Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) penned a letter to Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggesting military trials would be a more appropriate venue for the accused terrorists.
“As a former prosecutor, I am not yet convinced that the right decision was made in these cases, nor that the presumption in favor of federal criminal trials over military tribunals for these detainees should continue,” Skelton wrote. …
“The decision to terminate the prosecution of these self-confessed terrorists in military commissions, transfer them to the United States, and bring them into a federal courthouse for trial raises many serious questions which I would like you both to address in a full committee briefing on December 3, 2009, at 1:00 PM,” Skelton requested.

As I’ve said before, Holder’s bowing to the ACLU on this will prove to be one of the most stupid decisions ever made and will put a mess on the plate for Democrats.

Ed Morrissey sums it up:

This is the first significant public pushback from a Democratic Congressman, although some in the Senate expressed at least reservations during Holder’s appearance this week. It probably won’t be the last. After all, it was a Democratic Congress that passed the current military commissions system, working with a Republican President, to find a system that would get the blessing of the Supreme Court while maintaining security for our war efforts in intelligence. Without the Democrats in 2007, there would have been no military commissions system at all. That default would have forced KSM and everyone else at Gitmo into federal court eventually, an outcome that few wanted to see … at least in 2007.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Byam Elementary School apparently has a gift shop they arrange every year during the holiday season. But in the interest of political correctness, religion must of course be promptly removed — we wouldn’t want to anger the atheists, after all — and Christmas is the holiday that’s most in the crosshairs.

After meeting with members of the Byam Elementary School PTO, two mothers asking to put the holidays back into the school’s annual holiday gift shop say Byam isn’t budging.

Kathryn McMillan and Kathleen Cullen, who both have children at Byam, asked school officials to allow all holiday items at the gift shop following a ban on Santa, candy canes, stockings, and all Christmas, Hanukkah and other “religious items.”

But a meeting with some PTO parents on Thursday night grew heated as emotions got in the way.

Red and green tissue paper to wrap presents was also crossed off the list because it looked too “Christmasy,” McMillan said.

“One of the parents said, ‘If we allow Santa, what do we say if a child brings in a swastika? Do we allow that too?’ ” McMillan said. “All I could think of was, are you kidding? You’re comparing a Christmas ornament to a swastika? It seems as if reason is lost somewhere and I just hope we can find it again.”

Superintendent Donald Yeoman told The Sun on Tuesday that the rules for the gift shop are under the authority of Byam Principal Jane Gilmore. Ultimately, said Yeoman, the policy for the gift shop was set so no child would feel left out.

“It’s operated under those same rules for a number of years with success and without complaint,” Yeoman said.

Until now.

Gilmore did not return a reporter’s phone call yesterday.

McMillan and Cullen have asked that if the children can’t celebrate their traditions – whatever they may be – at the holiday gift shop, then maybe the school should move the gift shop to another time of year.

Not all Chelmsford schools have adopted the same policy as Byam. The South Row Elementary School, and the former Westlands Elementary that closed last year, had no restrictions on gift-giving.

“It makes sense that the school probably makes the most money by holding the gift shop over the holidays,” McMillan added. “So all we’re asking is that if you’re letting kids buy gifts for the holidays, let them donate stuff that celebrates those traditions and use it as a teachable moment so these kids can learn.”

McMillan and Cullen will appear before the School Committee on Tuesday, Nov. 24.

It seems like these parents are the only ones who possess any reason whatsoever. But, as always, there is the one parent who gets OFFENDED!! for their children’s sake, and must ban Christmas, Santa, Christianity, and anything that might even resemble it. But going so far as to link Santa Claus to Nazi swastikas is taking it further than I think I’ve seen before. I mean, really, let’s see… we have Santa Claus, a saint who has grown into a myth, a man who believes in kindness and giving. And then there’s Nazis, who were responsible for the torture, starvation, slavery, and murders of over six million people. How does one’s mind link Santa Claus and Nazis? When someone mentions Christmas or Santa, how screwed up do you have to be to automatically think that letting a kid celebrate that in school means that you’re opening the door to celebrating Nazis? I mean, that’s one hell of a leap there. On top of that, the rules seem more than a little outrageous. You can’t even have red or green wrapping paper because it just might remind someone of Christmas? Good Lord, this takes worshipping at the altar of political correctness to a whole new level.

