 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
News and Notes: Professor James T. McIlwain provides a moving account of his visit to the site of a California internment camp maintained during World War II for the detention of persons of Japanese ancestry (Faculty P.O.V., March/April). The ignominy of this episode in American history was compounded by the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the program. The words of Albert Camus come to mind: "I should like to be able to love my country and still love justice." - Roger Brandwein's letter to Brown Alumni Magazine - June 2001 Lynne Stewart and Attorney-Client Privilege To the Editor: In characterizing as a ''travesty'' Lynne F. Stewart's conviction for ''providing material aid to terrorism'' by passing information from her client to others, Andrew P. Napolitano misperceives the attorney-client privilege. Such confidential communications are held inviolate unless waived by the client. Here, the convicted terrorist, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, waived the privilege when he solicited Ms. Stewart to convey his dogma to his followers. The attorney-client privilege has always been understood as a shield against encroachment; it cannot be used as a sword by which to further a criminal enterprise. - Roger Brandwein's Letter to the New York Times Feb. 17, 2005 Stuck in Lincoln's Land (letter from Rabbi Librach at end) By David Brooks The New York Times On Sept. 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln gathered his cabinet to tell them he was going to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He said he had made a solemn vow to the Almighty that if God gave him victory at Antietam, Lincoln would issue the decree. Lincoln's colleagues were stunned. They were not used to his basing policy on promises made to the Lord. They asked him to repeat what he'd just said. Lincoln conceded that "this might seem strange," but "God had decided the question in favor of the slaves." I like to think about this episode when I hear militant secularists argue that faith should be kept out of politics. Like Martin Luther King Jr. a century later, Lincoln seemed to understand that epochal decisions are rarely made in a secular frame of mind. When great leaders make daring leaps, they often feel themselves surrendering to Divine Providence, and their strength flows from their faith that they are acting in accordance with transcendent moral truth. To the Editor: Assuming that Lincoln participated in a dialogue with the "Almighty" before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, it is doubtful whether God went along with freeing only slaves held in the Confederate states, as Lincoln ordered. - Roger Brandwein's Letter to the New York Times May. 5, 2005 Bigotry, Though Hateful, Is Protected; Holmes in Dissent To the Editor: It may bode well for the outcome of the pending Wisconsin hate-speech case that in "Clean Up the Law of Speech" (editorial, Dec. 17) the passage you quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was written as a dissenting opinion, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929). There, Justice Holmes articulated his understanding of constitutionally protected speech. For Justice Holmes, the First Amendment apotheosized "the principle of free thought -- not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." Fifteen years later, Justice Holmes was vindicated in Girouard v. United States (1946), when the Court expressly repudiated the majority opinion in Schwimmer and adopted his analysis. - Roger Brandwein's Letter to the New York Times Jan. 3, 1993 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||