Tamara Appears on Hannity's "Great American Panel"

A special thanks to Sean Hannity (and his booker) for having me on the show. Sean is an awesome g uy with a great personality. We had so much fun on the panel. What an honor to be a guest on a LEGIT show! Also, it was a pleasure meeting new people, Mercedes Schlapp and NY Jets kicker, Jay Feely. They were lots of fun - well, as "fun" as it could be sitting between two conservatives! THANK YOU Fox and Hannity!

Copyright 2009 Fox News Network, LLC. Fox News Network

SHOW: FOX HANNITY 9:40 PM EST

November 24, 2009 Tuesday

NEWS; Domestic

1965 words

President's Polls Falling; Truth about Global Warming Being Hidden; Cheney in Battle with Obama Administration

Sean Hannity

Mercedes Schlapp, Tamara Holder, Jay Feely

HANNITY: And tonight on our "Great American Panel," she worked in the White House under George W. Bush for media affairs. Mercedes Vianna Schlapp is here.And she worked with the Reverend Jesse Jackson and the rainbow push coalition. Criminal defense attorney Tamara Holder is here.And he is the super kicker for the New York Jets.JAY FEELY, NEW YORK JETS: I don't know about that.HANNITY: Well, you're doing good this year. Jay Feely. The team's struggling. But Mark Sanchez... FEELY: The team's struggling but we're going to keep pushing on.HANNITY: I know he's having a rough year, but he's going to be a rock star. That's my prediction.FEELY: You know what? He's humble and he works hard. That's what you want.HANNITY: No, no, no. I agree. And the press in New York is brutal. It's tough. But you know what?FEELY: I know that.HANNITY: I know that, from experience. Just Google my name. You'll see.All right. President's approval rating, Rasmussen now has 54 percent of Americans disapprove. You can put it up on the screen. And only 45 percent approving.Gallup, Quinnipiac, Zogby, every major poll in the country, the president has lost significant support. Why?MERCEDES VIANA SCHLAPP, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think part of the problem is that he's trying to be too friendly to our international community and basically alienating the American people on all of his policy issues.He has presented most radical policies since we're talking FDR. I mean, when you're looking at all the spending that he's had, as well as the health care bill that's going along. We know that this is costing -- they're saying billions but we really are looking at trillions of dollars.Plus I think we see a weakness in the sense of the foreign policy. And the indecisiveness which I think is going to cost him his support, and he's not listening to the American people.HANNITY: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to be a mistake. Mirandizing enemy combatants on the battlefield. Unemployment wasn't supposed to go above 8 percent. Record debt and deficits. Health care that the American people by 18 points don't want.He doesn't shown any indication that he's willing to listen to the American people. Why?TAMARA HOLDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I don't know. I think that he is just not listening to anyone. Forget the American people. His own advisors he's not listening to.I mean, this whole meeting about the troops, he's met eight, 10, 20 times. Whatever. The people closest to him he's not even listening to. I think the American people are having buyers -- buyer's remorse and are very concerned about the people who did vote for him, why did we vote for him?HANNITY: You're supposed to be the liberal on the panel here.HOLDER: I'm one of those people. I did vote for him. And...HANNITY: You regret it?HOLDER: Well, I'm questioning. It's like dating a guy after a year. You know, it's been a year now.HANNITY: I never experienced that.HOLDER: But in...HANNITY: A little buyer's remorse.HOLDER: Correct.HANNITY: For a lot of people. And if you look at these results in Virginia and New Jersey, independents shifted dramatically. But I think he's such a pure ideologue and I think he is so radical in his views, where is the tendency to say you know what? The American people are smart. They're trying to tell me something. And he won't listen.FEELY: And it's interesting Sean, It's interesting, Sean, because in 60 years, no president has been re-elected if their approval is under 47 percent, and everyone has been has been re-elected that was above 51 percent.And you look back at Reagan in '82. He had a disapproval rating of 54 percent. You know, and that was because he had double digit unemployment.HANNITY: Right.FEELY: It didn't get better until it got down two years later to 7.3 percent unemployment. And I think that's where the real cusp of the problem is, is because, with unemployment at double digits and continuing to rise, he's going to have a problem trying to sell any of these philosophies.HANNITY: Obama's just the opposite. And he promised just the opposite, that unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent. That's a big promise that he made.SCHLAPP: And that was a promise he made with passing the stimulus bill. He basically showed this -- they showed this chart that basically said, with the stimulus bill, we are not going over 8 percent. We are much more over 8 percent. Look at Michigan, we're looking at 15.2 percent.HANNITY: If we -- if we also count the underemployed, you know, you work for the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.HOLDER: With.HANNITY: Underemployed, it's about 17.5 percent. If you look at unemployment in the minority communities in this country, it is near depression levels.HOLDER: It's at terrible levels. And I see that every day in the inner city in Chicago, and it's the same throughout the entire country.And that's where I disagree with you about this radical position. President Obama has been wavering. First he said he's closing Guantanamo down. Now he's not. Then he said he wanted the CIA Interrogation, you know, them to be prosecuted. Now he doesn't. Then he said he wanted the prisoner abuse photos to be released. Now he doesn't. So he is wavering.Radical, fine. Be radical. But he's not.HANNITY: So in other words, you want him to be more left, and you feel like he's abandoning your position?HOLDER: