Not only is the bus the Bush is driving heading straight over a cliff, but it somehow has its wheels falling off at the same time. The question is, do all the wheels come off and the Bush administration become irrelevant prior to it going over the cliff, or is there enough momentum to carry the bus over the cliff regardless.
The U.S. prosecutor scandal continues to unravel in front of our eyes and the web of lies grows by the truck load.
Ironically, one of the aides to Alberto Gonzalez will invoke her civil liberties (the 5th amendment) and choose not to answer questions in front of congress on the grounds that she might incriminate herself, while at the same time, advancing the Bush administrations claim that no other person may seek the benefit of the constitution when it comes to trials, right to privacy, etc, etc, etc... Why not classify her as an enemy combatant. That way the same "interrogation" rules can be used on her to get the answers as they use in Gitmo. I suspect that this aide will crack once the first drop of water from her water boarding session hits her forehead. It amazes me that the people who do there best to discard the constitution are the first to invoke its protections once the heat is on them instead of the Quaker prayer groups that they are eavesdropping on.
Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment
At the same time, Gonzalez was caught in more lies over the weekend as the justice department released more documents to the congress. It turns out that despite claiming that he never read anything or attended any meetings in regards to the firing of the 8 U.S. prosecutors, Gonzalez did in fact attend meeting ans read memos on the Rove/Meires scheme to install more lap dogs in the Justice department. If there is one person in the entire Bush administration that needs (and I emphasize needs) to be on the up and up, it is the Attorney General. We expect the president to play partisan games. We expect the congress to play partisan games. But the entire judicial system, from the judges to the prosecutors must be of the highest level of non-partisanship in order for this entire thing we call democracy to work.
The administration flaunting of the legal system, as well as democracy itself has even got a Republican Senator talking about the possibility of impeachment. Chuck Hagel came right out and said that this administration views its self as a monarchy.
Senator: Some see impeachment as option
This administration began its self destructive path a long time ago. The only question is will it destroy itself before it also destroys us.
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Let the Battle Start
The House just issued subpoenas for white house officials in the U.S. prosecutor flap that has been going on over the past two weeks. This will likely make its way to the courts if the white house officials do not respond to the subpoenas.
Bush has already stated that he will not allow his personnel to testify under oath and in public, stating that it would set a precedent if he allowed his officials to testify under oath. Of course, this is a bunch of crap. Clinton had 31 of his staff testify on capital hill under oath.
Bush is additionally making the claim that executive privilege allows him to assert the right not to allow white house officials to testify. This is related to an executive privilege claim that the president should be able to get advice from his staff in a confidential manner. This claim is also short sighted since none of the information being sought was between the president and his staff, but between staff members.
Why is he so afraid of having this all out in the open? There are no national security issues involved.
Probably, just like every thing else in this administration, pure and unadulterated unethical behavior is involved in the whole affair. The white house claimed that the dismissals of the prosecutors was due to performance, but that has proven to be false. Five of the prosecutors that were fired were involved with corruption investigations. When one of the prosecutors opened up a new investigation into corruption charges against a Republican, an e-mail was sent the very next day to Gonzalez's chief of staff saying that there was a "problem" with that prosecutor.
Win or lose in the court, Bush loses in the long run. People are tired of this administrations secretive policies that hide everything from the American people. This only adds one more log to the fire of disbelief of president Bush.
House panel OKs Rove, Miers subpoenas
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.
By voice vote, but with some "no" votes heard, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.
The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the "media spectacle" that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.
"The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?" Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.
"There must be accountability," countered subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
(Full Story)
Bush has already stated that he will not allow his personnel to testify under oath and in public, stating that it would set a precedent if he allowed his officials to testify under oath. Of course, this is a bunch of crap. Clinton had 31 of his staff testify on capital hill under oath.
