Executioner Ashcroft. We're not making that name up. It's the title of an editorial today in the Boston Globe. The editorial is sharply critical of Ashcroft for overruling his prosecutors and insisting on death penalty prosecutions in cases in which they recommended against it. We've written about this several times, most recently here.

Here's some of what the Globe has to say:

ATTORNEY GENERAL John Ashcroft has given a chilling and misguided command to federal prosecutors in New York and Connecticut: Pursue the death penalty in more cases. Ashcroft selected cases in which prosecutors either did not ask for the death penalty or recommended against it. In one situation, Ashcroft undermined a plea bargain in which a defendant agreed to testify against others if prosecutors did not seek the death penalty. A Justice Department spokesperson said the goal was to have national consistency.

The editorial explains the reasons Ashcroft is wrong to take this route, and concludes,

Ashcroft is headed down another road, apparently having concluded that imposing the death penalty more often will increase its popularity. This is a waste. The country doesn't need a keener taste for capital punishment. It does need better upfront crime prevention. Ultimately, Americans should give up the death penalty. It is not a strong preventive tool. And it offers vengeance when people would be better off with safety and fairness.

If the shoe fits....

California is questioning a federal judge's ability to be impartial in death penalty cases--a judge whose record demonstrates his solid support for the death penalty. Here's the background:

The scene was a packed auditorium at UC Santa Barbara; the time, late last month. Two prominent legal figures were debating the death penalty.

Defense attorney Gerry Spence turned to federal appeals court Judge Alex Kozinski, an outspoken supporter of capital punishment, and accused the judge of being detached from the reality of death row.

I would urge his honor to go to a prison and see" how condemned inmates live, Spence said.

Kozinski did not respond to Spence's remark. The truth would have been far too complicated to reveal in a debate. Four months earlier, Kozinski had done just what Spence was demanding. After an on-and-off correspondence stretching over five years, he had visited an inmate at San Quentin, a man named Michael W. Hunter, a murderer and a fellow writer....

As a result, the 52-year-old judge -- a Reagan appointee and a leading conservative on the federal bench -- is now the subject of an investigation by the California attorney general's office.

Prosecutors have written to Mary M. Schroeder, the chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, on which Kozinski sits, questioning whether he "can continue to be a fair and impartial member of any 9th Circuit panel, now or in the future, deciding California capital cases."

Legal scholars say there is no precedent for the demand.

"In the history of the federal courts, they say, they know of no occasion when a federal appellate judge has been disqualified from hearing an entire category of cases even on a temporary basis."

Kozinski thus far has refused to answer the letter. Good for him. We think the investigation is baseless.

"I certainly don't think it will affect my judgment" on other capital cases, Kozinski said about his meeting with Hunter. The attorney general's actions, said Kozinski, are "crazy." In his 17 years as an appellate judge, 49 men have been executed in the seven states overseen by the 9th Circuit which have death rows; 10 executions were in California. Kozinski has not voted to block a single one.

The article details Kozinski's very interesting background, his politics and his judicial rulings. With the budget deficit in California being as high as it is, we think Attorney General Lockyear could find better uses for the state's limited resources than investigating Judge Kozinski.

For those not familiar with the Volokh Conspiracy, UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh clerked for Judge Kozinski (before going on to clerk for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.) We hope Eugene will post a response to the article.

Update: Eugene Volokh emails to say he agrees with us, is writing an op-ed on the matter, and in the meantime, has blogged a few thoughts here.

Cheers to The Tennessean for its editorial today urging Congress to pass the Innocence Protection Act..

Since 1973, 107 death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence. That's the identifier of a genetic fingerprint unique to each person. If DNA proves a person was not guilty of a crime, the game is over. The suspect is innocent. Gradually, states are beginning to realize the risks of executing innocent people. Congress should push hard for new protections under federal law.

The bill, authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., goes beyond DNA in an attempt to shore up fairness in the system. It also includes a provision for improving the quality of defense counsel with grants to states to help fund legal representation.

There is no question that events in some states have brought new attention to the DNA issue. Gov. George Ryan in Illinois, in light of 13 death row inmates being exonerated from 1977-2000, commuted the sentences of 167 death row inmates to life in prison. The odds suggest that some of those 167 are probably innocent.

