Archive for the ‘Alan Dershowitz’ Category

Alan Dershowitz: Why must women choose between feminism and Zionism, but not other ‘isms’? – Washington Examiner

On March 8, women abstained from work as part of the International Women’s Strike a grassroots feminist movement aimed at bringing attention “to the current social, legal, political, moral and verbal violence experienced by contemporary women at various latitudes.” But these positive goals were distorted by the inclusion of anti-Israel rhetoric in the platform of the IWS.

There are many countries and movements throughout the world that treat women as second-class citizens: Israel is not among them. Yet this platform singles out for condemnation only Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people. There is a word for applying a double standard to Jews. That word is anti-Semitism.

It is a tragedy that this women’s movement which has done so much good in refocusing attention on important women’s issues in the United States from gender violence, to reproductive rights and equal pay has now moved away from its central mission and gone out of its way to single out one foreign nation by calling for the “decolonization of Palestine.” Not of Tibet. Not of Kurdistan. Not of Ukraine. Not of Cyprus. Only Palestine.

The platform, which is published on IWS’ website under the headline “Antiracist and Anti-imperialist Feminism” also says: “we want to dismantle all walls, from prison walls to border walls, from Mexico to Palestine.” No mention is made of the walls that imprison gays in Iran, dissidents in China, feminists in Gaza or Kurds in Turkey. Only the walls erected by Israel.

Criticizing Israel’s settlement and occupation policies is fair game. But singling out Israel for “decolonization” when it has repeatedly offered to end the occupation and to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza; and when other countries continue to colonize, can be explained in no other way than applying a double standard to Jews and their state.

Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American who helped organize the Women’s March on Washington in January, responded to criticism of the anti-Israel plank appearing in a feminist platform. In an interview with The Nation, Sarsour said the following:

“When you talk about feminism you’re talking about the rights of all women and their families to live in dignity, peace, and security. It’s about giving women access to health care and other basic rights. And Israel is a country that continues to occupy territories in Palestine, has people under siege at checkpoints we have women who have babies on checkpoints because they’re not able to get to hospitals [in time]. It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, ‘Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?’ There can’t be in feminism. You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There’s just no way around it.”

Sarsour was responding directly to an op-ed published by Emily Shire, the politics editor of the online newsite Bustle. In her piece published in the New York Times, Shire asked why, increasingly, women have to choose between their Zionism and feminism. Shire wrote:

“My prime concern is not that people hold this view of Israel. Rather, I find it troubling that embracing such a view is considered an essential part of an event that is supposed to unite feminists. I am happy to debate Middle East politics or listen to critiques of Israeli policies. But why should criticism of Israel be key to feminism in 2017?”

Also from the Washington Examiner

Brazile has since resigned from CNN.

03/17/17 3:32 PM

Israel, like every country including our own, is far from perfect and I and other supporters of Israel have been critical of its flaws but its commitment to gender equality can be traced back to its Declaration of Independence, which states that Israel “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” As the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel’s legal guarantee of rights has meant that women play crucial roles in all aspects of Israeli society. It elected the first woman head of government in history Golda Meir who was not related to a male political leader. There is no legitimate reason for singling Israel out for condemnation, as the platform does, based on a denial of “basic rights” to women.

Sarsour presents a catch-22. Under her own all-or-nothing criteria, she herself cannot be pro-Palestinian and a feminist because the Palestinian Authority and Hamas treat women and gays far worse than Israel does.

If Sarsour was concerned with addressing structural causes of all female oppression, she would mention the status of women in the PA-controlled West Bank where just a few months ago the names and photos of female candidates for the municipal elections were omitted, referring to the women instead as “wife of” or “sister of.” Sarsour would also call out the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, where the police are a law unto themselves who act as judge, jury and executioner of those who speak out against their oppression and misogyny. She would condemn the tolerance, if not acceptance, by so many Muslim countries of the “honor killings” and genital mutilation of women.

Instead the IWS platform exploits the feminist cause in order to delegitimize and demonize only one nation: that of the Jewish people.

Nor does Sarsour address the fact that one of the organizers of the strike, Rasmea Odeh, was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison by an Israeli military court for her role in a 1969 terror attack, which killed two university students and injured nine others, including several women, at a supermarket in Jerusalem. Odeh was later freed in a prisoner exchange but a subsequent case against her in the United States is ongoing.

Also from the Washington Examiner

“It is likely that I will seek public office again,” McMullin said in a Reddit “ask me anything.”

03/17/17 3:07 PM

This double standard is reflective of a broader trend in hard-left politics. Increasingly, groups such as Black Lives Matter, MoveOn, Code Pink and Occupy Wall Street have embraced intersectionality a radical academic theory, which holds that all forms of social oppression are inexorably linked as an underpinning to their anti-Israel activism. This type of selective ideological packaging has left liberal supporters of Israel in an increasingly uncomfortable position. On the one hand, they care deeply about causes such as women’s rights, criminal justice reform, income inequality, environmental protection and LGBT rights. On the other, they find themselves excluded from the groups that advance those very causes unless they agree to delegitimize Israel and denounce Zionism as the national liberation movement of the Jewish People.

Addressing the structural causes of sexism in the United States will take more than reproaching Israel it will require far-reaching legislative and grassroots action. By morphing the discussion about women’s rights into a polemic against Israel, the IWS makes progress of the feminist cause even more difficult. All decent people should continue to fight for the absolute equal status of women in society. But we must not be forced to become complicit in the promotion of anti-Israel bigotry as a pre-condition for supporting the broader feminist movement.

The real choice to be made now by all those who care about the feminist cause is whether to allow Sarsour and her radical anti-Israel allies to hijack the movement in support of their own bigoted views. The alternative is to maintain feminism’s focus on key issues that pertain to women and to call out countries and movements according to how seriously they violate women’s rights, rather than singling out the one Jewish democracy Israel.

Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published by the Gatestone Institute.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Continue reading here:

Alan Dershowitz: Why must women choose between feminism and Zionism, but not other ‘isms’? – Washington Examiner

Fair Usage Law

March 17, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Why the Supreme Court will uphold Trump’s travel ban – The Hill (blog)

Here we go again. Two federal judges have struck down the key provisions of President Trumps revised travel ban. There will be more to come, as constitutional challenges are brought to courts around the nation.

This time there will be no revised new executive order. The president will stick with this one and have his Justice Department appeal it, first to the circuit courts and then the Supreme Court.

President Trump cited my statements on television in support of his prediction that the Supreme Court would rule in his favor:

Even liberal Democratic lawyer Alan Dershowitz good lawyer just said that we would win this case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Having said that I will venture a prognostication: I think the justices will uphold the major provisions of the order, if the case gets to them. It may not, because the order is a temporary ban that may expire before it reaches the High Court, thereby making the case moot.

It is also uncertain, if the case does get there, whether it will be decided by eight or nine justices. This will depend on the comparative speed of the case and the confirmation process for Justice designate Neil Gorsuch. Senate Democrats may try to stall his nomination until after the travel case reaches the justices, on the assumption that he would vote to uphold the ban.

Federal judge blocks Trump’s new travel ban nationwide https://t.co/yT0a5tfxm5 pic.twitter.com/NztvC0CdI8

If the case reaches the Supreme Court, a major issue will be whether campaign rhetoric delivered by Donald TrumpDonald TrumpTrump jokes that he and Merkel were both wiretapped by Obama Trump’s leaked tax returns are a start, but these are the 4 forms Americans really need to see WH jumper was on ground for 15 minutes before being caught: report MORE, when he was a private citizen running for president, may be considered by the courts in deciding on the constitutionality of an executive order. The lower courts gave considerable, indeed dispositive, weight to these anti-Muslim statements in deciding that the travel ban was, in reality, a Muslim ban that would violate the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion.

Under that reasoning, had the identical executive order been issued by President Obama, it would have been constitutional. But because it was issued by President Trump, it is unconstitutional. Indeed any executive order issued by President Trump dealing with travel from Muslim countries would be constitutionally suspect because of what candidate Trump said. In my view, that is a bridge too far. It turns constitutional analysis into psychoanalysis, requiring that the motives of the president be probed.

Most political leaders have mixed motives underlying their actions: they want to protect the security of the nation; they want to appeal to their political base; they want to keep campaign promises; they want to win.

Trump campaigned on the pledge that he would specifically address the issue of Islamic Terrorism a term President Obama refused to use. Trump believes that radical Islam is the major source of the terrorist threat faced by the U.S. It would follow from this view, that the countries that pose the greatest danger of allowing terrorists to reach our shores are countries that sponsor terrorism and do not vet their citizens for terrorist ties.

Most prominent among these nations is Iran, which is the largest promoter of terrorism and which has targeted and continues to target the United States. It is entirely natural to include The Islamic Republic of Iran on any list that is designed to deal with terrorism. The same is true, to varying degrees, of the five other predominantly Muslim countries on the Trump list: Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya.

The fact that all these countries are predominantly Muslim indeed, most have established Islam as their official state religion does not suggest religious discrimination. Those are the very countries that pose the greatest danger of terrorism, in the view of the Trump administration. They are not the only such countries, but if others were added to the list, they too would be predominantly Muslim countries.

But what about France or Belgium or England? They too have experienced Islamic inspired terrorism. But these countries have far better vetting procedures. It is not a coincidence that when the Obama administration devised a list, for a different but related purpose, of countries that posed a risk of unvetted terrorists, it was the identical list initially employed in the original Trump travel ban.

When Willie Sutton was once asked why do you pick banks to rob, he replied because thats where the money is. Not all the money, but enough of it to prioritize banks. Similarly, when asked why these six countries were prioritized, the Trump administration responds, because thats where the terrorists are, not all of them but these countries arent vetting them properly.

The inclusion of the six Islamic countries in the travel ban is rational. It may not be the best list. Perhaps there should be no country list at all. But that is a judgement allocated by Congress and the Constitution to the executive branch. It is subject, of course, to the constraints of the Constitution. But the judicial branch will generally defer to the executive branch on matters involving national security, unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution.

