when he darts out like the bird in a cuckoo clock to tell us we are in crisis. All of the candidates say “mom and dad”: “our moms and dads who are struggling.” This is Mr. Bush’s former communications adviser Karen Hughes’s contribution to our democratic life, that you cannot speak like an adult in politics now, that’s too austere and detached, snobby. No one can say mothers and fathers, it’s all now the faux down-home, patronizing—and infantilizing—moms and dads. Do politicians ever remember that in a nation obsessed with politics, our children—sorry, our kids—look to political figures for a model as to how adults sound?

There has never been a second’s debate among liberals, to use an old-fashioned word that may yet return to vogue, over Mrs. Palin: She was a dope and unqualified from the start. Conservatives and Republicans, on the other hand, continue to battle it out: Was her choice a success or a disaster? And if one holds negative views, should one say so? For conservatives in general, but certainly for writers, the answer is a variation on Edmund Burke: You owe your readers not your industry only but your judgment, and you betray instead of serve them if you sacrifice it to what may or may not be their opinion.

Here is a fact of life that is also a fact of politics: You have to hold open the possibility of magic. People can come from nowhere, with modest backgrounds and short résumés, and yet be individuals of real gifts, gifts that had previously been unseen, that had been gleaming quietly under a bushel, and are suddenly revealed. Mrs. Palin came, essentially, from nowhere. But there was a man who came from nowhere, the seeming tool of a political machine, a tidy, narrow, unsophisticated senator appointed to high office and then thrust into power by a careless Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose vanity told him he would live forever. And yet that limited little man was Harry S. Truman. Of the Marshall Plan, of containment. Little Harry was big. He had magic. You have to give people time to show what they have. Because maybe they have magic too.

But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I’ve listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite—a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.

But it’s unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn’t think aloud. She just . . . says things.

Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she’s not a big “egghead” but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? “I’m Joe Six-Pack”? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—”palling around with terrorists.” If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn’t, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn’t seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.

No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can’t be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush’s style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don’t, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It’s no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.

I gather this week from conservative publications that those whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives. In one now-famous case, Christopher Buckley was shooed from the great magazine his father invented. In all this, the conservative intelligentsia are doing what they have done for five years. They bitterly attacked those who came to stand against the Bush administration. This was destructive. If they had stood for conservative principle and the full expression of views, instead of attempting to silence those who opposed mere party, their movement, and the party, would be in a better, and healthier, position.

At any rate, come and get me, copper.

Angry at both Democrats and Republicans… Obama is not a Muslim or an Arab.. but… So What if He Was?

Posted October 16, 2008 by thelegalmuse
Categories: Law, Politics, Uncategorized

Tags: ,

Enough is enough

I am disturbed by the degree to which ‘Arab’ has become the metaphorical mud to sling against Barack Obama. .. Arab is the new “Black”.   Last week, for example, the Republican Jewish Coalition released a document in which they use the term Pro-Arab as a pejorative accusation.  For his part, Rush Limbaugh has joined in by declaring that Obama is in fact an Arab American. Then, last Friday, after a supporter called Senator Barak Obama “an Arab”, Senator John McCain came to the defense of of his political opponent by saying, “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man and citizen…” From this we are left to infer that an Arab man is less then a “decent family man.”

From the beginning of this campaign there have been those who have used ‘Muslim’ and ‘Arab’ in an effort to smear Barack Obama. This exploitation of bigotry and the stoking of racist fires to forward an agenda is reprehensible. This is not only offensive to Arab Americans, but to all Americans. As any ethnic group who has ever been used to scare the electorate knows, this is a dangerous game that, tragically, can get innocent people hurt.

  while I am pleased to see that Obama  is trying to dispel rumors about himself,  Ifeel the need to point out that Arab Americans are also decent men and women with full rights of citizenship as enumerated under the Constitution. Arab Americans are part of the great melting pot that is this country’s strength. We work towards peace in the Middle East along side their Jewish  partners.  They raise their  sons and daughters to be model citizens of this nation. Arab Americans serve this country with honor. The suggestion that any ethnic group is treacherous and Anti-American is unacceptable, dangerous, and unbecoming of such a great nation. The democrats have not done enough to stand up for Arab Americans in this election. Should we really win at any cost?

Amen…

Thoughts?

