On Protecting The Innocent, Or, Is There A Death Penalty Compromise?

by: fake consultant

Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 12:45:00 PM MST

And given the choice, I'd rather see us abandon the death penalty altogether, for reasons that must, at this moment, seem self-evident; that said, it's my suspicion that a lot of states are not going to be in any hurry to abandon their death penalties anytime soon now that they know the Supreme Court will allow the innocent to be murdered.

So what if there was a way to create a compromise that balanced the absolute need to protect the innocent with the feeling among many Americans that, for some crimes, we absolutely have to impose the death penalty?

Considering the circumstances, it's not going to be an easy subject, but let's give it a try, and see what we can do.

Sen. McConnell Is Afraid, He Wants KY Terror Suspects Transferred To Guantanamo Bay

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 06:45:23 AM MST

There are a lot of problems without the United States military tribunal system. Not the least of which is that we have set a separate track for some prosecutions when it comes to terrorism and terrorism related crimes. This leads to a confusion of effort but also risks the expansion of our gulag in Cuba.

Take the example of two men who were arrested in Kentucky. Waad Alwan and Mohanad Hammadi, href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-kentucky-terror-arrests-20110601,0,6989529.story
">two Iraqi men arrested in May on charges of trying to send Stinger missiles and other weapons to Al Qaeda related insurgents in Iraq. Both men were part of the refugee program that has allowed 56,000 Iraqi's into the United States.

Mr. Alwan was, apparently, an insurgent himself who came to the U.S. with the intention of getting out of Iraq, where he was wanted, and gaining a U.S. passport which would allow him a much greater freedom of travel world wide.

He had been under investigation by the FBI since sometime in 2009. The details are sketchy but he had been working with an FBI informant who gave him weapons to ship to Iraq with the express intent of attacking Americans there.

All of this is pretty standard for anti-terror cases but it is when we get people like Sen. Mitch "Box-Turtle" McConnell involved that we see the perils of our "two track" justice system in regards to terrorism. The Senate Minority Leader is loudly saying that he wants the two men transferred from Federal custody to Guantanamo Bay.

Here is part of what he said, from the href="http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110614/NEWS01/306140053/Mitch-McConnell-wants-2-Kentucky-terrorism-suspects-sent-Guantanamo?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home">Courier-Journal article:

In a Senate floor speech, McConnell said he wanted to "get these men out of Kentucky."

"Send them to Guantanamo where they belong," the Kentucky Republican said. "Get these terrorists out of the civilian (court) system - and out of our backyards. And give them the justice they deserve."

There are a lot of problems that that single sentence. First off it is hard to understand how a court system that is designed to let evidence that would never see the light of day in Article III courts be admissible is going to be any kind justice.  

Jethro Bodineism Watch - Rand Paul Edition

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 06:53:19 AM MST

To my great chagrin no one in the national media has picked up the Bodineism meme, but they are starting to get the picture that there are some elected officials, particularly Republican elected officials, are about as dumb as sack of hammers.

The particular Jethro that I am talking about today is Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Of all the folks that I have compared to Jethro Bodine, Sen. Paul is probably the closet to the mark. By all accounts he is a pretty genial guy with a good smile and a nice manner. He is also so clueless as to be a text book (given that all books are printed in text, wouldn't that make them all text books?) example of self-satire.

Most recently Sen. Paul (gods greater and lesser that gives me chills just writing it, ugh) has managed to trample the 1st Amendment with his "ideas". Some of us on the Left side of the Blogasphere were more than a little happy that he was holding up the PATRIOT act renewal, by wanting to insert some amendments that would lessen the ability of the government to spy on its own citizens.

That was a good thing, but it does not mean that he was doing it from a deep understanding of the Constitution. You see after his ploy failed he went on Sean "The Manatee" Hannity's radio show and said the following:

I'm not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they've been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they've been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn't be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after - they should be deported or put in prison.

Yale Suspends DKE House For "No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal" Chants

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Wed May 18, 2011 at 06:53:42 AM MST

In October of last year the Delta Kappa Epsilon pledges and the members who were "tapping" them went out and marched by the  Yale Women's Center chanting "No means yes, yes means anal" and "My name is Jack, I am a necrophiliac, I f**k dead women". All good fun and games by a bunch of guys right? Wrong.

There is this boys will be boys culture in this country, and especially in some fraternities that is appalling. I get accused of being a humorless liberal, but there is no humor in statements and acts like that which can only intimidate.

