Is the Rubashkin Saga / Trial Anti-Semitic?

by rabbifink on May 13, 2010 · 11 comments

This post has been cross-posted to DovBear. More discussion there. (Link)

If you are like me, you have been reading about the Rubashkin saga for months. What began with a Federal raid at a meat processing plant to ferret out hundreds of illegal alien employees is now culminating with a federal and state trial. (Link)

If you are like me, you have been hearing that the raid was “disproportionate” and fueled by anti-semitism.

If you are like me you have been hearing that he was denied bail because of an anti-semitic fear that Rubashkin was a flight risk and would flee to Israel.

If you are like me, you have been hearing that his federal sentencing recommendation was anti-semitic. (Link)

If you are like me, you have been hearing how the county jail was anti-semitic in not providing food that was kosher “to Rubashkin’s standards” and not permitting him to wear religious garb (tzitzis / tzitzit). (Link)

I have three things I want to say.

1) I feel terribly for Rubashkin. I feel terribly for any criminal who is sentenced to prison but more-so when the criminal is a family member of mine. As a fellow Jew, Rubashkin is family and it pains me to see him in this state. I support asking for leniency is a mentshlach way.

2) Rubashkin is the cause of much of the animosity towards him from the prosecution and judiciary. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT because he is Jewish, nor is it anti-semitic.

3) Even those who cry anti-semitism in this case are grossly misusing the term.

I think #1 is a well represented opinion throughout the Jewish community. It does not require any more attention from me. Consider me to have said “ditto”.

Number 2 is something that has been so wildly misunderstood it almost seems blatant. The reason Rubashkin’s plant was raided was NOT due to a plan hatched in the bowels of a Ku Klux Klan facility. The reason his plant was raided was because he snubbed the Unions by hiring illegals and the Unions were none-too-happy. They made the infractions known to the Feds and they raided the plant. Were there too many helicopters and fancy weapons? Probably. Was it anti-semitic? Probably not. The people who make these kinds of choices don’t, actually, CAN’T have vendettas against minorities. This is the Federal Government of the most benevolent host the Jewish people have ever had. Use your noodle people! There is no conspiracy! Who was president at the time? Our best friend George W. Bush. The federal agents were in his employ. Dare we think that the “anti-semitic raid” was orchestrated by our dear friend? Of course not.

Rubashkin was considered a flight-risk because agents found $10,000 cash in a packed bag with passports. Under normal circumstances that is a flight-risk. A packed bag with cash and passports could be reasonably interpreted as a “just-in-case” bag. Maybe it was a “just-in-case Moshiach comes bag”. I am willing to believe that was the case. But what would you think if you saw that bag and he wasn’t a frum Jew? Is it anti-semitism to draw the logical conclusion from finding that bag and denying him bail? Certainly not.

The sentencing recommendation was well within Federal guidelines. I was talking about the case to a lawyer friend of mine who works for the Court of Appeals and who knew nothing about the case. I told him some of the facts about the bank fraud. His immediate reaction was, “that’s a life sentence”. He didn’t know the crook was a Jew. He didn’t know the crook was accused of other crimes. He only knew about the bank fraud and he said “that’s a life sentence”. Is he anti-semitic? Who cares?! He didn’t know the cases involved a Jew when he said a life sentence was what the crook deserved!

Also, much has been made of “comparable criminals”. It is an unfair comparison because Rubashkin has not been cooperative. He was not willing to accept any plea deals. He maintains his complete, 100% innocence and is a difficult person for the court to deal with. He has many special requests and claims he is being victimized. He has offered only one half-baked apology since this saga began and has not taken any responsibility.

While in jail, Rubashkin has made special requests. Some have been honored and some have not. Some of the requests that have been honored and he has stated that he not satisfied with the kashrus of the food. It is kosher, just not kosher enough. Is it anti-semitic if they give him kosher food that most orthodox Jews would eat?

