The Notion of “Executive Privilege” on Full Display During Ashcroft Hearings

John Ashcroft’s appearance today before a Congressional panel featured repeated refusals to criticize the Bush administration. Even though it’s readily apparent that he’s uncomfortable with torture and domestic spying, he tows the party line, refuses to share what he calls “privileged information” while vigorously defending practices which — behind closed doors — he expressed grave doubts about.

I suppose there are two kinds of Bush officials, the Ashcrofts and the Roves who refuse to talk even if they may be on the wrong side of history, and the McClellans who choose to speak out.

Sweet, I Can Break The Law

So I’m totally allowed to steal cars, rob banks, and kill people. All I need is a note from my lawyer saying that it’s not illegal.

(5 minutes, 55 seconds in)

Basically, the Attorney General just said that if any Department of Justice Official signs off an anything, that whatever actions are taken, no one can be held accountable.

And what he’s really saying is: “I’m not going to investigate the President under any circumstances, even if you have indisputable evidence that he authorized torture.”

Obama’s Faith Based Initiative Seems Fair to Me

I’ve always been a big proponent of the separation of church and state — but I’ve never had a huge problem with the idea of a faith-based initiative. For a number of reasons, I don’t see government as a natural solution for many social problems. Oftentimes, poverty and suffering are most directly alleviated by groups that are more closely knit with the communities they serve. In our society, those groups are often religious.

For a number of reasons — many of which are well outlined outlined in David Kuo’s thought-provoking Tempting Faith and in Michelle Goldberg’s chilling Kingdom Coming — President Bush’s take on government-church partnerships in the interest of alleviating real suffering was a non-starter. In a nutshell, the faith-based initiative under Bush was under-resourced and ineffective. In addition, the office discriminated in favor of Christian charities, and organizations that received government money were allowed to hire and fire based on religion, sexual orientation, and other protected factors.

But I’ve always thought that with proper guidelines in place — no proselytizing, no discrimination in hiring, and allocation of funds based on effectiveness rather than religious denomination — a faith-based initiative would be an effective strategy for helping the poor. It looks as though Senator Obama — who after all, once taught Constitutional law — has thought the issue through and is not afraid to propose radical solutions to radical problems.

It’s easy to be a high-minded idealist about secularism when your stomach and checking account are full, but what about for those who are desperate? Our society should rush aid to those who need it most in whatever form will get it to them most expediently. If that happens to be through a religious charity that’s fine by me, just as long as they obey the rules.

Mike Nifong Deserves Way More than One Day in Jail

I know the guy lost his license, too. But still, he lies in court about his failure to provide the defense with exculpatory evidence in the Duke lacrosse rape case and all the judge sentences him to is a day in jail?

He put the boys who were accused of this crime through a year of misery because he couldn’t be bothered to do his job. The least he can do is sit in jail for the full 30 days.

Justice Department Making a Death Penalty Power Grab

Today, the Justice Department announced that it would be putting into effect one of the lesser known provisions of the Patriot Act that would allow the Attorney General to “fast-track” death penalty cases.

This is the exact reason why I have always been against the death penalty. Let’s start with the premeditated, cold-blooded murder of a defenseless — and occasionally innocent — human being. Let’s add a state that is empowered by law to commit that atrocity. Then let’s throw in an administration with clear track record of ignoring reason, complexity and nuance when it suited their best interests politically.

Just look at the prosecution of the Iraq war if you want any indicator of just how badly Bush’s cronies are capable of bungling complicated operations. This is the administration who ignored the warnings of the best experts on Iraq because Ahmed Chalabi told them what they wanted to hear. Do you really want the fairness of death penalty cases in your state run by the same people responsible for disbanding the Iraqi army and de-Baathification?

PoliBlog has some great commentary on the issue:

This is yet another example of the Congress’ reflexive response to 9/11: the ceding of more power to the executive (and not really for any reason that would help it fight terrorism). This also seems to be indicative of another example of a complex law being passed without a great deal of scrutiny and debate.

Setting aside the thorny issue of the death penalty itself, it is unclear as to why the AG of the United States should be involved in the process at all. It certainly is yet another example of the recent trend in the Republican Party, i.e., an interest more in power than in supposedly long-held principles (in this case, federalism).

This entire move by the DOJ sends chills rippling across my extremities. How do you feel about it?

Life in Prison: A Fate Worse than Execution?

