Wally: Cedric and I didn't know Sunny posted at Elaine's site. We'll link to it this week.
Jim: I figured that was the case. But I did want to point out that Elaine doesn't post on Thursdays because she has her group and that her assistant Sunny posted the snapshot because it was news. Wally and Cedric, of course, carry the snapshot in their joint-posts as well so, community-wide, the case was covered. That's not true of other things. In case we get to that topic, I wanted it noted but I know Rebecca wanted to speak.
Rebecca: Sgt. James Russell apparently shot five US service members in Baghdad at a stress clinic this month. This happened while the Steven D. Green trial was ongoing. The jury was not sequestered? Did they refrain from all news of Iraq? I would like to know why the jury wasn't sequestered. This was a capital punishment trial and they should have been sequestered.
Jess: I agree with Rebecca on that. When Jim told me they weren't sequestered, I couldn't believe it. I called Ava and asked her and she said, "No, they're not." Now Ava's my girlfriend and I've now heard it from her and Jim. Even so, I ask, "Could you check with C.I.?" And the answer still comes back that they weren't sequestered. The charges were murder and gang-rape and, C.I. correct me if I'm wrong, the court was expecting a huge press presence?
C.I.: Absolutely. Weeks and weeks before the trial started -- before jury selection even started -- they had issued media guidelines and explained the media room they were creating which would have a feed from the court room and handle overflow. They were expecting the courtroom to be packed with journalists every day of the hearing.
Kat: Which didn't happen.
Jess: Which didn't happen. But they expected it and for that reason alone they should have sequestered the jury. It's appalling that they didn't. And I agree with Rebecca the 'stress' angle the defense played was built on the news of Sgt. John Russell and had nothing to do with Steven D. Green.
Jim: You sound upset. I'm assuming not because Green didn't receive the death penalty.
Jess: No, that doesn't upset me. What upsets me is when basic procedures that should have been followed aren't.
Jim: Betty, you were hoping for the death penalty. Is that fair?
Betty: On some levels, yes. I thought he deserved it and I said if he got it I wouldn't be bothered in the least. When the news came down? I had seen the snapshot. That's where I learned about it. I had the radio in the car on and was listening to a number of stations, including KPFA, and heard nothing. But KPFA didn't have their news hour that day, they did a special for fundraising instead. But I was flipping all over and thinking, "C.I. got this into the snapshot and news still isn't reporting on the radio that the sentence is out?" Anyway, I came in and went to my room and changed, got out of my high heels and dress and into something casual, then went looking for the kids and found them with Jess, playing in C.I.'s music room. When they finished their song, after I applauded, I did make a point of telling Jess I was happy for him. For Jess. Not for Steven D. Green. I think he should have gotten the death penalty. I know Jess doesn't want anyone to get the death penalty and the sentence made me furious. The only person I could be happy for was Jess.
Jim: It made you furious?
Betty: It made my blood boil. I didn't read all of Thursday's snapshot. I couldn't. I got to the second paragraph and that's all I could make it through. When I found out he was getting life in prison and not the death penalty . . . I just wasn't in the mood. I'm still mad.
Jim: And not the only one mad. By the way, Betty's oldest son did the illustration if it's the one we use of the table. If it's a newer one, it's by her three kids but we're waiting on that one to dry and if it's not dry when we start posting, we won't be able to scan it. Cedric and Wally do humor posts together. So they don't get the opportunity to sound off the way some do. I'm going to toss to them.
Wally: Betty's not the only one who was mad. The reaction coming out of Iraq is not surprising at all. Of course they're outraged. For the record, I wasn't for or against Green receiving the death penalty. I wanted him to be found guilty but, other than that, I was focused on other things. I don't think Cedric and I even discussed the sentence to each other this week. Did we?
