Writing Chuck about Mukasey

Occasionally I feel the need to engage in probably futile exercises, just so I can go on record. Today I sent the following web email to Senator Charles Schumer:

Change your mind - vote against Mukasey!

Neither Senator from my state of Washington is on the Judiciary Committee, so I feel compelled to write you on the matter of Michael Mukasey's nomination to be the chief law enforcement officer of our nation. Regardless of how nice he may be, Mukasey's equivocations under questioning demonstrate that he is unfit to take over as Attorney General, where a clear moral compass is needed more than ever in the wake of the errors left behind by Alberto Gonzales.

Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham know Mukasey is not fit, but they will likely capitulate to the pressure of being Republicans. You do not have that handicap. Listen to your mother, talk to those like Sheldon Whitehouse who have made the necessary decision, and bring along others like Dianne Feinstein, in order to keep Mukasey's nomination from having to even go to the floor of the main Senate.

It's not just the bit about waterboarding. Mukasey has been equivocating all over the map, and you know it. Admit you were wrong, and do the right thing!

Thanks to you and your staff for taking the input of concerned American citizens such as myself.

Charles Schumer seems to exemplify for me exactly the wrong way to be a liberal. He's strident and stubborn in defending entrenched party positions, while he bends in exactly the places where liberalism can best take the moral high ground. Nonetheless, he's pretty effective and powerful, and we cannot lightly brush him off.

Why must Russ Feingold and his kind be so rare?

The Stench at Justice Expands

We can now add Western Michigan's Margaret Chiara to the list of U.S. Attorneys who have been forced out by the White House and Alberto Gonzales. Watchblog's American Pundit put two and two together last month when San Diego's Carol Lam, who helped put Republican crook Duke Cunningham behind bars, was forced out. Gonzales may insist that no ongoing investigations are being jeopardized, but why then are we seeing the wholesale replacement of their own appointments by Bush loyalists? I smell something rotten.

And then there's the lies, and of couse the innuendo. Sure these positions are by nature political appointments, whose holders serve "at the pleasure of the President". They were appointed originally by this administration and have stepped down gracefully. But Bud Cummins of Eastern Arkansas, the first to go last year to make room for a Karl Rove aide, broke his silence after testimony in January by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the six U.S. attorneys in the West and Southwest had been dismissed for "performance-related" reasons:

They're entitled to make these changes for any reason or no reason or even for an idiotic reason. But if they are trying to suggest that people have inferior performance to hide whatever their true agenda is, that is wrong. They should retract those statements.

Six of the seven earlier fired attorneys had positive performance reviews. Cummins is scarcely alone in his reaction to McNulty's insulting testimony.

You can visit ePluribusMedia for more fine articles detailing the recent firings and their implications: The Gonzales Seven; Gaming the System; and links to separate articles about each one.

Speculation about Chiara's departure include that it had something to do with previous clashes with the administration on the death penalty which she opposes. From the Grand Rapids Press article:

Federal prosecutors serve at the discretion of the president and may be dismissed for any reason, or no reason at all. Most serve for the duration of the president's term and expect to be replaced when a new party sweeps into office.

"The timing is suspicious for anyone to leave on their own will and in the middle of a term when they were appointed by the sitting president. That alone makes it unusual," [Grand Rapids lawyer, Jon] Muth said. "I can't imagine it being performance-related."

James Brady, a former U.S. attorney for the Western District, is concerned by the possibility Chiara could be connected to the recent dismissals.

"There's no question we're concerned that politics may be involved in these types of decisions," he said. "In the (other forced resignations) there was nothing but praise until some political trouble started."

Chiara opposes capital punishment, although she has vowed to uphold such laws.

The PATRIOT Act has a provision which gives the current Attorney General authority to appoint any provisional replacement U.S. Attorney for the remainder of the Presidential term without Congressional approval. Alberto Gonzales was confirmed in a controversial Senate vote back in January of 2005. He came in with the odor of being a primary architect of the policies that weakened our government's previous strong stance against torture, calling the Geneva Conventions quaint prior to the exposure of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Even Republican Lindsey Graham of the Senate Judiciary Committe hearings during that confirmation expressed his dismay at a published Gonzales memo, stating:

when you start looking at torture statutes, and you look at ways around the spirit of the law, you're losing the moral high ground

Graham lacked the cojones to stand behind his principles and deny Gonzales' nomination, as he or Arlen Specter or any single Republican had the power to do, in what ended up being a 10-8 committee vote along party lines to forward the nomination to the full Senate.

