by TChris

Why isn't the public entitled to learn about the misconduct of a public employee whose salary is paid with public dollars? A Journal News editorial poses that legitimate question after the newspaper was denied access to information about officers in the Yonkers Police Department who were disciplined for unknown infractions.

How many officers? Which ones? Any repeat offenders? What were their offenses -- egregious dereliction of duty? Violation of citizens' rights? Violent behavior? Relatively harmless, technical fouls?

The public doesn't know -- and can't find out -- thanks to the secrecy permitted by a state law that should be changed. ...

"Those who have the greatest power and authority over the public should not be the least accountable to the public," the commission [on open government] has written in support of amending the law. "In terms of accountability, when the public cannot know which officers engaged in misconduct and which others are guiltless, the public is unable to know which officers can be trusted or are credible."

by TChris

Barring a successful appeal, Tom DeLay's name must stay on the ballot as the GOP candidate for the congressional seat he abandoned. It's widely assumed that DeLay, despite the distraction of a pending indictment, will campaign for the seat if that decision isn't overturned, but Roll Call (by way of Raw Story) reports that DeLay has been spending his campaign funds on lawyers, leaving him with little cash on hand to mount a campaign.

DeLay has only $641,000 in his campaign account, compared to $2.2 million available to the Democratic candidate, Nick Lampson. And DeLay's need for money to solve his legal woes won't end soon.

With legal bills still mounting -- DeLay faces a local trial later this year on campaign finance charges and the probe of ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff continues -- he was originally expected to use all his leftover funds to pay a legal team that now includes lawyers from nine different firms.

by TChris

Senator Lindsey Graham wants to use the military court-martial model to try detainees, but other Republicans "say it could cripple the government's ability to protect the nation by giving detainees too many rights." Too many rights? Which ones are superfluous? The right to know what you're accused of doing? The right to see the evidence? The right to attend the trial and to confront the accuser?

While "some other Republicans argue that terrorists do not deserve legal or human rights," those Republicans apparently lack an understanding of the difference between a terrorist and an accused terrorist. Putting aside the rights that may apply to someone convicted of an act of terrorism in a fair and meaningful trial, can these Republicans explain why the presumption of innocence shouldn't apply to alleged terrorists? Even if the administration were competent, why would we trust the government to make error-free accusations without insisting that those accusations be proved?

As Graham points out, fair trials benefit the country, not just alleged terrorists.

I can't remember the last time I went to bed at 11:00 pm, but I'm headed there now because I have to get up at 4:30 a.m. to make an early flight for court in another city. Since that's the way it is, here's an open thread. All topics are welcome, except Duke which has it's own thread going as well as the TalkLeft Duke forums.

If I get any free time waiting around the airport, I'll check in, otherwise it may be Wednesday before I'm back to blogging. I'm also pretty bummed because tonight is Hunter Thompson's birthday party in Aspen, and even though I've been invited, I can't go because I won't be back from court in time to get there.

Distance: 540 miles

There's no relief yet from the heat wave gripping the country. At least Denver has little humidity which makes it slightly more bearable. Except I'll be in court in Omaha tomorrow where I'm not likely to be so lucky.

For all who are suffering, here's a little musical relief -- a double header-- Martha and the Vandellas singing "Heat Wave" and The Lovin' Spoonful doing "Summer in the City."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has laid out conditions to end the fighting in Lebanon:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the fighting in Lebanon would end when two soldiers captured by Hezbollah guerrillas are freed, rocket attacks on Israel have stopped, and the Lebanese army is deployed along the border. This appeared to be a concession by Israel, which had previously demanded the full dismantling of Hezbollah as a condition for ending hostilities

The Iranian Foreign Minister has arrived in Syria for talks and says a cease-fire and prisoner exchange is probably do-able.

As for Bush's recorded private conversation with Blair in which he used an expletive to describe Hezbollah, Crooks and Liars has the video and here's Bush's comment:

by TChris

Religious intolerance has reached an extreme in Pompano Beach, Florida, where a mosque seeks zoning approval to relocate and expand.

The new mosque would have a social hall, basketball court and playground, open to all. It would also be a storm shelter and a place to vote.

This civic asset would seem uncontroversial, but it's vehemently opposed by (among others) Rev. O'Neal Dozier, pastor of Worldwide Christian Center. Why? Because -- according to Dozier -- Muslims are categorically "dangerous" and "terrorists."

The Wall St. Journal is offering a free middle east news tracker.

YouTube has video posts from Haifa and Beirut.

As many TalkLeft readers know, Terry Kindlon of Albany, NY is an outstanding criminal defense lawyer who reads and comments often on TalkLeft about military service. He was a decorated Marine during Vietnam, sustained some injuries, is married to my friend Laurie Shanks, also an outstanding defense lawyer in Albany, and their son Lee, age 30, is a captain in the Marines and a military lawyer who recently returned from Fallujah, where he also served as a Judge Advocate.

He has an op-ed in the Albany Times available here at Common Dreams, that is a must read for those who truly care about our military and soldiers.

Here's some of what Terry has to say, but go on over and read the whole thing:

There will be two hearings today in the Duke Lacrosse players' alleged rape case. One will be a hearing for the uncharged Duke lacrosse players:

Attorneys for the uncharged players want to prevent District Attorney Mike Nifong from gaining access to Duke records of the home addresses of uncharged team members and records of their use of student identity cards. The lawyers argue the information is protected by federal privacy laws.

The other is a pre-trial conference for the three charged players, but Colin Finnerty's lawyer says he doesn't anticipate much of substance to be discussed.

Dan Quayle walked out of John Mellencamp concert Friday when he heard Mellencamp introduce his song "Walk Tall" with a dedication "to everyone hurt by policies of the current Bush administration."

For Mr. Qayle, here's what you missed:

The New York Times calls out Bush for his executive arrogance, as displayed this past week regarding Guantanamo and the NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.