Cedric: No. It was sort of expected. The day the sentence came out, for example, C.I. had written "I'm not predicting Green will receive the death penalty." And that sort of lowered expectations. I'm not for the death penalty in a traditional sense, but, as with Betty, on this case, I really did think it was deserved. There was no question that the person was guilty and these crimes, if they'd taken place in the US, would have been awful enough. When you add in that he was in Abeer's neighborhood to 'protect' her, that makes them all the worse. My uncle who was in the army says if Green had been tried in a military court, he would have gotten the death penalty because he was the ringleader.
Marcia: I'm sorry, I have to jump in on that. On the ringleader. That bad writer, Gail, is pimping -- apparently provided to her by the man writing the book on the incident -- that Green wasn't really the ringleader. What a load of garbage.
Wally: I agree but she's also pimping that Abeer wasn't gang-raped.
Elaine: C.I. took that on the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin and also in "I Hate The War" and I just want to touch on that. What that woman wrote, that suggestion, it's offensive. It's offensive to women, it's offensive therapeutically. Now it's wrong factually and if Gail knew the first thing about the other hearings into these War Crimes and the testimony offered in them, she'd know that. But for her, for anyone, to suggest a rape victim wasn't a rape victim? What message is that sending? It's appalling. She's trying to suggest that Cortez and Baker couldn't get it up and didn't rape Abeer. Now they both testified. And one of them half-assed floated that at his own court appearance, "maybe." "Maybe" he couldn't get it up? He's appearing before a military court and charged with rape and doesn't know whether or not he got it up? That's a lie. As C.I. pointed out, it's nothing but Cortez and Baker now lying in order to minimize their actions. Both men will be up for parole at some point and now they just know -- both of them! -- that they didn't take part in the gang-rape. That's disgusting. Shame on Gail.
Rebecca: And I was surprised by C.I.'s comment in the snapshot, I agreed, but I was surprised that C.I. went there. I would have but I honestly would have thought C.I.'s stance would have been 'too graphic.' I understand that it was needed to make the point and, again, I would have gone there instantly myself. For those who didn't see it, C.I. pointed out that this nonsense of 'we didn't rape her,' if it were true Green would have known. Abeer was a virgin. He would have known if he was raping first. They didn't use condoms. Green would have known if he was going first. Green bragged about their crimes and his role in it. He bragged about the gang-rape and who took part in it. He hailed himself as the ringleader of the whole thing. You really think if he was the only one raping Abeer that he wouldn't have included that fact? Of course he would have.
Elaine: Exactly. So what Gail's doing is trying to rewrite history. Trying to say, "Oh, she was only raped by one. Thank goodness!" No, Gail. And your attempt to turn a gang-rape into a rape, your attempt to let two rapists off the hook? Not beneficial to survivors of rape, not helpful at all. Shame, shame on Women's Media Center for running Gail's garbage. That was so offensive.
Jim: I'm going to bring Mike in now for another part because I heard him snort when I was doing the intro earlier.
Mike: Well Elaine and I were with C.I., Ava, Wally and Kat on Friday. So was Ruth and Rebecca. We were able to join them on some campuses and speak out against Barack's illegal Iraq War. And the snapshot was late in part because C.I. was arguing with you over the phone.
Jim: Right. Go on, I'm not stopping you.
Mike: This community has followed the War Crimes that resulted in the gang-raping of Abeer and her murder and the murder of her parents and sisters for nearly three years. Now that's not just those of us with sites or those with newsletters. All members have followed it. And the sentence was a huge deal to this community. Throughout the day, C.I. was checking in with Martha and Shirley and others to see what the e-mails from community members were like. Friday they were all about Abeer. That was the only topic. So C.I. was trying to figure out what to do and tells us, "The thing to do is to turn the snapshot over to her. I can do press coverage of the story from the last years, do an evaluation. We could note Abeer one more time that way." And we're all like that's a great idea. And C.I. says, "But --" and Ava finishes --
Ava: "Jim will have a fit."
Mike: Right. So C.I. calls you, Jim, and says, "Look the community needs Abeer noted. I've got little else I can provide other than a news critique at this point." And a nearly 15 minute exchange takes place between the two of you.
