|
9 . 2 9 . 0 6 It is strange to say that a government that considers itself a leader in the free world, any government that considers itself a democracy, or at the very least a free republic, can detain somebody indefinitely without ever charging that person with a crime. If a government has evidence that a person (domestic or foreign) has committed a crime or act of war, then that government should be able to ajudicate that person in front of a judge and have some kind of a hearing or trial to consider the merits of the charges brought forth. Written into American history is the idea that individuals should be allowed challenge the government to at a minimum state its case and proceed with some kind of legal process. Historically these rights of habeas corpus were seen as so fundamental that they have been extended beyond US citizens to include foreign nationals who have been caught, often in times of war in acts against the United States. It used to be taught that this is one of the many freedoms an principles that separated "us" the peaceful, freedom-loving democracy-promoting Americans from "them" the irrational, barbaric, freedom-hating nazi/commie/fascist/terrorist enemy. Americans are supposed to respect and value our own due process and civil liberties so much that we were willing to extend the basic levels of protections even to non-citizens. well, not anymore. Imagine being arrested and detained by a foreign government operating in your country and sentenced to sit, stand, or be tortured in your cell indefinitely. You may never be charged with any crime, you'll never have a chance to defend yourself, offer an explanation for your crime against that government, possibly never even hear or understand what it is that they're so pised about. Its the American version of the tower of london, the russian gulag. The more disturbing aspects is that the bill gives the president extremely broad powers to define what enemy combatant is, and even extend these provisions onto US citizens who purposefully and materially aided anti-US hostilities. In todays political and media climate this would be just speaking out against the president or the war. I'm feeling a bit like I did on the morning of 9-11, going to work at the courthouse and feeling a more than a little disillusioned about the legal process. At the time I was laying part of the foundation for my law school applications with real life work experiences in the field. I remember making copies of a criminal procedual appellate case, looking out at the dark overcast sky, remembering the TV images of the burning and tumbling building, people screaming and running, irrational AM radio talkshow hosts calling for war and revenge against whatever country or people were responsible for this. In the middle of all this I remember thinking that there was no point - all the protections, codified statutes, international treaties, empowered federal agencies, government and civil society for the matter, was not enough to protect us from an attack of that magnitute. Then combined with that was the realization that the immediate response to the attacks ran the risk of being as irrational and brash, so driven by fear and hatred that we might become our own worst enemy. Even if there were to never be another terrorist attack, another 9-11, it wouldn't matter since we'll just sign away our own civil liberties and principles away in the name of false promises of security. Everything that I was looking foward to studying, understanding, training, the rule of law is based on many foundational principles that we are supposed to have as Americans. It is all these things that are supposed to make us different, arguably a more just nation have been continually under attack. And in this election year it seems even more dangerous, as our elected officials will be more willing to sign away our rights as citizens, our principles as a nation, all in the name of security. job security come november. 9 . 2 2 . 0 6 Still plugging away at school and at work. Had some moments of inspiration when I had a chance to get really focused and engrossed in the material, something that I haven't had a chance to do realy since being at LaFollette. It is a good feeling, I can't help but feel inspired to exceed my expectations and push the envelope further. I guess I'm still working out the kinks in the night school schedule. Studying something as intensive as law is very time consuming, but I'm convinced that its worth the effort, blood and sweat, and sleepless nights. More random youtube clips this one is listed as being from the 2005 Okinawa Reggae fest there's a part in this clip where the performer addresses the crowd by saying something about Japanese and Okinawan girls - I'm thinking that he's kind of ripping on them. "Naichi" or Japanese he says, "Uchinanchu onna" Okinawan girls. Kind of wonder what all that is about. Inside jokes I'm sure, lost to me by way of translation. It is really neat, being able to browse recordings like this from all over the world, it kind of gives you some sense of an experience outside from the day to day life. 9 . 1 2 . 