Gonzales could get say in states' executions

[RamboLiberal]

Source: LA Times

The Justice Department is putting the final touches on regulations that could give Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales important new sway over death penalty cases in California and other states, including the power to shorten the time that death row inmates have to appeal convictions to federal courts.

The rules implement a little-noticed provision in last year's reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act that gives the attorney general the power to decide whether individual states are providing adequate counsel for defendants in death penalty cases. The authority has been held by federal judges.

Under the rules now being prepared, if a state requested it and Gonzales agreed, prosecutors could use "fast track" procedures that could shave years off the time that a death row inmate has to appeal to the federal courts after conviction in a state court.

The move to shorten the appeals process and effectively speed up executions comes at a time of growing national concern about the fairness of the death penalty, underscored by the use of DNA testing to establish the innocence more than a dozen death row inmates in recent years. Amid the public debate, the number of people executed in the U.S. has declined steadily since the mid-1990s.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-penalty14aug...

---

Doesn't anyone in Congress read the f'in bills?! With this bunch we don't even need the other 2 branches of government!

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. No No No No No No No

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

ITMFsA!

[uppityperson]

2. Well well well. k&r

[hang a left]

3. OMG!!!!!!

The man who never recommended a reprieve in the state of Texas!!!!!!! What a freakin nightmare this country has become.

[bluestateguy]

4. States rights?

Where is George Wallace when you need him?

[sandnsea]

6. They're Federalists

They were never trying to give states power. They were always trying to put states in control of individual rights, so that individuals no longer had any higher authority. It's the same reason they hate the UN. They do not believe in the people having power, just like the Federalists didn't believe in it back when they were creating our Constitution. They aren't just trying to destroy FDR, they're trying to destroy Jefferson. They believe the Federal is the ultimate power, the Executive. Over the issues they want to have control over, at least. These people are more dangerous than I ever could have imagined. They really believe they're creating the "New World Order", and that they have an obligation to do it because America is the new empire. If what I'm thinking is true, I'm really scared.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

48. Ken Starr would be proud

visit http://www.fed-soc.org / Federalist Society

[OzarkDem]

86. With that much power vested in the Exec Branch

There is no way in hell they plan to let Dems win the WH in 2008. They will do anything in their power to prevent that from happening.

[tanyev]

42. Oh, the only time the GOP cares about states' rights is when Democrats are in power.

[JDPriestly]

53. No, the only time they care about states' rights is when

they can use the concept to destroy individual rights, especially minority rights.

[sandnsea]

87. That's exactly it

I wish people understood this. When they say Federal, they mean Executive has the National POWER. The Executive overrides the "people", who come from the states through the Senate and House. They don't want any of the people stuff to be decided in DC, it's all state stuff. Which means people have no civil rights, no constitutional protections, nothing. Their model is intended to remove our rights. It's the entire point of Federalism, it seems to me.

[sandnsea]

5. Well just, WOW

I read that section myself and it is not supposed to apply to ALL criminals. This is supposed to be terrorist legislation. You simply cannot blame Congress because we have criminals in the White House. However, if this is proven to be true, then I am on board for impeachment. There are no words to describe my shock and horror.

[knight_of_the_star]

7. I don't think a law would count as impeachable

But there's probably evidence out there for abuses of this law.

[sandnsea]

8. This is a blatant power grab

I don't think this law was written to allow the AG to fast track ALL death penalties. If the Bushies are applying terrorist legislation to everybody, then they are breaking the law in order to kill people. If they've removed Constitutional rights when that wasn't the intent of the law, then that is impeachable. And yes I get that they've done it before, but to fast track the death penalty without a specific law, that is beyond anything they've done to date.

[knight_of_the_star]

9. That's what I mean

Is that the law itself wouldn't be grounds for impeachment, last time that was done was for Andrew Johnson and hasn't been done since then, but there most certainly are abuses involved in the law that WOULD count as high crimes or misdemeanors.

[sandnsea]

12. The law might only be unconstitutional

But if they start executing people when that isn't the intent of the law, then I think that's a different matter. We'll have to see how this unfolds, or whether it's just another one of those little ripping apart the constitution thingies that nobody pays attention to.