In my opinion, that high threshold has not been reached in this case. So I predict the Supreme Court, if it gets the case, will find the new executive order constitutional.

Alan M. Dershowitz is professor emeritus at the Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for Unaroused Voters.”

The views of contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Go here to read the rest:

Dershowitz: Why the Supreme Court will uphold Trump’s travel ban – The Hill (blog)

Fair Usage Law

March 17, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz : definition of Alan Dershowitz and …

Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He has spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He has held the Felix Frankfurter professorship there since 1993.[1]

Dershowitz is known for his involvement in several high-profile legal cases and as a commentator on the ArabIsraeli conflict. As a criminal appellate lawyer, he has won 13 of the 15 murder and attempted murder cases he has handled, and has represented a series of celebrity clients, including Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, and Jim Bakker.[2] His most notable cases include his role in 1984 in overturning the conviction of Claus von Blow for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny, and as the appellate adviser for the defense in the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995.[3]

A political liberal,[4][5][6][7] he is the author of a number of books about politics and law, including Reversal of Fortune: Inside the von Blow Case (1985), the basis of the 1990 film; Chutzpah (1991); Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996); the best-selling The Case for Israel (2003); Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (2004)[8] and The Case for Peace (2005).

Dershowitz was born in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, to Harry and Claire Dershowitz, an Orthodox Jewish couple, and was raised in Borough Park.[9] His father was a founder and president of the Young Israel Synagogue in the 1960s, served on the board of directors of the Etz Chaim School in Borough Park, and in retirement was co-owner of the Manhattan-based Merit Sales Company.[10] According to Dershowitz, Harry had a strong sense of justice and talked about how it was “the Jew’s job to defend the underdog.”[11]

Dershowitz’s first job was at a deli factory on Manhattan’s Lower East Side in 1952, at age 14. He recalls tying the strings that separated the hot dogs and once getting locked in the freezer.[12] He attended Yeshiva University High School, where he played on the basketball team. He was a rebellious student, often criticized by his teachers. The school’s career placement center told him he had talent and was capable of becoming an advertising executive, funeral director, or salesman. He later said his teachers told him to do something that “requires a big mouth and no brain … so I became a lawyer.”[13] After graduating from high school, he attended Brooklyn College and received his A.B. in 1959. Next he attended Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal,[9] and graduated first in his class with a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) in 1962.[1] He has been a member of a Conservative minyan at Harvard Hillel, but is now a secular Jew.[14] He is married to Carolyn Cohen and has three children.[15]

After being admitted to the bar, Dershowitz served as a clerk for David L. Bazelon, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He said that “Bazelon was my best and worst boss at once … He worked me to the bone; he didn’t hesitate to call at 2a.m. He taught me everythinghow to be a civil libertarian, a Jewish activist, a mensch. He was halfway between a slave master and a father figure.” During the 19631964 term, he served as law clerk for the Supreme Court Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg. He told Tom Van Riper of Forbes that getting a Supreme Court clerkship was probably his second big break; his first was when, at age 14 or 15, a camp counselor told him he was smart but that his mind operated a little differently.[12] He joined the faculty of Harvard Law School as an assistant professor in 1964, and was made a full professor in 1967 at the age of 28, at that time the youngest full professor of law in the school’s history.[16] He was appointed Felix Frankfurter professor of law in 1993.[1]

Much of his legal career has focused on criminal law, and his clients have included high-profile figures such as Patty Hearst, Harry Reems, Leona Helmsley, Jim Bakker, Mike Tyson, Michael Milken, O.J. Simpson and Kirtanananda Swami. He sees himself as a “lawyer of last resort”someone to turn to when the defendant has few other legal optionsand takes those cases that are what he calls “the most challenging, the most difficult and precedent-setting cases.”[15] He is currently advising Julian Assange’s legal team.[17]

Dershowitz has been described by Newsweek as America’s “most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights.”[1] He was named a Guggenheim Fellow in 1979, and in 1983 received the William O. Douglas First Amendment Award from the Anti-Defamation League for his work on civil rights.[18] In November 2007, he was awarded the Soviet Jewry Freedom Award by the Russian Jewish Community Foundation.[19] In December 2011, he was awarded the Menachem Begin Award of Honor by the Menachem Begin Heritage Center at an event co-sponsored by NGO Monitor.[20] He has been awarded honorary doctorates in law from Yeshiva University, the Hebrew Union College, Monmouth University, University of Haifa, Syracuse University, Fitchburg State College, Bar-Ilan University, and Brooklyn College.[1] In addition, he is a member of the International Advisory Board of NGO Monitor.[21]

In 1976, Dershowitz handled the successful appeal of Harry Reems, who had been convicted of distribution of obscenity resulting from his acting in the pornographic movie Deep Throat. In public debates, Dershowitz commonly argues against censorship of pornography on First Amendment grounds, and maintains that consumption of pornography is not harmful.[22]

Dershowitz represented Claus von Blow, a British socialite, at his appeal for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny von Blow, who went into a coma in Newport, Rhode Island in 1980 (and later died in 2008). He had the conviction overturned, and von Blow was acquitted in a retrial.[23] Dershowitz told the story of the case in his book, Reversal of Fortune: Inside the von Blow case (1985), which was turned into a movie in 1990. Dershowitz was played by actor Ron Silver, and Dershowitz himself had a cameo role as a judge.

In 1989, Dershowitz filed a defamation suit against Cardinal Jzef Glemp, then Archbishop of Warsaw, on behalf of Rabbi Avi Weiss. Glemp had accused Weiss and six other New York Jews of attacking nuns at a much-disputed convent on the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Glemp’s statement about Weiss, made in July 1989, was coupled with suggestions that Jews control the world’s news media. Dershowitz’s account of the lawsuit appears in his book Chutzpah (1991).[24]

Dershowitz sued The Boston Globe in 1990 over a remark reporter Mike Barnicle attributed to him, in which Dershowitz allegedly said he preferred Asian women because they are deferential to men. Dershowitz reportedly received a $75,000 out-of-court settlement and the newspaper’s ombudsman questioned Barnicle’s credibility, according to The Boston Phoenix.[25]

O.J. Simpson murder case Dershowitz acted as an appellate adviser to O.J. Simpson’s defense team during the trial, and later wrote a book about it, Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996). He wrote: “the Simpson case will not be remembered in the next century. It will not rank as one of the trials of the century. It will not rank with the Nuremberg trials, the Rosenberg trial, Sacco and Vanzetti. It is on par with Leopold and Loeb and the Lindbergh case, all involving celebrities. It is also not one of the most important cases of my own career. I would rank it somewhere in the middle in terms of interest and importance.”[26] The case has been described as the most publicized criminal trial in American history.[27]

Dershowitz provided legal assistance to friend and reported billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors. Dershowitz investigated some of Epstein’s accusers and provided both the police and the State attorneys office with a dossier containing information about their personal behavior, which had been obtained from their personal MySpace pages, including allegations of alcohol and drug use. Eventually, in 2008, Epstein pled guilty to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution and began serving an 18-month sentence.[28]

While Dershowitz is a leading supporter of Israel, Dershowitz self-identifies as “Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestine”.[29] Dershowitz engaged in highly publicized debates with a number of other commentators, including Meir Kahane, Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein. When former U.S. President Jimmy Carter had his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (2006) publishedin which he argues that Israel’s control of Palestinian land is the primary obstacle to peaceDershowitz challenged Carter to a debate at Brandeis University. Carter declined, saying, “I don’t want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz. There is no need to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.”[30] Carter did address Brandeis in January 2007, but only Brandeis students and staff were allowed to attend. Dershowitz was invited to respond on the same stage only after Carter had left.[31]

He also took part in the Doha Debates at Georgetown University in April 2009, where he spoke against the motion “this House believes it’s time for the US to get tough on Israel,” with Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Speakers for the motion were Avraham Burg, former Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and former Speaker of the Knesset; and Michael Scheuer, former Chief of the CIA Bin Laden Issue Station. Dershowitz’s side lost the debate, with 63 percent of the audience voting for the motion.[32]

Randall Adams of The Harvard Crimson writes that, in the spring of 2002, a petition within Harvard calling for Harvard and MIT to divest from Israel and American companies that sell arms to Israel gathered over 600 signatures, including 74 from the Harvard faculty and 56 from the MIT faculty. Among the signatures was that of Harvard’s Winthrop House Master Paul D. Hanson, in response to which Dershowitz staged a debate for 200 students in the Winthrop Junior Common Room. He called the petition’s signatories antisemitic, bigots, and said they knew nothing about the Middle East. “Your House master is a bigot,” he told the students, “and you ought to know that.” Adams writes that Dershowitz cited examples of human rights violations in countries that the United States supports, such as the execution of homosexuals in Egypt and the repression of women in Saudi Arabia, and said he would sue any professor who voted against the tenure of another academic because of the candidate’s position toward Israel, calling them “ignoramuses with PhDs.”[33]

In March 2002, Dershowitz published an article in The Jerusalem Post entitled “New Response to Palestinian Terrorism.” In it, he wrote that Israel should announce a unilateral cessation in retaliation, at the end of which it would “announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings.” The list of targets would be made public in advance.[34] The proposal attracted criticism from within Harvard University and beyond.[35]James Bamford argued in The Washington Post that it would violate international law.[36] Norman Finkelstein wrote that “it is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrenceexcept that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it.”[37]

In March 2006, John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, co-wrote a paper entitled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” published in The London Review of Books.[38] Mearsheimer and Walt criticized what they described as “the Israel lobby” for influencing U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East in a direction away from U.S. interests and toward Israel’s interests. They referred to Dershowitz specifically as an “apologist” for the Israel lobby. In an interview in March 2006 for The Harvard Crimson, Dershowitz called the article “one-sided” and its authors “liars” and “bigots.”[39] The following day on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, he suggested the paper had been taken from various hate sites: “every paragraph virtually is copied from a neo-Nazi Web site, from a radical Islamic Web site, from David Dukes Web site.”[40] Dershowitz subsequently wrote a report challenging the paper, arguing that it contained “three types of major errors: quotations are wrenched out of context, important facts are misstated or omitted, and embarrassingly weak logic is employed.”[41] In a letter in the London Review of Books in May 2006, Mearsheimer and Walt denied that they had used any racist sources for their article, writing that Dershowitz had offered no evidence to support what they said was his false claim.[42]

