We had over 4,000 daily visitors for the first time Friday. Over 6,500 page views. Thanks, everyone, especially (in alphabetical order) Atrios, Cursor and Instapundit.

While the Washington Post is reporting that the Air Force is backing Air Force Academy officials , the New York Times is reporting that the Air Force is warning senior officials at the Air Force Academy that they could be held accountable "for complaints by female cadets that they faced indifference or retaliation when they reported rapes and sexual assaults."

Both of these accounts are at odds with the statements of Air Force Secretary James G. Roche last week. Roche "laid full responsibility for charges of sexual misconduct on a "fringe element" of cadets."

Sounds like a classic case of "he said/he said" to us. We hope someone is paying attention to the "she-saids."

No Death-Penalty Doubts at Justice :

Although Ashcroft says it's a top priority to prevent innocent people from being sentenced to death, he has not pushed initiatives to upgrade the quality of defense lawyers in state capital-murder cases or increase death-row inmates' access to DNA testing. Both steps are crucial to eliminate tragic errors in death-penalty prosecutions, according to a broad coalition of reform-minded activists.....

Asked if Ashcroft believes death-penalty administration is deeply flawed, as the activists submit, Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo says, "I think we would argue that the system is overwhelmingly fair."

....The attorney general has displayed no more enthusiasm in advocating legislation to reduce the risk of innocent people being convicted in capital cases. No less a dyed-in-the-wool conservative than Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor devoted a speech to the subject in July 2001. O'Connor, whom President Reagan had appointed and whose support of the death penalty dates back to her days as an Arizona legislator, said, "Serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this country." She went on to decry the lack of minimum standards for appointed counsel in death-penalty cases and the unavailability of post-conviction DNA testing . [Via Hamster]

More on the same theme from Cindi Ross Scoppe over at the South Carolina State:

IN MISSOURI, a prosecutor went before the state Supreme Court and told justices they should not allow a death-row inmate a new trial "even if," as one of the justices put it, "we find Mr. Amrine is actually innocent."

In federal court in the same state, the state convinced judges that despite "a nagging suspicion that the wrong man may have been convicted," the death-row inmate was entitled to "no relief, even as the facts suggest that he may well be innocent."

In Alabama, prosecutors objecting to a hearing on new evidence in a death-row case said: "If the State of Alabama has to spend even one additional day in Birmingham, Alabama, defending the state, the state will be unduly injured in the form of additional per diem expenses, transportation expenses and loss of two assistant attorney generals for a complete work day."

By taking such hard-and-fast positions, prosecutors are doing more than opponents ever could to undermine public confidence in the death penalty.

But how certain can I be about justice when our prosecutors fight to make sure no jury ever hears new evidence that calls into serious question the condemned's guilt? How certain can I be about justice when our laws and procedures prevent courts from reopening such cases?

These are not just hypothetical questions, and not just questions in a few states where prosecutors say outrageous things. As The New York Times noted in putting together these examples, such arguments are becoming more frequent, as death penalty opponents become more aggressive in trumpeting innocence claims.

DNA has exonerated 123 people in the last decade, according to Cardozo Law School's Innocence Project. Twenty-Five of them are from Florida. No matter--DNA testing may be coming to an end in Florida this fall when

a two-year statute of limitations runs out on raising DNA challenges to Death Row convictions. Florida lawmakers created the two-year window of opportunity in 2001 after the exoneration of Frank Lee Smith, a Broward man who died of cancer while appealing his death sentence.

There should be no time limit on justice, critics say. 'If we later find out that we executed an innocent person, we can't dig up their grave and say `Whoops! Sorry, we made a mistake,' '' said former Florida Supreme Court Justice Gerald Kogan. Kogan was one of six legal experts participating in a discussion on wrongful convictions Thursday at the University of Miami Law School. Others on the panel included former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, Miami-Dade County Public Defender Bennett Brummer, attorney Bill Laswell with the Broward Capital Crimes group, Death Row attorney Martin McClain and Catherine Arcabascio, a professor at Nova Southeastern University's Innocence Project.