And for what it’s worth, I think the suggestion of McMillan and Cullen seem perfectly sound to me. If they won’t let children celebrate their respective holidays at the gift shop — Christmas, Hanukkah — then why not just move the gift shop to a different time of year and avoid the whole issue? Instead, the school has seemingly gone out of their way to deliberately snub religion. It’s simple, though. The school wants to capitalize on the holiday season without having to actually deal with those pesky holidays, and they know that having the gift shop in the middle of, say, September just wouldn’t be as profitable. I don’t begrudge them wanting to make money, but it seems hypocritical to want to make money off of the holiday season — and also by taking advantage of the festive, giving holiday spirit of parents — while being completely unwilling to include the holidays they’re capitalizing on.

And while surely if enough parents complain enough, the school will change the rules, it’s disturbing enough that this would even happen. This was a country built on faith-based principles, after all — and now, we have more and more schools trying to keep faith out of the public eye in any way, shape, or form.

Jane Gilmore, the religion hating principal of Byam Elementary School.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Related: President Obama Urges Congress To Halt Ft. Hood Probe

President Barack Obama on Saturday urged Congress to hold off on any investigation of the Fort Hood rampage until federal law enforcement and military authorities have completed their probes into the shootings at the Texas Army post, which left 13 people dead.

On an eight-day Asia trip, Obama turned his attention home and pleaded for lawmakers to “resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater.” He said those who died on the nation’s largest Army post deserve justice, not political stagecraft.

“The stakes are far too high,” Obama said in a video and Internet address released by the White House while the president was flying from Tokyo to Singapore, where Pacific Rim countries were meeting.
…
Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif., said he wanted to go ahead with an investigation from the House Armed Services Committee, where he is the top Republican. He said he wanted an investigation that wouldn’t compromise law enforcement or military investigations that were continuing on separate tracks.

In the Senate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said his Homeland Security Committee was opening an investigation.

Obama said he was not opposed to hearings — eventually. But he strongly pressed lawmakers to hold off until the probes now under way are completed.

“There is an ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy,” Obama said. “That investigation will look at the motives of the alleged gunman, including his views and contacts.”

“We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information. Once we have those facts, we must act upon them.”
Source

Also see POWIP

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A sampling of those from Jay’s post from last night: Smack Down of Obama Administration on KSM Trial Decision

And guess who celebrates this as some sort of victory for “justice?”

It’s no secret that the greatest threats to America on the international stage can depend on the ACLU’s extended hand of friendship. The ACLU, as the most dangerous threat to this country from within, has long been writhing around passionately with every enemy of this country like mating slugs at the end of a mucus thread. That the ACLU cheers this latest attack on American national security is no surprise. After all, they are up to their ear holes in making sure KSM and Da Boyz get sprung, although the MSM seems to be ignoring the ACLU role. Jay wrote last year at PJM about the execrable “John Adams Project” that undoubtedly played a lead role in securing three hots and a cot for KSM while he awaits his circus trial:

The ACLU has launched an initiative called the “John Adams Project.”…What is it? In a nutshell, the ACLU has assembled a “Dream Team” of attorneys with an $8.5 million budget to defend terrorists currently held at Guantanamo. Who’s the primary object of the ACLU’s affection? Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The ACLU, true to form, impugns the professionalism and competence of men and women of infinitely more honor than their accusers by referring to tribunals as “kangaroo courts.” But could the ACLU really be so scandalized that this mass murderer will stand before a military tribunal? Could the ACLU truly be standing up for his “fundamental rights?”

What is the true purpose of a multi-million-dollar campaign to get KSM off the hook?