[knight_of_the_star]

17. There should be a new amendment to the constitution

That taking any action that is deemed to be in serious violation of the Constitution should be included as grounds for impeachment.

[sandnsea]

19. This bunch is unfathomable

I don't think our national culture is prepared to consider global totalitarianism as the goal of anybody in US politics. People who actually don't care whether our country or constitution survives, and maybe even prefer it doesn't. They're creating the new reality, so they say. Nothing in our constitution can prepare for this.

[knight_of_the_star]

25. I think it can

The only problem is the GOP are a bunch of loyal brownshits and the Blue Dogs are bigger cowards than Limpballs claims the French are.

[yodermon]

58. "Crime = Terror"

Didn't you get the memo?

[Zhade]

105. Wait - their OTHER crimes haven't killed enough for you to support impeachment?

I echo your subject line to that.

[IndianaGreen]

10. And who voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act?

Who said last year that filibuster was off the table?

The shredding of the Constitution and the death of Republic was brought about by the failure of the 2-party system to defend our freedoms, at whatever the cost.

[sandnsea]

13. Who gave authority to break laws?

Nobody. This has nothing to do with the actual Patriot Act and everything to do with this Administration abusing every power at every turn. There is no reining them in because their entire goal is to get laws passed that they can manipulate to their ends. I think it is more important than ever that we focus on their abuses of power, and strongly make the case. Not even Feingold gets it or he wouldn't accept censure against them. If they really claim authority to do this, and it isn't in the actual law, then this is way beyond anything they've done so far. They are turning on US now.

[IndianaGreen]

15. And who said that impeachment is off the table?

As John Nichols, John Dean, Bruce Fein, Jonathan Turley and others have said, it is imperative to impeach Bush and Cheney in order to restore Constitutional rule, or else we will forever regret giving such power to an all-powerful executive.

[sandnsea]

16. Hey, if this is described accurately

It's on the table for me. Immediately. I think we'll get there faster if we focus on the facts instead of believing we can badger Pelosi into it. I'm really starting to think they are trying to destroy the US so they can create a world empire, their "new reality". That history can judge, as Bush likes to say. If true, this is too serious to approach with protests and street theatre. We've got to get the best minds in the country together to make this case.

[Usrename]

18. I don't see any other reasonable choices.

Impeachment looks like the only way to save ourselves, and save the world a whole lot more grief.

[sandnsea]

20. A new Declaration of Independence

We need something very specific and to the point. Something that says what they're up to, lists the evidence, and lists the Constitutional violations. It has to be something that's bigger than impeachment, because they're up to bigger stuff. They have to be routed out of the UN, world bank, wto, everywhere. They're dangerous.

[Usrename]

21. To reach any long-term goals we have to survive the present.

I see check mate in three moves, unless we act now to impeach somebody. An attack, martial law accompanied by another round-up of dissidents, and then a clamp-down on internet discussion and any remaining free media, and it's all over for a long, long time. Forget about any chance of forming any organized resistance here, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Knowledge, and the ability to organize, are the only defenses that we have right now. Those could both be gone a whole lot faster than most would want to admit. In just a few months. There is no strong opposition party in place to slow these guys down at all. It is necessary that we impeach someone now. Time is of the essence.

What everybody fails to see, the question that no one here will answer, is "who do we complain to, once it is too late?"

There are a whole lot of people here that think this just alarmist talk, that the sky is not falling. But not one of them will dare answer that one simple question.

[sandnsea]

22. No evidence

You have to list what they have already done, the way Jefferson did. Our country will never believe there are evil forces at the helm of our government. It's a waste of time to try to convince them. There has to be evidence of what they've already done, why they did it, and the affect of it. The sky is falling hyperbole has got to end. There is no time for histrionics. If they truly believe they are the architects of a new world order, then the case needs to be made succinctly with it being the single focus of everyone's energy. I would hate to think we all had our suspicions about these criminals, and let silly things destract us from stopping them.

[Usrename]

23. For me, their worst crime may be the horror and shame of Katrina.

We are damaged as a country, as a nation, and as a people. The support for torture is just an example of it. We do it to them because they must be guilty of something, and everyone says that is fine. Many of the few close friends I have are damaged like this.