Well, just make a decision.HANNITY: Yes.HOLDER: Make a decision. Whatever it is, I want to know.FEELY: He's been very indecisive, and I think that's what the American people want. They want leadership. They want to understand what the problems are. They want to know what the answers are. And then they want a leader to lead them in the right direction.HANNITY: Yes, I agree. So he doesn't have those qualities. Is it because he had no executive experience coming into office?FEELY: That's a good question.HANNITY: Well, it seems like it, right?Yes. One thing about Reagan, you mentioned Reagan. Reagan knew where he stood on taxes. George Bush knew where he stood on keeping the country safe.We're going to come back and in the spirit of our kicker from the New York Jets, we'll have -- watch how the ball spins. More with our "Great American Panel" straight ahead.HANNITY: And we continue now with our "Great American Panel."All right. This climate change hoax. Now we find out that this institute, in fact, was hiding from the people of Great Britain and the world that, in fact, climate change is a hoax. Something I've been saying for a long time. Why would they try to hide it if there wasn't another agenda?FELLY: Well, I mean, that's worrisome, because they're supposed to be scientists, not gatekeepers. And if you want true science, if you want to progress in science, you need honesty. You need good data. You know, you can't have this -- these questions about their reasoning for doing things.And honestly, I mean, they need to get money and grants. But to me it was interesting that The New York Times wouldn't print any of the e-mails.HANNITY: They wouldn't print the e-mails.FEELY: And they said because it wasn't meant for the public eye. But they have no problem doing that, you know, when it puts our troops in harm's way. That was -- that was very disconcerting.HANNITY: I made that very point last night. I agree with you. They were willing to do it in that particular case.Isn't this agenda really anti-capitalism that is predicated on this belief that capitalism, to make a profit, you got to rape and pillage the - - the earth to get there? Isn't that what this is about, an anti- capitalist agenda?HOLDER: No, I don't think everything has to do with capitalism. I think this just has to do with greedy scientists who don't want to show the other side or -- or...HANNITY: But what would their motivation be? Is it money? Or is it that they have an agenda and their agenda is that capitalism is bad, and that capitalism is about hurting the planet?HOLDER: It's about both. It's about both.HANNITY: So you finally agree with me. I'm glad.HOLDER: I always agree with you.HANNITY: No, you don't.HOLDER: But I think maybe the best person to answer that question would be Al Gore.HANNITY: That's a great point.SCHLAPP: Let's just remember, this is a U.N. panel. I mean, this is the IPCC. The EPA uses the IPCC to get their recommendations to boost these greenhouse emissions. I mean, they are taking these recommendations seriously.And soon, President Obama is going to be going to Copenhagen to talk about how we're going to reduce greenhouse emissions. Well, this is what we're talking about here.First of all on this panel there are no climatologists. They are basically Ph.D.'s, liberal researchers. And this is why the congressional Republicans have come out and said we need to have an investigation. Let's see if the Democrats follow suit.HANNITY: All right. Dick Cheney is driving the Obama administration crazy. He came out and he said they have now -- he said officially something I've been saying.That is that this administration has a pre-9-11 mindset. He said this is a show trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a big mistake not to use military tribunals. I agree with every one of his points.How dangerous is this, that they're now -- we now know that they're going to use this forum to advance their terrorist agenda?SCHLAPP: It is incredibly dangerous. They're going to make it into a circus. And this is what Mohammed is going to do. Then al Qaeda can use this as propaganda, and in essence, giving this man, the principal architect of the 9-11 attacks, are giving this man full constitutional rights. I mean, this is -- you don't even give that to uniformed enemy combatants who follow the laws of war.HOLDER: I think the scariest part about this is that our intelligence community has not given us enough support, that we know that we are going to be protected as Americans when this occurs. Forget what goes on inside of the courtroom.HANNITY: Are you sure you work with Jessie Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition?SCHLAPP: We're adopting her.HANNITY: Where can we disagree with you tonight?HOLDER: Well...HANNITY: You've been watching this show. We've helped your -- your political views evolve.FEELY: The problem, though, is what it does to our judicial system. You know, are we going to put all the fundamental principles of our judicial system and cast them aside in front of the whole world to see?Or are we going to allow them to have a platform to spew their venom, you know, in court, for the world to see? What are we doing...HANNITY: He already admitted guilt. He already wanted the death penalty.FEELY: The president admitted guilt. The president said that they're guilty. Holder said that they're guilty.HANNITY: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted he was guilty. Now everything that he said, because we didn't Mirandize him, may be admissible in court.FEELY: You know, and you look back to the World Trade Center in '93 and what happened there. And they used that trial as propaganda. They used that trial then to take some of the evidence and to use it, the terrorists, to attack us more.HANNITY: And Bin Laden got information, intel that he used.Guys, great panel tonight. Thank you.HOLDER: Thank you.HANNITY: One quick note before we leave tonight. The 2010 Freedom Concert, our tickets are available at Hannity.com. A great show planned all across the country. New York, New Jersey, Cincinnati, Dayton, Atlanta, Orlando, Jacksonville, Tulsa, Dallas, Fort Worth, Vegas and San Diego.Lynyrd Skynyrd, Michael W. Smith, Charlie Daniels.

