As you (should) already know, I am vehemently opposed to any form of capital punishment. I know of no crime that anyone can commit that gives the state the right to murder them in retribution. It is not the state imposing a punishment, but rather the state becoming an instrument of vengeance. The fact that said vengeance is meted out much more often to minorities for similar or lesser crimes than it is to Caucasians simply reinforces my opposition to it. And then there's the preponderance of exonerations as new evidence becomes available, crime labs are found to be highly negligent, or legal frameworks are found to be biased towards the prosecution and/or highly inadequate for the defense.

Besides - death is easy. The constant debate is over whether our methods of disposing of criminals is "humane" (whatever that's supposed to mean). If we're faced with a truly heinous crime, wouldn't locking that person in a cell 23 hours a day for the rest of their miserable lives be a more torturous punishment than simply euthanizing them?

Five states want to reinstate the death penalty for rape in cases where the victim is a minor under the age of 13. Now, for vengeance-minded people, I'm sure this sounds like a grand old idea. However, the margin for error just gets thinner and thinner.

The flagship case in this push does nothing more than underscore what a terrible idea this is.

Patrick Kennedy was convicted of brutally raping his 8-year old stepdaughter and sentenced to death. Now, the Supreme Court found in 1977 that the death penalty for rape was unconstitutional, but the wording of the decision can be read to refer specifically to an adult victim, which led the Louisiana Supreme Court to rule that Kennedy's sentence didn't violate the SCOTUS decision.

Kennedy's case is fraught with problems. He initially called 911 to report the rape, and the tape has him asking for an ambulance because his stepdaughter had been raped by two boys, and then telling the operator that he was going to find them and kill them - a predictable reaction from someone who's just found his stepdaughter raped. The stepdaughter's report backed that up, that two boys had dragged her into the alley and raped her. In the course of the investigation, however, police began to focus on Kennedy.

He was tried and convicted, not because of any physical evidence that he'd committed the crime - there was none that implicated him - but because his stepdaughter changed her testimony and implicated him. She's on tape at one point telling the forensic psychologists that the police wanted her to change her story. She was told, as was her mother, that she would be placed in foster care if Kennedy was not convicted, because the state would not let her live with him, even if they couldn't prove his guilt.

So, an eight-year-old was told that she was going to be taken from her parents, unless she said what the police wanted to hear. Eight-year-olds do not have even the slightest concept of imprisonment and are easily impressionable. Tell them what you want them to say and conjure up the specter of being snatched from their mother, and they'll tell you what you want to hear, and make up as many convincing details as you need.

So, the obvious oversights in the case notwithstanding, Victims Right's and Rape Prevention groups have come out against the death penalty for rape cases. Why? Because it leaves more rapes unsolved and more rapists in close proximity to their victims.

Rape is a highly underreported crime. The shame and fear and public humiliation involved leads many victims to stay silent. Child rapists tend to be related to their victims, which creates another problem: family members, while they'd be OK with seeing someone rot in prison for their crime, might not be so keen on having them executed for it. So it goes unreported. And then there's the real problem. Plea deals in these cases involve life in prison without parole. Someone falsely accused of raping a child has two alternatives: plead guilty and get life in prison, or go to trial for their very lives. Kennedy's case shows what a poor proposition that is. No physical evidence? Changing statements from the key witness? Possible witness tampering? Too bad. Get ready for the death juice!

Between 1972 and 1977, there were 63 rape convictions in Georgia, and juries returned death penalties in only 6 (one was set aside by Georgia's Supreme Court) - juries handed down death penalties in less than 10% of cases, making the punishment highly arbitrary (and therefore unusual). People executed for rape are overwhelmingly black, and no white man has ever been executed in America for raping a black woman. So, it's not just arbitrary, it's racially biased when it is handed down (which isn't surprising, because the same can be said for death sentences for murder).

Rape is also very hard to prove, but when it is "proven," the chances of convicting the innocent is high, and higher still when the victim is a child.

So, five states are trying their hardest to execute the innocent, claiming that they're protecting the rest of us. I'm not sure how sacrificing one innocent person for the nebulous and unproven claim of protection for the rest of society is Justice. It's not even peace of mind - it's just a momentary satisfaction of blood lust. Is that what we are?

-pb

I've got four things I consider "dealbreakers" when it comes to voting for a candidate:

• Candidate does not support reproductive choice
• Candidate does not support LGTB rights
• Candidate is in favor of capital punishment
• Candidate does not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and/or supports indefinite deployment of even a token U.S. force in Iraq

I have other dealbreakers, like environmental concerns and so on and so forth, but since these four uniformly eliminate any Republican candidate, but might also eliminate a Democratic candidate, we'll focus on them.

Now, it's become apparent that with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, none of the Democratic candidates currently in the race are free of all of those dealbreakers. Dealbreakers aside, Gravel has some crazy ideas that I'm not down with (like the FairTax initiative, which is anything but), but I agree in principle with 99% of Kucinich's platform. The problem is, he's such an outside candidate that it's not even worth discussing him. I voted for him once, but I'd like to not have to do that again. Also, he's been getting on my nerves with his "Any media, any time, at any moral cost" stance, to the point of being the only Dem candidate to actually call FOX News a legitimate news organization (especially in the face of Edwards calling them on their increasing disconnection from reality).

