Today's Christian Science Monitor has an article When the only unknown is victim's name , examining the issue of whether its's time to end the policy of shielding the accuser's name in a rape accusation:

...beyond the media circus - or the question of what actually happened at the Cordillera Lodge and Spa - loom the larger ethical issues involved in sexual-assault cases, particularly ones with such high-profile defendants: What privacy is owed to victims? Is it fair to name the accused but not the accusers? Are personal details off limits? Has the Internet made this type of privacy a relic of the past?

Our view is that either both the names of the accused and the accuser should be kept private until trial, or, that both names should be public.

The Bryant case, however, has revived those questions. [Radio Host] Mr. Leykis justified naming Bryant's accuser by saying that, if rape is about violence and not sex, the victim shouldn't have stigma or shame. Others have wondered whether withholding victims' names actually contributes to rape's stigma, cultivating a silent shame. Many have also raised the issue of fairness to the accused: False charges of rape can, after all, ruin a life.

Only one paper in the country print names of sex assault accusers:

The editor and publisher of the Shelton-Mason County Journal, in Shelton, Wash., may run the only paper in the country that always prints rape victims' names - no matter their ages.....He stands by it both as a matter of journalistic consistency and for helping erode the stigma of rape.

Others - including a few feminists - agree with him. After the Central Park jogger case, Karen DeCrow, a former president of the National Organization of Women, wrote in USA Today: "Pull off the veil of shame. Print the name."

A tougher question is whether concerns about victims' privacy have gotten so extreme as to compromise defendants' rights. After all, being accused of rape brings stigma too - a fact not lost on Bryant's supporters. Mr. Gay often asks critics to imagine it's their father or brother or son on trial. That's the strongest argument for naming victims, says Ms. McBride of the Poynter Institute.

From the Oregonian:

Maher "Mike" Hawash's deal with the government allows him to avoid what could have amounted to a life sentence in exchange for becoming a chief witness against his alleged co-conspirators. The deal calls for a 7- to 10-year federal prison term, which will be determined by a federal judge after the trial of the others.

Hawash pleaded guilty to providing material support and services to the Taliban.

In exchange for testimony, federal prosecutors agreed to drop charges of conspiring to levy war against the U.S. and conspiring to provide material support for terrorism. He will serve a minimum of seven years in federal prison under the deal, which was approved by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

We'll wait to see more before we comment. But as one reader e-mailed us, the issue is:

Has Mike Hawash caved-in to pressure and agreed to 7 years in prison? Or has he got 7 years because - despite everything his friends and family knew about him - he was secretly a spy?

Our prior Hawash coverage is here. We recommend this post , questioning the Government's use of the material witness statute against Hawash.

The excellent Beautiful Horizons, concentrating on Latin American and Human Rights, has moved to Typepad, so update your bookmarks. The always eloquent Jeanne D'Arc over at Body and Soul is moving there too.

Say hello to Kimberly of Brief Intelligence --and thanks to Lisa English of Ruminate This for bringing her to our attention. As Lisa says,

This particular blog is so well-written and In Your Face. Kimberley holds nothing back and I'll tell ya, if you're sick and tired of reading mainstream milquetoast reviews of this ongoing American political debacle, Brief Intelligence is the place to be.

Lisa's all over the smear on Rev. Canon Gene Robinson.

Hessiod at Counterspin thinks the new Al Qaeda warnings mean we can say goodbye to taking cell phones, pagers and laptops on airplanes. We never had a pager, and the cell phone wouldn't bother us, but take away our laptop? Please, say it isn't so.

Skippy is talking about Gephardt--not as a supporter, just as an observer of his union support--and says we're in for a long campaign.

Oliver Willis posts his list of the ten greatest Americans.

Natasha over at Pacific Views (used to be The Watch, so change your bookmarks if you haven't already) is impressed with the Coalition Casualty Count by Pat K with help from Elvis56. A lot of work went into this site, and we're impressed too.

Long Story, Short Pier isn't sold on Dean yet.

Lilith of A Rational Animal is headed out to San Francisco for the annual ABA meeting from Thursday to Sunday. She's wondering if any other bloggers are going and would like to get together. Go over and email her if you are. (We'll be there Friday for two days for the Criminal Justice Section Council meeting, and don't know if we'll be able to do a bloggermeet, but keep us posted if there is one, we'd try.)

How Appealing has the latest news on the Ten Commandments monument and the federal court order to the Alabama Supreme Court to remove it. The Order spells out to the State Court what will happen if they don't comply. It'll be expensive, for one thing.

We'll be on Kobe-TV duty all day tomorrow, sticking up for the presumption of innocence, starting at 7am, going until 10 pm (MST), all around the cable dial. So please read the blogs above and those listed on the right, and we'll be back Thursday.

We haven't been following the story of the Episcopalian church's Bishop election but Dave Cullen has and he's joyous.

It's true! It's true!

Finally, a bishop of our very own. We're finally part of the family. I dont' know how many cliches I've got in me, feeling like I'm just bursting at the seams with them.

Suddenly the past month, it's feeling like we can really achieve equality in our lifetime. (Maybe).

....Wow. We finally have a gay bishop of a mainline church.

Dave will be writing more about this--he also writes for Salon, Denver's 5280 and other publications, so go read.

[comments now closed]

Did you know that for only $3,500.00, you too can run for California Governor? Atrios suggests all his California readers sign up. And here's a website that tells you exactly how to do it. Our favorite candidate so far? Doug Fleming (again, via Atrios.) Atrios likes his platform, we like his motto. Go read.