0 6 Two classes in a row in which I pretty much made ass of myself getting caught unprepared in the socratic method cold-call. Although I'm sure there are a lot of my classmates who are probably in a similar situation as me being that we're all working full time jobs and are juggling time to study and read, I have to admit that the public humilation factor of the socratic method is pretty brutal when you're the one being made a foolish example of. not fun at all. Some self reflection is probably due here - those who know me well would know that I can be pretty opinionated and generally extroverted, and at times even borderline combative in heated discussions on certain topics, yet I'm so quiet in class that I'm sure most of my classmates have no idea who I am in the first place, or let alone whether I survived the first year and am still in the program. After a year of instruction I'm beginning to think that it is more cultural than I had originally thought. I was raised with the belief that you should always speak from the heart, that words that are not sincere are worthless, and that more than anything else, BS-ing is more of a sign of arrogance than strength or wisdom. In fact, admitting one's ignorance up front is more of a sign of maturity, or a demonstration of strength of character. From what I've been able to gather very quickly so far, these traits are NOT valued on the mainland in general, the law school context is a hyper example of this. You're supposed to give an argument, ANY argument, and the prof is supposed to bring you and your terrified fellow classmates to legal nirvana by pointing out the flaws in your argument. Then there's the fact that none of these professors can ever pronounce my name right. Its not that I expect much, especially after living in Wisconsin for 6 years, but I'm a little surprised that these coasties can't even get close to saying it right, not even after several times I've told them how to say it. Not to make a lame excuse, but it does throw me off guard the split second it takes before I realize that the stuttering butchering of sylables is really my family name. It is enough that if I did happen to brief the case in full AND think it through prior to class, 9/10 times I panic and go blank. I liken it to when I used to wrestle, I would shake my opponents hand firm, and if I wanted to, right before the whistle, I would firmly tug on his hand, forcing him to shift his weight forward, maybe catch him off guard. All it takes is a split second of doubt. Finally I think my difficulty in dealing with "the method" is reflective in my humanistic belief system and interpersonal style, I'd much rather talk to people as human beings, I've found that there is a lot to learn from others from just having a simple conversation with them. In court, in conversation between counsel, in pretrial conference, in discussion in chambers with a judge, I would expect more of this. I guess i'm saying that trial by fire isn't as effective as it is made out to be. I've found it disheartening that the socratic method makes the law professors pretty much unapproachable outside of class, regardless of how well you might happen to do in answering their onslaught of questions and prodding. I can say that even with the profs that I think I performed well under fire. I've spoken with a lot of attorneys and recent law school grads and have often been curious about the cynical attidute that the majority of them have towards the process at which the degree is taught. There are also a number of them who have law degrees but refuse to practice law because it was too much to handle. I think I've been realizing more and more what they mean by all this. Now that I've survived the 1st year of night school I've been asked by more than one person about my experience, and frankly how are things going, and at the end of the day is it worth all the work and effort? It seems fitting that some of these questions have been coming around my shitty 3rd/4th week (which isn't over just yet, by the way) that has given me some clarifying thoughts on the big picture of things. I've heard a lot of reasons from people who obviously have no idea what they're talking about by saying "why so-and-so should go to law school" or why "I want to go to law school" or "I wonder if I could be a prosecutor like on law and order" or "everyone thinks I could be the next supreme court justice" blah blah blah. Ironic, since more than none I've been that so-and-so they were referring to, and I actually had my share of misconceptions going into my first year. Since I'm kind of venting here maybe I'll lay out some observations (in no particular order) just for the hell of it. First one I hear a lot: "you like to argue" Quick question, do you like the argue in a foreign language? I'm not talking about a foreign language that you grew up around at a young age, or that your parents speak. I'm talking about a language peppered with latin words and references to pre 18th century English rule of law and strange acronyms and word games. Oh and you're expected to be fluent in it from the first day of orientation on. Now once you've gotten a basic understanding of this archaic language, how about with someone who not only has a major advantage in years of prior knowledge and experience, but is phrasing the line of questioning in a way that is supposed to prove a deep buried legal point to you and the confused idiots to your left and right . Just liking to argue doesn't help you for squat if you can't argue in legal terms and adapt to the perspective