Wow! It's Growing!!

The Petition to have Attorney General Holder review all of the pending death penalty cases and to require prosecutors not to seek death in them, a step that would save about 50 lives, has grown to 231 signatures. Hurrah!

I'm leaving it up for the month of March. After that, I'll take it down and send it to the Attorney General. Wouldn't it be excellent to send 700 signatures on March 31, 2009?

To do that, I'm going to need your help. You know what to do. Please do it.

Holder Steps In To End California Federal Death Penalty Case

Well, well, well. Maybe, just maybe, somebody has been listening to all of my complaining.

Cal Law reports:

New Attorney General Eric Holder has authorized a deal that could abruptly end a rare San Francisco death penalty trial only days after it began.

Not only does Holder's reversal likely spare defendant Emile Fort his life, but it may signal a less aggressive approach to the death penalty in federal court. And it vindicates the local U.S. attorney's office: Months ago federal prosecutors in San Francisco had recommended a 40-year plea bargain for Fort to their higher-ups in Washington — only to be rebuffed by Holder's predecessor, Michael Mukasey.

The jury heard opening statements Wednesday in the case against Fort, an alleged member of San Francisco's Down Below Gang who's accused of three murders. Yet when defense lawyers arrived in Northern District Judge William Alsup's court Friday morning — expecting another day of witness testimony — federal prosecutors announced their decision to deal, said Michael Thorman, one of Fort's attorneys.

Alsup dismissed the jury and scheduled a special hearing for today. The defendant had the weekend to decide whether he wants to plead out, and Thorman anticipated that he would.

There you go. No more Washington directed death penalty trial. Fort can plead to 41 years (40 plus no credit for 16 months in state custody), which, needless to say, is a huge and probably entirely appropriate sentence. And the federal death penalty is off the table. Just like that.

I'm applauding. This is definitely a step in the right direction. It's a step toward abolition.

h/t to Sam Pratt

Obama Dishes Up A Cup Of Same Old Same Old

What a colossal disappointment. Remember when Barack Obama was going to severely curtail the use of the "state secrets" doctrine, throw the windows open, and let the sun shine in, dispersing Bushco's unnecessary secrecy? Forget about it. That was just eyewash.

Yesterday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit the Obama Justice Department astonished the three judge panel by sticking with Bushco's "state secrets" argument in the case of Binyam Mohamed. The New York Times reports:

In a closely watched case involving rendition and torture, a lawyer for the Obama administration seemed to surprise a panel of federal appeals judges on Monday by pressing ahead with an argument for preserving state secrets originally developed by the Bush administration.

In the case, Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian native, and four other detainees filed suit against a subsidiary of Boeing for arranging flights for the Bush administration’s “extraordinary rendition” program, in which terrorism suspects were secretly taken to other countries, where they say they were tortured. The Bush administration argued that the case should be dismissed because even discussing it in court could threaten national security and relations with other nations. ... snip

...a government lawyer, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument [as Bushco made] on Monday, startling several judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.

“No, your honor,” Mr. Letter replied.

Judge Schroeder asked, “The change in administration has no bearing?”

Once more, he said, “No, Your Honor.” The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration,” and “these are the authorized positions,” he said.

There you go. This is "thoroughly vetted." These are "authorized positions." It's the same old. It's not exactly change you can believe in, at least not in this case.

Said a spokesperson for the Obama Justice Department:

A Justice Department spokesman, Matt Miller, ... seemed to suggest that Mr. Obama would invoke the privilege more sparingly than its predecessor.

“It is the policy of this administration to invoke the state secrets privilege only when necessary and in the most appropriate cases,” he said, adding that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had asked for a review of pending cases in which the government had previously asserted a state secret privilege.

“The attorney general has directed that senior Justice Department officials review all assertions of the state secrets privilege to ensure that the privilege is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations,” he said. “It is vital that we protect information that, if released, could jeopardize national security.”

That review, folks, isn't worth a cup of warm spit. Evidently, it doesn't matter that the court papers

describe horrific treatment in secret prisons. Mr. Mohamed claimed that during his detention in Morocco, “he was routinely beaten, suffering broken bones and, on occasion, loss of consciousness. His clothes were cut off with a scalpel and the same scalpel was then used to make incisions on his body, including his penis. A hot stinging liquid was then poured into open wounds on his penis where he had been cut. He was frequently threatened with rape, electrocution and death.”