Bush is additionally making the claim that executive privilege allows him to assert the right not to allow white house officials to testify. This is related to an executive privilege claim that the president should be able to get advice from his staff in a confidential manner. This claim is also short sighted since none of the information being sought was between the president and his staff, but between staff members.
Why is he so afraid of having this all out in the open? There are no national security issues involved.
Probably, just like every thing else in this administration, pure and unadulterated unethical behavior is involved in the whole affair. The white house claimed that the dismissals of the prosecutors was due to performance, but that has proven to be false. Five of the prosecutors that were fired were involved with corruption investigations. When one of the prosecutors opened up a new investigation into corruption charges against a Republican, an e-mail was sent the very next day to Gonzalez's chief of staff saying that there was a "problem" with that prosecutor.
Win or lose in the court, Bush loses in the long run. People are tired of this administrations secretive policies that hide everything from the American people. This only adds one more log to the fire of disbelief of president Bush.
House panel OKs Rove, Miers subpoenas
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.
By voice vote, but with some "no" votes heard, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.
The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the "media spectacle" that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.
"The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?" Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.
"There must be accountability," countered subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
(Full Story)
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Libby Found Guilty
I haven't had much time for bloggin lately, but this deserves a mention.
Libby has just been found guilty on 4 out of the 5 indictments in the CIA/Valerie Plame leak case. He was acquitted on one count of lying to the FBI.
My prediction, Libby will stay out of jail while this is appealed. Another 6 months to a year later, his conviction will be upheld, just in time for Bush to pardon him after the '08 election.
Libby has just been found guilty on 4 out of the 5 indictments in the CIA/Valerie Plame leak case. He was acquitted on one count of lying to the FBI.
My prediction, Libby will stay out of jail while this is appealed. Another 6 months to a year later, his conviction will be upheld, just in time for Bush to pardon him after the '08 election.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
No Lawyer for You!
I have a few words to say about the remarks from Charles "Cully" Stimson, the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, who tried to bully lawyers into not providing legal assistance to Gitmo detainees. In an interview, Cully stated that CEOs should pull their work from law firms who provide pro bono assistance to detainees.
While the Pentagon has officially condemned Cully for his comments, the repugnant comment and blatant attempt to subvert the American judicial system shows the contempt this administration has for the Constitution and the Bill or Rights.
No matter how despicable a person is, no matter how disgusting society deems them to be, every person deserves the access to legal representation.
Karen Mathis, the President of the American Bar Association also issued this statement
It is this lack of respect for our laws that has brought us illegal wire tapping, data mining, secret detention centers, torture, etc.
Here is a novel idea. If they are guilty of a crime - TRY THEM!
I am sure some of the people we have at Gitmo are terrorist - NOW, PROVE IT!
Show everyone in the world that the people we have locked away are locked away for a reason and not just because some nameless person says so. Or are they afraid that they can't actually prove a damn thing. If we cannot be a nation of laws, how can we expect anyone else to be.
While the Pentagon has officially condemned Cully for his comments, the repugnant comment and blatant attempt to subvert the American judicial system shows the contempt this administration has for the Constitution and the Bill or Rights.
No matter how despicable a person is, no matter how disgusting society deems them to be, every person deserves the access to legal representation.
Karen Mathis, the President of the American Bar Association also issued this statement
Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work -- and doing it on a volunteer basis -- is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans. The American Bar Association supports lawyers who give of their time and expertise defending those involved in legal actions. In fact it is one of the basic tenets of the Association's Second Season of Service, that lawyers should perform pro bono and volunteer work.
It is this lack of respect for our laws that has brought us illegal wire tapping, data mining, secret detention centers, torture, etc.
Here is a novel idea. If they are guilty of a crime - TRY THEM!
I am sure some of the people we have at Gitmo are terrorist - NOW, PROVE IT!
