by TChris

As TalkLeft has noted, the proliferation of Tasers in police departments holds the potential for abuse. While it's certainly preferable for an officer to incapacitate a suspect with a Taser instead of a gun, police departments must guard against the risk that officers will use Tasers when a less extreme response would suffice.

Experience in San Jose demonstrates that those fears are valid.

San Jose police zapped three separate suspects with 50,000-volt Tasers this past weekend, bringing the total of such incidents to at least 37 since every patrol officer was equipped with the less lethal weapons in April.

On Sunday, The Mercury News reported that the San Jose police had used their Tasers 34 times between April and June 12 -- a rate of about once every two days. The increase prompted one community activist to schedule a meeting with Police Chief Rob Davis to discuss what he called the department's "out-of-control" use of the weapons.

Connecticut Governor John Roland will announce his resignation tonight on television:

Embattled Gov. John G. Rowland of Connecticut, facing possible impeachment amid a federal corruption probe, will announce his resignation Monday night, his lawyer said. "He's going to announce his resignation at 6 o'clock," William Dow III, his personal lawyer, told CNN from his office in New Haven, Connecticut.

What got Rowland in this spot? Lying about work done to his summer home:

by TChris

Further proof that the Bush administration cares only about ideology when selecting candidates to serve on the federal judiciary: Thomas B. Griffith, nominated to serve on the federal court of appeals, has been practicing law without a license for the last four years.

This is the second time in Griffith's career that he's practiced without a license. He blamed his law firm's staff for the first snafu ("when in doubt, blame the secretary"), but that doesn't explain his willingness to practice without a license after moving to Utah. Griffith could have overcome the problem by passing the Utah bar exam. He signed up for it but didn't take it.

The administration apparently doesn't check on basic qualifications for the job, beyond ideology, before nominating candidates to the federal bench. The administration no doubt wanted to reward Griffith for serving as lead counsel for the Senate in President Clinton's impeachment trial.

If Griffith couldn't be bothered to clear up his licensing mess, he isn't fit for a lifetime tenure on the federal court. The Senate should decline to confirm him if he doesn't withdraw his name in light of this embarrassing disclosure.

by TChris

Privacy -- freedom from unwarranted governmental intrusion into our lives -- is one of the most important values underlying the U.S. Constitution. That value took a big hit today as the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that an individual can be criminally prosecuted for refusing to reveal his or her identity to the police upon demand -- at least if the demanding officer has reason to suspect that criminal mischief is afoot.

The justices upheld a Nevada cattle rancher's misdemeanor conviction. He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000.

The ruling arose in the context of a Terry stop -- a (supposedly brief) detention for the purpose of investigating suspected criminal behavior. The police are required to have an objectively reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before making a Terry stop, but experience shows that officers conjure up all sorts of reasons for demanding that individuals halt and answer their questions. The detained persons have the right not to incriminate themselves, but as of today, they don't have the right to refuse to identify themselves -- except in those states that have independently protected that right as a matter of state law.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy said that a requirement to identify oneself is insignificant in the context of a Terry stop. Not so.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said America is different 36 years after the Terry decision. "In a modern era, when the police get your identification, they are getting an extraordinary look at your private life." He said the ruling for Nevada "opens the door to what could become a routine fishing expedition among government databases," after police stop innocent people.

Will this decision be the precursor to a national requirement that we all carry identity papers, producable upon demand by law enforcement officers? Look for the more extreme members of Congress to use this decision as a justification for "identity checks" as a way to protect us from terrorism -- at the expense of our national values.

by TChris

Two months ago, TalkLeft wrote about Thomas Goldstein's ordeal. Goldstein was convicted of murder on the testimony of a jailhouse snitch (who lied about the benefits he received for his testimony) and an eyewitness who later recanted after realizing that the police had prompted him to make an identification he wasn't in a position to make.

Today Goldstein is working as a paralegal in a small Pasadena firm. The NY Times profiles his story as he attempts to begin his life anew.

by TChris

This is sad.

A diabetic amputee who was released from a Los Angeles County jail languished for three days on a bench in the busy jailhouse lobby before he was noticed by deputies and rushed to a hospital, where he later died.

The Sheriff says that people often "linger" in the jail lobby, but it's difficult to understand why no county employee bothered to check sooner on an amputee who stayed on a lobby bench for three days.

Remember when Dick Cheney told the world that the captives at Guantamo represented "the worst of a very bad lot?" Guess what? It wasn't true. The New York Times reports that the Adminstration's dangerousness claims as to the Guantanamo detainees were seriously exaggerated:

...an examination by The New York Times has found that government and military officials have repeatedly exaggerated both the danger the detainees posed and the intelligence they have provided. In interviews, dozens of high-level military, intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the United States, Europe and the Middle East said that contrary to the repeated assertions of senior administration officials, none of the detainees at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda. They said only a relative handful — some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen — were sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organization's inner workings.