Think about the mind set that you would have to have to think something like this was funny. You'd have to think you were being bold to make a statement like that, somehow charmingly shocking to go the Women's Center and be a sexist jackass. Then to bring a whole group of men and chant about forcible rape (after all what else could No means Yes, possibly mean).

Try to put yourself in the shoes of a 18 year old female Freshman from a smallish city in the Midwest. What would she think about this? That is just a prank and there is nothing threatening to her or indoctrinating to the boys chanting it? Does anyone really think that is going to be the take away?

Yesterday the Dean Mary Miller sent out an e-mail to the entire Yale community announcing that the Executive Committee (made up of faculty and students) had concluded that the DKE chapter and individuals in it had violated Undergraduate Regulations by their actions.  

Bigoted Ex-Bush Official Sues HRC And Karl Rove Under RICO

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Wed May 11, 2011 at 06:31:05 AM MST

What do you do when you have been caught breaking civil service rules left and right as a Presidential Appointee and consequently been forced out of that job? Why of course you sue everyone in sight under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act. Which is exactly what the former href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-special-counsel-bloch-sues-rove-davis-and-others-for-202-million/2011/05/10/AFuKHtkG_story.html">Office of Special Counsel chief, Scott "I got no clue" Block is doing.

Let's back up a little bit so everyone can remember the facts about Mr. Block. The Office of Special Counsel is charged with protecting federal whistleblowers. That is actually the mandate of this office, to make sure that when someone notices illegal or improper acts happening in the federal government and comes forward, this office looks into the it and they make sure that the person reporting the misdeeds is not retaliated against. Or at least that is what they are supposed to do. This is also the office that is supposed to enforce the Hatch act, which prohibits using government resources for electioneering purposes.

Now you have to remember that this was the criminal Bush administration, so they were not really keen on having any kind of actual enforcement neither of the Hatch Act nor, for that matter having whistleblowers come forward. This was the Administration filled with John Yoo and Monica Goodling after all. It was a place where Karl Rove went to Executive branch departments and gave Power Point presentations on helping Republicans win new seats and defend old ones.

So, there is good ol' Scotty at the helm of the office that would get any complaints. He was, until recently that is, a "good Bushie" and did what you might expect. He started out purging his office of anyone who disagreed with him on summary dismissal of whistleblower claims. He is also started to retaliate against people in his own office for disagreeing or complaining about his actions. Real nice from the guy who was supposed to protect whistleblowers.  

Waterboarding; Cheney Still Advocating For It

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Mon May 09, 2011 at 06:00:05 AM MST

On Fox "News" this Sunday criminal Former VP Dick Cheney said the following about returning to the use of waterboarding in terror interrogations:

I certainly would advocate it; I'd be a strong supporter of it

This is an area of contention that I have had with President Obama nearly from the first days of his administration. Namely the purely political decision not to follow through on our legal responsibility to investigate any credible allegations of torture and to prosecute those who were found responsible.

The fact that the criminal Bush Administration admitted to waterboarding at least three of our detainees, which has been by US and international law an act of torture and a potential war crime yet none of the top level people have ever been investigated for it is a national shame that will not be wiped away for a long time to come.

Worse it has left the issue of torture and waterboarding in particular open. At this late point it is easy to get academic about this form of torture. Given that I thought I would give everyone a taste of what is would be like to be waterboarded. This is a first person fictionalization of it, it is my best attempt to reproduce what a person would feel in that situation.

Warning: if you have been a victim of torture, you might not want to read this. I have been told that it can be triggering for traumatic  memories and while I want everyone to get as vicsoral as possible an understanding of torture I don't want to traumatize anyone:  

Only 1 In 5 12th Graders Proficient In Civics, And We Wonder Why The Nation Is In Trouble?

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Thu May 05, 2011 at 06:33:47 AM MST

Our system of government seems to be broken, and there is a reason, basically the people who put in the base inputs, the voters who elect governing officials, don't understand how their government works.

We live in a nation that has an increasingly dysfunctional government. We have seen it in the way that the Senate in the 111th Congress was completely broken by the unprecedented use of the filibuster and holds on legislation. More than 400 bills which passed the House never saw a vote in the Senate for this very reason.

