by TChris

Justice Department personnel are heading to Iraq, where they will begin to build evidence for a war crimes prosecution of Saddam Hussein. While the administration envisions a trial conducted by Iraqi prosecutors, Condoleezza Rice authorized the Justice Department to take the lead in preparing the case.

The administration acknowledges the difficulty of "helping" the Iraqis without dominating the process and destroying the "independence" of the Iraqi authorities. But too much independence might prove inconvenient for a president hoping to capitalize on news coverage of Hussein's atrocities, allowing Bush to justify the war on that ground while shifting attention away from WMD's and the missing link to Osama bin Laden. To maximize its political value, the trial must take place before the election.

Salem Chalabi, the Iraqi lawyer in charge of the war crimes issue, said in a recent interview that while he understood the administration's political needs, the trials might not occur until late in the year, after the American elections, and that Mr. Hussein might not even be the first defendant.

Don't count on that kind of "independent" thinking prevailing after the Justice Department swarms in. The administration wants to put on a show as soon as it can.

M. Cherif Bassiouni, an Egyptian-born international lawyer who is an authority on the Arab legal world, said he believed that the United States was interested in orchestrating a wide-ranging Nuremberg-style war crimes trial against Mr. Hussein. "The administration is looking to have a political vindication of why the U.S. went into Iraq," he said. "With no weapons of mass destruction to be found, the next best thing is to show how bad Saddam was, how his regime was like the Nazis'."

Bassiouni and others worry that the approach may backfire by giving Hussein the opportunity to put on a show of his own, calling witnesses (Donald Rumsfeld?) to testify about U.S. support for Hussein at the time many of the atrocities were committed.

by TChris

In their quest for ratings, it has become popular for TV news programs to use reporters posing as teenage girls in internet chatrooms to lure men to locations with the promise of sex, only to embarrass them on camera with the news that they haven't been chatting with a teenager (or even a girl) at all. These televised "sting" operations copy a procedure that law enforcement agencies have been using for some time. But the law enforcement agencies point out that good TV isn't necessarily good policy.

FBI spokeswoman Linda Vizi said the stings don't help law enforcement because evidence isn't collected in a legal way. Other law enforcement officials have said the "stings" can compromise real investigations.

Tom Bivins, a University of Oregon professor of media ethics, asks whether it is "necessary to entrap these people to get the story" rather than simply reporting that a problem exists. Bivins says, "Once you get involved, you become part of the story instead of reporting the story."

Courts have upheld convictions of attempted sexual assault of a child even when the "child" is a middle aged, balding FBI agent. Using that same dubious logic, isn't a TV station guilty of aiding and abetting an attempt to sexually assault a "child" when it invites a man to have sex with one?

by TChris

According to John Ashcroft's Justice Department, medical patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." That's news to patients, who consider their medical records private. It may also be news to President Bush, who promised in April 2001 to protect "the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private."

The Justice Department wants access to the medical records of women who have received abortions to further its defense of a federal law banning a procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, termed "partial birth abortion" by anti-abortion activists. Challengers of the federal ban contend that it impairs the ability of doctors to protect a woman's life or health. The Justice Department apparently hopes that the records will prove that the banned abortions are never medically necessary and that the procedure is risky.

The Justice Department did not limit its subpoenas to records involving the recently banned procedure, but also sought records of certain other second and third trimester abortions, and the names of doctors who perform any kind of abortion.

The co-chair of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, Rep. Edward J. Markey, wonders "How many hundreds of women, or thousands, will have the frightening experience of their medical records being handed over to the Justice Department as part of a fishing expedition?" Rep. Nita M. Lowey shares Markey's criticism of the Justice Department's disregard of privacy interests:

"This administration claims to have taken great pride in adopting regulations aimed at ensuring the sanctity and privacy of medical records. But in an attempt to defend the so-called partial-birth abortion ban, it seems to have lost sight of its promises."

Fortunately, the judge hearing the challenge to the ban has quashed the Justice Department's subpoenas.

by TChris

Monday morning quarterbacking begins on Saturday as analysts dissect Martha Stewart's defense, sometimes harshly.

"She should get her money back from her lawyers," said Thomas Ajamie, a veteran Houston securities attorney. "How this even went to trial in the first place, I have no idea."

Keep in mind that the decisions to go to trial and to testify (or not) belong to the accused, not to the lawyer. Martha Stewart made those decisions. It's easy to understand why she wanted to exercise her right to a trial. She faced financial and reputational disaster, as well as the risk of incarceration. We don't know what (if any) deal the prosecution was willing to offer her. Without having all of the information that Stewart assessed, it isn't fair to second guess her decision, and it certainly isn't fair to criticize her lawyer.

by TChris

Roy Black, representing Rush Limbaugh with regard to allegations that Limbaugh illegally obtained prescription pain medication, made a statement yesterday comparing Limbaugh to Palm Beach County Judge Robert Schwartz:

"After admitting an eight-year addiction, Judge Schwartz entered treatment voluntarily and was praised by the community, not investigated and never prosecuted by the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office. This was sensitive and appropriate for someone facing such a difficult personal challenge. All we're asking is that Rush Limbaugh be treated the same."