In July 2006, Dershowitz wrote a series of articles defending the conduct of the Israel Defense Forces during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. There was an international outcry at the time regarding escalating Lebanese civilian deaths and the destruction of civilian infrastructure resulting from Israel’s stated attempt to weaken or destroy Hezbollah. After the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour indicated that Israeli officials might be investigated and indicted for possible war crimes, Dershowitz labeled her statement “bizarre,” called for her dismissal, and wrote about what he called the “absurdity and counterproductive nature of current international law.”[43] In a Boston Globe editorial several days later, he argued that Israel was not to blame for civilian deaths: “Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing themon both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the killing of their own civilians.”[44]

He authored an article in the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post accusing Alice Walker of bigotry for refusing to have her novel The Color Purple published by an Israeli firm.[45]

Dershowitz is strongly opposed to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment, and supports repealing the amendment, but he vigorously opposes using the judicial system to read it out of the Constitution because it would open the way for further revisions to the Bill of Rights and Constitution by the courts. “Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a public safety hazard don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”[46]

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dershowitz published an article in The San Francisco Chronicle entitled “Want to Torture? Get a Warrant,” in which he advocated the issuance of warrants permitting the torture of terrorism suspects, if there were an “absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it.”[47] He argued that authorities should be permitted to use non-lethal torture in a “ticking time bomb scenario,” and that it would be less destructive to the rule of law to regulate the process than to leave it to the discretion of individual law-enforcement agents. He favors preventing the government from prosecuting the subject of torture based on information revealed during such an interrogation.[48] The “ticking time bomb scenario” is the subject of a play, The Dershowitz Protocol, by Canadian author Robert Fothergill, in which the American government has established a protocol of “intensified interrogation” for terrorist suspects.[49]

William F. Schulz, Executive Director of the U.S. section of Amnesty International, found Dershowitz’s ticking-bomb scenario unrealistic because, he argued, it would require that “the authorities know that a bomb has been planted somewhere; know it is about to go off; know that the suspect in their custody has the information they need to stop it; know that the suspect will yield that information accurately in a matter of minutes if subjected to torture; and know that there is no other way to obtain it.”[50] James Bamford of The Washington Post described one of the practices recommended by Dershowitzthe “sterilized needle being shoved under the fingernails”as “chillingly Nazi-like.”[36]

Dershowitz is one of a number of scholars at Harvard Law School who have expressed their support for limited animal rights.[51] In his Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (2004), he writes that, in order to avoid human beings treating each other the way we treat animals, we have made what he calls the “somewhat arbitrary decision” to single out our own species for different and better treatment. “Does this subject us to the charge of speciesism? Of course it does, and we cannot justify it, except by the fact that in the world in which we live, humans make the rules. That reality imposes on us a special responsibility to be fair and compassionate to those on whom we impose our rules. Hence the argument for animal rights.”[52]

On February 29, 2012, Dershowitz filed an Amicus Brief in support of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, also known as the MEK, a group designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.[53][54] The MEK was placed on the list for attacks on U.S. military personal and civilian contractors, and is believed responsible for the deaths of three U.S. Army officers, three U.S. civilian contractors, as well as the wounding of USAF General Harold Price, during an assassination attempt.[55][56]

The People’s Mujahedin of Iran renounced violence in 2001.[57] However, a 2004 FBI report on the group states that, “MEK is currently actively involved in planning and executing acts of terrorism.[58][59] Additionally, in 2009, seven people plead guilty to providing material support to the People’s Mujahedin of Iran.[60][61]

Shortly after the publication of Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel (2003), Norman Finkelstein of DePaul University said the book contained plagiarism.[62][63] Dershowitz denied the allegation. Harvard’s president, Derek Bok, investigated the allegation and determined that no plagiarism had occurred.[64] However, Dr. Frank Menetrez investigated and corresponded with both Harvard and Dershowitz and concluded that “neither Dershowitz nor Harvard, however, has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue.”[65]

In October 2006, Dershowitz wrote to DePaul University faculty members to lobby against Finkelstein’s application for tenure. The university’s Liberal Arts and Sciences faculty voted to send a letter of complaint to Harvard University.[66] In June 2007, DePaul University denied Finkelstein tenure.[67]

Go here to read the rest:

Alan Dershowitz : definition of Alan Dershowitz and …

Fair Usage Law

March 15, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz – The Key to Athens – MWC News (satire) (registration) (blog)

|Print|E-mail

Thursday, 09 March 2017 10:41

In his recent address to the ultra-Zionist and war-mongering Stand With Us, Alan Dershowitz said; people say Jews are too powerful, too strong, too rich, we control the media, weve too much this, too much that and we often apologetically deny our strength and our power. Dont do that!

Elder Zionist Dershowitz who acquired for himself the reputation of a remarkable liar (Chomsky) and a serial plagiarist (Finkelstein) probably decided, just before he meets his creator, to give truth one last try.

In our world, no one can deny that Jews are too powerful, too rich or that they control the media. Yet no one can ignore that Jews themselves are rarely apologetic about their extensive and overblown power. In fact, as with Dershowitz, most Jews tend to boast about the various facets of Jewish domination and, while boasting, use every trick in the book to silence anyone else who points to that power. As I have been arguing for several years, Jewish power is the ability to suppress the discussion on Jewish power.

Actually, Dershowitz approach here is rather refreshing. He admits that Jews are overwhelmingly powerful yet insists on presenting a rationale as to why Jews should never apologize about this overbearing and abusive power.

WE (the Jews, presumably) have earned the right to influence public debate, WE have earned the right to be heard, WE have contributed disproportionately to success of this country.

One may wonder who is included in that WE that has contributed so much to the success of America. Is he referring to his client and close friend Jeffrey Epstein who pimped under-aged girls for the elites? Does Dershowitz WE include Alan Greenspan who led the country to class genocide? Or perhaps his WE denotes all those Wall Street Jewish bankers, like the Goldmans Sachs and the Soroses – those who, on a daily basis, gamble on the American future and the global economy. And almost certainly, Dershowitz WE includes Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson who have managed to reduce American politics into merely an internal Zionist affair.

Dont get me wrong, there is no doubt that some Jews have contributed greatly to Americas culture, science, finance and so one. Yet, the notion of the Jewish WE, which Dershowitz is here pushing, is highly problematic and must be questioned. While it is obvious that the Saban and Adelson lobbies for Israel and Jewish interests subscribe to Dershowitz WE, it is far from clear whether the likes of Philip Roth have been contributing to American literature as an ordinary American or whether he also is part of the Dershowitz WE.

It didnt take the old ethnic-cleansing enthusiast long to deliver his punch line.Never ever apologize for using our (Jewish) strength and influence in the interest of peace.

Considering Dershowitz role as an advocate of wars and an apologist for a criminal state, I was perplexed by his pronouncement. I asked myself, Who are those Jews who so use their strength and influence in the interest of peace? Is it the Neocon school aka The Project for the New American Century, an immoral interventionist global-Zionist collective that managed to pull America and the entire West into a global war with no end? Or maybe it is the pacifist Albert Einstein who practically launched the Manhattan Project and introduced our planet to the imminent danger of eradication? Or perhaps Dershowitz is referring to Sidney Blumenthal who enthusiastically lobbied Secretary of State Clinton into a Libyan imperial intervention while he himself invested in the rebuilding of that state. Or is it the Jewish lobby that pushes constantly for intervention in Syria and war with Iran?

Id better admit that Im not aware of many Jews who genuinely use their influence in the interest of peace, but when such Jews do appear, Alan Dershowitz is always the first to throw mud at them – as Norman Finkelstein and Richard Falk can testify.

Like Dershowitz, I dont think Jews should apologize for the crimes of their state – Im not sure such an apology would mean anything at all. I dont know whether Jews should apologize for their power – for Greenspan, Wolfowitz, Madoff or Dershowitz – again, such an act would mean very little. But I do think that whenever you see or hear Dershowitz spreading his lies, calling for wars or celebrating his usual legalist, non-ethical symptoms, bear in mind that he is a spokesperson for the Jewish national project. Everything that is wrong with choseness and tribal supremacy is personified in this man. As such, Alan Dershowitz is a valuable window into the heart of Jerusalem, there to remind us how painful the flight from Athens has been.

But at the same time, the rejection of Dershowitz and everything he stands for is for the Western mind, a homecoming, a key to Athens, a return to forever.

Subscribe via RSS or Email:

Follow this link:

Alan Dershowitz – The Key to Athens – MWC News (satire) (registration) (blog)

Fair Usage Law

March 9, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Trump’s New Immigration Order More Likely to Survive … – Fox Business

President Trump signed a revised executive order on immigration on Monday, which was designed to avoid the legal challenges that prohibited his first controversial order from being carried out.

The new order, which takes effect on March 16, bars citizens in six Muslim-majority nations from entering the U.S. for 90 days, but does not ban citizens from Iraq as the first did.

Administration officials told reporters yesterday Iraq made necessary changes to improve their vetting process, but critics continue to call the new order a Muslim ban.

Despite this, Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor emeritus, told the FOX Business Network that the new order is more likely to survive constitutional attacks.

From a view of constitutionality, Dershowitz said, they have dotted their Is, they crossed their Ts [and] they will probably prevail in court proceedings.

In his opinion, taking religion out was the most important change made to the executive order.

Continue Reading Below

ADVERTISEMENT

They didnt have a special exception for minority religions, which was perceived as discriminating in favor of Christians, he said. They made it clear that administrators can give case-by-case preference but it would have to be based not on somebody being a Christian, but on being a minority religious person.

Even so, Dershowitz pointed out that the order would still face opposition within some states.

