Tapped, one of our very favorite blogs, comments on our recent post criticizing Rangel for suggesting a military draft as a means of garnering congressional opposition to a war on Iraq. Tapped acknowledges that Rangel's proposal is ..."clearly a political gambit and not a serious policy proposal," and agrees with us that "drafting people in order to sap support for a war in Iraq is a terrible idea."

That's really the only point we were making. As we said in a follow-up post, "we cannot support risking the lives of this country's youth to make a political point. They should not be used as pawns in the war debate."

Tapped says it disagrees with us that the draft itself is a terrible thing. But, we haven't taken a position on the draft as a concept by itself. We were criticizing Rangel for using it as a political ploy - relying upon our experience with the draft during Vietnam to show how traumatic it is to the kids who are forced to go. What kind of person suggests such a thing when they don't believe the war is necessary or in the best interest of our country? Since Rangel opposes the war, we think it is a cheap political stunt to offer up a draft as a solution, when a draft would be so risky to the lives of all American youth.

If Rangel opposes the war, let him do the job he was elected to do--confer with and convince other congresspersons to see it his way and oppose the war because the war is a bad idea. We were calling on liberals not to let him get away with treating the youths of this country as expendable pawns in the debate.

Were we not on the precipe of a war we oppose, we would sit down and contemplate the issues that Tapped addressed today: Is a draft ever legitimate or desirable? Should we have a compuslory national service plan for those who object to serving in the military? Chances are, we might answer yes, in some instances. World War II would be a good example. But drafting and enacting that kind of legislation is a huge undertaking that should be done over time, after careful reflection and consideration of all aspects. We haven't done that and either has Congress.

However, we can't agree with Tapped that all conservatives (and impliedly, Republicans) are opposed to a draft or compulsory national service. Certainly, not all Democrats are in favor of them.

First, take a look at H.CON.RES.368, introduced on March 20, 2002 by Rep. Ron Paul ® and co-sponsored by Rep John Conyers, Jr. (D), Rep John J. Duncan, J ®, Jr. , Rep Cynthia McKinney (D), Rep George Miller (D), Rep Patsy Mink (D), and Rep Pete Fornay Stark (D). [All references to this bill and the one that follows are available on Thomas, the Federal Legislation Service, just type in the bill numbers.]

The title of the bill states "Expressing the sense of Congress that reinstating the military draft or implementing any other form of compulsory military service in the United States would be detrimental to the long-term military interests of the United States, violative of individual liberties protected by the Constitution, and inconsistent with the values underlying a free society as expressed in the Declaration of Independence."

On March 20, 2002 the bill was referred to the House Armed Services Committee, and on April 5, to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. No further action was taken.

[Yes, we know that Rep. Conyers has now joined Rangel's call for a draft, but you'll have to ask him about his abrupt change of position--we have no explanation.]

The text of the resolution reads:

Whereas the Armed Forces have successfully fulfilled the military needs of the United States for almost 30 years solely on the basis of voluntary service;

Whereas the Department of Defense issued a report in 1993 titled `A Review of the Continued Requirement for Draft Registration', which stated that draft registration could be suspended without irreparable damage to national security;

Whereas each branch of the Armed Forces has traditionally been able to meet or exceed its recruitment targets;

Whereas the recent success of the Armed Forces in Afghanistan has once again demonstrated the ability of the volunteer military to respond to threats to the lives, liberty, and property of the people of the United States;

Whereas a military draft introduces tensions and rivalries between those who volunteer for military service and those who have been conscripted, thus undermining the cohesiveness of military units, which is vital to military effectiveness;

Whereas those individuals who are forced to serve in the military are unlikely to choose the military as a career or to share the same enthusiasm for military service as those who volunteer;

Whereas the most effective method of meeting the personnel needs of the Armed Forces is to increase the pay and benefits of veterans and members of the Armed Forces; ....

