J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Justice’ Category

In this instance our judicial system moved swiftly to protect citizen’s rights:

A Pennsylvania school district has been ordered to disable equipment allowing officials to watch students using cameras on their laptops.

The order, issued Wednesday by a federal judge, will prevent school administrators from turning on cameras installed on students’ school-issued laptops remotely.

The move arrives at the request of a Lower Merion family, which claimed school officials were wrong to activate the camera, snap a photo of their son and confront him about its contents.

The school district told reporters on Wednesday it would comply with that order. Part of that directive includes a temporary gag on all communications regarding the family’s privacy lawsuit.

The security technology installed in Lower Merion’s school-issued computers permits administrators to activate cameras remotely, primarily as a way to ensure the laptops are not stolen.

Technicians said they have activated the technology 42 times this year to take photos of suspects believed to be damaging laptops or otherwise committing wrongdoing — precisely the reason they turned it on the case of the 15-year-old Harriton High School student now pressing charges.

There is never a good reason to damage property, but in the case of the young man involved in the lawsuit, it is alleged the school district believed he was involved in drugs (either distributing or consuming).

If the suit proves itself out, the fifteen year old was eating Mike and Ike candy. Big difference, especially now that your name and that of your parents has been publicized in not only local Pennsylvania newspapers but on nationwide news programs.

Shame on the disgrace this school district has brought upon itself.

Background, here.

Tweet This Post

Congressman Murtha might find himself in a bit of legal jeopardy if this suit holds up and moves forward:

A slander lawsuit against Congressman John Murtha is expected to be formally filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh Thursday afternoon.

The litigation stems from a 2005 incident in Iraq and Murtha’s reaction to it.

At that time, a group of Marines were accused of killing innocent Iraqi civilians in a raid in Haditha. Shortly after, Murtha appeared on various news broadcasts and characterized the Marines as cold-blooded killers.

The Marines were later cleared or wrongdoing in the incident.

One of the Marines, 24-year-old Cpl. Justin Sharratt, of western Pennsylvania, is suing Murtha for slander.

Murtha’s comments about the incident have also served as the campaign focus for the man who wants to unseat Murtha in November, retired military officer William Russell.

Russell said, as a career military officer and 911 Pentagon survivor, he has a personal interest in seeing the record and reputations of the Marines cleared. He said a right to justice goes beyond politics. Even so, within the last couple of weeks, Russell’s campaign launched a 60-second ad that focuses solely on Murtha’s widely reported comments of the eight Marines at Haditha as “killing innocent civilians in cold blood.”

Russell said on Thursday he has met with Sharratt and his parents, and said the federal lawsuit has been a long time coming. A legal fund was established when Sharratt was exonerated of the charges.

If there has ever been an important race here in Pennsylvania, this is the one.

I hold no real hope though that Russell can overtake Murtha as the Congressman has both a wide lead in the polls and the support of the state party leaders.

Tweet This Post

This video offers the most comprehensive information seen to date on the theft of Classified Documents from the National Archives by President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger.

Not only does it detail the various visits by Mr. Berger to the Archives, but also provides information on the obvious mishandling by the Department of Justice in the prosecution of this case.

David Asman investigates on a level not seen before and in an interview with the Inspector General of the National Archives has this exchange:

Asman: Why was it that Sandy Berger was looking a highly classified information in a non SCIF? (Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility)

IG: Because he was allowed to.

Asman: Why was he allowed to?

IG: Because he was Sandy Berger.

The entire video runs approximately 40 minutes but if you visit the link below you can copy the link to your desktop and view at your leisure.

If you followed at the time or have any interest in this case, this is a must see.

Tweet This Post

How nice of the Saudi King to pardon the young woman who had been repeatedly raped by 7 men. Her crime? Being in a car with a man not a member of her family.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has pardoned a female rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes for being alone with a man at the time of the attack who was not related to her, a Saudi newspaper reported Monday.