I guarantee you that the attorneys general of Washington and Minnesota and New York are up and burning the midnight candles trying to figure out how to challenge this in court.

See the article here:

Dershowitz: Trump’s New Immigration Order More Likely to Survive … – Fox Business

Fair Usage Law

March 9, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Acting AG ‘Made a Political Decision, Rather Than …

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

On Mondays broadcast of CNNs OutFront, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz reacted to Acting Attorney General Sally Yates announcement that the DOJ will not present arguments in defense of President Trumps immigration order by saying Yates made a serious mistake and has made a political decision, rather than a legal one.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Dershowitz said, Yates is a terrific public servant, but I think shes made a serious mistake here. This is a holdover heroism. Its so easy to be a heroine when youre not appointed by this president and when youre on the other side. She made a serious mistake. I think what she should have done is done a nuanced analysis of what parts of the order are constitutional, what parts are in violation of the statute, what parts are perfectly lawful. Theres an enormous distinction between green card holders on the one hand, people who are in the country and have to be thrown out on the second hand, and people who are simply applying to get visas. There is also a distinction between whats constitutional, whats statutorily prohibited, whats bad policy. This is very bad policy, but whats lawful. And I think by lumping all of them together, she has made a political decision, rather than a legal one.

He added, I think its some of its constitutional, some of its not constitutional. For example, there is a statute that limits the presidents power, and says that visas may not be denied on the basis of religion. Is that statute constitutional, or is it a claim on presidential authority? These are very complicated legal issues, and people shouldnt jump into them. You know, we have a hobby in this country, if you dont like something, you assume its unconstitutional.

Dershowitz stated Trump should just ignore Yates and ask the court to appoint a special defense attorney to defend the order, because the president has a right to have his actions defended. If Im a judge, Im going to say some of the statutes unconstitutional, as it applies to green card holders, as it applies maybe to people who are in the country, but maybe not so much as it applies to people who are seeking visas, but may be in violation of a statute. These are hard questions, and we shouldnt be treating them with a blunderbuss. We should be treating them with a scalpel.

He concluded, You respond to Twitter with nuance, and thats why I think Sally Yates made a mistake. She played into his hands, instead of responding in an intelligent, sophisticated, calibrated way.

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Read more:

Dershowitz: Acting AG ‘Made a Political Decision, Rather Than …

Fair Usage Law

March 6, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Trump’s Obama Accusations Could Prove a ‘Self-Inflicted Wound’ – Newsmax

President Donald Trump’s tweets accusing former President Barack Obama of having phones tapped at Trump Towerin October could prove to be a “self-inflicted wound” should proof surface that a court found probable cause to issue a warrant ordering the surveillance, legal expert Alan Dershowitz said Saturday.

“If there was wiretapping, there would have to be a record [ordering it], the Harvard Law School professor emeritus told Newsmax. “On foreigners, you don’t need a warrant, but an authorization on a private citizen requires a probable cause affidavit.”

Saturday morning, Trump leveled his accusations with a flurry of tweets shortly after dawn, after a series of leaks revealed communications between Russian officials and his senior aides, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Trump has often denied personal ties to the Kremlin, despite his praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership skills, and his aides have either denied or played down their own contacts with Russia, responding to a series of accusations stemming from leaked communications.

Dershowitz said it would have been legal for the Obama administration to plant wiretaps on the Russian side of such phone communications, but to set up wiretaps in Trump Tower would require legal authorization based on a probable cause warrant.

There has also been a great deal of talk concerning Obama’s executive order authorizing the National Security agency to share raw communications with intelligence agencies including the FBI, the DEA, and the Department of Homeland Security.

In addition, there has been talk about the Justice Department and FBI, under Obama, seeking Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Trump campaign insiders and then-presidential candidate Trump himself during the final months of the presidential campaign.

The FISA court denied the application as being overbroad when it was initially submitted in June, but approved a more narrowed one in October, the same month Trump alleges the wiretaps in his offices occurred.

However, Dershowitz said that even the FISA authorization would not have come into play when it comes to authorization to wiretap Trump Tower, as Trump has alleged, as it would instead have covered communications made by a foreign country.

Dershowitz said he once himself “got a postcard” that his voice was picked up on a wiretapped conversation with a foreign source, but years later, when he got a record of the communications, his own side of the conversation was redacted.

Even though there would have had to have been an official authorization, and court records authorizing the alleged wiretaps, he continued, the matter does have to be taken seriously in the event that “rogue wiretappers” could have bugged Trump’s private lines at Trump Tower. But just going by Trump’s comments, he said, “there is no way Obama could wiretap Trump Tower.”

There was speculation on Saturday that Trump posted the tweets to deflect attention away from Sessions, who is facing calls to step down from several Democrats who accuse him of perjuring himself before a Senate confirmation hearing about his own contacts with Russians.

However, Dershowitz said that the Sessions matter could be cleared up if he testifies before the Senate again and corrects and clarifies his initial statements.

The famed attorney also does not believe Sessions committed perjury, and said that if he were representing Sessions, he’d recommend that he return to Congress, testify under oath, and correct what he’d said.

Perjury is difficult to prove, he continued, as there must be evidence that a person “willfully and deliberately” lied. The questions posed by Sen. Al Franken were vague, he said and it would be difficult to prove Sessions lied based on them.

Dershowitz said he also does not believe Sessions should step down from office, even though the accusations and his decision to recuse himself from investigations concerning Trump’s campaign staff have “damaged” him, and he may have to recuse himself from more proceedings moving forward.

“It is important that his deputy attorney general be strong and effective,” said Dershowitz, as he will likely be called upon to take on more cases.

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

View original post here:

Dershowitz: Trump’s Obama Accusations Could Prove a ‘Self-Inflicted Wound’ – Newsmax

Fair Usage Law

March 5, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz to bring baseball history to the courtroom – Page Six

Alan Dershowitz to bring baseball history to the courtroom
Page Six
Alan Dershowitz will bring a prop to the US Supreme Court a 1947 Brooklyn Dodgers National League Championship ring. The Brooklyn-born lawyer who was 9 that year, rooting for rookie Jackie Robinson and his teammates bought the ring last fall …
Philip Shawe Launches the $100000 Law Student Scholarship Competition to Examine TransPerfect Delaware Case …Yahoo Finance

all 3 news articles »

See the original post here:

Alan Dershowitz to bring baseball history to the courtroom – Page Six

Fair Usage Law

March 2, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Keith Ellison Defeated by His Own Actions, Not Any Smear – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Photo Credit: Ellison/Center for American Progress; Farrakhan/Smithsonian Institute

The close vote by the Democratic National Committee to reject Keith Ellison as its chairperson was a victory for basic decency, and a defeat for the kind of bigotry represented by Ellisons past associations with Louis Farrakhan and his current voting record against Israels Iron Dome. Ellisons loss is not attributable to any smear campaign, as some of his supporters have falsely alleged, but rather to his own actions, both past and present.

Would anyone call it a smear if a candidates history of sexism, racism or homophobia had been exposed? Why, then, is it a smear to have raised questions based on Ellisons past associations with antisemitism and his current anti-Israel voting record? Nor was it a smear to question Ellisons credibility when he said that he was not aware that Farrakhan was an antisemite, asFarrakhan himself was publicly boasting about his Jew-hatred.

The smear charge itself reflects the kind of double standard within elements of the Democratic Party that worry centrist pro-Israel voters. Both Democrats and Republicans alike must have the same zero tolerance for antisemitism as they do for sexism, racism and homophobia.

The growing influence of intolerant hard-Left extremists endangers both our country and the Democratic Party. Democrats must recognize the reality that the United States is not a hard-Left country. Unlike some European countries, we have never had significant Communist or socialist parties. Nor are we a hard-Right country witha history of fascist parties. We govern from the center, alternating centrist liberals, such as Obama and Clinton, with centrist conservatives like the Bushes and Reagan.

When the Democrats tried to move leftward, even with such moderate Leftists as McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis, they have been overwhelmingly defeated. The combined electoral votes of these three leftist candidates would not have been enough to win a single election. The Republicans experienced similar rejection when they went to the far-Right of their party and nominated Barry Goldwater.

Had Sanders won the Democratic nomination, he would have won no more than a handful of states. It is far easier for the hard-Left fringe of the Democrats to win primaries and conduct loud demonstrations than to win national or state wide elections. If the Democratic Party fails to understand this reality, it will emulate the British Labour Party, which rejected the kind of moderate liberal leadership represented by Tony Blair in favor of the extreme leftist Jeremy Corbyn. The Corbyn-led Labour Party is popular among left-wing extremists, but today it could not be competitive in a national election. Nor would the Democrats be competitive if they allow themselves to be taken over by the Sanders fringe.

Great Britain has a far greater proportion of hard-Left voters than the United States, yet, even there, the radical Corbyn Left cannot attract enough voters to be competitive, even in the post Brexit environment. It would be worse much worse for America ifDemocrats become the party of the extreme Left.

Those who believe that Democrats can win by attracting the kind of hard-Left radicals who voted for Green Party candidates such as Jill Stein or Ralph Nader are blinking reality. The Democrats could never nominate a winning candidate far-Left enough for those hard-Left ideologues to abandon their extremist candidates extremists like Susan Sarandon who seemedto believethat voting forTrump wouldhasten the revolution, during whichthings will really explode (in Sarandons words).

Nor can the Democrats win by emulating the tactics of the Republican Party. The Tea Party did move the Republicans to the right by their uncompromising and obstructionist approach. But the United States has more tolerance unfortunately, in my view for rightward movement (as long as its not too extreme) than the Democrats have for leftward movement.

The current leadership of the Democratic Party is reacting short term to a long-term problem. It is responding to the loudest, shrillest and most demanding voices voices that are hardly representative of the tens of millions of voters itwill need toremain competitive in upcoming races.

The Democrats can win only by regaining their traditional base among the working class RustBelt voters they lost to Trump. These voters will never support the kind of radical leftist candidates promoted by the Keith Ellison-wing of the party.