Evidently it doesn't matter that everybody in the world already has access to virtually everything about Binyam Mohamed's illegal extradition, torture, and continuous confinement. Pointing out how widely reported Binyam Mohamed's case has been, Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the A.C.L.U., told the judges that what the government was trying to keep secret by asserting the "state secrets" doctrine isn't secret at all. The details of the administration’s "extraordinary rendition program" (read: illegal extraditions) have already been told, as have how those facts applied directly to the plaintiffs. “The only place in the world where these claims can’t be discussed,” Mr. Wizner said, “is in this courtroom.”

Maybe the moderate/liberal panel of the Ninth Circuit that heard this case will overturn it. I hope so. But my disappointment at the position taken by the Obama Justice Department leaves me shaking my head in sorrow. This isn't change we can believe it. It's not old wine in new bottles. It's just the same old same old. And it still stinks.

Saving 49, strike that, make it 51 Lives (Part 8)

This may be my final, daily essay on this topic. This is my essay for Sunday, February 8, 2009, but I'm putting it up now.

This essay is about reason number 2,781 for signing this petition and for emailing Attorney General Holder at Whitehouse.gov or askDOJ@usdoj.gov to ask the Attorney General to reconsider whether prosecutors should seek the death penalty in the pending 49 50 51 federal death penalty cases, and when he determines that these cases are not appropriate for that extremely barbaric, horrific, inhuman penalty (no cases in actuality are ever appropriate for the death penalty), to direct prosecutors not to seek the death penalty.

As you can see, something distressing happened on Friday.

Unfortunately, the November, 2008 election didn't stop Bush and his Attorneys General from making decisions about which federal cases merited the death penalty. They continued to order federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty even as they were on their way out the door. And so on Friday, February 6, 2008, we learned that the United States Attorney for Connecticut had been directed by the former Attorney General to seek the death penalty in the case of Azibo "Dreddy" Aquart and his brother, Azikiwe "Zee" Aquart, and that a notice that the death penalty would be sought was filed in Federal Court in Bridgeport. I have no idea how many other notices will now be hauled out, all asking that the death penalty be imposed in federal cases, the final barbaric legacy of a corrupt Attorney General's office.

The Connecticut Post reports:

BRIDGEPORT -- Federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for two brothers accused of ordering and participating in the 2005 triple murders of rival drug gang members.

Acting U.S. Attorney Nora R. Dannehy notified Senior U.S. District Judge Peter C. Dorsey that her office will be seeking the death penalty if Azibo "Dreddy" Aquart, 28, and his brother, Azikiwe "Zee" Aquart, 29, are convicted "for one or more of the intentional killings" of Tina Johnson, 43: her boyfriend, James Reid, 40; and a visiting family friend, Basil Williams, 54.

The trio was found covered with blood after being bludgeoned to death in an apartment at 215 Charles St., where the Aquarts are accused of running a crack cocaine trafficking ring.

The faces of all three victims were covered with duct tape.

The Aquart brothers were indicted this past June. They remain incarcerated.

This isn't the first time the Attorney General ordered Connecticut federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty.

In 2003, federal prosecutors tried Luke "Mega" Jones, the head of a violent drug trafficking ring based in the P.T. Barnum Housing Project, on operating a continuing criminal enterprise that engaged in murder.

It was the first federal death penalty trial in at least 50 years in Connecticut.

After hearing evidence, Senior U.S. District Judge Alan H. Nevas declined to allow the death penalty charge to go to the jury after determining one of the murders was not linked to drug trafficking. Instead Nevas imposed four life sentences and two 10-year terms on Jones.

But apparently, even though Connecticut has a state death penalty statute, in Republican Attorney General land, it's always try, try, try again. Try to spread death. Try to expand state killing. It's always dogged persistence in the service of killing.

I think those of us opposed to state killing also need to be persistent. I've tried to model persistence for the past week. I will no doubt continue in the future. In the battle to end state killing, we repeatedly need to take to heart the wisdom of the Dalai Lama:

Never give up
No matter what is going on
Never give up
Develop the heart
Too much energy in your country is spent
developing the mind instead of the heart
Develop the heart,
Be compassionate
Not just to your friends but to everyone,
be compassionate
Work for peace in your heart and in the world
Work for peace, and I say again
Never give up
No matter what is happening
No matter what is going on around you
Never give up.