Show everyone in the world that the people we have locked away are locked away for a reason and not just because some nameless person says so. Or are they afraid that they can't actually prove a damn thing. If we cannot be a nation of laws, how can we expect anyone else to be.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Bush's War On America Continues
Despite being thoroughly rejected in the polls last week, King George's war on America continues. Bush has declared that the recent law that allows him to hold detainees indefinitely in Cuba also applies to all immigrants, legal or illegal residing or visiting the United States. Any person that the Bush Administration declares to be an enemy combatant can be rounded up and detained forever with no right to a trial or to legal counsel of any sort. This means Mexican immigrants who came over the border yesterday, as well as your grandmother who came here from the old country 50 years ago.
The wing nuts out there will be saying, "but it only applies to the bad guys." Well, how the hell do we know it only applies to the bad guys if there is no way for the imprisoned person to ever confront the accusers and present evidence in court of their innocence.
Once a person is rounded up, the government does not have to present a single shred of evidence that the person being detained is or ever was a threat to the United States. If the person is ever tired, they would be tried in front of a military tribunal where the government cannot be forced to ever disclose the evidence against the accused.
What kind of fascist state is he trying to turn this country into? This is obscene in every aspect and is a slap in the face of our founding fathers. This country is based on the rule of law. If was based on principles of order and justice. Bush is throwing that all out the window. How do we say that we are spreading democracy and freedom around the world when we are turning this country into a police state.
US: Immigrants may be held indefinitely
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 14, 6:39 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.
In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured and held in the United States.
Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He has been labeled an "enemy combatant," a designation that, under a law signed last month, strips foreigners of the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.
That law is being used to argue the Guantanamo Bay cases, but Al-Marri represents the first detainee inside the United States to come under the new law. Aliens normally have the right to contest their imprisonment, such as when they are arrested on immigration violations or for other crimes.
"It's pretty stunning that any alien living in the United States can be denied this right," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for Al-Marri. "It means any non-citizen, and there are millions of them, can be whisked off at night and be put in detention."
(Full Story)
The wing nuts out there will be saying, "but it only applies to the bad guys." Well, how the hell do we know it only applies to the bad guys if there is no way for the imprisoned person to ever confront the accusers and present evidence in court of their innocence.
Once a person is rounded up, the government does not have to present a single shred of evidence that the person being detained is or ever was a threat to the United States. If the person is ever tired, they would be tried in front of a military tribunal where the government cannot be forced to ever disclose the evidence against the accused.
What kind of fascist state is he trying to turn this country into? This is obscene in every aspect and is a slap in the face of our founding fathers. This country is based on the rule of law. If was based on principles of order and justice. Bush is throwing that all out the window. How do we say that we are spreading democracy and freedom around the world when we are turning this country into a police state.
US: Immigrants may be held indefinitely
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 14, 6:39 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.
In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured and held in the United States.
Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He has been labeled an "enemy combatant," a designation that, under a law signed last month, strips foreigners of the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.
That law is being used to argue the Guantanamo Bay cases, but Al-Marri represents the first detainee inside the United States to come under the new law. Aliens normally have the right to contest their imprisonment, such as when they are arrested on immigration violations or for other crimes.
"It's pretty stunning that any alien living in the United States can be denied this right," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for Al-Marri. "It means any non-citizen, and there are millions of them, can be whisked off at night and be put in detention."
(Full Story)
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Intellectual Dishonesty
Yesterday, George "Stay the Course" Bush, came out swinging against the recent decision in the New Jersey State Supreme court saying that homosexual couples must be given the same state rights as heterosexual couples.
Right off the bat, Bush decides to leave intellectual honesty at the door.
First, the state of New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that everyone must be treated equally. How does any president who is sworn to uphold the constitution stand behind a podium and claim that it is their political platform to make one class of Americans inferior to others. It is not hard to understand the words "equal protection of the law." It is an easy concept... seriously... it just means if you give certain legal rights to one group of people, you have to afford that same rights to similar other groups. How is this not a fundamental principal that Bush is 100% behind.