In the last two years, the Florida Innocence Project at Nova Southeastern Law School has received more than 600 cases of prisoners claiming innocence. Project members have identified 150 of those as DNA cases. But, they say, there's not enough time to review cases before the fall deadline.

One more time, there should be no time limit on justice.

Red Alert for Bill of Rights by Nat Hentoff is up at the Village Voice. It's another Ashcroft bashing, this time for Patriot Act II. How's this for an opening quote?

"This nation . . . has no right to expect that it always will have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. . . . [If] the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. --United States Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan, 1866, declaring Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and other abuses of the Bill of Rights unconstitutional

If you'd like to know more about Patriot Act II, here's the ACLU's 19 page analysis.

Getting in the Game today writes a long and thoughtful post on why he has decided Gary Hart is his "candidate." Here's a portion:

So today I declare that I support Gary Hart as candidate for President of the United States. I will in a series of four similar articles explain the path and cycles on the four areas that Senator Hart has spoken on, and why he has developed policy that can both regenerate the Democratic Party and is realistic enough to accomplish. Before those, I will post my analysis of the current field of candidates including George W. Bush tomorrow afternoon. In that I will explain why this strategy I have outlined and Gary Hart puts forth, is not only the right thing, but a winning strategy for the party not only in 2004 but the years beyond.

Ken G., one of our frequent commenters, writes in (see the comments section here for his remarks in full):

Personally, I am re-energized politically at the thought of the amazing guerilla campaign that can be run for a progressive with great name recognition that doesn't owe anyone a thing. Although I am a fan of many of the current Dems in the race, none of them have the ability to ignite the idealistic beliefs that got me involved in his earlier campaigns.

Keep in mind Hart has not said he will be a candidate. He is still considering whether to run. We hope he does make the decision to run, and if you want to express your support for him directly, you can do so at his website Gary Hart News.Com

Fox News, Thursday, March 6, 2003, The Factor
Bill O'Reilly, Host and Former Colorado Senator Gary Hart
_______________________________________

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Continuing now with the presidential press conference. Joining us from Santa Monica, California, one time Democratic presidential contender and former senator of Colorado, Gary Hart. Senator, the three most important things you heard this evening?

GARY HART (D), FMR. COLORADO SENATOR: Well the president took justifiable credit for the capture of Shaikh Mohammed, which is a significant development. He did say that Iraq is in non-compliance. And, finally, he said they are a direct threat to us.

What was more interesting to me is what he did not say or refused to say. He did not clearly state what our objective is in Iraq. Second, he did not deal candidly again with the issue of cost and human lives and capital. And, third, he did not deal with what is perhaps the most important question, and that is, are we prepared for the inevitable retaliation against this country? And there I think he did not do well.

Here's the latest on which Democratic contenders are taking public financing for their campaigns.

Those that accept public financing are limited in what they can spend. Those that forego it, like Bush in 2000, can spend whatever they want.

Bush spent $100 million in 2002. "With an increase in contribution limits under the nation's new campaign finance law, some of Bush's fund-raisers think he can raise $200 million or more for the primaries, money he could spend through the spring and summer to take on the presumptive Democratic nominee."

"The presidential campaign fund is financed by taxpayers with a $3 checkoff on their tax returns. In 2000, those who accepted public financing, including then-Vice President Al Gore, were entitled to up to $16.9 million in matching funds. In exchange, they had to abide by spending limits; Gore could only spend $40.5 million in the Democratic primaries, for example."

Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich are taking public financing. Kerry is up in the air. Edwards most likely will take it. Graham hasn't gotten around to thinking about it yet, he's still assembling a campaign team.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) filed comments with the Department of Defense today objecting to its February 28 proposed instruction on military tribunals. The organization contends that the proposed instruction poses a threat to the safety U.S. military personnel abroad.

Citing a concern, among others, that U.S. military personnel could face danger due to its provisions, criminal defense bar leaders filed comments today with the Department of Defense General Counsel's Office commenting on the DoD's draft Instruction pertaining to crimes and their elements, as well as procedures, for use by military commissions. The proposed Instruction was issued on February 28th.

