by TChris

The Detroit verdict that John Ashcroft heralded as a victory against terrorism may be coming undone. An excellent summary of events that are unravelling the case against three men accused of planning terrorist acts appears in the Detroit Free Press. The article suggests that Ashcroft's Justice Department may join the defense in asking for a new trial. While the government rarely confesses its errors, doing so in this case would be a victory for public integrity.

Wayne State University law professor David Moran reminds us that prosecutors accused of misconduct often "circle the wagons .... But that's not happening here." Instead, the U.S. Attorney's office appears to be conducting a serious investigation of the terrorism prosecutors' alleged misconduct. However, WSU law professor Robert Sedler considers it unlikely that an Ashcroft-headed Justice Department would join in a defense request for a new terrorism trial.

Developments in the case include:

by TChris

Accusations of abuse and corruption have shaken the faith of many Canadians in Canadian law enforcement.

Police officers have been accused of robbery of jewelry and drugs, and of rigging evidence to put suspects behind bars in Toronto, and of abusing drug addicts in Vancouver. They have even been accused of dumping intoxicated Native Canadians on isolated snowy roads to freeze to death in the prairies.

Six Toronto narcotics squad officers arrested in January face "a variety of brutality and corruption charges" while "newly released internal police documents indicate that many more may be implicated." A Royal Canadian Mounted Police task force investigating the narcotics squad released evidence that several officers stole jewelry and cash during a raid of a drug dealer's home. Three other officers were reported to have stolen $70,000 using a fake search warrant.

The Toronto scandal has followed a pattern that has emerged in New York and other American cities in which officers were suspected of having succumbed to the temptations of the great sums involved in the drug trade while internal investigative units were inadequate to monitor them.

A criminologist at the University of Monreal cautions that Canadians, proud of the image of brave Mounties on horseback, may be unwilling to closely examine charges of corruption, even though "brutality and fabricating evidence is fairly widespread." That attitude may change in light of Canada's "heritage as a global proponent of human rights and civil liberties" and the publicity surrounding recent investigations of police misconduct.

by TChris

A television ad criticizing the Bush administration for saddling the next generation with today’s debt will not appear during today’s Superbowl broadcast, because CBS refuses to run it. Eli Pariser makes a strong argument that CBS, by hiding behind a policy against advertising concerning controversial issues, is actually protecting its corporate advertisers from criticism.

Notably, the policy has not motivated CBS to avoid airing the administration’s controversial issue ads, including those making the specious link between terrorism and toking. Nor will it prevent CBS from airing this year’s anti-drug ad during the Superbowl, one that attempts in a “subtle” way to link drinking (a favorite Superbowl pastime) and marijuana smoking.

As Senator Durbin (D-IL) remarked, the CBS officials who are protecting the administration from criticism recently succeeded, with the administration’s help, in raising to 39 percent the maximum percentage of television viewers that any single company’s TV stations may reach in a market. According to Senator Durbin,

it just so happens that Viacom, which owns CBS, currently owns stations reaching 38.8 percent of American households, and Rupert Murdoch's news corporation, the owners of that "fair and balanced" Fox Network, owns stations reaching 37.8 percent.

TalkLeft recently reported that moveon.org, the organization seeking to run the ad, is urging Superbowl viewers to change the channel to CNN in order to view the ad that CBS refuses to run. The ad should be running during the halftime show, at 8:10 and 8:35 EST.

Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, John Arguilla, a professor of defense analysis at the United States Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, makes the case that Osama bin Laden can determinethe outcome of the 2004 election.

It's been mentioned by a few, including us, that if Bush pulls Osama out of a hat shortly before election day, it could be a problem for the Dems. Arguilla looks at it from the other side -- what if there's another big attack before election day? Using several examples from Abe Lincoln to LBJ, Arguilla says:

If, by the November election, the al Qaeda mastermind is able to mount another large terrorist attack inside the United States, bin Laden will show that Iraq has been a fatal distraction from the more pressing business of ripping apart his network. And George Bush will lose his job. Such are the electoral fortunes of war.

...The main point is, if bin Laden has the capability to launch an attack on America this year, he will. It must be an irresistible temptation to know that, from his remote cave, he could possibly exert a decisive influence on the political succession in the United States.

We're dubious, but we'll report it anyway. The U.S. says Saddam has provided useful information during his interrogation:

American officials have received useful information from direct interrogation of Saddam Hussein, a senior military official said Sunday.
The official would not say what the information was, but he said it allowed interrogators to confirm some suspicions and reject other information.

Speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity, the official said both documents and the results of questioning of Saddam have allowed the military to hunt for some people involved in attacks on U.S. troops.

[comments now closed.]

According to Newsweek's latest poll, John Kerry's fortunes are rising while Bush's approval ratings sink to an all-time low:

In a hypothetical vote, Kerry and Bush are locked in a dead heat, with Kerry pulling 48 percent or registered voters vs. Bush’s 46 percent.

While Kerry is enjoying his bounce in the polls, Bush’s approval rating is at an all-time low in the NEWSWEEK poll, slipping to 49 percent (with 43 percent approving). Almost half (49 percent) do not want to see the president reelected in the fall (compared to 45 percent who do), which represents a slight improvement in his favor over last week, when 52 percent didn’t want to see him re-elected (44 percent did).

