Turning The Other Cheek

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." Luke 6:28-31

A man in New York City gave us a modern-day example to follow, according to this story from NPR. Confronted by a knife-wielding teenager, Julio Diaz handed over his wallet, offered his coat as well, and then invited the mugger to dinner with him. I'm sure many other people have tried this without the happy ending. It worked for Julio, though. (Hat tip: Mark Shea)

Not surprisingly, a Fox News loudmouth named Greg Gutfeld was not impressed. Nor were most of the people who left comments at this post on a New York blog. They make some good points: is taking your mugger really to eat the best way to help him change his ways? Did Julio simply make it easier for someone else to be victimized?

I don't know. What I do know is that the Lord was pretty clear in what He expects from us. Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. These are hard teachings. I, for one, conveniently forget about them at the very times I need them the most. Julio's story is a good reminder that turning the other cheek may be the most powerful weapon we have.

Mercy for the Unspeakable

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.

Rod Dreher shared a terrible story on his blog yesterday. In Massachusetts, a 6-year-old boy was raped by a convicted sex offender in the public library. The boy's mother was nearby; the rapist lured the boy behind some shelves and he was too paralyzed by fear to cry for help. Here is more from the NY Times and AP.

When we see stories like this, the visceral reaction is usually to wish pain, suffering, and death on anyone who would do such things to a child. In the rush to condemn we sometimes forget that the offender is human, too. His name is Corey Saunders, and here is a bit of his background.

Court records show that Mr. Saunders’s mother left him when he was 9. At 14 he was found wandering the streets clutching a teddy bear and was hospitalized in a psychiatric ward for a month...

Saunders, 26, was convicted in 2001 of indecent assault and battery and attempted rape on a child for attacking a 7-year-old boy in a foster home where he was placed. He was released about a year ago by a judge even though prosecutors and three psychologists said he was likely to strike again.

Bristol Superior Court Judge Richard Moses denied a motion by the district attorney's office to keep Saunders in custody under what is called a civil commitment... Moses cited Saunders' low IQ, his history of being sexually abused as a child and his lack of sexual offenses in prison as reasons to let him out. Also, a psychologist for the defense said Saunders was not likely to attack again.

Obviously the judge made a terrible mistake, but the rest of us have to share the blame. Such things are the inevitable result of the decision we as a society made back in the 1960s to "de-institutionalize" the mentally ill (which anyone who rapes a 6 year old clearly is, by definition). In most states it is practically impossible to force people like Saunders to accept any kind of treatment against their will unless they are "imminently" dangerous - which usually means gun in hand, finger on trigger. You have a constitutional right to be crazy in America.

A lot of these people would be fine if they just took medicine regularly. Instead of making them do so, we abandon them to their own private hell. They end up living on the streets, in prison, or dead. It is no accident that this crime happened where it did; in many cities public libraries have become de facto day care centers for homeless people, especially when it is cold outside. Since many homeless people are mentally ill, it should surprise no one if they commit crimes in libraries. It will continue to happen until we fix the mental health system.

Both Corey Saunders and society will finally get what they need now: separation. Hopefully he will get some effective treatment as well, but he sounds like a tough case. I would bet that his mother who abandoned him was herself mentally ill. There are strong genetic connections to these things.

I began this article with a verse from the Sermon on the Mount: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy. Does Corey Saunders deserve mercy? No, he doesn't. None of us do. Yet the Lord expects us to show mercy if we want to receive mercy ourselves. And mercy is something we will all need when we face Him in judgment.

This is a hard teaching to follow. We want vengeance against people who do these things. Yet vengeance has no place in the life of a Christian; God reserves that right to Himself. From us he expects mercy, and particularly toward the weak and helpless.

It is ironic that some Christian "pro-life" advocates turn so bloodthirsty in these situations. People with serious mental illness are not morally culpable for their actions, any more than the unborn babies we fight so hard to protect. The very concept of "punishing" such people ought to be repugnant to anyone who really cares about defending innocent life.

Yes, we need to protect society from such persons. Lock them up for life if necessary. But we owe them mercy at the same time. This is an area where we have failed miserably as a society. Men like Corey Saunders, and a little boy he met in the library, are both paying the price.

Vengeance is Whose?

Several states now have laws making sexual assault of children a death-penalty offense, even if the victim is not murdered as well. One man in Louisiana has actually been sent to death row on this basis. The Supreme Court just agreed to review his case to see if the penalty is constitutional. LaShawn Barber hopes they uphold the sentence.