The comments by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers raised the concern that the proposed Instruction is so alien to recognized principles of international law, especially the Law of Armed Conflict, that by implementing them, the Department of Defense is seriously jeopardizing the legal rights and privileges of American military members abroad, should they become captured.

"Our concern [with the Instruction] is founded in part on the prospect that American prisoners of war in future conflicts may be harmed if this Instruction is used as a justification for improper treatment of Americans," said Lawrence Goldman, president of NACDL, in a letter to DoD General Counsel William J. Haynes which accompanied the comments.

"Foreign countries capturing American military members would have no incentive to grant them POW status," said Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr., a criminal defense lawyer in Rochester, New York, and co-chair of NACDL's Military Law Committee. "Using our own DoD principles contained in the proposed Instruction, our enemies could subject them to 'trials' in violation of international law."

President Bush, by a prior order, authorized use of military commissions, often called tribunals, to try alleged terrorists and other military "detainees," in order to avoid public trials in federal courts.

NACDL's Military Law Committee, co-chaired by Rehkopf, Terri R. Z. Jacobs, and Jack B. Zimmerman, each of whom have extensive military law backgrounds and experience, drafted the comments. In forwarding NACDL's comments to the DoD, Goldman noted that the proposed Instruction is fundamentally flawed.

"There is a serious Constitutional question about the Defense Department legislating crimes and their elements," said Goldman, a criminal defense lawyer in New York City. "According to the plain language of Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, it is the duty of Congress, not the Defense Department, to 'define and punish …offenses against the Law of Nations.'"

According to NACDL's comments, the proposed Instruction also ignores numerous federal statutes that Congress has enacted dealing both with military commissions and trials of persons accused of war crimes and terrorist acts. The proposed Instructions "simply fail to acknowledge Congressional will in this area," said Goldman.

The comments also address significant ex post facto problems and a fundamental shifting of the burden of proof that is contrary to accepted principles of Anglo-American law, according to the comments. "Requiring a defendant to prove his or her innocence is not part of our Constitutional framework, nor is it a recognized concept under international law," Goldman said.

NACDL also objected to the proposed Instruction's provisions on self-defense and duress, its failure to recognize statutes of limitation under American and international law, and various definitions pertaining to concepts of criminal justice.

"For the DoD to run the risk of jeopardizing the lives of America's military members, for the sake of expediency in prosecuting an alleged terrorist by a military commission, is an unconscionable slap in the face to those who wear the uniform to defend America," said Rehkopf.

You can read the draft instruction, NACDL's filed objections and an analysis of the draft instruction here.

"A former Illinois death-row inmate spoke out against capital punishment in Rome on Friday as part of a campaign to push for a United Nations moratorium against the death penalty.

The Italian anti-death penalty group, Hands Off Cain, invited Leroy Orange and his lawyer to hold a news conference in Italy to draw attention to their cause. The group wants Italy to push for a U.N. resolution against capital punishment when it takes over the European Union rotating presidency this summer."

There is a boycott of Delta Airlines in place for their participation in CAPPS II.

What is CAPPS II? It stands for Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II. As we wrote here earlier this week,

It is a new security program of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that subjects airline passengers to more stringent screening that involves checking personal financial and other information and assigning a color-coded threat level to each passenger. The vast majority of passengers will be rated green and subjected to only the usual checks; those rated yellow will undergo more thorough screening, and those rated red won't be allowed to fly. It went into effect on Feburary 24. It is at place in three airports. Only Delta airlines is cooperating so far but officials are expecting to extend it to Northwest Airlines and other airlines within the next 10 to 16 months.

What does Delta's participation mean? From the boycott site:

WHAT WILL DELTA DO?

Run a credit check on you; Investigate your banking history; Run a criminal background check.

You will then be assigned your own Threat Assessment Color. Greens will pass through security as normal. Yellows would require additional screening. Reds are not allowed to fly.

How will they determine what color you are? No one knows. Does a bad credit rating make you a terrorist? No one knows. Will an unpaid parking ticket flag you ‘red’? No one knows.

WHAT DO WE KNOW?