The ACLU explains: “The ACLU chose to focus on Mohammed’s defense, Romero said, because he appears to be “the government’s top priority in the prosecution. And whether or not they are able to convict Khalid Sheik Mohammed under these rules may well determine the fate of the almost 300 other men who are detained at Guantanamo.”

So that’s it. The ACLU wants to set KSM and 300 other terrorists free or at least make it impossible for the tribunals to serve their function. Because KSM is the worst of the worst, because he is the terrorist in custody most responsible for 9/11, the ACLU is his champion.
This PR stunt can only serve to undermine American credibility by creating the illusion – sure to be propagated by the mass media – that mass killers are somehow being denied “justice.” Think our enemies don’t appreciate the ACLU’s efforts on their behalf – on both legal and the PR fronts? Clearly, this will leave America more vulnerable to attack.

So is it really any surprise that the ACLU would be reaching around to pat itself on the back yesterday?

NEW YORK – In a major victory for due process and the rule of law, the Obama administration will announce today that the five defendants represented by the John Adams Project who have been charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks will be tried in federal court rather than in the Guantánamo military commissions. However, the administration will also announce that it will continue to use the illegitimate military commissions system to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees, including the defendant accused in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint effort with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks and other military commissions defendants. The Guantánamo military commissions proceedings have been plagued from the start with legal challenges and international condemnation due to their disregard for basic due process rights.

“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for restoring due process and the rule of law, as well as repairing America’s international standing, an essential part of ensuring our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve. It would have been an enormous blow to American values if we had tried these defendants in a process riddled with legal problems,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees in the unsalvageable military commissions system. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves capable of handling terrorism cases while protecting both American values and sensitive national security information. Justice can only be served in our tried and true courts.”

This just didn’t seem to smell right, so I ran it through Babel Fish (translating from ACLUgandan to English) and here’s what came out:

BIZARRO CITY – In a major legal and propaganda victory for al Qaeda, the Obama administration will announce today that the five demented killers represented by the John Alan Muhammad Memorial Project who were responsible for the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans will await acquittal in federal court by Leftists in New York rather than standing before the incompetent troglodytes who “serve” our country in the Armed Forces…The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint conspiracy with the National Association of Criminals Disguised as Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals who’ve blessed us with the glorious 9/11 holiday. The Guantánamo military commissions are staffed by drooling fools in odd uniforms with weird oak leaves, eagles and stars on their shoulders and collars and who are despised by our international comrades.
“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for al Qaeda and is sure to threaten our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve, but we think should be applied to international terrorists, who until now have never in history been granted the constitutional rights that were once reserved for American citizens. It would have been an enormous blow to ACLU self-esteem and fundraising if we had tried these murderous thugs in a process that actually would have resulted in justice being done,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some terrorists using those idiots with really short haircuts. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves willing to advance the ACLU agenda — truth, justice and national security be damned. This has us just tickled pink.”

As diabolical as this latest move by the Obamanable Administration is, even more demented is the symbolism of trying Mohammed mere steps away from the site of the greatest act of evil — an act of war, not the street crime the Obamanable Administration is treating it like — ever committed against America on our own soil. Miles, or even blocks, away from the husbands, wives, children, mothers and fathers who were left behind to mourn because of the act of terrorism directed by the very man who has now been extended all the protections of the American constitutional system by virtue of nothing but robbing so many innocent AMERICANS of the same, forever.

Say KSM goes free…the blood of all those innocents murdered, on 9/11 and by those aspiring future Islamist killers emboldened by our manifest lack of will and strength, will be splattered and smeared all over the walls of ACLU headquarters.

Update by Lobo: Just a point I want to get covered, but not enough for a post of its own.

The military commissions are obviously constitutional because Congress instituted them and that power is vested in them.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Congress set up the Commissions for the express purpose of trying enemy combatants. I can not find any vested power in the Executive branch to order ECs tried in federal courts.

I do find it amusingly ironic that for 8 years, liberals screeched about the US going into foreign countries and forcing “democracy” on it and now their leader is ordering foreign enemies be brought into a country they hate, filled with people they want to kill, and force a democracy they despise, on them.