Any sort of sexual assault on a child is, of course, a heinous offense and the impulse for vengeance is understandable. Yet like most impulsive decisions, it's also wrong and potentially counterproductive. I explained why here some time ago.

Among other reasons, consider this: in most cases of rape there are no witnesses except the victim. If we make the rape itself a capital crime, then what incentive do we create for the rapist? Answer: kill your victim. If he's lucky he will get away with the crime because now there are no witnesses. If he gets caught anyway, then he is no worse off because the additional crime of murder brings no added punishment. The only one who is worse off is the victim, who now gets to die after being raped.

The deterrent effect of such laws is also questionable. Anyone who would rape an eight-year-old girl, as the man in the Louisiana case did, isn't thinking clearly in the first place and probably has some kind of mental illness. Even if they are able to cognitively process the existence of such laws, the prospect of execution doesn't seem likely to stop them from acting on their perverse desires.

Rape is a crime that is also uniquely vulnerable to false prosecution. Just this week I read (via Mark Shea) about a man from Dallas who served 26 years in prison for a rape that DNA evidence now proves he did not commit. When we have prosecutors like Mike Nifong in this country, it's easy to believe some innocent people will be executed as a result of laws like these.

I had a personal brush with the death penalty many years ago and told the story here. I'm not totally against capital punishment - but I think the cases where it is truly justified are extremely rare.

Forgiving The Worst

Father forgives son who had mom, brother killed.

Wow. It's painful just to imagine what this man has gone through. The easy thing would be to give in to hate, to let it take over and consume you. Kent Whitaker chose another course. I hope I could do the same, and pray I never have to.

Hat tip: J-Walking

Rise of the Wiggers

Bill Cosby, who in recent years is making it his mission to preach self-responsibility to black Americans, has a new book called Come On, People. On Sunday he appeared on Meet The Press along with his co-author, Dr. Alvin Poussaint of Harvard Medical School. They seem to have their work cut out for them.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the things that you did in “Come On, People” were—was to compile statistics, very hard-headed numbers.

DR. POUSSAINT: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: And they are numbing when you read through them. You mentioned one. One out of three of homeless people are black. Blacks make up 12 percent of our population. And here’s a some—a few more that you cite which I think really does help us dramatize how critical this discussion is. And let’s read them through here.

“Homicide is the number one cause of death for black men between 15 and 29 years of age and has been for decades.

“Of the roughly 16,000 homicides in this country each year, more than half are committed by black men. A black man is seven times more likely to commit a murder than a white man, and six times more likely to be murdered.

“Ninety-four percent of all black people who are murdered are murdered by other black people.

“Although black people make up” “12 percent of the general population,” “make up nearly 44 percent of the prison population.

“At any given time, as many as one in four of all” black men, “young black men are in the criminal justice system—in prison or jail, on probation or on parole.”

Those are numbing numbers. They truly are. What can we do? [Full transcript]

What the transcript doesn't show is that when Russert said "What can we do?" there was a long, awkward pause before Cosby began to answer. My impression was that he knows full well that there are no good solutions. Two and maybe three generations are lost forever. It's very sad. Cosby has a few specific public policy ideas, which may help some, but what really needs to happen is a moral awakening in the black communities. There is only so much that outsiders can do to help.

The broader point I wish to make is that I fear the trends we see among young blacks are finding their way to white youth, through the conduit of rap music. More from the MTP interview:

In fact, the audience for gangsta rap is made up predominantly of white youth, who get a vicarious thrill from participating in a black thug fantasy, including the degradation of women. Black youth, as well as some misguided adults, have defended the use of the N-word, suggesting they are somehow making it a positive term...

If you’re going to use those words and the white male is buying the CD, then they’re buying into those words, and those words are being used on their women. Hint, hint. Domestic violence in the police department. Now they also share in the N-word. And it’s OK to say it, according to them, because it’s on the record...

Remember, too, that for a while that white kids who were into some of this rap and so on started calling themselves “wiggers”? ...

... the young, young girls will be dancing to words that degrade women and degrade them and they’re dancing to it. It shows you how much values have been corrupted, you know, by some of the media influences, and the young people can’t distinguish between what’s right and wrong. It’s like the, the bad stuff has become normal, and then they even see it as part of their culture instead of something that’s abhorrent and, and, and, and hurtful to their, to their lives and to their community.

Now, I know plenty of white parents who either don't mind or don't know that their kids listen to the vile lyrics of gangsta rap. I suppose it is possible, in a family situation that is otherwise healthy and stable, that this kind of music won't cause any harm. On the other hand, it's insane to suggest that music has no effect on us at all.