The Disgrace of Sarah Palin

Posted October 7, 2008 by thelegalmuse
Categories: Law, Politics, Pop Culture

Tags: , , , ,

Ok, I know I have to let it go, but I cant. Read the article I found online below.. it says exactly what I am thinking about this whole debacle.

At least three times on Thursday night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have universally noted, discussed and mocked. Palin, however, has single-handedly so lowered the standards both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is now deemed to have performed acceptably last night.

By any normal standard, including the ones applied to male presidential candidates of either party, she did not. Early on, she made the astonishing announcement that she had no intentions of actually answering the queries put to her. “I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I’m going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also,” she said.

And so she preceded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity.

It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don’t even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of “average Americans” who they both venerate and despise.

In pronouncing upon a debate, they don’t try and determine whether a candidate’s responses correspond to existing reality, or whether he or she is capable of talking about subjects such as the deregulation of the financial markets or the devolution of the war in Afghanistan. The criteria are far more vaporous. In this case, it was whether Palin could avoid utterly humiliating herself for 90 minutes, and whether urbane commentators would believe that she had connected to a public that they see as ignorant and sentimental. For the Alaska governor, mission accomplished.

There is indeed something mesmerising about Palin, with her manic beaming and fulsome confidence in her own charm. The force of her personality managed to slightly obscure the insulting emptiness of her answers last night. It’s worth reading the transcript of the encounter, where it becomes clearer how bizarre much of what she said was. Here, for example, is how she responded to Biden’s comments about how the middle class has been short-changed during the Bush administration, and how McCain will continue Bush’s policies:

Say it ain’t so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let’s look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education, and I’m glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? … My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here’s a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

Evidently, Palin’s pre-debate handlers judged her incapable of speaking on a fairly wide range of subjects, and so instructed to her to simply disregard questions that did not invite memorised talking points or cutesy filibustering. They probably told her to play up her spunky average-ness, which she did to the point of shtick – and dishonesty. Asked what her achilles heel is – a question she either didn’t understand or chose to ignore – she started in on how McCain chose her because of her “connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills?”

None of Palin’s children, it should be noted, is heading off to college. Her son is on the way to Iraq, and her pregnant 17-year-old daughter is engaged to be married to a high-school dropout and self-described “fuckin’ redneck”. Palin is a woman who can’t even tell the truth about the most quotidian and public details of her own life, never mind about matters of major public import. In her only vice-presidential debate, she was shallow, mendacious and phoney. What kind of maverick, after all, keeps harping on what a maverick she is? That her performance was considered anything but a farce doesn’t show how high Palin has risen, but how low we all have sunk.

What is going on In London?

Posted October 7, 2008 by thelegalmuse
Categories: Uncategorized

I saw this post about British lawyers and their recreational drug use. I think Biglaw NY firms and London Firms are not much different. Check out the link:http://abovethelaw.com/2008/10/magic_circle_cocaine_alcohol.php

Interesting and troubling observation

Sarah Palin’s Clueless about her OWN Taxes-

Posted October 7, 2008 by thelegalmuse
Categories: Business, Finance, Law, Politics

Tags: , , ,

Hi all:

A ton of blogs re reporting that Sarah failed to report the per diem reimbursements she received as governor of Alaska.  The failure to report her per diem reimbursement is clearly a tax violation and very close to tax evasion!. The governor, with all her qualifications and knowledge regarding the U.S. system of governance (note the sarcasms), should have known that a per diem (how much over the last 18 months??!?!) should be included in her tax returns.  See link below:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/are-palins-per-diem-payments-taxable/

We all know if she was a democrat there would be congressional hearing regarding this…

thoughts, boys and girls?!?!

Top Ranks of Women on Wall Street are Shrinking

Posted October 3, 2008 by thelegalmuse
Categories: Business, Law, Politics, Pop Culture, Style

Tags: , , ,

Dear readers:

I found this (a bit dated) Article discussing the shrinking of women executives on Wall Street. See link below:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/business/01wall.html?pagewanted=2

I find it puzzling to read that the number of women executives are shirnking when the number of women MBA and law graduates are at its highest? Is male-dominated wall street ready for women executives?

Women really need to become more interested and involved in economics, investment banking and business in general. We need to have a place at the table and share in the decision-making power. As we have learned these past few weeks, Wall Street controls our financial sector, our economic balance of power, and frankly, our government.

So, any takers?