And now that same morally crippled chief law enforcement officer of the land defends his capricious firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys in recent months, on shaky grounds. Gonzales is the one who should be fired. The stench smells from coast to coast.

Death With Dignity - Relief & Concern

This week the Supreme Court turned aside the old Ashcroft challenge to Oregon's voters' initiative to allow doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication to their patients who want to keep their options open for controlling their own deaths. I wrote with some concern about this in October when Miers was Bush's nominee to replace O'Connor. As I hoped at that time, Kennedy sided with Oregon which eliminated any temptation to defer the decision until O'Connor's replacement, since a 6-3 decision would not be affected by a change of one justice.

My relief of course stems from the decision, my concern from Roberts' siding with the dissenting opinion in this case.

Aside from my gross lack of legal qualifications, I could never be on the SCOTUS. I would always want to rule in favor of the most aggrieved party, precedent or Constitution be damned. I understand the importance of moving cautiously when precedent IS being set, but the Court does have an important function in setting boundaries based on common decency as well. I heard Breyer explain it very well one evening when describing what the job of the court really is. The legislative branch is charged with defining the particulars of law, and the Supreme Court must only set the parameters within which those laws should operate. If public opinion has overwhelmingly moved to find certain restrictions or lack thereof repugnant, then it is not outside the purview of the Court to limit what lawmakers can do, but they are still obliged to find some Constitutional basis for it.

Personally I find it repugnant that some folks believe that other suffering people should not be given a dignified manner of ending their own life - in ANY state. I may or may not be in the majority, but I'm certainly not in the overwhelming majority in that regard. The SCOTUS cannot properly mandate that states create Death with Dignity provisions, though the current court can see that Ashcroft was overreaching in claiming that the Oregon law violated Federal drug laws. If Congress writes a more specific law outlawing doctor assisted suicide, however, we may be forced to take a step back from compassion. I must remind myself though, that in the long arc we as a society have been moving toward compassion more than away from it, and with an engaged citizenry I must believe that such a general trend will continue in the long run.

Death With Dignity Before the Court

Chief Justice Roberts was immediately thrust into presiding over a highly controversial case today. The ability of doctors in Oregon to legally prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients is being challenged by the U.S. Attorney General's office. In his very last day in office, Attorney General Ashcroft drew my ire by ruling that under the Controlled Substances Act, doctors' licenses to prescribe drugs could be revoked if they prescribed lethal doses for terminally ill patients meeting the qualifications of Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law, approved twice by Oregon voters, most recently by a wide margin.

The case is controversial, but it boggles my mind why it should be. Common decency and compassion dictate that patients enduring great pain, or facing terminal conditions should be able to obtain prescriptions making it possible for them to painlessly hasten their own passing. Assuming that we get past the current push toward theocracy in our country, one can easily imagine a day when people of the future will look back on this case as we currently look back on the Dred Scott decision. They (hopefully) will shake their heads in amazement and ask "You mean back then you could only get those prescriptions in Oregon?!"

Early indications are that Roberts is leaning toward ruling for the Attorney General's office. Supreme Court scholar, Jan Crawford Greenberg was quoted tonight on PBS' Newshour:

Chief Justice Roberts asked lawyers on both sides of this issue very aggressive questions; he saved most of his aggressive questions for the lawyer for the state of Oregon who was defending Oregon's law.

Souter, O'Connor, and Ginsberg were clearly more aggressive in questioning DOJ lawyer Paul Clement. But O'Connor may not get to rule in this case if her replacement is confirmed before a decision has been written, and previous precedent has been that such decisions are deferred in cases where the retiring justice would render a deciding vote.

Onlookers are split in reading how the court is likely to rule on this one, with Greenberg calling it too close to say, death with dignity activists Compassion & Choices writing "the Court is unlikely to uphold the Ashcroft Directive", and SCOTUSblog seeming to lean toward believing the feds will prevail. The calculus is that Souter, Ginsberg, and O'Connor will likely be joined by Stevens and/or Breyer, while Kennedy is more likely to join Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts in upholding the Attorney General's strictures against these prescriptions. Precedent would then hold the decision up until Miers joined the court, where immediately we would have a test of whether Bush has succeeded in tilting the court toward a ruling for the religious right. Perhaps Thomas or one of the conservatives could surprise us by allowing states' rights considerations to trump their cultural conservatism.