Pre-trial hearings have begun in Iraq for three soldiers charged with abusing prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. The three soldiers involved are Sgt. Javal S. Davis, Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr. and Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II. At least one of the soldiers will argue the commands came from high above:

Paul Bergrin, a civilian lawyer for Davis, said last week in the United States that he would argue for a dismissal of charges because of "improper command influence" extending all the way to President Bush.

Charles Graner's trial promises to be the most interesting:

Graner, of Uniontown, Pa., has been accused of jumping on several detainees as they were piled on the floor. He is also charged with stomping the hands and bare feet of several prisoners and punching one inmate in the temple so hard that he lost consciousness. He also faces adultery charges for having sex with [PFC Lynndie] England last October. He could receive 24 1/2 years in jail, forfeiture of pay, reduction in rank, and a dishonorable discharge.

England's hearing begins Tuesday in Fort Bragg, N.C.

Update: The Judge has agreed to allow the prisoners to interview top Generals --specifically, Central Command chief John Abizaid and top Iraq commander Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez.

Press Release:

Anti-death penalty activists will converge on Washington, D.C., Tuesday, June 29, through Friday, July 2, for four days of activities commemorating the historic 1972 and 1976 Supreme Court rulings that suspended the death penalty in the United States and later allowed executions to resume. Several programs during the four-day event will specifically address the juvenile death penalty.

June 29 marks the 32nd anniversary of the Furman v. Georgia decision suspending executions, while July 2 marks the 28th anniversary of the Gregg v. Georgia ruling allowing executions to resume. Since Gregg, 915 people have been executed in the United States, with three more executions scheduled to take place June 29 and 30, during the course of the four day protest. This is the eleventh year in a row that the Abolitionist Action Committee has held its annual Fast and Vigil between the dates of these two landmark decisions. Activists, many of whom are fasting the entire four days, are travelling to Washington D.C. from across the United States and beyond.

Highlights of this highly visual and interactive annual event include live music by recording artist Steve Earle, and talks by death row survivors, victims family members, and noted activists. Schedule and details are available here.

The AP reports on bloggers who have applied for media credentials to attend the Democratic National Convention in Boston. We're not mentioned in the article, but we have applied, and if TalkLeft gets a press pass, we'll be there. We're actually very excited about the prospect.

Bloggers are used to 24/7 coverage and getting their thoughts online immediately, without waiting for editors or approval. The national networks will be covering the stars of the conventions, and so will bloggers, but bloggers also will take the time to interview and observe the participants and those behind the scenes. Who are these delegates? Why is the convention meaningful to them? What issues do they care most about? What's it like to be in the madhouse of a convention, on your feet for hours on end and days in a row?

Most bloggers have day jobs. Even with a press pass, attending the convention means taking a week off from work and spending their own money to fly to Boston and stay in a hotel. It's a commitment. Regardless of who ends up with the coveted press passes, we hope you readers will appreciate their effort--and the opportunity they provide you to view the convention through an alternative lens.

Time Magazine reports that a federal class action has been brought in California on behalf of former detainees.

One plaintiff, identified only as Neisef, claims that after he was taken from his home on the outskirts of Baghdad last November and sent to Abu Ghraib, Americans made him disrobe and attached electrical wires to his genitals. He claims he was shocked three times. Although a vein in his penis ruptured and he had blood in his urine, he says, he was refused medical attention. In another session, Neisef claims, he was held down by two men while a uniformed woman forced him to have sex with her. "I was crying," said Neisef, 28. "I felt like my whole manhood was gone." The class action also claims that detainees were raped in prison. On June 6, Neisef was released, after a U.S. civilian told him, he says, that he had been wrongly accused by informants. A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad confirms that a prisoner with Neisef's ID number was released on that date, and TIME has obtained a copy of his release order. But the Pentagon would not comment on the specifics of Neisef's account.

by TChris

Was the U.S. missile attack in Fallujah based on another intelligence failure? Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt assured reporters that multiple intelligence sources confirmed that the attacked house was used by the al-Zarqawi network. But a senior officer of the U.S. backed Fallujah Brigade doesn't believe that the missiles struck an al-Zarqawi safehouse.

Col. Mohammed Awad said members of the Fallujah Brigade had investigated the site and "affirmed to us that the inhabitants of the houses were ordinary families including women, children and elders." "There was no sign that foreigners have lived in the house," Awad said.