And blogger, author, performer Neal Pollack wants to throw his hat in the ring:

Posting hours will be irregular for the rest of the week. I'll be in California, trying to round up 65 signatures and $3500 so I can run for governor. I figure my position as The Greatest Living American Writer, coupled with the fact that I've served as governor of both New York and Rhode Island, might help me to carry the day. If you wish to Donate the campaign, plese click on the button to your right. All leftover monies will go toward funding The Neal Pollack Invasion's fall tour. Give until it hurts, my friends. I'm begging you.

Don't miss Neal's piece on the Episcopalian Church in the same post.

Finally, the Patriot Act will face court challenges. Last week we wrote about the ACLU lawsuit over Section 215 that allows the government broader access to business records. Today, a lawsuit was filed over another aspect of the law.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, based in New York, argues that the Patriot Act infringes on free-speech protections by outlawing "expert advice and assistance" to groups that the United States has labeled terrorist organizations, even if the assistance is humanitarian in nature and has no connection to terrorism.

The latest case involves American activists and aid workers with ties to Turkey's Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, both of which have been declared terrorist groups by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

The plaintiffs argue that whatever links they might have with the groups are innocent and protected by the First Amendment, a view that has been supported by previous federal court rulings focused on other statutes.

Duane "Dog" Chapman, the bounty hunter who captured Andrew Luster in Mexico, was denied any of the forfeited bail money by a California judge today.

...an undisclosed amount [is] to be paid to the three women raped by Luster. The judge also said about $89,000 should be paid to the sheriff's office to recoup costs associated with the case and about $65,000 to the district attorney's office.

The article doesn't mention Luster's mother, who put up some or all of the million dollar bond, but we assume she lost as well.

We wonder if Dog will go after the Ventura County Sheriff's department to recoup some of his costs. After all, he did do their job for them.

According to a new study by the National Academy of Sciences, lie detectors don't work.

We've always argued their value to law enforcement is not in truth telling capabilities, but in the pre-test interview, where the cops try to trick someone into cooperating or confessing (saying the polygraph will show they are lying so they better cut their losses and make a deal now, or that someone else has already given them up, or that they have evidence that they really don't have or in asking for and getting incriminating information to help build their case.) Thanks to Instapundit for the link, and he has some longer quotes.

Update: We just learned that the author of the polygraph article is Charles Pierce, the same Charles Pierce that sends all the letters to Eric Alterman over at Altercation, and guest-blogs for him sometimes.

The Rocky Mountain News reports on the reports by ESPN and Fox that a bellman drove Kobe Bryant's accuser home after the attack. But another witness has previously claimed the accuser told him she drove home alone. Just goes to show the only evidence that counts is that which comes from inside the courtroom....

Nonetheless, we'll be debating the case tonight and tomorrow night on MSNBC's Dan Abrams Report, 9pm EST.

The First Amendment is in more trouble than we thought. Political prosecutions, on the other hand, are alive and well in the U.S. This really happened today:

A federal judge sentenced a man to a year in prison Monday for creating an anarchist Web site with links to sites on how to build bombs. U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson sentenced Sherman Austin to more than the prosecutor had recommended under a plea bargain.

Austin, 20, pleaded guilty in February to distributing information related to explosives.... Austin admitted posting links about bombs to enable people to build and use them during demonstrations against interstate and foreign trade. He told FBI agents he wanted the Web site to teach people about police brutality.

The article continues:

Austin was arrested with other protesters at the World Economic Forum in New York in February 2002 on charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. While in New York, federal charges were handed down in California.

Austin said he took a plea bargain because he feared his case was eligible for a terrorism enhancement, which could have added 20 years to his sentence. The plea deal had called for him to serve four months.

Update: Instapundit has lots more, including the charge against Austin and the elements necessary to prove it. He also discusses prosecutors' conduct in bargaining terror-related cases.

Naturally, we're in favor of this. And we point out that the young Dean was not given preferential treatment. Almost all first-time non-violent juvenile offenders are offered diversion, so they won't have a permanent record from a single mistake.

The 17-year-old son of Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean agreed Tuesday to participate in a court diversion program for allegedly being the getaway driver while four friends tried to steal beer from a country club.

Paul Dean appeared at Vermont District Court with his father and mother, Dr. Judith Dean, and met with a court official. ...The program allows first-time and low-risk offenders to resolve their charges without appearing before a judge. In a few weeks, the younger Dean is to appear before a community board that will determine his punishment, which could include community service, writing a letter of apology or making restitution.

Howard Dean on the dispo:

''I think this is a good outcome for Paul and for his friends, and that's what the program is designed for."

[comments now closed]

Do you know someone who can't get financial aid for college due to a drug conviction? The John W. Perry Fund is awarding scholarships to help.

Federal law provides:

Section 484, subsection r of the Higher Education Act of 1998 (HEA) delays or denies federal student financial aid eligibility to applicants with any misdemeanor or felony drug conviction. Applicants with a single possession conviction lose eligibility for one year from conviction date; those with a second possession conviction or one sales conviction lose eligibility for two years; and three possession convictions or two sales convictions cost an applicant eligibility indefinitely.

Students enrolling in an approved drug treatment program can regain eligibility upon completing it. However, the measure neither provides funds for these generally expensive programs, nor distinguishes between mere use and true substance abuse. Would-be students who merely experimented with marijuana, for example, might be unable to find a program willing to accept them; or instead, might take up scarce slots needed by actual addicts seeking help.

The application process is fully explained on the site. Here are some details: