Breaking: Explosion Reported at Boston Marathon's Finish Line

[Magda Hassan]

Yes, I expect there is some help from family and friends...and quite possibly some friends in high places...

[David Guyatt]

Death penalty lawyer Clarke 'humanizes' client and jury

/snip

Last week, at a forum at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, Clarke delivered the keynote address, explaining that her job was to convince reluctant clients that opting for prison was better than choosing a death sentence.

I thought a lawyer for the defense was meant to defend against the charges?
Is she some sort of lawyer who buries inconvenient people away for the state with out looking at the rest of the evidence? I don't know any thing about her but this just seems odd to me.

There is no evidence that Tsarnaev, a naturalized U.S. citizen and a student at the University of Massachusetts, suffered from psychological problems.

There is little evidence that I have seen available publicly that he had much to do with the bombing either.

If you can get your clients to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser punishment, you wave farewell to a trial and erase all those associated prospects of airing conflicting information. Even to a captured and compliant MSM this would present a problem, with this being such a high profile case.,

[Dawn Meredith]

Death penalty lawyer Clarke 'humanizes' client and jury

/snip

Last week, at a forum at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, Clarke delivered the keynote address, explaining that her job was to convince reluctant clients that opting for prison was better than choosing a death sentence.

I thought a lawyer for the defense was meant to defend against the charges?
Is she some sort of lawyer who buries inconvenient people away for the state with out looking at the rest of the evidence? I don't know any thing about her but this just seems odd to me.

There is no evidence that Tsarnaev, a naturalized U.S. citizen and a student at the University of Massachusetts, suffered from psychological problems.

There is little evidence that I have seen available publicly that he had much to do with the bombing either.

If you can get your clients to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser punishment, you wave farewell to a trial and erase all those associated prospects of airing conflicting information. Even to a captured and compliant MSM this would present a problem, with this being such a high profile case.,

It will be quite interesting to see how this is handled. He allegedly "confessed" in the hospital, to the police. But this was pre- Miranda. Was he "in custody"? Well he was certainly not free to leave. So, if in custody the confession is out in a NORMAL case. (No Miranda, motion to suppress trumps). Of course this case is so far from normal. And of course they will argue that he was NOT in custody therefore the "confession" was voluntary, not a result of custodial interrogation. He was handcuffed to the damn bed so I don't know under what legal theory they can argue that it was not custody. Personally I don't buy that there was a confession. But I am sure they will have one all typed up that he "signed".
And his lawyer will get him to plead to "save his life." We all know how these cases go.
Dawn

[Albert Doyle]

The new rule in America is a glow of Americanism from a mob that dominates with conventional wisdom. All brokered by our new CNN government.

On CNN this morning (which I don't watch unless there's something like the Boston event) they had lawyers on who were outraged at the women being chained in a cellar. Funny those same people showed no such similar outrage at Bush's torture cellars.


That happy crowd can also be called the "grand old party".

[David Guyatt]

From Voltaire Network

Paul Craig Roberts
An economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the "Father of Reaganomics". He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, among others. He has recently published How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds and is coauthor with Lawrence Stratton of The New Color Line and The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

You Are The Hope

by Paul Craig Roberts

A plea issued to his readers by one of the most authoritative voices in the United States, as he sees his country hurtling towards a Gestapo police state.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | 8 MAY 2013

If there is hope, dear readers, you are it.


You are motivated to find truth.


You can think outside the box. You can see through propaganda.


You are the remnant with the common sense that once was a common American virtue. You come to this site, because you get explanations that are not agenda-driven, that are not BS, that are not right-wing or left-wing, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. You get explanations based on my lifetime of unique education and experience. Some of you are young enough to be equipped with the energy and courage to organize whatever resistance there may be to the Gestapo State that is descending on the United States of America.


Until the George W. Bush Regime, I never thought that it could happen here. I could not imagine law professors and Department of Justice (sic) officials writing legal memos justifying, in the name of a hyped "war on terror," the termination of civil rights for United States Citizens. We were the land of the free. The Constitution was our bedrock. Yet, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were easily taken away from the inattentive American people.


The Constitution did not protect native inhabitants and slaves who were not considered part of the American population, but the universal suppression in the US of non-whites' rights produced in the end the civil rights movement that brought moral awareness of the wrongs and successfully hitched its cause to the founding documents of the country.


Where today is moral awareness as Washington bombs civilian populations around the globe? Where is the moral conscience of the civil rights movement as the First Black President, the first member of the oppressed class to sit in the Oval Office, validates the Bush Regime's assertion of the right of the unaccountable executive to ignore habeas corpus and due process? Not satisfied with this crime, Obama asserted the right of the executive branch to murder any citizen suspected, without proof being offered to a court, of undefined "support of terrorism." Today all Americans have fewer rights than blacks had prior to the Civil Rights Act.


Anything, including a column critical of war and the police state, can be declared to be "in support of terrorism." As the tyrant Bush put it: "You are with us, or you are against us."


The print and TV media and many Internet sites got the message: Serve Washington's agenda, and will you will prosper. Advertisers and the CIA will pump money into your coffers. Challenge us and you will be demonized and could face a military tribunal, indefinite detention, or assassination. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are being persecuted for telling the truth.


So far, Washington has convinced the public that Washington's terror is mainly limited to Muslims, who are obligingly demonized by print, TV, and much of the Internet media. However, if Muslim American citizens lack civil liberty, so do all other American citizens. Those who are safe are those who ally with the tyrant and remain subservient.


To ally with the tyrant, a United States citizen must have no moral conscience, no sense of justice, no compassion for the innocent and dispossessed. These are the worst kind of Americans; yet, they are the only ones who can succeed in the present environment.


Every time I write a column that is the truth or the truth as I am able to discover it, instead of hawking the propaganda line, I move up on the list of those who are persona non grata in the Empire.


A writer can find himself demonized and declared a kook simply by reporting findings from distinguished scientists, high-rise architects, structural engineers, first responders, and an international collection of high government officials. Not too long ago a writer or reporter for the Huffington Post discovered to his surprise that Pat Buchanan and I disagreed with all the wars that had been launched to protect us from terrorism. He asked me for an interview, and I agreed.


An hour or so after the interview was posted on the Huffington Post, I received an emergency call or email. He had been criticized for interviewing me, "for giving you a forum when you are a 9/11 sceptic." He was unsure that it was possible for a Reagan presidential appointee to be a 9/11 sceptic and asked if I was.


I replied that I had reported the findings of scientists, architects, engineers, and the public testimony of first responders, because I thought these were qualified people whose opinions at least ranked equally with the politicians on the 9/11 Commission and the talking heads on Fox "News" and CNN, none of whom could pass a high school test in the laws of physics, much less high-rise architecture and structural engineering.


The Huffington Post writer panicked. Instead of taking down the interview, he felt impelled to assure readers and his boss that he had been deceived. He wrote at the beginning and ending of the interview that he did not know he was interviewing someone about the Iraq War who had given ink to those conspiracy theorists who raised questions about the truthfulness of the US government. He wrote that my views on the wars should be disregarded, because I wrote that scientists, architects, engineers, and first responders provided evidence contrary to the government's claims.


And there you have it.


The Huffington Post has far more readers than I do, and far more money. There is no limit on the ability of the Huffington Post to tell and sell the lies of the Agenda.


I can remember when I was a Wall Street Journal editor and columnist, a Business Week columnist, a Scripps Howard News Service columnist and appeared regularly in the major mainstream print media and even from time to time on TV talking head programs. Today, the editor or producer who gave me a forum would be fired instantly, and they all know it.


It is discouraging that after so many transparent lies and orchestrationsweapons of mass destruction, al-Qaeda connections, Iranian nukesthe majority of Americans still believe the government. Americans are even buying into the line that Syria is ruled by a brutal dictator whose overthrow justifies Washington's alliance with its 9/11 enemy, al-Qaeda, in order to overthrow a secular ruler who constrains al-Qaeda.


Washington has come full circle. Its enemy is now its ally. Washington wasted trillions of dollars and countless lives in eleven years of war and constructed a domestic police state all in order to combat al Qaeda with whom Washington is now allied against the Syrian government.


The public's response to the Boston Marathon Bombing is even more discouraging. Not even King George and his Redcoats could achieve what Homeland Security just pulled offlocking down 100 square miles of Boston and its suburbs with heavily armed troops tramping through citizens' homes barking harsh orders, all justified by a hunt for one 19-year old suspect. It was the Third Reich's Gestapo in operation right here in "freedom and democracy" America. Ron Paul is correct that the suspension of civil liberty is a greater threat than the bombing. Note the government's euphemism for martial law"shelter-in-place."