I hope that a deeper awakening comes, to allow what you are saying to happen. An awareness that the injustice of this war is real. That we are torturing innocents. That we can display the capacity as a nation to try and redeem our soul, our heart. This awakening must come first, before anyone will listen to words.

If this opportunity is lost, I don't see any outcome that will not strengthen their iron grip on the planet.

[sandnsea]

27. I think people aren't informed

The torture. Habeas Corpus. Politicizing the DOJ. Endangering a CIA spy. Secret meetings with energy execs. All the signing statements. Ignoring FISA. Everything they do indicates an intentional disregard for the constitution. They aren't upholding the constitution, they're intentionally ignoring it and making up the rules as they go. One of those rules is that government doesn't work so we need to destroy it, which is how we ended up with Katrina. I just think the case hasn't been made correctly and I think it's because most people just don't believe anyone from our country could be capable of having other allegiances.

[redqueen]

69. Believing that is naive at best. n/t

[sandnsea]

96. Look at this thread

People believe Congress passed this, that this is what they intended. Why would anybody think Bush should be impeached when people like you keep telling them Congress passed all this stuff. They have been manipulating the written laws and adding signing statements. That's where their abuse of power has been coming from. Nobody is saying that, which is the reason the majority of people just blame everybody in DC. It's great campaign fodder, it's lousy when you actually care about your democracy.

[redqueen]

98. They did pass it.

Sorry, but that's what happened. That's what happened with the IWR, the Patriot Act, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, the signing statements are worse, but I won't whitewash history.

[sandnsea]

99. Then there's nothing to impeach over

They're just exercising the power that we the people gave them. So quitcher bitchin.

If that's what you really believe. If you really believe Congress intended for them to take laws intended for terrorists and apply them to the general population. I don't believe that for one second.

[redqueen]

100. No, of course not.

Plausible deniability, don'tcha know.

[tomp]

45. the fact that there is no strong opposition party...

...is the only reason were not impeaching now.

[sandnsea]

83. I think they don't get it

I think they still don't really believe, to their gut, that the Bushies are intentionally disregarding the Constitution - and more, disregarding it to create a global empire beyond these borders.

[tomp]

97. no, this is not an honest mistake.

they are part of it. it's too obvious to miss, even for a politician (or especially for a politician, depending on your perspective).

[sandnsea]

101. The law is intended for terrorists

It is not intended to override the current execution laws. And not all Democrats voted for this, and some surprising ones did, like Boxer. I don't think she intended for this law to implement new death penalty standards. It's a ridiculous assertion.

[tomp]

108. a couple of things:

1) boxer is wrong. i couldn't care less about her street cred. any law that gives more, not less, power to gonzalez is a bad law. that is inarguable by reasonable people. the law is the law and has nothing to do with what boxer "intended".

2) the law could be bad for many other reasons but that wasn't my point in posting. i wasn't posting about the new law. i was posting about the failure by the dems to be an opposition party. my unchanged position since the coup of 2000 has been that every democrat should oppose bush, inc. tooth and nail on every question. if bush says no we say yes and vice versa. no quarter, no leniency, no negotiation, no compromise with bush, inc., period. i informed the dems of my opinion and they failed to heed it. now look where we are.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

34. you mean like this:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/antifaschits/...

[sandnsea]

Except more facts and less cute

Instead of "many", specific names and numbers.

In this instance,

"HE has created a mercenary army, uncontrolled by the democratic process, to fight in actions both domestic and foreign."

Which companies and how many employed.

But yes, something like this that is deadly serious with no drama to it at all. Straight up. Along with evidence from PNAC, the Bush Doctrine, and any other source, that they seek to create a "New World Order" outside and beyond our Constitutional Government.

[tomp]

44. exactly right.

but please vote democrat anyway.

[truthisfreedom]

11. There's no doubt that the patriot act is an act now.

All faked, from 9-11 on, just for this kind of power grab.

[blueridgeliving]

40. Just exactly like Hitler's Enabling Act

The Patriot Act gives bush's Totalitarian regime legitimacy.

Hitler didn't take over overnight, you know.

It was incremental steps.

[redqueen]

61. Precisely.

Welcome to DU, blueridgeliving.