Congress is right to get involved. If governments in this country are going to impose the death penalty, which is the wrong remedy even if the inmate is guilty, they must make certain they get the conviction right. DNA is showing that convictions have not always been right. Any course of action that continues executions in the face of such knowledge is injustice at its worst.

The Innocence Protection Act (H.R. H.R.912 / S. 486) is a carefully crafted package of criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing the risk that innocent persons may be executed. Among its most important provisions are affording greater access to DNA testing by convicted offenders and helping States improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases.

The IPA is a bipartisan bill, with 250 co-sponsors in the House in the Senate. It has received widespread support from newspapers across the country, faith-based organizations and criminal justice professionals.

In the last Congress, hearings were held in both houses and the bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it remained, due to opposition from a very few ultra-conservatives, like Orrin Hatch.

The bill's sponsors have promised to push for hearings and passage in the 108th Congress. On February 4, 2003, Senator Leahy, Rep. Delahunt and others issued this statement.

Here is list of the co-sponsors.

You can help. Contact your elected officials in Congress today. It will only take a few minutes and a few clicks of your mouse to let your U.S. Representative and Senators that we must pass the IPA before the end of this Congress.

Via A Moveable Beast , we came across Behind the Homefront, an excellent journalism weblog devoted to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security.

On Jan. 24, 2003, a new law enforcement and investigatory agency whose duties include functions taken from as many as 22 other federal agencies came into existence. The reorganization of these operations reportedly marks the biggest government bureaucratic shake-up since the creation of the Department of Defense half a century ago.

Even before the new Department of Homeland Security opened its doors, controversies arose over not just how it would operate and exercise its powers, but what level of access to information it would allow, and how it would respond to news media requests. Will new exemptions be carved out of the FOI Act, either by law or by practice? Will officials and agents feel free to tap phones of journalists, or subpoena their records during investigations? Will the new director consider procedural safeguards, like those adopted years ago by the Department of Justice, to ensure that freedom of the press will not be denied? And will those practices be followed?

But "homeland" security is not the only concern for journalists covering anti-terrorism initiatives; military actions abroad often present a greater challenge, as questions over disclosure of information, access to troops, and restraints on reporting seem to resurface anew with each conflict.

Questions and issues like these led the Reporters Committee to launch this "weblog," so that there will be a centralized site on the Internet for journalists who want to follow these issues and pass along information they learn while covering -- or worse, being covered by -- the new department and other anti-terrorism actions. Please submit comments and pass along tips to make this project as useful, thorough and up-to-date as possible.

The mainsteam media credits weblogs again, this time on the Howard Coble case and Law. Prof. Eric Mueller's Is That Legal?.

Eric has done a phenomenal job on this issue, much like Atrios did on Trent Lott.

Attorney General John Ascroft is forging a new role for himself and his Justice Department. In the new incarnation, states' rights are taking a back seat, "whether by force of circumstances, personality, ideology or a combination of all three."

"He has, for instance, recently overruled the recommendations of local federal prosecutors in 28 cases where they decided not to seek the death penalty. He has similarly used federal prosecutions to override state laws concerning social issues like medicinal marijuana and doctor-assisted suicide."

What drives him?

The terrorist attacks have energized Ashcroft in a remarkable way, resonating with his sincere belief that there is evil in the world," said Nancy Baker, an associate professor of government at New Mexico State University and the author of "Conflicting Loyalties," a history of the attorney general's office. "As the son and grandson of Assembly of God preachers, he is spiritually as well as politically inclined to do battle with evil."

Ashcroft likens himself to, of all people, Bobby Kennedy. Others disagree.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, who served under Kennedy and succeeded him as attorney general, said, "He uses it to justify some things that Bobby Kennedy never would have tried to justify," including expanded surveillance powers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and more cooperation between foreign and domestic intelligence agencies. "The problem today is that it is very hard to know the limits of what they're trying to collect," Mr. Katzenbach added.

If anyone has any doubts about how much his personal morality shapes his policy decisions, consider this:

But Mr. Ashcroft's language also reveals how his personal convictions help inform his thinking about the rule of law. "Order and liberty go together, like love and marriage," he told a group of judges in August. "You can't have one without the other."

