Prayer zone for a better, empowering, inspiring, promoting, prospering, progressing and more successful life through Christ Jesus

Posts tagged ‘Harvard Law School’

Dershowitz: Snowden Defender Greenwald ‘Never Met a Terrorist He Didn’t Like’.


Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz on Wednesday slammed both Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, the newspaper columnist who first disclosed the leaks by the former National Security Agency subcontractor on the U.S. government’s vast surveillance programs.

“As far as Greenwald is concerned, he’s an ideologue,” Dershowitz told CNN in an interview. “I don’t think he would have revealed this information if it had been critical of Venezuela or Cuba or the Palestinian Authority.”

The professor was responding to comments by Greenwald on a new video in which Snowden said that government surveillance has destroyed individual privacy. 

Dershowitz’s comments were first reported by BuzzFeed.

As a columnist for The Guardian in London, Greenwald disclosed information in June year that Snowden had stolen while working for the NSA about its massive daily collection of telephone and Internet data on millions of Americans.

Snowden, 30, is now living under temporary political asylum in Russia. Greenwald is now working on an online mass media venture with ebay founder Pierre Omidyar.

“You know, he doesn’t like America,” Dershowitz said of Greenwald, 46, who was born in Queens, N.Y. “He doesn’t like Western democracies. He’s never met a terrorist he didn’t like.

“So he’s a very hard-left ideologue that uses this to serve his political agenda not simply to reveal information in a neutral way,” he added. “That makes him very different from WikiLeaks, I think.”

In response, Greenwald said on Twitter: “Alan Dershowitz excels at discrediting himself.”

Related Stories:

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

By Todd Beamon

‘Tis the Season to Attack the Gospels?.


Dr. Jerry Newcombe, Truth in Action Ministries

Every year at Christmastime, like clockwork, you can expect the mainstream media to come out with some sort of “fresh” perspective on Jesus. We see this on TV specials and in magazines and reports. Since December has just begun, I thought I’d be pro-active in answering the critics.The basic questions are these: Can we trust the Bible? Can we trust the Gospels? If they were put on trial, as in a court case, how would they hold up?

One man who contributed significantly to Christian apologetics was one of America’s great legal leaders. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was a professor at Harvard Law School (1833-1848). He contributed a great deal to the school, expanding it, including its library.

Greenleaf wrote a major textbook used widely, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence

Contrary to some accounts (even found extensively on the Internet, to this day), Greenleaf was not an atheist or agnostic converted to Christianity by the evidence for the resurrection. He was livelong, active member of the Episcopal Church. In 1847, Greenleaf applied his expertise as a pioneer in the area of trial evidence to the Gospels in a landmark book.

Greenleaf wrote The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospel Examined by the Rules of Evidence. The evangelists, of course, are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. As he applied the rules of evidence to the Gospels, he found them reliable.

Greenleaf says, “The foundation of our religion is a basis of fact—the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection by the Evangelists as having actually occurred, within their own personal knowledge. Our religion, then, rests on the credit due to these witnesses. Are they worthy of implicit belief, in the matters which they relate? This is the question, in all human tribunals, in regard to persons testifying before them; and we propose to test the veracity of these witnesses, by the same rules and means which are there employed…” He answers, Yes.

He goes on from there to highlight the four Gospel writers:

*Matthew (also called Levi), the tax-collector and one of the twelve, an eyewitness of the Gospel events. Writes Greenleaf: “Matthew was himself a native Jew, familiar with the opinions, ceremonies, and customs of his countrymen; that he was conversant with the Sacred Writings…”

*Mark (also known as John Mark) was essentially Peter’s scribe in his Gospel—from the early Church comes the consistent report that Peter’s recollection of the Gospel events are found in the second Gospel. Mark went on to preach the gospel in Egypt, where he was martyred.

*Luke, believed to be a physician, traveled with Paul. Says Greenleaf, “If…Luke’s Gospel were to be regarded only as the work of a contemporary historian, it would be entitled to our confidence. But it is more than this. It is the result of careful science, intelligence and education, concerning subjects which he was perfectly competent to peculiarly skilled, they being cases of the cure of maladies.”

*John was a fisherman of Bethsaida, on the Sea of Galilee. Greenleaf says he wrote his Gospel after the other three, recognizing their truthfulness, and added things not found in the others.

Greenleaf notes a great unfairness shown the Evangelists in modern scholarship: They are somehow guilty until proven innocent. They are viewed as untrustworthy for no cause, until they can somehow be corroborated by some outside secular source. (If it was true in Greenleaf’s day, how much more is it true in ours—despite the wealth we have of additional archaeological and manuscript evidence in favor of the Gospels’ veracity.)