Compassion & Choices provides a full set of links at their summary page which goes on to say

The Justices appear reluctant to read the Controlled Substances so broadly. Several Justices repeatedly asked how Congress had empowered the Attorney General to preempt Oregon's law. With no sufficient answer, it seems clear the Attorney General exceeded his authority.

While I appreciate concerns for abuse of any death with dignity law, the Oregon law has multiple safeguards, and the history of its application bears out that it has not been abused, with those taking advantage of its provisions being exactly the sort of cases for whom it was designed. Concerns that it might be applied disproportionately among the poor or those whose primary motivation is to not be a burden on their families have not been borne out. It has also provided great comfort to many who know they have the means to choose for themselves when enough is enough.

In my view, concern for the patient should trump all other considerations in determining medical care. When the patient cannot be made comfortable and is expected to die within six months, it strikes me as the height of audacity and hypocrisy for anyone else to shake their finger at the sufferer and tell them they have no right to hasten their own death. If an animal is suffering we consider it an act of kindness to put them out of their misery. How much clearer it is in the case of a human being who can cogently express their desire to hasten their death, to allow them a dignified and painless method of doing so.

Doctors opposing this law point to their oath "to do no harm." If they cannot save the patient or alleviate their suffering, then they ARE doing harm by denying the patient a painless way out.

Blessed are the Alternative Newsmakers

Suddenly unafraid of more frequent press conferences, Bush is providing much more fodder for his critics. As reported at CNN, the irony of the juxtaposition of Bush's defense of prisoner treatment at Guantanamo (prisoners often held years without charges) against his concern about due process in Russia for a multi-millionaire convicted of fraud and tax evasion is mind boggling. Whether or not Mikhail Khodorkovsky received a fair trial, the very fact that Bush would call out this wealthy individual's case while defending policies which deny due process to hundreds of detainees speaks volumes about where his sympathies lie.

When Bill Moyers addressed an audience in Seattle, he called the media on their unwillingness to report anything unless some newsmaker spoke about it. Whatever happened to investigative journalism? Well thank goodness groups such as Amnesty International still have status as newsmakers, else our leaders wouldn't get ANY of the tough questions that our democracy deserves that they have to answer. In the absence of an independent, inquisitive press, it is incumbent on the rest of us to become the newsmakers.

President Bush, why do you hate America?

[Update: OK, that last was a throwaway line inspired by the headline of the CNN article. Bush and Cheney are so quick to accuse those who make the charges of abuse as America haters when clearly they have no such information. The point is that it is at least as reasonable to accuse them of the same in the face of evidence that their policies trample on what are thought of by many of us as American values.

They would also like to leave the impression that Amnesty International is basking in 'trash America' talk, but a visit to their home page, shows that they readily move on to other international cases around the world, not at all tied to any ideological bias. If you hunt, however, the charges related to Guantanamo are hardly thrown out casually, as this comprehensive report proves.

No doubt what got Cheney riled was being one of the persons called out as deserving of investigation, and if warranted by such, arrest when traveling to another state.

05/26/05 "Cox News" - Bob Dart - WASHINGTON - Amnesty International USA urged foreign governments Wednesday to use international law to investigate Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other alleged American "architects of torture" at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and other prisons where detainees suspected of ties to terrorist groups have been interrogated.
"If those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them," said William Shulz, executive director of the U.S. branch of the international human rights agency.

But Bush would rather complain about possible lack of due process for a Russian multi-millionaire.]

Comity Prevails

While some will argue that the dangerous imbalance of power which threatens our nation is only aided by compromises which provide an illusion of balance, I cannot help but be heartened that dialogue has averted for now a rancorous showdown in the United States Senate over the so-called nuclear option.

Just this morning I learned in an email from MoveOn.org, that a deal was brokered late yesterday among 14 Senators, 7 from each party, in which the minority party will retain their right to filibuster nominees they consider unfit for the judiciary, in exchange for agreeing to vote for cloture on three of the controversial nominees currently awaiting Senate confirmation. It was amusing to see that MoveOn and President Bush both hailed the agreement, though with very different spins.