[pinto]

14. Agghhh. The AG undermining the courts, again.

[Tab]

24. Under ANY other administration, this would not be a problem

It's a sad commentary that under this one we have serious concerns they might fast-track executions.

Their major opponents better not get their ass in jail, that's all I can say.

[sandnsea]

26. Oh my fucking ass it wouldn't be a problem

Manipulating a law intended for terrorists to remove constitutional protections when taking someone's life??? How old are you. Where do you live. I want to know how someone becomes unconcerned about removing constitutional protections from people who are going to be killed.

[Tab]

28. Chill

Take a nice chill pill.

What I meant, and perhaps I phrased it poorly so not everyone could figure it out, but you would not normally need this, because no other adminsitration that I've grown up with would even consider fast-tracking executions. This one would, and that's scary.

Where I live is none of your business.

[sandnsea]

29. Oh it's been considered for years

They're always trying to figure out a way to speed up executions. That's what is so horrifying about this action. They didn't even have an honest debate about it. They just grabbed at this unrelated measure and manipulated it to appeal to the furthest right in the country. It would be a problem no matter who did this, and sadly, I think there are Democrats who would support it as well. Which leads me to wondering how people get to be like that, callous and even gleeful about death. I wonder how much Reaganistic nonsense has permeated into the younger generation, how much regional educations affect what people think. We can't change the problems if we don't figure out how we got them in the first place.

[Tab]

30. I don't disagree

I was just put off a bit by how accusatory the first post was, but in general, we're both right. You're right, and I'm right too (I think) - this is an administration where even the best-meant tools are twisted for the worst imaginable (or even unimaginable) uses, and that's why they can't be trusted with any more power than necessary, if that.

[redqueen]

62. Exactly. They've wanted this power for decades...

And I agree with what you said about Democrats supporting this kind of thing, too... of course you're right... just look at how they cooperated to get the FISA bill passed... and renewed the Patriot Act.

As far as Reaganistic nonsense... based on conversations I've had with many seemingly liberal Reagan babies, the outlook isn't good AT ALL.

[soothsayer]

31. this is a good time to outlaw the death penalty

[annabanana]

32. The guy who made it possible for B*sh to kill more people than

any Governor in history when he was back in Texas. . . just perfect.

[Ilsa]

49. Not only that, but Atlantic Monthly said he wrote the worst

memos summarizing merits of stay to then Gov Bush about the death penalty cases that Bush could act on. For the larger public, that was a first indicator of Gonzo's legal ineptitude.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

33. read the bills? Are you kidding? that would infringe on fundraising time

can't have that.

Besides, they could pull a Feinstein "I haven't read it, even though I voted for it" crap.

[formercia]

35. Who writes these Bills that nobody reads?

Someone has to come up with this shit and put it on paper.

[rodeodance]

36. and WHY was this Stuck into the Patriot ACT??

[EstimatedProphet]

37. Are you fucking kidding me?!?

What the hell new powers won't these fuckers take?

[DemoTex]

38. Bu$h/Gonzo tag-team in Texas: 152 up; 152 down.

[blueridgeliving]

39. No, actually. They don't.

I saw an interview with a Congressman (no, I don't remember who it was, not that that would matter much) several years ago. I think it was on 60 Minutes, but don't quote me on that.
The subject at hand was 'HOW THE HELL DID THE PATRIOT ACT EVER GET PASSED TO BEGIN WITH?' and the Congressman was quite matter-of-fact about the whole "We don't read the bills" thing.
They travel a great deal.
They are on the road a great deal.
They are away from their families a great deal.
Most of their time is spent raising money to get re-elected, anyway.
And this was my favorite, "Do you have ANY IDEA how many pieces of paper we vote on per session? There is simply NO WAY we could EVER read all those bills."
It's pretty much "pre-established" what they're going to vote on anyway.

OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK ANYMORE.

[flyingfysh]

52. don't they have staff working for them??

Why don't Congressmen assign staff members to read everything they vote on and alert them to anything odd?

[redqueen]

63. Several were forced to admit that after they passed the Patriot Act.

They passed it right after the Anthrax scare... coincidence?