Says Greenleaf: “But the Christian writer seems, by the usual course of the argument, to have been deprived of the common presumption of charity in his favor; and reversing the ordinary rule of administering justice in human tribunals, his testimony is unjustly presumed to be false, until it is proved to be true.”

Greenleaf adds, “It is time that this injustice should cease; that the testimony of the evangelists should be admitted to be true, until it can be disproved by those who would impugn it; that the silence of one sacred writer on any point, should no more detract from his own veracity or that of the other historians, than the like circumstance is permitted to do among profane writers; and that the Four Evangelists should be admitted in corroboration of each other, as readily as Josephus and Tacitus, or Polybius and Livy.”

He affirms: “their honesty…ability… the consistency of their testimony…the conformity of their testimony with experience…the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances. Let the evangelists be tried by these tests.” He does and finds them trustworthy. He also answers common objections, such as the miraculous elements found in the Gospels.

So, be prepared, when you see the TV specials coming up about “the true story of Christmas” or the like, when they attack the Gospels. The Gospels have been put on trial, and they have passed the test.
Dr. Jerry Newcombe is a key archivist of the D. James Kennedy Library, a spokesman and cohost of Kennedy Classics. He has also written or co-written 23 books, including The Book that Made America and (with Dr. Kennedy) What if Jesus Had Never Been Born? and (with Peter Lillback),George Washington’s Sacred Firewww.truthinaction.org.

In Reversal, Obama Admits He Knew His Uncle.


President Barack Obama has admitted he lived with his Kenyan uncle in the 1980s — an embarrassing flip-flop from an earlier White House claim that the two had never met.

The commander-in-chief revealed on Thursday that he had stayed at the Cambridge, Mass., apartment of Onyango Obama as he prepared to attend Harvard Law School.

That contradicted a statement issued by the White House last year that there was no record of the two ever meeting, The Boston Globe reports.

The president’s relationship with his uncle came under scrutiny on Tuesday at a deportation hearing in Boston for Onyango Obama.

He has lived illegally in the United States for more than 40 years.

During the hearing Onyango testified that the future president had stayed with him for about three weeks before beginning his time at Harvard.

A White House official now says that the president’s relationship with his uncle had not been exhaustively researched, nor had he been asked directly.

“The President first met Omar [Onyango] Obama when he moved to Cambridge for law school. The President did stay with him for a brief period of time until his apartment was ready,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.

“After that, they saw each other once every few months, but after law school they fell out of touch. The President has not seen him in 20 years, has not spoken with him in 10.”

The White House also says the president did not interfere with the immigration case.

Onyango is the second relative of Barack Obama’s father to face deportation. Zeituni Onyango won asylum after it was discovered she was living illegally in a Boston housing project.

Onyango, 69, who works as a liquor store manager in Framingham, was granted legal residency following the Tuesday hearing.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

By Bill Hoffmann

Proof That Muslim Millions Purchased The Obama Presidency Starting Way Back In 1979.


We believe this is proof that the financing of the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama began back in the early 1980′s, and that he sits in that office now to do the bidding of his Muslim masters. Let’s start with the Iranian woman – the most powerful person in the Obama administration –  who is rumored to be the one actually pulling the strings in the White House.

Valerie Bowman Jarrett is a Senior Advisor to the President of the United States and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs in the Obama administration. She was born in Iran in 1956. White House insiders call her “the one who must not be challenged“. It is whispered that she is the one calling the shots behind closed doors, that she and not Obama is setting policy and issuing orders.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Before you run away crying “conspiracy theory!”, you need to read about what her father-in-law said in an article that dates back to 1979, the start of Obama’s college days. You will learn about why she retains such sway and influence in the Obama Administration. You will also learn about Khalid Mansour, and how he used Muslim money to pay for Obama’s education at Harvard Law school.

Watch this video, filmed in 2008, and you will hear Percy Sutton tell you the origin of the money trail that put Obama in the White House, and how it began with “one of the world’s richest men”, who he declines to mention by name but who we all know to be George Soros:

How Muslim Money Financed The Obama Presidency from Now The End Begins on Vimeo.

The reason why you will not see these things in the main stream media is because they have conspired toremain silent about Obama’s college days, where the money came from, the fact that he was an exchange student from Indonesia, and the list goes on.

From Pat Dollard: Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question:

1. a Palestinian state

2. the advancement of Islam in America.