Whereas the reinstatement of the military draft in the United States is opposed by leaders and organizations of various political affiliations, including former President Ronald Reagan, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Noble laureates Milton Friedman and James Buchanan, former Senator Bill Bradley, the American Civil Liberties Union, Minnesota Governor and former Navy SEAL, Jesse Ventura, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, Veterans for Peace, the Libertarian Party, the Mennonite Church, and the Conservative Caucus;

Whereas the military draft violates the principles of liberty on which the United States was founded; and

Whereas compulsory military service is a form of involuntary servitude: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that reinstating the military draft or implementing any other form of compulsory military service in the United States would be detrimental to the long-term military interests of the United States, violative of individual liberties protected by the Constitution, and inconsistent with the values underlying a free society as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Example Two: Now take a look at H.R. 3598, The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001, introduced by Republicans Smith of Michigan and Weldon of Pennsylvania on December 28, 2001 and later referred to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Rep Roscoe Bartlett ® is a co-sponsor.

The Title of the bill states it is "To require the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act, and to authorize young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year."

Here is the official summary of the bill:

Makes it the obligation of male citizens and residents between 18 and 22 to receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces unless otherwise exempt under this Act. Permits female citizens and residents between such ages to volunteer for enlistment in the armed forces, with acceptance at the discretion of the Secretary of the military department concerned. Limits the period of training to between six months and a year. Permits transfers after basic training of such conscripts/volunteers to national and community service programs to finish the term of service. Provides educational services and Montgomery GI benefits to persons upon completion of their national service.

Uses the existing Selective Service System and local boards for induction. Sets forth criteria for deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including high school, hardship, disability, and health.

Entitles inductees to request a particular service branch. Excludes conscientious objectors from combatant training, but otherwise requires them to take basic training before a permitted transfer to a national service program.

Both of these legislative proposals were introduced after Sept. 11. The one introduced by Republicans calls for mandatory military training/service and compulsory national service for objectors and has no Democratic co-sponsors. The resolution introduced by a Republican but co-sponsored by several liberal democrats opposes a draft.

Frankly, the whole issue seems to be too politicized to make heads or tails of. But we stand by our criticism of Rangel for suggesting, and promising to introduce, legislation that puts all kids at risk simply to make a poltical point and grab a soundbite.

We've talked a lot about the dangers of using what we call "purchased testimony," by which we mean the testimony of informants or cooperating individuals that is obtained by the Government through promises of leniency in their own criminal cases. After all, given a chance at a reduced sentence or no sentence at all through immunity, who among that group do you think would not lie or stretch the truth, or at least provide the prosecutor's or FBI's version of the truth, to save their own hide?

As we've often said, freedom is a far more precious commodity than money, and the snitch system makes it too easy for untrustworthy, unreliable wrong-doers to fabricate or embellish a story to get someone else in trouble and thereby cut themselves some slack.

And now we have a great example. ABC News is reporting that the FBI alert for five men thought to have entered the U.S. from Canada on Christmas Eve was based on a hoax by an informant who was trying to get leniency in his own criminal case in exchange for the information.

"The FBI has concluded the information that led to a hunt for five men thought to have entered the United States illegally on Christmas Eve was fabricated by an informant, ABC News reported on Monday."

"Citing unnamed sources, the report said the informant identified as Michael John Hamdani, who was arrested in Canada, made up the story about 19 men who sought false passports in an attempt to get himself off the hook on criminal charges he was facing in the United States."

Case closed.

Democratic Presidential Nomination contender Dick Gephardt has announced that win or lose his presidential bid, he will not seek re-election to Congress.

He must have another job already lined up. We'll go out on a limb and say that right now, he's probably not even in the top three and his chances are not likely to improve. He's already had his turn and came up short. He's not inspirational. He doesn't instill confidence. He lacks a distinguishing vision for the future of the Democratic party. And he, along with Daschle, helped broker the deal for support of the war. We have nothing against him personally, we just don't see him as the winning candidate.

He brings nothing new to the table.

Via How Appealing, we learn that the California Supreme Court ruled today that a male commits forcible rape if his female partner consents to intercourse, intercourse begins, and then she changes her mind and wants to stop. Here's the full opinion which begins with:

We granted this case to settle a conflict in Court of Appeal decisions as to whether the crime of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) is committed if the female victim consents to an initial penetration by her male companion, and then withdraws her consent during an act of intercourse, but the male continues against her will. (Compare People v. Vela (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 237 (Vela) [no rape committed] with People v. Roundtree (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 846 (Roundtree) [rape committed].) We agree with Roundtree and the Court of Appeal in the present case that a withdrawal of consent effectively nullifies any earlier consent and subjects the male to forcible rape charges if he persists in what has become nonconsensual intercourse."