You might want to check out a point that Levin made. (I couldn’t get to it from Google search and could backout)

he said something to the effect that the combatants weren’t “mirandized” and that will create a technicality right from the get go. I’d be willing to bet that Obama is counting on that one!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Eric H. Holder Jr. called his order Friday to send the suspected plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks to trial in Manhattan “the toughest decision I’ve had to make as attorney general.” But what the nation’s chief law enforcement officer did not lay bare for public consumption was the four months of deliberation, lobbying and tug of war inside his own Justice Department that preceded an announcement that will follow him into history.

Hmm, that’s more time than they have spent on Afghanistan, a situation which requires a more immediate response.

In his nine months in office, Holder has jettisoned a public corruption case against former senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) because of prosecutorial lapses, launched an inquiry into CIA interrogators who abused terrorism suspects and announced a turnaround on medical-marijuana enforcement. Each decision has drawn a measure of criticism from Capitol Hill and some of his predecessors.

Interesting. No mention of Holder dismissing the case against the New Black Panthers, who were caught dead to rights violating federal voters rights statutes.

Nevertheless, the fate of the five men who allegedly conspired to use fully fueled airliners as weapons of mass destruction in 2001 posed the single biggest legal and political question that Holder is likely to face. The criminal proceedings against Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his four alleged confederates may display to the world all the protections and failings of the U.S. justice system.

Allegedly? They all admitted to it, then withdrew their guilty plea’s when they realized they wouldn’t get their platform to speechify and martyrdom. Notice the language is turn terrorist attacks into strictly a legal issue, which is called a 9/10 mentality.

“The stakes are high,” Holder said Friday in a brief conversation. “You have what is truly the trial of the century. The American people are committed to the resolution of this, and I considered that closely in picking the right place, the right forum, the right team.”

In other words, he wanted a place which would have great visuals. Do you want the circus in Manhattan, or Dickinson, ND?

For Holder, a native New Yorker who observed the construction of the World Trade Center’s twin towers as a student at Columbia University, the decision to send the detainees to a heavily secured courthouse in Lower Manhattan held special meaning. His brother, William, is a retired Port Authority police officer who lost friends in the attacks, and many of their relatives continue to reside in the Queens neighborhood where Holder grew up playing street basketball.

Why should the personal stuff have any bearing on the case? This is just plain idiocy about Holder playing basketball, though, I wonder if Holder asked his brother what he thought?

At a news conference, Holder emphasized the location to full symbolic effect: “After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York — to New York — to answer for their alleged crimes, in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood.”

Right there is the money quote. The Obama administration is trying to create a photo op, something they can hang their hats on as being “tough on terrorists,” because this is what stands for being tough on terrorists in Liberal World.

No matter which way you look at it, this is going to backfire badly on Holder and Obama. As all the information comes back to the public conscience regarding 9/11, we will remember why the attacks happened, namely, because Democrats are extremely weak on national security, and most Americans could care less that a scumbag like KSM was waterboarded to get information that will protect America and American lives.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A Phoenix ordinance banning charity dining halls in residential neighborhoods withstood a challenge by a north-central Phoenix church.

Retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice Robert Corcoran, serving as a hearing officer, ruled Monday that feeding the homeless at a place of worship can be banned by city ordinance. The decision affects all Phoenix churches with underlying residential zoning.

Over the summer, city officials maintained that CrossRoads United Methodist Church, 7901 N. Central Ave., violated Phoenix zoning code by feeding the poor and homeless on its property, a use that can only occur in commercial or industrial zones. City officials said the decision is effective immediately.

Amazing, eh? Rather then say “thank you for helping these people out,” and perhaps changing the ordinance, Phoenix decided the best thing to do was be typical government weenies. There was a time when most charity and help came from churches and individuals. People with compassion. Now said charity can only come from certain legal restrictions. Bet it makes the homeless feel great. Where is the ACLU when you need them to stand up for the rights of citizens and the downtrodden?