Interestingly, in context with the fact that this article was written by her father-in-law, Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

obama-harvard-law-school-college-paid-for-by-khalid-mansour-percy-sutton-valerie-jarret-islam-muslim

Why has no one in the corrupt main stream media reported on this newspaper article from 1979?

Lastly, it’s very important to note that the main source for the article is Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.”(Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense.

The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally.

So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”

Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.

Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified.

You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.

Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t  but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.

That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.”

This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it.

Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”

Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”

Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.

It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.

It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)

And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles.

It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)

The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)

In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:

“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there… Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) … and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly…”

What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:

“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)

He was, of course, right.

by NTEB News Desk

Dershowitz: Ted Cruz Is an ‘Intelligent,’ ‘Principled’ Debater.


Image: Dershowitz: Ted Cruz Is an 'Intelligent,' 'Principled' Debater

By Greg Richter

Sen. Ted Cruz, who has led the teaparty wing of Republicans in Congress to push for defunding of Obamacare, is an intelligent and principled debater, says his old Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Appearing Tuesday on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live,” Dershowitz called the freshman Texas Republican “one of the sharpest students I had, in terms of analytic skills. I’ve had 10,000 students over my 50 years at Harvard. . . . He has to qualify among the brightest of the students.”

Urgent: Do You Support Sen. Ted Cruz’s Efforts to Defund Obamacare? Vote Here. 

Although some in his own party have accused him of grandstanding, Cruz deeply believes in what he is doing, Dershowtiz said. Cruz made intelligent points and won debates constantly in his class – including winning debates with professors, Dershowitz said.

Former economic adviser to President Barack Obama, Austan Goolsbee, appearing onFox News Channel’s “Hannity” on Tuesday, said much the same thing about his former Harvard classmate.
“I think Democrats would make a big mistake to underestimate him,” Goolsby said. “I think he’s very smart.”
“He deeply believes what he’s doing,” Dershowitz said. “I don’t think of him so much as a tactical or strategic thinker. He’s deeply principled.”
Cruz believes he’s doing the right thing, Dershowitz said, though he said that doesn’t mean he’s always right.
“And he’s very hard to get off that principled argument. I saw that years ago when he was a student,” Dershowitz said. Cruz was not a compromiser and didn’t care about making friends by accepting what was considered politically correct.
“If you want to defeat Ted Cruz,” Dershowitz said, “you have to appeal to his principles, not to his tactics.”
That said, Dershowitz thinks his former student has gone too far in pushing for defunding the Affordable Care Act. Republicans successfully tied the effort to 2014 fiscal year federal funding. An impasse with Obama and Democrats in the House and Senate led to a partial government shutdown beginning Oct. 1 and to a looming deadline to raise the debt ceiling on Oct. 17.
But Cruz’ action raise serious constitutional questions “of the kind that Ted Cruz should be interested in,” Dershowitz said. “Can you imagine [Alexander] Hamilton and [James] Madison sitting around and drafting the Constitution and the Federalist Papers?”They’re talking about how the government has to pay its debts, how it has to secure the credit of the United States. … Nobody, in a million years, would have contemplated the power of Congress to shut down the government to create doubts about our creditworthiness,” Dershowitz said.


Urgent: 
Do You Support Sen. Ted Cruz’s Efforts to Defund Obamacare? Vote Here. 

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Dershowitz: Obama Should Ask Congress to Approve Red Line for Iran.


Congressional approval for a punitive-deterrent strike against Syria’s use of chemical weapons should not be misunderstood by Iran, Israel, or anyone else.

The decision, which involved many moving parts, was not intended to show any weakened resolve to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Nor was it intended to represent any American trend toward increasing isolationism either in relation to the world in general or the Middle East in particular.

The president’s decision to take his case to Congress was the result of a complex of reasons, both constitutional and political.

It was made by a president who had campaigned on the principle that congressional approval for non-emergency military actions is generally desirable and sometimes legally required. But it was also made by a president who had committed our nation to a red line, which if crossed, would demand a response.

Hence the conflict: a president cannot commit his nation to a red line if he is also committed to securing congressional approval before responding to the crossing of that red line.

What if Congress denies approval?

Must the president still keep his red line commitment? If he does not, what does this say about other red line commitments, such as that made regarding Iran’s efforts to secure nuclear weapons?

How will Iranian mullahs interpret the president’s decision to go to Congress? And how will the Israeli government respond to it? Will misunderstandings increase the likelihood of a military confrontation with Iran?