Jim: Correct. And C.I. doesn't have to listen to me ever. I'll voice my opinion -- and on that, it was that we should do such a critique here -- and I'm not God, I don't control what everyone does.
Mike: But you were providing non-stop reasons for why C.I. shouldn't do it.
Jim: Right and Dona heard me, nudged me and said, "Look at the time." At which point, I realized that C.I. had delayed the snapshot and already wrestled with this issue before seeking my input. So I said, "Go ahead but I want us to repost it at Third."
Dona: Which we're doing with at least one addition. Typos will also be fixed. C.I. dictates the snapshot so this repost will combine some additional things and also smooth over the typos.
Mike: And I was laughing because Jim's praising the Friday snapshot at the top and I know he was actively urging C.I. not to do it on Friday.
Jim: Which is true. Were it up to me, everything that goes up at The Common Ills would be saved to draft for me to read over and pick through with a "Oh, yeah, post this. But this one, let's carry this to Third."
Ty: C.I.'s "Steven D. Green's case may not be over" is the sort of thing that could not be written with Jim looking over the shoulder. We've all seen Jim scream and beg C.I. for stuff like that so it's fortunate C.I. wrote that while on the road. I work the public account and the private accounts for members, at The Common Ills, the members weren't surprised but I did read about four e-mails from visitors who were surprised that C.I. was stating, paraphrase, 'If I were on the jury for an appeal, I'd vote to let Green off.' I thought we could talk about that.
Jim: Sure. And I would have loved for that to have run here. But let's have C.I. set it up.
C.I.: The defense is stating to the press -- and has been doing this since the trial section of the case ended -- that they were really focused on Green not getting the death penalty and that was their focus all along. Well Green's focus was being found not guilty. The plea he entered was not guilty. The defense's comments and their actions -- only one day and a half of witnesses for the defense during the trial, many days of witnesses called during the hearing -- appear to imply that Green's own wishes were ignored. A defense can't do that, especially a public defender who is court-appointed to the case. They have to present the best defense for their client and that defense has to be the argument the client wants made. So, for example, if they had convinced Green that he would be found guilty of all charges ahead of the start of the trial and he had agreed and stated, "Well, like you said, let's just focus on the defense" -- that would be one thing. But he entered a plea of not guilty and his attorneys did nothing to make that case. That appears to be a huge betrayal and grounds for someone losing their license to practice. Based on that, if I served on a jury hearing an appeal by Green, I would vote to toss out all charges.
Jim: Which means he would walk.
C.I.: Which does mean he would walk. And I believe he's guilty of everything. But I also believe in the process and when the process is abused, it has to be rectified. Our system isn't perfect and sometimes guilty people do go free. Better that someone guilty go free than that people end up wrongly convicted. Allowing public defenders to disregard the wishes of their clients would encourage wrongful convictions. I feel the process was abused and Green was denied the best defense -- or any defense for what he was charged with -- and I would, as a result, refuse to convict were I on a jury hearing an appeal in this case. I see what was done as professional misconduct.
Jim: Okay. Now Ty pointed out that some visitors e-mailed to say they disagreed. I'm going to go to Betty on this one. Betty, what's your opinion?
Betty: I wanted Steven D. Green to get the death penalty. If I'd been on the jury of the trial, we'd still be deliberating and I would refuse to conceed defeat and make every juror continue deliberating with the hopes of wearing the hold out or outs out. That said, for exactly the reasons C.I. outlined, if I were on an appeals jury, I wouldn't vote to convict. I'm not a legal expert so possibly what I'm suggesting can't be done, but I honestly believe that the statements by the defense attorneys should be reviewed by a higher court and that they should make a decision on whether or not to -- trying to think of the term --
C.I.: Set aside the verdict?
Betty: Thank you. Yes, set the verdict aside.