Being a compromise, I'm not entirely happy with it, but on the whole there is much to be happy about, and unsurprisingly many centrists are elated. Whether this "centrist" coalition of senators may broker some compromise on Social Security as South Carolina Republican Lindsay Graham seemed to suggest on Hardball, remains to be seen. Graham's participation in the group interests me, as he continues to stand out as a principled conservative in the Senate. Though I was disappointed that he capitulated to his party and voted for Alberto Gonzales' nomination both in committee and on the Senate floor, his questioning of Gonzales in the Judiciary hearings convinced me that he was genuinely displeased with Gonzales' behavior in approving relaxed interrogation procedures.

Other good news in this, is that William Myers nomination to the 9th District Court appears all but dead, and I believe it spells the end to Bill Frist's Presidential ambitions. The one possible downside to that is that a Frist nomination may have been more beatable, but I've learned to be very wary of hope which resides in the strategy of a weaker opponent. It is also gratifying to hear James Dobson wail like a sore loser, exposing himself further as an enemy of moderation. While that's hardly news to many of us, remember that his effectiveness in riling the right against gay marriage was largely effective because he comes off as so fatherly and reasonable in his radio addresses to those susceptible to his message.

On the down side is the likely, though not assured, confirmation of three very conservative appointments to prominent positions, the worst of which is probably William Pryor, whose recess appointment and radicalism was effectively rebuked by Senator Leahy in this press release from last year. I'm less well acquainted with Priscilla Owen, but must confess from what I've heard from Janice Rogers Brown, that while she is certainly an ideologue, prone to radical sounding statements, she has a sharp intellect and is probably qualified on judicial grounds, though I dread her potential impact when regulatory matters come up for review, given her pro-business bias.

Russ Feingold, for whom I have an abiding admiration, did express disappointment with the compromise, but overall I share with Kos relief that comity has prevailed, dialogue averted confrontation, and the minority retains some semblance of a check on the power of the Republicans in power.

Thanks to Teddy, Chris, Russ, and others

In what is expected to be the final day of debate on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the office of Attorney General, while Republicans try to paint Democrats' objections to the nominee as politically motivated, Ted Kennedy summed up what seems obvious to this observer:

We shy away from having a true debate about our values. Stating noble words is a cover for committing to ignoble acts. We need to show that our committment to human dignity is a reality not a slogan. We respect international law. If we do not, who will? The prohibitions against torture serve us well. They protect our soldiers when they go to war. They claim it's politics if we vote against him, but in this case, the only reason to vote for him is politics. Do we stand for the rule of law or do we stand for torture. That is why we should reject this nomination.

I cannot help but believe that many a Republican Senator who is speaking on Gonzales' behalf is privately wishing that Bush had chosen someone far less controversial, as they must be cringing inside to justify his qualifications. The lone Republican on the judiciary committee truly expressing trepidation, was not the moderate Specter, but rather Lindsey Graham from the very red state of South Carolina who had this exchange with Gonzales in committee:

"I think we've dramatically undermined the war effort by getting on a slippery slope in terms of playing cute with the law," Graham, a reserve Air Force JAG officer, says. He adds later, "And I think you weaken yourself as a nation when you try to play cute and become more like your enemy instead of like who you want to be."

Gonzales senses that Graham has made a mistake and seizes on it. "We are nothing like our enemy, Senator," he protests. They behead people, like Danny Pearl and Nick Berg. Graham notes that this is a pretty low moral standard for America to aspire to. I agree that we're nothing like the enemy, he says. "But we're not like who we want to be and who we have been." During Graham's second round of questioning, Gonzales tells him that government lawyers did the very best they could when they wrote the memo. "Well that's where you and I disagree," Graham retorts. "I think they did a lousy job."

Political pressure was the order of the day, and Graham did vote to advance his nomination, but his words put the lie to the notion that Democratic objections to Alberto are petty partisan politics. Indeed those objections are felt by Republicans - even conservative Republicans - as well.

