Misterimpatient

The president of the free world(tm), struck again today when he commuted the sentence of Dick Cheney’s fall guy, “Scooter” Libby. This was the act of a president who has pardoned, commuted or reduced the sentence of fewer federal prisoners then any president before him. His reason for letting Libby off the jail time hook?

“I respect the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Bush said. “But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison.”

Excessive? I actually invested some time in learning about our Federal Sentencing Guidelines. They are pretty extensive and a little anal if you ask me, but, never mind. Here is the relevant page, I think:

§2J1.2. Obstruction of Justice

(a) Base Offense Level: 14

(b) Specific Offense Characteristics

(1) If the offense involved causing or threatening to cause physical injury to a person, or property damage, in order to obstruct the administration of justice, increase by 8 levels.

(2) If the offense resulted in substantial interference with the administration of justice, increase by 3 levels.

(3) If the offense (A) involved the destruction, alteration, or fabrication of a substantial number of records, documents, or tangible objects; (B) involved the selection of any essential or especially probative record, document, or tangible object, to destroy or alter; or (C) was otherwise extensive in scope, planning, or preparation, increase by 2 levels.

So looking at this, I figure Scooter (can I call him that?) was guilty of the basic charge of obstructing justice. In addition I thought (2) above came into play as well. This brought his offense level up to 14+3=17. Alright then. Now, we apply the 2003 Federal Sentencing Guidelines. As this is a first offense, we stick to the first column and find the recommended sentence is….24-30 months. What a surprise! I wonder why our president didn’t just reduce the sentence to 24 months?

Our president is an evil man surrounded by a range of people, not all of whom are evil(though some certainly are), but all of whom cannot be trusted in government. I know some people think he’s just stupid. Others feel he’s just an ideologue. I don’t think he’s stupid. Not anymore. An ideologue? I’m not convinced. I am convinced he is not motivated by what’s best for the majority of the people of the United States.

The sooner we see the backside of this man the better off the whole world will be.

How much you want to bet we don’t find him building decent housing for the poor when he moves on?

Later…

Filed by misterimpatient at 9:56 pm under Justice, sometimes
No Comments

The Supreme Court decision in the Hamdan case is a defeat for the Bush administration, but not a huge one. The court basically said that all our government has to do is play by the rules of war as they exist today. They can’t change the Geneva Convention unilaterally but they can ask Congress to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as it applies to these detainees. This goes rather a long way toward getting Bush/Cheney what they want.

If Bush had gone to Congress late in 2001 or early 2002, he would have gotten what he wanted. Instead, he (and more likely Cheney) decided that they would make a stand for presidential power. This was just one case in point. I doubt I need to point out the others.

This entire presidency has been about the accumulation of imperial presidential power. Along the way they’ve worked hard to gut the social systems, such as they are, but ultimately, I think the Bush presidency will be remembered for how it tried and to some extent succeeded in that power grab.

My prayer for today: Good health to the 5 members of the Supreme Court that voted against the administration in the Hamdan case.

Later…

Filed by misterimpatient at 5:28 pm under Justice, sometimes, Slightly left of Center
No Comments

OK. Just no justice:

From News of the Weird

Wheelchair-confined Richard Paey committed almost exactly the same violations of Florida prescription drug laws that radio personality Rush Limbaugh did, with a different result: Limbaugh’s sentence, in May, was addiction treatment, and Paey’s, in 2004, was 25 years in prison. Both illegally possessed large quantities of painkillers for personal use, which Paey defiantly argued was (and will be) necessary to relieve nearly constant pain from unsuccessful spinal surgeries after an auto accident, but which Limbaugh admitted was simply the result of addiction. (In fact, if Limbaugh complies with his plea bargain, his conviction will be erased.) Paey’s sentence now rests with a state Court of Appeal. [Tampa Tribune, 2-8-06]

Is there more to say about this? Sure. Things like…So? New?

Later…

Filed by misterimpatient at 9:38 pm under Justice, sometimes, Un-categorized Outrages
No Comments

Our friends in the UK appear to be building a national database with the DNA records of every criminal suspect that crosses their threshold. Being found not guilty is not an excuse. If you get arrested, you get cataloged. There is something wrong with this in my mind. What is to stop the police from finding some reason to stop everyone, eventually, for purposed of DNA collection? Morals? Good intentions? I think not.

But wait! No need to worry. The UK Home Minister says there is nothing to worry about.

Me thinks I don’t want to be arrested in the UK, not that this is a change of my thinking you understand, it just seems a little more important now.

What do we do in the USA I wonder? According to Privacy International:

In conjunction with internal State developments in the 1990s, a national DNA database was being established by the FBI. Statutory authority to create this national database was provided by the federal DNA Act, contained within the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act 1994 and led to the creation of the National DNA Index System (NDIS). This contains samples from convicted offenders, crime scenes, unidentified human remains and victims of crime. The DNA records contained in the NDIS are purportedly protected from unauthorised access.

So it seems the data is more limited. You have to be convicted of a crime to be held on file. I wonder if victim DNA is disposed of after conviction and appeals are exhausted?

So my plan for today:

1. Commit no crimes.
2. Don’t be a victim.

Good plan.

