PDA

View Full Version : In defense of Truth


Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 02:16 PM
I don't want Sam Alito to be a Justice of the US Supreme Court. I respect the man, but I don't like his politics and I think he will move the Court dramatically -- and unreasonably far -- to the Right. I wish he hadn't been nominated; I hope the nomination can somehow be scuttled.

But if it is to be scuttled, let it be done fairly. He has a lot to answer for in terms of the decisions he has rendered in his years as a Judge. One charge I've seen leveled against him, however, is at best unfair and at worst untrue and it really should be taken off the table.

The charge, or so I've read, is that Alito, during his tenure as US Attorney here, was responsible somehow for the acquittal of a bunch of mobsters in a sensational case tried here in the Federal Court in the District of New Jersey. The suggestion is that -- at best -- he was ineffective as US Attorney and -- at worst -- he somehow threw the case.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. I was there. I know the truth. And that's just plain unfair.

The case at issue, against Jackie DiNorscio, Anthony Acceturo, Michael Tacetta and a bunch of other thugs, was initiated by indictment in 1985. It came to trial (or, to put it more accurately, trial began) in 1986. For a variety of reasons (including extraordinarily clever defense tactics and a Judge who did less than might have been expected to control the courtroom), it did not go to verdict until 1988. And, at that point, as anyone who had been in the courtroom even briefly during the 21 months of the trial could have predicted, the thugs were acquitted.

Was Sam Alito in any way responsible?

No.

First, the case was initiated, investigated and prosecuted by the Organized Crime Strike Force, and not the US Attorney's Office. At that time, the Strike Force was run separately out of Washington DC; the US Attorney had very little to say about what the Strike Force did. (That's no longer true, but it was true then.)

Second, the one thing the US Attorney did have to do at the time was a final sign-off on any indictment the Strike Force sought to bring. That was done here -- but not by Sam Alito. The US Attorney who approved the DiNorscio indictment was Tom Greelish, Alito's predecessor. Alito didn't become US Attorney in New Jersey until 1987 -- roughly a full year after the trial began.

Third, by the time Sam Alito became US Attorney, it was clear the case was a disaster. The lead defendant had been allowed to represent himself pro se and was having a field day in the courtroom. A team of exceptional defense attorneys was -- to put it mildly -- eating the lunch of a team of prosecutors who didn't begin to match the defense attorneys in numbers, experience or ability. Still, Alito did what he could to bolster the prosecution; if memory serves me correctly, more than one Assistant US Attorney was dispatched to help in any way the Office could.

In truth, the only thing about the case that happened on Alito's watch was that the verdict came down -- surprising no-one who'd been in the courtroom. Alito was the US Attorney at that point; he took the heat as the chief federal prosecutor. He didn't try to pass the buck; he didn't blame the judge (as he could have); he didn't blame the Strike Force lawyers (as he could have).

Moreover, independent of what the Strike Force was doing, the US Attorney's Office developed evidence that defendants from the DiNorscio case were continuing to run drug and related operations while in jail on the Strike Force case. That group of defendants was investigated under the direction of the US Attorney's Office, indicted, convicted and sentenced -- all before the "big" case even reached the jury.

So write that whole episode off from whatever you might think of Sam Alito. It ain't something he can be tagged with in any way, shape or form.

Lindsey
November 2nd, 2005, 07:19 PM
Thanks for that explanation! I will remember that if I see that argument brought up against him. I agree with you, I not at all pleased with his nomination, but I would not want it to be scuttled for spurious reasons.

Of course, the real shame of the way things work is that the spurious reasons are sometimes only really placeholders for substantive reasons that simply won't play in a purely political arena. The nomination of Robert Bork is a case in point. As far as the public record goes, he probably was indeed treated unfairly, but there's still no question in my mind that he did not belong on the Supreme Court, and every time I see him on the television, I'm even more convinced of it.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 09:52 PM
I would like to see the nomination fail, but not because of arguments that are wrong. It seems to me there are enough good reasons not to vote for it without inventing things!