Oh, there they are. They’re suing government leaders, including Charlie Crist, in Florida due to the pathetic state of the government run schools. Visibly absent from the suit are the teacher’s unions.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Obama today signed into law a Homeland Security appropriations bill that grants the Department of Defense (DOD) the authority to continue suppressing photos of prisoner abuse. The amendment, which would allow the DOD to exempt photos from the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA), is aimed at photos ordered released by a federal appeals court as part of an American Civil Liberties Union FOIA lawsuit for photos and other records related to detainee abuse in U.S. custody overseas, although it would apply to other photos in government custody as well. Earlier this month, the ACLU sent a letter to Secretary Robert Gates urging him not to exercise the authority to suppress the photos in their case, stating that the photos “are of critical relevance to an ongoing national debate about accountability.”

How, exactly, would the release of any of those photos protect American civil liberties? Personally, I have emailed the ACLU for the answer to that question, and never received more than a form email that says “thank you for writing us. We hate America soldiers and love Islamic wackjobs.”

“We are disappointed that the president has signed a law giving the Defense Department the authority to hide evidence of its own misconduct, and we hope the defense secretary will not take advantage of that authority by suppressing photos related to the abuse of prisoners,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “Secretary Gates should be guided by the importance of transparency to the democratic process, the extraordinary importance of these photos to the ongoing debate about the treatment of prisoners and the likelihood that the suppression of these photos would ultimately be far more damaging to national security than their disclosure. The last administration’s decision to endorse torture undermined the United States’ moral authority and compromised its security. A failure to fully confront the abuses of the last administration will only compound these harms.”

So, let me see if I have this straight:

1. The ACLU is disappointed. Hmm, were it Bush, they would be “outraged,” but, hey, Barry is just so cute and fuzzy, and then there are all the lollipops and unicorn poots
2. They are asking the Secretary of Defense to ignore the law
3. How is this an on-going debate? The only people who seem to care are the ACLU. Oh, and those Islamic nutjobs who will use the pictures as a reason to saw American heads off.
4. Somehow, not releasing the photos would damage our national security? Only in Liberal World
5. They are asking the Sec of Defense to break the law

Were any of the jihadis Americans? No? Daaaaaaamn! I wonder if the ACLU asked if any of the jihadis liked the treatment. Though, I agree, loud Christian Aguilara music could be considered torture.

“This law allows the administration to transfer prisoners to the U.S. for criminal trials in the federal courts, and the administration should now do exactly that,” said Jaffer. “The military commissions at Guantánamo are not just unlawful but unnecessary. The federal courts are fully capable of prosecuting terrorism suspects while protecting both national security interests and fundamental due process. It’s time to shut down Guantánamo, transfer the military commissions trials to federal courts that uphold the rule of law, and transfer prisoners whom the administration does not intend to charge to countries where they won’t be in danger of being tortured. Indefinite detention without charge or trial undermines the most basic values of justice and fairness.”

Hey, did the MSM let everyone know about this? Not finding it. In essence, the Democrats have taken yet another step to 9/10, where terrorism is solely a law enforcement issue.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

For Constitution Day this year at Sacramento City College Associated Student Government (ASG) President and student Steve Macias arranged for a group named Genocide Awareness Project, an anti-abortion group, to participate on campus in the Constitution Day activities.

The group was approved for participation by the ASG and set up its booth at the appointed time. And then the world came to an end. Pro-Infanticide groups such as Planned Parenthood set up their own, countering booths the next day and left-wing hatemongers in the student body immediately began to circulate a recall petition to have Mr. Macias removed from the Associated Student Government leadership.

There is also some speculation that this insane, un-American recall effort being visited upon Mr. Macias is being tacitly approved of by the College adviser overseeing the ASG.

Even the local press tried to pile onto an attack of Mr. Macias. The SacCity Express originally reported on October 13 that Macias presented the anti-abortion group under a false name when he submitted the group for the vote of the ASG board. On the 26th the paper printed a retraction admitting their “mistake.”

