Tuesday, September 21, 2010

N&O editorial: “naïve wanderers” or just plain dumb

The editorial staff in the September 16, 2010 edition of The News & Observer published an interesting editorial titled “Free all three.” It is a call for the Iranians to free the two remaining Americans being held on spy charges. Thankfully, Sarah Shourd, the third American was freed by the Iranian government on humanitarian reasons because of alleged health problems.

Although I give credit to the N&O editorial staff for admitting that anything is possible, I strongly disagree with its claim that charges of espionage against the three Americans are laughable. First, a lot of assumptions are tossed around, such as the three are left-leaning in their political philosophy, even though they are alums of the University of California-Berkeley. Not all alums from Berkeley are left-leaning or liberals. But the spy agency in the United States (almost all nations have them) is smart enough not to send men in trench coats and wearing sunglasses to the Iranian border to snoop around. They’re going to send someone who seems most unlikely to fit the mold of a spy… say, for example, a hiker with left-leaning tendencies.

Now, I’m not saying that the trio of hikers is spies, because I do not know. However, I would not call them naïve… a more appropriate adjective would be stupid. Why in the world would three Americans, without knowledge of the local language, go hiking around the border of a country openly hostile to the United States, and a country listed as a terrorist country by the United States? Not only that, but they were on Iran’s border with Iraq, a volatile country which doesn’t embrace Americans or the Christian religion. Sarah Shourd did not clarify why they were hiking around the Iranian border during snippets of interviews given following her release. The only comment she could say on that issue was, “It’s a misunderstanding.”

I have nothing against hiking, but with all of the beautiful national parks, open country, and nicely designed cities in the United States, why would one even leave the States to get in some hiking? And if one just had to get out of the States, there are plenty of countries with much more hospitality towards Americans than Iran. For me, if I felt the need to hike abroad, my first choice would be Ireland. Nice and green, and I can sorta understand the language. My second choice would be Scotland, for the same reasons, except the language is a little bit more difficult to understand. My third choice would be England… you get the picture. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the other “stans,” North Korea, Darfur, would not even garner consideration. Although Cuba and Venezuela have some bad blood between them and the U.S., I would feel relatively safe going to those countries, but they would not be on the top tier of my list of foreign countries to go hiking in.

Another sticking point for the N&O editorial staff writer appears to be the “$500,000 bail.” Well, all I can say is that it is a lot less than the bail set for Heather Holley on a charge of identity theft – which was $6 milllion. Of the two charges, I would consider espionage much more serious than identity theft. Bail for some defendants charged with murder is less than six mil. Still, I have yet to see an editorial in The News & Observer about the excessive bail amount set for Ms. Holley.

According to recent media accounts, the Iranian leader has made subtle overtures suggesting a willingness to exchange the two American hikers for eight Iranian citizens being held in U.S. jails. I don’t know the charges against the eight Iranians, but such a prisoner exchange would be ideal. First we would be able to free the two remaining hikers. Secondly, we could free the American taxpayers of the burden of providing room, board, and health care for eight individuals which our country doesn’t want to begin with. It’s a win-win situation, and we should jump at the opportunity.

What all Americans should learn from this sad and unfortunate series of events is not to do dumb things. For an American to be hiking around Iran, or Iraq… or Afghanistan… or Pakistan is dumb. Just like it would be dumb for me, or any outspoken Mike Nifong supporter, to set foot on Duke University campus. After I was humiliated, embarrassed, and nearly arrested for no reason by campus police, it makes absolutely no sense for me to venture onto Duke property again.

For those of you unfamiliar with events leading up to my Henry Louis Gates Jr.-like near arrest, here’s a condensed version. I went to the Duke University Law School (wearing my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong tee shirt… no big deal – right?) to attend an event open to the public on a first come, first served basis. Arriving early, I struck up conversations with about a half dozen or so people, and gave some of them my business card (which had information about the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong). Upon leaving the large classroom where the event was held, en masse with others in attendance, I was singled out by a uniformed security guard. He asked me what I was doing there, and I told that I had just attended the event. (Duh..) He then proceeded to tell me that I was trespassing and needed to leave the campus (which I was in the process of doing before he intercepted me). I asked why I was being kicked off campus, and he stated that he did not know… that he was just following orders of the building manager. He refused to take me to the building manager and so as I left, he followed me like I was an imminent threat. I told him that he did not need to follow me, and he responded that he was going to make sure that I left the campus grounds. As I was walking, he called backup, and an extremely menacing officer drove up in a patrol car seconds later, and got out. Now I had two uniformed officers following behind me. As I boarded the city bus to leave campus, the guard told me that I was nearly arrested three times.