It is even worse than that when you have a House of Representatives that votes on a bill that insists that if the Senate does not act on a bill it has already voted down, then the House bill will become and I quote "the law of the land". The fact that this bill completely flew in the face of the tripartite system of government we have did not prevent it from being brought to a vote and garnering a majority of the House, all those voting for it being Republicans.

It is the kind of thing that activists and political junkies know but don't really think about, that most Americans don't have a working grasp of how things actually work in government but a new report out today show just how bad things really are.

There is a set of tests that are given in the 4th, 8th and 12th grades. As part of these tests there are questions about civics, the basic functions of the Federal government. Only one in 5 12th graders answered well enough to be considered to have a proficient or advanced understanding of the subject.  

High Court Hears First Amendement Case, Decision Might Undermine Roe

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 06:36:57 AM MST

The High Court heard a case yesterday which is being argued on First Amendment grounds. The case arises from the practice of so-called "Data Mining" companies collecting the prescription history of doctors and then aggregating that information and selling it to pharmaceutical companies, who then use it to target market of drugs to specific doctors.  

Now, the patients who receive these prescriptions are not known, just that that prescription was written and filled. The State of Vermont passed a law (as well as New Hampshire and a couple of other states) that prohibited this practice. They were taken to court by the data mining companies with the support of the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Vermont created a law that requires that doctors consent to having this kind of information sold by pharmacies and data mining companies. The State admitted that part of the move to do so was an attempt to control costs. When doctors receive a barrage of marketing about name brand drugs, they are more likely to prescribe them, even if there is a generic that is just as effective. The desire to see more low cost prescriptions is the states interest in this and where they are likely to be in trouble with the High Court

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg asked:

And if that's the purpose, why doesn't that run up against what this court has said - that you can't lower the decibel level of one speaker so that another speaker, in this case the generics, can be heard better?"

On Happy-ing Their Gilmores, Or, Will Body Bags Be The New Gold Watch?

by: fake consultant

Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 04:20:09 AM MST

I have been encouraging folks to take advantage of the recent Congressional recess to have a few words with your CongressCritter about the proposed Death Of Medicare and all the proposed cuts to Social Security...and you have, as we'll discuss...and now we have an opportunity to do something on a national scale, just as we did a few weeks ago in support of Social Security.

This time, we're going to concentrate on fighting the idea that retirement ages should go up before we become eligible for Social Security and Medicare (and elements of Medicaid, as well), and that Americans should just keep right on working until the age of 67 or so-which isn't going to be any big problem...really...trust us.

Now that just makes no sense, and to help make the point we have a really cool video that you can pass around to all your friends-and your enemies, for that matter, since they'll also have to worry about what happens to them if they should ever make it to old age.  

Supreme Court deals setback for Environmental Activists and Refugees

by: wade norris

Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 12:59:48 PM MST

On September 21, 2009,
the Second Circuit made an important decision on a case known as
Connecticut vs American Electric Power.
Without going into too much detail, this was a case several groups like the Audubon society were trying to stop coal plant emissions because it was harming the value of their land trusts. The lower court ruled as other courts have, that Climate Change was part of the political realm, not the courts.
However, the appellate court overturned this decision on the grounds that the Energy company were causing a public nuisance, and nuisance cases have been heard by courts for decades.

"Nowhere in their complaints do plaintiffs ask the court to fashion a comprehensive and far-reaching solution to global climate change, a task that arguably falls within the purview of the political branches. Instead, they seek to limit emissions from six domestic coal-fired electricity plants on the ground that such emissions constitute a public nuisance that they allege has caused, is causing and will continue to cause them injury."

Unfortunately, as of April 20th, 2011, it seems that even the 'liberal' judges on the Supreme court are going to side with the Utilities :

   Justice Elena Kagan also questioned the scope of the case, refuting Underwood's argument that public nuisance pollution suit was like any other pollution suit. "All those other pollution suits that you've been talking about are much more localized affairs. One factory emitting discharge into one stream-they don't involve these kinds of national/international policy issues ... I mean, there's a huge gap, a chasm between the precedents you have and this case, isn't there?"

   Justice Ruth Ginsburg, meanwhile, questioned the court's jurisdiction in setting standards for emissions. "Asking a court to set standards for emissions sounds like the kind of thing that EPA does," she said. "The relief you're seeking seems to me to set up a district judge, who does not have the resources, the expertise, as a kind of super-EPA."