For the first time in the NEWSWEEK poll, a majority (54 percent) believes the Bush administration misinterpreted intelligence about Iraq.

A majority of those polled didn't think Bush lied--just that he was mistaken. But,

More than half (55 percent) feel the U.S. did the right thing in going to war with Iraq, down from 62 percent in December.

Will it be enough to save Bush if he pulls bin Laden out of a hat before the election? Our view: Not if it also turns out he sat on the news for political purposes.

Did Neil Bush father a child with his paramour (now his fiance) while he was married to his wife Sharon? A judge has ordered Bush to submit to a DNA test.

Sharon Bush requested the tests to defend herself against a defamation lawsuit stemming from the tangled relationship between the Bushes and another Houston couple, Robert and Maria Andrews.

During the Bushes' contentious divorce, which became final in April, Sharon Bush testified she heard rumors that her husband had an affair with Maria Andrews and is the father of her 3-year-old son, Thomas Alexander Andrews.

The Andrewses ended their 14-year marriage in 2002. Robert Andrews sued Sharon Bush for defamation in September, saying he is the boy's father. Andrews demanded at least $850,000 in damages -- the amount Sharon Bush paid to buy the Memorial-area home in which she had lived with Neil Bush.

Our prior coverage is here.

We'll agree with the New York Times' nice tribute to Howard Dean in Come Back, Little Deaniacs:

However he fares in the coming primaries, Howard Dean has already touched more than a few young lives. Around the country — campus by campus, computer by computer — thousands of teenagers and 20-somethings have fallen hard for his campaign. They're lucky. It's a wonderful experience to lose one's political heart for the first time, as did the college students who sacrificed long hair and beards to be "clean for Gene" — Eugene McCarthy — in 1968, or the young men who stood bare-chested waving placards for Bill Bradley in the New Hampshire snow or followed the banner of Senator John McCain in 2000. The newly enchanted of 2004 bring a rush of young blood into the nation's old campaign arteries.

....If the product of the Dean movement is thousands of young people who are slightly hardened to the lure of a charismatic candidate, but determined to keep on fighting for a better world, it will have been a success no matter what happens to the former governor of Vermont. That is the way politics, at its best, works. First you discover that your paragon of a candidate is all too deeply human. Then you realize that the real heroics come from you and your friends with the pamphlets, stolidly going door to door.

by TChris

The case of Marcus Dixon, the black high school student who received a ten year sentence for having consensual sex with his white girlfriend who had not yet reached the age of sixteen, demonstrates the need for sentencing reform, according to an analysis prepared by The Sentencing Project. TalkLeft has written about Dixon's case here and here.

The Sentencing Project criticizes the prosecution's decision to charge Dixon with a felony carrying a ten year mandatory minimum sentence, rather than limiting the charge to a misdemeanor that more appropriately fit the crime.

This choice is a noteworthy example of the impact of prosecutorial discretion upon the sentence that a defendant will receive if convicted. There are two statutes in Georgia law that could apply to this case: one a broadly conceived piece of legislation intended to target persons engaged in child molestation (a felony), and one narrowly tailored to address consensual intercourse between two teenagers within three years of age of one another (a misdemeanor). The prosecutor chose the general statute, which holds a much more severe penalty, and in doing so, made Dixon eligible for a ten-year mandatory minimum under Georgia’s “seven deadly sins” laws.

by TChris

A second trial against a former police officer accused of using excessive force against a California teenager has ended in a hung jury. Prosecutors argued that a videotape presented clear evidence that Inglewood police officer Jeremy Morse used excessive force when he slammed a handcuffed teenager into the hood of a car and punched him in the face. Defense lawyers had argued that the teenager grabbed Morse's groin during a struggle. The teenager, Donovan Jackson, testified that he did not fight with the officers.

The jury was split 6-6, forcing a mistrial. An earlier trial also ended in a mistrial after jurors divided 7-5 in favor of conviction. It is unlikely that the prosecution will seek a third trial in light of the outcome of the first two.

by TChris

Notes made by a victim's advocate during a police interview with the woman who accuses Kobe Bryant of raping her cannot be released to Bryant's defense lawyers, according to a ruling by Judge Terry Ruckriegle on Friday. The judge wrote

that state law provides such strong privacy protection for communications between victims and victim advocates that he cannot even review the notes in private to determine whether they are relevant to the case.

It is difficult to understand how, at least under these circumstances, the public's interest in promoting honest communication between an alleged crime victim and a victim's advocate could outweigh Bryant's constitutional right to discover evidence that would assist his defense. This was not a private communication between the accuser and the advocate. Rather, the advocate was merely a witness to a conversation. How is justice promoted by treating her differently than any other witness who overheard a police interview, simply because of her status as a victim's advocate?

A few days ago we wrote about rumors Gary Hart had decided not to run for U.S. Senate against Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Hart made it official last night.

Hart, who represented Colorado in the Senate from 1975 to 1987, opted out of this year's race by saying he thought he could make his best contribution by writing and speaking on national issues. It was the second time Hart had ruled out a run for the seat, and in his announcement's wake, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb's name came up for the second time, although even those recruiting him signaled little hope he would enter the race.

Before that, Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., toyed with the idea of challenging Campbell for months before opting out right around Christmas.