As for Bork, that man scares the daylights out of me. A total looney tune.

Lindsey
November 3rd, 2005, 12:24 AM
I would like to see the nomination fail, but not because of arguments that are wrong.
I was thinking about this after I wrote that last message.

Certainly I would not want this or any other nomination to fail because of arguments that were completely false, and that left a false impression of the nominee, and that certainly seems the case with the story you were citing in your original message.

The Bork nomination was a little different, I think. The arguments against him might be rightly said to have been exaggerated, but in the end, I do think they nevertheless gave the general public a true sense of who Bork really was. It occurred to me that this was a little like a theater production. If you see a stage actor up close immediately before or after a play, the makeup will appear exaggerated, perhaps even to the point of charicature. But to the audience in the theater, it looks perfectly natural. If you only made up an actor's face to the point that it looked natural at a normal conversational distance, any features you were trying to give to the character he was playing would be far to subtle for the audience, viewing him from a much greater distance, to perceive. The makeup artist has to exaggerate those features to convey them to the audience.

Politics works the same way. Al Gore was accused on several occasions of stretching the truth during the 2000 campaign, but I don't know of any instance in which what he said left an impression that was at odds with the overall truth regarding the issue at hand. By contrast, we have the infamous 16 words from the current president's 2004 State of the Union message which were actually the literal truth, but which left an impression that really was at complete odds with the actuality. I will accept some fudging with absolute truth in the first example, but I would unquestionably condemn the second.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
November 3rd, 2005, 09:27 AM
Among other things, I don't accept that truth is a moving target. "He has weapons of mass destruction! ... Uh, he was trying to get the ingredients for weapons of mass destruction! ... Uh, he wanted to try to get the ingredients for weapons of mass destruction! ... Uh, well he was a really bad man!"

And I hate the Big Lie: "9/11... Iraq! 9/11 ... Iraq!"

Lindsey
November 3rd, 2005, 10:56 AM
Among other things, I don't accept that truth is a moving target.
Yes, this administration and its defenders in Washington have always acted as if they considered truth to be malleable. That whole incident with the appointment of Susan's Wood's replacement at the FDA, when they appointed the veterinary specialist, e-mailed press releases, announced it on the FDA web page, and took the guy around to introduce him to the staff, and then after three days of criticism re-thought the matter, appointed someone else, and insisted the first appointment never happened--that was just farcical. But scary, too, because it was reminiscent of the "Ministry of Truth" from 1984.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
November 3rd, 2005, 12:32 PM
that was just farcical. But scary, too, because it was reminiscent of the "Ministry of Truth" from 1984.Indeed. If this Administration would simply admit, periodically, that it has erred, we'd all be better off -- including the Administration itself.

Lindsey
November 3rd, 2005, 06:44 PM
Indeed. If this Administration would simply admit, periodically, that it has erred, we'd all be better off -- including the Administration itself.
Ain't that the truth!

--Lindsey

ndebord
November 4th, 2005, 09:16 AM
Among other things, I don't accept that truth is a moving target. "He has weapons of mass destruction! ... Uh, he was trying to get the ingredients for weapons of mass destruction! ... Uh, he wanted to try to get the ingredients for weapons of mass destruction! ... Uh, well he was a really bad man!"

And I hate the Big Lie: "9/11... Iraq! 9/11 ... Iraq!"

Judy,

"Niger-gate" as the Italian Media has dubbed it, is beginning to pick up more steam here at home.

Today's NYTimes article finally starts to talk about this issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/international/europe/04italy.html

Lindsey
November 4th, 2005, 10:24 PM
"Niger-gate" as the Italian Media has dubbed it, is beginning to pick up more steam here at home.
Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com) has been following this very closely; the first two installments of a major article are here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006896.php) and here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006908.php), but it's worth browsing all of his posts from the last 10 days or so for additional commentary.

--Lindsey