CASEY ANTHONY CASE: NO BODY = NO DEATH PENALTY

Friday, December 5, 2008: Prosecutors filed documents in the Casey Anthony case stating they will not seek the death penalty for the alleged murder of Casey's daughter, Caylee, stating, "It is not in the best interest of the people of the state of Florida to pursue the death penalty as a potential sentence. Therefore, the state of Florida will not be seeking the death penalty as to Casey Marie Anthony." Article here.

The state's allegations against Casey depict a selfish mother who committed a heinous murder of her 3-year old daughter by possibly poisoning her with choloroform and then storing her body in the trunk of the family car for days.  Why wouldn't they seek the death penalty?  In my opinion, the sole reason is because Caylee's body still has not been found and there is a probability (although quite low) that Caylee is still alive.  It would be a terrible injustice to have executed a woman whose daughter miraculously appears alive one day.  (There are still alleged sightings of Caylee.)  If Caylee's body is found before trial, it may be possible that the state can withdraw their filing and re-file a request for the death penalty.George and Cindy Anthony received a photo of a girl with brown hair (center) playing at the Florida Mall. Photo courtesty of Orlando Sentinel.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

OJ TO BE SENTENCED TODAY

OJ Simpson to be sentenced today on Aggravated Kidnapping & Robbery, for a total of 12 counts of which he was found guilty in a trial by jury. 