Music is processed by our brains differently from spoken or written words. It makes us feel good, and we retain information better when we acquire it musically. Kids who would never read poetry in English class love to hear the same words set to music. Properly used, this can be a good thing. Use it to spread misogynistic, violent, and hedonistic thoughts, and it should surprise no one if we end up with misogynistic, violent, and hedonistic youth.

White Americans need to hope and pray that people like Cosby and Poussaint are successful in their mission - not only because blacks are fellow citizens and humans, but because whites are vulnerable to the same disorders. The trends you see in black youth today will overtake white youth. When white kids begin calling themselves "wiggers," you know it's already starting. The violence and chaos that prevail in inner cities are spreading to white suburbs.

Think I'm wrong? I hope I am. Let's talk again in twenty years.


UPDATE 10/16/07: Mark Gordon has a post about the Cosby book. Otherwise not much reaction in the blogs I read.

State Secrets

The Supreme Court has terminated a lawsuit that alleges the CIA kidnapped and tortured a German man in a case of mistaken identity. The facts of the case are actually not as interesting as the grounds for its dismissal. The Bush Administration argues that allowed the suit to proceed would risk the exposure of important national secrets. There is legal precedent for this argument:

The state secrets privilege arose from a 1953 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the executive branch to keep secret, even from the court, details about a military plane's fatal crash.

Three widows sued to get the accident report after their husbands died aboard a B-29 bomber, but the Air Force refused to release it claiming that the plane was on a secret mission to test new equipment. The high court accepted the argument, but when the report was released decades later there was nothing in it about a secret mission or equipment.

This appears to be a legal principle that is, quite literally, built on lies. There was nothing to protect in the 1953 case. The government simply made up a story that was not true.

Whether the case at hand has any merit, I don't know. That's why we have courts - courts that are quite capable of protecting sensitive information from public view when necessary. It would be nice if we could simply trust the Bush Administration not to use this privilege to hide its crimes and mistakes. Any takers?

Saudis Release Terror Suspects

Here is a disturbing story. The U.S. recently transferred 55 suspected terrorists, all of them Saudi Arabian citizens, from the Guantanamo Bay facility and gave them back to Saudi authorities to be kept in prison there. Presumably the U.S. government received assurances that the prisoners would be kept securely locked up.

It seems that the Saudis have “temporarily” released all 55 to spend a Muslim holiday with their families. Furthermore, each prisoner was given $2,600 with which to celebrate. They are supposed to return to custody and eventually stand trial. We’ll see. I think there is reason to be dubious.

Now there are two possibilities here. Either:

• Our so-called allies, the Saudis, think it is well and good to let dangerous terrorists out to roam the streets, creating who knows what kind of problems, and the Bush Administration let itself be duped once again; or
• These 55 prisoners are actually not dangerous terrorists - as we are often told the residents of Guantanamo must be - and were being held by the U.S. under false or incorrect charges.

Neither scenario is particularly comforting.

Hat tip: Born at the Crest of the Empire

Bill Clinton Makes Sense

Now there is a headline I never expected to type. Still, I must give credit where credit is due. On the matter of torture, or "enhanced interrogation techniques," or whatever you wish to call it, Bill sounded remarkably intelligent and thoughtful when he appeared on Meet The Press last Sunday.

The subject came up because a few days earlier Tim Russert had trapped Hillary Clinton in a presidential debate by quoting what Bill had said about torture in the past [Video here]. He had said that the U.S. should normally not use torture but there should be provision for the president or other officials to grant exceptions in extreme situations - the "ticking bomb" scenario.

Bill has since changed his mind. Now he doesn't think there should be any exceptions in the law. Here's his latest:

... I think America’s policy should be to oppose torture, to honor the Geneva Conventions for several reasons. One is, it’s almost always counterproductive. If you beat somebody up, they’ll tell you what they want to hear. Two is, it, it really hurts us in the rest of the world and helps to recruit other terrorists. And thirdly, it makes our own people vulnerable to torture.

You know, there’s a one in a million chance that you might be alone somewhere, and you’re Jack Bauer on “24.” That’s the Jack Bauer example, right? It happens every season with Jack Bauer, but to—in the real world it doesn’t happen very much. If you have a policy which legitimizes this, it’s a slippery slope and you get in the kind of trouble we’ve been in here with Abu Ghraib, with Guantanamo, with lots of other examples.