I pressed Duke University for an answer regarding my inhospitable treatment, and was told by Michael Schoenfeld, a vice president, that the university employees did not mistreat me, and that I was kicked off campus for repeatedly violating their rules against solicitation. Schoenfeld described solicitation as me handing my business card to someone and asking him/her to visit my website. (Absurd… right?) Then he deflected responsibility for actions ordering me off campus from the administration to the campus police. Evidently, according to Schoenfeld, some people complained to police about the business card I gave them. This is nothing more than a lie. Mr. Schoenfeld expects me to believe that someone who accepted a business card from me went to the police to complain. He then expects me to believe that the campus police is going to waste its time, manpower, and resources to escort a person who handed out a couple of business cards off campus. The excuse Mr. Schoenfeld came up with, besides being full of falsehoods, is laughable, but it was the best excuse the university could come up with for humiliating me, embarrassing me, and nearly arresting me. To end his correspondence, Mr. Schoenfeld stated that I am welcome to return to the campus as long as I don’t engage in solicitation.

So without a logical explanation for my mistreatment and near-arrest on the Duke University campus, much less acknowledgement of guilt or an apology, does Mr. Schoenfeld actually think I would even consider returning to Duke University? Well, I’m no glutton for punishment, I’m not a masochist, and I’m not dumb.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sidney

You say you are not a masochist.

Your persecution of the Lacrosse defendants does show you have sadistic tendencies. Why do you enjoy calling innocent men rapists?

Yes I have had psychiatric training.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymoust said: "Yes, I have psychiatric training" What does that mean?

Anonymous said...

"DNA can only be used in court if you find DNA. Lack of DNA never, never, proves someone is not guilty....
You can rob an apartment and not leave fingerprints. But if you find fingerprints, you can use that as evidence. Women are raped by men who do not leave DNA evidence." FROM COMMENTS TO THE PREVIOUS BLOG POST.

Ms. Mangum's handwritten account taken shortly after the party (not months later) says one of her attackers ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out. Hours (not days or months) after she held the very life essence of her attackers (literally teeming with DNA) in her mouth albeit for the briefest time, the mouth is swabbed in a clinical setting and a chain of custody for the swab is established.

The swab goes to the SBI lab. No semen. Zero. Well....maybe her spit is magical! It completely clears her mouth of all traces of the attacker's sperm and the attackers (being the brilliant criminal masterminds that they are) scrub the bathroom of the semen/spit combination while leaving other semen (from house residents) on the very same floor.

Let's test the magic spit theory says the DA. Do we do YSTR because we can't find semen and lo and behold! Paydirt! Male DNA from at least two males in her mouth. The spit wasn't so magical after all. Great, so let's go get the guys whose DNA we found!

Uh, no, not LAX players. OK let's go back to magic spit! Uh, no. It can't be magic spit because we have evidence of early sex that didn't get out of her mouth and we cant say that the spit was selective and just cleared her mouth of evidence of later sex.

Why can't we? Because that would be an inaccurate statement of a scientific reality. Here, lack of DNA proves that no one ejaculated in Ms. Mangum's mouth and she is a liar. The YSTR test shows she is a liar and is therefore exculpatory.

Anonymous said...

"Women are raped by men who do not leave DNA evidence."

Really? Is there really a case out there where someone is definitively caught on camera having un-condomed intercourse with a rape victim and only a couple of hours later the SANE turns up no DNA (even epithelial)?

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal

It means that I have had psychiatric training.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

Let's get back to HBO.

Have those two writers post on your blog what they know about the Rape Hoax.

Are those writers the anonymouses who revealed what was on Page 29 of Until Proven Innocent?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous from 9/21/10 @ 10:08 a/k/a "the professor"

"I know this is emotional. And it's difficult when these inaccuracies have been repeated for years. " But could you please at least attempt to defend your statement that the DNA finding IN THIS CASE "never, never, proves someone is not guilty."

If you are not taking sides (as you purport), but simply following the "accurate" record, why won't you explain?

Anonymous said...

"Well, all I can say is that it is a lot less than the bail set for Heather Holley on a charge of identity theft – which was $6 milllion. Of the two charges, I would consider espionage much more serious than identity theft."

Heather Holley had something like 29 different charges brought against her that ranged from burglary and identity fraud to larceny and forgery...
Lying by omission is still lying, Sid.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said " It means I have psychiatric training" As an M.D., an R.N. or a Clinical Pychologist? Are you qualified to make a psychiatric diagnosis? What is the nature of the training you have recieved. Do you hold any kind of certification?

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal

It means I have had psychiatric traininhg, which did include treating psychiatric patients.

