No, it’s not ADM Williard, but
All good things must come to an end. Rest in peace, Fred.
By the way, what’s for dinner?
Islamic Jihad strategist and co-conspiritor in the assassination of Anwar Sadat, Abboud Al-Zumar, has begun his own “
“I’d like to apologize to the Egyptian people (for the assassination of Sadat) because we did not intend to bring Hosni Mubarak to power. Our goal was to bring about change and deliver the Egyptian people from the conditions in which they found themselves.”
There are two notable things here. First, Al-Zumar is not apologizing for killing Sadat or political violence in general, he’s merely apologizing for facilitating the rise of Mubarak. Second, in response to the interviewer’s attempt to humanize the killing of Sadat, Al-Zumar cites the fatwa against Sadat in what appears to be an iteration of the “just following orders” argument. It seems jihadists have more than just hatred of Jews in common with Hitler’s minions.
Unfortunately, the interviewer doesn’t press Al-Zumar on what their ideal replacement regime would have looked like.
Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, explains in a decision to rule the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional, how
“We lie to protect our privacy (‘No, I don’t live around here’); to avoid hurt feelings (‘Friday is my study night’); to make others feel better (‘Gee, you’ve gotten skinny’); to avoid recriminations (‘I only lost $10 at poker’),” Kozinski wrote recently in a case about an inveterate liar named Xavier Alvarez who, just to drive home the point, is also known as Javier Alvarez.
Kozinski listed 28 other reasons we avoid the truth, including to “avoid a nudnick” and to “defeat an objective (‘I’m allergic to latex’),” and ending sweetly with “to maintain innocence (‘There are eight tiny reindeer on the rooftop’).”
Kozinski’s entertaining treatise was in service to his point about the Constitution.
“If all untruthful speech is unprotected . . . we could all be made into criminals, depending on which lies those making the laws find offensive,” he wrote. “And we would have to censor our speech to avoid the risk of prosecution for saying something that turns out to be false.
“The First Amendment does not tolerate giving the government such power.”
First, I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me the law is not about all lying, it’s about one specific type of lying.
Second, to get to the point in my title, here’s my question: if lying is protected speech, will the 1st Amendment protect me from a perjury charge if I lie to your court , Judge Kozinski?
I can hear the “ No! ” echoing already.