And I’m not even sure what I said is right now. I think what happens is the honest truth is that Tim Russert, Bill Clinton, people filming this show, if we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don’t know what you would do, and you have to—but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror—I mean to torture, and that if you’re the Jack Bauer person, you’ll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth. I think there are a lot of areas in life where you don’t. But I, I loved how she handled this whole thing. I guess you want to show the rest now.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but not [have a] formal exception.

MR. CLINTON: Yeah, I don’t think you should now. The more I think about it, and the more I have seen that, if you have any kind of formal exception, people just drive a truck through it, and they’ll say “Well, I thought it was covered by the exception.” I think, I think it’s better not to have one. And if you happen to be the actor in that moment which, as far as I know, has not occurred in my experience or President Bush’s experience since we’ve been really dealing with this terror, but I—you actually had the Jack Bauer moment, we call it, I think you should be prepared to live with the consequences. And yet, ironically, if you look at the show, every time they get the president to approve something, the president gets in trouble, the country gets in trouble. And when Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences, it always seems to work better. [Full transcript]

It is entirely possible Bill will change his mind again, and there is no guarantee his wife will think this way if she becomes president. Nevertheless, for now he has a far more reasonable and realistic torture policy than any candidate of either party has taken, other than Ron Paul.

What Clinton says about exceptions is absolutely true: give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That universal principle is the reason we have a Constitution that is not easily changed. President Bush, on the other hand, sought to grant blanket immunity for those who torture prisoners, all the while denying that they do any such thing - a claim we cannot verify since he steadfastly refuses to define what he means by "torture."

With such power in hand, it should be no surprise that some agents of the government will abuse it. Mr. Bush says we should just trust him, similar to the way we trusted him about Iraq having nuclear and chemical weapons. Sorry, sir. I won't be fooled twice. On this one, your predecessor is a lot closer to the right. You might want to listen to him.

Related posts:
Tortured Logic
Colin Powell on Guantanamo
Petraeus on Battlefield Ethics
Adventures in Fog
Defining Torture

Goodbye Gonzales

After months of investigation for various & sundry alleged scandals, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned today. This was a welcome and long overdue move, in my opinion. Call me crazy, but I think it is important that the nation's top law enforcement official should focus his attention on enforcing the law. Gonzales was always more interested in finding ways for the Bush Administration to evade the law.

Be that as it may, the timing of this resignation is curious. The U.S. Attorney controversy remains unresolved. Most of the people implicated at both the White House and DOJ have now resigned, which is strange if, as the Administration contends, nobody did anything wrong. Also odd is that Gonzales announced his resignation in a solo press appearance. Unlike Karl Rove, Gonzales didn't get the reward of a Rose Garden good-bye appearance with the President.

It is also strange that Gonzales resigned before a replacement could be named. Anonymous sources are pointing at Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, whom you may remember for his stellar response to Hurricane Katrina. Bush has argued that he needs a reliable Attorney General at his side to assist in the Global War on Terror. If that's really true, you would think he and Gonzales could have worked out an exit strategy that provided for a smooth transition.

Put the pieces together and it begins to look like 1) Bush and Gonzales aren't such buddies anymore, and/or 2) some sort of news will soon emerge that won't make Gonzales look good. That's the only way I can think of to explain how all this is all happening. We'll find out soon enough, I guess.

As a farewell to Mr. Gonzales, I will leave you with this story, courtesy of Andy Borowitz.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned today, effective immediately, telling reporters that he wanted to spend more time eavesdropping on his family.

Mr. Gonzales, a champion of domestic surveillance and warrantless wiretaps while in office, said he was “totally stoked” about turning his prying eyes on his own family.

“Domestic surveillance begins at home,” Mr. Gonzales said at a White House press conference. “That means nobody in my family is above suspicion, not even the little ones,” an apparent reference to Mr. Gonzales’ children.

Standing by Mr. Gonzales’ side, President George W. Bush praised his former Attorney General, singling out his “courage” for ramping up his domestic spying program on his own family.

“If every head of every household was as willing to eavesdrop on his own family as my man Alberto is, we wouldn’t need a Homeland Security Department,” Mr. Bush chuckled.

Mr. Gonzales was noncommittal when a reporter asked him a question about the role that waterboarding and other forms of torture might play in his interrogation of family members. “Nothing is off the table,” he said.

Egyptian Prison Break

Here's an encouraging, and quite possibly miraculous, story of a Muslim who converted to Christianity. Other Muslims were not pleased.