[Canuckistanian]

78. I think you're referring to Conyers and Michael Moore in F/911

I remember being surprised at Conyers' attitude. There wasn't even a hint of regret in his voice.

[OzarkDem]

84. GOP tactic when they controlled Congress

The GOP borrowed a dirty trick from the Ohio General Assembly (and possibly other red states) to ramrod bills through legislative sessions w/o comment or amendment from Dems. This is the basic tactic, its doubtless been modified. Works very well on budget bills and controversial legislation. This tactic was also used on the Medicare Prescription Drug Reform Bill.

Step 1 Develop and introduce a very large, complex bill

Step 2 Make many amendments and changes to said bill

Step 3 Deprive members of governing body (House, Senate) of sleep by keeping everyone up debating, dealing, amending said legislation, preferably for more than 24 hours

Step 4 Don't allow opposing party to view amendments and changes as they are written, do as much as possible in committee and behind closed doors; keep changing things right up until the last minute.

Step 5 When bill has reached several hundred pages with multiple amendments, etc. give to sleep deprived Dem legislators, tell them they have 1 hour to read it before the vote is called.

Step 6 See if you can get by with adding a few changes and additions to the bill just before or after its been signed by the President.

On edit: Sorry Ohio exported this tactic to DC. Ohio is the GOP laboratory for bad government.

[Socal31]

109. I agree whole-heartedly.

I think congress should have to "yay or nay" EVERY FUCKING PIECE of a bill. No more "$1,500,000 for a Zoo in Asshole, Florida" tacked on to a highway bill. NO MORE PORK BARREL. NO MORE SPECIAL PROJECTS. NO MORE HIDDEN AMENDMENTS SUCH AS THIS.

[madrchsod]

41. these guys are sociapaths

THE MALIGNANT PERSONALITY:



Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others

Feels grandiose and self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion

Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted.

Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)

Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation - or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply).

Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favourable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations

Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends

Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her


this country is being run by people with this disorder and the democrats can not even have their staff read the bill? jesus christ just what do they do?

[depakid]

51. "what do they do?"

Raise money and wage cowardice....

These folks have never seen an issue that they wouldn't sell anyone down the river on.

[tbyg52]

43. Doesn't anyone in Congress read the f'in bills?!

No. There's even a book titled "What Makes You Think We Read the Bills?"

http://www.amazon.com/What-Makes-Think-Read-Bills/dp/09...

[DrDan]

46. this is such a great litmus test for congress . . .

it shows in no uncertain terms whether the representatives (small-r) support the continued rights of states to legislate themselves - or whether the role of the federal gov't should be expanded.

I wish we could see a vote on this today. I would love to see how my reps from Florida would vote.

[Javaman]

47. ...

[marmar]

50. fas-cism

fas·cism (fshzm) KEY

NOUN:

1.often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial

[MidwestTransplant]

54. DO THESE F'ERS EVER READ THE LEGISLATION THE VOTE ON

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. Next step in the works is for the prisoners to get off the bus at the

prison on the day they're convicted, they walk into the shower, and are carried out.

[Zensea]

56. Did people miss this? "if a state requested" How is that a power grab?

The Attorney General can't do this unless the state involved requests it so I'm not sure it constitutes a power grab quite to the extent people are saying.
It does enable new powers, but how can you say it is a power grab if the state(s) have to request that the Attorney General do this?

Also, in the article it says

"Under the law, the attorney general's decision could be challenged before the federal appeals court in Washington."

If I'm missing something here, spell out what I'm missing.

[redqueen]

65. We can say it's a power grab

because if you look back over the past ten or fifteen years, you'll see there is a systematic chipping away at our freedoms. Yes, those little caveats are nice and polite. I have no doubt at all that they'd be ignored in a heartbeat, and any appeals would go the way the anthrax mailers' associates want them to go.

[Zensea]

67. Opinion not fact

"because if you look back over the past ten or fifteen years, you'll see there is a systematic chipping away at our freedoms"
Past ten or fifteen years? That would implicate someone other than Bush then wouldn't it? Who exactly is doing this "power grab"? What does it have to do with this particular piece of legislation?

"Yes, those little caveats are nice and polite. I have no doubt at all that they'd be ignored in a heartbeat, and any appeals would go the way the anthrax mailers' associates want them to go."