The case had sparked international outcry. In a rare criticism of its Mideast ally, the White House had expressed its “astonishment” over the woman’s sentence. Canada called it barbaric.

Saudi Justice Minister Abdullah bin Muhammed al-Sheik told al-Jazirah newspaper that the pardon does not mean the king doubted the country’s judges, but instead acted in the “interests of the people.”

“The king always looks into alleviating the suffering of the citizens when he becomes sure that these verdicts will leave psychological effects on the convicted people, though he is convinced and sure that the verdicts were fair,” al-Jazirah quoted al-Sheik as saying.

The victim in the case, known only as the “Girl of Qatif” after her hometown in eastern Saudi Arabia, was in a car with a high school friend in 2006 when they were attacked and raped by seven men.

She initially was sentenced in November 2006 to several months in prison and 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man with whom she was neither related nor married, a violation of the kingdom’s strict segregation of the sexes.

The woman, who was 19 at the time of the rape, has said she met the man to retrieve a picture of herself from him because she had recently married.

The court more than doubled the sentence last month to 200 lashes and six months prison in response to her appeal.

This is the right outcome in this case, but how many more rape victims are punished and even killed for being raped in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries?

Tweet This Post

For those who followed the case of the Border Crossing Guards, Ramos and Compean, there is news today from the 5t Circuit Court of Appeals:

Federal prosecutors may have overreacted in their case against two Border Patrol agents who were sentenced to lengthy prison terms after jurors convicted them of shooting a fleeing drug suspect and hiding evidence of the incident, an appeals court judge said Monday.

Judge E. Grady Jolly, one of three judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing the case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, questioned whether the two agents would have been charged if they had reported the shooting.

“For some reason, this one got out of hand, it seems to me,” Jolly said of the agents’ prosecution.

A federal jury in Texas convicted Ramos and Compean of assault, obstruction of justice and civil rights violations in the wounding of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila on the Texas border near El Paso in 2005. A federal judge sentenced Compean to 12 years in prison and Ramos to 11 years.

The agents’ attorneys are asking the 5th Circuit to throw out the convictions. The judges didn’t indicate when they will rule on the appeals.

“It does seem to me like the government overreacted here,” Jolly said, noting the severity of the charges and the lengthy sentences prosecutors sought, as he questioned Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Stelmach.

It will be interesting to follow these developments and hear if the 2 other presiding Judges have the same opinion as it seems Judge Jolly offered.

As the article points out, the court has set no timetable upon which to rule, but this one bears watching.

HT:Hot Air

Tweet This Post

A few days ago I wrote about a dead Marine’s father who had taken the Westboro Baptist Church gang led by Fred Phelps to court for disrupting his son’s funeral.

It is my pleasure to report the verdict is in and it is not in favor of the Phelps cult. (I refuse to call them Baptists)

A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family’s privacy had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs at the funeral.

It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value messages such as “Thank God for dead soldiers.”

They contend that the deaths are punishment for America’s tolerance of homosexuality and of gays in the military.

Relatives of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder wept and hugged at the jury’s announcement, which came a day after closing arguments in the civil trial in federal district court.

“Now I know it’s going to be harder for them to do it to anyone else,” said Albert Snyder, who mourned at his son’s funeral in March 2006 while seven Westboro members waved signs nearby.

The compensatory damage award alone, $2.9 million, was nearly triple the net worth of Westboro and the three members on trial, their attorney said.

Fred W. Phelps Sr., Westboro’s founder, vowed to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va.

“It’s going to be reversed in five minutes,” he said. This case, he added, “will elevate me to something important,” as it draws more publicity to his cause.

You hope, and the sad part is that all the namby pamby legal experts are saying this is going to set back freedom of speech. Baloney!

No one has the freedom to inflict more pain on a family already grieving the death of a son, brother, uncle etc.

If this verdict holds up and then holds up in the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court refuses to hear it then Phelps and family are out of business as well as out of money, and we won’t have to see his daughter’s rage-filled face on television anymore spewing her hatred against anyone not a member of her group.