Make of it what you will. You are as meaningful as Sidney Harr.

Anonymous said...

Hey you Nifong lovers

USA Today published today an article about prosecutorial misconduct in the Federal Justice System. Here is a quote about an innocent defendant who got Nifonged even before Mr. Nifong's name became a synonym for frameup:

"In July, U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell did more than overturn Lyons' conviction: HE DECLARED THAT LYONS WAS INNOCENT (emphasis added)."

I am elated that Mr. Cooper's action in the Lacrosse Hoax case seems to have affected other jurists.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney

You say you are not a masochist.

Your persecution of the Lacrosse defendants does show you have sadistic tendencies. Why do you enjoy calling innocent men rapists?

Yes I have had psychiatric training."



I challenge you to point out to me anywhere in any blog of mine that I accused any of the Duke Lacrosse defendants of being rapists.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Hey you Nifong lovers

USA Today published today an article about prosecutorial misconduct in the Federal Justice System. Here is a quote about an innocent defendant who got Nifonged even before Mr. Nifong's name became a synonym for frameup:

'In July, U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell did more than overturn Lyons' conviction: HE DECLARED THAT LYONS WAS INNOCENT (emphasis added).'

I am elated that Mr. Cooper's action in the Lacrosse Hoax case seems to have affected other jurists."


You seemed to have been missing the point. Roy Cooper is an Attorney General, belonging to the executive branch of government. Judge Presnell is a judge, belonging to the judicial branch of government. As Campbell law professor Anthony Baker stated, "a jury, or judge in lieu of a jury, is able to make a pronouncement of not guilty." (paraphrased) I have no problem with Judge Presnell proclaiming a defendant innocent. I do have a problem with Attorney General Roy Cooper, or any attorney general, proclaiming a defendant innocent.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'Well, all I can say is that it is a lot less than the bail set for Heather Holley on a charge of identity theft – which was $6 milllion. Of the two charges, I would consider espionage much more serious than identity theft.'

Heather Holley had something like 29 different charges brought against her that ranged from burglary and identity fraud to larceny and forgery...
Lying by omission is still lying, Sid.'


Murderers have been held on less bond than Ms. Holley. Even an American accused of espionage has been held on less bail. Surely you do not believe a lady charged with non-violent offenses deserves more bail than those who assault, kill, and maim. There are businessmen who cheat victims out of hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, and they are not even prosecuted. Our state's selective system of justice protects them (the president of the Somerhill Gallery in Durham is a prime example). He defrauded artists out of $200,000 plus in commission, while paying himself a $15,000 monthly salary as he ran the company into the ground. He's not facing any criminal charge. But the judge is in an uproar over Ms. Holley's $1,800 "spending spree."

Anonymous said...

Sidney

The theme of your blog is and has always been that Mr. Nifong was justified in prosevuting the three members of the Duke Lacrosse team. You have claimed that this carpet bagger jihad happened because the parents of the accused did not want Mr.Nifong to prosecute them. You have on more than one occasion that Ms. Mangum was the victim. Victim of what? You take Mr. Cooper to task because, after he reviewed the evidence, he concluded they were innocent. If not innocent, then what do you believe about them.

Why would you carry on this vendetta if you did not believe the three Lacrosse players were guilty.

Anonymous said...

"I do have a problem with Attorney General Roy Cooper, or any attorney general, proclaiming a defendant innocent."

Would you have had any problem if Mr. Cooper had concluded they were guilty? Considering your sadistic persecution of the Lacrosse defendants, I think not.

What should an ethical AG do after he has examine all the evidence and has found nothing to prove the exixtence of a crime, let alone the involvement of any suspect?

I think you are like your Nifong loving followers. The defendants should have been declared guilty so Mr. Nifong could escape the ethics trial.

Anonymous said...

" Surely you do not believe a lady charged with non-violent offenses deserves more bail than those who assault, kill, and maim. "

Sid -- The point I'm making ISN"T about who deserves what bail -- the point I'm making is that you LIED about the charges brought against Ms. Holley.

If you're lying about Ms Holley, what ELSE are you lying about?

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sidney? said...

Sidney - but with all of the beautiful national parks, open country, and nicely designed cities in the United States, why would one even leave the States to get in some hiking?

They were not in the US, Sidney. The trio had been living in Damascus for some time.

These folks are idiots, Rachel Corrie wannabes.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said...
kenhyderal

"It means I have had psychiatric traininhg, which did include treating psychiatric patients" ......................... In what setting? Can I conclude you have no cerification of any kind?

"Make of it what you will. You are as meaningful as Sidney Harr".
I take this as a compliment.

Anonymous said...

