Links…

April 13, 2007 in Links

Praise for Montana’s latest Iraq casualty, Kyle Bohrensen.

Max Baucus reverses course on fast-track trade authority for the President; he now opposes it. Good move, Max!

Max also drives bill through the Finance Committee that allows the government to negotiate prescription drug prices for its Medicare patients. Good move, Max!

Max states his position on Iraq to MontanaFem. Can anybody decipher the email?

The Great Falls Tribune comments on the national scrutiny Max is receiving as chair of the Senate Finance Committee. As is the usual style for these things, the paper’s editorial board urges Max to…well…it doesn’t really make a statement at all.

Unlikely allies: the Good Guv and the state GOP is worried about the Senate Democrats’ spending increases in the state budget.

Jeff Mangan thinks the Good Guv’s stream access amendment is unconstitutional.

The Notorious Mark T thrashes Roger Koopman (“…his presence in Helena is lice on the body politic…”) but endorses Koopman’s desire for an inquiry into intellectual diversity on campuses, only not for the reasons Koopman does…

NorthWestern tries to buy its way into PSC approval of its sale to an Australian company by offering to move its headquarters to Montana.

The Boise Weekly scoops the world’s press with his coverage of Idaho Governor Butch Otter’s trade mission to Cuba.

The Republican presidential candidate with the best record on the Second Amendment is a Western Democrat.

Jon Stewart evaluates the Republican presidential field.

Couric goofs again. This time about Obama. Another case of plagiarism, this time from a right-wing blog?

The only type of scandal currently missing from the Bush administration is a sex scandal. That’s about to change.

Oh, the irony! Conservative groups sue the FDA for politicizing the agency!

Ex-DoJ official, Kyle Sampson, caught with his rhetorical pants down. Um…why would you lie so blatantly to a Congressional committee? Do these *sshats think they won’t get caught?

More prosecutor purge news from Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, DoJ 5th-amendment taker, Monica Goodling, is considering trading immunity for testimony. Ooo, that can’t be good news for the Bush administration.

As you might imagine, troops are not exactly thrilled by their tour extension.

Speaking of extending the troops’ tours, Bush’s strange about-face on the issue is for one of two reasons: (1) he has no idea of what’s going on in the war; (2) they were saving the announcement for political reasons, and the news was leaked.

Glenn Greenwald: “So apparently, the American Founders risked their lives and fortunes in order to wage war against Great Britain and declare independence from the King — all in order to vest “near dictatorial power” in the American President in all matters of foreign policy and national security.”

Lee Iacocca: “Throw the bums out!”

Jon Stewart comments on Iraq, the President, funding, and the War Czar.

Colbert suggests a candidate for War Czar: Donald Rumsfeld.

Better Living through Blogging!’s david brings us the adult sheep finder.

On the Duke rape case

April 13, 2007 in Crime, Culture

by Jay Stevens

Commenter Kevin’s been pestering me for a post on the Duke rape case, as if it somehow represents the end of legal jurisprudence as we know it. I’ve avoided this case from the very beginning because of all the sensationalist coverage of the case, the shameful prejudging of the Duke students by the Duke faculty, the just-as-shameful attacks on the accusers. It seemed like everybody – everybody — had an opinion on this thing before the facts were in.

I did find an op-ed which I completely agree with, from the Charlotte Observer’s Tommy Tomlinson:

Nobody in the Duke lacrosse case is innocent.

Let’s start there.

[snip]

What follows is not in order of blame, simply in order of time.

The students who organized that party decided it would be a fine idea to hire a stripper.
The stripper decided, out of spite or shame or who knows what, to call the police and lie that she was sexually assaulted.

District Attorney Mike Nifong called the players hooligans and pushed the case far beyond what the evidence justified. He just so happened to be running for election.

Many on the Duke campus — including an alarming number of faculty members — jumped on the case because it fit their notions of victims and oppressors in America.

The media — my tribe — covered the story as if it were nuclear war and the Super Bowl rolled up into one, and some of our professional blowhards convicted the players before they spent a day in court.

Now, Kevin’s been calling this thing an indication that our criminal justice system isn’t working.

Um, ho hum.

This is old news, people, prosecutors all around the country have been railroading people into jail to keep conviction rates high, to satisfy their constituents that they’re tough on crime and the like. Only the people usually railroaded are poor. Anybody who’s ever seen “The Thin Blue Line” (1988) knows exactly what I mean, as do those who have followed the effects of DNA testing on the death penalty.

Honestly, the only thing new about this case is that a prosecutor up for re-election tried to make his bones with a couple of rich kids. Only these rich kids had ample defense and connections within the system to protect them from wrongful imprisonment. (Heck, as the OJ case showed, you can get out of rightful imprisonment if you have enough cash to spread around.)

As for the media frenzy around the case and the quick taking of sides by the community for political reasons, well, that’s been going on since the beginning of the Republic, especially in the case of rape and sexual assault cases involving different classes.

Like the murder of Helen Jewett in 1836, which has a lot of similarities to the Duke case. A prostitute was murdered – bludgeoned with an ax to her head – and the police found a suspect, Richard Robinson, a young aristocrat. The press got involved and hilarity ensued. Sensationalist crime journalism was born.

So, no, this isn’t a landmark incident. It doesn’t expose sudden or new cracks in American jurisprudence. In fact, it’s the inheritor of centuries’-long practice of media sensationalism and prosecutorial politicking.

Now that rich people in high places realize that they, too, are in danger of zealous prosecutorial ambition, maybe we’ll see some interest drummed up in support of defendants’ rights. Like the apoliticization of prosecution, or the renewed faith in habaes corpus. Or maybe more investment in public defenders, lightening their casework, paying them more money, and ensuring higher standards for their selection.

And hopefully this case will put an end to the idea that the checks and balances built into our legal system represents the “coddling of criminals” once and for all.