Christopher Dodd today (forgive possible inaccuracies in the quotation) said:

The right to be free from torture has been a fundamental value of our nation. This has never been in doubt. It has never been seriously debated. Always considered to be intrinsic, founded on our belief that all persons are endowed with certain inalienable rights. Judge Gonzales has stood in conflict with laws and treaties, and helped shaped those policies to the great detriment of our standing in the world.

while Feingold weighed in with

[In] Judge Gonzales' appearance before the Judiciary Committee, he failed to indicate that he would be bound by the rule of law. He reiterated erroneous interpretations on the effect of the Geneva Convention, and refused time after time to repudiate the conclusion that the president has power to immunize those under his direction.

Many other fine words were spoken today, sadly almost strictly on a partisan split. We should thank our Senators who have the conviction to oppose this nominee.

AGNO

Call your Senators now!
Their phone numbers are here

Let them know that you oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States.

This is from a letter to the editor at Stars & Stripes signed by many prominent retired military officers:

As retired professional military leaders of the U.S. armed forces, we are deeply concerned about the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general. We feel that his views concerning the role of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. detention and interrogation policy and practice have put soldiers in harm’s way.

During his tenure as White House counsel, Gonzales appears to have played a significant role in shaping U.S. detention and interrogation operations in Afghanistan; Iraq; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

Today, it is clear that these operations have:

--Fostered greater animosity toward the United States;
--Undermined our intelligence-gathering efforts; and
--Added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world.

Not convinced? Scroll to the bottom and follow the links.

        Calling tips:

- Give your name
- State your purpose clearly
- Be calm and be brief

Remember you are talking to a staffer who is basically taking a tally. They are not responsible for the President's choices, only for registering your opinion.

If you feel, as I have come to feel, that this is one of those rare cases where the Democrats should employ a filibuster (voting against cloture), then let them know that.

If you want to go the extra mile, call the most moderate Republicans in the Senate and urge them to draw the line with their Democratic colleagues against this ill-advised appointment.

202-224-2921 Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
202-224-2235 John McCain of Arizona
202-224-2523 Susan Collins of Maine
202-224-5344 Olympia Snowe of Maine
202-224-4814 Richard Lugar of Indiana
202-224-4224 Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
202-224-4254 Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania

An assessment of the Gonzales hearing with more links
Another assessment by the Quakers
An article from The Nation
My article at WatchBlog
DailyKos has generated a lot of excellent discussion on the nomination here and here and here and here.

Print more leaflets

A Time to Say No

[UPDATE 3:
Now that Gonzales is out of the judiciary, it is time to contact every senator about their upcoming votes. If you want to leaflet go to this page and print out the appropriate flyer for your state - preferably on brightly colored paper - and go down to the transit center, mall, or local hangout.]

[UPDATE 2 (UPDATE 1 is at end):
Daily Kos's hotspur believes that phone calls are more effective than emails in getting through to your senators, and provides all the phone numbers in his post.

Armando continues to track this issue closely, and opposition is mounting. We've got to keep the pressure on. If it gets through committee but with significant opposition, then it's on to pressuring EVERY senator to take a stand against this brazen attempt to install someone who disdains international law as America's top law enforcement official.]

Armando, over at DailyKos, was right on target in what he wrote about the Democrats' role and responsibilities vis-a-vis the Gonzales confirmation, and cabinet confirmations in general:

Democratic Senators ... regarding the level of deference a President is accorded in the formation of his Cabinet ... have argued that the standard of review for a Cabinet position nominee is lower than that applied to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.

... But higher deference is not the equivalent of a free pass. Some standards remain. Otherwise there would be no role at all for the Senate. ...

Alberto Gonzales can not, by any measure, meet the minimum standard required to approve his confirmation as Attorney General of the United States of America. Many would quibble about his qualifications ...

But one issue unconditionally DISQUALIFIES Gonzales as an acceptable choice for Attorney General - his indefensible role in providing a legal apologia for torture as official policy of the United States.

It may be a credit to our system that partisans don't routinely vote against all cabinet nominees with whom they have policy differences, but that doesn't mean they should give carte blanche to the President to install any ideologue regardless of qualifications. I just hope these Democrats have learned something from the bitter experience of having played nice by granting Bush a free pass for military action in Iraq in the fall of 2002, and then getting labelled as "flip-floppers" when he abused the privilege.

It now looks like we have at least another week to contact our Senators with strong messages. Sure it's a long shot, but if the Democrats would stand united, and the six most moderate Republicans were flooded with millions of objections from around the country, maybe we could get his nomination withdrawn without need for a filibuster. I'm planning to write both of my Senators (again), and send emails to McCain, Hagel, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Lugar, and Chafee.