The male in question was a juvenile at the time of the crime. His female partner was 17. The Lone dissenting Justice , Janice Rogers Brown, wrote:

"The majority provided no guidance about what constitutes withdrawal of consent and what amount of force turns consensual sex into rape. The majority relies heavily on [the defendant's] failure to desist immediately, but it does not tell us how soon would have been soon enough. Ten seconds? Thirty? A minute? Is persistence the same thing as force? And even if we conclude persistence should be criminalized in this situation, should the penalty be the same as for forcible rape?"

In her dissent, Justice Brown accused the majority of ignoring "critical questions about the nature and sufficiency of proof in a post-penetration rape case" and argued that prosecutors should still have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a victim clearly communicated withdrawal of consent, and the perpetrator exercised some degree of force.

She noted that the victim in John Z. had enjoyed the sex, had simply said she had to go and had never overtly told John Z. she didn't want to keep having sex.

"The majority finds Laura's 'actions and words' clearly communicated withdrawal of consent in a fashion 'no reasonable person in defendant's position' could have mistaken," Brown wrote. "But Laura's silent and ineffectual movements could easily be misinterpreted. And none of her statements are unequivocal."

[comments now closed]

Alan Drazek, a former political aide to Illinois Governor George Ryan, pleaded guilty to tax fraud today in a plea deal, a component of which is that he will testify against Gov. Ryan's former Chief of Staff Scott Fawell and Ryan's campaign committee, whose trial on charges they used "state employees and tax money to wage political campaigns going back to 1991" begins this week.

"Drazek is expected to get a reduced sentence of less than 10 months in return for his cooperation. A sentencing date wasn't immediately set."

"Ryan, a Republican leaving office Jan. 13, has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing, although recent court papers said he knew of the destruction of documents to keep them out of the hands of federal agents."

Why do we put so much trust in cooperating individuals whose testimony is purchased with promises of leniency, a commodity far more precious than money?

Via Eve Tushnet, we found this interview by Michael Lynch in the January issue of Reason. Lynch questions three ex-warriors who now fight against the War on Drugs.

One is a former cop named Joe McNamara.

Reason: From the perspective of the working police officer, how has the War on Drugs changed over the years? McNamara: It has become the priority of police agencies. It’s bizarre. We make 700,000 arrests for marijuana a year. The public is not terrified of marijuana. People are terrified of molesters, school shootings, and people stalking women and children. The police are not putting the resources into those crimes where they could be effective if they gave them top priority.

Another is former DEA Agent, now radio host and author Michael Levine:

What’s the mindset of agents in this war?

Levine: Before you become an agent, you’re bombarded with stories of drug war victories. It’s painted as heroic -- guys in guerrilla outfits and jungle gear fighting the drugs everywhere. You want to do something for your country. Then when you get in, the first thing you discover is that you can’t touch some of the biggest drug dealers in the world because they’re protected by the CIA or they’re protected by the State Department. Everyone from Carlos Salinas de Gortari of Mexico to Manuel Noriega to the contras in Nicaragua to the Mujahedin in Afghanistan. Those of us who work overseas realize that this whole thing is a three-card monte game, that it’s a lie....

Reason: What is the relationship between informants, drug agents, and arrests?

Levine: Informants run the drug war. Ninety-nine percent of all drug cases start off with a criminal informant. These informants are criminals and liars and they will create crimes to make money and, at the same time, get the protection of the people they are working for.

The third is Orange County, California Superior Court Judge James P. Gray:

Reason: You write about a drug exception to the Bill of Rights.

Gray: When I graduated from law school in 1971, it was illegal for a police officer, even after arresting you, to search anything that was outside of your grasp. If you can reach over to something, then you could search it. But if a suitcase you were carrying was locked, the police could not go in there unless they got a search warrant first. They couldn’t go into the trunk of your car, they couldn’t go into the glove compartment, and they couldn’t go into the backseat.

That has totally been reversed. The police not only can search you and everything in your car, but they can also search your passengers. They can search your mobile home, which is in effect a home on wheels. They can go through and search everything....

When I was running for Congress a few years ago, I met individually with two sitting congressmen from Orange County to try to get their support. They both said that the War on Drugs isn’t working, but the problem is even worse than I thought because most federal agencies get extra money to fight the War on Drugs. It’s not just the obvious ones like the U.S. Customs Service and the DEA. It’s the little guys too, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They are addicted to drug war funding.

