literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

Yesterday, I watched an "Open Mind" interview with William Kunstler, recorded in 1994. The host, Richard Heffner, has aged so much in only twelve years. The interview discussed Kunstler's book "My Life as a Radical Lawyer." Kunstler died a year after that interview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Kunstler

Kunstler was a director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from 1964 to 1972, when he became a member of the ACLU National Council. In 1969 he cofounded the Center for Constitutional Rights. Kunstler also worked with the National Lawyers Guild.

To many, Kunstler's image was that of a flamboyant radical. He defended many controversial clients, including Lenny Bruce, H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael, American Indian Movement (AIM) leaders, Jack Ruby, Abbie Hoffman, Angela Davis, Jerry Rubin, Martin Luther King, Lemuel Smith, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, Ibrahim A. ElGabrowny, Gregory Johnson, and Wayne Williams.

During the time they practiced law together, Kunstler and his partner, Kuby, were the lawyers to whom the despised, outcast, and dissidents turned for legal help

The image of a lawyer as the last refuge of the despised and outcast reminds me of God. Isn't God supposed to be that sort of refuge of last resort? A god defined as a god of love is easily seen as such a refuge.

I remembered back to the first days of television, around 1954, when I was age 4 or 5. I was always sad when a show like "Meet the Press", or Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, or "Lamp Unto My Feet" came on. I much preferred cartoons and movies. Now that I am older, I preferred such serious shows over the cartoons.

Here is an excerpt from the trial transcript of The Chicago Seven Trial:

http://members.aol.com/stewa/kunstler.htm

MR. KUNSTLER: After you arrived in Chicago did you have any discussion with Jerry?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. We discussed the nomination of a pig for President.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what you said and what Jerry said.

THE WITNESS: We discussed the details. We discussed going out to the countryside around Chicago and buying a pig from a farmer and bringing him into the city for the purposes of his nominating speech.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you have any role yourself in that?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I helped select the pig, and I paid for him.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, did you find a pig at once when you went out?

THE WITNESS: No, it was very difficult. We stopped at several farms and asked where the pigs were.

MR. KUNSTLER: None of the farmers referred you to the police station, did they?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Ochs, can you describe the pig which was finally bought?

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what, if anything, happened to the pig?

THE WITNESS: The pig was arrested with seven people.

MR. KUNSTLER: When did that take place?

THE WITNESS: This took place on the morning of August 23, at the Civic Center underneath the Picasso sculpture.

MR. KUNSTLER: Who were those seven people?

THE WITNESS: Jerry Rubin. Stew Albert, Wolfe Lowenthal, myself is four; I am not sure of the names of the other three.

MR. KUNSTLER: What were you doing when you were arrested?

THE WITNESS: We were arrested announcing the pig's candidacy for President.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did Jerry Rubin speak?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Jerry Rubin was reading a prepared speech for the pig---the opening sentence was
something like, "I, Pigasus, hereby announce my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States." He was interrupted in his talk by the police who arrested us.

MR. KUNSTLER: What was the pig doing during this announcement?

MR. FORAN: Objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you remember what you were charged with?

THE WITNESS: I believe the original charge mentioned was something about an old Chicago law about
bringing livestock into the city, or disturbing the peace, or disorderly conduct, and when it came time for the trial, I believe the charge was disorderly conduct.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were you informed by an officer that the pig had squealed on you?

MR. FORAN: Objection. I ask it be stricken.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. When an objection is made do not answer until the Court has ruled. . .

I made some notes as I watched the "Open Mind" interview with Kunstler.

Kunstler said, "All systems [, whether political, or legal, or religious, or academic] are corrupt." (The bracked portion is my clarification.)

Kunstler said, "It is always the few who [/influence] move the many."

Heffner and Kunstler debated the notion that "the people are the real repositories of power."

Kunstler's rebuttal; "Have any intelligent people ever been with the crowd?"
I am reminded of Abraham Heschel's statement, in "The Prophets", that "few are guilty but all are responsible."

http://www.esquilax.com/flag/kunstler.html

Unlike more mercenary lawyers, Bill Kunstler only took cases he belived in. Earlier this year, when last I saw him at a reading from his autobiography, he continued to speak of the flag cases as among the most important of his long and eventful career.

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, 5 August 1989, "What Shocked Me Most About the Flag Amendment", Bill Kunstler wrote;

"Every time we've been stampeded into violating the rights of our citizens -- the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts in response to the excesses of the French Revolution, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War and the relocation of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, to name but three well- known examples -- we have belatedly come to regret it."

Bill Kunstler isn't around around anymore to make to Congress, or to the public, the case for the right to burn flags which I feel privileged to have heard him make, so well, in 1989 and 1990 to the Supreme Court. His death is, to me, a reminder that we can't ever rely on others to say for us what needs to be said. If it's important for us to say, we'll have to say it for ourselves. It's up to all of us to make ourselves heard on this issue.