The jury found the family’s privacy had been invaded. If we can twist the constitution to say abortion is an issue of privacy then certainly this is a more compelling case for violation of privacy, since it’s straight forward.

Justice is being served.

HT: Captain’s Quarters

Tweet This Post

If you were this man, what would be your choice?

Further, if you were the judge, would you have given him any options?

Tweet This Post

As part of Sandy Berger’s slap on the wrist plea deal over his taking of National Archives documents he was ordered to take a polygraph in an effort to find out exactly what exactly he took that we didn’t know about.

As of this date he has still not taken the test and now 23 Republican Congressmen have sent a letter to the Justice Dept. asking the acting Attorney General why the test hasn’t been administered yet.

Two years after agreeing to a polygraph in a plea deal, former National Security adviser Sandy Berger still has not taken the test, prompting 23 Republican Congress members to demand action by the Department of Justice.

The aim is to determine “what documents were stolen and how our national security was compromised,” said the letter by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., to the acting attorney general….

…The documents have never been recovered, Rohrabacher points out in the letter.

“Mr. Berger removed the documents by stuffing them down his pants and in his suit jacket, presumably with the intention of getting rid of any damning evidence showing his involvement in the failure of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to prevent Sept. 11 attacks prior to his testimony before the 9/11 Commission,” Rohrabacher writes. “The Congress and the American people deserve to know the facts of this crime and what Mr. Berger was covering up.”

In 2005, the former Clinton aide agreed, as part of the plea deal, to have the Department of Justice administer a polygraph test, but Rohrabacher notes “two years have passed and he has yet to fulfill his legal obligation.”

As WND reported in March, the White House said it was studying whether Berger would take the polygraph test.

At the time, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., and 17 other Republican House members called on then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Department of Justice to administer the test….

…Davis, ranking Republican member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said his staff’s investigation revealed Berger “compromised national security much more than originally disclosed.”

“It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience,” Davis said. …

…Last year, Berger plea bargained a criminal sentence on the charge of unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. A judge gave him no prison time, a $50,000 fine, 100 hours of community service and a ban from access to classified material for three years.

The document upon which Berger focused was the National Security Council’s “Millennium After Action Review” on the Clinton administration’s handling of the al-Qaida terror threats in December 1999. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before the 9-11 commission about the millennium report, urging the panel to ask why the document’s warnings and “blueprint” to thwart al-Qaida’s plans to target the U.S. were ignored by the Clinton administration and not shared with the incoming Bush security staff.

What are they hiding, and why hasn’t the polygraph been given as agreed to? If nothing, we should know it. If secrets telling what was not done by the Clinton Administration as far as stopping terrorism goes, we deserve to know that too, since Berger is an “unofficial adviser” to Sen. Clinton’s campaign.

This stuff just never goes away.

Tweet This Post

I must say I was surprised when reading this today, not because I had decided that these indivduals were innocent or guilty but simply, I thought with all the negative coverage Katrina did and now receives, there was no chance of an acquittal.

The owners of a nursing home where 35 patients died after Hurricane Katrina were acquitted Friday of negligent homicide and cruelty charges for not evacuating the facility as the storm approached. The jury took about four hours to acquit Sal and Mabel Mangano, the husband-and-wife owners of St. Rita’s Nursing Home in St. Bernard Parish, just outside of New Orleans.

“I can’t tell you how good this feels, how good those people are,” Mabel Mangano said outside the courthouse in St. Francisville, the town about 112 northwest of New Orleans where the trial was moved. “This has been a very rough road.”

They had faced 35 counts of negligent homicide and 24 counts of cruelty to the elderly or infirm after the patients drowned _ some in their beds _ when the monster hurricane swept through the area in 2005.

Was the Governor attempting to pass the buck when she testified at this trial?

The trial lasted three weeks. The prosecution put on 40 witnesses, including Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who testified that she left the decision on mandatory evacuations to local officials. St. Bernard Parish never called a mandatory evacuation.

