The Los Angeles Times is calling upon Congress to exorcise the 'Demon of Error' in death penalty cases and, for starters, pass the Innocence Protection Act, languishing in Congress for over a year.

Congress could start in this session by passing a long-ignored package of reforms to help ensure that only the guilty are condemned to death....

In separate investigations over the last four years, Chicago Tribune reporters and Northwestern University students and faculty members concluded that close to 200 Illinois inmates had been convicted of capital crimes on suspect evidence or represented by shoddy lawyers or could be exonerated with DNA evidence.

.... But even those who see the death penalty as fair retribution should be alarmed that it is applied unevenly, depending on the prosecutor's office, with too few safeguards against condemning the innocent.

The proposed Innocence Protection Act, supported by a number of groups on either side of the capital punishment issue, would raise the standards required of lawyers in death penalty cases and permit post-conviction DNA testing. Yet despite bipartisan support, the bill stalled after passing the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and its fate in the new Congress may be bleaker.

This nation does have a problem with the death penalty, and it's time to start addressing it.

Three words: Innocence Protection Act. Now that the 108th Congress is in session, The Justice Projcet is getting ready for the reintroduction of the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) in the next few months. During the last Congress, the IPA gained support from more than half of the House of Representatives and was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Take a look back at the history of the IPA and get ready to help push it forward into law this year.

Check out this full page ad in the Wall Street Journal by Republicans opposing a War in Iraq and calling on people to actively express their oppostion to it--with friends, at work, at places of religious worship--and to their elected officials:

War with Iraq is not inevitable. Now is the time to stop it. Speak out at your place of worship, at your business, among your friends and relatives. Make your convictions known to your Mayor and Governor and–above all–to your elected leaders in Washington.

The Group is BUSINESS LEADERS FOR SENSIBLE PRIORITIES
P.O. Box 1976 Old Chelsea Station
New York, NY 10113

Author John Le Carre in the Times of London on Bush and the war:

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

....The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another’s, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won’t tell us is the truth about why we’re going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil — but oil, money and people’s lives. Saddam’s misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn’t, won’t.

.... I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect’s sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can’t explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.

There's lots more, go read the whole thing.

Bill Clinton gave a speech in New York tonight. It was at a party at Cipriani's thrown by Gotham Magazine and GQ. After Clinton spoke, musical guest Michael Bolton sang a song. Among the guests were Al Sharpton, Donald Trump, and many, many models, including Heidi Klum. Also, Chris Noth (Mr. Big from Sex and the City) and Soprano stars Joe Pantalione and Federico Castelluccio, the good looking guy with the long pony tail who plays Furio, who Carmella fell for this season. We asked our source what Clinton's speech was about, but he said he wasn't paying attention, he was too busy talking to the models. Hopefully Page Six will have it tomorrow.

The lead prosecutor in the Michael Skakel/Martha Moxley murder trial had this to say about Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s recent war-and-peace-length attack on Skakel's trial and conviction in the new issue of Atlantic Monthly:

[Benedict called] Kennedy's long-winded defense "a series of distortions, facts taken wholly out of context, half-truths, untruths and . . . Skakel family revisionism."

"I find it surprising that a publication of Atlantic Monthly's repute would stray so far from its journalistic traditions," said prosecutor Jonathan Benedict, whose brilliant summation Kennedy credits for the jury's guilty verdict.

"It is hard to conceive of a more biased writer using more biased sources. . . . Except for its length, Mr. Kennedy's tale would be a better fit for a grocery-store tabloid."

Defense attorney Mickey Sherman, firing back against Kennedy's unfounded accusations against him, said:

he has "no regrets" about the way he handled the case except that "the jury came back with the wrong verdict."

He also zinged Kennedy for not coming to his cousin's defense sooner, pointing out the family were virtual no-shows during the trial.

"I only wish that Bobby had been there to see it," he said. "I think he would have had a different opinion." [Source: Jan. 14, 2003 Boston Herald]

Sherman's right. Bobby Kennedy, Jr. attended one day of the trial--closing arguments. Prior to the trial he attended one day of a pre-trial hearing. Kennedy, Jr. complains about Sherman's concern for and play to the media. Yet that's one the reasons Skakel hired Mickey--he is certainly a media savvy attorney and this was a high profile case, being played out in the news and in books by high profile authors Dominick Dunne and ex-OJ cop Mark Fuhrman before Skakel even got indicted. While Sherman was all over the airwaves before the trial, he didn't appear on a single television talk show from the day jury selection began until the trial was over.