On his FaceBook site, Mr. Macias also reports that one of Sacramento College’s professors has engaged in a nasty email exchange with the student, too. “Why Do these teachers feel that it is there[sic] role to put us students down?” Macias asks. “I am deeply offended that an instutution[sic] that taxpayers pay for and pay to attend would allow this individual to clearly descriminate[sic] against people of faith. Calling Christianity ‘make believe.’ is unacceptable dialougue[sic] from Teacher[sic] to student. Especially when you seek out and attack the student.”

Amusingly, with her quote on the matter, ASG Vice President Debbie Dixon proved that her parent’s money is being sorrowfully wasted on her failed education.

“I am highly offended, I have rights, just as they have rights to not be offended!”

Sorry Debbie, dear, but there is NO “right” not to be offended. The Constitution safeguards political free speech but it does not safeguard your right “not to be offended.” No one has a right not to be offended because such a right would preclude everyone else’s right to free speech in the first place. After all, what one person feels is right and good to say, someone else somewhere will find offense contained therein. So, dear, dear, lil’ Debbie, no one has a right not to be offended. But, I do have to say, I am offended by your ignorance.

So, what we see with this dispiriting case is typical of the distempered left. All these caring, civilized, open minded, more tolerant lefties are in full attack mode trying to shut down the free speech of people with whom they disagree… as always. Sadly, that’s the fascist, Obamaesque sort of actions we are coming to expect from the extreme left and the bubble ensconced, pointy-headed, ivory tower dwellers in academe, isn’t it?

**UDPATE** 11/9/09

College launches attack campaign on student body president over pro-life group’s display

ADF letter: student officer was simply respecting group’s constitutional rights

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom have issued a cease-and-desist letter to Sacramento City College officials after the president of the Associated Student Government was subjected to an illegal recall election for refusing to censor a pro-life group on campus.

College officials targeted Steve Macias for retaliation after they attempted to censor the speech of an off-campus pro-life group that ASG had already voted to allow to participate in a campus event. Macias refused to censor the pro-life display on the grounds that doing so would violate the group’s First Amendment rights. The officials and ASG retaliated by subjecting him to an illegal recall election.

Full news release, quotes, and related media resources available at the following link:

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3397

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Today, President Obama signed into law a bill that will dramatically expand the federal hate crimes law, enabling prosecutors to bring federal charges against people who were previously found innocent of hate crimes in state court. The hate-crimes provisions were added to a defense appropriations bill, which the President signed in a White House signing ceremony this afternoon at around 2:30 p.m.

The new law dramatically expands the reach of the existing federal hate-crimes law that was already on the books, by getting rid of the requirement that a hate crime affect federally-protected activities to be prosecuted in federal court. It also adds sexual orientation, gender, disability, and transgender characteristics to a law that was originally designed to protect racial minorities.

The hate-crimes bill was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for allowing the reprosecution in federal court of people found innocent in state court. The Commission called the new law a “menace to civil liberties” because it is an end-run around constitutional guarantees against double-jeopardy.

As explained earlier, the bill’s sponsors seek to use it to reprosecute people in federal court who have already been found innocent of hate crimes in state court, taking advantage of the “dual sovereignty” loophole in constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff and Wendy Kaminer thus object to the bill on double-jeopardy grounds. Backers of the bill, like the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Commissioner Michael Yaki, supported the bill partly as a way of prosecuting all over again people who were either found not guilty, or who were convicted only of ordinary crimes, while being acquitted of hate-crimes (like the teenagers acquitted of hate crimes in the Shenandoah incident, and the California case of Joseph Silva and George Silva).

Such re-prosecutions can be an enormous waste of money, and grossly unfair to the people who are reprosecuted, driving them into bankruptcy to pay lawyers to represent them all over again when they have already been found innocent in state court after an expensive trial. When the government re-prosecutes someone, it gains an enormous tactical advantage over the defendant from using the prior prosecution as a test-run, even if the defendant is innocent — making a guilty verdict possible even if the defendant is in fact innocent.

