We weren't impressed by the Sheriff's news conference. The Sheriff played selected portions of tapes. We don't know what was on the rest of the tapes. The Sheriff said that he is considering Michael Jackson's allegations of mistreatment as a filed report and that he has asked the state Attorney General to investigate. If the Attorney General finds no misconduct, the Sheriff said he will seek to have false reporting charges filed against Jackson.

We think it's wrong of the Sheriff to hold a press conference and announce that a criminal defendant is not worthy of credibility. If a prosecutor did it, it would be unethical.

The threat of criminal charges is a weak one. Michael Jackson didn't file a report with the police so he can't be guilty of filing a false one.

The whistling and saying he's fine is of no moment to us. Most likely a defense mechanism. Most of our clients would have done the same thing, not wanting to acknowledge the power the police have over them and give them any satisfaction.

Pain can be delayed. His bruise on the arm was immediate. Jackson's feeling the effect on his shoulder could have happened that evening. He might not have mentioned it to Geragos at the time because it might not have hurt that bad at the time--and because he was more concerned with the outrageous perp walk the sheriff's and DA had insisted upon.

There was no need to handcuff Michael Jackson behind his back. They could have handcuffed him in front. When we surrender clients on arrest warrants, we bring them to the county sheriff or U.S. Marshal's and no handcuffs are involved. The $3 million bond had already been posted. There was no need--other than a publicity stunt by the prosecution--to insist on such a ritual. It was all for the cameras.

As to the bathroom, the Sheriff said Michael was locked in there for 15 minutes. Michael estimated 45. We're sure it felt like 45 minutes to Michael. Just because it was cleaned before Jackson was arrested, doesn't mean another inmate didn't get in there and mess it up--or that the cleaning wasn't less than thorough. The holding cell that had the toilet was built to house up to 7 inmates, according to the Sheriff. It most likely would have smelled.

We'll wait to hear Geragos' response, but those are our initial thoughts.

The New Jersey prison guards union is petitioning the Governor to fire the head of the Department of Corrections for racially insensitive comments. Corrections Commissioner Devon Brown, an African-American, made these comments in a speech about the unfair treatment meted out by the criminal justice system to blacks and hispanics:

"This state and nation has lost a generation of young African-Americans and Hispanics, both male and female, to the criminal justice juggernaut."

"`There are those who with some degree of justification have proclaimed our prisons as being America's new plantations," he said, "for not since slavery has our country promoted policies which have visited such enormous economic and human calamity on the black community."

Our advice to the Governor: Keep Commissioner Brown. If the shoe fits.....

The DEA has refused to comply with a Colorado state court judge's order to return a medical marijuana patient's 2 ounces of marijuana to him. The patient has a license under Colorado law to possess marijuana. A state search warrant had been issued for his residence, the DEA went along on the search and seized his pot. A misdemeanor criminal case was filed against him in state court and later dismissed, and the judge ordered the DEA to return the pot. Background is here.

Today, the court-ordered deadline for returning the pot, the DEA said it will not return the pot:

"Federal law supersedes state law, and the federal government does not recognize the medicinal use of marijuana," he said.

The man's attorney, Kristopher Hammond, will ask the Judge to hold the DEA in contempt of court.

"There's nothing federal about this case," Hammond said. "The feds can't just steal the marijuana and therefore make it federal property."

Walter in Denver says the DEA's actions are an "unspeakable evil."

It's hard to find printable words to describe these people, so let me just say if there were any justice in this case the DEA agents would be looking at jail time themselves.

We think the DEA is acting under marching orders from Ashcroft. We'll be following the case as it progresses through the various courts of appeal. In the meantime, a bill has been introduced in the House that would provide an affirmative defense to medical marijuana users facing federal pot charges--the Truth in Trials Act. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) will be introducing a similar version in the Senate. Please take two minutes to fax your senators a pre-written letter explaining why it is necessary to provide federal protections to patients and caregivers who use and provide medical marijuana in compliance with state laws. Visit here, enter your address, select a letter, and click a button to send it to your senators.

