I have read most of Hemingway’s fiction.  Not all of it, but most of it.  I love his writing.  At its best it may be the best writing in America in the 20^th Century.  But even though I have read most of his writing I didn’t know that much about him as a person.  I knew the public persona, the tough guy big-game-hunting Cuba and Key West living drinking ambulance driving fisherman.  But I had never read a biography of him.  Still haven’t.  I did though just finish Hemingway’s Boat, Everything He Loved And Lost, 1934-1961, by Paul Hendrickson.  I now have that difficult tension with Hemingway that I have encountered with some other great writers or musicians; great works do not necessarily come from great people.

Hendrickson’s book does not claim to be a biography. It is a recounting of certain stories, attitudes, letters, and damage, related—some directly, some very very indirectly—to the 1934 custom boat Hemingway bought and took to Florida and then Cuba (where it still sits on blocks).  It tells of the friends and guests Hemingway took to sea with him, almost always to fish for marlin.  It tells of how he mistreated almost everyone in his world, including his “friends” from his impoverished days in Paris struggling to establish himself as a writer, to his wives, sons, and editors.  He was the trail blazer for so many Hollywood personalities of today, who have no lines and no rules, and literally do whatever they like, regardless of the impact it has on others.  The poster boy of narcissism.

(more…)

Posted in: Uncategorized 1 Comment »

This is an amazing book written by a UVA law professor who reviewed the first 250 cases in which people were exonerated after DNA testing confirmed they were not guilty. It is extremely well written, easy to read, organized, and compelling. Garrett points out problems with our criminal justice system that are systemic, and not limited to a small number of cases where convictions have been overturned. Like a police officer knowing who the suspect is in a lineup. Like not recording interrogations and confessions. Like allowing “expert” testimony by forensic experts in areas with virtually no scientific support (like identifying hair and bite marks). Regardless of your political persuasion or which side you’re on if you do criminal law, this book is a must read. It is sobering and makes you want to make things better. Highly recommended.

Posted in: Uncategorized 1 Comment »

Now that the fog of war is clearing in Pakistan, we’ve learned that what we were originally told—that Osama bin Laden was armed and hid behind his wife—isn’t correct.  It appears a Navy SEAL shot bin Laden in the head when he was unarmed.  Predictably, people are now questioning whether shooting bin Laden was justified, or even legal.

After 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force.  It gave the president the power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against nations, organizations or individuals who played a role in 9/11.  The act passed by Congress was drafted with bin Laden in mind:

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

(more…)

Posted in: Uncategorized 2 Comments »

It used to be that launching a hundred Tomahawk missiles into a country killing numerous people would be an act of war. Imagine if Cuba launched a hundred missiles into Florida. I believe we would consider that an act of war. The United States Constitution has provisions on how we are to conduct war. It says in Article I Section 8 that Congress shall have the power to declare war. It seems that we have constructed a new way of declaring war. Here are the requirements:
1) Have one or more UN Security Council Resolutions;
2) Form a “coalition”; and
3) Attack whomever you want.
I’ve been writing novels about the tension between the legal requirements for conducting war and what we actually do since my first novel, Balance of Power.  Things are not getting better. President Obama is as comfortable with adventurous military activity as President Bush was going in to Iraq (and for the record, I supported going in to Afghanistan as that was where the 9/11 attacks originated and were ordered—but Iraq? Why Iraq? Because they violated UN Security Council resolutions?).

President Obama consulted with the UN,  and sent diplomats all over Europe and the Middle East to form a “coalition.” (That’s where others make it look like they support what we’re doing, but we end up doing seventy-five percent of whatever has to be done.) This coalition includes the Arab League–an association of dictators–and several European countries. So our government, formed and bound by the Constitution, consulted with the UN, the Arab League, European countries, but not Congress. How can that be when Congress is where the power to declare war resides?

But regardless of who has the power, is what we’re doing in Libya a good idea? In short, no. We are violating one of the fundamental rules of military conduct. Do not become involved in a civil war absent a compelling national interest.  We may hope Gaddafi topples, and we may hope for democracy. But what right do we have to impose our will by military power on the country of Libya?

(more…)

Posted in: In the News, Uncategorized 3 Comments »

Switzerland, that beautiful, peaceful, mountainous, neutral country. The country that couldn’t find it in itself to oppose Nazism, or do anything about the Holocaust in World War II. Because after all, they were a tadpole, and would have gotten run over by Germany. So better not to say anything. Whether it is ever right or moral to remain neutral in the face of evil is a discussion better left for another day. But today, that Switzerland has finally stood up for a moral cause, or at least has allowed others to stand up for a moral cause on their turf, with their legal system. What great moral cause?That President Bush must be jailed. For what? For agreeing to allow water boarding of terrorists while he was president (a total of three men were water boarded, for the record. Read about them here .)  The possibility of arrest was apparently serious enough that President Bush cancelled his trip to Switzerland to speak at a fundraiser.

I have studied World War II history quite a bit, and my father fought from Normandy all the way to Germany to the end of the war (I guess he decided not to remain neutral). I don’t recall reading about demonstrations against Hitler, or the Holocaust, or the invasions of Poland, or Czechoslovakia, or Austria, or Russia, or England, or anywhere else. Sure, there were some newspapers that condemned Nazism. But the government was thought by many to be too pro-Nazi. But now? The Swiss are outraged by President Bush and his endorsement of “torture.” Not only the Swiss, who were planning large demonstrations, with each demonstrator armed with a shoe to throw at Bush, but also by The (US) Center for Constitutional Rights. You can read ABC’s story here. A Swiss Justice Department spokesman said that after it’s “initial assessment of international law”, Bush would have enjoyed immunity from the criminal prosecution. Hmmmmm. “Initial assessment.” Those are words we in the practice of law call non-binding. And based on the “final assessment”, once he arrives, it turns out…he can be prosecuted! Who knew! Predictably, Bush cancelled his trip.

What is this Center for Constitutional Rights? They are the self-appointed human rights activists (attorneys) who blaze with righteous indignation for their causes. This cause, against President Bush, has been joined by sixty other “Human Rights” organizations to put Bush in prison for accepting the advice of his legal advisors. You can see how proud they are on their website here.  Or read the op/ed on CNN yesterday, by Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights here.  He states clearly that he believes Bush violated the Convention Against Torture and therefore international law (the treaty though simply requires that each country pass laws against torture under their own jurisdiction, it is not self executing) by authorizing water boarding, among other things. The “other things” are not identified, so let’s deal with water boarding.

(more…)

Posted in: In the News, Uncategorized 6 Comments »