We strongly oppose the mass federalization crime laws. As aptly stated by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,

Increasingly, crime bills grant federal prosecutors greater and greater authority by creating more federal crimes out of historically state and local crimes. For example, domestic violence, carjacking and failure to pay child support, the subjects of recent federal measures, are traditionally the prerogative of state and local governments; federal jurisdiction is unwarranted, unwise and contrary to the Constitution. Regarding these and other federalized crimes, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist observed that "one senses from the context in which they were enacted that the question of whether the states were doing an adequate job in this particular area was never seriously asked." Before enacting federal criminal legislation, Congress should consider whether a federal interest is implicated and whether the state or local remedy is shown to be inadequate to address that interest. The impact on federal law enforcement and court resources should also be assessed.

Charles B. Blackmar, a retired judge on the Missouri Supreme Court who handled numerous death penalty appeals, says the system is full of fatal flaws. He says the risk of executing an innocent person is too great, and should that happen, it would be "repulsive." In response to a series in the St. Petersburg Times, The Innocence Defense (Feb. 9 and 10), the Judge writes this letter to the paper's editor, calling for the abolition of the death penalty.

Say hello to one more Democratic contender for President in 2004: Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has decided to throw his hat in the ring. The total number of declared candidates is now at 8.

Kucinich is known for his support for civil liberties and peace. He serves as Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, consisting of 55 of the most liberal members of Congress.

Others who have declared themselves are: former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Gary Hart is considering a run, but has not made a decision.

Bump and Update:

More than six million protested today around the world. Pure People Power. It began in New Zealand and Australia.

Update on World protests today here, with link to pictures world-wide.

By noon, the headlines reported Two Million Gather Across the Globe::

From Canberra to Sofia, from Cape Town to Karachi, they took to the streets to pillory Bush as a bloodthirsty warmonger. In the biggest demonstrations of 'people power' since the Vietnam War, they poured scorn on Bush's hawkish stance. "This war is solely about oil. George Bush has never given a damn about human rights," London mayor Ken Livingstone told reporters at a giant rally in London.

London anti-war march: 750,000 to 1.5 million turn out. Here is a Hyde Park photo and here is more on the London protest.

In Paris, police said "100,000 demonstrators marched the three miles from the capital's Place Denfert-Rochereau to the Place de la Bastille, filling the broad Boulevard Saint Michel, which passes the French Senate, and spilling into the surrounding streets."

From The French Say No to War: "With more than 80% of people in France supporting President Jacques Chirac's anti-war stance, this is a huge vote of support for the French president."

Great photos from London, Amsterdam and Australia.

Spain: 2 million. Barcelona city officials estimated a turnout of 1.3 million people -- nearly equalling the entire city's population of 1.5 million -- in the largest demonstration in the city's history. Here's a photo.

In New York, New York City's police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, put the crowd at about 100,000, while the organizers said 400,000 people attended.

Although yesterday's demonstration against war was speckled with professional peace activists, leftist doctrinaires and a kaleidoscopic array of malcontents advocating the end of capitalism, imperialism, sexism and taxation, a great many of those who converged on the East Side of Manhattan were the unaligned and the unaffiliated. Housewives, accountants, aging hippies and high school students, many of them first-time protesters, all of them moved by the prospect of war, surged up Second Avenue or stood wordlessly on First Avenue as those around them chanted "No blood for oil."

Remember the one-sided FISA review court that heard the appeal of the lower FISA court decison on the information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence agencies under the Patriot Act?

You can now read online the transcript of this first ever oral argument before the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. The court's subsequent ruling, issued last November, is available here. (Big thanks to How Appealing for the link.)

You can access most of our prior coverage and criticism of the FISA lower and review court decisons among the entries here.

Daily Kos woke up at 6:30 this morning with a new idea for sending a grassroots message to DNC headquarters. He's asking for feedback, so go give him some.

He had a rough night--while at a nice restaurant having a celebratory meal with his wife last night, he was waiting to use the restroom, when he was rudely ordered around by someone who mistook him for the help. As he says, "Living Latino in the US of A.

There's a brand new blog that looks very promising called PatriotWatch. It addresses the erosion of civil liberties, privacy, civil rights, and human rights in the context of 9-11. Good links to action alerts and troubling legislation.