I first learned of Sheikh El-Akkad from TROP last fall, when they had a link to this story. El-Akkad used to be the leader of a group that taught and promoted Islam, but he gradually "became disillusioned," began to pray that he could "somehow know God personally," and eventually converted to Christianity. When the secret police learned of it, he was arrested, apparently under a provision of Egyptian law that allows imprisonment for "insulting a heavenly religion" and "committing blasphemy against Islam." Though a court eventually ordered his release, the authorities defied the court order and transferred him to a prison "notorious for its spartan conditions in the desert," housing its prisoners in one by two meter cells.

The more recent story tells how, in April, prison officials told El-Akkad that he would stay there for another ten years if he did not return to Islam. He replied, "God has brought me to this place, and he alone will let me go to my home. You cannot do anything against God." Just hours later, in a gesture that has not yet been explained, prison officials handed him money for a taxi, opened the door of the prison, and sent him home. It isn't quite as dramatic as St. Peter's prison visit from the angel, but it'll do very well! [Source]

80s Flashback

Back before Michael Jackson got so weird, he created music that remains with us to this day. I doubt, however, that even he envisioned anything quite like this: prisoners in the Philippines getting their morning exercise as Thriller zombies.

Blood Money

July 17 (Bloomberg) -- An Iranian child offender, who was forgiven for killing a man by the victim's family, is to be hanged tonight because his parents couldn't gather the blood money they were required to pay, his lawyer said.

The victim's family decided to spare Sina Paymard's life last September after he was allowed to play the flute as his last wish, Sina's lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, said.

His playing moved people gathered for the public execution to tears. Under pressure from the crowd, the family asked Sina's father to pay the equivalent of $162,000 in compensation, a practice that is allowed in Iran, the lawyer said.

``The father has only managed to gather a third of the sum, and he was told this morning that his child will be executed tonight,'' Sotoudeh said by telephone. ``Sina was 16 at the time of the crime. His life shouldn't depend on the amount of money his family can gather.'' He is now 18.

Iran this month drew international condemnation after a man convicted of adultery was stoned to death west of the capital Tehran. The Islamic Republic has one of the highest rates of executions in the world, with 124 people executed so far this year, according to Amnesty International. Two child offenders were executed in April and May, the rights group said.

Sina Paymard's hanging ``would be in complete violation of international law,'' Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Program, said in a statement. ``The Iranian government must take immediate steps to halt this execution.'' [source]

My first instinct upon reading this story was "those barbarians." Then it occurred to me that the story does not really explain the circumstances of the murder, so it's possible the sentence is appropriate. Some will argue that crimes committed at 16 should not draw a death sentence, and I would generally agree, but this case might be the exception. We don't have enough information to say.

What enrages people about this story is probably the money angle. Here we have someone who is going to die for no reason other than lack of money. It really is that simple. His family can't come up with the required amount, so Sina has to die. The victim's family appears to feel they have granted enough mercy.

On the other hand, is this really so different from the way we administer justice here in the United States? The people who end up on Death Row are almost always lower-class, sometimes impoverished, and often members of minority groups. Most were represented at trial and on appeal by overworked, underpaid, court-appointed attorneys.

In contrast, on those rare occasions when a wealthy person is accused of a capital crime, a legal "dream team" is assembled and the full menu of legal and scientific arguments are brought forth to show reasonable doubt. I'm convinced that in such cases many prosecutors choose not to seek the death penalty in order to avoid an expensive, embarrassing spectacle.

So in our case, the money goes to the lawyers instead of the victim's family, but the fact remains: those who commit capital crimes but also have sufficient cash can usually escape death. Those who lack these resources usually end up dead. Such is the state of justice in America.

I'm not saying we are no better than Iran in this department. Were I falsely accused of a crime, I would much rather be tried here than there. Nonetheless, we can't always say that our way is better. May God have mercy on Sina Paymard's soul, and that of his victim.

UPDATE 7/18/07: News reports say that Iranian authorities have delayed Sina's execution for 10 days to give the family time to raise more money. Click here for latest Google News updates.

Firefighters vs. Rudy

This video is from a firefighter's union which believes Rudy Giuliani is not quite the hero of 9/11 that he portrays himself to be. I can't say whether the allegations are accurate or not. But if you are someone who supports Rudy because you think he'll protect you from terrorism, you need to watch it. Click here if you don't see it embedded below.

Candidate for a Pardon?

He lied for what he thought was a good reason, just like Scooter Libby. I wonder if Bush would grant clemency in this case...

A father's attempt to cover for his son during a probation hearing in Williamson County ended with both men going to jail.