Two brothers have been convicted in the media and by the Obama Regime, including the president's own words, of a bombing without the public ever being presented with any evidence except anonymous unattributed reports and a film of the alleged brothers walking with backpacks, which were ubiquitous.


I am old enough to remember when it was impermissible for government and media to convict a person prior to the jury's verdict. Americans once lived in a free country governed by the rule of law in which a person was innocent until proven guilty.


What was the reason or evidence for naming the brothers suspects? Was any reason given, or was the film of the two walking with backpacks simply shown over and over, hour after hour, day after day, with the media reporting that these are the suspects. In other words, was it beat into your brain that they were suspects because there they are in the film? If not, why was the same film shown repeatedly? Fox "News" was still showing the film on April 26, eleven days after the bombing and might still be showing it. Did you experience: "Here are the suspects. See them. They have backpacks. See. We know that they are suspects, because, see, there they are."


When is the last time the media investigated anything? A good candidate for investigation is the post-bombing rampage the brothers allegedly went on, robbing a 7/11 store (later contradicted by local police), killing a campus policeman, shooting a transit cop, high-jacking a SUV and releasing the owner.


Why would terrorists seeking to escape in order to strike again call attention to themselves in such outlandish ways and release a car-jacked owner to alert the police of the tag number? If the brothers were willing to kill police with gunfire and innocents with bombs, why release the guy whose vehicle they stole so he could inform the police of the license plate and make the brothers' capture easier? What is the evidence, other than "reports from authorities," that these events occurred or had any more connection to the brothers than the falsely reported 7/11 robbery that local police disavowed? Why does the US media simply accept whatever government authorities say?


Where is the evidence of a first shoot-out and a second shoot-out? The second shoot- out consisted of the authorities bombarding a motionless youth bleeding from wounds in a boat with multiple volleys of stun grenades and then multiple gunshots. The unconscious 19 year old was unarmed and unable to respond to the boat owner who discovered him. As he lies there, he is shot many times, including through the throat, and is on life support. But the very next day, according to the presstitute media, he is providing hand-written confessions.


Was the purpose of the reports of a murderous rampage to create fear among the population so that they would accept martial law and home invasions by armed troops ordering American citizens out of their homes with hands over their heads on the pretext that they might be harboring the Boston Marathon Bomber?


The videos of the street celebration in which Bostonians thank the police and of the two Boston families, if not scripted by actors, shows Americans who far from opposing the police state welcome it. A father says that he with his daughter in his arms was forced out of his home by troops pointing automatic rifles at their heads, but that he was thankful for the safety the police provided him by violating every civil right that the Constitution gave him. A woman says it was scary but that "the police are just doing their jobs." Are Americans now so brainwashed that they attribute their safety to the presence of a Gestapo Police State?


Why have detention facilities been built? Why did Homeland Security purchase a billion or more rounds of ammunition? Why does Homeland Security have 2,700 tanks and a para-military force? Why aren't these questions being investigated?


The US Constitution is the product of 900 years of human efforts to restrain brutal government and to make government subject to law. It only took Bush and Obama eleven years to get rid of it.


Paul Craig Roberts

[Adele Edisen]

Magda said the following in Dawn's Post #483, above, referring to Lawyer Judy Clarke:

I thought a lawyer for the defense was meant to defend against the charges?
Is she some sort of lawyer who buries inconvenient people away for the state with out looking at the rest of the evidence? I don't know any thing about her but this just seems odd to me.

Magda, From what I have read of Judy Clarke, she has taken on some unusual cases where the evidence was ovewhelming in terms of the guilt of the defendant, and the death penalty would have been dealt. She has managed to save their lives and her motive is her opposition to the death penalty. In such cases she might have to try to convince the defendant to change their plea. There is a current case in Arizona where the young woman was found quilty of killing her boyfriend, and she has said that she prefers death to living out her life in prison. Judy Clarke is not her attorney, but if she were, she would argue the sentencing to be life in prison and try to have her accept such. Sentencing procedures will begin today in this case.

That does not mean that Judy Clarke would not defend her client on the basis of innocence, but in the case of the younger brother, he has been accused of a crime which in many US laws would bring a sentence of death. He is very lucky to have her as a defense attorney.