For those of my readers who advocate the death penalty as the ultimate punishment — the ultimate justice — for the ultimate crime, I have a quote for you:

We are tired of dying a litttle bit each day. We have decided to die once and for all, and we ask that our penalties of life imprisonment be converted to penalties of death. To be now dead but not alive either — life imprisonment turns light into shadow, it kills you inside bit by bit: a death in small doeses. It renders life useless, makes the future seem the same as the past. It crushes the present and takes away hope. To a life prisoner, only life remains. But life without a future is less than nothing. It is flat and everlasting. Life imprisonment is the invention of an Antichrist with a malice that transcends the imagination. It is a victory over death, stronger than death itself.

This impassioned plea comes from 310 Italian murderers serving life sentences. Italy has no death penalty.
Read more

Give Me Accountability or Give Me Death!

Recently, Andy has been working with the excellent folks at American Animation Studios on the teacher and classroom materials for their wonderful animated videos about American heroes. Their first title, Patrick Henry: Quest for Freedom tells the bold and inspiring tale of one of our nation’s earliest and greatest orators. It was Henry who coined the phrase, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” and who spurred the colony of Virginia into action against the tyrannical British crown.

Andy brought the film home the other day and we both watched it. As we came to the scene where Henry gives his now-famous speech, I began to see parallels between the complaints of the colonists about King George III and our modern-day complaints about our own King George II, also known as President Bush.

In his speech, Henry talks about the ten years of injustice the American colonists have been subjected to at the hands of a money-hungry King and Parliament. Their requests for a fair hearing have been ignored:

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!

Does this remind anyone of President Bush’s refusal to listen to the remonstrances of the people on the Iraq war? Just as King George III refused to be accountable to his people in the American colonies, our own King George refuses to be accountable to his own citizens.

Accountability is the lifeblood of democracy and liberty. If our leaders do not listen to the remonstrations of their people, what hope do we have of preserving our dearly won American liberty? President Bush is acting as though he is a King, given the divine right to rule by God himself rather than the people that elected him. If we do not do something to correct this disastrous misappropriation of power on his part, we undo the will of our founders.

So how do we right the ship of state? Thankfully, we live in a nation where a violent and bloody coup d’etat is not necessary. All that is required is an impeachment. But Congress will not act alone. The people must call for it. The American people must demand it.

Yesterday I gave you a phone number and an e-mail address. Here they are again:

If you agree with me, drop House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a line at (202) 225-0100 or an e-mail and let her know that you support the opening of impeachment proceedings.

Preventing Lawsuits is Part of Life

Or perhaps I’m just a warped lawyer’s daughter.

Remember the parking lot incident I wrote about two days ago? Well, Andy’s comment got me wondering if our society as litigious as I think it is, or if I’m just a particularly legal-minded person?

When the weird lady came up to our car and started knocking on our window, my thoughts occurred in this order:

1. “Oh my God! She’s coming over here. What a weirdo.”
2. “She clearly has no anger management skills and no boundaries whatsoever.”
3. “Andy, stay in the car.”
4. “No anger management skills. Oh my God! What if she attacks us?”
5. “Andy, STAY IN THE CAR!”
6. “If I defend myself, will she claim I started it and sue us?”
7. “Oh God! What if Andy gets involved physically? He’s a man. If he comes to my rescue, he’ll really get in trouble because he’s bigger and stronger. ANDY, STAY IN THE CAR!!!!”
8. “Are there witnesses around?”
9. “I’m calling security. Judges usually see them as impartial.”
10. “Phew! She’s leaving.”

Do I have my mind on my money too much, or is that just how people have to operate in our society to avoid being sued?

An Innocent Woman on Death Row in Iraq

Twenty-five year-old Samar Saed Abdullah is pleading for her life in Iraq. She stands convicted of complicity in the murders of her aunt, uncle and cousin. Her last appeals exhausted, she awaits an execution that could happen any given Wednesday, which is “gallows day” in Iraq.

She swears that she is innocent. According to her version of events, her husband took her to the house and murdered her family members while she was locked in the kitchen. Then, he ransacked the house for money and jewels, and left her in the street to be picked up by authorities.

Her confession of having gone to the house with the intent to steal came only after hours of savage beatings. Her trial and conviction happened in less than one day. Iraqi law mandates that her claims of torture be investigated, but they weren’t.

The death penalty is bad enough in a country where we have due process of law. But in Iraq, where deep disorganization and rampant torture make due process impossible, the death penalty is the worst of injustices.

When the United States demands accountability from the Iraqi government, a cessation of this mockery of justice must be among the conditions. The death penalty has no place in a stable nation, let alone in Iraq.

Update: I just called the White House comment line to mention Ms. Abdullah to the president. The number is (202)-456-1111. Please try to make a call as well on her behalf. And re-post this to your blogs. Let’s see if we can get a few hundred calls in before next Wednesday.

Attorney Firings Coverup: Justice Department Thugs Caught in the Act

John McKay is one of the eight U.S. attorneys whose firings are being subjected to intense Congressional scrutiny. According to a written account that McKay provided to the House Judiciary Committee ahead of his testimony today, he received a phone call from a senior official by the name of Michael Elston:

From the Seattle PI:

According to McKay, Elston, who was chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, advised him in a “sinister” voice to simply repeat public statements from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales when asked about his firing or face serious consequences.

The evidence in this case points to an alarmingly thuggish Justice Department attempting to cover up an embarrassing series of politically motivated human resources decisions. I don’t understand how Alberto Gonzales is still Attorney General. It’s almost as ludicrous as when President Bush declined Don Rumsfeld’s resignation over and over again.

This administration’s cronyism, sense of entitlement and disrespect for the law and the Constitution has fostered a truly thuggish culture in Washington, and it scares me deeply. I think Tori Amos said it best in her letter to George W. Bush “Yo George” (iTunes):

Where have we gone wrong America?
Mr. Lincoln we can’t seem
To find you anywhere out of the millions

Of Partners and Prom Kings: The Inexorable March Toward Queer Equality and Gender Neutrality

Despite the current president and the culture of homophobia that put him in office, rights for gay people have advanced steadily in Washington and across the nation in the past few years.

Yesterday, Governor Christine Gregoire signed a domestic partnership bill into law. The new law allows same sex partners who are over the age of 18 and live together to register with the state as domestic partners. This allows them to make decisions for one another just like a married couple in the event of a medical emergency or death.

According to the Seattle P-I this was the scene at the signing in Olympia:

People in the crowd cried as Gregoire relayed stories of couples who testified before lawmakers this year about how they have been denied hospital access to dying partners, or were not allowed to plan their funerals.

Meanwhile, in Fresno, CA, a young woman is getting ready to run for prom king. Cinthia Covarrubias — who sometimes goes by the first name Tony — has been acknowledged by her high school as a viable candidate for prom king after her classmates nominated her. Covarrubias considers herself transgendered, although she does not plan to take hormones or have surgery to change her physical sex to match her gender identity.

She is part of the trend in my generation to bend gender without aligning ourselves so strictly to the male/female physical requirements that used to be the defining characteristic of transgendered identity. Her acceptance by her classmates and by the school administration also indicates a culture that is growing towards acceptance of people whose behavior is not always in perfect alignment with their gender the traditional behaviors attributed to their physical sex.

Gender neutrality in marriage and in behavior is important for more than the small subset of the population that considers themselves queer in one way or another. It’s important for everyone, because everyone suffers under the restrictions of gender.

It used to be that if you were an athletic girl, you were supposed to be uncomfortable in a dress. But these days, it’s more cliché than reality. I’m aggressive as hell on the climbing wall, but I wear my shoes just a little long in the toe so that they don’t ruin my pedicure. And when I’m out on the town, I’ll ride the mechanical bull, dance on the bar, shoot tequila, and wear a skirt so short that it could double as a headband. And when I salsa dance, I turn off my brain and let the man I’m dancing with throw me around the floor at will.

I know a lot of women who are like this, we frame switch between traditionally masculine and feminine gender roles with ease and comfort. And the vast majority of us are straight as arrows. Behavior that is traditionally “masculine” is starting to display itself even in girls who like to wear high heels and makeup. And on the other side of the sex divide, we find men who color their hair, wax their chests, pluck their eyebrows and generally groom themselves well. They’re not gay. They’re metrosexual, and they’re unbelievably hot.

Both phenomena are due in part to the efforts made by people like Covarrubias, who have blazed a trail and blurred the gender lines for the benefit of breeders everywhere.

We’re Not Doing Enough to Protect Women From Violence

Yesterday’s tragic murder-suicide at the University of Washington is a classic example of how our society does next to nothing for survivors of domestic violence. The murder victim, Rebecca Griego did everything that she could within the confines of the law to stop her ex boyfriend from harming her.

But her ex boyfriend, Jonathan Rowan made it clear that he didn’t give a shit about the law. He called Griego multiple times a day and left her threatening messages. He demonstrated an intent to kill, which is illegal in and of itself. During their relationship, he was physically abusive. He was on the run from authorities in the UK, and out on bail for a drunk driving arrest at the time of this murder. Rowan didn’t care about the law. So what was a piece of paper going to do?

We need to make it easier to accuse someone of domestic violence and be taken seriously. I know that this is controversial. I know men who have been wrongly accused of domestic violence by crazy ex girlfriends with the same basic motivations that led Rowan to kill Griego. If the genders had been reversed, the men in question would likely have been the victims of stalkers bent on murder. But because men are physically stronger than women, the women in these cases resorted to more manipulative tactics to harm their victims. They used the long arm of the law to get their way.

The current domestic violence laws are set up to protect men from women. They assume innocence until guilt is proven, even though domestic violence is notoriously difficult to prove. They do very little to zealously pursue domestic abusers and put them in custody. This is because they fear that women with personalities like Rowan’s will abuse the system to put their ex boyfriends behind bars.

But when it comes to domestic violence, we need to take the very real power differential between men and women into account. If a man is wrongly accused of domestic violence, it’s a legal nightmare. If a woman can’t get her abuser put behind bars, she winds up dead. The simple fact is that men kill women far more than women kill men. Death is far worse than a legal nightmare. The law needs to reflect this reality.

That said, personal responsibility does play a role in this. The system is not perfect and it never will be. Abusers will slip through the cracks and come after their targets. That’s why I think we should provide taxpayer funded self defense training for any woman who comes forward with a domestic violence claim, substantiated or not.

The government needs to make it clear to women that while restraining orders hold power, they need to have a plan. And this plan needs to include being able to do serious physical harm to their attacker if backed into a corner. On this same note, police departments should also offer gun safety training to women with substantiated domestic violence claims.

Furthermore, employers must be required by law to give women time off from work to attend these classes and provide them with the opportunity to make up their hours at work at another time, if they work for an hourly wage.

Programs like these would provide four basic benefits to women, men, and society:

• Women would get the skills they need to defend themselves from their attackers.
• The classes would drive home the reality that no amount of legal intervention will create an impermeable web of protection around a woman in danger. Women will be less likely to rely on their restraining orders and will be proactive in protecting themselves.
• The vote of confidence from the courts and the police might convince more women of their ability and right to defend themselves from harm.
• Women who are abusing the system will have to spend a great deal of time with real domestic violence survivors. Getting to know someone who has actually been beaten up by her partner might encourage some abusive women to admit they were lying and drop charges.

I know that no program is perfect. Tragedies like this will not stop until greater social change happens. The government can’t end misogyny or violence against women. But as things stand, we are simply not doing enough to protect women in our society.

My heart goes out to Rebecca Griego’s family, friends and colleagues. It sounds like she was a wonderful woman. You are in our prayers.

Photo via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Maybe Gonzales Should Resign

I may not particularly like Hillary Clinton, but I do agree with her calls for Alberto Gonzales’ resignation. We now know that the Justice Department under Gonzales has engaged in political firings of U.S. attorneys.

In Clinton’s words, this constitutes an “attack on the impartiality of the federal government’s prosecutors” and, “a genuine threat to the foundations of our justice system.”

Apparently, this isn’t the first time that Gonzales has had trouble with accountability. CBS legal news analyst Andrew Cohen writes, “I’m not sure that the Attorney General’s strongest suit is standing up and facing the music.”

Cohen cites multiple instances in which Gonzales has shied away from explaining himself fully to the public. But before now, the law never required him to. Perhaps Clinton is right when she says that Gonzales “has clearly forgotten the difference between his current job as America’s top law enforcement officer and his old job as President Bush’s personal attorney.”

I found this paragraph in Cohen’s excellent article particularly telling:

Over the past few days, I have conducted several interviews with some of the nation’s grey eminences in politics, law and history. Some of these men are Democrats. Some are Republicans. Some are Lord knows what. Not a single person I spoke with told me that they believe Gonzales has acted as attorney general with the sort of intellectual heft or political and personal courage necessary to do the job well.

Nobody is sure how this is going to unfold yet, but given the arrogance, cronyism and utter lack of regard for accountability, is it any surprise that this administration is experiencing scandal after scandal?

Up Late, Thinking More About Impeachment

There’s been a lot of talk since the Libby conviction that Congress might open a higher-reaching investigation into just what happened in the Bush administration during the leadup to the war. As I wrote before, some noted conservatives are calling for an investigation.

I have to say that I am unequivocally pro-truth. I think the more light we can shine on how this adminstration chose to prepare the country for war, the more we will understand their folly and ours. As a nation, we abdicated our responsibility to think critically and get our ducks in a row strategically before invading a soverieign nation with a complicated local political scene.

But am I pro-impeachment? If the facts of this investigation leave a trail of lies and videotape that reach as high as the Vice President, or even higher, how do I feel about opening impeachment proceedings? (I’ve written before that I’m ambivalent about the issue.)

