To the editor:
I noticed the story “Balancing prosecution and protection” appearing recently, which seemed to present the convoluted thinking of many eastern university professors on the subject of terrorists and the USA Patriot Act quite accurately.
Suffice it to say it took the Patriot Act to enable the federal prosecutor to indict one of the leading terrorists in Florida by using information from intelligence agencies, including wire taps. As the head of the Palestine Islamic Jihad, this terrorist previously could — and did — operate in Florida and throughout the United States to raise money and assist known terrorists in various parts on the world to kill people, including Americans, and we here in Florida couldn’t even get him off the payroll.
But what caught my eye was professor Scott Silliman’s mention of Zacarias Moussaoui, the self-admitted terrorist. Silliman’s comment that “unfortunately for many in our government, he has reaped the benefits of our due process and he’s done a very good job of it” (representing himself). Well, if you can call insulting the judge, the court, the U.S. and its citizens, then perhaps he did. But even with the action this week of the judge reversing her arrogant position and striking Moussaoui’s right to represent himself, the incident reveals a real problem in the federal judiciary, and among far too many professors of law (especially in eastern universities) and among many practicing trial lawyers.
Incidentally, are you aware that here in Florida, when some United Way offices manage “charitable” fund raising campaigns among the federal judiciary and staff, and separately, among members of the state judiciary and staff, that some of the funds raised are designated for the ACLU Foundation and/or ACLU? Talk about a conflict of interest!
Merle E. Schirado
Jacksonville