Governor George Ryan of Illinois has pardoned three wrongfully convicted inmates.

Rolando Cruz, a symbol of Illinois's deeply flawed death penalty system was one of those pardoned.

"Ryan made the announcement as he spoke before the University of Illinois College of Law on the state's death penalty system. Ryan has been considering commuting the death sentences of about 140 men currently on death row."

"I wish them well; they've been through hell," Ryan said as the crowd gave him a lengthy ovation."

"Two of the men pardoned, Cruz and Gary Gauger, had been on death row. They and the third man pardoned, Steven Linscott, had already been released after their convictions were thrown out. The pardons clear the men's names and allow them to seek compensation for their wrongful convictions from the Illinois Court of Claims."

Thank you, Governor Ryan. May your successor show as much courage and conviction as you have these past two years.

Eric Zorn has some excellent commentary on the issue in today's Chicago Tribune, including these comments about why the Governor should grant blanket pardons to all on death row:

"If you grant selective commutation, you will be saying, in effect, that a careful governor can go back over old cases and neatly separate those convicts who deserve the death penalty from those who don't. If you believe that, go ahead. But you'll be retroactively invalidating the moratorium and the work of your commission and will be saying instead that the death penalty system was never "broken" as you've maintained, it just needed one extra layer of review....Reducing a sentence to life-without-parole is a compromise with human frailty, not an act of mercy. No prisoner so sentenced has ever beend."

From Half the Sins of Mankind who correctly guessed that we are a fan (make that big fan) of Bob Dylan:

"Lott's comments are a product of forgetting the past; Pat Buchanan's phenomenally ignorant remark about Lott's being "lynched" also falls into this category. No one has ever made these people think about America's racial history. So they talk wistfully about the 1950s, which to them are all Mom and apple pie, not the unpunished murder of Emmett Till. In their minds, states' rights are about localized decision-making, not keeping people enslaved and disenfranchised. Actual lynchings are no part of their memories; lynching is just a metaphor to them."

I saw the morning papers but I could not bear to see The smiling brothers walkin' down the courthouse stairs.
For the jury found them innocent and the brothers they went free,
While Emmett's body floats the foam of a Jim Crow southern sea.
If you can't speak out against this kind of thing, a crime that's so unjust,
Your eyes are filled with dead men's dirt, your mind is filled with dust.
Your arms and legs they must be in shackles and chains, and your blood it must refuse to flow,
For you let this human race fall down so God-awful low!
This song is just a reminder to remind your fellow man
That this kind of thing still lives today in that ghost-robed Ku Klux Klan.
But if all of us folks that thinks alike, if we gave all we could give,
We could make this great land of ours a greater place to live. -- Bob Dylan, "The Death of Emmett Till," 1963.

"A judge dismissed the convictions Thursday of all five men who served years in prison for the 1989 rape and beating of a jogger in Central Park, a crime that exposed the city's racial tensions and made national headlines."

"The courtroom, filled with the family and friends of the defendants, burst into cheers and applause as state Justice Charles Tejada announced his ruling."

The police are angry. We're thrilled.

Prosecutors fumed as hundreds of low level felons were allowed to leave jails and prisons early as part of Gov. Paul Patton's plan to avert a $6 million deficit in the corrections budget.

``I feel wonderful, man,'' Kevin Ray Gibson, 26, told the Lexington Herald-Leader after his release four months early for burglary and trafficking in pain pills. ``I'm going to get out and get me a job. I got kids I need to take care of. I just need to get out and do right. It's a good Christmas present.''

Patton's ``conditional commutation'' covered 567 prisoners, all described as nonviolent offenders who, on average, were within 80 days of completing their sentences.

We had some major problems yesterday while our hosting company was upgrading itself to provide additional services--our newsfeed went down, we couldn't publish new entries and the comments and permalinks got messed up. All appears to be fixed. If you notice anything amiss, please send us an email.

It was terrible timing, as we were just named one of the top web sites of 2002 by Law Technology News, published at Law.com.

Professor Robert Slayton has a must-read op-ed piece in the Washington Post on what it meant when integration was a crime. The details of the laws that states enacted and the places they were implemented, are just shameful.

