I know they operate in consequence free-land, but isnât flagrantly lying to a judge and interfering with a witness grounds for disbarment and even jail?
No way that will happen of course, but is that not one of the core tenets of the legal system?
Yep, not a police state, not at all.
Because these are the liberties Americans deserve, but not the ones they need right now.
"...but there's no sign of an end to the jaw-dropping entertainment."A most unusual use of the word âentertainment.â
I know this guy, âPyrrhusâ who the DHS might want to meetâŚ
Seriously. Itâs not as though theyâll face any little-people consequences directly for that stunt; but could the witness possibly have said anything as damaging as having her suddenly slapped on the no-fly list, mid-trial, and then eventually getting to say whatever it was she originally had planned?
I get the impression that judges can tell when they are being fucked with, and donât like it.
Well, you donât need witnesses now. DHS does enough to condemn themselves.
Fire them all yesterday.
Hum. At this point a âhe says, she saysâ scenario. As much as we may dislike the DHS and suspect that they are lying there is no proof. The blog says that âBut Judge Alsup noted that the document with the DHS instructions to the airline was not supported by any sworn testimony or evidence of its authenticity.â I hope that the judge will be able to find out the truth â as âfuzzyfungusâ judges can tell when they are being f-ed with and donât like it â and then bring the hammer down.
The main problem is that the DHS is going to end up citing either Government Secrecy or Immunity and absolutely nothing is gonna happen. I wish it were different and Iâm gonna watch along with everyone else to see what happens. Conversely, if this is true, and it becomes admissible evidence in the trial, the Governmentâs lawyers are not only gonna look like total idiots and fools but will most likely face sanctions of some sort or other. Iâm on the side of âreally hoping that itâs trueâ.
Wow. Itâs like DHS has someone channeling the ghost of Kafka.
A âhe says, she offers documented evidence to the contraryâ scenario, maybe. This sort of âfalse balanceâ crap has shot a crater in modern journalism. No need for us to engage in it.
On Monday Democracy Now covered some of the legal background on this case with Anya Bernstein of the SUNY Buffalo Law School, but clearly not this latest development:
Watching the Watch List: Landmark Case Goes to Trial over Massive U.S. Terrorism âNo-Flyâ Database
If only inch by inch and hair by hair, Americans may yet destroy this evil.
Not to be argumentative but what documentation? A piece of paper supposedly from an airline? That is not documentation. Any half-way competent person can make up and print off a piece of paper. The judge is correct in wanting to see more proof or, at the least, a sworn testimony. My comment isnât âbalanced crapâ as much as it is that I donât believe either side if they canât offer better proof.
Now I am not at the trial nor can I see what paper was handed to the judge. Perhaps it was notarized. But I doubt it. From the blogâs description âŚ
âMs. Pipkin said that Ms. Mustafa Kamal had sent her a copy of the âno-boardâ instructions which the DHS gave to Malaysia Airlines, and which the airline gave to Ms. Mustafa Kamal to explain as much as it knew about why it was not being allowed to transport her. Ms. Pipkin handed Judge William Alsup a copy of the DHS âno-boardâ instructions to Malaysia Airlines regarding Ms. Mustafa Kamal.â
Letâs decipher this. Kamal sends a copy of instructions. How? Fax? Email? Either of those is easily faked. What I would want to see is:
- Email directly from the airline and a phone call to the same verifying the email was sent from the airline and not from some individual.
- Or a certified letter from the airline plus phone call.
- Or sworn testimony from Kamel saying that she got this document from the airline along with cross-examination to verify.
Personally for me #3 is the weakest proof â people lie all of the time â but in our legal system it will do.
Donât be so trusting just because you (and the rest of us) donât like the DHS.
Come on, I realize âanythingâs possible,â but letâs not go the route of âand maybe no one in the case is who they say they are! And maybe the judge is pretending to be a judge! And maybe theyâre all lizard people!â
Yes, itâs possible that the documents the witness had are faked, but is it reasonable for you or I to believe so?
We know that the judge is going to want them checked (since, if they were fake, the DHS would protest). We know heâll ask the airline if they really were served those papers. The witness knows this as well. If the witness were as god-damn stupid enough simply to print out something on their printer, theyâre going to be held in contempt of court in a moment and maybe jailed for perjury.
Meanwhile, itâs perfectly possible for DHS to deny this, and then when pressed say that some internal department or computer error had added her to the list, and deny knowledge or culpability.
So letâs please apply Occamâs Razor. Yes itâs possible that this witness is an idiot and is just printing out pieces of paper when she knows sheâll get caught, but why decide to stake your whole stance on âI donât believe either sideâ as if either story is just as likely? Thatâs what Ignatius was referring to with the âfalse balance crap.â
No. Kafka was an intelligent, reasonable and caring man.
The DHS on the other hand⌠I donât know, Dzerzhinsky on acid?
Yes, it amazes me that now that the original states secrets case has been declasified for years, and shows that the goverment was lying about everything, and the plaintif was in fact correct and should have prevailed, and yet it has not been overturned.
Yes it is reasonable to doubt the documents. The witness is not in the USA. Can not be extradited. Can make up excuses all day long for not appearing â the one in the blog is that she did not want to buy another ticket without knowing for certain that she could fly to the USA. A perfectly valid reason but an excuse never-the-less. She can make up another one later with impunity. Not to say that she will or that she is in wrong â I tend to believe her â but if she is lying, or frightened enough to make up shit without thinking about the long term consequences, then she is safe from the US authorities.
The DHS did protest and said that no documents were issued. Now they are lawyers and likely to lie just by moving their lips ⌠but still they did protest.
You say to me ⌠why decide to stake your whole stance on âI donât believe either sideâ as if either story is just as likely? ⌠That is indeed my stance. No need to rush to a snap judgement just because we donât like the DHS. No âfalse balanceâ. Rather a âtrue balanceâ in needing more information.
I never implied that â⌠maybe the judge is pretending to be a judge! And maybe theyâre all lizard people!â If you want to derail the conversation by ridiculous statements then I canât stop you. However in my opinion no-one is a lizard person and the judge is doing exactly what he should be doing â asking for proof and/or sworn testimony.
With luck the truth will be forthcoming and not swept under a security rug.
âHe said she saidâ is truly perverse when âheâ is licensed to to withhold the truly useful evidence from the court.
RTFL, gumshoe. Your seemingly virtuous stance is undermined by not reading anything more than Coryâs summary. This is just one other choice bit:
According to Ms. Pipkin, airline employees who refused to check Ms. Kamal in for flights to the U.S. told her that they were acting on orders from the DHS. Airline staff in K.L. gave Ms. Mustafa Kamal a telephone number in Miami to call for further information, saying it was the number of an office of the CBP (the Customs and Border Protection division of DHS).
When Ms. Pipkin learned of this from Ms. Mustafa Kamal on Sunday night at 8 p.m. San Francisco time, she called the number Ms. Mustafa Kamal has been given. It was apparently a CBP office, but the person who answered the phone refused to give his name and refused to provide any information about what had happened to Ms. Mustafa Kamal. When Ms. Pipkin asked to speak with his supervisor, she was given another phone number that went to voicemail. She left a message, but nobody called back.