Later…

Filed by misterimpatient at 3:55 pm under Justice, sometimes
5 Comments

Man these people talk fast. If the rule of law is interesting to you, listen to this:
Hamdan_v_Rumsfeld.mp3
Just right click and select “Save Link As”

It sure seemed to me that more justices were siding with Hamdan, the plaintiff in the case. I’d forgotten how these things go but these cases aren’t just ONE argument per side. Each side presents a whole platter of means through which the court can find for their position. By the time a case gets to this court, the arguments are not about guilt or innocence. The arguments are focused on procedure, jurisdiction, interpretation of law and fundamental constitutionality.

What you hear, loud and clear, in this case is a court that would like to avoid dealing with any issue of constitutionality. Sort of. I think many of the justices would like to find as narrowly as possible which could be as narrow as the military tribunals just not being ok for Hamdan. That’s narrow when you consider there are hundreds of other case pending in the system. The court could simply find that the Hamdan is entitled to be handled according to the Geneva Conventions or they could conclude that the Universal Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) applies to Hamdan.

Or, they could decide that this really is a different sort of war and different rules apply.

As a left leaning person on most things related to personal liberty, I’m thrilled its taken 4+ years for this case to reach the Supreme Court. Any attempt to rule here while in the full glow of the 9/11 events, would certainly have biased the case against Hamdan. Of course, this isn’t really about Hamdan. It’s about an executive branch attempting to exercise powers which they’ve not exercised in the past or which has been prevented from being exercised in the past.

Anyway, listen to the arguments. It’s very cool stuff.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention this. Justice Roberts is not sitting for this case. He ruled against Hamdan when he sat on the lower court so he recused himself. Can you imagine a 4-4 tie? In that circumstance, the ruling of the lower court stands.

Later…

Filed by misterimpatient at 7:58 pm under Justice, sometimes, Slightly left of Center
No Comments

I hope this works. Everyone should hear at least one Supreme Court arguement before they die. This one should be pretty good. The case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is the classic, “I’m the president, I can do whatever I want to! Nah Nah Nah” case.

This New York Times article has a link on the left under MultiMedia which will feed you the 90 minute argument. I’ve got it streaming now and once I have it all captured I’ll post an MP3.

Lots of good issues at play. I’ll write more on it later, but for now, savor the prospects of grilled attorney with a nice sweet and sour glaze. Marvelous.

Later…

Filed by misterimpatient at 5:32 am under Justice, sometimes
No Comments

The point of this comes later. Sorry.

Newsweek reports Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia basically outed himself on the matter of Gitmo detainees. To quote the Newsweek piece:

Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don’t have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: “If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it’s crazy.”

Yes but…

You have to read the whole piece to get this straight. I agree that a soldier captured on a battlefield *IS* entitled to the full protection of the Geneva convention. They are not entitled to jury trials or the full protection of our constitution, that would be crazy. Few people however, believe that the Gitmo detainees are soldiers captured on a battlefield. Nor do they believe these people are terrorists. A category of person who, according to the Bush folks are entitled to less protection then even the Geneva convention provides.

I feel like I know enough about human nature to believe that if you offer a bounty for terrorists, you’re going to get some terrorist and a whole lot of people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Think about it. You’re a warlord in the mountains somewhere and you want to reinforce your strength and power. Unless the terrorist are working against you (un-likely), who are you going to turn in to the American forces? Terrorist or a local do-gooder who is trying to make your life miserable? If it’s money you’re after, you’ll turn in any bumpkin walking down the road. Remember who we’re dealing with here. This is a society that looks the other way while 14 year old girls are kidnapped and forced into prostitution.

Nope, sorry, the sad lot at Gitmo are almost certainly more bumpkin then terrorist. In any case, the lot in charge of the executive branch cannot be trusted to care one way or the other and they certainly cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

So what rights are the Gitmo detainees entitled to? Beats me. At a minimum, I would say Geneva convention rights but probably something beyond that to actually determine if there really was just cause to capture and then continue to hold them.

So, where does that leave us? We have Mr. Justice Scalia having already stated in public his views as they directly pertain to the upcoming Hamden v. Rumsfield arguments. How can he possibly pretend to be open minded when listening to the arguments? I can’t imagine. Seems to me it is time for him to recuse himself.

Now, can you imagine a tied vote in this case? Oh man, I can’t wait!

Later…

Filed by misterimpatient at 9:41 am under Justice, sometimes
No Comments

I don’t really know if I qualify as a geek, really, though I am pleased with the description on Wikipedia. I don’t really qualify as a tech geek. I’m not obsessed enough IMHO and the stuff I know isn’t particularly obscure.

I am obsessed with some aspects of law. In particular constitutional law. Since High School I’ve been following the Supreme Court. I credit a teacher (thank you teachers!) for creating a social studies class that used SC decisions as the basis for discussion in class. Can you imagine a bunch of hormone loaded kids (not me of course) discussing the constitutionality of a state prohibition on birth control? Well, I was hooked ( Griswold v. Connecticut)

Well, this week we had the joy of GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH. Simple matter to my reading. Police arrive at a home. One adult says: “Sure, come on in and search the joint.” The other adult says: “Keep the hell out of my home unless you have a warrant!”, or words to that effect. The police searched the home.

I don’t know where, exactly, the 4th amendment to the constitution says that someone else can wave your rights for you. Yeah, yeah, yeah, there is nothing simple about any of this stuff but my view is very simple: When in doubt, We The People, should trump the government.

Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Later…

Filed by misterimpatient at 2:33 pm under Justice, sometimes
No Comments