Moral of the story: it's good to be a judge.

Second moral: Whether an addicted drug user is a liberal, a loud-mouth conservative, a judge, a plumber, rich or poor, treatment -- not prosecution -- is the best solution to the problem.

by TChris

In his radio address today, President Bush declared that Iraq's interim constitution shows the "excellent progress" that Iraq is making toward democracy. The consitution was to be signed yesterday, but new objections raised by five members of Iraq's governing council caused the signing ceremony to be cancelled, a glitch the president neglected to mention during his radio address.

by TChris

Legendary rock artist David Crosby was arrested yesterday for possessing marijuana and a .45 caliber handgun. Crosby had checked out of a Times Square hotel but reportedly left behind a piece of luggage. A hotel employee searching the luggage for identification found the gun and the pot. Police arrested Crosby when he returned to the hotel to claim the luggage.

The founding member of The Byrds and Crosby, Stills and Nash has been in trouble before for drug and weapons violations, and served some prison time before a conviction in Texas was overturned. This is Crosby's mugshot from the Texas arrest.

We're doing our part....

Order Here

by TChris

The grand jury investigating the source behind Robert Novak's story exposing Valerie Plame as a CIA officer issued subpoenas to the White House in January. The investigation arises out of concerns that Bush administration officials revealed Plame's identity in an attempt to discredit her husband's criticism of the administration's Iraq policy. Plame is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. More background information can be found at TalkLeft posts here and here.

The subpoenas seek a number of White House documents:

• Records of Air Force One telephone calls from July 7 to 12, about a week before Novak's revelation. The President was visiting several African nations that week. The White House has not made public the identities of those on the plane with Bush.

• A transcript (missing from a White House website collecting press briefing transcripts) of an informal press briefing on July 12 by former press secretary Ari Fleischer, during which Fleischer discussed Wilson and his report that, contrary to White House assertions, Iraq did not try to buy uranium "yellow cake" in Niger.

• A list of attendees at a White House reception (closed to the press) on July 16 for Gerald Ford's 90th birthday. Again, the White House has declined to make that list public.

• Records created by the White House Iraq Group, "a little-known internal task force established in August 2002 to create a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein."

• Records about White House staff contacts with Novak and a number of other journalists.

The subpoenas demanded the production of documents before the grand jury in January and February. However, the current press secretary, Scott McClellan, said today that the White House was "still in the process of complying fully."

by TChris

Opposition to the Bush campaign's use of 9/11 footage in advertising to promote the President's reelection is becoming more organized. The ads began broadcasting yesterday.

A group representing 120 families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks called on President George W. Bush's re-election campaign to withdraw political advertising using images of the attack's aftermath.

The group, Sept. 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, held a press conference to denounce the use of 9/11 victims for political purposes. In addition,

Mary Fetchet, co-founder of the victims' advocacy group Voices of September 11, said in an interview yesterday that she also is concerned about politicians using the World Trade Center site as a backdrop during the August 2004 Republican National Convention in New York.

by TChris

A federal jury found Martha Stewart guilty on all counts.

Martha Stewart was convicted Friday of obstructing justice and lying to the government about a superbly timed stock sale, a devastating verdict that probably means prison for the woman who epitomizes meticulous homemaking and gracious living.

Under the federal sentencing guidelines, it will be an uphill battle for Stewart to avoid incarceration. She was not taken into custody pending sentencing, but must report to a federal probation office next week to be interviewed for a presentence report. The report will provide the court with information about Martha Stewart's life, and with a recommendation as to the appropriate sentencing guideline to apply to her case. Judges have discretion to impose a sentence within a fairly narrow guideline range, but have very little discretion to depart from the guideline.

Stewart's co-defendant, Peter Bacanovic, was convicted on all but one count.

Stewart is scheduled to be sentenced on June 17.

by TChris

Three 12-year-old girls falsely accused Eric Nordmark of attacking them in a park. False accusations are always tragic, but they compounded the problems Nordmark already faced. Nordmark was homeless at the time the accusations were made.

Nordmark spent eight months in jail awaiting trial. Had Nordmark been a wealthy man, he could have posted bail. Lacking resources, Nordmark -- despite the presumption of innocence -- sat behind bars until his accusers, during his trial, admitted that they made up the story to explain why they were late returning home from school.

The girls will serve less time than Nordmark did. All were charged in juvenile court with conspiracy, and one was also charged with perjury. Two girls were given 45 days in detention and one was given a month. They each received credit for 25 days already spent in custody. They will each be on probation for nine years, and they must perform community service and pay restitution.

To his credit, Nordmark doesn't blame the girls for his incarceration. He isn't complaining that they won't serve as much time behind bars as he did. "Kids are kids," he says. "Kids do bonehead things."

Nordmark is unhappy with the police for simply accepting a story without conducting a thorough investigation. His concern is legitimate. It is also legitimate to question why a system of justice that presumes people innocent and that promises equal treatment under the law nonetheless favors those who can afford to pay bail while incarcerating the destitute until their cases come to trial.