Just because you have no doubt doesn't make it true.
This doesn't constitute a real answer and also doesn't address the first point regarding that the states have to request this action before the Attorney General can do anything. It's not like the Attorney General can unilaterally decide to assume the authority without the request from the states -- at least according to what I see written in this legislation, which is what the orginal post is about.

Any tendencies and inclinations and actions regarding power grabs in general (and not in relation to this legislation) are a different topic.

[redqueen]

68. Those questions are funny.

"That would implicate someone other than Bush then wouldn't it? Who exactly is doing this "power grab"? What does it have to do with this particular piece of legislation?"

You must be new.

Believe what you want... time will show whose perception was more / less accurate.

[Zensea]

71. I'm 50, I Iived through Watergate

I watched the hearings every day. I was a conscientious objector at the end of the Vietnam War.

I'm not new at all.

Now you've gone from opinion to insults.

I asked for fact in my original post. I wasn't expecting to get it and I haven't.
I didn't really want my expectations confirmed, but you've done a good (sic) job of confirming them.

Think I'll add this -- I personally know lawyers who participated in the filing of friend of the court briefs regarding the Guantanamo Bay detainees on the side of asking for legal representation for those detainees. Because of conversations with them (once they were able to be candid), I have few illusions regarding the Bush administration and their tactics and take on things.

I suggest you reevaluate where I am coming from, given that.

[redqueen]

73. No insult intended.

I apologize for my inference that you were new... I truly did not intend for it to sound like an insult. I am just very, very tired.

If you've been through all that and you still manage to think there's people's names I could give you... I just don't know what to tell you. That seems extremely naive to me.

I know you asked for fact. I tried to tell you that history gives us examples of these types of quaint little provisions being rendered essentially meaningless after the fact. Give an inch, take a mile... that kind of thing.

But at least one of your questions I can answer... yes... we have MUCH more to fear than just Bush. That was another thing you said that screamed "naive". Our freedom to assemble was curtailed under Clinton, if you recall. If I recall correctly, he was also the first executive to start military action without the prior approval of congress.

[Zensea]

80. Clarification

I see how it might appear I was being naive.
I think the problem is larger than Bush. It appeared to me initially that most of this thread was narrowing it down to fear of Bush and was the basis for my response.
I can see you are not doing that.

I'm also around lawyers a lot which is why I get nit-picky about exactly what is being written in legislation & what precisely one should be worried about. I can see why it may have come across as being naive because of the way I was phrasing things.

[sandnsea]

85. Congress didn't intend that power

This law was written to apply to specific terrorists, say if bin Laden were caught and tried in Virginia. It was not written so the Bushies could create a new death penalty statute and turn a friendly state, like Virginia, into an execution chamber. We did not have a national debate about whether we were going to give the DOJ authority over our state laws. They just took it.

[Zensea]

89. Where does it give the DOJ authority over state laws?

I'm still not seeing that in the article.
It looks to me like what it is saying is that if the states request (so the states still have control) that the DOJ will make a decision that judges currently make regarding the speed of the appeal process.

This was my original comment also -- if the states request. How is that the DOJ taking the authority? "If the states request means" if the states give the authority to the DOJ.

Big difference.

I'm only talking about this specific legislation. I don't want to get off into a side discussion about the nefariousness of the the Bush people in general, I'm quite aware not to trust them.

[sandnsea]

90. Congress didn't write the law

Th states are not relevant to this discussion. Congress, WE the PEOPLE, did not collectively decide to give this authority to the DOJ. They manipulated the law and TOOK THE POWER away from US.

[Zensea]

91. Where in the $#@ are you getting that from?

The Justice Department is putting the final touches on regulations that could give Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales important new sway over death penalty cases in California and other states, including the power to shorten the time that death row inmates have to appeal convictions to federal courts.

The rules implement a little-noticed provision in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act that gives the attorney general the power to decide whether individual states are providing adequate counsel for defendants in death penalty cases. The authority has been held by federal judges.

Under the rules now being prepared, if a state requested it and Gonzales agreed, prosecutors could use "fast track" procedures that could shave years off the time that a death row inmate has to appeal to the federal courts after conviction in a state court.

