In 2000, when the song was released, it was received as a deliberately absurd parody. Such brazen denial in the face of so much evidence seemed inconceivable. But the “Shaggy defense” would eventually end up in the court system, as Josh Levin explained in his groundbreaking coverage of the R. Kelly trial, and now the Justice Department`s astute lawyers appear to be pursuing an equally brazen strategy in their ongoing litigation with the ACLU. It was supposed to be Eddie Murphy`s defense, he talked about it on Raw in 1987. In this case, I do not want to pretend that the case against the defendants is as clear as the case against adultery in the song (for part of the “charm” of the song is the absurdity of such an assertion by someone in the narrator`s situation). I use this term only to illustrate the defence – to pretend that the offending party was someone else. How did the singer win? By basically saying: It wasn`t me. According to Kelly`s lawyers, the sextape in question could very well have featured an R. Kelly lookalike, or perhaps an infamous money washer could have inserted his face with the kind of CGI technology seen in the Wayans brothers` Little Man.
I called it the “Shaggy defense” — in honor of the man behind the 2000 hit “It Wasn`t Me” — and jokingly predicted that law schools would soon be lecturing on this strategy. R. Kelly`s child pornography trial, which I covered for Slate in 2008, boiled down to a simple matter of opinion: Did a VHS tape show what appeared to show R. Kelly peeing and having sex with an underage girl? The jury eventually sided with the defense and singer I Like the Crotch on You was acquitted. If the Shaggy defense is defined by its outrageous absurdity, the recent legal brief filed by the DOJ is perhaps considered the most shaggy (boombastic?) in history. It was initiated by the ACLU, which is trying to prove that the targeted assassination program is not a state secret, so that its trial can continue. As a result, they dutifully update their reasoning whenever federal officials talk about drones. Well, fuck. Its defense is like a brick wall, pack it up. Justice Kiser, who credits me with coining this important term in a footnote, does not dismiss the Shaggy defense as a viable legal tactic – after all, there can be legitimate cases of false identity. However, he argues that this is “not a summary judgment.” Kiser explains: “Although defendants are free to claim in court that they were not the negligent party, the issue is obviously a disputed and substantial fact.
Whether the above-mentioned defendants actually committed the alleged acts is the sine qua non of virtually all civil actions. From what I`ve read, Kiser says that R. Kelly and his legal brain stumbled upon something: the Shaggy defense, like the jury system and the principle of habeas corpus, is one of the pillars that underpins American jurisprudence. I would prefer to be called Bart Simpson`s defence. The case concerns President Obama`s targeted assassination program, which has been the subject of several prosecutions. But none of them ever go to court, so the various legal claims can be decided. Instead, the Justice Department says whether or not we have a drone program is secret. It cannot be confirmed or denied, so that the actions against it are null and void. It turns out I may be right. A few weeks ago, Virginia Lawyers Weekly noted that U.S. District Judge Jackson Kiser said that “the so-called `Shaggy defense` is not suitable for a summary judgment petition.” In this case, Preston v. Morton, a man was struck by a tractor-trailer while installing traffic lights.
Defence of the accused driver: It wasn`t me. When Jamaican-American rapper Shaggy released the hit single “It Wasn`t Me,” he was simply trying to capture what could happen if a self-proclaimed gambler was caught “crawling with the girl next door.” There was no ambiguity in the situation of the philanthropist character: his girlfriend not only saw him in the middle of coitus on the bathroom floor, he explained to a friend: “She also grabbed me on the counter, saw me kissing on the couch, I even had her in the shower, She even caught me in front of the camera. In addition to the video evidence, “she saw the marks on my shoulder, heard the words I said to her, heard the scream getting louder, and she stayed until it was over.” The Department of Justice has now responded to this letter. Even better, R. Kelly used this strategy during his child pornography trial in the mid-2000s. Deny, deny, deny. Never do anything. Or any other person who has been charged and who has not been charged? “I don`t know what to do,” the fraudster complained. But his friend proposed a bold alternative.
That would be no more dishonest than the Obama team`s claims now. What`s going on with the DOJ`s ethical compass lately? They may think they are smart lawyers, but they are completely lost. As you will recall if you have seen or read John Brennan`s hearings, he told the Senate Intelligence Committee that “there is a false impression on the part of some Americans who believe that we carry out attacks to punish terrorists for past transgressions. Nothing could be further from the truth. We only take such measures as a last resort to save lives when there is no other alternative. In fact, the Justice Department`s argument is weakening and becoming more absurd every week, as Obama administration officials continue to talk about something that doesn`t officially exist. Marcy Wheeler says it`s as if the Obama team has the opposite of an imaginary friend: people have real conversations about something, but then behave as if they`re fake. I`d like to see the judge in the ACLU lawsuit try to sue Brennan and ask him about the times he made nationally televised arguments about the same drone program that the DOJ won`t confirm.
At this point, the Obama administration has made such brazenly and openly false arguments that I wouldn`t be surprised if it denied them. They insist that the program is a state secret, even though Obama officials constantly talk about it. I even caught her in front of the camera! Personally, I prefer a more historically proven strategy. Oddly enough, I talked about it today at university. This has happened a lot lately, as Glenn Greenwald explains: never, ever, even rudimentarily, admit anything that could be interpreted, even slightly, as being in close proximity to something incriminating. I know what you`re thinking: everyone knows there`s a CIA drone program; Obama administration officials have given speeches in defense of it, leaked stories about it to the media, and referenced it in interviews; There is an ongoing debate about his morality in the domestic and foreign press. How could the mere fact of its existence be considered a state secret? .