My prediction is OJ will not be sentenced to the maximum, which is 30 years, but somewhere in the middle.  Possibly 12-15.  Remember, he does not have any convictions in his background.  The judge, however, can hear all aggravation from the State, and that will include the double murder case of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman.  He also beat a road rage cas in FL.  He was also fined by a federal judge for pirating Direct TV cable.  $25,000 worth!  These cases will possibly carry over into today's sentence.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

Tamara in Chicago Tribune: "Take 2 Excedrin, Call Lawyer"

Take 2 Excedrin, call lawyer
By Matthew Walberg Tribune reporter

Tuesday was one big headache for Isabella Seffinga, to hear her attorney tell it.

Racked by a migraine, she threw up on a bar stool cushion in a South Loop condo she was readying to show on behalf of a real estate agent for whom she works, said her attorney, Tamara Holder. She ran to the bathroom and passed out, only to wake up and discover she had become ill again, fouling a towel and two blankets.

Seffinga grabbed detergent and fabric softener and removed the soiled belongings from the condo to wash them at her own place in the same building, Holder said.

When the condo owner came home later that day, she discovered the items missing. Security footage showed that Seffinga let herself into the home with a key in a doorknob lockbox and left with the cushion, towel and blankets, prosecutors said.

A short time later, police came knocking on Seffinga's door. She admitted taking the items and let police search her home. Officers found the missing property.

On Thursday, Seffinga, 44, appeared in Central Bond Court, charged with residential burglary, a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Seffinga appeared nervous as prosecutors outlined the charge for Circuit Judge Ramon Ocasio. He ordered her released on her own recognizance. Seffinga has no criminal record.

Holder said the fact that her client took such an odd mix of belongings while avoiding the usual burglary targets—cash, jewelry and electronic devices—shows she was simply trying to clean up a messy situation.

"This is a waste of taxpayer money, right here," the attorney declared.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

IMAGE DEVELOPMENT: ATTORNEY MUST BE CONSCIOUS NOT TO CREATE NEGATIVE IMAGE OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR CLIENT

I recently had a heart-to-heart conversation with a friend of mine about professional image.  This well-known individual truly understands the idea of "image" and has done a fine job of maintaining a favorable image in the public eye.  This person is not an attorney; however, the rules are the same regardless of your profession: If you choose to expose yourself and your client, you are responsible for how both of you appear to others.

The attorney whose case is in the media has two roles: A) Do not transfer their own negative image onto their client, and B) Make sure their client doesn't damage their own image. 

Let me say that I am not an image consultant and I think it's unprofessional to criticize another attorney. HOWEVER, I am concerned that certain attorneys who have been in the news lately are behaving in a manner that is a disservice to their client.  

JOEL BRODSKY - DREW PETERSON'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY

Attorney Joel Brodsky and Drew Peterson

 Rumor has it, Drew's indictment is imminent on at least one of the alleged murders of 2 of his wives - either Kathleen and/or Stacy.  He's the only named suspect in Stacy's disappearance and Kathleen's cause of death was ruled a homicide after her body was exhumed last year.

Attorney Joel Brodsky continues to make statements that are not in his client's best interest.  On November 29, 2007, Brodsky is interviewed by Greta Van Susteren.  During the entire interview Attorney Brodsky attacks witnesses, reports, etc.  For example he says:

"But Tom Morphey (Drew's step-brother) is a very ill (ph) man with all his multiple psychiatric hospitalizations and his problems with alcohol and his multiple suicide attempts. There's no question that he is a very disturbed person."  

He goes on to say, "And to me, that's a very strange time to report somebody missing, at 4:00 o'clock in the morning. I mean, you know, you would report them, certainly, if they didn't show up right away and you couldn't track them down, which would have been much earlier in the day, or perhaps in the morning when you woke up. But 4:00 o'clock in the morning seems to me a very strange time to be reporting somebody missing. I don't know, was she waiting for the bars to close? Maybe she knows something more about Stacy's habits than she's saying."

Remember, Stacy is allegedly alive & missing.  Instead, Brodsky should talk about Drew's concern for his wife and her whereabouts.  Brodsky's attacks on others do nothing for Drew's image nor for his own image; in fact, these comments are damaging to both of them.