These questions and the uncertainty of the answers reflect the dilemma posed by the president’s decision to go to Congress after drawing a red line that Syria has crossed.

There is a way out of this dilemma, at least with regard to Iran and its future actions. The president should secure congressional approval now as to the red line with Iran.

He should ask Congress for authorization now to take military action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program if it were to cross the red line he has already drawn. If Congress gives its approval, that action will increase the deterrent threat currently directed against Iran, by underscoring the red line as having been drawn both by the president and by Congress.

It should leave no doubt in the minds of the Iranian mullahs that the president not only has the will to enforce the red line but also has the authority from Congress to do so.

Having the authority to engage in military action does not require that the president take such action; it only empowers him to do so if he chooses, without further action by Congress.

But as President Obama has repeatedly warned: he does not bluff; if he says he will not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons, he means it — unless Congress stops him.

If Congress were now to give advance approval to the red line with Iran, the mullahs will understand that there will be no stopping the president from keeping his word. Only if the mullahs believe that President Obama will attack their nuclear reactors if they cross the red line will there be any hope of deterring them from doing so.

The goal is not to have the president actually attack Iran. It is to persuade them that he will do so if they challenge him by crossing the red line.

President Obama has already shown Iran that he is willing to take military action against Syria without the approval of the Security Council, Great Britain, NATO, the Arab League and other representatives of the international community — as long as he has the approval of Congress.

This is especially important with regard to Iran, because Congress is more likely to support military action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program than is the international community.

There are dangers is drawing red lines too far in advance of them being crossed. A president who commits his nation to taking action if the line is crossed ties his hands, as the events in Syria demonstrate. But President Obama has already tied his hands on Iran — and properly so.

He has made a commitment not only to the American people whose national security would be placed at risk by a nuclear armed Iran, but also to the leaders of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Israel, for whom a nuclear armed Iran poses an even greater threat.

And Israel has acted — or forborne from acting — in reliance on that firm commitment.

Now these American allies must be assured — and America’s enemies, especially Iran, must be warned — that President Obama is capable of keeping his promise, and that Congress won’t stop him from doing so.

Iran is different from Syria. America’s national interest would be directly weakened if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons. It has not been directly weakened by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people.

The case for a red line against Iran is far stronger than it was for a red line against Syria.

Congress should first authorize the president to keep his commitment with regard to Syria. Then it should authorize the president to keep his far more important commitment with regard to the red line against Iran.

This dual congressional action will strengthen America’s position in the world and will help to prevent the game-changing disaster for the nuclear armed Iran.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School. His autobiography, “Taking the Stand,” will be published in October 2013. Read more reports from Alan M. Dershowitz — Click Here Now.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
By Alan Dershowitz

Dershowitz to Newsmax: ‘Prosecutorial Tyrant’ Violated Zimmerman’s Rights.


Image: Dershowitz to Newsmax: 'Prosecutorial Tyrant' Violated Zimmerman's Rights

By David A. Patten

Famed defense lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz is calling for a federal investigation into civil rights violations stemming from the George Zimmerman case — but he says the probe should focus on prosecutorial misconduct rather than on allegations of racial profiling and bias.

Speaking Sunday in an exclusive Newsmax interview, Dershowitz said the jury’s finding that Zimmerman was not guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter was “the right verdict.”

He added, “There was reasonable doubt all over the place.”

Editor’s Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll 

Immediately after the verdict was announced, however, the NAACP and outspoken activist Al Sharpton called on the Justice Department to launch a federal civil-rights probe, charging that the case had been racially tainted.

Dershowitz is calling for a civil-rights probe as well. But he contends the person whose rights were violated was Zimmerman.

“I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor,” said the criminal-law expert. “The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”

He added: “They denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations.”

Dershowitz said the second-degree murder case should never have gone to trial considering the flimsy evidence against Zimmerman. He also does not believe it was strong enough to be submitted to a jury for deliberation.

“If the judge had any courage in applying the law, she never would have allowed the case to go to the jury,” Dershowitz told Newsmax. “She should have entered a verdict based on reasonable doubt.”

Dershowitz singled out special prosecutor Angela Corey for “disciplinary action.”

He criticized the state’s probable-cause affidavit for not including evidence indicating Zimmerman could have been acting in self-defense, including graphic images of blood streaming from his scalp and nose.

“The prosecutor had in her possession photographs that would definitely show a judge that this was not an appropriate case for second-degree murder,” the Harvard professor told Newsmax. “She deliberately withheld and suppressed those photographs, refused to show them to the judge, got the judge to rule erroneously this was a second-degree murder case.