Ellisons appointment as DNCdeputy to Tom Perezs chairmanship elevated unity over principle. His past history and current voting record should have disqualified him for any office within the Democratic Party. But despite that unfortunate appointment, I will remain in the Democratic Party and work from within to move it back to its vibrant liberal center and away from its radical fringe. I will also work to maintain bipartisan support for Israel and against efforts by the hard-Left to abandon the only democracy in the Middle East.

It will be a daunting task but it is worth the effort. We won the fight against Ellison, though it was close. We must continue to win if the Democratic Party is to remain competitive.

Continue reading here:

Alan Dershowitz: Keith Ellison Defeated by His Own Actions, Not Any Smear – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Fair Usage Law

March 2, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Why must women choose between feminism and Zionism, but not other ‘isms’? – Washington Examiner

On March 8, women abstained from work as part of the International Women’s Strike a grassroots feminist movement aimed at bringing attention “to the current social, legal, political, moral and verbal violence experienced by contemporary women at various latitudes.” But these positive goals were distorted by the inclusion of anti-Israel rhetoric in the platform of the IWS. There are many countries and movements throughout the world that treat women as second-class citizens: Israel is not among them. Yet this platform singles out for condemnation only Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people. There is a word for applying a double standard to Jews. That word is anti-Semitism. It is a tragedy that this women’s movement which has done so much good in refocusing attention on important women’s issues in the United States from gender violence, to reproductive rights and equal pay has now moved away from its central mission and gone out of its way to single out one foreign nation by calling for the “decolonization of Palestine.” Not of Tibet. Not of Kurdistan. Not of Ukraine. Not of Cyprus. Only Palestine. The platform, which is published on IWS’ website under the headline “Antiracist and Anti-imperialist Feminism” also says: “we want to dismantle all walls, from prison walls to border walls, from Mexico to Palestine.” No mention is made of the walls that imprison gays in Iran, dissidents in China, feminists in Gaza or Kurds in Turkey. Only the walls erected by Israel. Criticizing Israel’s settlement and occupation policies is fair game. But singling out Israel for “decolonization” when it has repeatedly offered to end the occupation and to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza; and when other countries continue to colonize, can be explained in no other way than applying a double standard to Jews and their state. Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American who helped organize the Women’s March on Washington in January, responded to criticism of the anti-Israel plank appearing in a feminist platform. In an interview with The Nation, Sarsour said the following: “When you talk about feminism you’re talking about the rights of all women and their families to live in dignity, peace, and security. It’s about giving women access to health care and other basic rights. And Israel is a country that continues to occupy territories in Palestine, has people under siege at checkpoints we have women who have babies on checkpoints because they’re not able to get to hospitals [in time]. It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, ‘Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?’ There can’t be in feminism. You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There’s just no way around it.” Sarsour was responding directly to an op-ed published by Emily Shire, the politics editor of the online newsite Bustle. In her piece published in the New York Times, Shire asked why, increasingly, women have to choose between their Zionism and feminism. Shire wrote: “My prime concern is not that people hold this view of Israel. Rather, I find it troubling that embracing such a view is considered an essential part of an event that is supposed to unite feminists. I am happy to debate Middle East politics or listen to critiques of Israeli policies. But why should criticism of Israel be key to feminism in 2017?” Also from the Washington Examiner Brazile has since resigned from CNN. 03/17/17 3:32 PM Israel, like every country including our own, is far from perfect and I and other supporters of Israel have been critical of its flaws but its commitment to gender equality can be traced back to its Declaration of Independence, which states that Israel “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” As the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel’s legal guarantee of rights has meant that women play crucial roles in all aspects of Israeli society. It elected the first woman head of government in history Golda Meir who was not related to a male political leader. There is no legitimate reason for singling Israel out for condemnation, as the platform does, based on a denial of “basic rights” to women. Sarsour presents a catch-22. Under her own all-or-nothing criteria, she herself cannot be pro-Palestinian and a feminist because the Palestinian Authority and Hamas treat women and gays far worse than Israel does. If Sarsour was concerned with addressing structural causes of all female oppression, she would mention the status of women in the PA-controlled West Bank where just a few months ago the names and photos of female candidates for the municipal elections were omitted, referring to the women instead as “wife of” or “sister of.” Sarsour would also call out the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, where the police are a law unto themselves who act as judge, jury and executioner of those who speak out against their oppression and misogyny. She would condemn the tolerance, if not acceptance, by so many Muslim countries of the “honor killings” and genital mutilation of women. Instead the IWS platform exploits the feminist cause in order to delegitimize and demonize only one nation: that of the Jewish people. Nor does Sarsour address the fact that one of the organizers of the strike, Rasmea Odeh, was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison by an Israeli military court for her role in a 1969 terror attack, which killed two university students and injured nine others, including several women, at a supermarket in Jerusalem. Odeh was later freed in a prisoner exchange but a subsequent case against her in the United States is ongoing. Also from the Washington Examiner “It is likely that I will seek public office again,” McMullin said in a Reddit “ask me anything.” 03/17/17 3:07 PM This double standard is reflective of a broader trend in hard-left politics. Increasingly, groups such as Black Lives Matter, MoveOn, Code Pink and Occupy Wall Street have embraced intersectionality a radical academic theory, which holds that all forms of social oppression are inexorably linked as an underpinning to their anti-Israel activism. This type of selective ideological packaging has left liberal supporters of Israel in an increasingly uncomfortable position. On the one hand, they care deeply about causes such as women’s rights, criminal justice reform, income inequality, environmental protection and LGBT rights. On the other, they find themselves excluded from the groups that advance those very causes unless they agree to delegitimize Israel and denounce Zionism as the national liberation movement of the Jewish People. Addressing the structural causes of sexism in the United States will take more than reproaching Israel it will require far-reaching legislative and grassroots action. By morphing the discussion about women’s rights into a polemic against Israel, the IWS makes progress of the feminist cause even more difficult. All decent people should continue to fight for the absolute equal status of women in society. But we must not be forced to become complicit in the promotion of anti-Israel bigotry as a pre-condition for supporting the broader feminist movement. The real choice to be made now by all those who care about the feminist cause is whether to allow Sarsour and her radical anti-Israel allies to hijack the movement in support of their own bigoted views. The alternative is to maintain feminism’s focus on key issues that pertain to women and to call out countries and movements according to how seriously they violate women’s rights, rather than singling out the one Jewish democracy Israel. Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published by the Gatestone Institute. If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Fair Usage Law

March 17, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Why the Supreme Court will uphold Trump’s travel ban – The Hill (blog)

Here we go again. Two federal judges have struck down the key provisions of President Trumps revised travel ban. There will be more to come, as constitutional challenges are brought to courts around the nation. This time there will be no revised new executive order. The president will stick with this one and have his Justice Department appeal it, first to the circuit courts and then the Supreme Court. President Trump cited my statements on television in support of his prediction that the Supreme Court would rule in his favor: Even liberal Democratic lawyer Alan Dershowitz good lawyer just said that we would win this case before the Supreme Court of the United States. Having said that I will venture a prognostication: I think the justices will uphold the major provisions of the order, if the case gets to them. It may not, because the order is a temporary ban that may expire before it reaches the High Court, thereby making the case moot. It is also uncertain, if the case does get there, whether it will be decided by eight or nine justices. This will depend on the comparative speed of the case and the confirmation process for Justice designate Neil Gorsuch. Senate Democrats may try to stall his nomination until after the travel case reaches the justices, on the assumption that he would vote to uphold the ban. Federal judge blocks Trump’s new travel ban nationwide https://t.co/yT0a5tfxm5 pic.twitter.com/NztvC0CdI8 If the case reaches the Supreme Court, a major issue will be whether campaign rhetoric delivered by Donald TrumpDonald TrumpTrump jokes that he and Merkel were both wiretapped by Obama Trump’s leaked tax returns are a start, but these are the 4 forms Americans really need to see WH jumper was on ground for 15 minutes before being caught: report MORE, when he was a private citizen running for president, may be considered by the courts in deciding on the constitutionality of an executive order. The lower courts gave considerable, indeed dispositive, weight to these anti-Muslim statements in deciding that the travel ban was, in reality, a Muslim ban that would violate the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion. Under that reasoning, had the identical executive order been issued by President Obama, it would have been constitutional. But because it was issued by President Trump, it is unconstitutional. Indeed any executive order issued by President Trump dealing with travel from Muslim countries would be constitutionally suspect because of what candidate Trump said. In my view, that is a bridge too far. It turns constitutional analysis into psychoanalysis, requiring that the motives of the president be probed. Most political leaders have mixed motives underlying their actions: they want to protect the security of the nation; they want to appeal to their political base; they want to keep campaign promises; they want to win. Trump campaigned on the pledge that he would specifically address the issue of Islamic Terrorism a term President Obama refused to use. Trump believes that radical Islam is the major source of the terrorist threat faced by the U.S. It would follow from this view, that the countries that pose the greatest danger of allowing terrorists to reach our shores are countries that sponsor terrorism and do not vet their citizens for terrorist ties. Most prominent among these nations is Iran, which is the largest promoter of terrorism and which has targeted and continues to target the United States. It is entirely natural to include The Islamic Republic of Iran on any list that is designed to deal with terrorism. The same is true, to varying degrees, of the five other predominantly Muslim countries on the Trump list: Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Libya. The fact that all these countries are predominantly Muslim indeed, most have established Islam as their official state religion does not suggest religious discrimination. Those are the very countries that pose the greatest danger of terrorism, in the view of the Trump administration. They are not the only such countries, but if others were added to the list, they too would be predominantly Muslim countries. But what about France or Belgium or England? They too have experienced Islamic inspired terrorism. But these countries have far better vetting procedures. It is not a coincidence that when the Obama administration devised a list, for a different but related purpose, of countries that posed a risk of unvetted terrorists, it was the identical list initially employed in the original Trump travel ban. When Willie Sutton was once asked why do you pick banks to rob, he replied because thats where the money is. Not all the money, but enough of it to prioritize banks. Similarly, when asked why these six countries were prioritized, the Trump administration responds, because thats where the terrorists are, not all of them but these countries arent vetting them properly. The inclusion of the six Islamic countries in the travel ban is rational. It may not be the best list. Perhaps there should be no country list at all. But that is a judgement allocated by Congress and the Constitution to the executive branch. It is subject, of course, to the constraints of the Constitution. But the judicial branch will generally defer to the executive branch on matters involving national security, unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution. In my opinion, that high threshold has not been reached in this case. So I predict the Supreme Court, if it gets the case, will find the new executive order constitutional. Alan M. Dershowitz is professor emeritus at the Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for Unaroused Voters.” The views of contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Fair Usage Law

