CincyDemo asks:

Is it true that Bush's occupation forces have tortured Iraqi POWs?

Yes. Bush's occupation forces have tortured Iraqi POWs. Prisoner deaths have been ruled homicides by US military coroners too. And mass graves in Afghanistan brim full with the bodies of thousands of disappeared POWs from Bush's Afghan war. Since no one has bothered to conduct a credible investigation of any Bush War Crime, it's worth considering why one minor incident in Bush's gruesome War Crimes history should receive worldwide attention this week.

He provides news sources and more, go read.

Why are federal officials prosecuting people for importing lobster tails in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes? Or because a small percentage of the lobsters in a particular shipment were less than 51/2 inches in possible violation of Honduran law? Law Prof Ellen Podgor and Heritage Senior Research Fellow Paul Rosenweig ask: Have we won the war on terror or the drug war? Why the waste of resources? Read their op-ed in today's Washington Times, Bum Lobster Rap:

Four people, caught in the government's net, face as many as eight years in prison because U.S. officials have decided to prosecute them for alleged violations of the Lacey Act, which permits the government to indict individuals for importing "fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of ... any foreign law." On top of that, the government seized the entire shipment — more than $4 million worth of lobsters.

To make matters worse, federal prosecutors tacked on charges of smuggling, money laundering and conspiracy. The lobsters were "smuggled" in plastic bags for all to see. The proceeds from the sale of the lobsters were "laundered" because they were deposited in a bank. And the "conspiracy" charges attach because it takes more than one person to run a lobster boat.

The U.S. government thinks Honduran law was violated. Honduras doesn't agree.

The attorney general of Honduras wrote to Attorney General John Ashcroft to tell him there is no violation, and Honduran officials have filed a "friend of the court" brief in U.S. courts to explain what Honduran law says on the matter.

So what gives? Two things. Federal prosecutors have too much power and there is an overcriminalization of conduct in this country.

The real problem is overcriminalization. Members of Congress continue to pass criminal laws to impress their constituents. According to a 1999 study by the American Bar Association, there are more than 3,000 federal criminal offenses on the books, more than 40 percent of were enacted since 1970. (Although the Lacey Act was passed in 1900, its reach was expanded in 1981.)

Chances are, Americans would prefer federal law enforcement officials to spend their time on terrorism, drug trafficking and corporate corruption. With the amount of crime we have today, we simply can't afford to have them play lobster police.

Amadou Diallo was young West African man killed by a rainstorm of police bullets in 1999. His case was major news. Bruce Springsteen wrote a song about him, "American Skin (41 shots)" that angered New York's finest at the time. The cops who shot Diallo were tried and acquitted in 2000.

Today, New York City agreed to pay his family $3 million .

We like to see big awards for police misconduct. Abner Louima, the Haitian man tortured with a broomstick in a New York police precinct bathroom got $8.75 million.

Diallo and Louima have the same great lawyers:

Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld founded and direct the Innocence Project, which currently represents more than two hundred inmates seeking post-conviction release through DNA testing.

Perhaps the most prominent civil rights lawyers in America, Scheck and Neufeld represent the family of Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima, and the four black and latino youths wrongfully shot by NY State Troopers.

Should Ed Gillespie denounce this as hate speech?

The Rev. Fred Phelps wants his message on homosexuality ever-present in Topeka's Gage Park and memorialized on a park bench. Phelps sent Rogers Brazier, director of Parks and Recreation of Topeka, a $250 check and the memorial message he wants on the park bench. He wants it to read: "Matt Shepard in Hell. He Defied God's Law." He called the right to have a memorial park bench a "preaching opportunity."

Would John Ashcroft consider it protected speech under the First Amendment?

Bump and Update: From Tom Paine.com's Take on the News:

One important detail has been overlooked: The constitution states that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam." Although there are provisions protecting women's rights, Afghan women are rightly concerned that there is nothing protecting them from the harsh application of Sharia—or Islamic— law.

Why is this a problem? Ziba Mir Hosseini, author of the book Islam and Gender explains: "We do not have in modern times any state which has introduced Sharia and has been able to respect women's rights." By ignoring this very troubling element of the new consitution in its laudatory statements, the Bush administration reminds us women's rights are important only when protecting them serves their foreign policy goals.

****************
original post 1/5/03 12:06 am

A new Constitution has been approved in Afganistan.

The charter, ratified after a last-minute deal to recognize minority languages, creates a strong presidential system that the country's U.S.-backed interim leader, Hamid Karzai, says is critical to uniting a country torn by two decades of war. It also states that men and women should be treated equally - a key demand of human rights groups. The Taliban barred girls from school and banned women from all public life.

....The new constitution is a "significant milestone" on the path to democracy, said U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who worked with U.N. officials to help secure the agreement. "With the world watching, you have adopted one of the most enlightened constitutions in the Islamic world," he said in a statement. "You have made history."

The charter makes the president commander in chief of the armed forces, charges him with determining the nation's fundamental policies and gives him considerable power to press legislation.

Here's the old Constitution.

The ACLU says that the new fingerprinting system is likely to cause confusion and will continue to track Muslims and Arabs based on national origin.