Then, 1-year later, Brodsky and Drew fly to NY for "exclusive" interview on The Today Show on Stacy's 1-year anniversary of her disappearance. The interview starts out with Peterson answering questions about his polygraph test that detected deception.  Why would Brodsky allow his client to answer such questions????  During the interview, Peterson talks about her leaving him for another man, that she has problems with her family, that she was under psychiatric care and on medication. He says that Kathleen was the type to accuse him of stealing something.  See interview with Today Show here. The worst part, in my opinion, is Peterson's demeanor is overly confident and he appears quite cocky.  His image is terrible.

Brodsky then goes on to tell the AP that there's no evidence and they are not worried.  And, "“Maybe she fell in with bad people ... I'm not saying it happened, but it certainly starts creeping into your thoughts as a possibility.” 

Well, he should be worried. And even if he's not, he should be planning a major image campaign because all interviews are watched and read by his potential jury pool.  Notice that Brodsky attacks the investigators and the State's Attorney.  Peterson attacks the witnesses and his wives.  Where is the compassion?  Where is the effort on the part of Brodsky to show a man who is concerned for the cases to be solved, for Stacy to be found, for the State's Attorney to take their time to find the right person.

Another friend of mine, who is a lawyer, said to me, "He is better off embracing what is coming and trying to diffuse or undermine it instead of ridiculously trying to make it sound like they are not worried.  We are not worried at all?  Really?  When Drew gets indicted, which he will, than Brodsky is going to be proven a fool to his entire potential jury pool before the case has even gotten started."

The lawyer's image is best created when he/she wins a case or at least focuses on putting the client in the best light, regardless of the case's outcome.  (I believe Johnnie Cochran would still have had a fine image, even if he lost OJ's case.)  Image outside of the courtroom helps with media spin and potential jury pool preconceptions.  Image inside of the courtroom greatly does have an impact on the jury - remember, they watch the demeanor of the defendant and the attorney alike.  Although a case is should be entirely about the facts, the evidence, and the merits, there are plenty of studies to prove that courtroom success is also about presentation and image.  

I wish Brodsky the best of luck in his representation of Peterson...

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

THE OVERLY-CONFIDENT MENTALITY OF CRIMINALS: SIMILARITY BETWEEN OJ SIMPSON & JORAN VAN DER SLOOT: I CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING!

JORAN CAUGHT TRYING TO SELL THAI WOMEN INTO PROSTITUTION

Hopefully, you remember the Natalee Holloway story: In May, 2005, a beautiful, young, high school student takes a "senior trip" to Aruba. She leaves her group of friends at the bar to hang out with a young fella (and stranger), Joran van der Sloot. Natalee was never seen again. Joran was named a suspect and taken into custody a few times; however, he has never been charged with her murder. Natalee Holloway's Senior Picture - 2005

Well, Joran is back in the news; this time, for an unrelated reason: Joran was recorded in an undercover, hidden camera, set-up-of-sorts by reporter Peter De Vries. [Mr. De Vries received an Emmy earlier this year for a different hidden-camera conversation with Joran where he admitted to dumping Natalee's body in the ocean after she went unconscious on the beach while they were making out.]

In the most-recent video, Joran is tells a man posing as a sex-industry boss, that he "can get passports for Thai women and girls who think they are going to the Netherlands to work as dancers." There's big money in this for Joran; apparently, he can make $13,000 for every woman he sells into prostitution. Such an honorable guy.

“The pictures show how little respect this 21-year-old has for the lives of others,” De Vries told a Dutch newspaper. “The fact that he goes into the trafficking of women after the disappearance of Natalee is typical of him.”

JORAN & OJ SIMPSON SIMILARITY: "SINCE I GOT AWAY WITH MURDER (ALLEGEDLY) THEN I CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING!"