Obviously the jurors believed the responsibility for these deaths did not lie solely in the hands of the owners of the nursing home:

“We talked about that,” said juror Kim Maxwell, 46. “There were a lot of mistakes made, and it should have been a lot of people answering for it. So why just these two people?”

Said juror Michael Cavalier, 39: “The state was responsible for the safety of nursing home residents. They didn’t do what they should have. They didn’t make the decisions they should have. So when the Manganos made their decision, why should they try to crucify them for it? That isn’t right

Sounds as though this was a very thoughtful and insightful jury. I’m certain Mr. and Mrs. Mangano are most grateful.

Story here

Tweet This Post

Mike Nifong will serve his twenty four hours in jail beginning this morning.

Mike Nifong, the former Durham County District Attorney who led the now-discredited Duke lacrosse rape case, reported to jail Friday to begin serving a 24-hour sentence for contempt of court.

Nifong was disbarred for his handling of the highly publicized case, and a judge found him in contempt for lying to the court when he insisted he had given defense attorneys all results from critical DNA tests.

While the disgraced prosecutor can contemplate how he will spend the balance of his life, the young men who were the target of his false accusations have begun negotiations with the city of Durham seeking restitution.

The players attorneys, meanwhile, have proposed a settlement with the city of Durham that includes reforming the legal system.

If the terms aren’t met, the attorneys will file a civil rights lawsuit early next month, the person close to the case said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the proposed settlement wasn’t complete.

Durham’s police department helped Nifong secure the indictments, and a special committee probing police handling of the case stopped working last month because the city’s liability insurance provider warned that findings could provide material for civil lawsuits.

During a discussion Wednesday with Durham officials, players’ attorneys Brendan Sullivan and Barry Scheck stressed that the money they are seeking in the settlement — about $10 million each for David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann over five years — must be accompanied by legal reforms, the person said.

While the settlement would help settle all of the legal bills that this rogue prosecutor forced upon these families, it would be interesting to see what legal reforms could be gained stemming from this case. A good start might be that you cannot prosecute a high profile case while running for office.

Story

Tweet This Post

I didn’t know that there was a Civil Rights Division in this justice department.

The head of the Justice Department’s embattled Civil Rights Division is to resign at the end of August, officials said yesterday, making him the latest in a series of senior political appointees to leave the agency amid continued controversy over Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

Wan J. Kim, the assistant attorney general for civil rights since November 2005, has been closely questioned by congressional Democrats about the administration’s policy decisions and allegations by former career officials of improper hiring within the division, mostly under his predecessor.

Kim is set to join nearly a dozen other senior Justice Department officials and aides who have resigned this year. The departures come as Gonzales fends off calls from lawmakers for his resignation over his handling of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year and congressional testimony that lawmakers have called misleading.

Wan’s predecessor, Bradley J. Schlozman, resigned from the department last week. The department’s inspector general is investigating allegations that Schlozman considered political affiliations in the hiring of career employees.

Gonzales said in a statement that Kim, who joined the department more than a decade ago, has “served the Department of Justice and the American people with distinction and honor.” The statement continued: “I will miss his honest opinions and valuable contributions as an advisor to me.” He praised Kim for enforcing traditional anti-discrimination laws, as well as newer statutes on human trafficking and minority-language ballot requirements.

Story

Tweet This Post

Why would a man resign if he did nothing wrong?

Facing multiple investigations, a senior Justice Department appointee has resigned his post.

Bradley Schlozman stepped down from his position as a counsel in the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, a branch of the Department of Justice, last week, a Justice spokesman confirmed Wednesday.

Schlozman, a key figure in several political controversies, is under investigation by the department’s inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility for allegations he was involved in politicizing hiring and firing decisions at the Justice Department. He is also a subject of the congressional probe into the U.S. attorneys firing scandal.