Timothy Earl Willett, 60, told 26th District Court Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield on Wednesday that he'd never seen his son, Timothy Jason Willett, driving a car, which would have violated his probation. The 33-year-old was on probation for his fourth DWI conviction when he was arrested in March in Volusia County, Fla., for driving with a suspended license.

The younger Willett has DWI convictions in Travis and Williamson counties, the most recent coming after a 2002 wreck on Williamson County Road 201.

Part of his probation required having an interlock device placed in his car, but Willett told his probation officer that he did not own or drive a vehicle, District Attorney John Bradley said. Such devices block a vehicle from being turned on if alcohol is detected.

A recording of a collect call from the Williamson County Jail played in court indicated that the two had talked about lying to the judge.

"I told (Timothy Jason Willett's girlfriend) if they point-blank ask me, I'm lying," Willett is heard telling his son.

On Wednesday, the elder Willett was charged with aggravated perjury, a third-degree felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Timothy Jason Willett was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He may also face charges of aggravated perjury.

"I've never seen this kind of a blatant disregard for the oath that I've seen here this afternoon," Stubblefield said. Source

The Libby Precedent

In his decision to commute Scooter Libby's prison term, President Bush said the sentence was "excessive." While the president's power in this area is absolute, it seems reasonable to expect some sort of logic and consistency. If Libby's sentence was excessive, then Bush has to admit that a similar sentence, given to another person under similar circumstances, is also excessive.

It seems there actually is such a case, one in which the Bush Administration took a far different approach.

Similarly, in a case decided two weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court, the Justice Department persuaded the Supreme Court to affirm the 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled that against Mr. Libby. The defendant, Victor A. Rita, was, like Mr. Libby, convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice.

Mr. Rita has performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has. Mr. Rita served in the armed forces for more than 25 years, receiving 35 commendations, awards and medals. Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

The judges who sentenced the two men increased their sentences by taking account of the crimes about which they lied. Mr. Rita’s perjury concerned what the court called “a possible violation of a machine-gun registration law,” while Mr. Libby’s of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances.

When Mr. Rita argued that his 33-month sentence had failed adequately to consider his history and circumstances, the Justice Department strenuously disagreed. SOURCE

So why is it that Victor Rita has to go to prison, and Scooter Libby does not? The only answer that passes that laugh test is that Scooter Libby is the president's friend, and Victor Rita is not. Andrew Sullivan put it succinctly: "The bottom line for Americans is this: George Bush’s friends do not go to jail. Your friends do."

There's another problem, too. Mr. Bush's decision to simply commute Libby's prison term rather than grant a full pardon will affect many other cases, according to legal scholars. Libby's sentence was the result of Justice Department "sentencing guidelines" that the Bush Administration has vigorously enforced, and even sought to increase in some cases. When the president said that Libby's sentence was excessive, he implicitly criticized the sentencing practices of his own Justice Department.

“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in DeLand, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”

By yesterday morning, in fact, Mr. Bush’s arguments for keeping Mr. Libby out of prison had become an unexpected gift to defense lawyers around the country, who scrambled to make use of them in their own cases.

“The president of the United States has come in on his own and said, ‘30 months is not reasonable in this case,’ ” said Susan James, an Alabama lawyer representing Don E. Siegelman, the state’s former governor, who is appealing a sentence he received last week of 88 months for obstruction of justice and other charges.

“It’s far more important than if he’d just pardoned Libby,” Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”

Indeed, Mr. Bush’s decision may have given birth to a new sort of legal document.

“I anticipate that we’re going to get a new motion called ‘the Libby motion,’ ” Professor Podgor said. “It will basically say, ‘My client should have got what Libby got, and here’s why.’ ”

As a purely legal matter, of course, Mr. Bush’s statement has no particular force outside of Mr. Libby’s case. But that does not mean judges will necessarily ignore it. SOURCE

Get the idea? The consequence of Bush's leniency for Libby is that judges now have reason to impose lesser sentences on other criminals. I'm sure this is not what he intended, but it will be the result. So much for law and order.

Hat tip: Poliblogger

Scooter Walks

I am greatly annoyed at the President's decision to commute Scooter Libby's jail sentence, and even more annoyed at the hypocrisy of those on the right who think it is a wonderful idea. Some are even angry that Libby isn't getting a full pardon. Be patient - you'll get your wish if his appeals are not successful or the day Bush leaves office, whichever comes first.

The reason Scooter Libby was sentenced to prison is that he intentionally lied to a grand jury. This fact is really not in dispute. Even Libby's defenders concede that he did commit the crime of perjury. Consider what one law enforcement official had to say about the case.