I see many of my criminal clients develop the mentality that if they "beat" a case, they automatically become invincible and can get away with more crime again and again. After OJ was convicted in Vegas last month, I mentioned this concept in my blog: the overly-confident criminal. (Let me be clear: I don't believe all people who win a case develop this mentality. In fact, there is no better feeling than seeking a Governor's pardon for a client who made a mistake many years ago, learned his/her lesson and positively contributes to society.)

OJ escaped the murder convictions of his ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. After the not-guilty finding, he was re-arrested in FL for a road-rage case (that he also beat), fined by a federal judge for pirating cable from DirecTV (hilarious!), and then eventually found guilty of kidnapping and armed robbery in Vegas in October.

OJ Simpson is the classic textbook case about the person who beats the system for murder and then continues down a path of criminal behavior until they eventually get caught. I'm not a psychiatrist, but the mentality is quite intriguing. And, Joran may be the next case-study:

Joran was never charged with Natalee's murder although he's the only named suspect. Shortly after Natalee's disappearance, he subjected himself to an interview about the night he was with Natalee. After the show, he threw a glass of wine in the host's face for no reason! Here's just another sign of Joran's total disregard for respect and common decency.

Now, he is on film engaging this new criminal ploy of trafficking Thai prostitutes. (Remember, we aren't talking about a kid who doesn't know any better - he's the son of a high ranking judicial official.)

Because Joran believes he got away with murder, he has become narcissistic, similar to OJ, similar to Drew Peterson, similar to many murderers. He cannot help himself; he has developed a real sociopathic mentality. We haven't seen the last of Joran; he'll eventually be caught engaging in some sort of crime that will bring Joran back to the reality that he is not above the law.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

Tamara's Interview with Gaper's Block Regarding Jon Burge Allegations

Revenge of the Second City Nov 12 2008

New Burge Allegations Present a Challenge for Cops

By Ramsin Canon

Chicago attorney and victim's rights advocate Tamara Holder is the bearer of bad news, and fresh lawsuits, for embattled former Area 2 Commander Jon Burge. Holder is preparing to file new federal lawsuits against Burge, his associates (or "henchman" as she termed them to me), the city, the Chicago Police Department, and the office of the State's Attorney of Cook County — the office occupied by one Richard M. Daley at the time Burge was allegedly torturing confessions out of Chicagoans. Burge's recent indictment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges by Northern District Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald dragged him out of his Florida retirement and put him back on display, and cops across the city squirmed to see one of their own facing a judge.

Holder, an expungement specialist who owns the domain xpunged.com, was contacted by a Latino man who claims he was held and brutally beaten by Burge and his associates in 1983, when he was 14 years old, in order to extract a confession to a murder.

"He contacted me to clear his name, because I specialize in expungements," she told me. "But his story is really just terrible."

Holder would not release the name of the man, as the lawsuit has not yet been filed, but she shared some of the details of the case. Holder alleges that her plaintiff had a co-defendant whose confession bore a statement by the State's Attorney's office clearly outlining that the document was for the purpose of a confession to a crime and that the attorney present was not the suspect's attorney. Her client's statement, however, did not feature any such disclaimer. According to Holder, the plaintiff's attorney at the time moved to have the confession suppressed on the grounds that it was coerced, but the judge refused.

As an unfiled suit, obviously all skeptical instincts should kick in. These are allegations relayed by the attorney representing the plaintiffs in a suit. The legal process will ferret out the truth, hopefully. Further, neither nor Burge nor any of his associates have been convicted of the crimes now indelibly associated with their names.

Holder appeared with Rep. Danny Davis, Jesse Jackson, and others at a Rainbow-PUSH event to highlight the on-going Burge controversy in late October. Holder, who runs an expungement clinic through Rainbow-PUSH, expressed a desire to see not only Burge but his associates brought to justice. Rep. Davis made police abuse an issue in the 1991 mayoral election, a particularly thorny issue for Mayor Daley, who was the State's Attorney for much of the period in question, and therefore the prosecutor who benefitted from the extraction of confessions from murder suspects. Then-mayoral candidate Daley obviously greatly benefitted from a "law-and-order" image at a time, the late 1980s, when the city was mired in the crack wars and Chicago approached 1,000 homicides a year. That systematic abuse may have taken place, and convictions followed, is an understandable outrage in Chicago's minority, low-income communities. It is a twofold outrage: first that basic human rights could be so baldly violated, and second that the search for the actual perpetrators took a back seat to "juking the stats."