Second, the State of New Jersey Supreme Court did not rule that homosexuals must be given the right to marry. The one and only thing they said was that homosexual couples must be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. That means they must be given the same rights to survivorship and state benefits. This can be done as a civil union or marriage. The Court left that decision up to the legislature to decide.
This ruling was anything but an activist decision. The court did exactly what the president wanted. They strictly interpreted the law. In fact, if the court ruled the opposite way, that same-sex couples do not deserve the same rights, that would be an activist court because the court is ignoring the law. You can't expect the court to ignore the law just because the thought of two men sleeping together gives you the willies.
Ironically, the religious people that Bush panders to on this issue are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. For a government to legislate that marriage is between only a man and a women are infringing upon religious freedoms. They are encouraging the state to define religion and how you can practice your personal faith.
Bush can do nothing other than to play to the base fears of conservatives. He is being intellectually dishonest and in in no form or manner a leader upholding the Constitution of the United States.
"For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order," Bush said Monday. "Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and should be defended."
- Bush hits hard at gay marriage
Right off the bat, Bush decides to leave intellectual honesty at the door.
First, the state of New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that everyone must be treated equally. How does any president who is sworn to uphold the constitution stand behind a podium and claim that it is their political platform to make one class of Americans inferior to others. It is not hard to understand the words "equal protection of the law." It is an easy concept... seriously... it just means if you give certain legal rights to one group of people, you have to afford that same rights to similar other groups. How is this not a fundamental principal that Bush is 100% behind.
HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married
heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds
that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex
couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the
civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex
couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
Second, the State of New Jersey Supreme Court did not rule that homosexuals must be given the right to marry. The one and only thing they said was that homosexual couples must be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. That means they must be given the same rights to survivorship and state benefits. This can be done as a civil union or marriage. The Court left that decision up to the legislature to decide.
"I believe I should continue to appoint judges who strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench," the president said, earning more applause in the sweltering basketball arena at Georgia Southern University.
This ruling was anything but an activist decision. The court did exactly what the president wanted. They strictly interpreted the law. In fact, if the court ruled the opposite way, that same-sex couples do not deserve the same rights, that would be an activist court because the court is ignoring the law. You can't expect the court to ignore the law just because the thought of two men sleeping together gives you the willies.
Ironically, the religious people that Bush panders to on this issue are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. For a government to legislate that marriage is between only a man and a women are infringing upon religious freedoms. They are encouraging the state to define religion and how you can practice your personal faith.
Bush can do nothing other than to play to the base fears of conservatives. He is being intellectually dishonest and in in no form or manner a leader upholding the Constitution of the United States.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
New Jersay Rules On Gay Marriage
The New Jersey supreme court today ruled that the state must either allow gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples. The court ruled that the inequity in marriage laws is intolerable under the New Jersey State Constitution. The state legislature now has 180 days to either allow gay marriage, or offer some sort of civil union. Since it is still my firm belief that banning gay marraige is a violation of the 1st Amendments freedom of religion clause, I am hoping that the NJ legislature will go with marriage and not a civli union. If the state is going to recognize marriages done by churches, it should recognize marriages done by all churches, not just the ones who believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
The holding was perfect in its constitutional analysis:
Holding via Atrios
This is just one of four states now that has decided "equal protection under the laws" actually means equal protection.
Religious conservatives can hold out for a long time, but eventually, equal protection will be equal protection in all 50 states.
NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK
By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer
TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions.
The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.
The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name.
"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the 4-3 majority's decision.
Outside the Supreme Court, news of the ruling caused confusion, with many of the roughly 100 gay marriage supporters outside asking each other what it meant. Many started to agree that they needed to push for a state constitutional amendment to institute gay marriage.
(Full Story)
The holding was perfect in its constitutional analysis:
HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married
heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds
that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex
couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the
civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex
couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
Holding via Atrios
This is just one of four states now that has decided "equal protection under the laws" actually means equal protection.