Ruth: I think the defense was inept. I know C.I. pointed out, before the sentencing phase started, that the defense was doing an awful job and that their refusal to call Green as a witness might suggest that they were hoping for a later appeal to any verdict and didn't want Green on the record for that reason. If the process is abused, the entire system suffers. I went back and forth on the death penalty -- which I am opposed to in theory but with this case, I went back and forth. I'm probably closer to Betty's way of thinking than anyone except maybe Cedric and I agree with Betty and C.I. I would, serving on an appeals court, let Green walk for the simple reason that the process was abused.
Jim: Wally, I'm curious about how you and Cedric didn't discuss the verdict. Was that because you were on the road with C.I. and heard all week that Green wouldn't get the death penalty?
Wally: That probably played into it. I mean, Cedric and I are both busy and we're not going to waste time talking about something that's not going to happen.
Jim: Okay. Ava, your take on the week.
Ava: Honestly.
Jim: Honestly.
Ava: Since I'm being asked, a lot of crap. A whole lot of crap. I think, for example, C.I. was far too kind to far too many people who did not deserve it. I think, for example, that a lot of people used C.I. -- and her attidue with that is always "fine, if it gets the story out" -- and I think I'm glad the hearing's over because after this week's edition, we never have to note a lot of people again. I'm just saying "a lot of people" here but in our column for El Spirito today, I do add my thoughts on this. C.I. and I do a back and forth on this. I think there was a lot of work C.I. put in -- both at The Common Ills and offline with news outlets -- and I don't think C.I. got any of the credit earned and deserved. I saw a lot of ingratitude and I saw of lot of ripping off and I saw a lot of things that make me very, very furious. I'm not the only who feels that way, obviously.
Jim: C.I.?
C.I.: I paused to get all of Ava's remarks down.
Jim: Ava and C.I. take the notes for this transcript piece.
C.I.: I don't disagree with Ava. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, however. But, in our piece for El Spirito, which is really a transcript piece, I do agree with her that, in the case of one person in particular, I shouldn't have had to spend two hours on the phone last week explaining why the case was news and needed coverage.
Rebecca: Well, if I can get specific, and I'm the only one other than Jim who will, I'll focus on non-press. Gail. She credits Women's Media Center which had one article and Robin Morgan's column -- both in 2006, and that's really it. But she credits them "and blogs" with keeping the story alive. And I haven't read Ava and C.I.'s column so I don't know if Gail comes up in it --
Ava: She doesn't.
Rebecca: Okay, but there's no denying that no site covered Abeer more in than The Common Ills. No one. Her story was regularly kept alive by C.I. And, like Trina, I think it's bulls**t that another blog, an alleged friend of The Common Ills and someone more than willing to contact to ask for help when it's time to beg for money, wants to credit some linkage -- nothing original -- done by another website. Now that pisses me off. And I did not name a name. But I could have. I could also name who I consider to be the most ungrateful of all but, like Ava, I won't here. And Elaine and I have known C.I. longer than anyone else participating in this roundtable and we fully know that credit isn't an issue. Never has been. However, when someone has gone out of the way on this story and when someone's gone out of the way for you, it is bad manners not to give them the credit they earned.
Jim: C.I.?
C.I.: I don't think I'm a factor in the story of Abeer or Steven D. Green. I think this is all naval gazing. With Ava, she was going to an issue regarding how difficult it was to get coverage on this story as well as to the issue of credit and that was a press issue and I responded for that reason -- both here and in El Spirito. However, I think now we've completely stripped this from a press issue into "How great am I?" and I'm an asshole and we can move on to another topic. Thank you.
Elaine: Which I will do. I've gotten a lot of e-mails on the verdict. I'm still reading the ones Sunny printed out. What stands out to me is that, remember this community -- all of us, not just the ones with sites and newsletters -- has been following this case for almost three years, so what stands out to me is a sort of feeling that reminds me of The Two Jakes. Jack Nicholson's helping Faye Dunaway's daughter in this Chinatown sequel. She asks if the pain goes away and he suggests it does. Then he goes running after her to tell her that no, it doesn't. What I'm saying is, I -- I think a number of people thought there would be closure but no one seems to feel -- from the e-mails I'm reading -- that there was.