LA Weekly ran a long interview last October with Valerie Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, called Unfair Game. It has good background on the events leading to the Novak leak and the subsequent investigation. Here's a piece:

When Novak called you before his column ran, did you then know that her identity was going to be revealed?

I assumed that the CIA would be able to advise him that he shouldn't publish her name, which they obviously tried to do. It was when it was first published that I realized they had been unsuccessful in doing that.

What was your reaction then?

My initial reaction was probably unprintable. My second thought was, "Why would somebody leak the name? What is the rational goal of doing that?" I concluded that it was probably to discourage others from coming forward. It was the White House's way of telling others, "If you do a Wilson on us, we'll do this to your wife and your family." It's only recently that a number of [White House sources] who have leaked to the Washington Post have said that it was pure revenge and spite.

Subsequent to the publication of Novak's article there was a second wave of the White House pushing the story, calling the press and saying, "The real story here is Wilson and his wife, it's not the 16 words." I got a call from a journalist who said, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, and he said to me, 'Wilson's wife is fair game.'" So even a week after the Novak story, Karl Rove was still thinking it was okay to trash my wife. It was only after I went on NBC and subsequently the Today Show and said this might be illegal that those phone calls stopped.

You've suggested that Rove was behind the original leak.

John D. Altenburg, Jr., a retired two-star general, has been chosen to oversee the Guantanamo military tribunals. He will also be responsible for approving charges.

President Bush has designated six detainees for military tribunals, including Australian David Hicks and Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen. Altenburg will make the final decision on bringing charges and holding trials. Altenburg retired in 2002. He was then an assistant judge advocate general for the Department of the Army.

One of the most unfair aspects of the tribunals is that there is no federal court review. Bush today named a review panel to hear tribunal appeals. The members will serve for two years and be commissioned as Army major generals. They are:

• Griffin B. Bell, the former U.S. attorney general in the Carter administration and former U.S. circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Griffin currently is a partner at the law firm of King & Spalding.

• Edward G. Biester, who has served since 1980 as judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pa., Seventh Judicial District. He was Pennsylvania attorney general from 1979 to 1980 and served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1967 to 1977.

• William T. Coleman, Jr., a senior partner and the senior counselor in the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers. He was U.S. secretary of transportation from 1975 to 1977 in the Ford administration.

• Frank Williams, chief justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court. He served as a captain in the Army during the Vietnam War.

Also released today was Military Commission Instruction No. 9 (pdf), which spells out the rules for the tribunals. Apparently, all steps are now in place for them to begin. The military's website on the tribunals is here.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has recused himself from the Valerie Plame investigation. The investigation concerns leaks by White House officials of the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame. Background on the investigation is available here.

It's important to note that the Justice Department will still be in charge of the investigation. The lead prosecutor will be U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago. He will report to Deputy Attorney General James Comey.

No reason was given for Ashcroft's recusal--only that it is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. While Comey promises a full and independent investigation, we'll hold off on the celebration until we see if that indeed is what we get.

We think the investigators already know who the culprit is. It may be someone who is close to Ashcroft. A cynic would say that by having Ashcroft recuse himself, the Administration can try and claim he had nothing to do with any future determination not to bring criminal charges against the official on the grounds that the Justice Department doesn't believe it can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, which of the White House officials are Ashcroft buddies?

Update: Our prior thoughts on James Comey and his appointment to replace former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson are here.

Update: To our surprise, Joe Lieberman makes a good comment:

A former prosecutor outside the Justice Department should have been chosen to lead an independent investigation, the Connecticut senator said. "The public will not likely trust the results of an investigation headed by a political appointee, especially when the special counsel is constrained by Department of Justice regulations that severely curtail the prosecutor's autonomy," Lieberman said.

Update: Here is the text of Comey's remarks and the q and a session following the announcement.