"Oklahoma required separate phone booths for white and black patrons. North Carolina and Florida not only segregated schoolchildren but insisted that their schoolbooks be segregated -- in Florida they even had to be stored in separate warehouses -- so that no white boys or girls could ever be contaminated by even the dream of racial contact. States enforced segregation in prisons and in homes for orphans, the deaf, the poor and -- my favorite -- the blind. People who could not even see color had to be separated by race."

"It was always clear, as well, that this was not just about physical separation but about keeping one group constantly ostracized, always humiliated. The Clarion-Ledger, Mississippi's leading paper, editorialized that, "If every negro" in the state "was a graduate of Harvard and had been elected class orator, he would not be as well fitted to exercise the rights of suffrage as the Anglo-Saxon farm laborer." In one small Delta community, the local postmaster made sure, before he boxed any mail for black residents, to mark out one word -- Mr., Miss or Mrs. -- so that no African American would ever be addressed by a title."

There's a lot more to the article, and Prof. Slayton's conclusion succinctly says it all:

"Running for president on a ticket of blind, absolute segregation was a nasty business in 1948; commenting favorably on that episode in 2002 should be unthinkable."

Some journalists ( Joe Conasen ) and bloggers ( Skippy ) are suggesting we turn our attention to Attorney General John Ashcroft after Trent Lott. The ACLU , the NACDL (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) and many other groups fought hard to defeat Ashcroft's confirmation. His 1998 interview with Southern Partisan Magazine was but one issue.

Here is the NACDL Press Release describing John Ashcroft's record prior to becoming Attorney General. These are the reasons the Board of Directors of NACDL opposed Ashcroft's confirmation:

"Ashcroft's unprincipled distortion of the record of an African-American judicial nominee, Judge Ronnie White; his ambush of White on the Senate floor, rather than questioning him in committee hearings; and his unjustified criticism of the same nominee's dissents in two death penalty cases;

his denouncing of federal funding for treatment of citizens who abuse drugs, in spite of its proven efficacy in reducing crime, and his proposal that persons convicted of even minor drug offenses be denied professional licenses;

his unswerving support of the death penalty and his opposition to a death penalty moratorium, despite mounting evidence of racial and geographic disparities in its application and the fact that innocent persons have been and continue to be condemned to death;

his staunch advocacy of mandatory minimum sentences;

his actions in opposition to keeping statistics on racial profiling;

his endorsement of the racially-divisive journal, Southern Partisan, and his expressed empathy for the Confederacy;

his effort at making crimes which are already punishable by states and localities into federal crimes, and at taking away traditional responsibilities of state and local law enforcement officials and conferring them, instead, on federal officials.

We did some research and came across some of the statements issued by Senators who opposed Ascroft's confirmation at the time of his hearings. We especially liked the press release issued on January 31, 2001 by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan as to why he would vote against Ashcroft's confirmation as Attorney General.

Sen. Levin presents the issue of Ashcroft's interview with Southern Partisan not just in terms of Ashcroft's words, but in terms of what those words mean, when considered in context of his other actions and inactions. The entire statement is part of the Congressional Record. It is also available on Lexis.

Levin gives four examples of Ascroft's divisive and impartial views, the first being "his position and his effort with respect to the nomination of Judge Ronnie White as a Federal District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri." The third reason was his statements on drug offenders. In an effort to make this post shorter than War and Peace, we are only going to reprint Levin's second and fourth examples, and his concluding remarks:

"While Senator Ashcroft's rhetoric over the years reflects his zeal and determination, it has not reflected the same concern for fairness and impartiality. I have concluded that his record and rhetoric are so divisive and polarizing, that his nomination will not provide the necessary confidence all Americans are entitled to have in the fairness and impartiality required of the Department of Justice."

"Second is Senator Ashcroft's interview with Southern Partisan magazine, a publication which has been described as a "neo-confederate." Senator Ashcroft not only granted an interview to Southern Partisan magazine, he commended the magazine for helping to "set the record straight." He said "We've all got to stand up and speak- in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."