March 17, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz : definition of Alan Dershowitz and …

Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He has spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He has held the Felix Frankfurter professorship there since 1993.[1] Dershowitz is known for his involvement in several high-profile legal cases and as a commentator on the ArabIsraeli conflict. As a criminal appellate lawyer, he has won 13 of the 15 murder and attempted murder cases he has handled, and has represented a series of celebrity clients, including Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, and Jim Bakker.[2] His most notable cases include his role in 1984 in overturning the conviction of Claus von Blow for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny, and as the appellate adviser for the defense in the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995.[3] A political liberal,[4][5][6][7] he is the author of a number of books about politics and law, including Reversal of Fortune: Inside the von Blow Case (1985), the basis of the 1990 film; Chutzpah (1991); Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996); the best-selling The Case for Israel (2003); Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (2004)[8] and The Case for Peace (2005). Dershowitz was born in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, to Harry and Claire Dershowitz, an Orthodox Jewish couple, and was raised in Borough Park.[9] His father was a founder and president of the Young Israel Synagogue in the 1960s, served on the board of directors of the Etz Chaim School in Borough Park, and in retirement was co-owner of the Manhattan-based Merit Sales Company.[10] According to Dershowitz, Harry had a strong sense of justice and talked about how it was “the Jew’s job to defend the underdog.”[11] Dershowitz’s first job was at a deli factory on Manhattan’s Lower East Side in 1952, at age 14. He recalls tying the strings that separated the hot dogs and once getting locked in the freezer.[12] He attended Yeshiva University High School, where he played on the basketball team. He was a rebellious student, often criticized by his teachers. The school’s career placement center told him he had talent and was capable of becoming an advertising executive, funeral director, or salesman. He later said his teachers told him to do something that “requires a big mouth and no brain … so I became a lawyer.”[13] After graduating from high school, he attended Brooklyn College and received his A.B. in 1959. Next he attended Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal,[9] and graduated first in his class with a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) in 1962.[1] He has been a member of a Conservative minyan at Harvard Hillel, but is now a secular Jew.[14] He is married to Carolyn Cohen and has three children.[15] After being admitted to the bar, Dershowitz served as a clerk for David L. Bazelon, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He said that “Bazelon was my best and worst boss at once … He worked me to the bone; he didn’t hesitate to call at 2a.m. He taught me everythinghow to be a civil libertarian, a Jewish activist, a mensch. He was halfway between a slave master and a father figure.” During the 19631964 term, he served as law clerk for the Supreme Court Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg. He told Tom Van Riper of Forbes that getting a Supreme Court clerkship was probably his second big break; his first was when, at age 14 or 15, a camp counselor told him he was smart but that his mind operated a little differently.[12] He joined the faculty of Harvard Law School as an assistant professor in 1964, and was made a full professor in 1967 at the age of 28, at that time the youngest full professor of law in the school’s history.[16] He was appointed Felix Frankfurter professor of law in 1993.[1] Much of his legal career has focused on criminal law, and his clients have included high-profile figures such as Patty Hearst, Harry Reems, Leona Helmsley, Jim Bakker, Mike Tyson, Michael Milken, O.J. Simpson and Kirtanananda Swami. He sees himself as a “lawyer of last resort”someone to turn to when the defendant has few other legal optionsand takes those cases that are what he calls “the most challenging, the most difficult and precedent-setting cases.”[15] He is currently advising Julian Assange’s legal team.[17] Dershowitz has been described by Newsweek as America’s “most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights.”[1] He was named a Guggenheim Fellow in 1979, and in 1983 received the William O. Douglas First Amendment Award from the Anti-Defamation League for his work on civil rights.[18] In November 2007, he was awarded the Soviet Jewry Freedom Award by the Russian Jewish Community Foundation.[19] In December 2011, he was awarded the Menachem Begin Award of Honor by the Menachem Begin Heritage Center at an event co-sponsored by NGO Monitor.[20] He has been awarded honorary doctorates in law from Yeshiva University, the Hebrew Union College, Monmouth University, University of Haifa, Syracuse University, Fitchburg State College, Bar-Ilan University, and Brooklyn College.[1] In addition, he is a member of the International Advisory Board of NGO Monitor.[21] In 1976, Dershowitz handled the successful appeal of Harry Reems, who had been convicted of distribution of obscenity resulting from his acting in the pornographic movie Deep Throat. In public debates, Dershowitz commonly argues against censorship of pornography on First Amendment grounds, and maintains that consumption of pornography is not harmful.[22] Dershowitz represented Claus von Blow, a British socialite, at his appeal for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny von Blow, who went into a coma in Newport, Rhode Island in 1980 (and later died in 2008). He had the conviction overturned, and von Blow was acquitted in a retrial.[23] Dershowitz told the story of the case in his book, Reversal of Fortune: Inside the von Blow case (1985), which was turned into a movie in 1990. Dershowitz was played by actor Ron Silver, and Dershowitz himself had a cameo role as a judge. In 1989, Dershowitz filed a defamation suit against Cardinal Jzef Glemp, then Archbishop of Warsaw, on behalf of Rabbi Avi Weiss. Glemp had accused Weiss and six other New York Jews of attacking nuns at a much-disputed convent on the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Glemp’s statement about Weiss, made in July 1989, was coupled with suggestions that Jews control the world’s news media. Dershowitz’s account of the lawsuit appears in his book Chutzpah (1991).[24] Dershowitz sued The Boston Globe in 1990 over a remark reporter Mike Barnicle attributed to him, in which Dershowitz allegedly said he preferred Asian women because they are deferential to men. Dershowitz reportedly received a $75,000 out-of-court settlement and the newspaper’s ombudsman questioned Barnicle’s credibility, according to The Boston Phoenix.[25] O.J. Simpson murder case Dershowitz acted as an appellate adviser to O.J. Simpson’s defense team during the trial, and later wrote a book about it, Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996). He wrote: “the Simpson case will not be remembered in the next century. It will not rank as one of the trials of the century. It will not rank with the Nuremberg trials, the Rosenberg trial, Sacco and Vanzetti. It is on par with Leopold and Loeb and the Lindbergh case, all involving celebrities. It is also not one of the most important cases of my own career. I would rank it somewhere in the middle in terms of interest and importance.”[26] The case has been described as the most publicized criminal trial in American history.[27] Dershowitz provided legal assistance to friend and reported billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors. Dershowitz investigated some of Epstein’s accusers and provided both the police and the State attorneys office with a dossier containing information about their personal behavior, which had been obtained from their personal MySpace pages, including allegations of alcohol and drug use. Eventually, in 2008, Epstein pled guilty to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution and began serving an 18-month sentence.[28] While Dershowitz is a leading supporter of Israel, Dershowitz self-identifies as “Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestine”.[29] Dershowitz engaged in highly publicized debates with a number of other commentators, including Meir Kahane, Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein. When former U.S. President Jimmy Carter had his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (2006) publishedin which he argues that Israel’s control of Palestinian land is the primary obstacle to peaceDershowitz challenged Carter to a debate at Brandeis University. Carter declined, saying, “I don’t want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz. There is no need to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.”[30] Carter did address Brandeis in January 2007, but only Brandeis students and staff were allowed to attend. Dershowitz was invited to respond on the same stage only after Carter had left.[31] He also took part in the Doha Debates at Georgetown University in April 2009, where he spoke against the motion “this House believes it’s time for the US to get tough on Israel,” with Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Speakers for the motion were Avraham Burg, former Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and former Speaker of the Knesset; and Michael Scheuer, former Chief of the CIA Bin Laden Issue Station. Dershowitz’s side lost the debate, with 63 percent of the audience voting for the motion.[32] Randall Adams of The Harvard Crimson writes that, in the spring of 2002, a petition within Harvard calling for Harvard and MIT to divest from Israel and American companies that sell arms to Israel gathered over 600 signatures, including 74 from the Harvard faculty and 56 from the MIT faculty. Among the signatures was that of Harvard’s Winthrop House Master Paul D. Hanson, in response to which Dershowitz staged a debate for 200 students in the Winthrop Junior Common Room. He called the petition’s signatories antisemitic, bigots, and said they knew nothing about the Middle East. “Your House master is a bigot,” he told the students, “and you ought to know that.” Adams writes that Dershowitz cited examples of human rights violations in countries that the United States supports, such as the execution of homosexuals in Egypt and the repression of women in Saudi Arabia, and said he would sue any professor who voted against the tenure of another academic because of the candidate’s position toward Israel, calling them “ignoramuses with PhDs.”[33] In March 2002, Dershowitz published an article in The Jerusalem Post entitled “New Response to Palestinian Terrorism.” In it, he wrote that Israel should announce a unilateral cessation in retaliation, at the end of which it would “announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings.” The list of targets would be made public in advance.[34] The proposal attracted criticism from within Harvard University and beyond.[35]James Bamford argued in The Washington Post that it would violate international law.[36] Norman Finkelstein wrote that “it is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrenceexcept that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it.”[37] In March 2006, John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, co-wrote a paper entitled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” published in The London Review of Books.[38] Mearsheimer and Walt criticized what they described as “the Israel lobby” for influencing U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East in a direction away from U.S. interests and toward Israel’s interests. They referred to Dershowitz specifically as an “apologist” for the Israel lobby. In an interview in March 2006 for The Harvard Crimson, Dershowitz called the article “one-sided” and its authors “liars” and “bigots.”[39] The following day on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, he suggested the paper had been taken from various hate sites: “every paragraph virtually is copied from a neo-Nazi Web site, from a radical Islamic Web site, from David Dukes Web site.”[40] Dershowitz subsequently wrote a report challenging the paper, arguing that it contained “three types of major errors: quotations are wrenched out of context, important facts are misstated or omitted, and embarrassingly weak logic is employed.”[41] In a letter in the London Review of Books in May 2006, Mearsheimer and Walt denied that they had used any racist sources for their article, writing that Dershowitz had offered no evidence to support what they said was his false claim.[42] In July 2006, Dershowitz wrote a series of articles defending the conduct of the Israel Defense Forces during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. There was an international outcry at the time regarding escalating Lebanese civilian deaths and the destruction of civilian infrastructure resulting from Israel’s stated attempt to weaken or destroy Hezbollah. After the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour indicated that Israeli officials might be investigated and indicted for possible war crimes, Dershowitz labeled her statement “bizarre,” called for her dismissal, and wrote about what he called the “absurdity and counterproductive nature of current international law.”[43] In a Boston Globe editorial several days later, he argued that Israel was not to blame for civilian deaths: “Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing themon both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the killing of their own civilians.”[44] He authored an article in the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post accusing Alice Walker of bigotry for refusing to have her novel The Color Purple published by an Israeli firm.[45] Dershowitz is strongly opposed to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment, and supports repealing the amendment, but he vigorously opposes using the judicial system to read it out of the Constitution because it would open the way for further revisions to the Bill of Rights and Constitution by the courts. “Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a public safety hazard don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”[46] Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dershowitz published an article in The San Francisco Chronicle entitled “Want to Torture? Get a Warrant,” in which he advocated the issuance of warrants permitting the torture of terrorism suspects, if there were an “absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it.”[47] He argued that authorities should be permitted to use non-lethal torture in a “ticking time bomb scenario,” and that it would be less destructive to the rule of law to regulate the process than to leave it to the discretion of individual law-enforcement agents. He favors preventing the government from prosecuting the subject of torture based on information revealed during such an interrogation.[48] The “ticking time bomb scenario” is the subject of a play, The Dershowitz Protocol, by Canadian author Robert Fothergill, in which the American government has established a protocol of “intensified interrogation” for terrorist suspects.[49] William F. Schulz, Executive Director of the U.S. section of Amnesty International, found Dershowitz’s ticking-bomb scenario unrealistic because, he argued, it would require that “the authorities know that a bomb has been planted somewhere; know it is about to go off; know that the suspect in their custody has the information they need to stop it; know that the suspect will yield that information accurately in a matter of minutes if subjected to torture; and know that there is no other way to obtain it.”[50] James Bamford of The Washington Post described one of the practices recommended by Dershowitzthe “sterilized needle being shoved under the fingernails”as “chillingly Nazi-like.”[36] Dershowitz is one of a number of scholars at Harvard Law School who have expressed their support for limited animal rights.[51] In his Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (2004), he writes that, in order to avoid human beings treating each other the way we treat animals, we have made what he calls the “somewhat arbitrary decision” to single out our own species for different and better treatment. “Does this subject us to the charge of speciesism? Of course it does, and we cannot justify it, except by the fact that in the world in which we live, humans make the rules. That reality imposes on us a special responsibility to be fair and compassionate to those on whom we impose our rules. Hence the argument for animal rights.”[52] On February 29, 2012, Dershowitz filed an Amicus Brief in support of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, also known as the MEK, a group designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.[53][54] The MEK was placed on the list for attacks on U.S. military personal and civilian contractors, and is believed responsible for the deaths of three U.S. Army officers, three U.S. civilian contractors, as well as the wounding of USAF General Harold Price, during an assassination attempt.[55][56] The People’s Mujahedin of Iran renounced violence in 2001.[57] However, a 2004 FBI report on the group states that, “MEK is currently actively involved in planning and executing acts of terrorism.[58][59] Additionally, in 2009, seven people plead guilty to providing material support to the People’s Mujahedin of Iran.[60][61] Shortly after the publication of Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel (2003), Norman Finkelstein of DePaul University said the book contained plagiarism.[62][63] Dershowitz denied the allegation. Harvard’s president, Derek Bok, investigated the allegation and determined that no plagiarism had occurred.[64] However, Dr. Frank Menetrez investigated and corresponded with both Harvard and Dershowitz and concluded that “neither Dershowitz nor Harvard, however, has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue.”[65] In October 2006, Dershowitz wrote to DePaul University faculty members to lobby against Finkelstein’s application for tenure. The university’s Liberal Arts and Sciences faculty voted to send a letter of complaint to Harvard University.[66] In June 2007, DePaul University denied Finkelstein tenure.[67]