I have no illusions that these moderate Republican Senators are going to get any progressive legislation through in the coming session, but they are our best defense against the extreme excesses we're likely to encounter. It's not a secret, they might as well hear from us.

A sizable anti-Gonzales demonstration on the Capitol steps would be welcome as well.

[UPDATE: This still isn't out of the judiciary committee - so ...
Do you live in Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, or Wisconsin?

Time is running short to make your voice heard regarding the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. I believe the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking it up again this Wednesday. Please call or write your senator, especially if you have a senator on the committee. Even if your senator on the committee is Republican write them and get your Republican friends and relatives who have sufficient common sense to understand why AG is a bad choice for AG to write them. Let them know the position of Attorney General is far too important to be left in the hands of someone whose credibility has been irreparably damaged by his known legal counsel. That counsel has in some measure contributed to prisoner abuse cases at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere, which have tarnished our nation's reputation as an example for Justice. Even though Gonzales himself may be an upstanding citizen, (and remember your Senators may know Gonzales, and be unmoved by letters and calls which attack him personally) this public record of counsel damages his effectiveness and credibility from the outset. Be respectful but firm. President Bush needs to find another choice for this important position from the large pool of qualified candidates.

Act today or tomorrow!]

Gonzales may be worse than Ashcroft

John Ashcroft was indeed an ideologue, but at core he had integrity, albeit to values often at odds with my own. I don't see the same integrity in Alberto Gonzales who "participated in a dramatic weakening of U.S. commitments to the Geneva Conventions and against torture" and was willing to justify doing so. Hence I have written to my own two Senators:

Senator Murray [or Cantwell],

I am deeply troubled by the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as the top law enforcement officer of the United States, when he has shown a callous disregard for the rule of reasonable international law vis-a-vis the Geneva Conventions in recent history.

Please ask TOUGH questions at the confirmation hearings. Also please urge your fellow Senators to vote against his confirmation if they cannot in good conscience see his selection as Attorney General to be supported on it merits. While I am not in favor of a filibuster in this case, or dragging it out beyond the asking of reasonable questions, I believe it is a case which calls for a large minority of our senators to dissent. Getting our more reasoned Republicans such as McCain, Collins, Hagel, and Snowe to oppose his nomination could make it an historically close vote for a confirmation and send a message to the Administration to avoid the nomination of contentious ideologues to such important positions.

So please vote for cloture, but against confirmation, and urge your fellows to do the same.

Sincerely yours,
Walker Willingham

I think that my Senators will be hearing a lot from me over the next four years.

[UPDATE: Senator Cantwell (or more likely her office's sophisticated email response robot) responded very quickly. She (it) assured me that the Senator took her role of confirming nominees very seriously, and that she did "intend to carefully review and observe the confirmation hearings and study Gonzales record as Judge before" arriving at a decision. No vote is expected until later this month. The hot air coming out of the White House did little to assuage me that it was anything much better than "tortured logic" that led to his confirmation.]

Ugh!

Can you say disproportionate? Thanks to NPR for this story.

Hemnauth Mohabir ... in the spring of 2002, returned to Guyana to visit his mother, who was ill. On his way back to New York that April, an immigration agent at Kennedy International Airport noticed Mohabir had a criminal record: Six years earlier, he'd been convicted of possessing about $5 worth of drugs. The judge fined him $250 for a misdemeanor and let him go.

Because of that past conviction, Mohabir was deported to Guyana and banned from ever coming back to the United States. But before returning to his native country, Mohabir was detained for almost two years at New Jersey's Passaic County Jail, where he alleges that guards taunted and beat detainees and terrorized them with dogs.

So how does Gonzales replacing Ashcroft help us?
Read Mohabir's own story in the Detainee Newsletter.

Attorney General Ashcroft

I have little doubt that John Ashcroft is well-intentioned, and sincerely believes that he acts on profoundly moral principles, but unless he quickly comes to understand that many other profoundly moral individuals are being profoundly screwed by policies that he has engineered, his remaining in power creates a danger to the foundation of our Democracy.

It is a sufficient indictment of his policies to show that many entirely innocent people are being hurt by them, but I am especially looking for compelling stories of people whose good works are being stopped or interrupted by legal or other action from this justice department. Send me some links! [End of Post]