Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bush goes on 'trial' in Morris
Parsippany students confront issues of terrorism and war
BY ROB JENNINGS
DAILY RECORD
PARSIPPANY -- President Bush is being tried for "crimes against civilian populations" and "inhumane treatment of prisoners" at Parsippany High School, with students arguing both sides before a five-teacher "international court of justice." The panel's verdict could come as soon as Friday.
Teacher Joseph Kyle said the "hearing"-- he preferred that term to trial -- opened on Monday in a senior advanced placement government class. The school's principal said he signed off in advance on the subject matter.
"I knew it was a sensitive topic. Morris County is a conservative county. Parsippany is a conservative district," Kyle, 37, a teacher at the high school since 1998, said on Wednesday evening.
Alumnus disturbed
Former county Sheriff John Fox of Parsippany denounced the weeklong hearing -- where students debated whether Bush is a war criminal and questioned classmates playing administration officials and the Army general who oversaw Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- as "terrible"and "disturbing."
"Those are young, impressionable minds those people have control over. We don't need those liberal academics doing what they're doing. I find that offensive," said Fox, a Republican who graduated from Parsippany High School.
Kyle declined to discuss his opinion of Bush, the war in Iraq or the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He said he isn't trying to show up the president.
"President Bush is often tried in absentia all around the world," Kyle said.
"All we hear in the papers is, war crimes this, war crimes that -- without even hearing a defense. It would be irresponsible for a teacher to pretend that isn't happening," Kyle said.
Defense begins
At the high school, prosecutors rested on Wednesday following testimony from nine "witnesses," Kyle said.
The prosecution list included Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen allegedly tortured by U.S. forces; international human rights attorney Michael Ratner; Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell; retired CIA foreign policy analyst Ray McGovern; and U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were called by the defense before the seventh-period class concluded, Kyle said.
The defense will resume its case today with eight additional witnesses and, possibly, a verdict -- decided by two English teachers, one history teacher, a guidance counselor and someone from the school's media department, Kyle said.
Morris County Freeholder Jack Schrier, a Republican, said he was "truly outraged" by the war crimes hearing.
"It's not un-American. We do have freedom of thought and freedom of speech. But we're a nation at war. Not only this teacher, but so many others in the nation, have lost sight of that," Schrier said.
Principal supportive
High school Principal Anthony Sciaino defended Kyle.
"I think that the way he's doing it, in that it's more of a debate, makes it ideal and connects perfectly with the AP government curriculum," Sciaino said.
Kyle is no stranger to controversial topics. Starting on Tuesday, his sophomore class will put former President Andrew Jackson on trial for alleged abuses against Native Americans.
Kyle insisted that he doesn't have a partisan agenda. While teaching at Montclair High School, he conducted an impeachment trial of President Clinton while he was in office.
"There's nothing bad with exploring evidence on both sides," Kyle said.
Kyle said he received several letters from parents who were "all complimentary" of the war crimes hearing.
One thing that Kyle said he would like to keep private is the verdict.
"That decision is going to be sealed," he said, explaining that students will be told the outcome but asked not to tell others.
Kagom said:Good for them. They'll explore both sides of an issue and maybe just get how each side things and will be able to formulate their politics later in life.
I just think the whole concept that the children will be able to research this and look it it from a certain perspective and see how a court system works is awesome. It doesn't necessarily mean I approve of it.Bonnie said:So you don't find the fact that this trial was initiated a bit suspect? A bit one sided given that there has been no establishment in real life that he is guilty of this, other than politics and inuendo by many people who have an agneda and haven't even set foot near Gitmo Bay or Abu Grahib?
Kagom said:I just think the whole concept that the children will be able to research this and look it it from a certain perspective and see how a court system works is awesome. It doesn't necessarily mean I approve of it.
And pray tell why using Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton might not have been a superior choice?Kagom said:I just think the whole concept that the children will be able to research this and look it it from a certain perspective and see how a court system works is awesome. It doesn't necessarily mean I approve of it.
The perspective that he might be a war criminal. The opposition. Those are the certain perspectives.rtwngAvngr said:A certain perspective? What the hell is that?
