We have nothing but praise for Suffolk County, Mass. District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, and recommend you read his op-ed in last week's Boston Globe about efforts his office is making to identify and free the wrongfully convicted:

As district attorney, I believe that the act of freeing one innocent person wrongly imprisoned is profoundly more important than all the criminals we arrest, prosecute, and convict. On behalf of the criminal justice system, I have expressed sorrow and regret at what these individuals have lost, but this is not enough. So the Suffolk County prosecutors and I rededicate ourselves to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and integrity to ensure as best we can that the mistakes that happened in the past are not repeated.

....The job of police and prosecutors is not merely to make arrests or seek convictions, nor is it to preserve an indictment or a conviction at all costs. Rather, our job -- at all stages of the process, from investigation to arrest to indictment to trial to appeal and to the review of new information that surfaces after a conviction -- is to seek the truth. When we determine that justice has not been served by an indictment or a conviction, we have an obligation -- legal, moral, and ethical -- to act decisively to correct the injustice. This is a sacred trust that this office has embraced.

Thank you, Mr. Conley.

by TChris

The facts surrounding the arrest of two daughters of Minnesota's attorney general are murky, but the Chicago police Office of Professional Standards announced that it will investigate whether officers used excessive force during the arrest.

Elizabeth Hatch's father says Elizabeth and her sister Anne were kicked out of Crobar, a Chicago nightclub where they had been celebrating Anne's birthday, after Elizabeth complained about a man groping her. A police spokeswoman says that the sisters created a disturbance after their ejection from the club, and ignored a police request to leave the area. The spokeswoman says that Anne resisted arrest, knocking an officer's glasses off and scratching him under his eye, while Elizabeth struggled with another officer. Once in the squad car, officers say that Anne kicked out the back window.

Father Mike Hatch says the police knocked Elizabeth's legs out from under her and held her on the ground with a knee on her back. He says that Anne was just trying to pull the officer off of her sister, who was screaming in pain.

After several hours in lockup, the sisters were taken to a hospital. Elizabeth "had a black eye, a sprained wrist and bruises on her back and forearm," while Anne had some scratches. Their father wonders whether the police "were needlessly heavy-handed" and is concerned about the delay in providing them with medical care.

Here is a very sobering article about the problem of prison rape. It focuses on the Roderick Johnson case, (more here) but goes much deeper:

The feminist mantra that "rape isn't about sex, it's about power" may be even more applicable in the prison context, where it is common for men who would have never engaged in sexual contact with other men on the outside to become rapists when incarcerated. What's more, the relationship between rapist and victim in prison is often more than just a sexual one—it can devolve into out-and-out servitude. Victims are given women's names and made to perform household tasks such as cooking food, washing clothes, and cleaning the living space. Roderick Johnson cooked and cleaned for Andrew Hernandez. "It's slavery," he said. "It's being in a position where you have no choice but to do whatever it is you're being told to do. It's like you have no control over your position. You're totally powerless."

The traditional rationale for prison rape is the lack of women, but most psychologists consider this facile. They see prison rape mainly as a means by which people who have been stripped of control over the most basic aspects of their lives—when to eat a meal, take a shower, or watch TV—can reclaim some sense of power.

The $60 million passed by Congress to study prison rape last year is a beginning, but a drop in the bucket. American attitudes towards prison rape must change:

by TChris

Federal court is no place for a kid. The Bureau of Prisons doesn't have a juvenile institution, and it has few resources to assist the rehabilitation of a juvenile offender. The federal system has little use for such resources because federal prosecutions of juveniles are relatively rare. In fact, the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act recognizes that accused juvenile offenders should generally be prosecuted by states, which typically have specialized juvenile courts and a host of rehabilitative services that are not readily available in the federal system.

Why, then, was a 14 year old boy in Maine prosecuted in federal court for setting fire to a boatyard? And why was he sentenced to 30 months in a maximum security juvenile prison in Pennsylvania (under contract wth the federal Bureau of Prisons) instead of keeping him close to home, as federal law requires?

The boy's family and lawyer think it's because former President Bush lost a boat engine in the fire. Whatever the reason, the boy is the only juvenile from New England (or from New York, Ohio or Pennsylvania) in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.

An appellate court has ordered the judge who presided in the boy's case to give his sentence a second look. The First Circuit held that Judge George Singal did not adequately consider the "location and rehabilitative capabilities" of the Pennsylvania detention facility. The boy's family hopes that he can be placed in a facility closer to home where more counseling and educational opportunities will be available.

We saw Bush's recess judicial appointee to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Charles Pickering on "60 Minutes" following Condi Rice. He showed himself to be every bit the conservative judicial activist people have been fearing all along. Rebuttable Presumption gives a recap--and, having worked in a federal probation office, some good commentary.

We were pretty disgusted with Pickering's interview. Of all the cases that show the unfairness of the federal sentencing guidelines--the one case he felt so strongly about he decided he just could not impose the mandated sentence--was that of a cross-burner convicted of a hate crime. He twisted the prosecution's arm to drop part of the charge so that he only had to give the guy 2 1/2 years instead of the recommended 7 1/2 years.

Protecting the independence and integrity of our federal courts is one of the best reasons we can think of for Booting Bush.

Update: For the reasons we oppose Charles Pickering and think he is not an acceptable federal appeals court judge, go here and here.

The President does not have a right to flood the judiciary with far right-wing ideologists, particularly if there is any indication that they will become judicial activists--deciding cases based upon their conservative views rather than the law. We lost on Pickering. The next one coming up is William Meyers. Act now to oppose his confirmation to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Daily Kos was at the Democrat's Unity Dinner in DC this past week. So was Atrios, and Kos has pictures of the uber-anonymous blogger. Kos says Atrios was seated front and center while he was put in Siberia. We think it might have something to do with the fact that Atrios readers have contributed over $100,000. to Kerry so far. What a coup. Kos has a lot of pictures up, and very interesting commentary, so go over and read for yourselves.