Religious conservatives can hold out for a long time, but eventually, equal protection will be equal protection in all 50 states.
NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK
By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer
TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions.
The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.
The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name.
"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the 4-3 majority's decision.
Outside the Supreme Court, news of the ruling caused confusion, with many of the roughly 100 gay marriage supporters outside asking each other what it meant. Many started to agree that they needed to push for a state constitutional amendment to institute gay marriage.
(Full Story)
Friday, December 03, 2004
Hate Crimes and Their Punishment - Part II
Boomr wrote a long comment back to me in regards to an earlier post about hate crimes that I thought was worth reposting and commenting on. He makes good points, but as usual, he is wrong (We have been arguing consistently for 12 years - remember Kinshasa, Boomr?). Boomr wrote:
Ahhh... but intent in a "hate crime" is more than just the physical act itself. You are confusing motivation with intent (and I apologize if I did not explain myself well). In order to show this, you have to really break it down to the elemental parts. I will contrast it to your example of the gun.
In your example, the gun is not a crime. The crime is pointing the gun at someone and pulling the trigger with the intent to commit murder - mens rea. The gun, in-and-of-itself is merely a tool used to commit a crime. Therefore, if I point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, I have the intent to commit one, and only one crime - murder.
Now, lets contrast that to a hate crime. When a person commits a hate crime, the murder (lets use a lynching) is the tool (like the gun) in order to commit a crime (terrorism). So, If a person lynches another person in order to terrorize a community, the person has committed two crimes, not just one. He has intended to commit murder and he has intended to commit terrorism. The result is a greater impact and therefore deserves a bigger punishment. The difference is that the tool used to commit the crime is also a crime.
Motivation is not needed to be proven in a hate crime either. A prosecutor does not have to prove why a person committed a hate crime, only that he intended to commit a hate crime. Just like you don't need to prove a reason for committing murder in your example, you don't need to prove a reason in a hate crime either. The prosecutor does not need to delve into the psychological underpinnings of the defendant. Just like the prosecutor needs to use evidence to prove murder - gun with prints on it, bullet matching, eye witnesses - a prosecutor must use evidence to prove hate crimes - manner of killings, burnt crosses, etc.
Further to break down and analyze your example... if the intent of the two suspects is the same, kill the guy. But if the intent of the white man was to kill the black man, and in doing so, send a message to the black community, then the intent is different. As for the definition of terrorism, I was using the Dictionary definition, not the legal definition - Sorry for the confusion.
Secondly, you and I both know that motivation is actually a factor in criminal matters. You can have the intent to kill someone, but the motivation is self defense. Additionally, if a case is based on purely circumstantial evidence, motivation is often used by both the prosecution and the defense to prove or disprove a persons guilt. It is had to pin something on someone where there is absolutely no motivation. Along the same lines, in a hate crime, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator acted with intent to commit more than just murder. The burden of proof is on the prosecution that the person wanted, not only to commit murder, but to also terrorize a community. If the prosecution cannot prove intent of a hate crime, then a defendant will not be convicted of it. The same thing is true of the underlying murder.
As much as Dingo and I may agree on many things, I think I have to disagree with him on this one -- at least until I have a better argument presented. I respect his argument about mens rea, but I think he takes it a bit too far. Mens rea is the intent to commit a physical act, not the motivation for why the act is committed. I'll put it to you this way: If I consciously pull the trigger of a gun that is pointed at a person, I've committed an act with the requisite mens rea to be charged with homicide. The definition of "homicide" does not need a REASON for why I consciously pulled the trigger. That's why prosecutors are not required to prove motive in criminal trials.