"While in that interview Senator Ashcroft expressed support for Southern Partisan's message, he later said that he didn't know much about Southern Partisan and didn't know what it promoted. Fair enough. But since his interview, much has been said about the magazine in the media and at Senator Ashcroft's own confirmation hearing. Southern Partisan is described as a publication that defends slavery, white separatism, apartheid and David Duke" by a media watch group. in 1995, Southern Partisan offered its subscribers t-shirts celebrating the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. In the same year, an author, printed by the publication, alleged "there is no indication that slavery Contrary to Christian ethics" and in 1990, another article praised former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke as a "candidate concerned about affirmative' discrimination, welfare profligacy, the, taxation holocaust. a Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal," In 1996, an article in the magazine alleged "slave owners ... did not have a practice of breaking up slave families. If anything, they encouraged strong slave families to farther the slaves' peace and happiness." And in 1991, another writer printed in the publication questioned, "Newly arrived in New York City, I puzzled, Where are the Americans?' I met only Italians, Jews, Puerto Ricans."

"l take Senator Ashcroft as his word that he did not know much about Southern Partisan magazine when he praised them for helping to "set the record straight." But where was the immediate disgust, horror and repudiation when he learned what he had inadvertently praised? And, after the inquiries of others, why didn't he make a prompt inquiry to satisfy himself that he had not inadvertently advanced the purpose of a racist publication? Even in his written responses to the Judiciary Committee, he said he only rejects the publication "if the allegations about (the] magazine are true."

"More than two years after his original interview, it appears that he never took it upon himself to inquire about the magazine's purpose. A person being considered for the office of Attorney General, the single most important person charged with enforcing our nation's civil rights law in a fair and just manner, should accept the obligation to make an inquiry if the American people are to have faith that their Attorney General will "build a single nation of justice...."

"A fourth example is Senator Ashcroft's opposition to James Hormel's nomination for Ambassador to Luxembourg. Senator Ashcroft stated in press accounts that he opposed Mr. Hormel's nomination because Mr. Hormel "actively supported the gay lifestyle." Senator Ashcroft also said a person's sexual orientation "is within what could be considered and what is eligible for consideration" with respect to the qualifications to serve as an Ambassador. To suggest that a person could not represent America's interests or should be judged professionally because of his sexual orientation is inappropriate and divisive. When pressed on this issue by the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Ashcroft further responded in writing: "I did not believe Hormel would effectively represent the United States in Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe."

"To suggest that Luxembourg would not welcome Mr. Hormel's nomination is untrue. Luxembourg has outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation and its government specifically said they would welcome James Hormel as Ambassador. And, most importantly, to fail to retract such contentious statements about a person, because of his sexual orientation, adds- further doubt that all our people, will have confidence that this nominee will strive to build that single nation of justice the President has called for. "

"In summary, I am deeply troubled by Senator Ashcroft's record of repeatedly divisive rhetoric and sometimes simply unfair personal attacks...Senator Ashcroft has frequently engaged in "us" versus "them" rhetoric. He frequently rejects moderation and has even criticized some members of his own party for engaging in what he characterizes as "deceptions" when they "preach pragmatism, champion conciliation (and) counsel compromise."

"Senator Ashcroft, in his confirmation hearings, in his written answers to the questions posed by a number of Senators, including myself, either reaffirmed some of his divisive statements, or simply never explained his extremely divisive language. His refusal to comment on some of the most troubling past statements leaves them standing as his current views. Senator Ashcroft's extremely divisive language and his approach to issues in terms of "us" versus "them" would not prevent me from voting for his confirmation for most positions in the cabinet. But more than any other cabinet member, the Attorney General, as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, is charged with the responsibility of assuring that the Department of Justice's goal is equal justice under the law for all Americans. I will vote no on the nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General of the United States."

Clearly, it's too late to dethrone Ashcroft as Attorney General. Unlike Lott, he was not elected by the people but appointed by the President, to serve at the pleasure of the President. So what is our purpose in re-airing all of his dirty laundry now? These are our motives: to prevent him from being able to make a run for higher office in 2008; to reduce his chances of receiving a future cabinet post; to make him less desirable to corporate America as a future rainmaker; and most importantly, to implore journalists and the public to examine his statements and actions carefully and to protest loud and often when he steps over the line.