You could use them. They didn't choose them. That's their deal. With Bill Clinton they may have felt it wasn't as current and that he may not have been worthy of war criminal charges or the sort.Kathianne said:And pray tell why using Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton might not have been a superior choice?
Either would have been a better choice for 'education', since there was official decisions and the students could either have out argued the outcomes or strengthen the favorable results.Kagom said:You could use them. They didn't choose them. That's their deal. With Bill Clinton they may have felt it wasn't as current and that he may not have been worthy of war criminal charges or the sort.
I still say it'll be interesting. I think the whole thing is fascinating and besides, what does it matter what a group of teenagers find in a mock trial for something that may never go to trial? People are too wound up on this stuff.Kathianne said:Either would have been a better choice for 'education', since there was official decisions and the students could either have out argued the outcomes or strengthen the favorable results.
Nope, this case is totally political, to cast GW as being worthy of trial, which the court system has not found.
I don't think teachers indoctrinating students is 'interesting.' I think it's 'inappropriate.'Kagom said:I still say it'll be interesting. I think the whole thing is fascinating and besides, what does it matter what a group of teenagers find in a mock trial for something that may never go to trial? People are too wound up on this stuff.
And if they had done the Clinton trial BEFORE any verdict, would that have been indoctrinating or would it be exploring a possibility to you? By our differing ideals, I'd be inclined to say indoctrination if I go by your line of sight. I say it's all exploring possibilities here and teaching the children how court systems go.Kathianne said:I don't think teachers indoctrinating students is 'interesting.' I think it's 'inappropriate.'
Kagom said:And if they had done the Clinton trial BEFORE any verdict, would that have been indoctrinating or would it be exploring a possibility to you? By our differing ideals, I'd be inclined to say indoctrination if I go by your line of sight. I say it's all exploring possibilities here and teaching the children how court systems go.
Kagom said:The perspective that he might be a war criminal. The opposition. Those are the certain perspectives.
rtwngAvngr said:Maybe you're a war criminal. Let's burn you in effigy. That's a pretty interesting exercise. How do you feel about that one?
If you can find evidence to convict me, then you have the right. I don't care, honestly.rtwngAvngr said:Maybe you're a war criminal. Let's burn you in effigy. That's a pretty interesting exercise. How do you feel about that one?
Thing is this is a mock court system. It's not an exploration of major historical events and the sort. What if's like that are best left to the historians with the time to come up with the scenarios.Kathianne said:If done before, would have been inappropriate. Exploring 'possibilities' should be 'what ifs'. What if the US had declared war on Germany when they entered the Sudentenland?
Plenty of stuff to research, without the political baggage of 'now.' Which is why I put Johnson in there, the more appropriate choice.
You are not getting it from an 'educational viewpoint.' In order to hold a mock trial, of any worth, the students need to research the merits themselves. With GW, the jury is more than 'out', since the prosecution hasn't gotten their case together yet, professionaly, yet this genius teacher figures that 16 or 17 year olds, with in all liklihood 1 or 2 hs level history courses, can put together a 'case' against him. What the f are they working with?Kagom said:Thing is this is a mock court system. It's not an exploration of major historical events and the sort. What if's like that are best left to the historians with the time to come up with the scenarios.
Johnson is a good choice. But you're either not getting what I'm going for or you're ignoring it. It's teaching them to work in a court system and find evidence to support their theories and I think it's interesting to do that, even if it is on something I may or may not agree with.
The more I read over it, the more it's coming across as debate than trial. Besides, they're having to look up some information to understand their side of the case.Kathianne said:You are not getting it from an 'educational viewpoint.' In order to hold a mock trial, of any worth, the students need to research the merits themselves. With GW, the jury is more than 'out', since the prosecution hasn't gotten their case together yet, professionaly, yet this genius teacher figures that 16 or 17 year olds, with in all liklihood 1 or 2 hs level history courses, can put together a 'case' against him. What the f are they working with?
That's what your bias is clouding, there isn't any way to 'research' this. All the reporting is biased, sign of the present.Kagom said:The more I read over it, the more it's coming across as debate than trial. Besides, they're having to look up some information to understand their side of the case.
Apparently they have to research in order to even do this to any length at all. They're taking popular information from media (of both sides I am assuming) and then looking at things from there.