Last year, the 36-year-old Kansas native took a U.S. attorney post in Missouri after its previous holder, Todd Graves, was dismissed. Graves has said he refused to sign off on a lawsuit involving the state’s voter rolls. The suit went forward anyway. This year, a court ruled against the Justice Department in the matter. The department is appealing the ruling. Schlozman had backed the case from Washington.
Once he became a U.S. attorney, Schlozman apparently broke with Justice Department policy, by filing a criminal voter fraud indictment against a liberal activist group within a week of the 2006 election. A department manual instructs staff that “most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates.”

His actions sparked concerns from many quarters, including veteran Justice Department attorneys, that he was attempting to influence the election for a U.S. Senate seat, which was close. They also fueled a growing belief among congressional Democrats that the dismissal of Graves and several other U.S. attorneys was part of an effort to use U.S. attorneys’ offices for the benefit of the Republican party.

Story

Tweet This Post

While I admit that I am conflicted when it come to the death penalty, there are times when I feel it is completely appropriate.

When three college students were gunned down in cold blood in Newark, New Jersey, my hope was that their killers would be apprehended and brought to justice. It seems as though law enforcement has completed the first step of that process.

A 24-year-old man believed to be the ringleader in the startling, execution-style killings of three college students in Newark will be arraigned today in Prince George’s County District Court.

Rodolfo Godinez was arrested early Saturday in Oxon Hill after a fervent and extensive search by Newark and federal authorities that led to the arrest of his 16-year-old half brother later that day in Woodbridge. Early yesterday, Newark police arrested an 18-year-old man in Elizabeth, N.J.

Here is just a glimpse of this horrendous crime.

On Aug. 4, siblings Natasha Aeriel, 19, and Terrance Aeriel, 18, and friends Dashon Harvey and Iofemi Hightower, both 20, were forced to kneel against a wall behind an elementary school and shot in the head. Natasha Aeriel survived. She, her brother and Harvey were students at Delaware State University, and Hightower planned to enroll there this fall.

For any person who shows such disregard for the life of another or the life of agony facing the families of these young individuals, I have absolutely no compassion.

Hopefully justice will be swift and if proven guilty I pray the punishment will fit the crime.

Read More

Tweet This Post

In very short order the verdict in the Jose Padilla case has been rendered.

MIAMI (AP) – Jose Padilla was convicted of federal terrorism support charges Thursday after being held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration’s zeal to stop homegrown terror.

The Chicago native was once accused of being part of an al-Qaida plot to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” in the U.S., but those allegations were not part of his trial with two co-defendants.

Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each.

Perhaps if this judge is tough when sentencing occurs, it will encourage others to not follow the same path.

Read more

Tweet This Post

I would have taken him for everything he owns.

The dry cleaners aren’t pressing their case against the Pants Judge.

In a surprise turn yesterday, the small-business owners sued by D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson withdrew their demand that he pay nearly $83,000 for their legal bills, saying that enough money had been raised from supporters to cover the expenses and that they want to end the fighting.

Story

Tweet This Post

In this case justice prevails.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist has signed his first death warrant, ending a seven-month moratorium adopted by the US state after a botched execution.
His predecessor, Jeb Bush, suspended lethal injections in late 2006 after a convicted murderer took 34 minutes to die and had to be given a second dose.

Mr Crist said steps had been taken to improve the execution process.

The warrant is for Mark Dean Schwab, sentenced to death in 1992 for kidnap, rape and murder of an 11-year-old boy.

He is scheduled to be executed on 15 November this year.

Story

Tweet This Post

According to this piece at Patterico’s Pontifications
Johnny Sutton may be answering some tough questions today.

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing to examine the prosecution of Agents Ramos and Compean. Johnny Sutton, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas whose office prosecuted the Ramos/Compean case, is scheduled to testify at the hearing.

I hope Mr. Sutton’s testimony at this hearing helps answer my questions and concerns about the Ramos/Compean trial and verdict. In an effort to clarify my questions and concerns and to facilitate a better understanding of the testimony tendered to the Committee, this post will compare the Ramos/Compean trial transcript with the U.S. Attorney’s most recent press release.