the professor is trying to convey. Second: "You're smart" granted that you have to be intelligent to get admitted into any law school, I'm not convinced that the system is set up to reward grades based on intelligence alone. I think if you define "smart" as meaning that you know how to quickly assess, analyze and assimilate an insane quantity of written, theoretical and verbal information in pretty much a foreign language into a condensed outline and logical flow chart that matches an expert legal scholar's perception on a 4 hour essay exam, and then repeat this for four different classes, then you're good to go. Otherwise you might be screwed. Don't get me wrong, I think the students that excell in this system are very talented in that they know how to adapt and work the system which is in itself is a skill that will translate handsomely later on in the real world. I'm just not convinced yet if this alone is an indicator of someone's intelligence. Third: "You enjoy reading landmark cases like Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore" This one especially kills me. Anyone can read a supreme court case. you just google a pdf, print it out and read it. It's analyzing and really understanding it within a constitutional framework is what is trickier, especially given all the historical, social, geopolitical and stare decisis baggage that comes with each justice's opinion. What's even more difficult is convicing a professor of law (all law profs are experts at con law, or so I hear) in front of a crowded auditorium of sharks that you're not completely pulling this out of your ass after just one or two or three readings. Fourth, for many, no surprises here: "I want to get rich." I'm beginning to think that majoring in business or accounting something along those lines might be a better plan. True, the upper range of what the degree can be worth in terms of annual salary is pretty handsome, but keep in mind that is limited to corporate or private litigation at a firm in which you'll be working 80 hour weeks busting your ass. Another big thing to consider is that law school is pretty damn expensive, regardless of if you go to public or private school. I spoke with a friend a while back who just got out of a day program and she was about $160K in debt. I have to think that theres no point in being rich if you don't have time to enjoy your money. But that's just the hippie in me talking. Fifth, for the hippies out there: "you have a sense of justice, and want to contribute positively to society" I've also heard this as "you respect for rule of law and will be a champion for its principles." sad to say, the legal profession and the courts are really more like a forum of non-violent conflict resolution. Both sides are encouraged and paid to zealously argue their client's best case to the limits of professional ethics and legal regulation to get their client. This understandably means the BIGGEST payout in damages and MOST debilitating injunction possible to the opposing side. If you're a criminal attorney you either wanna HANG'em high, or have em just WALKout of the prison door. "Justice" tends to be more of an intangible thing that comes in and outs of the typical case. And last but not least sixth: Another general misconception of law, and one that I'll admit I held going into my first year is that law is a professional program as the reflected directly to the formal training of legal practics. My experience so far is that study of Law can be the most stuffy, impractical, inefficient, academic ivory tower discipline imaginable. While some of the general information is in fact applicable to real life issues riht away, there is a huge gap between the theoretical and applied practice courses that its a little alarming. Even my Master's degree training was more applicable to my current job, and I thought that pretty academic itself. It seems that the disconnect between real life practice and theory is pretty wide - I've heard horror stories about people graduating with their JD in hand and either flunking the bar exam 3 times, or starting their first job as an attorney being totaly clueless to how to actually practice. This seems wrong, something in between might be nice. For example I hear that UDC law school requires its students to take a semseter course in clinical training in order to graduate. I would offer that if you really want to go to law school by all means go for it, its up to you. I think it's been worth it, despite the occaisional grilling in class and stress of confusion I've been through. I'd recommend just make damn sure that you know what you're getting yourself into, law school, ANY law school, even a 4th tier, or unaccredited school is a shark pit, plain and simple you have to make damn sure that is really what you want. Especially if you've had some other kind of post-graduate training - I think I understand now why they don't really care about any other schooling past your undergrad because it DONT MEAN SHIT. The extra knowledge and experience just clouds your thinking and makes you harder to mould into a nice shiney aspiring attoney. I'd maybe even go as far as to say that you might be jeapordizing the knowledge and skillset you developed in the 2-8 years investment you made for your Masters or Doctorate. Something to consider before taking the JD jump. |