It takes a lot of fortitude for the family member of a murder victim to oppose the death penalty. Here's one mother's letter, published in the Boston Globe:

Change of heart on death penalty
Letter to Editor: Boston Globe

12/28/2003

HAVING LOST my 19-year-old son Brian to a brutal murder in 1989, I know the hate, rage, and need for revenge victims' families can feel (''Death for Sampson,'' Page A1, Dec. 24).

But in the past 12 years I have changed my mind about the death penalty. I know that if my son's murderer had been put to death, it would not have eased my pain, nor would it have brought closure.

It certainly would not have brought Brian back. No one has the right to take a life, and that means the state.

Spending the rest of one's life in prison is a more suitable punishment. I would not want anyone put to death in Brian's name. I want only positive things to happen in his name, such as the memorial award we give out each year.

And I would rather dwell on the wonderful memories we have of Brian and not on someone's being put to death for his murder.

PHYLLIS HOTCHKISS
Saugus

This story ran on page D10 of the Boston Globe on 12/28/2003. Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation is a group comprised of many such family members. We hope their message spreads.

The Boulder Daily Camera has a good editorial on the death penalty today. It notes three growing trends in the country:

• Executions were fewer in number.
• Capital punishment was confined more narrowly to one region.
• The integrity of the death-penalty system was challenged by elected officials in a position to do something about it.

Conclusion:

That's progress — one year of progress toward the day when Americans decide at last to abolish the death penalty.

[Thanks to George W. Brooks, J.D., Director of Advocacy, Kolbe House, Chicago, who every morning emails us the day's leading articles on the death penalty. We don't thank him often enough.]

A blogger named Michael Douglas, MD has a blog called Dr. Pundit where he verbatim reprints the work of other bloggers (like us) without linking to the original blogger's work. He sometimes mentions where he gets it, but with no link, what good is that? Other times, he's wrong about where he found the work. In all cases, he reprints the original work under his own logo. We're angry about it and have been telling him so, but no response.

Go send him emails and tell him what he's doing isn't right. His email address is
**** (Ed. deleted, see update below)

Update: We heard back from Dr. Pundit. He has apologized and will refrain in the future from reprinting our material without linking to us. It was an oversight by some of his staff who are new to the world of blogging. His apology is graciously accepted.

From Colonel David Hackworth:

So far somewhere between 14,000 and 22,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have been medically evacuated from Iraq to the USA. So at the end of this turbulent year, we must ask ourselves: Was the price our warriors paid in blood worth the outcome? Are we any safer than before our pre-emptive invasion?

Even though Saddam is in the slammer and the fourth-largest army in the world is junkyard scrap, Christmas 2003 was resolutely Orange, and 2004 looks like more of the same. Or worse.

Our first New Year's resolution should be to find out if the stated reasons for our pre-emptive strike Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's connection with al-Qaeda constituted a real threat to our national security. Because, contrary to public opinion, the present administration hasn't yet made the case that Saddam and his sadists aided and abetted al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11. We also need to know why our $30 billion-a-year intelligence agencies didn't read the tea leaves correctly, as well as what's being done besides upgrading the color code to prevent other similar strikes. [hat tip to Kevin Hayden]

[comments now closed]

The Santa Barbara County Sheriff will respond to Michael Jackson's allegations that he was bruised and mistreated during his surrender to the police at a news conference tomorrow. Jackson showed the bruise on his inner arm during his 60 Minutes interview. It was in the spot that handcuffs would have been. Jackson said the cuffs were so tight that his shoulder became dislocated and he hasn't been able to sleep at night.

We'll be discussing the news conference on Fox News tomorrow around 12:50 pm ET (time always approximate.)

In other Jackson news today, the Nation of Islam said it has no official professional or business relationship with him.

A national poll shows the man and woman most admired by Americans are President Bush and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Bush was third on the list of most admired women, while Oprah was second.

Where was Jeb? Thankfully, he didn't make the list.