Prince Harry really stepped in it this time. He went to a costume party wearing the uniform of an SS Offcier, complete with swatstika. The 20 year old prince has apologized. Should that be the end of it? His aunt, Sarah Fergueson, thinks so.

Or, should it engender a discussion of whether the current generation of youth are being educated about the holocaust?

In Jerusalem, Robert Rozett, the director of the library at Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, said the photographs of Harry wearing a swastika showed that "the lessons of the Holocaust have not really entered deeply within his understanding and consciousness."

....We would hope that figures like Prince Harry would be more sensitive and not trivialize it. ... We would suggest that Harry and others would do well to learn more about the subject, be more careful about how they use the subject in public."

I agree with Mr. Rozett on that. I also think it probably was just a thoughtless act by Harry with no actual malice or prejudice intended. But, would your kid have done it? In most households I know of, there have been many discussions about Hitler, the Holoucaust and the persecution of Jews. Maybe they didn't have these discussions in Harry's house.

Also, this isn't the first time that the Royal Family has engaged in questinable behavior regarding the Nazis:

Human Rights Watch has issued its annual report. It calls for prosecution of U.S. officials over the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse and of the Sudanese Government for Darfur, and asks Bush to appoint a special prosecutor:

"The vitality of global human rights depends on a firm response to each -- on stopping the Sudanese government's slaughter in Darfur and on fully investigating and prosecuting all those responsible for torture and mistreatment in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo," it said.

Seven members of a U.S. military unit posted at Abu Ghraib have been charged with crimes since pictures of piles of naked men and others held on a leash were leaked last year. In addition the U.S. military has charged or imposed administrative punishments on dozens of servicemen accused of abusing detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has issued this statement on yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Booker and FanFan.

Also, Maine Criminal Justice Act Counsel David Benneman has some practical thoughts on the decisions that he has allowed us to disseminate. [link fixed now.]

The Capital Times has a nice article on Booker, with reference to Booker's defense attorney, Chris Kelly, known on TalkLeft where we are ever grateful for his excellent blogging contributions, as TChris.

TChris is still in trial in Green Bay, but check back over the weekend for his comments.

Charles Graner did not take the stand after all in his trial on charges he abused Iraqi Abu Ghraib prisoners. Why did his lawyer change his mind about putting him on the stand/

"We came in with a checklist of the things we wanted to present to the jury," said a statement from Graner's lawyer, Guy Womack. "Once we accomplished that, there was no reason to continue. We presented all the evidence we wanted."

Today's chief witness for the defense was former soldier Megan Ambuhl, who also pleaded guilty to abuse and also was romantically involved with Graner. Closing arguments are tomorrow.

Jeffrey Toobin, writing for the January 17, 2005 New Yorker, has a long article on Arizona death row inmate Martin Soto-Fong, and asks whether former prosecutor Kenneth Peasly put the wrong man on death row (pdf)? Soto-Fong was 17 at the time of the crime. The article is not available at the New Yorker site, but the Federal Defender's office in Arizona has put up a copy.

Last year, Peasley acquired another distinction: he was isbarred for intentionally presenting false evidence in death-penalty cases—something that had never before happened to an American prosecutor. In a 1992 triple-murder case, Peasley introduced testimony that he knew to be false; three men were convicted and sentenced to die. Peasley was convinced that the three were guilty, but he also believed that the evidence needed a push.

...According to the Death Penalty Information Center, since the mid-nineteen-seventies a hundred and seventeen death-row inmates have been released. Defense lawyers, often relying on DNA testing, have shown repeatedly how shoddy crime-lab work, lying informants, and mistaken eyewitness identifications, among other factors, led to unjust convictions.But DNA tests don’t reveal how innocent people come to be prosecuted in the first place. The career of Kenneth Peasley does.

Read the whole thing, it's fascinating and Toobin doesa great job telling the story. Peasly, now disbarred, is working as a paralegal. He can apply to get his license back in four years. Soto-Fong remains on death row.

If you want to read more about the Booker and FanFan decisions, Howard Bashman of How Appealing has this group of links to a large number of news articles from around the country. For analysis, I recommend Law Prof Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy.

