Justice denied -- routinely?
An Iraqi-born doctor has been convicted of operating an unlicensed charity that illegally sent money to Iraq. Defense lawyers said Dr. Rafil Dhafir was targeted because of his religion and ethnicity -- with supporters left wondering whether any Muslim can get a fair trial in the United States following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Forget Boston, what about here?
On the one hand, we're an open community with a history as a melting pot. On the other, we do have the history of the Klan-Nazi shooting being examined by the Truth and Reconciliation folks. I would like to think a minority, racial or otherwise, could get a fair trial here, although some are questioning the treatment of attorney Manlin Chee. What do you think?
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
In response to the first part of your post, I think it's important that the news media report on stories like this. Americans seem to be having a hard time getting past the xenophobia directed at middle-eastern-looking folks. I personally have a deep distrust of our "intelligence community" ever since their blunder in Iraq. I'd take any claim of theirs regarding charities funneling money to terrorists very skeptically.
But on the question of whether a minority could expect a fair shake from the legal system here, I don't know for sure. I would like to believe that my fellow Guilfordians are as fair-minded and dedicated to judging based on objective data as I am. But I think that might be a little too optimistic for my own good. I'll just say that if I'm ever on a jury, I believe I would be able to set aside my prejudices and judge impartially.
Posted on February 17, 2005 12:12 PM
Can a Muslim get a fair trial? Hopefully and we must take into consideration that defense attorneys will make any kind of statement to produce sympathy for thier client. Thats what they get paid for. Forget the guy was Muslim, was he or was he not indicted for raising money for terriorist groups or for groups with ties to terror groups. If he was, he is guilty whether he is a Muslim, or a Baptist.
In addressing Greensboros issues. I no longer live there thankfully. I have been able to escape the Wendovers and malfunction junction or what ever you wish to call it. To address the subject of the Truth and Reconciliation group investigating the Klan shooting all these years ago is like having Kofi Annan investigate the Oil for Food program wrong doings. Answers coming from both would certainly be fractured.
On the attorney Chee. She is an attorney, supposedly knows the law, she chose to violate that law knowingly,she admits it, she's guilty as charged. Case closed. Disbar her, and lock her up. Thats the only conclusion that any sane jury can come to. Any other verdict would certainly not be fair trial. That is,fair to the people of Greensboro who obey the laws.
Posted on February 17, 2005 10:38 PM
I hope this person takes a little time to learn more about our country's legal system. Indictment is NOT the same as conviction. It only means a judge or grand jury have determined there is enough evidence for a trial. It does not equate to guilt. That's what trials are for.
Posted on February 18, 2005 5:55 AM
Recently, a Durham County councilman, while faithful in paying child support, found himself unable to pay alimony due to a reduction in business that created a reduction in personal income. He was sentenced to 30 days incarceration for Criminal Contempt of Court to be served over 30 weekends. In Alamance County, a $1600/month educator (with no children to support) falls behind in his $750/mo alimony and is handed the same sentence to be served immediately or until the arrearage is paid thereby removing them from their only source of income.
The difference? Judicial prejudice has now moved across racial lines and into the socio-economic realm. The councilman (Durham politics aside) possessed the political influence and financial ability to achieve the terms of his sentence. Had the educator been indigent, they would have received the benefit of court-appointed counsel. If wealthy, the educator could have afforded effective representation.
Both communities are small enough that political and social clout remains in the hands of a few. Officers of the court (judges and attorneys) live in their elitist world. Their career involves passing judgement on and, thus, affecting (sometimes destroying) the lives of, the "little people". The accused stands before a judicial system that has been corrupted by greed ... for money ... for power ... often both.
While "Blind Justice" demands a delicate balance between the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law, her scales remain unbalanced by an adulterated system which seeks her. Money, power, fame, ego ... all play into judgements handed down from the "Old Boys' Club".
Justice in America is alive and well for the "Haves" (those who can afford it). Those who cannot, the "Have-nots", suffer the consequences of being neither wealthy enough to influence the court or poor enough to benefit from their constitutional rights.
"If you go down there looking for justice, that's what you'll find ... just us!"
Richard Pryor
Posted on February 20, 2005 8:34 AM