Fair Usage Law

March 15, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz – The Key to Athens – MWC News (satire) (registration) (blog)

|Print|E-mail Thursday, 09 March 2017 10:41 In his recent address to the ultra-Zionist and war-mongering Stand With Us, Alan Dershowitz said; people say Jews are too powerful, too strong, too rich, we control the media, weve too much this, too much that and we often apologetically deny our strength and our power. Dont do that! Elder Zionist Dershowitz who acquired for himself the reputation of a remarkable liar (Chomsky) and a serial plagiarist (Finkelstein) probably decided, just before he meets his creator, to give truth one last try. In our world, no one can deny that Jews are too powerful, too rich or that they control the media. Yet no one can ignore that Jews themselves are rarely apologetic about their extensive and overblown power. In fact, as with Dershowitz, most Jews tend to boast about the various facets of Jewish domination and, while boasting, use every trick in the book to silence anyone else who points to that power. As I have been arguing for several years, Jewish power is the ability to suppress the discussion on Jewish power. Actually, Dershowitz approach here is rather refreshing. He admits that Jews are overwhelmingly powerful yet insists on presenting a rationale as to why Jews should never apologize about this overbearing and abusive power. WE (the Jews, presumably) have earned the right to influence public debate, WE have earned the right to be heard, WE have contributed disproportionately to success of this country. One may wonder who is included in that WE that has contributed so much to the success of America. Is he referring to his client and close friend Jeffrey Epstein who pimped under-aged girls for the elites? Does Dershowitz WE include Alan Greenspan who led the country to class genocide? Or perhaps his WE denotes all those Wall Street Jewish bankers, like the Goldmans Sachs and the Soroses – those who, on a daily basis, gamble on the American future and the global economy. And almost certainly, Dershowitz WE includes Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson who have managed to reduce American politics into merely an internal Zionist affair. Dont get me wrong, there is no doubt that some Jews have contributed greatly to Americas culture, science, finance and so one. Yet, the notion of the Jewish WE, which Dershowitz is here pushing, is highly problematic and must be questioned. While it is obvious that the Saban and Adelson lobbies for Israel and Jewish interests subscribe to Dershowitz WE, it is far from clear whether the likes of Philip Roth have been contributing to American literature as an ordinary American or whether he also is part of the Dershowitz WE. It didnt take the old ethnic-cleansing enthusiast long to deliver his punch line.Never ever apologize for using our (Jewish) strength and influence in the interest of peace. Considering Dershowitz role as an advocate of wars and an apologist for a criminal state, I was perplexed by his pronouncement. I asked myself, Who are those Jews who so use their strength and influence in the interest of peace? Is it the Neocon school aka The Project for the New American Century, an immoral interventionist global-Zionist collective that managed to pull America and the entire West into a global war with no end? Or maybe it is the pacifist Albert Einstein who practically launched the Manhattan Project and introduced our planet to the imminent danger of eradication? Or perhaps Dershowitz is referring to Sidney Blumenthal who enthusiastically lobbied Secretary of State Clinton into a Libyan imperial intervention while he himself invested in the rebuilding of that state. Or is it the Jewish lobby that pushes constantly for intervention in Syria and war with Iran? Id better admit that Im not aware of many Jews who genuinely use their influence in the interest of peace, but when such Jews do appear, Alan Dershowitz is always the first to throw mud at them – as Norman Finkelstein and Richard Falk can testify. Like Dershowitz, I dont think Jews should apologize for the crimes of their state – Im not sure such an apology would mean anything at all. I dont know whether Jews should apologize for their power – for Greenspan, Wolfowitz, Madoff or Dershowitz – again, such an act would mean very little. But I do think that whenever you see or hear Dershowitz spreading his lies, calling for wars or celebrating his usual legalist, non-ethical symptoms, bear in mind that he is a spokesperson for the Jewish national project. Everything that is wrong with choseness and tribal supremacy is personified in this man. As such, Alan Dershowitz is a valuable window into the heart of Jerusalem, there to remind us how painful the flight from Athens has been. But at the same time, the rejection of Dershowitz and everything he stands for is for the Western mind, a homecoming, a key to Athens, a return to forever. Subscribe via RSS or Email:

Fair Usage Law

March 9, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Trump’s New Immigration Order More Likely to Survive … – Fox Business

President Trump signed a revised executive order on immigration on Monday, which was designed to avoid the legal challenges that prohibited his first controversial order from being carried out. The new order, which takes effect on March 16, bars citizens in six Muslim-majority nations from entering the U.S. for 90 days, but does not ban citizens from Iraq as the first did. Administration officials told reporters yesterday Iraq made necessary changes to improve their vetting process, but critics continue to call the new order a Muslim ban. Despite this, Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor emeritus, told the FOX Business Network that the new order is more likely to survive constitutional attacks. From a view of constitutionality, Dershowitz said, they have dotted their Is, they crossed their Ts [and] they will probably prevail in court proceedings. In his opinion, taking religion out was the most important change made to the executive order. Continue Reading Below ADVERTISEMENT They didnt have a special exception for minority religions, which was perceived as discriminating in favor of Christians, he said. They made it clear that administrators can give case-by-case preference but it would have to be based not on somebody being a Christian, but on being a minority religious person. Even so, Dershowitz pointed out that the order would still face opposition within some states. I guarantee you that the attorneys general of Washington and Minnesota and New York are up and burning the midnight candles trying to figure out how to challenge this in court.