We have three more days to go this month and we've exceeded our bandwidth allotment. If any of you are able to chip in, we'd really appreciate it. Just click on one of the buttons below. Amazon is anonymous, paypal is not. Many thanks.

  Amazon

  PayPal

Update: Thanks to all of you who contributed. We are very grateful. We've received more than enough to cover our expenses for the rest of this month and next month too. We always knew the readers make this site!

by TChris

The democratic values that the United States wants to export to Iraq apparently don't include freedom of the press. Saying that articles in the weekly Al-Hawza newspaper increased the threat of violence against occupying forces, Paul Bremer decided to shut the paper down. Soldiers used chains and locks on Sunday morning to prevent entry into the newspaper offices.

The paper has blamed violence in Iraq on American forces and recently carried an article headined "Bremer follows the steps of Saddam." Bremer says the paper will stay closed for 60 days.

by TChris

Last month, TalkLeft asked why American citizens are prosecuted for lying to their government while the government pays Ahmed Chalabi and others associated with the Iraqi National Congress to provide it with false information. Now, according to Newsweek, the General Accounting Office is asking a related question: "Did Chalabi and the INC violate the terms of their funding by using U.S. money to sell the public on its anti-Saddam campaign and to lobby Congress?"

The terms of the grant that the government gave to the INC "strictly excluded" activities "to influence the policies of the United States Government or Congress or propagandizing the American people."

Even so, in 2002 the INC—in an apparent effort to get Congress to continue its funding—submitted to the Senate Appropriations Committee a list of 108 news stories published between October 2001 and May 2002. The INC's document said these stories contained "ICP product" from an INC "Information Collection Program" financed by State. The stories included allegations about Saddam's WMD programs and links to terrorism, as well as INC material supporting innuendo that linked Saddam to the 9/11 attacks.

The INC propoganda machine may have played a key role in developing support for the war in Iraq.

Chalabi contends that what the INC said before the war doesn't matter now. Iraq is a better place without Saddam Hussein, says Chalabi, and that's all that matters. But to some, the truth still matters, as does the INC's disregard of the terms of its funding.

by TChris

President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage appears to be a non-starter as some Republicans in Congress resist his invitation to divide the country further over an issue that is better left to the states.

In the Senate, at least one-third of the 51 Republicans have withheld support from the proposed amendment. Some assert that Congress should wait until federal courts or state legislatures grapple with gay marriages. Others believe the measure discriminates against gays and lesbians. Many say amending the Constitution should be a last resort.

Only one Senate Democrat supports the amendment (Zell Miller, a Democrat in name only who supports the reelection of President Bush), while the sole Independent in the Senate opposes it. All Senate Republicans and sixteen Democrats would need to vote in favor of the amendment, as would two-thirds of the House, before the amendment could move forward.

Perhaps to the President's surprise, that level of support just isn't in the cards.

by TChris

Here's a warning for those of you who don't live alone: try not to do so much laundry, and make sure that everyone in your household doesn't take a hot shower on the same day. Not only will you save money on your electric bill, you may save yourself from having your door kicked in by the police.

Dina Dagy's family learned that lesson after the police and their drug-sniffing dog searched the Dagys' Carlsbad, California home. They were armed with a warrant that they obtained on the strength of the Dagys' $250 to $300 monthly electric bill, which the police deemed suspiciously high. Suburban families that use a lot of electricity, the police reasoned, must be growing marijuana in their basements.

Or not.

What they found when they showed up ... was a wife and mother who does several loads of laundry a day, keeps a dishwashing machine going, has three electricity-guzzling computers and three kids who can't remember to turn the lights out when they leave a room.

Dagy finds it hard to believe that a high utility bill would be enough reason to issue a search warrant. She's right. But police say that they followed standard procedures. In addition to noticing the high bill, they sent the drug dog to sniff around the house, and they viewed the dog's reaction as evidence that marijuana was being grown inside. So much for the reliability of drug dogs, or of the humans who interpret their responses.

They also noticed the family had put its trash out that morning, something police say drug growers often do to hide the evidence. In the Dagys' case, however, it was trash day.

If taking out the trash on trash day doesn't prove guilt, what more evidence could the police possibly need?

While the police should be faulted for invading the Dagys' privacy on the basis of such flimsy evidence, the judge who disregarded the Fourth Amendment by issuing the warrant also deserves a share of the blame. Judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That didn't happen here.

by TChris

Republicans seeking to discredit the testimony of Richard Clarke about the Bush administration's inattention to the Al Qaeda threat prior to 9/11 have called for Clarke's July 2002 testimony before the Senate and House Intelligence committees to be declassified. They contend that his testimony in 2002 contradicts his testimony this year.

Clarke's response: bring it on. But he doesn't want the testimony to be declassified selectively to remove individual statements from their larger context in an effort to mislead.

"I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there. Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Clarke wants Condoleezza Rice's testimony declassified, as well, and he wants the White House to release all of his emails, not merely those that, taken out of context, can be used to attack his credibility.

"The White House is selectively now finding my e-mails, which I would have assumed were covered by some privacy regulations, and selectively leaking them to the press. Let's take all of my e-mails and all of the memos that I sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20th to September 11th, and let's declassify all of it," he said.

Having whacked the ball firmly back into the Republican court, we now have the chance to see whether the Bush administration and its Congressional supporters will respond to Clarke's challenge.