An Arizona judge has put a temporary hold on a law that bans inmates from the web.

"A federal judge has ordered the Arizona Department of Corrections to stop enforcing a policy prohibiting inmates from corresponding with, or appearing on, Web sites. U.S. District Judge Earl Carroll granted an injunction request Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union to stop enforcement of the law, which is the subject of a pending lawsuit."

``Putting free speech behind bars simply because it concerns prisoners sets a dangerous precedent,'' said Arizona ACLU attorney David Fathi. ``The court's decision makes clear that Arizona may not jail the Internet.''

"The statute, passed by the Legislature in 2000, makes it a misdemeanor for an inmate to communicate with Internet service providers, send a letter to a Web site or to a third party who then forwards it to a Web site or publishes it for the inmate. Inmates can lose privileges, good-behavior credits or face other punishment for violations, corrections officials said."

The Judge ruled that protecting the First Amendment is a compelling public interest. We haven't read the full opinion yet, but we hope the Judge pointed out that inmates don't leave all of their constitutional rights behind upon entering the prison doors.

Trent Lott picked up some Senate endorsements Tuesday: Ted Stevens of Alaska and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado.

Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (Pa.) remains in his corner.

Lott needs 26 votes if a leadership election is held. Arlen Specter thinks he'll have them. So does Larry Craig and Mike Crapo. Most senators are not revealing their positions. Bush would like to see Bill Frist of Tennessee or another Republican take over.

Lott might be offered a chairship of another committee. A new leadership position might be created for him. These are some of the options under discussion.

"In an interview with ABC News yesterday, Lott said he will fight hard to keep his leadership post. "I'm a son of shipyard worker from Pascagoula, Miss.," he said. "I have had to fight all my life, and I'm not stopping now. . . . I think I need to work through this with everybody that's involved, including my colleagues. They have a right to tell me how they feel and what they suggest."

You can read more about Bill Frist's chances here.

Do we need a new Homeland Intelligence Agency? Is intelligence gathering the wrong job for a law enforcement agency? Senator John Edwards of North Carolina thinks so.

The agency now at the center of our domestic intelligence efforts is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI's mistakes before Sept. 11 are well-known. Yet only recently, the bureau's number two official said he was "amazed and astounded" by its continued sluggishness in fighting terror. The homeland security bill, which I supported, is a good step forward in many areas, but it leaves the FBI virtually untouched....

When asked about the terrorist threat, senior FBI officials won't tell you where the terrorists are and what they are planning. Instead, they'll tell you how many cases they have open and how many wiretaps they are running. The answer proves they don't get the intelligence question.

The central goal of a new homeland intelligence agency should be uncovering terrorist threats before they cause harm. That job will have three basic components: first, to gather information about terrorists, their activities and their plans; second, to analyze data, search for patterns and assess threats; and third, to get that information and analysis to the right people so we can stop terrorists cold.

Because the focus will be intelligence, the new agency's officers don't even need arrest powers. Those responsibilities should remain with law enforcement. Incompatible missions are the reason we have this problem in the first place....

I first proposed a new intelligence agency two months ago. Just last week, the joint congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks urged Congress to consider the idea promptly. The administration, after initially signaling support, has backed off, under bureaucratic pressure from the FBI. That's a huge mistake. At a time when even marginal agencies are shifting into a new department, we need the courage to reform where it's needed the most.

We agree the FBI is not cut out to be an intelligence gathering agency. As to whether we need yet another agency with a "homeland" designation, we're not convinced.

The F.B.I.'s Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January - June 2002 has been released .

Quick reading indicates that murder, rape, and property crimes are up, other violent crimes are down. It is likely too early to tell if we are in a turnaround period in which the declines of the late 1990s are reversing.

Keep in mind that this study includes only crimes reported to authorities.

Who is the Eli Lilly Bandit that inserted a rider into the Homeland Security Bill that protects this giant drug manufacturer from lawsuits over a vaccine that may have resulted in autism in children? Lisa English of Ruminate This is outraged--as we all should be.

TomPaine.com is offering a $10,000. reward for the name of the person. Journalists so far have failed to identify the person.

If you've got a blog, please spread the word and link to the TomPaine resources. Thanks.