Also, Rubashkin will not walk without wearing Tzitzis. He states that his religion will not allow him to walk. So he has been carried around so that he will not violate this religious law. The problem is that he is with ignorant of the law or is just trying to be annoying. The law is that when one wears a four-cornered garment (think of a poncho or rectangular wrap) the garment must have a certain formula of strings attached to the garment at the corners. One is not required to wear such a garment. However it has become customary to wear one of these garments with the strings attached for prayer as well as during the day. But if you are not wearing a four-cornered garment the law does not require that you wear the strings (like a button-down shirt or blazer don’t need the strings). So why is Rubashkin making a stink out of an issue that is not religious? Is it anti-semitic if the jail does not cooperate with this?

I think it is clear enough that for every “anti-semitic” act against Rubashkin, there is a plausible non-anti-semitic explanation as well. Let’s just stop with the anti-semitism cries.

As for #3, I dare you to look a Holocaust survivor in the eye and call this anti-semitism. Try telling it to a Jew who was thrown out of Spain and Portugal for not bowing to the Cross. Or how about Jews who were slaughtered during pogroms? Being prosecuted for actual crimes is not anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is hatred and cruelty to Jews for no reason other than the fact that they are Jewish. That is not the case here.

I have more to say about anti-semitism in general. Stay tuned…

Related posts:

  1. Attorney Nathan Lewin On Anti-Semitism In Rubashkin Case
  2. Is The Cartoon of Elena Kagan Anti-Semitic?
  3. Hey San Francisco, 1930′s Germany Called – They Want Their Anti-Semitic Propaganda Back!

Tagged as: anti-semitism, current events, dovbear, hate, Jewish, law, legal, politics, ridiculous, Rubashkin

  • http://theantitzemach.blogspot.com HirshelTzig

    spoken like a true ignoramus, semichah/Rabbi or not. And what’s worse is that your words have consequences because people might get the idea that you know what you’re talking about!

    sorry to be so harsh.

    • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

      Instead of calling names, how about you try and find a flaw in my argument?

      Consider that maybe I do know what I am talking about…

      • http://mordechai.org Mottel

        You fail to mention that they wouldn’t give him his tefillin either!
        I don’t think this is antisemitism – I think the guard is, however, a blithering ignoramus.

  • http://twitter.com/mglickman mglickman

    While you raise some valid points, I think you are skewing a bit too much to the other extreme.

    Point 1 – no argument.

    Point 2 – The points you raise could very easily be the cause for the animosity, as opposed to anti-semitism. HOWEVER, why are you so quick to dismiss what we can assume are his genuine religious views. You view the halacha differently than he does, and he views the halacha differently than I do…
    His genuine beliefs and the fact that those beliefs may be the cause of animosity are not mutually exclusive.

    Point 3 – That’s conclusory. The claims of anti-semitism are that he is being singled out because he is Jewish. You are saying, “I don’t think he’s being singled out; it’s just for breaking the law, so it’s not anti-semitism.” furthermore, whether you think he is being singled out or not, trying to compare that to a what happened in the Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition is disingenuous. Can anti-semitism exist when it doesn’t rise to the level of the Holocaust?Of course!

    • http://mordechai.org Mottel

      Well put!

    • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

      mglickman:

      why are you so quick to dismiss what we can assume are his genuine religious views.

      Yes my opinion is that when you are in jail, you should be meikil.

      Can anti-semitism exist when it doesn’t rise to the level of the Holocaust?Of course!

      Agreed. It can exist. But I would argue, and I intend to argue in the next few days, that today’s “anti-semitism” is entirely a misnomer. That’s why it says “stay tuned”…

  • http://theantitzemach.blogspot.com HirshelTzig

    the flaw is as follows:

    You’re taking centuries of observance and throwing it in the toilet by telling the world that what’s important to Sholom Mordechai all his life – as well as to thousands of others Jews – is nothing at all. Telling people that tzitzis are unimportant if you haven’t a 4 corner garment is Rabbinics of the worst order. If you like to parctice that, so be it. Enjoy the beach without tzitzis. But don’t tell us that we’re fools for doing so. Soon you’ll tell us that the forceful removal of his beard – were that to happen is also just fine, since you and thousands of other fully Observant Jews – and Rabbis too! – shave daily.

    Is that flaw enough?