During the trial, the news media camped out at the Norwalk courthouse. At the end of each day, and sometimes at the lunch recess, the Prosecutor, then Mickey and even the lawyer for non-appearing brother and former suspect Tommy Skakel answered media questions in the parking lot of the courthouse. Nothing unusual about that.

We have to wonder why, if the family now is so opposed to trying the case in the media, Bobby, Jr. wrote this article in the first place--and even more so, why the family has hired a public relations consultant for the appeal. And why, at Skakel family patriarch Rushton Skakel's funeral service last week, Duane Schenck, the P.R. consultant introduced himself to reporters "saying the family wanted to be more involved in the media."

We still believe the jury wrongly convicted Skakel for the reasons we set out here, and as to Kennedy's article, we only can point out that in this instance, hindsight is not 20/20.

From the RANT:

When asked about his feelings regarding the draft proposal by Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) last Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recalled the experience of the draft during Vietnam.

Rumsfeld said troops from Vietnam War conscription added "no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services . . . because the churning that took place, it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

I wonder how Vietnam era draftees feel about this. Thank god bill Clinton didn't say this, it would have knocked Bush's war plans right off the front page. Bush was drafted wasn't he? And he was fairly useless. Everyone who has a family member who was drafted and also has their name on a black wall in washington should call for rummys crucifixion."

We wanted to read Rumsfeld's remarks in context.

From the UPI on 1/10/02:

He spoke of the fact that many of those who were drafted were trained, served for a short time and then left the service. Rumsfeld first referred to the many exemptions issued to certain men in the draft and then said, "what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

Reaction from veterans was swift:

Bobby Muller, president of Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation said in a statement issued Friday. "As Vietnam veterans who served with conscripted soldiers, we find Secretary Rumsfeld's egregious slur a grave insult to the memory, sacrifice and valor of those who lost their lives, and, further, dismissive of the hundreds and thousands of lives, both in the U.S. and in Vietnam, who were devastatingly shattered by the Vietnam War."

And from a Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post by reader Bob Woodruff:

Thousands of Vietnam-era draftees came home for burial in wooden boxes, and many more still suffer the effects of napalm exposure or were otherwise disabled in combat. It is comforting, I'm sure, to their families that they were of "no value, no advantage, really."

Ok, we read and we decided. We agree with the Rant and the Vets, that was a dumb and crummy thing for Rumsfeld to say.

In an especially sneaky move, the Rave Act has been reintroduced in Congress. Under another name. Buried in S. 22, a popular omnibus domestic security bill proposed by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle. The Drug Policy Alliance, whose herculean efforts last year were instrumental in blocking the bill's passage, has all the info. Send a letter or fax to Senator Daschle now. Here are the major provisions of the new Rave Act:

"If enacted, the provisions would amend the federal “crack house law” to make it easier for federal prosecutors to fine and imprison business owners that fail to stop drug offenses from occurring. Businessmen and women could be prosecuted even if they were not involved in drugs – and even if they took steps to stop drug use on their property. The provisions would also undermine public health, endanger youth, and stifle free speech.

Property owners, landlords, hotel managers, promoters and other businessmen and women could be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars or face up to twenty years in federal prison if they hold raves or other events on their property. If the bill becomes law, property owners may be too afraid to rent or lease their property to groups holding medical marijuana festivals,
all-night dance parties, and other events - effectively stifling free-speech and banning raves and other musical events.

The “crack house” provisions would also make it a federal crime to temporarily use a place for the purpose of using any illegal drug. Thus, anyone who used drugs in their own home or threw an event (such as a party or barbecue) in which one or more of their guests used drugs could potentially face a $250,000 fine and years in federal prison. The provisions also effectively makes it a federal crime to rent property to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers, giving the federal government a new weapon in its war on AIDS and cancer patients that use marijuana to relieve their suffering.

Health advocates worry that the “crack house” provisions of S.22 will endanger our nation's youth. If enacted, licensed and law-abiding business owners may stop hosting raves or other events that federal authorities don't like, out of fear of massive fines and prison sentences. Thus, the law would drive raves and other musical events further underground and away from public health and safety regulations It would also discourage business owners from enacting smart public safety measures to protect their customers.

The S.22 “crack house” provisions punish businessmen and women for the crimes of their customers. The government can't even keep drugs out of its schools and prisons, yet it seeks to punish business owners for failing to keep people from carrying drugs onto their premises. If these provisions become law, federal authorities will have the ability to scare business owners away from using or renting their property for all-night dance events, as well as any other "politically incorrect" event."