If you are unfamiliar with the Ramos/Compean case or need a refresher on the facts, this February 2007 article by the AP’s Pauline Arrillaga (Washington Post link) contains a concise summary.

The linked post has terrific information on the case itself and should you wish to read further there is more here.

Update: Here is the Official Hearing Notice/Witness list as provided by the Judiciary Committee.

Tweet This Post

This sums it up. It might please a few but it angers many.

President Bush commuted the sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby yesterday, sparing Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff 2 1/2 years in prison after a federal appeals court had refused to let Libby remain free while he appeals his conviction for lying to federal investigators.

Bush, who for months had sidestepped calls from conservatives to come to Libby’s aid, broke his silence early yesterday evening, touching off an immediate uproar from Democrats who accused the White House of circumventing the rule of law to protect one of its own.

The president announced his decision in a written statement that laid out the factors he had weighed. Bush said he decided to “respect” the jury’s verdict that Libby was guilty of four felonies for lying about his role in the leak of a covert CIA officer’s identity. But the president said Libby’s “exceptional public service” and prior lack of a criminal record led him to conclude that the 30-month sentence handed down by a judge last month was “excessive.”

The president noted that he had promised before not to intervene until Libby had exhausted his appeals. But he stepped in short of that point. “With the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent,” Bush said, “I believe it is now important to react to that decision.”

Although he eliminated Libby’s prison term, Bush did not grant him a full pardon, which was sought by some conservatives and would have erased his conviction. As a consequence, Libby will still have to pay a $250,000 fine and will remain on probation for two years. The president said Libby’s punishment remained “harsh,” in part because his professional reputation “is forever damaged.”

Bush commuted the sentence hours after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Libby’s request to postpone his prison term while he pursued appeals. The panel concluded that his grounds for appeal were unlikely to be strong enough to prevail in higher courts.

The appellate judges’ unanimous opinion upheld an identical ruling slightly more than two weeks ago by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, the trial judge in Libby’s case. After a month-long trial that forced presidential aides and prominent journalists onto the witness stand, Libby was found guilty of two counts of perjury and one count each of lying to FBI agents and obstructing a federal investigation into whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Bush has granted far fewer pardons and commutations than any of his predecessors, dating to John F. Kennedy. He commuted three previous prison terms during his 6 1/2 years in office.

At a time when his popularity is as low as any president’s in modern history, Bush’s action also defied public opinion. Shortly after Libby was convicted in March, three national public opinion polls found that seven in 10 Americans said they would oppose a pardon of Libby.

Still, the president appeared to calculate that he would antagonize his conservative base too severely if he did not provide Libby some form of reprieve, according to people close to the White House

Story

Tweet This Post

Here is one By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer
Eddie Mahe is a happy man.

With his decision to keep I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby from going to prison, President Bush has provoked a firestorm of controversy but avoided what might have been even more damaging to his presidency: defections of Republican loyalists who are among the last to support the beleaguered White House.

Libby’s fate had become a cause celebre among conservative GOP activists, even as the public overwhelmingly opposed a presidential pardon.

Bush’s action shows that, with a little more than 18 months remaining in his second term and his influence at its lowest ebb, he is still willing to rely on his signature leadership style — one that risks polarizing the country to take stands that satisfy his conservative base.

After the Republican rout in the 2006 midterm elections, Bush gave signs that he might try a more pragmatic, centrist approach. But his main attempt to do so — backing a bipartisan bill to overhaul immigration law — ended in a spectacular failure when the bill died in the Senate last week. And the immigration debate had badly strained Bush’s relationship with conservatives, who were furious that he supported a bill they believed would allow amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“He’s playing to his base,” said Fred I. Greenstein, a political scientist at Princeton University. “He’s sort of retreating to his hard disk — his core beliefs.”

