Nick Kristof writes:

. . . [A]s George Santayana, the eminent Harvard philosopher wrote: “Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.” Rather than lose forever the chance to grow from our missteps, here’s a two-step proposal for confronting the past without distracting from the work on the economic crisis.

The first step is to appoint a high-level commission — perhaps a McCain-Scowcroft Commission? — to investigate torture, secret detention and wiretapping during the Bush years, as well as to look ahead and offer recommendations for balancing national security and individual rights in the future.

Kristof's good faith proposal ignores the fact that the US policy on interrogation and detention policies and on wiretapping is a live issue (the President has convened a task force to study the issues) and it is the role of Congress to investigate, oversee and enact legislation regarding these issues. I have no objection to blue ribbon commissions but the Congress can not abdicate its Constitutional responsibilities. There is work to do on these issues, and it is work for the Congress and the President. No shirking. Thus when Kristof writes:

Joseph White, found guilty of participating in the rape-murder of 68-year-old Helen Wilson in Beatrice, Nebraska in 1985, was awarded a new trial in October after new DNA testing failed to connect White to the crime scene, while pointing to the likely involvement of Bruce Smith from Oklahoma City. Prosecutors have since dismissed the charges against White.

In the wake of that decision, five defendants who pled guilty to the same crime (presumably to avoid the death penalty) will receive pardons. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning told the State Board of Pardons that the "Beatrice 6" are "100 percent innocent." [more ...]

When government entities or private companies (particularly insurance companies) (cough*Allstate*cough) adopt a blanket "we won't settle this kind of claim" policy, they usually say their intent is to discourage frivolous litigation. In many cases, the true intent is to discourage all litigation, legitimate or otherwise. Many victims with legitimate claims won't pursue them if they know they'll have to go to trial. Sometimes -- if the "no settlements" policy is recommended by a law firm that happens to represent the company or agency -- the intent is to assure more billable hours for the firm.

Albuquerque follows a "no settlement" policy with regard to claims of police misconduct. Perhaps the city believes its officers are incapable of using excessive force or engaging in other civil rights violations. It's more likely the city takes a tough stance to discourage claims.

Albuquerque made an exception this week by settling a lawsuit alleging that the police ignored four 911 calls, and that an off-duty police officer refused a request to assist, resulting in the death of a 21-year-old woman who was murdered by her estranged boyfriend, a Los Alamos County firefighter. [more ...]

As Randy Newman reminded us long ago, It's Money That Matters. A more contemporary reminder comes from two judges in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, who took kickbacks from juvenile detention centers in exchange for incarcerating kids, sometimes against the recommendations of their probation officers.

The judges allegedly concealed $2.6 million in payments from one of the owners of the centers and an unnamed person, authorities said. At the same time, the judges also worked to ensure that the facilities reaped millions of dollars in business by sending them a steady number of juveniles.

The judges apparently worked to end funding for an existing detention center after a judge's lawyer-friend cooked up a scheme to build a new detention center (assisted by the judge's contractor-friend) that received guaranteed funding from the court. [more ...]

"Life on Mars" is back tonight, one of the few cop shows I like, probably because it involves time travel back to 1973, the music is good and Michael Imperioli from the Sopranos and Harvey Keitl are in it. Watching New York in 1973 is fun. Throughout tonight's episode they are playing the Guess Who's "No Time." (ABC needs to turn their default audio to "off" or people will stop clicking on their site. Little is worse than assaulting us with unasked for audio just because we click on a site.)

"No Time" is perfect for this week since I've been in court all week and have had no time to blog.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

No surprise here. Attorney General nominee Eric Holder passed the Senate Judicary Committee by a vote of 17 to 2 with only Republican Senators John Cornyn and Tom Coburn voting no.

A vote by the full Senate should take place in a few days. Mukasey's term expired on Jan. 20 Bush Deputy AG Mark Filip is <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/bush-holdover-takes-the-reigns-awaiting-holder-confirmation/, serving as Acting Attorney General until Holder is confirmed.

Next up after Holder's confirmation: The naming of 93 U.S. Attorneys. Will there be any holdovers? Patrick Fitzgerald is expected to stay as Obama previously said he would keep him. The rest will primarily be chosen through recommendations by the Senators in each district.

The House just passed the stimulus bill by a vote of 244-188. I think 2 NO Republicans voted for the bill.

NYTimes report.

A year ago, John Yoo was sued by Jose Padilla:

"John Yoo is the first person in American history to provide the legal authorization for the instiution of torture in the U.S.," said Jonathan Freiman, an attorney representing Padilla in the suit. "He [Yoo] was an absolutely essential part of what will be viewed by history as a group of rogue officials acting under cover of law to undermine fundamental rights.it never would have happened without the legal green light. That made it possible."

Now the Obama Justice Department is charged with defending Yoo, presumably raising claims of qualified immunity. Steve Gillers makes a good point:

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

BTW, on the first of a series of votes in the House on the economic stimulus bill precisely ZERO Republicans are voting in favor.

When Obama does it apparently. My friend Booman writes:

But if the bill is already as good as passed, then why are Democrats stripping elements of the bill out? The short answer is that it is politics. The Obama administration would like to get a big vote in favor of the stimulus for three reasons. They want to demonstrate the efficacy of their post-partisan rhetoric, they want to get some cover for the Democrats in case the stimulus doesn't work, and they want to splinter the GOP caucus on the first big vote of their administration. For all these reasons (tone, politics, demonstration of power), they are willing to make some generous and unnecessary concessions. We may not like or agree with these concessions, but we should try to understand the game that is being played.

Sounds pretty Bill Clinton Third Wayish to me. Of course, what is missing from that analysis is what Bill Clinton did in his first economic plan and the fact that the Third Way Bill Clinton emerged after Republicans captured the Congress. More . . .

As the battle rages on between Obama partisans (these are persons who have, and perhaps it will be justified, an almost blind faith in Obama) and other progressives who are, to put it mildly, skeptical about the post-partisan unity schtick (I count myself among this group, a group cynical about all pols and who count Obama as a pol), I think there is little doubt that President Obama and his postpartisan unity schtick are about to face a major acid test -- the President's performance in shaping an economic stimulus plan.

I think this test should reveal a few things. First, is Obama as progressive as we have been told on matters economic. Second, what does he really believe "will work" to stimulate the economy adequately. Third, how effective was the post partisan unity schtick in helping the President achieve his political and policy goals.

More . . .

Good riddance to Wayne Tucker, who until this morning was the chief of police in Oakland. Tucker resigned before the city council had a chance to hold a planned no-confidence vote. Just yesterday, Tucker said he wouldn't resign.

Tucker's four year reign as police chief has been a disaster. Tucker promoted Edward Poulson to head the department's internal affairs division, despite Poulson's interference with an internal affairs investigation in 2000. [more ...]