The move to shorten the appeals process and effectively speed up executions comes at a time of growing national concern about the fairness of the death penalty, underscored by the use of DNA testing to establish the innocence of more than a dozen death row inmates in recent years.

Oh, I get it -- Congress didn't write the law, they just reauthorized it. If that's the distinction you're making, it's a semantic distinction of no significance. As far as I'm concerned if they authorized it, they wrote it and if they authorized it then Congress did collectively decide to allow the DOJ to have this authority if the states request it. The states are not forced to request it and if they don't request it then the DOJ doesn't have the power, so where is the power being taken away from anyone? --- again, in this particular case.

I was hoping for someone to actually give a reasoned refutation of what I am saying based on the actual language of the article being quoted, but I still haven't seen one.

The left does itself a disservice when it reacts emotionally and exaggerates things. I'm sure that many congresspeople would have the same response I'm having and say the reaction is a tempest in a teapot. In order for them to not have that reaction (that is, in order to actually persuade and accomplish anything) they need to be shown specifically how the rhetoric of fear coincides with the actual facts.

I don't think it has been shown in this case yet.

[sandnsea]

92. The Patriot Act applies to TERRORISTS

Congress did not authorize the DOJ to fast track ALL death penalty cases - it was intended for terrorists because that is what that law is about. For the Bushies to expand that power beyond that limited focus - is a POWER GRAB. That's the point.

[Zensea]

93. Does it say that in the article though?

Ok,first off, I do see the argument being made now.
however,
Without seeing the actual language of the legislation how do we know though that the focus is limited as you say?

I agree that the focus of the Patriot Act is limited, but what about that provision? All depends on how it was worded. It is perfectly possible that it was quite intentionally written in such a way as to not be limited -- written and authorized by Congress.

I also agree that the focus of the Patriot Act and the provision should be limited, but that does not mean that it actually is.

For example,later in the article it says
"The idea behind the new rules has been years in the making. The federal Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 set up a system in which states could take advantage of faster procedures so long as they could prove they had made sure defendants had had adequate counsel in state courts."

Years in the making -- 1996 - Well, you can hardly blame that on Bush.
Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act -- Well, if it's one thing and another thing then it is not only about terrorists -- all depends on how that conjunctive "and" is being used -- I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who can argue that it indicates that the focus is not limited to terrorists only.

[sandnsea]

94. I already said they've wanted this for years

I've also said there are likely to be Democrats who support it because I know they've been trying to speed up the execution process in a lot of states.

The point is, THIS legislation was not intended to do that. I know that because the legislation is about terrorism and there wouldn't be an article if tha weren't the case. If it were legislation about the death penalty to begin with, there'd be no point to the article.

They manipulated Patriot Act provisions to permanently take away Constitutional protections from death penalty cases. That ought to be horrifying. It's the ultimate violation. I don't think people understand.

[Vidar]

57. As long as the states get the final say in Gonzo's execution.

[sandnsea]

88. Congress never gave them this right

They are manipulating the law, that's the problem. They are assuming a right to deny our civil rights, that "we the people", through Congress, never gave them. It doesn't matter what the states want, we never collectively passed this legislation. They just took a law, twisted it, and made this up.

[Vidar]

106. You are right. I was being sarcastic, though I'm sincere about wanting

to hang gonzo.

[redqueen]

59. It doesn't seem like many read the bills, no.

I can only think of one who does, actually.

Anyone know of anyone besides Kucinich who reads the things for themselves before voting?

[Connonym]

60. I think I've just moved into the "officially scared as hell" of these guys category

Are we even going to get an election in 08?

[HeraldSquare212]

64. "Little-noticed provision...."

G---dammit, how many of these are there? Doesn't anyone in Congress read bills anymore?

[redqueen]

66. I know of only one that does.

Hi heraldsqure, welcome to DU.

[Canuckistanian]

70. The GOP Culture of Death strikes again

Is there a shred of doubt left about this?

[NoodleyAppendage]

72. "little-noticed provision" = Dem leaders being LAZY COWARDS.

How many times do we have to hear the words "little-noticed provision" before we get a clue that the Legislative Branch is horribly dysfunctional and filled with LAZY COWARDS.