An odd idea came to Sitaram this week. I suddenly remembered the Biblical scene in the Torah, where the people complain to Moses that they wish to be like all the other nations, and have a king of their own. God counsels the Israelites that, if they do get their wish, then that king will conscript their sons as soldiers, and their maidens as hand-maidens.

What and interesting Biblical illustration of freewill choice! God has it in mind that a theocracy is preferable to a monarchy, but is willing to give the people what they desire, against better judgment.

By the way, the "M." in William M. Kunstler stands for "Moses." Yes, Moses was Kunstler's middle name. Only just now did I learn this, during a google search!

Kunstler was a rebellious child who shocked and worried his conservative Jewish parents.

Let's see what Hobbes makes of the Bibilical passage regarding Moses and Monarchy:

http://www.literature.org/authors...-thomas/leviathan/chapter-20.html
Leviathan
Thomas Hobbes
Chapter 20 - Of Dominion Paternall And Despoticall

The Right Of Monarchy From Scripture: Let us now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point. To Moses, the children of Israel say thus. (Exod. 20. 19) "Speak thou to us, and we will heare thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we dye." This is absolute obedience to Moses. Concerning the Right of Kings, God himself by the mouth of Samuel, saith, (1 Sam. 8. 11, 12, &c.) "This shall be the Right of the King you will have to reigne over you. He shall take your sons, and set them to drive his Chariots, and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and gather in his harvest; and to make his engines of War, and Instruments of his chariots; and shall take your daughters to make perfumes, to be his Cookes, and Bakers. He shall take your fields, your vine-yards, and your olive-yards, and give them to his servants. He shall take the tyth of your corne and wine, and give it to the men of his chamber, and to his other servants. He shall take your man-servants, and your maid-servants, and the choice of your youth, and employ them in his businesse. He shall take the tyth of your flocks; and you shall be his servants." This is absolute power, and summed up in the last words, "you shall be his servants." Againe, when the people heard what power their King was to have, yet they consented thereto, and say thus, (Verse. 19 &c.) "We will be as all other nations, and our King shall judge our causes, and goe before us, to conduct our wars." Here is confirmed the Right that Soveraigns have, both to the Militia, and to all Judicature; in which is conteined as absolute power, as one man can possibly transferre to another. Again, the prayer of King Salomon to God, was this. (1 Kings 3. 9) "Give to thy servant understanding, to judge thy people, and to discerne between Good and Evill." It belongeth therefore to the Soveraigne to bee Judge, and to praescribe the Rules of Discerning Good and Evill; which Rules are Lawes; and therefore in him is the Legislative Power. Saul sought the life of David; yet when it was in his power to slay Saul, and his Servants would have done it, David forbad them, saying (1 Sam. 24. 9) "God forbid I should do such an act against my Lord, the anoynted of God." For obedience of servants St. Paul saith, (Coll. 3. 20) "Servants obey your masters in All things," and, (Verse. 22) "Children obey your Parents in All things." There is simple obedience in those that are subject to Paternall, or Despoticall Dominion. Again, (Math. 23. 2,3) "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chayre and therefore All that they shall bid you observe, that observe and do." There again is simple obedience. And St. Paul, (Tit. 3. 2) "Warn them that they subject themselves to Princes, and to those that are in Authority, & obey them." This obedience is also simple. Lastly, our Saviour himselfe acknowledges, that men ought to pay such taxes as are by Kings imposed, where he sayes, "Give to Caesar that which is Caesars;" and payed such taxes himselfe. And that the Kings word, is sufficient to take any thing from any subject, when there is need; and that the King is Judge of that need: For he himselfe, as King of the Jewes, commanded his Disciples to take the Asse, and Asses Colt to carry him into Jerusalem, saying, (Mat. 21. 2,3) "Go into the Village over against you, and you shall find a shee Asse tyed, and her Colt with her, unty them, and bring them to me. And if any man ask you, what you mean by it, Say the Lord hath need of them: And they will let them go." They will not ask whether his necessity be a sufficient title; nor whether he be judge of that necessity; but acquiesce in the will of the Lord.

Here is an excerpt from something Sitaram wrote a year ago:

http://www.literatureforums.net/vb3/archive/index.php/t-4622.html

Socrates asks Gorgias what name he gives to his profession, art, skill, technology. Gorgias replies that he is a Rhetorician and that he works with words and speech alone. Socrates refines and clarifies the term "rhetoric" and calls it the art of persuasion.

Nowadays, the descendents of Gorgias ply trades known as advertising and politics.

The "sophists" came to be known as the "bad guys" among platonists.

I suppose I should google about on the word sophist and see what pops up.

This link is quite useful and pertinant to our thread:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/sophists.htm
(excerpts)

The growing demand for education in 5th century BCE. Greece called into existence a class of teachers known as sophists. They were a professional class rather than a school, and as such they were scattered over Greece and exhibited professional rivalries.