Ms. Holder's client's suit and its details could be explosive for the city and our police department, at a time when morale is rumored to be at its lowest point in years. The torture and forced confession of a minor is a human rights violation that simply cannot be shrugged off. Meanwhile, Chicago's homicide rate is still at twice that of New York City and nearly twice that of Los Angeles, and has seen a steep increase as the economy has declined. For cops on the beat, there is a dangerous tipping point between public confidence in the law and an assumption that the law is corrupt. When that tipping point is reached is when the tenuous peace of the streets turns into chaos. That is when cops start dying.

Jon Burge's alleged treatment of Chicagoans for nearly 20 years as a detective in Area 2 is a horrific story. Phony tough guys who abuse their authority on defenseless people are parasites on a law-and-order society. And unfortunately, the story of torture under Burge has been reasonably well established; the report by Special Prosecutor Ed Egan, released in 2006, found improprieties that could not be prosecuted due to the applicable statutes of limitations. In 2005, after years of brilliant reporting on the issue, the Chicago Reader ran a story linking Burge's alleged torture techniques to interrogation methods used in Vietnam. Burge has maintained his innocence.

In our outrage at the treatment of suspects in police custody, it is easy for a "people against the police" framework to develop. This is not the only way to think about it. The fact of torture is of course abhorrent; but Burge's alleged conduct should be considered in a different light. Torture of suspects in police custody — and any undue treatment of suspects in police custody — demeans our police officers, too. It corrupts good police work; it provides cover or comfort to legitimate criminals; it undermines public confidence in working men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to keep the peace in our communities. Good cops doing hard work are kneecapped by stories like these, and a tendency to heap unction on lowlifes and career criminals emerges, making life on the street even harder for cops. This is not just a "few bad apples" argument, but something deeper. Top-heavy political control of the police force leads to a lack of transparency and a fiendish need for "better numbers."

Many CPD officers have a reflexive defensiveness when it comes to issues like this. They argue that the fear of lawsuits and a lack of back-up from political leadership makes cops unwilling to do the rough police work necessary to get information from the streets and keep run-of-the-mill hoods in line. And seeing the media and the public through them swoon in defense of roughed-up hoods can be extremely isolating for the boys and girls in blue who day in and day out deal with the worst in human nature.

Rank-and-file cops themselves realize that that atmosphere makes good police work difficult, or impossible. As we find with most public service, a combination of transparency and peer control of policy, rather than increased politicization through increased bureaucracy would do more to "clean up" the force than anything else. Instead, accusations of "police torture" pinions rank-and-file cops into "defending" a torturer, and pointing out that, hey, some of these guys may have been guilty anyway (and, indeed, Patrick Fitzgerald has reopened a case against Madison Hobley, who won a lawsuit against Burge and the city), and very few of them were angels. None of this, of course, justifies robbing any U.S. citizen of their Constitutional rights.

As a public which relies on the police for our own peace of mind and body, we should never forget that it is almost always political leadership and a politicized bureaucracy, not rank-and-file cops, who must be the focus of our rage when the rule of law breaks down and scandals like this become apparent.

The on-going Burge case is complicated psychologically, if not ethically. No Burge apologist — including cops — can reasonably claim to be for "law-and-order." If the allegations against Burge and his unit in Area 2 are true, they are criminals themselves and therefore cannot by definition be on the side of law. By the same token, nobody indicting the CPD or "cops" in general can claim to be on the side of "the victims," because only the police can fairly deliver justice for victims, and undermining confidence in the police force weakens the social order. We have to find a way to be advocates for rank-and-file cops while unreservedly condemning the types of inhumane activities Burge has been accused of.

While Burge's most immediate victims would be the men he may have tortured, his fellow officers are not far behind.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com