The above are just our selected snippets, all are worth reading in their entirety.

Michael Skakel, convicted of the murder of Martha Moxley and denied bail pending appeal is in a maximum security prison in Connecticut. Ms. Moxley was killed when Skakel was 15. Skakel is now 45 or so--he has not been involved with other criminal activity, has been clean and sober for fifteen or more years, and stuck around knowing he was going to be charged and then appeared every day for his trial.

His father, Rushton Skakel, the brother of Ethel Kennedy, died on Friday. Many prisons allow inmates furloughs to attend family funerals. Particularly if the inmate is willing to pay the cost of transportation and perhaps overtime for the police/marshalls who accompany them. Usually the inmate is handcuffed during the funeral service.

The Connecticut authorites have refused Michael permission to attend his father's funeral. Why? Skakel does not present a danger to the community and is not a flight risk. Other prisoners get to go, so why not him? According to the
spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Corrections, it's because he's serving his sentence in a maximum security prison and applications for funeral furloughs are only allowed to be made by those in minimum security prisons.

Sounds quite unfair to us. But then, we thought his trial was unfair.

Jury selection is going slowly in the trial of 11 Miami police officers charged with planting guns, manipulating evidence, or covering up crimes by others. Essentially, the officers are accused of "shooting suspects, then planting guns and concocting evidence to cover up wrongdoing."

Jury selection began this morning. The star witnesses against the 11 are two former cops who pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the Government in exchange for leniency in their own cases.

"The case involved the city's worst police scandal since the 1980s, when the ''Miami River Cops'' stole cocaine from drug traffickers and sold the drug themselves. More than 100 officers were arrested, fired, or disciplined in that case. ''The history of Miami has been characterized by ugly police-community relations,'' said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. ''There is a loss of confidence, if not outright hostility, by the minority community because of the great number of shootings of typically unarmed black young men.''

The trial is expected to last three to five months. This brings back memories of the Ramparts police scandal in Los Angeles, which resulted the overturning of more than 100 guilty verdicts. Interesting too, that Miami just got a new police chief, John Timoney, who vied against Bill Bratton for the LA police chief job's several months ago. Bratton got the job in LA, and now Timoney has been selected for Miami. Both have quite a job ahead of them in terms of rooting out the corruption and boosting officer morale. Timoney and Bratton used to work together, and Bratton was instrumental in getting Timony his last police job as chief in Philadelphia. We think the two have different styles and we'll be curious to see which city, if either, is successful at reducing the big three: police misconduct , crime and low officer morale.

"A review of traffic ticket data shows Massachusetts police were more likely to search cars of black and Hispanic drivers during routine traffic stops than those of white drivers, the Boston Globe reported Monday."

"Two years ago, the state began collecting information on traffic citations to measure possible racial profiling by police, following the example of 20 other states. The Globe analyzed more than 750,000 tickets from every police department in the state and found a wide racial disparity in the tickets and vehicle searches."

"Statewide, black and Hispanic drivers received traffic tickets at a rate twice their share of the population. Once ticketed, they were 50 percent more likely than whites to have their cars searched. But a higher percentage of the white drivers whose cars were searched were arrested, the study found."

A more comprehensive article appears in the Boston Globe here.

Hamster reports that Ed Case has won the Hawaii congressional election to replace Patsy Mink who died before the November election. His take on Case: "Case is a moderate Democrat who will probably side with Democrats on most issues, but don't expect him to reflect the occasionally radical liberalism of the late Patsy Mink, whom Case is replacing."

Political Wire reports that the 108th Congress convenes tomorrow. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the ACLU will be following criminal justice and civil liberites issues closely, so check in with them frequently. TalkLeft will keep you up-to-date as well.

Instapundit says that MADD has "morphed from an anti-drunk-driving organization to an anti-alcohol organization." He thinks MADD should be fact-checked: "Most of the anti-alcohol claims being peddled in the media are, to put it bluntly, lies. Journalists need to start checking these claims, rather than mindlessly repeating them. The fact that claims come from a group that styles itself "non profit" doesn't make them trustworthy."

We've been leery of MADD for a while. They've certainly come a long way from their original purpose. Here is our recent take on the group.