J

[redqueen]

74. Cowardly or complicit, yes. n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

76. I would hate to think complicit. Cowardice seems most likely.

The less deeply they read the bill, then less likely they are to find the objections that would push them to fight the bill. They do this because they are AFRAID of being called "weak on terror" and are more interested in their own backsides than the Constitution or this country. I'm ready to guillotine the lot and install a true democracy. Not this sham system we're stuck with now.

J

[redqueen]

79. I hope it's just cowardice.

I do worry, though...

[Gonnuts]

75. BE HEARD

BE HEARD! A GENERAL STRIKE SEPT. 11th STAY HOME – BUY NOTHING

GS are effective. If you check out recent success stories of how GS have brought oppressive governments to their knees and they had to listen to the people you too would wonder why we haven't been using this tactic earlier.

Our phone calls, letters, emails, marches, protests and our votes are NOT being listened to! If enough non-essential people stay home from work to bring this country to a standstill and do not purchase anything for that one day we'd be heard.

What have we got to loss? Nothing else is working.

We can't wait till the 09' for the change.

We can't wait for prolonged investigations that are being stonewalled to get justice.

We can't wait for impeachment to be put "back on the table".

We can’t wait for our so-called representatives to grow a spine.

We can't wait period! Too much time has been wasted already!

Take the day off for PEACE! Everyone, cab-drivers, bakers, bankers, sales-persons, waiters, cooks, shoemakers, city workers, state workers, bus drivers, lawyers, everyone, stay home, buy nothing.

Ask yourself is it worth one day out of your life to save one persons live?

Out of Iraq/Impeach NOW! SEPT. 11th GENERAL STRIKE! SPREAD THE WORD!

http://liberalpro.blogspot.com/2007/08/general-strike-9...

[Bake]

77. WHY WHY WHY is it always a "little-noticed provision"????

Did anybody read the damn bill before they voted on it? ANYBODY AT ALL?

Who drafted this vile sh*t in the first place?

Bake

[OzarkDem]

81. Why do they think this is necessary?

What's the point? Doesn't DOJ have better things to do than duplicate work already being done by states?

[Demeter]

82. Shades of Gilbert & Sullivan! It's Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner

Pish-Tush sings:

And so we straight let out on bail
A convict from the county jail,
Whose head was next
On some pretext
Condemned to be mown off,
And made him Headsman, for we said,
"Who's next to be decapited
Cannot cut off another's head
Until he's cut his own off,
His own off, his own off,
Until he's cut his own off."

And we are right, I think you'll say,
To argue in this kind of way;
And I am right,
And you are right,
And all is right — too-loo-ral-lay!

[mvd]

95. Where are the Repuke complaints here?

Thought they were for states' rights.

[freeinchrist]

102. "Christian Right" Exposed and Humiliated

Gonzales is yet another example of the corruption in the hierarchy of the "Christian Right". If we can reveal their secret sins to the general public, including sincere Christians who have been deceived by their leaders, their financial and electoral support base will be substantially diminished. And, I have seen a provocative "You Tube" video done by an evangelical pastor, in which he exposes many secret lies, hypocrisies, financial abuses and even sadism among his Christian right-wing colleagues. The information he reveals could seriously hurt these right-wingers in 2008. We should be sharing this message far and wide! The "You Tube" address is: www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEbk-kk_Kbg Also check out his other short, satirical video blasting and challenging O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and other right-wing pundits.

[mvd]

103. Welcome to DU!

[Solly Mack]

104. "last year's reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act "

"a little-noticed provision"




"Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales important new sway over death penalty cases in ...including the power to shorten the time that death row inmates have to appeal convictions to federal courts."

"... the attorney general the power to decide whether individual states are providing adequate counsel for defendants in death penalty cases."

They go from the power to determine if someone facing death had adequate counsel..to that same power shortening the time for appeals for the "defendant"


America is terminal...

[antonialee839]

107. Great News!!!

It's just like Texas all over again.

[tom_paine]

110. Don't impeach him, give him more power.

[Generator]

111. Fucking death ghouls

Gonzalez, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, ET ALL. They must have been studying Nazi occult how-to-manuals for fun. Nothing gets their tiny manhood harder than killing and torturing.