I guess that I would support impeachment if and only if it looked like the guilty parties would be removed from office. Impeachment without conviction for the sake of politics alone is not worth our time as a nation. We have too many other problems to face.

So I say, let’s start investigating. And if the facts are there, and the national outrage on both sides of the aisle is great, then let’s hang ‘em high.

My Favorite Conservative Calls for Cheney Investigation

In the wake of the relatively anti-climactic conviction of Scooter Libby, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan is calling for a full Congressional investigation of the Bush administration’s WMD knowledge in the lead up to the Iraq war.

The risks Cheney took to attack Wilson, the insane over-reaction that otherwise very smart men in this administration engaged in to rebut a relatively trivial issue: all this strongly implies the fact they were terrified that the full details of their pre-war WMD knowledge would come out. Fitzgerald could smell this. He was right to pursue it, and to prove that a brilliant, intelligent, sane man like Libby would risk jail to protect his bosses. What was he really trying to hide? We now need a Congressional investigation to find out more, to subpoena Cheney and, if he won’t cooperate, consider impeaching him.

We all know that invading Iraq and building a democracy in the Middle East were two of this administration’s central goals from the time they took the reigns of power. The idea has been a centerpiece of neoconservative thinking for quite some time. WMDs were a pretext, whether or not the administration actually believed that Iraq had them.

What I don’t understand is why they couldn’t have made the case to the American people the same way they made the case to themselves? If they really believed that invading Iraq and building a democracy there was the right thing to do, why couldn’t they convey that to us? Why couldn’t they have been honest about the sacrifices that would be required and the immense benefit to the American people if we succeeded?

I don’t buy the knee-jerk liberal response that this war was all about oil profiteering. I just don’t think that Bush and Cheney are that evil. Of course, profiteering is involved. But it’s not the whole story. They did believe that this war was right for America, but they lied to themselves and they lied to us about what it would take.

Their real crime was in not believing that the American people could wrap our brains around their reasoning. It was in not believing that we were capable of making the required sacrifices. They lied to make the war more palatable. They tied it to 9/11 and Al Quaeda. They best-cased every scenario. They appealed to our fears. They talked down to us and assumed that they knew best. They took their victory in an obscenely close election as a mandate to do exactly what they wanted, without holding themselves accountable to the American people.

Their lack of transparency and candor was a subversion of democracy, and the extent to which they will go to cover their tracks further illustrates just how guilty they are.

Oh what a tangled web we weave… I agree with Sullivan that an investigation is the right course of action. The goal here should not be to go in with a foregone conclusion. We should find out what happened and then ask ourselves whether impeachment is the logical step.

UPDATE: A juror from the case has said that he felt Libby was the “fall guy” for other, more powerful people in the administration.

UPDATE 3/7, 12:34 a.m.: Even Chuck Hagel is taking this as a sign that impeachment may be coming down the pipeline for someone powerful enough to be impeached.

On Fearmongering and the Internet

Sometimes, I can’t tell whether Senator “Series of Tubes” Stevens (R-AK) is a political animal preying on people’s worst fears about the Web or just a doddering old fool whose Senate tenure has outlived his ability to understand and respect change.

Either way, his latest call to ban Wikipedia and other interactive Web tools from institutions that receive Federal funding (think libraries, schools, etc.) really pisses me off.

Robert Scoble said it best today:

Hint to Ted: our society should be looking to give our kids MORE access to knowledge, not less. The trick is in giving kids skills to separate the wheat from the chaff. Not trying to remove the whole kaboodle.

We give kids sex ed in health classes because we don’t want them getting pregnant or diseased due to bad decision making and poor information. Maybe it’s high time that kids were taught about online safety during their computer classes. After all, not all parents are Web-savvy enough to give their kids the best and most accurate information about how predators leverage online technologies to search for prey. It’s a good thing for them to be learning in school.

A question for all you lawyers out there: Given the digital divide in America, couldn’t banning blogs/wikis/social networks from public libraries and schools create such a disparity in freedom of speech that Stevens’ legislation could be unconstitutional?

New Medicinal Marijuana May Help People Lose Weight

Britain’s GW Pharmaceuticals Plc is beginning human experimental trials later this year on a fat-loss drug derived from Cannabis. The company, which grows Marijuana indoors in a secret location in England, has also found Cannabis derivatives to be effective in treating multiple schlerosis and continues to look for other potential cures and treatments from the plant.

My personal suggestions for other experimental treatments for Cannabis:
1) Glaucoma
2) Back Pain
3) Nausea
4) Boredom

Next Page »