... a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

This completely correct statement came from President Bush himself. He nonetheless decided that the prosecutor he appointed asked for, and the judge he appointed imposed, a sentence that was much too harsh. He therefore overruled them, having forgot what he said in 1999 when he was governor of Texas and running for president.

"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair." Source

Now one could quibble by saying that Bush didn't technically overrule the jury's verdict. Fine. Want to bet that Bush won't go all the way to a full pardon if Libby's appeal isn't successful? Anyway this is a distinction that makes no difference. Bush doesn't do this sort of thing for regular people, only his political cronies.

Some argue that there was no underlying crime. So what? As the president says, our system of justice relies on people telling the truth. We cannot allow people to lie under oath to law enforcement officers and grand juries, for any reason. Period, end of story. Libby lied. Now he should pay the price.

Republicans had no problem understanding this back in 1998 when Clinton lied to a grand jury about his sex life. There was no underlying crime then, either, but it was enough to get him impeached. Even some of Clinton's defenders argued that he could and should face criminal justice after leaving office. Only now, when it is a GOP stalwart in the crossfire, do they decide that perjury is no big deal after all.

The whole affair again reveals what a lawless monarchy the Bush Administration has become. Here's a nice summation:

Tell the American people the core narrative of this monarchical presidency: this president believes he is above the law in wiretapping citizens with no court oversight; he has innovated an explosive use of signing statements to declare himself above the law on a bewildering array of other matters, large and small; he has unilaterally declared himself above American law, international law, and U.N. Treaty obligations in secretly authorizing torture; he has claimed the right to seize anyone in the United States, detain them indefinitely without trial and torture them; his vice-president refuses to abide by the law that mandates securing classified documents; and when a court of law finds a friend of the president's guilty, he commutes the sentence. Source

Once these kind of precedents are established, they don't disappear. Our next president will claim the same privileges. If it's President Obama or Clinton, look for Republicans to suddenly become devoted to the rule of law again. Power is now the only principle left in politics.

Sex and Responsibility at Duke

Michael Nifong, the prosecutor who used allegations of rape against three Duke University lacrosse players to promote his own political career is getting disbarred. He will likely face other civil and possibly criminal charges. I have zero patience for those who, entrusted with the powers of the state, use it against innocent people and for their own selfish reasons. So Nifong is getting exactly what he deserves.

Having said that, I'm a little stunned that the lacrosse players are now being portrayed as innocent all-American boys. Yes, they were innocent of the particular crimes with which they were charged in this case. But unless you think wild parties with underage drinking, strippers, racial epithets, and sex with strangers are just good clean fun, these guys are not blameless.

We are losing sight of the fact that our decisions have consequences. Live a life of debauchery and sooner or later it will catch up to you. Yes, maybe you will have a lot of fun first. But when we make such decisions, we shouldn't be surprised when bad things happen to us.

Suppose, for example, that I decide to drive my car recklessly through the streets because I think it will be fun. My decision has several possible consequences.

• Maybe I will get to my destination safely after enjoying a few thrills, or
• Maybe I will encounter a police officer who takes a dim view of my recklessness, or
  
• Maybe I have an accident, damage my car, and injure myself or others.

If my reckless driving puts me in the hospital, whose fault is it? My own. I placed myself in a situation where bad things were likely to happen. There was no need to drive recklessly; I could have got where I needed to go without taking undue risks. I really have no one to blame but myself.

So it is with the Duke lacrosse team. Their lives seem to be, according to this story, one big nonstop party. It isn't surprising that eventually the odds caught up with some of them. If it hadn't been false rape accusations, something else bad was bound to happen.

The stripper lied. Nifong used her lies for his own ends. Both of them bear responsibility for their own actions. The fact remains, however, that the lacrosse players' own decisions made them vulnerable to what happened. If you don't go to parties with strippers, it is very unlikely that one will falsely accuse you of raping her.

I'm glad justice finally prevailed for these players, but they're not blameless, and they're certainly not heroic. They are actually a symptom of the cultural depravity that now prevails on our elite campuses. The lionization of these lacrosse players is a sign that we still have our heads in the sand about it.

Libby Goes To Jail

On Thursday the judge in Scooter Libby's perjury trial ruled he must go to prison immediately, rather than remain free pending appeals. Some conservatives are furious; the judge (who is a Bush appointee, incidentally) even said he has received threatening letters.