TalkLeft's advice to members of Congress in the wake of yesterday's Booker and FanFan decisons....go slow. As NACDL President Barry Scheck said:

For 20 years, federal courts have been forced to impose unjust, irrational sentences based on unproven allegations, speculative calculations and the worst kinds of hearsay. Congress should welcome this opportunity to create a fair and just federal sentencing system, not a quick fix.

Will they heed it? As we wrote here, Congress may have legislation creating mandatory minimums for every federal offense waiting in the wings. This Philadelphia Inquirer columnist reported in December:

The New York Times today reports that Michael Chertoff, Bush's nominee for Homeland Security Chief, may have to answer questions about John Walker Lindh . On Tuesday, we wrote:

Chertoff is probably smooth sailing for Bush. But, there were some delay at his judicial nomination hearing over whistleblower Jesselyn Radack. Radack had been employed in the Justice Department's Professional Responsibility Advisory Office, and claimed she was forced to resign after writing an opinion that the FBI could not interrogate "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh without his counsel present.

The New York Times goes deeper today, reporting:

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) today called for Democrats to go progressive. He said Democrats didn't talk enough about values in the election.

"We were remiss in not talking more directly about them - about the fundamental ideals that guide our progressive policies," he said. He added that Kerry's loss also showed that Democrats must communicate better with voters on issues of deep conscience, including abortion, without yielding the party's support for a woman's right to choose.

Kennedy has a progressive agenda ready for the taking:

Financial Times reports on Charles Graner's defense and says it crumbled today when the Court wouldn't allow the jury to hear from his "expert." According to other foreign news accounts of the trial , Thomas Archambault, a "self-styled prisoner restraint expert" told the judge outside the presence of the jury that Graner used "good foresight" and that the stacking of prisoners was a "creative technique."

A witness at the trial of the alleged Abu Ghraib prison abuse ringleader hailed the stacking up of naked detainees as "a creative technique" and said he too would have photographed it. The strongest testimony in favor of the military policeman was not presented before the jury as the judge ruled after hearing it that it was not relevant.

Thomas Archambault, a self-styled prisoner restraint expert, said Graner, had "used good foresight" in the way he dealt with the detainees. He said piling the naked prisoners on top of each other was "a very creative technique," but admitted it did not appear in any training manual. In questioning the witness, defense lawyer Guy Womack referred to the human stack as "a cheerleader pyramid."

I've now participated in blogger conference calls with both Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean. They are my two favorite candidates for Chair of the DNC. Both appreciate the importance of grass roots activism and the ability of the Internet to empower people and bring them into the political process. Both emphasize the importance of diversity and the politics of inclusion. Both stress the need to focus on local and state political races and organizations.

Until the call with Dean today, I had expected that he would be more focused on issues or the Democratic message while Rosenberg would be more into the technology and organizational structure. Not so. Both believe that the role of the DNC chair is not to establish policy but to create the machinery that will win elections.

My question to Dean today was along the lines of:

I see the difference between you and some of the other candidates as being your willingness to advocate progressive positions on issues. Other candidates have said the DNC Chair job is mostly about increasing our technological and organizational abilities. Do you think we can win elections if we don't focus on the issues? How important is it for the DNC Chair to speak out on the issues?

I had expected him to say it was important to remind Democrats of our progressive positions on issues. But, I was wrong. He said,to paraphrase,

The Supreme Court today issued an important decision upholding the rights of immigrants who have been ordered excluded from the U.S. but whose home country won't take them back. It rejected the Government's arguments that it could detain them indefinitely. The ACLU, which filed an amicus in the case, has more:

The Supreme Court today ruled 7-2 that the government violated the law by indefinitely detaining “Mariel” Cubans who cannot be deported because Cuba will not allow their return.

“Once again, the Court has rebuked the administration for claiming the authority to indefinitely imprison immigrants,” said Judy Rabinovitz, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and an author of the ACLU’s friend-of-the-court brief who has successfully argued against such policies in the lower courts. “Today’s ruling is a vindication of the ACLU’s position that the government has been violating immigrants’ rights in disregard of the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision prohibiting indefinite detention.”