A Small Win On Sovereign Immunity At The SCOTUS

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Wed Apr 20, 2011 at 06:24:19 AM MST

As part of the Friday Constitutional series we recently talked about Sovereign Immunity. Basically it is the idea that a citizen or group can't sue the government for the normal conduct of its work, even when they disagree with that conduct. It is basically designed to keep the gears of government from being gummed up with law suits from the opposition.

Sovereign immunity can be waved by the government in question (local, State or Federal) and is in a great number of cases. This idea, while part of the Constitution had decayed quite a bit by the late 1990's when the Rehnquist Court brought it out of the ICU and back into mainstream legal thought with the Alden v. Maine decision.

The basic issue here was whether Federal law allowed private citizens to sue state government over issues of Federal law, even against an assertion of Sovereign Immunity by the State. The premise that the Rehnquist Court used to say that a SI claim could be made and upheld by a State was based on some really shaky legal reasoning. It basically held that because the original states had sovereign immunity prior to the founding of the United States that it should have continued even when they formed a new country.  

DADT Update: The Service Chiefs Report, The Republicans Fret

by: fake consultant

Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:48:45 AM MST

There was a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee last Thursday that had all four Services represented; with one exception these were the same Service Chiefs that were testifying last December when the bill to set the repeal process in motion was still a piece of prospective legislation.

At that time there was concern that the "combat arms" of the Marines and the Army were going to be impacted in a negative way by the transition to "open service"; the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Army's Chief of Staff were the most outspoken in confirming that such concerns exist within the Pentagon as well.

We now have more information to report-including the increasing desperation of some of our Republican friends-and if you ask me, I think things might be better than we thought.

Idaho To Force Rape Victims To Carry Their Assailants Baby

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 09:08:32 AM MST

There is something about a woman's ability to control her reproduction that the Republicans and Teahadists just hate. There is nothing reasonable about it,  there is no way to give it respect or credence as a deeply held view. That they claim a moral justification based on their religion does not make it any less a violation of the rights of an adult human to decide when and if they will reproduce.

Which does not stop these people who claim to love the freedom of the United States from trying to inject the law into every uterus in the nation, by putting tighter and tighter restrictions on abortions. This time it is the Idaho State Legislature.

They have passed a bill that would make the performance of an abortion on a woman who is twenty weeks pregnant a felony in Idaho. To make matters worse, they have not included any exceptions for rape, incest, fetal deformation or the mental or psychological health of the woman. Only if the pregnancy is going to kill the woman is there any exemption.

You might think that I am Christian bashing when I say this about religion but let me give you the quotes from a couple of legislators that supported this heinous piece of woman hating legislation. From the Think Progress article:

"Is not the child of that rape or incest also a victim?" asked Rep. Shannon McMillan, R-Silverton. "It didn't ask to be here. It was here under violent circumstances perhaps, but that was through no fault of its own."[...]

The Idaho bill's House sponsor, state Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, told legislators that the "hand of the Almighty" was at work. "His ways are higher than our ways," Crane said. "He has the ability to take difficult, tragic, horrific circumstances and then turn them into wonderful examples."

Social Security: Are You Ready For A Congressional "Video Staycation"?

by: fake consultant

Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 22:00:18 PM MST

Now what I have for you today starts out as a bit of insider information that came to me on background-but it turns into a chance for those of us who support Social Security to very much get in the faces of our members of Congress, for two whole weeks.

And to make it even better, I'm going to throw out a few direct action ideas "for your consideration" (as they say in Hollywood during Awards Season) that would absolutely make good street actions and YouTube videos, both at the same time...and even more importantly, we'll absolutely make some great Spring Break fun.  

On Monday Morning Philosophy, Or, Founders Tell America: "You Figure It Out"

by: fake consultant

Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 12:05:04 PM MST

Some among us have managed to turn their certainty into something that approaches a reverential calling, and you need look no further than the Supreme Court to find such notables as Cardinals Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia providing "liturgical foundation" to the adherents of the point of view that the Constitution is like The Bible: that it's somehow immutable, set in stone, and, if we would only listen to the right experts, easily interpreted.

But what if that absolutist point of view is absolutely wrong?

What if the Original Intent Of The Founders, that summer in Philadelphia...was simply to get something passed out of the Constitutional Convention, and the only way that could happen was to leave a lot of the really tough decisions to the future?

What if The Real Original Intent...was that we work it out for ourselves as we go along?