So, I'm left with ranking the actual viable candidates against my dealbreaker list. And this is what I've come up with:

John Edwards - 100% NARAL voting record, opposes ban on late-term abortion. "Uncomfortable" around gays but supports civil unions. Supports death penalty. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely. (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 1 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Dealbreakers: 2.5/4.

Barack Obama - Opposes ban on late-term abortion, supports prevention education, is against Constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. In favor of civil unions that are "just like marriage". Fought against death penalty in legislation but is on record defending it in some cases. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 2/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, .5 for wishy-washing on death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Hillary Clinton - 100% NARAL voting record and supports education and prevention, but has engendered some pro-life sentiments depending on her audience. Uncertain on death penalty except to mandate DNA testing, so not obviously against. Supports civil unions, but not marriage. Supports blowing up more shit in Iraq.

Deal breakers: 3/4 (.5 for anti-choice chatter, .5 for civil unions, 1 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Joe Biden - 34% NARAL voting record. In favor of civil unions, voted against same-sex marriage but calls it "inevitable". No real position on death penalty. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 3/4 (1 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, .5 for no position on death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Chris Dodd - 100% NARAL voting record, opposes ban on late-term abortion. Supports civil unions but voted against same-sex marriage. Called for a moratorium on capital punishment. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 1.5/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 0 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Bill Richardson - Supports Roe v. Wade. Supports civil unions with full marriage benefits, would call it marriage if possible, aims for "achievable". Supports death penalty. Favors 6-month withdrawal from Iraq with no remaining troops.

Dealbreakers: 1/4 (0 for reproductive rights, 0 for civil unions as a first step, 1 for death penalty, 0 for Iraq)

And just for shits and giggles:

Al Gore - Supports Roe v. Wade, opposes ban on late-term abortion. Supports civil unions but against same-sex marriage. Supports death penalty in certain cases. No official stance on an exit from Iraq, but strongly opposed to involvement there.

Dealbreakers 1.5/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 1 on death penalty, provisional 0 for Iraq)

So, that's what I'm left with. Up until this soul-search evaluation, my favorite candidate in the race was Edwards, but he's hitting over 50% of my dealbreakers. Next would probably have been Obama, hit he's right at 50%. Even my ideal candidate is has 1½ of them.

I want a voice in the primary, a voice other than "none of the above". I want to point to one of these people and say "that one..." Ideally, I'd like to end that with "is the best choice," but right now, I'm going to have to settle on "is the least objectionable." And barring a complete policy shift (which I wouldn't likely trust anyway), that one is Bill Richardson. Aside from his downsides, he's got a number of upsides, too. He's the only Dem candidate with a detailed environmental plan. That detailed plan is also far better than Clinton or Edwards "wish list". Richardson's been to Darfur and has been trying to do what he can to bring an end to the genocide there (a big step for a governor who doesn't have the federal government behind him). He's been to North Korea. He's got actual foreign policy experience. He supports a federal minimum wage for teachers of $40,000, and wants to scrap "Every No Child Left Behind." At the federal level, he's been responsible for the return of Native American land rights and has served as an advocate for them in both the House and at the Cabinet level. He made New Mexico the first state to offer $400,000 in life insurance coverage for active duty National Guardsmen. He's a supporter of regional rail and private space program development. He signed medical marijuana legislation while running for President despite calls that it might hurt him, because it was "the right thing to do". He's a supporter of gun rights. He cut taxes. (Hear that? He's a pro-gun, tax-cutting Democrat.) At the moment I'm writing this, I'm actually more excited for Richardson than Al Gore.

I still want Gore to get into the race, but if that's the case, I want Richardson as VP. Gore was a very hands-on VP, and with someone as well in line with his beliefs as Richardson, I think they'd make a very dynamic team that would get a lot done. But, until Gore gets into the race, I think I've found my horse.

-pb

Killer orders pizza for homeless as last meal

Just hours before his execution by injection, a Tennessee death row prisoner who was convicted of killing a police officer ordered his final meal -- pizza for a homeless person.

Riverbend Maximum Security Institution refused, said Riverbend spokeswoman Dorinda Carter.

"We can get some special things for the inmate but the taxpayers don't really give us permission to donate to charity," Carter said.

Philip Workman, who had been taunted with death five times before he was finally hitched to a needle, requested that his last meal be donated to someone who was going to need it more than him. Regardless of what he'd done to get him where he was, his very last act was a selfless one. But they wouldn't even give him that. Whining that "taxpayers don't really give us permission to donate to charity" is just cowardly. "don't really"? I would venture a guess that they "don't really" tell you that you can't let a guy you're about to murder donate his $20 meal to someone who's hungry.