“That violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations that prosecutors have. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team,” he said.

Dershowitz described the prosecution’s attempt late in the case to add a third-degree murder charge by asserting the shooting constituted child abuse “so professionally irresponsible as to warrant sanctions and investigations.”

Dershowitz said various legal and bar association organizations could investigate how the state handled the prosecution. He added it could warrant a federal investigation as well.

“I think people’s rights have been violated,” the famed attorney told Newsmax, “but it was the rights of the defendant and the defense team, by utterly unprofessional, irresponsible, and in my view criminal actions by the prosecutor,” he said.

Dershowitz went on to express his opinion that Corey is “basically a prosecutorial tyrant, and well known for that in Florida.”

Dershowitz and Corey have had run-ins before. She contacted Harvard Law School demanding that he be disciplined for voicing his opinion that she had improperly omitted information that could have exonerated Zimmerman.

“Of course, the Harvard Law School laughed at [her complaint],” he said.

As of Sunday evening Newsmax had not received a response to a request for Corey’s reaction to Dershowitz’s remarks. Even after the verdict was rendered Saturday, Corey continued to defend her decision to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

“We charge what we believe we can prove,” she told the media. “That’s why we charged second-degree murder. We truly believe that the mindset of George Zimmerman and the words that he used and the reason he was out doing what he was doing fit the bill for second-degree murder.”

Corey said the case “has never been about race,” but also said there was “no doubt” young Trayvon Martin had been “profiled to be a criminal.”

Although Zimmerman was cleared of all charges, Corey told the media: “This case was about boundaries and George Zimmerman exceeded those boundaries.

Dershowitz tells Newsmax he expects there will probably be a lawsuit filed against Zimmerman for civil damages. He said civil-damage cases require a lower standard of proof that a wrong has been committed, and Zimmerman would not be able to avoid testifying.

But Dershowitz adds: “I don’t know where you’ll find a lawyer who is prepared to bring it, because it has very little chance of success.”

Asked if he expects Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department to launch a civil-rights investigation targeting Zimmerman, Dershowitz stated: “I don’t think that’s going to happen, and if it happens, I don’t think it would succeed.”

Dershowitz told Newsmax the prosecutor overcharged the case, and never should have sought a second-degree murder conviction.

“The theory was clearly to charge second-degree murder, and hope for a compromise verdict of manslaughter,” he said.

Dershowitz was careful to add that the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin exposes a need to reform Florida laws.

Editor’s Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll 

He believes the Stand Your Ground law should be changed because it “elevates macho over the need to preserve life.”

He also stated that racial profiling “has to be addressed.”

“I think these vigilante community groups have to be disarmed,” he said. “I don’t think Zimmerman should have been allowed to have a gun.

“He should have been walking around with a walkie-talkie and calling the police,” he said. “It’s the job of the police to investigate and apprehend suspects based on their professional training.”

But the need for future legal reforms had no bearing on the Zimmerman trial, Dershowitz said, and insisted the case should never have reached a jury.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Perry: Abortion Foe Best Example ‘That Every Life Matters’.


Texas Gov. Rick Perry launched a personal attack on the woman who led a successful 13-hour filibuster in the state Legislature Tuesday to halt legislation that would have effectively shut down most abortion clinics and ban the procedure after 20 weeks.

“Even the woman who filibustered was born into difficult circumstances,” the Republican said Thursday about Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis in a speech to the National Right to Life Convention, Politico reported.

Urgent: Supreme Court Right on Gay Marriage? Vote Here Now 

“She was the daughter of a single woman. She was a teenage mother herself. She managed to eventually graduate [from] Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas Senate,” the governor said. “It’s just unfortunate that she hasn’t learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to realize its own potential; that every life matters.”

His comments came after Davis’ filibuster prevented the measure from getting passed before the end of a special legislative session.

“This is simply too important a cause to allow the unruly actions of a few to stand in its way,” Perry said, accusing those who protested against the measure at the state capitol Tuesday night of “hijacking the democratic process.”

Perry has called for another special session for July 1 and pledged the Texas Legislature would ban abortion after 20 weeks.

“We witnessed the very extremes the pro-abortion forces resort to in order to further their cause. They demonstrate that even if they lose at the ballot box, even if they come up short in attempts to stall on the Senate floor, they’ll resort to mob tactics to force their minority agenda on the people of Texas.”

