Death Penalty Dissents

The New York Times carried an interesting article yesterday about the rise of dissents in death penalty cases. Furthermore, the source of these dissents are not always the traditional bleeding heart liberal judges. Some of them come from staunch supporters of capital punishment. Check out the article here.

Strange Bedfellows = Legislative Victory?

I couldn't decide whether this should be filed under "Realities of Politics," or "Sleazy Enough to Make You Queasy." An editorial today at Salon.com highlights the deeply troubling aspects of the White House deal with Big Pharma that might just pave the way for the red-headed stepchild of legislation, healthcare reform, to finally gain genuine traction.
As the columnist indicates, such a deal might be necessary to finally get reform over the hump, despite some of the ugly attacks emanating from the GOP camp. However, while successful reform would be a giant, freakin' feather in Obama's cap, citizens should be asking, "At what cost?" No, I'm not referring to the dollar amount necessary to provide health insurance for society's most vulnerable(the elderly, the poor, children). Rather, I refer to the precedent-setting deal between the White House and Big Pharma. If the only way to pass this type of legislation is by bribing opponents with extra-sweetheart deals, can we still cling to the myth of the democratic process as the true king in this country?

Rule of Law in China

The New York Times ran an interesting article yesterday about the detention of a Chinese lawyer, Xu Zhiyong. Mr. Xu is a lawyer/scholar who ran a legal clinic that handled a wide array of cases on behalf of vulnerable citizens. He handled cases for migrant workers, death row inmates and families whose children were sickened by poisoned milk. Mr. Xu's advocacy of the rule of law in China has not gone over well with the ruling Communist Party. As indicated by the article, the charges that are the basis for Mr. Xu's detention, tax evasion, are seen as a cover for the true motivation of his captivity, angering the ruling party. Read the article here.

Sotomayor Confirmed.

After nearly 18 hours of deliberation, the Senate has confirmed Sotomayor with a 68 to 31 vote. She is the first Justice of Hispanic descent appointed to the Court.

Coming to a Michigan Town Near You, Terrorists!

The New York Times has an article today discussing the possibility that Michigan could become the adoptive home of some of the Guantanamo detainees when that facility closes. Members of the administration are still trying to figure out what to do with Gitmo detainees once the President makes good on his promise to close the facility. Cash-strapped Michigan could be a suitable destination because the state's max-security facility at Standish is set to be closed, just another victim of the state's budget disaster.

Now, the article in the Times focuses on the novel idea of incorporating detention and court services all in one convenient location. Think of it as a Wal-Mart for terror suspects. Although this is an intriguing idea that deserves attention unto itself (starting with questions about jurisdiction), I was more interested in a couple other quotes from the article.

Without the slightest hint of irony, or any recognition of the incongruity of the two statements, the author of the article writes:

"As many as an estimated 170 of the detainees now at Guantanamo are unlikely to be prosecuted. Some are being held indefinitely because government officials do not want to take the chance of seeing them acquitted in a trial." (emphasis added)

Later in the article comes this nugget:

"Administration officials say they are determined to keep to [President Obama's] promise of closing Guantanamo in January as a worldwide example of America's commitment to humane and just treatment of the detainees."

Just for a moment, put to the side all of the information that has been made public about detainee abuse and 'harsh interrogation techniques' (aka, torture). Even without all of that bad behavior, isn't the above quoted language enough to make patriotic Americans stand up and say, "Now, wait just a minute! We're going restore America's reputation as a humane and just nation by incarcerating people without charges and without the opportunity to confront the accuser in a court of law?"

Can anyone make sense of that reasoning? For years, the government has been beating the "these guys are the worst of the worst" drum. Now, despite the continued insistence that these are the devil's own, the government is having second thoughts about the certainty of convictions? (read here about the remarkable efficacy of federal courts handling terror cases) After a decade of lies from our government ('Saddam is in cahoots with Qaeda,' 'Saddam has WMD,' 'This administration is committed to transparency') we're just supposed to take them at their word and turn a blind eye as they defile the Constitution?