  • Izzy

    While I think good arguments people can about whether there is any anti-semitism involved in the Rubashkin case (I am not quite sure myself), I wonder how you can be so sure that there isn’t, especially based on your arguments above. Here is my analysis of your points:

    1) You said “(t)he people who make these kinds of choices don’t, actually, CAN’T have vendettas against minorities. This is the Federal Government of the most benevolent host the Jewish people have ever had.” This was probably your worst argument. While the US federal government, as a whole, is generally “fair minded,” and kind to minorities, it is a massive entity made up of individuals whose decisions do not always reflect that ideal, or other ideals of the USA. To assert otherwise is just ridiculous. There have been many situations where the decisions of US officials were made based on motivations that included politics, personal gain, career advancement, and yes, bias or prejudice. There have been many overzealous prosecutors, who clearly were not motivated by the pursuit of justice. The example of Mike Nifong (a state, not federal official) springs to mind, there are many others, at both the state and federal levels. I am sure your friend at the Court of Appeals can give you some examples. An Assistant US Attorney, whom I discussed the case with, did not believe there was any anti-semitism in this case, but was able to list many cases where he said there was.

    2) You said: The sentencing recommendation was well within Federal guidelines. I was talking about the case to a lawyer friend of mine who works for the Court of Appeals and who knew nothing about the case. I told him some of the facts about the bank fraud. His immediate reaction was, “that’s a life sentence”. The opinion of your friend at the Court of Appeals notwithstanding, some of the most prominent attorneys in the country, including something like 6 former US Attorneys General (there are only 10 or 11 alive), dozens of former US Attorneys, and federal judges, signed on to statements that the sentence requested by the prosecution was out of line, and far in excess of what Rubashkin deserved. So while the sentence requested by the prosecution is within the federal sentencing guidelines, these legal experts obviously believe that it would be unfair for Rubashkin to receive the requested sentence, given the circumstances. So, no offense to your friend (presumably a clerk) at the Court of Appeals, but I’ll go with the legal analysis of the former US AGs, etc.

    3) You said: “Also, much has been made of “comparable criminals”. It is an unfair comparison because Rubashkin has not been cooperative. He was not willing to accept any plea deals. He maintains his complete, 100% innocence and is a difficult person for the court to deal with.”

    I honestly don’t have the background in criminal law to analyze to what extent a defendant’s cooperation, or lack thereof, should be taken into consideration at sentencing, and whether it is valid to compare his case to other cases. I doubt you, as a law student have the requisite background either. On this issue, I will defer to the statements of the former US AGs, etc, at least some of which did make comparisons between Rubashkin’s and other cases.

    4) You said: “Also, Rubashkin will not walk without wearing Tzitzis. He states that his religion will not allow him to walk. So he has been carried around so that he will not violate this religious law. The problem is that he is with ignorant of the law or is just trying to be annoying…(s)o why is Rubashkin making a stink out of an issue that is not religious? Is it anti-semitic if the jail does not cooperate with this.”

    You also said (in a comment on your blog): “my opinion is that when you are in jail, you should be meikil.” The law: Under RLUIPA, the government is prohibited from enforcing a regulation that substantially burdens religious exercise unless the regulation serves a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. The caselaw regarding what is considered religious exercise under the law is quite deferential to religion, as Congress intended. Thus, whether wearing a four-cornered garment that would require tzitzis is halacha, minhag, or a chumra, it is protected religious exercise, under federal law. [I think this deference is a good thing, as I would hate to see, from a policy perspective, courts weighing in on what is halacha, minhag, daas yehudis, etc.]

    5) You said: “I dare you to look a Holocaust survivor in the eye and call this anti-semitism. Try telling a Jew who was thrown out of Spain and Portugal for not bowing to the Cross. Or how about Jews who were slaughtered during pogroms. Being prosecuted for actual crimes is not anti-semitism.” I take back what I said above. This has got to be your worst argument. Prosecutorial discretion, by its nature, lends itself to the possibility of selective enformcement. If the selective enforcement is being done based on race, that would be racism. Your argument would be akin to telling a black man who was proscuted for the same crime that is overlooked when done by whites: “this cant be racism, because you did the crime. Besides, your grandparents had to deal with church bombings and lynchings. Now that was racism.”