He added, “Going forward, we have to match their intensity, but we have to do it with the grace and civility and dignity that our cause deserves.”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

By Melanie Batley

Dershowitz: Samantha Power Will Stand Up for Human Rights.


Image: Dershowitz: Samantha Power Will Stand Up for Human Rights

President Barack Obama listens as Samantha Power speaks on June 5 after being nominated as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

By Alan Dershowitz

Alan M. Dershowitz‘s Perspective: President Obama’s decision to nominate Samantha Power as the United States representative to the United Nations is right on. Power is perfectly suited to stand up to the United Nations’ notorious double standard and inversion of human rights.

She is not a diplomat by nature, and that is precisely what the United Nations needs.

Having been born in Ireland, Power knows how to speak to Europeans who often demand more of the United States than they do of themselves. She will be a breath of fresh air at the General Assembly and the Security Council, where circumlocution is preferred to straight talk. Power talks straight.

I have known Samantha since she was my student at Harvard Law School, occasionally cutting classes to travel around the world while writing her Pulitzer-Prize winning book “A Problem From Hell.”

In that book, she laid out the difficult choices western democracies face when confronted with internal genocides committed abroad.

If only Samantha had written her book in the 1930s, perhaps the world would not have stood idly by the rise of Nazism and the genocides against Jews, gypsies, gays, and others.

Yes, she is an interventionist when it comes to preventing genocide. But she also cautions prudence in intervening for reasons other than the protection of endangered civilians.

To be sure, Samantha has said some things she now regrets — about Hillary Clinton, about Israel and about other controversial matters. She says what she thinks when she thinks it.

As the United States representative to the United Nations, she will articulate the policy of the Obama Administration.

She will have to be more diplomatic than she was while in private life. I am confident that she will make our country proud.

I have discussed the Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Samantha on many occasions. As a strong supporter of Israel’s security, I have a high level of confidence that she will do and say the right things.

Indeed, because of her sometimes critical attitude toward certain Israeli policies — some of which I agree with, others of which I do not — she will bring added credibility to her positions at the most anti-Israel location in the world other than perhaps, Tehran.

No one should expect to agree with everything an outspoken person like Samantha has said over the past decades. But nor should anyone judge her on isolated statements instead of on her distinguished total record.

While serving in the Obama administration, she has supported Israel’s security and defensive actions against terrorism. She stands squarely behind President Obama’s pledge never to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, even if preventive military action is required.

She played a pivotal role in persuading the United States and some of our European allies to boycott the notorious Durban II conference, sponsored by the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, which invited Ahmadinejad to be its keynote speaker.

Samantha Power is a strong, independent and persuasive voice for human rights. She understands the principle of “the worst first” — meaning that people who truly care about human rights must prioritize and focus first and foremost on the most serious human rights abuses, such as genocide, rape as a weapon of warfare, and other fundamental deprivations of human dignity.

She also understands that priority must be given to victims of human rights abuses who have no voice because of censorship and other forms of government control. She has written one of the most important books outlining the difficult choices faced by democracies in preventing the most serious violations of human rights.

Power will be respected for her intelligence, scholarship and independence. I am confident that she will represent us effectively, persuasively and morally at a time and place that requires her particular talents.

The president has made a good choice. The Senate should quickly confirm Samantha Power for this important job.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School. Read more reports from Alan M. Dershowitz — Click Here Now.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Alan Dershowitz: Justice May Have Violated First Amendment in AP Case.


The Justice Department may have violated the First Amendment when it secretly obtained the phone records of the Associated Press in an apparent bid to ferret out its sources on a terrorism story, according to civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

“I’m very concerned about that,” Dershowitz told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

Story continues below.

 

“I mean, yes, the government has the right to investigate who might have leaked this classified information but they have to do it with a sensitivity toward the First Amendment right not only of newspapers and of newsgathering sources, but also of the readers.”

The renowned Harvard Law professor said the Supreme Court had determined that the same rules don’t apply to news operations as they do to ordinary businesses when it comes to freedom of the press.

“The parameters of the First Amendment extend to the business of newsgathering differently than they do to other businesses,” he said.

“Obviously, I want to find out more about it and what the justification is. But there’s almost never a justification for pervasive monitoring of how journalists gather news.

“They have to have much more precise targeting of particular leaks. So I’m concerned about it.”

See the Steve Malzberg Show on Newsmax TV each weekday live by Clicking Here Now

You can listen to the Steve Malzberg Show each weekday live from 3-6 PM ET on SiriusXM 166.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
By Bill Hoffmann

Tag Cloud