This leaves me puzzled. Back in 1998, conservatives and Republicans couldn't stop talking about what a terrible crime perjury is and how we must preserve the "rule of law." Whatever you think about Bush, Cheney, Iraq, etc., it is factually quite clear that Libby knowingly and intentionally lied to federal agents who were investigating the Valerie Plame leak. That's called perjury. It is a crime. Those who commit it should be punished. What is so hard to understand?

Once again, hypocrisy rules. Many of the same people who wanted Clinton impeached for perjury want Scooter Libby to get a pass. It's not going to happen, and the president does not seem inclined to issue a pardon. I wish the family could be spared this pain and humiliation, but justice must be served.

"I'd Close It"

Colin Powell appeared on Meet The Press last Sunday. Here are his comments about the Guantanamo Bay prison.

MR. RUSSERT: Guantanamo, the torture. When John McCain was seeking ways to deal with the issue of torture, you wrote him a letter and you said this: “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”

GEN. POWELL: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: What do you mean?

GEN. POWELL: They are. Guantanamo has become a major, major problem for America’s perception as it’s seen, the way the world perceives America. And if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo not tomorrow, but this afternoon. I’d close it. And I would not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system.

The concern was, “Well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus.” So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And, by the way, America, unfortunately, has two million people in jail all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system. And so I would get rid of Guantanamo and I’d get rid of the military commission system and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts-martial. I would do that because I think it’s a more equitable way to do it and it’s more understandable in constitutional terms.

I would always—I would also do it because every morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds. And so, essentially, we have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don’t need it, and it’s causing us far damage than any good we get for it. But, remember what I started in this discussion saying, “Don’t let any of them go.” Put them into a different system, a system that is experienced, that knows how to handle people like this.

Full Transcript

UPDATE: The editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal used their Fox News program this weekend to disagree with General/Secretary Powell on his comments above. Their main arguments seem to be:

1) the prisoners in Guantanamo are really, really bad people, and
2) Phooey on whatever other nations think about us.

Here is a transcript. Scroll down past the John Yoo interview.

Reverse Racism

In South Carolina, a schoolteacher found herself the subject of constant racial insults from her middle school students. School administrators stood by and watched. Think we're past such things? Hardly. This case is a little different, though. The teacher was white and the students black.

The teacher, whose name is Elizabeth Kandrac, finally filed civil rights complaints and then sued the school district. A jury found in her favor and she settled with the school district for damages.

Let's be clear: What these children called this teacher is beyond reprehensible and could be only be construed as hostile and threatening.

Back in the day, if a pupil had talked the way these did, he or she would have received a well-deserved thwack, been suspended and sent home to face the wrath of a parent. That process likely would have put a swift end to the tribal tyranny now often tolerated in the service of self-esteem.Here's a sample: white b----, white m----- f-----, white c---, white a------, white ho.

Other white teachers and pupils corroborated Kandrac's account, including a male war veteran who testified he would rather return to Vietnam than to Brentwood.

Kandrac's attorney, Larry Kobrovsky, argued that the repeated use of "white" made these slurs racist in nature. But school officials insisted that because black pupils were equally abusive to other blacks, the language wasn't inherently racist.

Here's what we know without question: If white pupils had used similar language toward black pupils and teachers, the case would have been plastered on the front page of the New York Times until heads rolled.

A black Kandrac would have a million-dollar book deal, a movie contract and hundreds of interviews to juggle. Her oppressors and those who passively facilitated her abuse would have been pilloried by the media -- their faces all over the evening news -- while Revs. Al and Jesse organized protests.

But a white Kandrac -- who faced a daily barrage of insults, who had books and desks thrown at her and her bicycle tires punctured -- was treated like an incompetent wimp. She was just a lousy teacher out for money, the defense attorney said.

Though Kandrac lost her job, the real losers are the children deprived of an education by the actions of a tyrannical few. And the worst racists are those teachers and administrators who denied these empowered brats the expectation of civilized behavior. MORE (Hat tip: Mark Shea)

Meanwhile, Mark Gordon at Suicide of the West reports on disturbing statistics about crime and race. Among white women who were raped in 2005, 33.6% of the offenders were black. Extrapolating from this brings a disturbing conclusion:

African-Americans are 12% of the population of the United States. Roughly 50% of that population is male. This means that 6% of our population accounts for 50.1% of all rapes committed and 33.6% of rapes committed against white women. What do you suppose the connections might be between these statistics and a.) the prevalence of a multiculturalist ideology that excuses criminality by perpetuating a victim-mentality among African-Americans, and b.) the continued popularity of hip-hop as an expression of the violence and hyper-sexuality that pervades black urban culture? MORE

All good questions. Anyone out there have the answers?