The bill also raises serious constitutional federalism issues under the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision.

Passage of the bill was aided by lousy reporting, in which some journalists, like Reuters, depicted the bill as simply a harmless measure to add sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics covered by the federal hate-crimes law, ignoring its many other, far more important (and dangerous) changes to federal hate-crimes law.

Many supporters of the hate crimes bill want to allow those found innocent to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.
But it is a view widely shared among supporters of the hate-crimes bill. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum pointed out in 1998 that Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General, backed the bill as a way of providing a federal “forum” for prosecution if prosecutors fail to obtain a conviction “in the state court.”

Supporters of the hate crimes bill also see it as a way to prosecute people even in cases where the evidence is so weak that state prosecutors have decided not to prosecute. Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed for the hate crimes bill as a way to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.

As law professor Gail Heriot notes, “Some have even called for federal prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse team members–despite strong evidence of their innocence.” Advocates of a broader federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded (and DNA evidence showed), and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations.

The Obama administration has long supported the hate-crimes bill, which it used as a wedge issue in the 2008 election.

As law professors like Jonathan Turley and Eugene Volokh have noted, the Obama administration recently urged restrictions on hate speech at the United Nations, joining in calls to treat such speech, protected by the First Amendment under Supreme Court rulings, as a human-rights violation in violation of international human-rights treaties. In the U.S., college hate-speech codes have been used to discipline students for criticizing affirmative action, discussing the racial implications of the death penalty, and calling homosexuality immoral. In Canada and Britain, hate speech laws have been used to punish religious criticism of Scientology and homosexuality.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

My friend Ken Marrero over at Blue Collar Muse has posted an interesting if not entirely infuriating story about GOP officials coming down on other officials and certain county employees for having the gall to talk to those eeeevil Arizona bloggers that have been doggedly reporting the corruption stories of county officials.

GOP officials of Maricopa County have been in a bit of trouble recently having been accused of wasteful spending, power grabs and criminal investigations. Marrero even notes that there is a Twitter feed used to needle these officials called CorruptAZSupes.

The barbs have been coming fast and furious and County Manager David Smith has decided to try and stop the bleeding. So, did Smith decide to clean up the Supervisor’s office? Nope. He’s decided to attack Republicans that have talked to the press and the bloggers. Classic shooting the messenger mistake.

Smith sent a letter to the County Attorney’s office demanding to know who had relationships with bloggers – or else! They even specifically demand to know about activity that might have taken place on an employee’s personal time and their personal computers! Specifically named in the letter is Michael Scerbo, the County Attorney PIO, who is SUPPOSED to be in touch with the media! While there are some traditional media outlets mentioned, blogs are specifically targeted. The Sonoran Alliance, The Cactus Alliance and Intellectual Conservative Arizona are all named in the letter as being eeeeeeevil bloggers that bad County Attorney employees shouldn’t have anything to do with.

This is akin to a digital witch hunt, a modern day, electronic HUAC. Are you now, or have you ever been a member of a blog?

Catch this nonsense as contained in the letter being circulated by Smith:

Have you, whether under your name, some form of pseudonym, or anonymously, ever posted a blog, note or other communication on the internet concerning Maricopa County, any of its affiliated constituents (as defined in the Ethical Rules)?

Within the last six months, have you communicated with any person, site or entity listed below concerning the entities of individuals set forth in question 1 (a list of persons and blogs follows)

Seriously? The County Manager of Maricopa County imagines he has the power and right to force individuals to report to him what blogs they’ve communicated with and with whom they are in personal, private communications?

Now, certainly there are rules regarding what information may be communicated by officials. There are absolutely ethical rules and limits on some information. Every lawyer knows his ethical limitations and rules. but this letter seems to me to go way too far and verges on a fascist sort of demand upon county employees.

Anyway, it is interesting that Smith’s first impulse is to attack the bloggers instead of clean up the corruption of his office.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post