Ty: Let me jump in to back that up. I see the same in e-mails to this site, thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com, and to The Common Ills. There does seem to be, after all these years, an unexpressed desire or expectation for closure and the reality is that it didn't come.
Dona: I agree with that and I think that's most obvious in the Iraqi reaction. I think their reaction is valid and agree with their objections which include that Green's actions were terrorist actions -- and he did terrorize the family -- and that an Iraqi court would have sentenced him to death and that an Iraqi doing the same thing would have been found guilty and put to death. I also agree with points Stan and Marcia both made this week that were Green not White, he'd probably be looking at the death penalty right now. Stan hasn't spoken at all -- Marcia's spoken once briefly by my notes -- so I'll toss to Stan.
Stan: Yeah. I think more and more he should have gotten the death penalty. And that's what a large number of my readers think as well. "The sentence" covered it and I encouraged people to leave reactions or e-mail. And the bulk of people are saying "death penalty." I've got two readers who e-mailed wanting more time to mull it over, so I didn't pick the topic back up Friday as I planned to. But I will pick it up next week and the reaction overwhelmingly is that Green should have been sentenced to death.
Dona: Overwhelmingly?
Stan: All but one e-mail says the death penalty and the comments are mainly death penalty.
Jim: I'm looking at the comments and the second most popular choice -- a very distant second -- is that the person leaving the comment could go either way or didn't want to decide. Does that surprise you, Jess? Jess is completely against the death penalty, was raised to be against it.
Jess: No, not at all. And I regret that the beggar media didn't cover the Green case. Green's completely unsympathetic in my book. I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if the defense had asked the mother not to testify on his behalf because it fit so perfectly into their "Blame Mommy" for Green's problems. I think too often beggar media -- and death penalty opponents -- chose the easiest cases to make their points. I'd like to hear a more substantive discussion and that would include people like Green, clearly guilty and guilty of War Crimes. I don't think we advance the discussion until we start bringing in those aspects. And Betty and I disagreed on this and I think we're both better off for disagreeing. I think I know her view and why she holds it better and she knows mine and why I hold it. I think my side is guilty of reducing proponets to "Kill everyone!" and the other side is guilty of simplifying the argument at times. But this is a deep cultural issue and it needs real discussions, not supreficial ones, for it to develop. I thank Betty for always sharing her view with me and for sharing it fully.
Dona: Betty's nodding and too choked up to speak. Okay, so what did we learn from last week?
C.I.: Well what about one aspect we brought up but didn't touch on?
Dona: What?
C.I.: Trial in Iraq.
Ava: That came up repeatedly. Speaking slowly. All last week, it came up everytime we spoke. Some comments from students included that the US government continues to trumpet Iraq's 'justice' system. So if they're going to praise it and if the crimes were committed in Iraq, why wasn't Green tried there. Now his co-horts were tried in military courts. True. But they were also tried before the infamous SOFA. Once the SOFA went into effect, January 1st, since Green still hadn't been tried in a civilian court, shouldn't he have been transferred to Iraq to be tried there?
Marcia: That is a good point. Why didn't that happen? Because they were afraid he'd get the death penalty. The US government wasn't fretting it when Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death. That should have happened. The trial should have been moved to Iraq. In fact, under the SOFA, I believe the Blackwater contractors who shot up Baghdad should be facing trial in Iraq and not in US federal courts. They probably won't be found guilty and, if they are, they certainly won't face the death penalty.
Ruth: For me, the issue is: If the US government is going to continue to praise the Iraqi justice system, they need to be turning these cases over to it. Put up or shut up.
Jim: But you don't believe the Iraq justice system is just?
Ruth: Absolutely not. But I do not go around singing its praises.
Jim: Okay, on that point, we'll close down the roundtable. We are reading the e-mails and hope to do an e-mail roundtable shortly. We will have features this edition dealing soley with issues raised in e-mails or that is the plan.