...

The educational demand was partly for genuine knowledge, but mostly reflected a desire for spurious learning that would lead to political success.

Though not disgraceful in itself, the wise men of Greece had never accepted payment for their teaching. The sophists were not, technically speaking, philosophers, but, instead taught any subject for which there was a popular demand. Topics included rhetoric, politics, grammar, etymology, history, physics, and mathematics. Early on they were seen as teachers of virtue in the sense that they taught people to perform their function in the state.

Protagoras of Abdera, who appeared about 445 BCE. is named as the first Sophist; after him the most important is Gorgias of Leontini, Prodicus of Ceos and Hippias of Elis. Wherever they appeared, especially in Athens, they were received with enthusiasm and many flocked to hear them. Even such people as Pericles, Euripides, and Socrates sought their company.

The most popular career of a Greek of ability at the time was politics; hence the sophists largely concentrated on teaching rhetoric. The aims of the young politicians whom they trained were to persuade the multitude of whatever they wished them to believed. The search for truth was not top priority. Consequently the sophists undertook to provide a stock of arguments on any subject, or to prove any position. They boasted of their ability to make the worse appear the better reason, to prove that black is white. Some, like Gorgias, asserted that it was not necessary to have any knowledge of a subject to give satisfactory replies as regards it. Thus, Gorgias ostentatiously answered any question on any subject instantly and without consideration. To attain these ends mere quibbling, and the scoring of verbal points were employed. In this way, the sophists tried to entangle, entrap, and confuse their opponents, and even, if this were not possible, to beat them down by mere violence and noise. They sought also to dazzle by means of strange or flowery metaphors, by unusual figures of speech, by epigrams and paradoxes, and in general by being clever and smart, rather than earnest and truthful. Hence our word "sophistry": the use of fallacious arguments knowing them to be such. Early on Sophists were seen to be of merit as people of superior skill or wisdom, as we find in Pindar and Herodotus.
...
We learn from Plato, though, that even in the 5th century there was a prejudice against the name "sophist". By Aristotle's time, the name bore a contemptuous meaning, as he defines "sophist" as one who reasons falsely for the sake of gain.
...
Dion Chrysostom, Herodes Atticus, Aristides, Lucian, and Philostratus the Elder belong to the flourishing period of this second school of sophists, a period which extends over the entire second century. They appear afresh about the middle of the fourth century, devoting their philosophic culture to the zealous but unavailing defense of paganism. Among them was the emperor Julian and his contemporaries Libanius, Himerius, and Themistius. Synesius may be considered the last sophist of importance.

You will notice that I highlighted They boasted of their ability to make the worse appear the better reason, to prove that black is white. in the above excerpts.

The American judicial system, its laws and constitution, bear traces of influence from the Biblical portrayal of law, and also from Jewish talmudic wisdom. The Talmud stresses that a good scholar must be able to find a hundred reasons why snake meat is kosher. Their reasoning for this odd advice is that an accused person deserves the best defense possible. We see this every day on television, from court room dramas, to Judge Judy, to news items about controversial trials such as O.J. Simson, who was found guilty (or perhaps I should say responsible) in civil court of a charges acquitted in criminal court.

I remember watching President Clintons lips curl in a wry smile as he replied "That depends on what your definition of is is."

The art of persuasion is a necessary evil in our lives. Nor is it always an evil. Passages from Lincoln's speechs and the Declaration of Independence reverberate in our ears with a hallowed tone on par with prayers.

Conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

When, in the course of human events...

Speaking of the preamble to the Declaration, look at this interesting observation which is germane to the Socratic method of discourse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

The preamble is presented as a syllogism, with one proposition leading to another proposition. From the first proposition (that all men are created equal), a chain of logic is produced that leads to the right and responsibility of revolution when a government becomes destructive of the people's rights.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

By the way, if anyone finds this thread a bit tedious, they might want to read my anecdote regarding "Isaac Newton's Homework"

http://toosmallforsupernova.org/page009.htm

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic119.php

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

It was great to see the man on television.

As I mentioned, the interview was filmed the year before his death caused by heart attack.

His face was so expressive. You might think he was an actor, chosen to portray the role, rather than the man himself.

He made a career out of defending people who were truly despised by society. He attempted to defend those who were implicated in the World Trade Center bombing.

During the interview, Wm. Kunstler stated that, had Hitler's generals assassinated Hitler, the world would have jumped for joy. That does not mean that assassination is right or good or moral, but it happens and has been a part of political reality for thousands of years.

For me, Kunstler's career is a lesson that the just society offers justice and defense even to its most unjust transgressor. Somehow, whenever we trample upon individual rights and abrogate personal liberties, even of those we consider evil and reprehensible, then we unwittingly tarnish the machinery of our system of justice in our society. I guess one might call this a kind of legislative karma.

Get your own free IRC Chat room