And Justice For All

Justice in a time of madness must, of necessity, be garbled through the funhouse mirror of legal rationalization and the beloved kinds of sophistry that Aristophanes parodied so savagely 2430 years ago ... this year! (Watch for our Special Anniversary Sale!)

'Taint nothing new. But that makes it no less obscene.

105 years ago this October, Ida Craddock, a 45-year-old author, wrote a famous suicide note that is, in all its particulars, an astonishing miscarriage of justice, using the time-honored trick of ... oh. That would be telling.

http://www.idacraddock.org/public.html

Room 5, No. 134 West 23D St., New York, Oct. 16, 1902.

To the Public:

I am taking my life, because a judge, at the instigation of Anthony Comstock, has decreed me guilty of a crime which I did not commit--the circulation of obscene literature--and has announced his intention of consigning me to prison for a long term ...

Ms. Craddock revealed the time-honored "trick" that the judge used, in her own words:

On Friday last, October 10, I underwent what was supposed to be a fair and impartial trial by jury; but which was really a most unfair trial, before a thoroughly partisan judge, at the close of which he abolished my right of trial by jury on the main question at issue, namely the alleged obscenity of "The Wedding Night" book. My counsel was not permitted to present in evidence circulars which showed that as far back as 1898 and 1899, I was accustomed to state in print that any applicants for oral instruction upon marriage who were under 21 would have to produce written consent from a parent or a guardian. My evidence was almost wholly choked off; neither my counsel nor myself was permitted to endeavor to justify the book by argument. The most the judge would do was to permit me to read from various paragraphs in the book, without comment, if these could explain the indicted paragraphs. Even with this tiny bit of a chance, I made such good use of my opportunity before the jury, that Judge Thomas, who was evidently prejudiced in advance against both myself and my book, saw that he dared not now risk the case to the jury, or he might not manage to convict me after all. And so he announced that he himself intended to pass upon the character of the book. He stated that there is in existence a decision of the United States Supreme Court which gives him this right.

He said he would not let the question go to the jury; he considered the book "obscene, lewd, lascivious, dirty." He added that he would submit to the jury only the question of fact. Did the defendant mail the book? (The charge was "mailing an obscene book.") He said, "Gentlemen of the Jury, the question for you to pass upon is, Did the defendant mail the book? You know that she admits having mailed the book. Please render your verdict. I do not suppose you will care to leave your seats." And the poor little cowed jury could do nothing but to meekly obey the behest of this unrighteous judge, and to pass in their ballots, "Guilty of mailing the book." Which, of course, was no crime at all.

I fully expected that the public press of New York city would duly chronicle this most remarkable invasion of the rights of the people by such an abolishing of the trial by jury; but so far as I could learn, the press remained totally silent....

The judge had neatly removed the REASON for the trial from the trial (i.e. was Ida Craddock guilty of obscenity for having mailed a copy of her marital manual THE WEDDING NIGHT to a Comstock operative in a "sting" operation?) and the only question was ... was she guilty of mailing?

I bring this up because I heard the same thing this morning, an early judicial celebration of the anniversary of the lawful persecution unto death of Ida Craddock, perhaps. (In lieu of an Anniversary Sale).

At least the press has not been as silent this time.

Here from the Guardian [UK] wire story on the Seattle trial of Lieutenant Ehren Watada, via South Africa. Take a long look across the Equator, back "up" at the good ol' Yew Ess Ay:

US officer goes on trial for speaking out
03 February 2007 11:10

On the eve of the United States's invasion of Iraq, he was heartsick at the prospect that he might not be military material. He even shelled out $800 for medical tests to convince the recruiters that he was fit for duty despite childhood asthma that would ordinarily render him ineligible for service.

On Monday, that same eager recruit, now Lieutenant Ehren Watada, faces a court martial for refusing to deploy to Iraq and for making public statements against the war. He is the first officer to be prosecuted for publicly criticising the war -- indeed the first since the Vietnam era when an army Lieutenant was court martialled for addressing an anti-war demonstration outside the US embassy in London. If he is convicted on all charges, Watada could spend four years in a military prison....

Yes. WE, the USA, insisted that the world establish, at the Nuremberg Trials, that soldiers are responsible for their actions, even if they were following orders. All basic training teaches that soldiers are lawfully required to refuse to obey illegal orders.

Ehren Watada refuses to return to Iraq because it is an illegal war, BY the standards that we ourselves set, and set in Law as signatories to the Geneva Conventions -- from earliest to latest -- by the UN Charter, and by our own laws on war crimes.

Lieutenant Watada is as unquestionably right about this obscene war and occupation of aggression as Ida Craddock was that foreplay was a good idea before (marital) sexual relations, and that her saying so was NOT obscene.

But take a moment to recognize the dulcet tones of that judicial echo of another age:

From, A Gazillion Newspapers, take your pick:

By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer
Sun Feb 4, 5:58 PM ET

SEATTLE - Denied a chance to debate the legality of the Iraq war in court, an Army officer who refused to go to Iraq now goes to trial hoping to at least minimize the amount of time he could serve if convicted.

[...]

[Watada's lawyer] Seitz unsuccessfully sought an opportunity to argue the legality of the war, saying it violated Army regulations that specify wars are to be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter. His final attempt was quashed last month when the military judge, Lt. Col. John Head, ruled Watada cannot base his defense on the war's legality. Head also rejected claims that Watada's statements were protected by the First Amendment....

The entire reason for his refusal to return to Iraq has been ruled, essentially, as irrelevant. Gee. Why does that sound SO damned familiar (and chilling) to me? Hmmmm.

Only two things remain. The first is to determine whether or not Lt. Watada mailed that obscene book. (There is no indication as to whether the Judge in question is, in fact, a kangaroo or any other hopping marsupial.)

And, secondly, we must remember this date with a Sale come next Anniversary.

Rest In Peace, Ida Craddock.

Rest In Peace, Rule of Law.

Rest In Peace, Aristophanes.

Courage.