A CNN poll found that 72% opposed a presidential pardon, and 19% supported it. But many analysts say that Bush had little to lose and much to gain politically by siding with the minority view. Bush chose to commute Libby’s 30-month jail sentence, but did not pardon him.

“He won’t antagonize anyone who didn’t already hate him, and he will give solace and encouragement to the people who like him but are having doubts about his resolve,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster.

Among the encouraged was Eddie Mahe, a former Republican National Committee official, who said, “I shot my fist in the sky and said, “Yay!’ “

Story

Tweet This Post

Here is an interesting point of view by David Corn of the Nation.
Now comes the fall out.

It’s appropriate.

The president who led the nation into a disastrous war in Iraq by peddling false statements and misrepresentations has come to the rescue of a White House aide convicted of lying.

Before the ink was dry on today’s court order denying Scooter Libby’s latest appeal — a motion to allow him to stay out of jail while he was challenging his conviction — George W. Bush commuted Libby’s sentence. Libby will no longer have to serve the 30-month prison sentence ordered by federal district court Judge Reggie Walton. He will, though, have to pay the $250,000 fine that was part of the sentence.

The commutation — which is not a pardon and does not erase Libby’s conviction — is a reminder that Bush and his crew do not believe in accountability. Bush has been rather stingy in the use of his pardon power. And regulations issued by his Justice Department note that recipients of pardons should serve their sentences and demonstrate contrition before obtaining presidential absolution. (Libby had expressed no remorse and was not scheduled to report to jail for several weeks.)

Yet with this commutation, Bush ducked those requirements, and he is allowing Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, who was found guilty of lying to federal investigators in the CIA leak case, to go unpunished. The fine will be no problem for Libby. His neoconservative friends and admirers will kick in to cover that tab. (Perhaps even Cheney will send a check.)

Libby had become a symbol of the Bush White House’s problem with the truth. After all, his lies had been designed to block FBI agents and federal prosecutors from learning the full truth of a White House effort to discredit a critic who had accused the Bush administration of twisting the prewar intelligence. And now the final act in the long-running CIA leak scandal — Bush’s commutation — stands as another symbol of this grand theme: lying doesn’t really bother this crowd.

Story

Tweet This Post

I am often conflicted on the issue of the death penalty, however, this is one time I would gladly stand with the Kurds and witness the final moments in the lives of these truly evil men.

‘Chemical Ali’ to be hanged in Kurdistan

Saddam Hussein’s cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as “Chemical Ali,” and two other regime officials will probably be hanged in Kurdistan if the appeals court upholds their death sentences, an Iraqi official said Tuesday.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not supposed to release the information to the media, said no final decision had been taken but the executions would probably take place in either Irbil or Halabja.

Also sentenced to death were Sultan Hashim Ahmad al-Tai, the former defense minister who led the Iraqi delegation at the cease-fire talks that ended the 1991 Gulf War, and Hussein Rashid Mohammed, a former deputy director of operations for the Iraqi armed forces.

They were convicted Sunday of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity for their roles in “Operation Anfal,” a 1987-88 crackdown on Iranian-backed Kurdish rebels during the final years of the Iran-Iraq war.

The prosecution said up to 180,000 Kurds — including women and children — died in chemical weapons attacks, artillery barrages and mass deportations.

The political process in Iraq may be painfully slower that we expected or would have preferred, but the judicial branch of their government is advancing with lightning speed and rendering quick and just punishment.

Imagine, 180,000 of your own people brutally murdered or deported by these thugs. If this conviction holds (which most seem to think is a given), the Kurds may finally have the revenge they deserve for this sadistic behavior once and for all.

Tweet This Post

For those following or who choose to find information on the Mike Nifong hearing there is comprehensive information here.

Tweet This Post

Many might think that those who wear the black robes and preside over a trial or hearing are some of the most intimidating figures in society. After all, they hold more power in their hands in regards to the lives of others than just about anyone else here on earth.