A jury declares a person guilty or not guilty. The prosecution either provides evidence to convince a jury of the defendant's guilt or he does not.

The Attorney General declared the 3 lacrosse players innocent. Something a jury cannot do.

The chariman of the State Bar hearing on Nifong pointed out this extraordinary circumstance when giving their conclusion.

He said that the 3 lacrosse defendant's received a declaration of innocence from the AG that would not be available to them in a NC court.

Cooper received tremendous pressure from the defense attorneys, specifically Brad Bannon, letter writing campaigns, politicians. A 60 Minutes producer insinuated that they would give him air time for his possible run for governor if he declared the men innocent. He was advised that declaring them innocent would be good for his run for governor or re-election. That a strong action and putting this embarrassing case to bed would be seen favorably by the people of NC.

The day before the announcement of innocence, Roy Cooper was rushed to a hospital because he thought he was having a heart attack. It turned out to be a massive anxiety attack. He went through with it anyway and declared the men innocent.

Michael Nifong never used the lacrosse case in any of his election materials. Even though he was accused of prosecuting the men to get elected. The only single reference on his site was a response to a letter.

Cooper used the video of his speech declaring the men innocent on the front page of his website for his re-election to AG. He became famous for this declaration of innocence.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'I do have a problem with Attorney General Roy Cooper, or any attorney general, proclaiming a defendant innocent.'

Would you have had any problem if Mr. Cooper had concluded they were guilty? Considering your sadistic persecution of the Lacrosse defendants, I think not.

What should an ethical AG do after he has examine all the evidence and has found nothing to prove the exixtence of a crime, let alone the involvement of any suspect?

I think you are like your Nifong loving followers. The defendants should have been declared guilty so Mr. Nifong could escape the ethics trial."


First of all, the so-called "ethics trial" was nothing more than a kangaroo court used to persecute Mr. Nifong.

With regards to the Attorney General proclaiming the Duke Lacrosse players "guilty," that would be just as outrageous. To begin with, that is not his call to make. It was an unprecedented act which Brad Bannon (Cheshire's underling) pressured Cooper to make. The only thing that Mr. Cooper should have announced after his investigation had to do with whether he was going to proceed with the prosecution or drop the charges.

Roy Cooper is not a judge, he is part of the executive branch of government. Proclaiming guilt or innocence is not his call.

With regards to Mr. Nifong, I became an advocate for him after I learned that he was the ONLY prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1993.

Nifong Supporter said...


Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sidney? said...
"Sidney - but with all of the beautiful national parks, open country, and nicely designed cities in the United States, why would one even leave the States to get in some hiking?

They were not in the US, Sidney. The trio had been living in Damascus for some time.

These folks are idiots, Rachel Corrie wannabes."


It does not matter whether they were living in Syria, Egypt, Israel, or Saudi Arabia. An American should not be hiking anywhere near the border of Iran. Why couldn't they just travel a little ways and go to Greece, or Crete, or Italy. Lots of beautiful country, and less hostility towards Americans.

Nifong Supporter said...


In the next blog, some important announcements, plus a link to a preview trailer for the next episode (Episode V) of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper."

Anonymous said...

Sidney

"First of all, the so-called "ethics trial" was nothing more than a kangaroo court used to persecute Mr. Nifong."

Professor Mosteller does not call it a Kangaroo trial, and he documents why, unlike you who can do nothing but make unsubstantiated allegations.

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal

"I take this as a compliment."

Boy your self esteem is sure lacking.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

"
With regards to Mr. Nifong, I became an advocate for him after I learned that he was the ONLY prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1993."

Anyone who has read Professor Mosteller's two articles on the caseI downloaded them from Wikipedia) would understand why that was so.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said:

"
Roy Cooper is not a judge, he is part of the executive branch of government. Proclaiming guilt or innocence is not his call."

Sidney isn't even a lawyer let alone a member of any branch of government. Yet he thinks it is within his purview to proclaim the Lacrosse players guilty of rape.

No he has not used the word "rapist" in describing them. But he objects to someone holding the opinion they are innocent, he claims Ms. Mangum was the victim of a rape, claims the Duke Lacrosse players avoided trial because of interference of a Carpet Bagger Jihad.

I ask you Sidney, again, if you are not concerned about the guilt or innocence of the Lacrosse players, why does the thought of their innocence stir such anger in you.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said:

"It was an unprecedented act which Brad Bannon (Cheshire's underling) pressured Cooper to make."

Tell us why you believe that. Quote your sources, if you have any.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

Even if you have not used the word "rapist", you do believe the Lacrosse players are guilty of rape. And you have frequently brought up the subject of their guilt versus innocence in your blog.