    Bottom line: Were any of the various federal and state agencies, prosecutors, judges, etc involved in the Rubashkin case motivated by anti-semitism? I think its difficult to say for a variety of reasons, For one, people, especially public officials, are much more careful about what they say and how they present things than their predecessors were 2 or 3 generations ago. Its also difficult to define exactly what can be considered as anti-semtism. For example, the federal prosecutor in the Rubashkin case, in arguing against bail, made reference to Rubashkin’s Judaism in connection to Israel’s Law of Return, in effect arguing that Rubashkin was a flight risk, based on of Israeli immigration law. Is that considered anti-semtism? I don’t know. I do find it troubling that a person’s religious beliefs can be used against him when assessing bail. What if the prosecution had argued that Rubashkin is Orthodox, and Orthodox Jews believe in the mitzva of pidyon shvuyim, and are therefor more likely than most to harbor a fugitive from justice?

    My last point: As you progress in your legal (and rabbinical) career, I hope you are careful about which issues you take a public stand on, and what your position you take on those issues. Words do matter.

  • http://finkorswim.com rabbifink

    Mr. Izzy:

    I appreciate your comments.

    First, let me say, that this article is in no way supposed to be definitive. It is an opinion based on a specific reading of the facts that I have been able to find. The purpose of the article is to present PLAUSIBLE arguments that anti-semitism is not present in the Rubashkin case. This is to refute those that assert with certainty that Rubashkin is being discriminated against.

    So, while your counter points are valid, they are EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE and thus I have no reason, nor do you, or anyone else, have a reason to state with certainty that there is anti-semitism in the Rubashkin case. My final judgment as to there being NO anti-semitism is biased by my strong aversion to labeling events with the anti-semitism tag unless necessary.

    Second, my friend at the Court of Appeals is not a clerk. He is a Research Attorney who works with the Court of Appeals Justice in drafting appellate opinions. His self-same opinions on other matters count as law in the State of California (with the imprimatur of the Justice), in other words, don’t dismiss his opinion. While, he agreed that the sentencing guidelines are unnecessarily harsh, the counts Rubashkin was convicted of, do dictate a life-sentence. The letters written by AGs and the like were mostly restating that the guidelines are unfair, not that they were unfairly applied.

    FYI: This is my blog and any comments stated elsewhere were on another’s blog. But the point you make about Congress being deferential to Religion is correct. However, Religion needs to be reasonable and needs to be established. Rubashkin’s demands may or may not be false piety but the jail has the right to defer to what they were informed re Orthodox Judaism.

    #5 is colored by another opinion I have regarding anti-semitism in general which I intend on posting. That was a throw-in point meant to lead into a new and separate discussion.

    I am very careful about which issues I take a public stand on. This issue was raised in my shul at Shaloshudos for several weeks running. This article is consistent with the discussions that ensued and I was urged to publicize my thoughts as they were seen as a counter to the knee-jerk, card-carrying anti-semitism accusations. I have shul members that would see this article as too light-handed. One congregant told me he would be satisfied if Rubashkin got the death penalty. I vehemently disagree with that notion and further, I hope he gets off with a very lenient sentence. However, I maintain that he is not a victim of anti-semitism, he is a victim of his very own irresponsibility and stubbornness.

    I have a blog precisely because I believe that words do matter and I appreciate your agreement on that issue.

    • Ana

      Izzy and R’ Fink: I do assert with certainty that R’ Rubashkin was discriminated against.

    • Izzy

      I did not mean to minimize your friend’s contribution to the Court of Appeals, just to clarify whether he was a sitting judge on the court, which would obviously give added weight to his opinion. As an aside, the duties that you describe are consistent with the position called “clerk” in many courts.
      Since you post often on multiple blogs, I figured I would consolidate my comments to you in one comment that I cross posted on some of those blogs. If you prefer, in the future I will be more careful to address on this blog only posts that you make on this blog.
      One can be a victim of irresponsibility/stuborness and anti-semitism at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive. It happens all the time to the state of Israel. They do things that may be wrong, but if done by any other country, would not ellicit the same response as when done by Israel. Wouldnt you agree?

Previous post:

Next post: