by TChris

It isn't surprising that a prosecutor seized upon DNA testing proving that Roger Coleman wasn't wrongfully executed as evidence that wrongful convictions aren't a serious problem. The self-righteous belief that the government rarely makes a false accusation, that the police never cheat, and that appellate courts inevitably restore freedom to those few who are wrongly convicted, is common among prosecutors. Delusional, but common.

Joshua Marquis, who wrote this op-ed, only needed to click TalkLeft's "Innocence Cases" link to realize how frequently the innocent are convicted. He could also have considered appellate decisions like this one (pdf), released six days ago by the Seventh Circuit, describing how the police decided to arrest a man for bank robbery because he resembled the image of the robber captured on a surveillance camera, and because the man was having some financial problems, without first checking his alibi and without regard to glaring differences between his appearance and the description of the robber that witnesses provided. Perhaps realizing that their case was shaky, the police then induced the man's wife to make a false confession by (among other coercive tactics) threatening to take her kids from her unless she give up her husband. When the actual robber was eventually captured months later, the FBI was finally asked to make a detailed comparison between the defendant and the image on the video. An FBI analyst concluded that the defendant wasn't the robber, and the innocent man and his innocent wife (who was arrested despite the cop's assurance to her that she'd remain at liberty if she ratted out her husband) were freed.

Go read Josh Marshall who has the latest on the Jack Abramoff- White House photos. We need an answer from Scotty. Were they scrubbed?

From Democrats.com:

I have confirmed reports that Kerry wants to filibuster Alito, and he is talking to his colleagues to round up the 41 votes he needs. Only two Democrats (Ben Nelson and Tim Johnson) support Alito. Only two others (Mary Landrieu and Ken Salazar) say they oppose a filibuster, but are expected to vote against Alito.

So right now, without the support of any Republicans, we still have 41 possible votes for a filibuster. There are roughly 6 moderate Republicans who should also be targeted (Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Bob Smith, Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich). And we should work as hard as we can to persuade Landrieu and Salazar that a vote against Alito is meaningless if they don't support a filibuster.

Keep calling the Alito-8. And I'd add, end the tyranny of the gang of 14.

Colorado Senator Ken Salazar says he won't support a filibuster even though he'll vote against Judge Sam Alito. From the National Journal's Hotline (subscription):

Meanwhile, Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) also said 1/25 that he will not support a filibuster, even though "he still plans to vote against" Alito. While Salazar said Alito wasn't the "wisest choice for America," he said "was convinced not to filibuster Alito because of" his "stellar academic record and strong support from his colleagues." Salazar said he does not know whether other Dem "will try to block the vote," but that "if they do, he will call a meeting" of the 'Gang of 14' (Tahelm, AP/Daily Camera, 1/26).

Here's another article with the reference to calling in the gang of 14. Call his office at (202) 224-5852. Salazer has pledged not to support a filibuster unless under "extraordinary circumstances." Let him know you consider Judge Alito to be extraordinary. Perhaps if enough of his constituents demand it, he will change his mind, or at least leave the gang of 14 out of it.

Sen. Russ Feingold today issued a statement explaining his reasons for voting against Judge Sam Alito. Among them (no link yet, received by e-mail:)

To be blunt, Mr. Chairman, I found Judge Alito's answers to questions about the death penalty to be chilling. He focused almost entirely on procedures and deference to state courts, and didn't appear to recognize the extremely weighty constitutional and legal rights involved in any case where a person's life is at stake.

by TChris

Judge Edward Cashman caved to public pressure, increasing the sentence he imposed on a sex offender from 60 days to 3 to 10 years. Recognizing that society becomes more safe if we treat sex offenders, and that treatment in the community is more immediate, more readily available, and more effective than treatment behind bars, Judge Cashman initially imposed a sentence with that reality in mind. The subtleties of sentencing were lost on the "lock 'em up" crowd, who belittled Judge Cashman for his perceived leniency:

Ever since, he's been vilified by television commentators, bloggers and even the governor who say he was too light on the crime. ...