Sentenced For A Crime You Weren't Convicted Of? Only At Gitmo

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 06:14:57 AM MST

We all know how the U.S. justice system works. You're arrested, then tried, found guilty for a crime, then the court looks around for a different crime they are going to sentence you for. What? That is not how you think it is done? Well if you are a Guantanamo Bay detainee like Al Bahlul that is exactly what is going on today.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is highlighting this small bit of continuing legal (extra-legal?) chicanery going on in our Military Commissions Review in Cuba today.

Mr. Bahlul was part of the original prisoners brought to Guantanamo Bay nearly a decade ago. After serving several years without charge or conviction, he finally got a trial. He was charged and convicted on conspiracy, solicitation and providing material support for terrorism.

In the process of his appeals there has been a new administration, a Supreme Court decision, a reshuffling of the Court of Military Commissions Review (the appeals court in the Military Commissions system) and a decision that the appeal be held en banc (meaning that the whole appellate court heard the appeal). At this point the government has all but agreed that the charges that they originally convicted him on were not established at law-of-war offenses either under international law or U.S. law at the time they were committed.

This is an important fact as the U.S. Constitution bars ex post facto convictions Article One, Section 9 prevents the Congress from passing ex post facto laws. What this means is that you can not be held accountable as a matter of law for a crime that was not as crime at the time you committed it.

On Being A Titan, Part One, Or, See It, Say It, Sue It

by: fake consultant

Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 04:20:29 AM MST

Two local activists in particular have drawn the ire of Titan Cement, the Grecian corporation who seeks to build the plant-and because the Company doesn't like what the activists have been saying about what the impact of that plant will likely be or how the deal's going down...they're suing Kayne Darrell and Dr. David Hill, residents of North Carolina's New Hanover County, and the two folks who are doing the complaining the Company dislikes the most.

The Company further claims that they were slandered and defamed by the damaging statements that were uttered by the two at a county commissioners' meeting and that they have lost goodwill and the chance to do business with certain parties as a result of these statements.

But what if everything the Defendants said was not only true...but provably so-and the Company was, maybe...just looking to shut people up by sending teams of lawyers after them?

As I said, it's a simple story today-but it's a good one.

Social Security: If You Can't Kill The Program, Screw The People

by: fake consultant

Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 09:46:42 AM MST

They're going to sell it to you, if they can, as a way to "lower the deficit", or words similar...but what this is really about is making the actual Social Security program work less well-because, after all, if a program is popular today, the best way to make it less so is to apply a bit of "treat 'em like their cars were impounded" to every interaction customers have with the system.

And what better way to make sure that happens...then to aggressively demoralize everyone who works down at the ol' Social Security office?

TN Wingnuts - Islam Is Not A Religion

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Mon Oct 11, 2010 at 06:13:10 AM MST

As the outbreak of Islamophobia has grown so has the hysteria from the Right on this issue. In Murfreesboro TN, where the construction site of an Islamic center was the victim of suspected arson, the Wingers have really lost their minds. Last week they were in court arguing for a judge to issue an injunction saying the zoning commission was wrong to allow the building of the Center. Their primary argument? That Islam is not a religion, but a political movement. From the Tennessean:

Mosque opponents say that Islam is not a real religion. Instead, they argued in a Rutherford County courthouse last week that the world's second largest faith, with its 1.6 billion followers, is actually a political movement.

Opponents say local Muslims want to replace the Constitution with an Islamic legal code called Shariah law. Joe Brandon Jr., a Smyrna attorney representing a group of mosque opponents, argued that the proposed mosque is not a house of worship. He said the Rutherford County Planning Commission erred on May 24 when it approved the mosque.
Brandon wants Chancellor Robert Corlew of the 16th Judicial District to issue an injunction stopping the mosque.

"Shariah law is pure sedition," said Brandon in his opening statement Monday.

Yes, Jonah Goldberg, The Supreme Court Is Supposed To Decide What Is Constitutional

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 06:05:00 AM MST

They would use this thinking to end the Federal minimum wage, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. All the big Tea Party faves have this idea, with Joe Miller, Sharon Angle and Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell really leading the charge.

This idea is nuts on the surface but it is packed full of nutty goodness as you get deeper as well. The whole push for "constitutional fealty" by the Right is a ruse and always has been. The reason that they want to return to so called original intent it so wipe out two centuries of case law that does not suit their radical agenda.