Let me give you another example, to offset Dingo's arguments about lynchings. Let's say the dead body of a minority is found in the middle of a mostly minority neighborhood, with a gunshot wound through the heart. By the way the body is found, there is no overt and public evidence of the motivation behind the murder (no burning crosses, no hangings, no racial epithets painted near the body, etc.), although there is concrete evidence that a murder has in fact been committed. Let's say there are two suspects: one black man and one white man. The police suspect that the black man might have killed the guy in a dispute over a girl -- surely a heated, emotional motivation. The police suspect the white man might have killed the guy in a dispute over racist comments the white guy made. Why should one suspect be treated differently from the other?
As for Dingo's lynching analogy, that is a completely different set of events. As he said, there are strict legal definitions of "terrorism," which come with additional jail time on top of whatever the underlying felony may have been (in this case, murder). The definition of "terrorism" does not discriminate based on the underlying motivation -- as long as there is proof of intent to terrorize a community (ANY community), then terrorism laws apply. Again, why apply the laws differently for race or gender, as opposed to political beliefs? Under the hate crimes laws, killing someone for racist reasons would be worse than killing someone for political reasons, and that just makes no sense to me. The punishment for both should be equally harsh.
When you start legislating based upon what people THINK, that's when you start down a dangerous slippery slope. Racist crimes are abhorrent, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but such crimes can be prosecuted under existing laws without delving into the thoughts of the perpetrator. "Murder" and "terrorism" are sufficiently broad to encompass such crimes, as well as many others, without regulating how people think.
Ahhh... but intent in a "hate crime" is more than just the physical act itself. You are confusing motivation with intent (and I apologize if I did not explain myself well). In order to show this, you have to really break it down to the elemental parts. I will contrast it to your example of the gun.
In your example, the gun is not a crime. The crime is pointing the gun at someone and pulling the trigger with the intent to commit murder - mens rea. The gun, in-and-of-itself is merely a tool used to commit a crime. Therefore, if I point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, I have the intent to commit one, and only one crime - murder.
Now, lets contrast that to a hate crime. When a person commits a hate crime, the murder (lets use a lynching) is the tool (like the gun) in order to commit a crime (terrorism). So, If a person lynches another person in order to terrorize a community, the person has committed two crimes, not just one. He has intended to commit murder and he has intended to commit terrorism. The result is a greater impact and therefore deserves a bigger punishment. The difference is that the tool used to commit the crime is also a crime.
Motivation is not needed to be proven in a hate crime either. A prosecutor does not have to prove why a person committed a hate crime, only that he intended to commit a hate crime. Just like you don't need to prove a reason for committing murder in your example, you don't need to prove a reason in a hate crime either. The prosecutor does not need to delve into the psychological underpinnings of the defendant. Just like the prosecutor needs to use evidence to prove murder - gun with prints on it, bullet matching, eye witnesses - a prosecutor must use evidence to prove hate crimes - manner of killings, burnt crosses, etc.
Further to break down and analyze your example... if the intent of the two suspects is the same, kill the guy. But if the intent of the white man was to kill the black man, and in doing so, send a message to the black community, then the intent is different. As for the definition of terrorism, I was using the Dictionary definition, not the legal definition - Sorry for the confusion.
Secondly, you and I both know that motivation is actually a factor in criminal matters. You can have the intent to kill someone, but the motivation is self defense. Additionally, if a case is based on purely circumstantial evidence, motivation is often used by both the prosecution and the defense to prove or disprove a persons guilt. It is had to pin something on someone where there is absolutely no motivation. Along the same lines, in a hate crime, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator acted with intent to commit more than just murder. The burden of proof is on the prosecution that the person wanted, not only to commit murder, but to also terrorize a community. If the prosecution cannot prove intent of a hate crime, then a defendant will not be convicted of it. The same thing is true of the underlying murder.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Hate Crimes and Their Punishment
I spend a lot of time reading the conservative blogs. I like to find out what the "other side" is thinking. One concept that has popped up on a number of blogs is the issue of Hate Crimes. Generally, I see that conservative bloggers find the notion of extra punishment for a crime motivated against another American due to race, gender or sexual orientation is wrong. The consensus seems to be that it should be prosecuted like any other assault or murder case. This is why I disagree:
In the majority of criminal cases, the intent of the perpetrator is relevant. This is called mens rea - meaning the guilty mind. If you trip on the subway and accidentally punch someone, it is not assault because you did not have the intent to harm that person. But, if you find out that your next door neighbor has been stealing your morning paper and you go over to his house and slug him, it is assault because you had the intent to cause bodily harm - you has the requisite mens rea to be prosecuted for assault. A crime that is motivated by "hate" of another person due to race, gender or sexual orientation is especially relevant to intent. A hate crime is terrorism and nothing less. It is not a akin to a mugging or convince store robbery where someone gets shot. A hate crime does much more than just cause harm to the victim, it causes terror in a community.