After Cashman announced the sentence, Gov. James Douglas called for the judge to resign and several lawmakers suggested he be impeached. On FOX News, Bill O'Reilly told viewers as video of Cashman rolled: "You may be looking at the worst judge in the USA."

Judges are supposed to rule without regard to public sentiment. Justice does not depend on opinion polls or on the views of Bill O'Reilly. Mark Kaplan, Hulett's lawyer, said it all:

"The sentence in this case may not be popular, but the court cannot be swayed by the media or the mob," he wrote in court papers.

The court was swayed, protections against double jeopardy notwithstanding.

by TChris

As President Bush crows about his success in bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq, perhaps he can explain why Kamal Sayid Qadir has been sentenced to 30 years in an Iraqi prison for criticizing corruption in the Kurdish leadership.

From Austria he had written articles accusing [Kurdish leader Massoud] Barzani's all-powerful Kurdistan Democratic Party of corruption while calling members of its intelligence service, the Parastin, criminals and its chief -- Mr. Barzani's son -- a "pimp."

Qadir was tried for "defaming" the Parastin and Kurdish political leaders. He says the trial lasted only 15 minutes.

President Bush might favor a political system that incarcerates critics of the government, but a country can't be free if journalists and writers risk prison for expressing opinions and exposing facts that discomfort those who hold power. Qadir isn't the only Iraqi who has lost his freedom for daring to express an opinion. The NY Times reports that Iraqi authorities are increasingly "using the courts as an instrument of intimidation to discourage reporting on corruption and abuses of power."

There's a great profile of Jack Abramoff defender Abbe Lowell in The Forward today.

While I'm happy to be quoted in the article, my comments don't hold a candle to this one by Rep. Barney Frank. For context, remember that Abbe represented House Democrats in the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings:

"People have a right to a legal defense," he said. "In Clinton's case, there was no crime. In Abramoff's case, there was no defense."

Rep. Frank goes on to say:

That Lowell understood the difference, Frank said, "is a tribute to how good a lawyer he is and how intellectually honest he is."

One can praise the lawyer without praising the client. Which is why I don't hesitate to tell you read Arianna's latest skewering of Abramoff on the Gus Boulis murder.

Are the Democrats just going to lie down and take it like the men and women they are rather than those we elected them to be? The New York Times Thursday calls them "in need of a spine." I agree. (I said the same thing the other day about the way they were reacting to Karl Rove's comments, trying to one-up him on being in support of wiretaps, practically begging the Repubs to ask Congress to gut FISA and the 4th Amendment and saying they'd be only to happy to comply.)

Back to Alito and the Times, which notes:

[Alito's] elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government -- and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.

It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination. ...A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Lindsay from Majikthise is the first to spill the beans. Blogads has arranged for about 20 bloggers to go to Amsterdam, all expenses paid, courtesy of Holland.com. The details are here.

All of the trips will take place in February. I'm going on the 16th, as is my pal Ezra Klein, who was such great company at the Democratic convention in Boston. From his comments, I learned that Amanda from Pandagon is going the same day. Even the TL kid has decided to come along.

Many thanks to Blogads for putting this together. I've never been to Amsterdam and have always wanted to go. The Holland.com people are very nice. They asked if there was anything special I wanted to see or anyone I might like to interview. I said I'd like to see the new high-tech prison and interview Joran van der sloot to present his side of the story on the missing white girl in Aruba and provide some balance to her mother who never gets off tv, but that's not what they had in mind.

Which means I just get to have fun, and I'm all for that.

Clarence Hill was strapped to the gurney in Florida last night, the IV tubes already implanted in him, when Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a temporary stay, made permanent today by the entire court.

Hill argues that the three chemicals used in Florida's lethal injection method of execution cause pain, making his execution cruel and unusual punishment. His lawyer also contends that Hill is mentally retarded.

The Court set oral arguments for April 26, specifically mentioning the method of execution argument. Background on the lethal cocktail is here here.

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL]

Siva Vaidhyanathan of Sivacracy is guest posting at Altercation today. One of the issues the NYU prof and media scholar tackles today is feds demanding records of google searches and data-mining.

As many of us have been saying for years, there is real danger in Google (and Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, Amazon.com, etc.) collecting dossiers on our Internet habits. While these companies might annoy us with targeted ads and please us with customized service, they collect all sorts of information that might or might nor accurately reflect our relative danger to society.

While Republicans would have you believe the majority of Americans trust Bush to make appropriate decisions on his own to eavesdrop on our fellow citizens, the latest Zogby poll disagrees.

a poll released last week by Zogby International showed 52 percent of American adults thought Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he wiretapped U.S. citizens without court approval, including 59 percent of independents and 23 percent of Republicans. (The survey had a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.)

Given those numbers, impeachment could become an issue in this fall's congressional elections, and dramatically raise the stakes. If Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, a leading proponent of starting an official impeachment inquiry, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., would become chairman of the House committee that could pursue it.

The Boston Globe today reports on a footnote in Alberto Gonzales' speech:

A footnote in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's 42-page legal memo defending President Bush's domestic spying program appears to argue that the administration does not need Congress to extend the USA Patriot Act in order to keep using the law's investigative powers against terror suspects.

The memo states that Congress gave Bush the power to investigate terror suspects using whatever tactics he deemed necessary when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. When Congress later passed the Patriot Act, Bush already had the power to use enhanced surveillance techniques against Al Qaeda, according to the footnote. Thus, legal specialists say, the administration is asserting that Bush would be able to keep using the powers outlined in the Patriot Act for Al Qaeda investigations, regardless of whether Congress reauthorizes the law.

Arianna skewers Scotty and his brother pretty good.

First, Mark, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, rolled out the president's Medicare prescription drug program -- which, right out of the gate, is being regarded as one of this administration's biggest debacles (and that's saying something!).

And while Mark was busy fending off angry senior citizens who want their drugs, brother Scottie has had his hands full fending off angry reporters who want to learn how well the president knew Abramoff.

Keep reading. It's an "ouch" type post.

[graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]

David Corn wrote this post yesterday about Bush's proclamation (as if we didnt' know it) that he is not a lawyer. Bush said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means. It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It's an--you've got the power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how. And one of the ways to protect the American people is to understand the intentions of the enemy. I told you it's a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy. If they're making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why -- to protect you.

Our Army is stretched past capacity. I'd like to think that this is just a numbers-crunching problem for Iraq.

But the way Bush is going, Iran and North Korea are also on the radar. What if troops are needed in those locations as well?

How will they do it without a draft? For those 21 - 25 year-olds who read TalkLet, I'm curious, would you go?

When it comes to the TL kid, I would say, "'over my dead body you'll take him." The greatest horror show I can remember was back in 1970 when there was a draft lottery to decide who would have to go into the service and presumably to Vietnam. The night of the lottery, I watched tv in Ann Arbor, MI with my male friends, who like me, had just taken our LSAT's and were planning on going to law school. I'll never forget the looks on the faces of those who were dealt early numbers. They just walked out of the room, when their numbers were called. And they didn't come back.

Now, as a parent of a kid in law school, who also is opposed to Bush and to war, I can't even imagine him in that situation. If it happens, I bet I won't be the only parent who says, "Hell, No, We Wont' Go." We'll play Arlo Guthrie's song, Alices Restaurant and find another place to live.

Great catch by Think Progress.

Over the weekend, Time magazine and the Washingtonian both reported on five photos of President Bush with Jack Abramoff, but neither publication revealed its source.

Yesterday, ThinkProgress laid out the case for why the source for the photos was likely Abramoff himself. Last night, our hunch was confirmed.

Appearing on MSNBC, Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff reported that it was indeed Abramoff who floated the photographs to Washingtonian.

Watch the video.