Yet, every once in a while we come across a judge who seems to rule not only in a fair manner but with a sense of humor. Judge Todd seems to have those qualities.

Judge cites 42 Beatles songs to teach beer thief a lesson

A judge sentencing a Beatles-loving beer thief quoted 42 of the band’s song titles in his verdict.

Andrew McCormack, 20, was asked to recommend to a US court what his sentence should be for stealing beer.

McCormack: Got more than he bargained for after his beer theft
He wrote: “Like the Beetles say, Let It Be”. But his cheeky quip did not impress Gregory Todd, a 56-year-old district court judge in Montana.

In a sentencing memorandum Judge Todd first corrected McCormack’s misspelling and then gave the defendant a lesson in The Beatles discography.

If you have ever enjoyed Beatles music this is a must read. The incorporation of their music in this sentencing was both humorous and imaginative. I won’t spoil it by quoting any of it here, it is better if you read it in its entirety.

Tweet This Post

Source of this shortened version.

JUAREZ, Mexico — The man shot in the buttocks by two U.S. Border Patrol agents now in prison for the shooting and the coverup is breaking his silence, saying he is well aware that ‘everybody hates me there (in America).’

Osvaldo Aldrete Davila was shot in February 2005 by Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos as he tried to drive further into the United States with a van full of 700 pounds of marijuana. He was given immunity from prosecution in March 2005 for his cooperation in that investigation and subsequent trial, which culminated last year.

Ramos and Compean are now serving 11 and 12-year prison sentences.

In an interview with The El Paso Times, Aldrete Davila said while it was wrong for the agents to shoot him, he thinks the prison sentences are too excessive.

Aldrete Davila also said he only agreed to help smuggle the drugs in a moment of “desperation” because he needed the cash to get his commercial driver’s license. He said he was promised $1,000 to walk across the Rio Grande on Feb. 17, 2005, and get into a gray Ford Econoline van waiting for him with the keys in the ignition.

“I didn’t know exactly what was in the van. I didn’t look. But, you know, I knew it was bad,” he told The El Paso Times.

Aldrete Davila is suing the U.S. government for $5 million — money he says is needed to rebuild his urethra, which was shattered by the bullet. He lives with a rubber tube sticking out of his belly button that connects his bladder to a plastic bag.

“I know it was wrong what I did, but I’m paying for it with my health,” he told the newspaper. “People don’t know how it is for me to go to the bathroom, how painful it is.”

You can read the rest of this sob story here.

Tweet This Post

It was refreshing to see the British got this right and I wish our Justice department would do the same.

A civil servant and an MP’s researcher have been found guilty of breaching the Official Secrets Act.
They leaked an “extremely sensitive” memo about talks on Iraq between Tony Blair and President Bush.

What is even more troubling was that a man running for the Presidency here in the United States was on the list as a possible recipient of this information.

He also wanted it to be passed on to US presidential candidate John Kerry.

While there is no proof that Senator Kerry had any knowledge of the plan for this information to land in his hands, or that he ever received any documents relating to this conversation, the significance to a US election could be staggering.

Recognizing that information is relayed with relative ease today, comprehensive investigations are necessary to identify and prosecute those leaking for spite or political gain.

What serious action has been undertaken by the Justice Department concerning this leak or these or perhaps this.

An investigation here or there, a grand jury convened and no word on any action. Look at the Sandy Burger case. What information did he steal and destroy from the National Archives? Did the Justice department stop short of gaining a stiffer penalty for this crime in deference to a former President? We will never know.

Where is the outrage when a politician in this country travels to a known terrorist state and gives them the heads up on the Presidents Foreign Policy:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) on the November 14, 2005 edition of “Fox Sunday” divulged “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq–that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.”

While I have been a supporter of AG Gonzalez, I wish he would take more aggressive action on any leak where information is deemed of a sensitive nature. Elected officials no matter what letter follows their name, private citizens and members of the press must be held accountable and pay a price for wrongdoing. It is a simple matter of trust.

Tweet This Post