The definition of Terrorism is: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
This is exactly what the perpetrator of a hate crime intends to do. Someone who commits a hate crime is not doing it for the money. By causing bodily harm to a single individual, it sends a message to the rest of that targeted community, do what we want or else. When the KKK lynches a black man, it is a means of coercion to the rest of the black community. The KKK is nothing more than a group of thug terrorists. When two men take a homosexual out into the words, tie him to a wood fence, and then beat him to death, it is a message to the rest of the gay community to, "get back in the closet or your next." The men who beat Matthew Shepard to death are not mere murders, but are terrorists to the gay community. The goal of the KKK or "fag" beaters is the same as Mohammad Atta and the rest of the Islamic extremists. The goal is the systemic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Think how unsafe you felt as an America after 9/11. We could be struck any time, any place. The feeling is the same for those in black neighborhoods where crosses are burnt and churches are bombed. If we are to hunt down terrorists and treat them as more that mere criminals (as I agree we should do), then we have to do the same for those domestic terrorists who willingly single out other Americans in order to send a message to the rest of the targeted community. Not only have they killed but they have struck terror into the hearts of fellow Americans and committed a crime so heinous as to deserve extra punishment.
In the majority of criminal cases, the intent of the perpetrator is relevant. This is called mens rea - meaning the guilty mind. If you trip on the subway and accidentally punch someone, it is not assault because you did not have the intent to harm that person. But, if you find out that your next door neighbor has been stealing your morning paper and you go over to his house and slug him, it is assault because you had the intent to cause bodily harm - you has the requisite mens rea to be prosecuted for assault. A crime that is motivated by "hate" of another person due to race, gender or sexual orientation is especially relevant to intent. A hate crime is terrorism and nothing less. It is not a akin to a mugging or convince store robbery where someone gets shot. A hate crime does much more than just cause harm to the victim, it causes terror in a community.
The definition of Terrorism is: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
This is exactly what the perpetrator of a hate crime intends to do. Someone who commits a hate crime is not doing it for the money. By causing bodily harm to a single individual, it sends a message to the rest of that targeted community, do what we want or else. When the KKK lynches a black man, it is a means of coercion to the rest of the black community. The KKK is nothing more than a group of thug terrorists. When two men take a homosexual out into the words, tie him to a wood fence, and then beat him to death, it is a message to the rest of the gay community to, "get back in the closet or your next." The men who beat Matthew Shepard to death are not mere murders, but are terrorists to the gay community. The goal of the KKK or "fag" beaters is the same as Mohammad Atta and the rest of the Islamic extremists. The goal is the systemic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Think how unsafe you felt as an America after 9/11. We could be struck any time, any place. The feeling is the same for those in black neighborhoods where crosses are burnt and churches are bombed. If we are to hunt down terrorists and treat them as more that mere criminals (as I agree we should do), then we have to do the same for those domestic terrorists who willingly single out other Americans in order to send a message to the rest of the targeted community. Not only have they killed but they have struck terror into the hearts of fellow Americans and committed a crime so heinous as to deserve extra punishment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