For starters, this is an incredible invasion of privacy. All the information gathered will be stored for fifty (50!) years on computers that may or may not be safe from malicious hackers out to steal your identity... By their own admission, Delta’s computer servers are attacked over 500 times a day.

DELTA : CREDIT KILLER

Every time a credit report is run on you, it hurts your credit rating. Frequent fliers will not only have a nice thick Delta dossier, but a damaged credit history to boot.

Zero Base Thinking has more.

Update: Lionel Tate's case will be featured on ABC's 20/20 tonight.

14 year old Lionel Tate cries as Judge imposes life sentence

"It was a tragedy that shocked the nation — the 1999 murder of a 6-year-old little girl, Tiffany Eunick, by her 12-year-old family friend, Lionel Tate. Perhaps as shocking as Tiffany's death was Lionel's conviction of first-degree murder and his sentence to life imprisonment."

Lionel Tate is the youngest person to be sentenced to life without. He was 12 at the time of the killing. He was offered a deal, but his mother convinced him to turn it down.

How could a 12 year old possibly understand the nature and consequences of a plea bargain?

Now, two years later, people are questioning whether justice was served, or whether Lionel should be shown some mercy. The prosecutor who won the case, even Tiffany's grieving mother, now feel that the punishment was too harsh for a child.

Tiffany's mom, Deweese Eunick-Paul, remembers meeting Lionel and his mom, Kathleen Grossett-Tate, after she and Tiffany moved to Broward County, Fla., near the resort city of Fort Lauderdale. The mothers, both divorced, became close friends and began helping each other take care of the children.

....In his January 2001 trial, Lionel sat quietly in court, almost as if he didn't know what was happening, watching through the eyes of a young adolescent. He never took the witness stand. Instead, his defense team entered a video reenactment into evidence, saying that Lionel, who loved wrestling, was only imitating wrestling moves he'd seen on television. But the wrestling defense backfired.

... "I offered Lionel Tate, three years in a juvenile facility, followed by one year of house arrest and 10 years of probation with psychological counseling and therapy." [State's attorney] Padowitz said he didn't understand why neither Tate, nor his attorneys, nor his mother accepted the deal.

On Jan. 25, 2001, the jury unanimously convicted Tate of first-degree murder. At Tate's sentencing hearing, just days after his 14th birthday, the judge stunned the court when he ordered Lionel to serve the rest of his life in prison, without chance of. It was a mandatory sentence in the state of Florida. As Lionel was led out of court in shackles, he broke down and cried.

The issue here is competency. These children are not mentally competent to stand trial as adults. Competency is different than mental illness, retardation or sanity. The question to be asked of a juvenile, particularly those 14 and under, are: can he understand the nature of the proceedings? Can he assist in his own defense? Can he understand his legal rights? Can he make critical decisions such as whether to testify or enter or refuse a plea bargain?

A study released earlier this week found that "a third of children aged 11 through 13 and a fifth of those aged 14 or 15 understood legal matters at a similar level as mentally ill adults who have been found incompetent to stand trial. Older adolescents did not perform significantly different from young adults."

The director of the study says that 200,000 children are charged as adults in this country every year. Tens of thousands are under 16.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia set no minimum age at which children could be tried as adults, and 27 set a minimum age for at least some crimes of 15 or younger. Professor Steinberg said the study suggested that change was called for.
"We should not set the age of transfer" from juvenile courts to criminal ones "at 12 or 13, as many states do, because we will be jeopardizing children," Professor Steinberg said. At a minimum, extensive competency evaluations should be done before juveniles are transferred, he said.

Petitions have been submitted to Florida Governor Jeb Bush for clemency on behalf of Lionel Tate. Even the prosecutor filed one.

Update: 1/26/04, Lionel Released from Jail. You can find a recap of the case here.

Via Smythe's World, Scott Hatch, who is the son of Senator Orin Hatch, is one of the principal lobbyists for the manufacturers of ephedra, at a time when the Utah Senator is not only the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman but has also played a leading role in sponsoring legislation to make ephedra and other dietary supplements free from regulatory oversight.

Hmm....doesn't sound kosher to us either, comments?

[comments now closed.]