Keeping a defendant alive would allow an appeal or retrial later on, if that the decision of guilt had been in error. Putting a person to death is not justice, and as we have found out that many innocent people in the US have been executed in error. There has been a movement by some states to remove the death penalty all together, which I personally find to be a sign of progress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biography of Judy Clarke, from Wikipedia:

Judy Clarke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judy Clarke

Born
1952 (age 6061)
Asheville, North Carolina

Education
B.A. Furman University, 1974
J.D. University of South Carolina, 1977

Occupation
Attorney

Spouse(s)
Thomas H. Speedy Rice

Website
jcsrlaw.net

Judy Clarke (born 1952)[1] is an American criminal defense attorney who practices law in San Diego, California and has served as appointed counsel in many high-profile cases throughout the United States. Clarke has previously served as President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.[2][3] She also serves as a Professor of Practice at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Virginia.[4]

According to the Associated Press, "[s]he is one of the top lawyers in the country for defendants facing prominent death penalty cases, having represented clients such as 'Unabomber' Ted Kaczynski and Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph. She has a reputation for working out plea deals that spare defendants the death penalty, as was the case for Rudolph and Kaczynski."[5] Clarke has also represented convicted Islamic terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui and child murderer Susan Smith, among others.[6] However, contrary to claims made by the Associated Press, Clarke was not involved in the legal representation of Timothy McVeigh, the executed perpetrator of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.[7] She has helped several high-profile defendants avoid capital punishment.[8] She's considered a "master strategist in death penalty cases" and opposes capital punishment.[8] Clarke returned to South Carolina the $82,944 fee approved by the trial judge for her defense of Susan Smith, so that the funds could be used to defend other indigent defendants charged with crimes.[8]

On January 10, 2011, the United States district court in Phoenix, Arizona assigned Clarke as defense counsel to Jared Lee Loughner, the perpetrator of the January 8, 2011 Tucson, Arizona shooting.[6] The Phoenix Public Defenders' Office had requested that Clarke be retained in order to allow Loughner to receive competent counsel without the possibility of a community-wide conflict of interest arising from proceedings against him for his alleged role in the shooting.[9] On August 7, 2012, Clarke brokered a deal sparing Loughner's life in exchange for a guilty plea to 19 counts, including the wounding of then congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. On April 29, 2013, Clarke was appointed to the defense team working with suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.[10]

References [edit]

1.^ Judy Clarke profile, The Washington Post, retrieved 2011-01-11.
2.^ Judy Clarke Elected First Public Defender President, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, August 13, 1996
3.^ "Judy Clarke - Professor of Practice". Washington and Lee University. 2011-01-10. Retrieved 2011-01-10.
4.^ O'Neill, Ann (2011-01-12). "Lawyer keeps even the most loathed criminals off death row". CNN.com. Turner Broadcasting System. Archived from the original on 2011-01-12. Retrieved 2011-01-12.
5.^ Billeaud, Jacques (2011-01-24) Jared Loughner Pleads Not Guilty In Arizona Shooting, Associated Press
6.^ a b "Judy Clarke, who defended the 'Unabomber,' will defend Jared Lee Loughner". AOL News. 2011-01-10. Retrieved 2011-01-10. Text "main5" ignored (help); Text "dl2" ignored (help); Text "sec2_lnk3" ignored (help); Text "35623/ " ignored (help)
7.^ "Correction: Congresswoman Shot Stories". MSNBC. 2011-01-12. Retrieved 2011-01-18.
8.^ a b c Glaberson, William (January 10, 2011). "A Defender Who's no Stranger to High -Profile Cases". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-01-11.
9.^ "Famed 'Unabomber' lawyer Judy Clarke may defend Tucson shooting suspect". New York Daily News. 2011-01-10. Retrieved 2011-01-10.
10.^ http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-...62890.html

External links [edit]
Judy Clarke at Washington and Lee University School of Law
History at Federal Defenders of San Diego Inc.
Judy Clarke: Jared Loughner's 'Amazing' Attorney

Adele

[Adele Edisen]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...ed-162890.html

Court appoints Jared Loughner's defense attorney for accused Boston bomber
By JOSH GERSTEIN |
4/29/13 5:34 PM EDT

Accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has a new lawyer: a member of the defense team for Jared Loughner, the man convicted of killing six people at an outreach event for then-Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) in 2011.

In an order filed Monday afternoon, federal magistrate Marianne Bowler appointed Judy Clarke of San Diego to join three federal public defenders from Boston assigned to Tsarnaev's case. Bowler noted Clarke's extensive experience in death penalty cases and the potential that prosecutors could seek the death penalty against Tsarnaev.

"In light of the circumstances in this case, the defendant requires an attorney with more background, knowledge and experience in federal death penalty cases than that possessed by current counsel," Bowler wrote in her five-page order (posted here).

The addition of Clarke to Tsarnaev's defense is sure to fuel speculation that Clarke will seek to do for the Boston bombing suspect what she helped to do for Loughner: negotiate a guilty plea and sentence of life in prison in exchange for prosecutors agreeing not to seek the death penalty. That task seems harder in a high-profile case where the crime generated widespread public anger and outrage. But Clarke has done just that in other cases.

"They're looking into the lens of life in prison in a box," Clarke said of her clients in a recent speech, according to the Associated Press. "Our job is to provide them with a reason to live."

The Boston federal defenders had also asked to add another defense lawyer, David Bruck of Washington & Lee University Law School in Lexington, Va., but Bowler rejected that requestat least for now. "An additional attorney at this time is neither necessary nor required," she wrote. The magistrate said Clarke had more federal death penalty experience and should be adequate to the task at least until an indictment is filed in the case.

Adele

[Peter Lemkin]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...ed-162890.html

Court appoints Jared Loughner's defense attorney for accused Boston bomber
By JOSH GERSTEIN |
4/29/13 5:34 PM EDT

Accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has a new lawyer: a member of the defense team for Jared Loughner, the man convicted of killing six people at an outreach event for then-Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) in 2011.

In an order filed Monday afternoon, federal magistrate Marianne Bowler appointed Judy Clarke of San Diego to join three federal public defenders from Boston assigned to Tsarnaev's case. Bowler noted Clarke's extensive experience in death penalty cases and the potential that prosecutors could seek the death penalty against Tsarnaev.

"In light of the circumstances in this case, the defendant requires an attorney with more background, knowledge and experience in federal death penalty cases than that possessed by current counsel," Bowler wrote in her five-page order (posted here).

The addition of Clarke to Tsarnaev's defense is sure to fuel speculation that Clarke will seek to do for the Boston bombing suspect what she helped to do for Loughner: negotiate a guilty plea and sentence of life in prison in exchange for prosecutors agreeing not to seek the death penalty. That task seems harder in a high-profile case where the crime generated widespread public anger and outrage. But Clarke has done just that in other cases.

"They're looking into the lens of life in prison in a box," Clarke said of her clients in a recent speech, according to the Associated Press. "Our job is to provide them with a reason to live."

The Boston federal defenders had also asked to add another defense lawyer, David Bruck of Washington & Lee University Law School in Lexington, Va., but Bowler rejected that requestat least for now. "An additional attorney at this time is neither necessary nor required," she wrote. The magistrate said Clarke had more federal death penalty experience and should be adequate to the task at least until an indictment is filed in the case.

Adele

Sinister on the face of it...but it will escape notice of most People and all of the MSM. Another mini-Coup accomplished, I fear....one more step toward the total Police State. No trial [or only one to plea bargain or admit limited capacity, etc. will deny everyone the evidence and the Truth....exactly what those in power want.] Adele, while your point that keeping someone from death row and death may allow a future trial, I think those future trials almost by legal precedent will not allow anything but 'technical legal issues' - not the evidence as we commonly think of it [evidence and proof of guilt v. evidence and proof of innocence]. Seems like a specialty lawyer to me....more likely on the side of the prosecutor and those who might have pulled off the potential false-flag operation than the client, is am inclined to suspect.

[Albert Doyle]

Right. An in-house government lawyer to hermetically seal the internal nature of the process. No external evidence will ever penetrate and no non-approved legal defense will ever be made. Just like in Germany. All done by a woman lawyer who sells herself as a brave example of the right to representation for persons no one wants to represent.

[Albert Doyle]

CNN's Fareed Zakaria spoke to CIA's Michael Hayden today. The Boston bombing has opened an opportunity for CIA to launch a new round of filthy self-serving propaganda. The 30 seconds I watched allowed me to see Hayden trying to look reasonable and remind himself of his obligation to the American public in relation to his protection of the company. Zakaria then read a stiff passage about CIA being good guys who haven't done "enhanced interrogations" (war crime torture) since 2006. (They don't need to in our new NSA-wired Stasi grid)

Why are these Kennedy-killing Nazis allowed to appear on American television? They are the rats infesting the marble halls of our democracy and need to be eradicated.