What's wrong with the Rave Act? In a nutshell,

"The RAVE Act unfairly punishes businessmen and women for the crimes of their customers. The federal government can't even keep drugs out of its own schools and prisons, yet it seeks to punish business owners for failing to keep people from carrying drugs onto their property. It is a danger to innocent businessmen and women, especially restaurant and nightclub owners, concert promoters, landlords, and real estate managers. Section 4 of the bill goes so far as to allow the federal government to charge property owners civilly, thus allowing prosecutors to fine property owners $250,000 (and put them out of business) without having to meet the higher standard of proof in criminal cases that is needed to protect innocent people."

For the point-by-point analysis, go here.

This law could subject you to 20 years in prison. Help stop it now!

(Thanks to Pete Karas, of Progressive Racine Blog, for letting us know. Pete is our number one source for up to the minute news about Rave legislation and arrests.)

Bush and Aschroft's ears should be burning with shame:

Powerful arguments in favour of abolishing the death penalty in China have been voiced at a recent conference which marks a significant step forward in one of the country's most sensitive human rights areas.

This was the first debate of its kind to be reported in the Chinese press and the abolitionist argument was put more strongly than before, reflecting a growing willingness on the part of the authorities to let the issues be aired.

Nearly all the Chinese academics taking part supported abolition, and called for a start to be made by strictly limiting its use.

What's wrong with America that they just don't grasp it?

From today's Page Six:

Front-row seat THE Rev. Al Sharpton got the front row on the shuttle flight back from Washington, D.C. on Sunday, and was pleased to see his rival for the Democratic nomination for president, Sen. Joe Lieberman, two rows back. Sharpton, who had just appeared on "Meet the Press," exclaimed to his entourage: "That's how it's gonna be when the votes are counted."

Also in the humor department, Ted Barlow is writing only "How Many Lightbulbs Does It Take....?" jokes all week.

Congrats to Oliver Willis who has an article up on PBS called "Why I Blog."

And for Priceless link of the day, from Maxpeak: Bush Releases New "1040"

Radley Balko of The Agitator bashes Jonah Goldberg and sticks up for Governor Ryan's decision:

Isn't the whole philosophy behind the power to pardon that the executive ought to be able to grant mercy/clemency/leniency when justice hasn't been served? If the system had failed one obviously innocent man, I'm sure few would argue with Gov. Ryan's decision to pardon him. Same with two, or three. But this is a system that has consistently failed, at least a dozen times, probably many more. Gov. Ryan came to the conclusion that the system was so flawed, in fact, that it couldn't be trusted to administer proper justice to anyone who'd been through it, provided the punishment the faced was death. He pardoned people he felt hadn't had a fair crack at due process. Why is that inconsistent with separation of powers?

In response to today's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing defendants who have received a life sentence to be re-subjected to the death penalty if the jury vote for life was not unanimous, Chris Adams, Death Penalty Counsel for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, issued the following statement:

"In an era where everyone acknowledges problems in the death penalty, the Supreme Court today took a step away from equal justice, a step away from fairness, and a swipe at the double jeopardy clause in the Bill of Rights.

"The result is that some wrongly accused people will not find competent lawyers willing to take their cases on appeal. Why? Because if they win they will subject their client to the death penalty after the client had previously been sentenced to life without.

"Now, in states with a sentencing law like Pennsylvania (and the federal death penalty has this scheme), an inmate whose capital jury is 11-1 for life, who appeals and wins his appeal, can be re-sentenced to death by another jury. Yet the inmate whose capital jury is 11-1 for death and does not appeal, or who loses his appeal, can never be re-subjected to a death penalty prosecution. These inmates, wrongly convicted or not, face death only if they win on appeal.
"Certainly the double jeopardy right was designed to protect people from being more severely punished for winning their appeal."

The decision entered by the Supreme Court today is SATTAZAHN V. PENNSYLVANIA, accessible here.

Jay Caruso at the Daily Rant has a problem with Arianna Huffington calling for a boycott on SUV's due to her belief they are funding terrorism.

Her ads have nothing at all to do with her concern over whether not money used to buy gasoline in this country is somehow winding up in the off shore bank accounts of terrorists. Her issue is obviously her born again environmentalism. All of this talk about funding terrorism is a bunch of crap... If she wants to come out and say that the millions of SUV's driving around the United States are killing the environment, then f*cking say it! Don't cloak your agenda in some nonsense about terrorism, and make sure you're driving a Prius and living in a tent before you lecture others."

Our Jeep drives great in the snow and mountains and we feel safe in it--if we were going to give up driving an SUV it would be because of rollover fears--not terrorism or the environment. If any of you out there who are feeling guilty over driving an SUV have a new BMW X5 or Lexus you'd like to unload via donation, we'll be glad to take it off your hands.