And so, I ask you again, dear reader, please don't give up. Not now. Not ever.

Please ask Attorney General Holder to review each of the now 51 cases in which federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, and ask him to determine that the death penalty is not appropriate in these cases, that a maximum penalty of life without parole will suffice. As I've said before, that's not asking a lot.

Please join the 115 people who have signed this Petition since February 2, 2009. Please sign the petition.

Please email the Attorney General at Whitehouse.gov or askDOJ@usdoj.gov. You can use this text or make up your own 500 character text:

Please review all of the determinations made by previous administrations to seek the federal death penalty. There are 49 defendants who presently face the death penalty because of decisions made by former attorneys general. Many of these decisions overruled local US Attorneys' views, were politically motivated, and do not meet the expressed criteria of the present administration for seeking execution. Such a review can save lives and restore confidence in the justice department. Thank you.

Please do all you can to stop state killing.

Saving 49 Lives (Part 6)

The voice of him that cryeth in the Wilderness
Isaiah 40:3

Ut oh. Ut oh. Ut oh. I'm wondering whether my little, disorganized, spontaneous, repetitive campaign to require the new Attorney General to review the 49 pending federal death penalty cases and to decide that federal prosecutors shouldn't be seeking the death penalty in these cases, has worn out my readership, my welcome, and any remaining goodwill. That's how it is, sometimes when there's more persistence than creativity. But I soldier on, vox clamatis in deserto.

The petition now has 75 signatures, for which I am incredibly thankful. If you haven't signed it yet, please do so. It is a concrete way to ask Attorney General Holder to review all of the 49 pending federal death penalty cases and to decide that his prosecutors have no business seeking the death penalty in these cases.

And many, many people have sent Attorney General emails at Whitehouse.gov or via askDOJ@doj.gov, the Justice Department's email address, encouraging him to review these 49 cases and not to seek the death penalty in them. Again, please do so, too.

This is the sixth essay in a weeklong series. You can also read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5 at docuDharma and also at GOS and right here at The Dream Antilles.

Today someone asked me an interesting question about my efforts to have Attorney General Holder review these cases. Said he, "Can the Attorney General actually review these cases and change the previous decision on whether to seek the death penalty?" The answer is, yes, and it's happened before.

Here's a National Law Journal article from December, 2004:

On Nov. 12, Nicholas Garaufis, a federal judge who sits in the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn and Long Island), criticized Ashcroft's decision to seek the death penalty in the pending murder trial of mob boss Joseph Massino. Convicted in July of seven racketeering murders, Massino already faces a mandatory sentence of life without parole.

"Mr. Ashcroft's choice to make such a sobering and potentially life-ending decision now," Garaufis read from a prepared statement at a court hearing, "after several delays, and only after tendering his resignation to the President and announcing to the country that he no longer wishes to preside over the Department of Justice, is deeply troubling to this court."

The judge acknowledged his responsibility to accept the decision, but added that he hopes Gonzales, upon taking office, will "reach an independent assessment."

"Accordingly," Garaufis said, "at the appropriate time, I shall issue an order directing the Government to resubmit the matter to the new Attorney General for his consideration."

Four days later came the announcement that Ashcroft had rescinded an order he issued in January 2003 demanding that prosecutors seek the death penalty in the murder trial of Jairo Zapata. The earlier decision drew immediate fire because lawyers from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York had already signed a cooperation agreement with Zapata. The attorney general's action was criticized for jeopardizing future agreements.

Ultimately, Massino pleaded guilty and Garaufis sentenced him to life without parole, as required. And the Government didn't seek the death penalty against Zapata.

The point: the Attorney General has previously reviewed decisions to seek the death penalty, and has also reversed the previous decisions. Attorney General Holder clearly can reverse any of the death penalty decisions made by his three Republican predecessors.

Please ask your friends, relatives, colleagues, family members to sign the petition and to write to AG Holder. And please, if you have any ideas that will bring others to making this request to the AG, leave them in the comments.

We can save these lives. Let's do that.