"Contrary to assertions by the Homeland Security Department, the US VISIT program is an addition to -- not a substitute for -- the notorious special registration program that singled out Arab and Muslim men because of their national origin and that continues to subject them to special and confusing requirements," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Only one part of the special registration program -- the part that requires re-registration at local immigration offices -- was suspended last year. But, Arab and Muslim men are still subject to different requirements than other visitors."

[link via TomPaine's Take on the News]

John Dean gives his theory on why Ashcroft removed himself from the Plame investigation:

Dean contends that the progress of the investigation -- including Attorney General Ashcroft's decision to recuse himself -- strongly suggests that at least one key witness has already come forward to cooperate with the government.

Hmmm.....who would that be? Did s/he get immunity? Can you trust the word of someone who's singing for his or her supper in such a high stakes investigation without some strong corrorboration?

We're dubious of Dean's theory. We think it's more likely that they know the culprit and Ashcroft is so close to him or her that everyone would scream "whitewash" if Ashcroft were still in charge at the end when he isn't charged. If you missed Dean's earlier column in which he argues the leak is a felony, you can read it here.

We also note that despite the headline of this article suggesting that Bush is urging his staff to cooperate with the investigation, he hasn't said that he told them to release reporters from their confidentiality agreements.

It's midnight and -3 degrees outside. Doubtful it will get warmer by the time we leave for court at 7:30 am. So we're calling it a night. We'll be dreaming of beaches with soft white sand and aqua color water--and fishing--and wishing we were headed there soon. Thanks to all who stopped by today.

Drug WarRant has a lot of great stuff Monday--from pain doctors criticizing the drug warriors to the Rocky Mountain News railing on the DEA:

Oh, it's good to be the king. You float high above the law and plunder your subjects with impunity.

To the link to the transcript of last night's mandatory minimum segment on 60 minutes. A sample:

"Judges throughout the country, of all political persuasions, feel that they have to have discretion so that they can do justice in the individual cases," says Martin, who is resigning from the bench.

"It is unjust. It's taking people who are low-level violators and putting them in jail for 15-20 years. I had a situation where a defendant was an addict. He sat on his stoop. People came to him and said, 'Do you know where I can buy some crack?' He told them about an apartment where there was crack being sold. For this, the people who sold it every once in a while gave him some crack for his own personal use. The guideline range for that man was 16 years in jail. That doesn't seem to me like justice."

We hope you are reading the Rant every day. We do.

Mohamed Kamel Bellahouel was secretly jailed after the Sept. 11 attacks. His court case was kept secret. It's now before the Supreme Court. The Bush Administration has filed a request to continue to keep the case secret. More than 20 media organizations have filed requests to open the proceedings.

Justices sometimes are asked to keep parts of cases private because of information sensitive for national security or other reasons, but it's unusual for an entire filing to be kept secret.

Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she was disappointed by the government's request. "The idea that there is nothing that could be filed publicly is really ridiculous," she said. "It just emphasizes our point that we're living in frightening times. People can be arrested, thrown in jail and have secret court proceedings, and we know absolutely nothing about it."

Behind the Homefront has much more on the case. The motion to intervene is here. The amicus brief is here. The case is The case is M.K.B. v. Warden, 03-6747.

Update: Arthur at Light of Reason has more.

[no comments on this post because they got spammed.]

Alabama is vying to be next to try and kill now-convicted sniper John Lee Malvo.

In a letter to Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Montgomery County District Attorney Ellen Brooks said Alabama has a strong case against Malvo, a tested death penalty law and should be one of the next jurisdictions to try him.

Brooks, who earlier sent a similar letter saying she wanted to try Muhammad, said as soon as Malvo's Virginia trial ended she began efforts to let Virginia authorities know "we were willing and able to prosecute Malvo. I wanted to make sure the governor and attorney general and anyone else were aware of the abilities of our office, our laws and strength of our evidence," Brooks said.

A trophy killing. What a waste of state resources.

[comments now closed]

Britney Spears' divorce attorney is esteemed Las Vegas criminal defense attorney David Chesnoff. Before becoming Mayor of Las Vegas, Oscar Goodman and David were law partners. What a formidible pair. As good as it gets. We just saw David on tv, denying that Britney was drunk when she got married. He said she didn't understand what she was doing. Sounds like a prank gone too far, to us--if she didn't understand the consequences, she didn't understand the nature of her actions. Or something like that. We're glad the Judge annulled it. Nice job, David.

Update: Smoking Gun, of course, has the annulment papers. The grounds:

Plaintiff Spears lacked understanding of her actions to the extent that she was incapable of agreeing to the marriage because before entering the marriage the plaintiff and defendant did not know each others likes and dislikes, each other's desires to have or not have children, and each other's desires as to state of residency. Upon learning of each other's desires, they are so incompatible that there was a want of understanding of each other's actions in entering this marriage. Additionally, there was no meeting of the minds in entering into this marriage contract and in a court of equity there is cause for declaring the contract void.

These are the statutes at issue:NRS 125350 and 125330. Write them down, you'll never know when you may need one.

Update: The bridegroom speaks.

[comments now closed]