Fair Usage Law

March 9, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Acting AG ‘Made a Political Decision, Rather Than …

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER On Mondays broadcast of CNNs OutFront, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz reacted to Acting Attorney General Sally Yates announcement that the DOJ will not present arguments in defense of President Trumps immigration order by saying Yates made a serious mistake and has made a political decision, rather than a legal one. SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER Dershowitz said, Yates is a terrific public servant, but I think shes made a serious mistake here. This is a holdover heroism. Its so easy to be a heroine when youre not appointed by this president and when youre on the other side. She made a serious mistake. I think what she should have done is done a nuanced analysis of what parts of the order are constitutional, what parts are in violation of the statute, what parts are perfectly lawful. Theres an enormous distinction between green card holders on the one hand, people who are in the country and have to be thrown out on the second hand, and people who are simply applying to get visas. There is also a distinction between whats constitutional, whats statutorily prohibited, whats bad policy. This is very bad policy, but whats lawful. And I think by lumping all of them together, she has made a political decision, rather than a legal one. He added, I think its some of its constitutional, some of its not constitutional. For example, there is a statute that limits the presidents power, and says that visas may not be denied on the basis of religion. Is that statute constitutional, or is it a claim on presidential authority? These are very complicated legal issues, and people shouldnt jump into them. You know, we have a hobby in this country, if you dont like something, you assume its unconstitutional. Dershowitz stated Trump should just ignore Yates and ask the court to appoint a special defense attorney to defend the order, because the president has a right to have his actions defended. If Im a judge, Im going to say some of the statutes unconstitutional, as it applies to green card holders, as it applies maybe to people who are in the country, but maybe not so much as it applies to people who are seeking visas, but may be in violation of a statute. These are hard questions, and we shouldnt be treating them with a blunderbuss. We should be treating them with a scalpel. He concluded, You respond to Twitter with nuance, and thats why I think Sally Yates made a mistake. She played into his hands, instead of responding in an intelligent, sophisticated, calibrated way. Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Fair Usage Law

March 6, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Trump’s Obama Accusations Could Prove a ‘Self-Inflicted Wound’ – Newsmax

President Donald Trump’s tweets accusing former President Barack Obama of having phones tapped at Trump Towerin October could prove to be a “self-inflicted wound” should proof surface that a court found probable cause to issue a warrant ordering the surveillance, legal expert Alan Dershowitz said Saturday. “If there was wiretapping, there would have to be a record [ordering it], the Harvard Law School professor emeritus told Newsmax. “On foreigners, you don’t need a warrant, but an authorization on a private citizen requires a probable cause affidavit.” Saturday morning, Trump leveled his accusations with a flurry of tweets shortly after dawn, after a series of leaks revealed communications between Russian officials and his senior aides, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump has often denied personal ties to the Kremlin, despite his praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership skills, and his aides have either denied or played down their own contacts with Russia, responding to a series of accusations stemming from leaked communications. Dershowitz said it would have been legal for the Obama administration to plant wiretaps on the Russian side of such phone communications, but to set up wiretaps in Trump Tower would require legal authorization based on a probable cause warrant. There has also been a great deal of talk concerning Obama’s executive order authorizing the National Security agency to share raw communications with intelligence agencies including the FBI, the DEA, and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, there has been talk about the Justice Department and FBI, under Obama, seeking Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Trump campaign insiders and then-presidential candidate Trump himself during the final months of the presidential campaign. The FISA court denied the application as being overbroad when it was initially submitted in June, but approved a more narrowed one in October, the same month Trump alleges the wiretaps in his offices occurred. However, Dershowitz said that even the FISA authorization would not have come into play when it comes to authorization to wiretap Trump Tower, as Trump has alleged, as it would instead have covered communications made by a foreign country. Dershowitz said he once himself “got a postcard” that his voice was picked up on a wiretapped conversation with a foreign source, but years later, when he got a record of the communications, his own side of the conversation was redacted. Even though there would have had to have been an official authorization, and court records authorizing the alleged wiretaps, he continued, the matter does have to be taken seriously in the event that “rogue wiretappers” could have bugged Trump’s private lines at Trump Tower. But just going by Trump’s comments, he said, “there is no way Obama could wiretap Trump Tower.” There was speculation on Saturday that Trump posted the tweets to deflect attention away from Sessions, who is facing calls to step down from several Democrats who accuse him of perjuring himself before a Senate confirmation hearing about his own contacts with Russians. However, Dershowitz said that the Sessions matter could be cleared up if he testifies before the Senate again and corrects and clarifies his initial statements. The famed attorney also does not believe Sessions committed perjury, and said that if he were representing Sessions, he’d recommend that he return to Congress, testify under oath, and correct what he’d said. Perjury is difficult to prove, he continued, as there must be evidence that a person “willfully and deliberately” lied. The questions posed by Sen. Al Franken were vague, he said and it would be difficult to prove Sessions lied based on them. Dershowitz said he also does not believe Sessions should step down from office, even though the accusations and his decision to recuse himself from investigations concerning Trump’s campaign staff have “damaged” him, and he may have to recuse himself from more proceedings moving forward. “It is important that his deputy attorney general be strong and effective,” said Dershowitz, as he will likely be called upon to take on more cases. 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Fair Usage Law

March 5, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz to bring baseball history to the courtroom – Page Six

Alan Dershowitz to bring baseball history to the courtroom Page Six Alan Dershowitz will bring a prop to the US Supreme Court a 1947 Brooklyn Dodgers National League Championship ring. The Brooklyn-born lawyer who was 9 that year, rooting for rookie Jackie Robinson and his teammates bought the ring last fall … Philip Shawe Launches the $100000 Law Student Scholarship Competition to Examine TransPerfect Delaware Case … Yahoo Finance all 3 news articles »

Fair Usage Law

March 2, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Keith Ellison Defeated by His Own Actions, Not Any Smear – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Photo Credit: Ellison/Center for American Progress; Farrakhan/Smithsonian Institute The close vote by the Democratic National Committee to reject Keith Ellison as its chairperson was a victory for basic decency, and a defeat for the kind of bigotry represented by Ellisons past associations with Louis Farrakhan and his current voting record against Israels Iron Dome. Ellisons loss is not attributable to any smear campaign, as some of his supporters have falsely alleged, but rather to his own actions, both past and present. Would anyone call it a smear if a candidates history of sexism, racism or homophobia had been exposed? Why, then, is it a smear to have raised questions based on Ellisons past associations with antisemitism and his current anti-Israel voting record? Nor was it a smear to question Ellisons credibility when he said that he was not aware that Farrakhan was an antisemite, asFarrakhan himself was publicly boasting about his Jew-hatred. The smear charge itself reflects the kind of double standard within elements of the Democratic Party that worry centrist pro-Israel voters. Both Democrats and Republicans alike must have the same zero tolerance for antisemitism as they do for sexism, racism and homophobia. The growing influence of intolerant hard-Left extremists endangers both our country and the Democratic Party. Democrats must recognize the reality that the United States is not a hard-Left country. Unlike some European countries, we have never had significant Communist or socialist parties. Nor are we a hard-Right country witha history of fascist parties. We govern from the center, alternating centrist liberals, such as Obama and Clinton, with centrist conservatives like the Bushes and Reagan. When the Democrats tried to move leftward, even with such moderate Leftists as McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis, they have been overwhelmingly defeated. The combined electoral votes of these three leftist candidates would not have been enough to win a single election. The Republicans experienced similar rejection when they went to the far-Right of their party and nominated Barry Goldwater. Had Sanders won the Democratic nomination, he would have won no more than a handful of states. It is far easier for the hard-Left fringe of the Democrats to win primaries and conduct loud demonstrations than to win national or state wide elections. If the Democratic Party fails to understand this reality, it will emulate the British Labour Party, which rejected the kind of moderate liberal leadership represented by Tony Blair in favor of the extreme leftist Jeremy Corbyn. The Corbyn-led Labour Party is popular among left-wing extremists, but today it could not be competitive in a national election. Nor would the Democrats be competitive if they allow themselves to be taken over by the Sanders fringe. Great Britain has a far greater proportion of hard-Left voters than the United States, yet, even there, the radical Corbyn Left cannot attract enough voters to be competitive, even in the post Brexit environment. It would be worse much worse for America ifDemocrats become the party of the extreme Left. Those who believe that Democrats can win by attracting the kind of hard-Left radicals who voted for Green Party candidates such as Jill Stein or Ralph Nader are blinking reality. The Democrats could never nominate a winning candidate far-Left enough for those hard-Left ideologues to abandon their extremist candidates extremists like Susan Sarandon who seemedto believethat voting forTrump wouldhasten the revolution, during whichthings will really explode (in Sarandons words). Nor can the Democrats win by emulating the tactics of the Republican Party. The Tea Party did move the Republicans to the right by their uncompromising and obstructionist approach. But the United States has more tolerance unfortunately, in my view for rightward movement (as long as its not too extreme) than the Democrats have for leftward movement. The current leadership of the Democratic Party is reacting short term to a long-term problem. It is responding to the loudest, shrillest and most demanding voices voices that are hardly representative of the tens of millions of voters itwill need toremain competitive in upcoming races. The Democrats can win only by regaining their traditional base among the working class RustBelt voters they lost to Trump. These voters will never support the kind of radical leftist candidates promoted by the Keith Ellison-wing of the party. Ellisons appointment as DNCdeputy to Tom Perezs chairmanship elevated unity over principle. His past history and current voting record should have disqualified him for any office within the Democratic Party. But despite that unfortunate appointment, I will remain in the Democratic Party and work from within to move it back to its vibrant liberal center and away from its radical fringe. I will also work to maintain bipartisan support for Israel and against efforts by the hard-Left to abandon the only democracy in the Middle East. It will be a daunting task but it is worth the effort. We won the fight against Ellison, though it was close. We must continue to win if the Democratic Party is to remain competitive.

Fair Usage Law

March 2, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."