Workman's story isn't just as bad as that, though. While he admits to the actions that lead up to the death of the person he's accused of murdering, there were a number of inconsistencies:

His defense said that new ballistics evidence suggests [Memphis Police Lt. Ronald] Oliver died from friendly fire at the robbery scene.

They also pointed to the recanted statements of a key eyewitness who now says he lied when he testified at Workman's trial that he saw Workman shoot Oliver.

Workman, a self-described former "junkie," acknowledges robbing the Wendy's with a gun for drug money and tussling with police outside after an employee tripped a silent alarm. But he told CNN that his weapon "involuntarily discharged" when he was hit in the head.

Involuntary manslaughter would fit here. Illegal use of a firearm. A laundry list of charges that would have kept Workman behind bars for a long time. But justice wasn't served here. This execution was a revenge killing, plain and simple. Workman was guilty, but not of murder. But I guess that's how it goes, right? "Throw a rock in the air, you'll hit someone guilty". Tennessee got their pound of flesh, and a two-for-one deal, to boot. Kill one person, and starve another.

-pb

Khalid Sheik Mohammad has confessed to a laundry list of foul deeds. Taking him at his word, he's a mass murderer, at best, an inhuman killing machine at worst. But, why would he bother to confess?

Because he knows he's going to die. And if he's going to die, better that he puffs himself up into the biggest, baddest martyr that he can possibly be. This is one of the failings of a system that advocates the death penalty against people who are apparently unafraid to die. Nice deterrent, huh?

KSM was held in secret prisons and tortured, so there's no way that they can bring him to a civilian trial. The only thing they can do now is to drag him through a kangaroo military tribunal where the only thing made public will be "Guilty - Penalty, death", after which point he will be disposed of. He knows this. He knows that regardless of what he says (No, you got the wrong guy! My name is Khalim Sheik Mohammad!), they're going to kill him. So, why not make a legend out of himself?

Why not take credit for WTC '93, 9/11, Daniel Pearl, Pearl Harbor, Harboring Joseph Goebbles, etc., etc, ad infinitum. He's guaranteeing that a) jihadis will remember him as a powerful martyr and b) U.S. intel will never know if he was lying or if the real perpetrators are still out there.

Smart move by a dead man. Dumb move by Bush for sentencing him before the trial.

-pb

Pa. Man Charged With Animal Cruelty After Shooting Three Dogs.

Yeah, this is bad, but it begs the question:

If jamming a needle into someone's arm and filling them with toxic chemicals, leaving them paralyzed but potentially still aware as they die horribly, isn't "cruel" by Pennsylvania's legal definition, how exactly is shooting a dog "cruel"?

-pb

Life in prison for Moussaoui

Which is what he deserves. - to rot (please remember that I'm saying that)

Now, here are some thoughts I had on the case:

Moussaoui confessed to being a part of the plot on 9/11. He pleaded guilty. The trial was essentially a two-part sentencing hearing. The first phase was to determine if he was eligible for the death penalty, the second was to determine if he deserved it. He's going to spend the rest of his life in prison, regardless.

Now, all the prosecution needed to do was prove that he was culpable for the death of at least one person on 9/11, and then the defense had to prove that he was batshit insane and didn't deserve the needle. What I don't understand is why relatives of victims were allowed to speak at these trials. They offered nothing in the way of scientific or legal evidence. They were simply there as a means of adding an emotional element to the proceedings. In my opinion, if the verdict had been death, they were nothing more than a built-in appeal on the grounds that the jury was unduly influenced by sobbing relatives and acted emotionally rather than rationally.

When it comes to government and justice, I prize rationality above all else. We cannot allow our system of justice to become corrupted with emotion and knee-jerk reactions. I strongly commend the jury in this case for not caving in to that, for coming back with the rational answer.

The other problem I have with this trial is the profile. The administration would have liked nothing more than to publicly execute Moussaoui, so they could say "Look! We avenged 9/11!". The whole thing is a farce. They captured a deranged cretin who had delusions of being connected to Al-Qaeda and are holding him up as the "big catch" in the Great War on Terror.

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is still galavanting around Pakistan, and the administration has delivered these gems:

"And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
George W. Bush, 2002

"an excellent idea of where he is", "we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice", "the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play."
Porter Goss, CIA Chief, 2005

Look at the birdy! Smile! Come on, look at the birdy!

They captured Moussaoui for you to keep you safe. They don't care about his boss, though. They know where he is, but they can't get to him, because they have to respect the sovereignty of other nations.

Excuse me, but isn't any nation harboring bin Laden a defacto state supporter of terrorism, and therefore fair game (like Iraq)? Is this country Pakistan? If they can't get him themselves, and won't allow us to do it, then they are harboring Osama bin Laden, and Bush shouldn't be offering them missle systems.

-pb

If there has ever been a more clear-cut case against the death penalty, here it is:

Moussaoui also said he had "rejoiced" at hearing a United Flight 93 attendant beg for her life on a recovered flight recorder.

Zacarias Moussaoui is trying to get the jury to sentence him to death. He's actively attempting to get The United States of America to martyr him, and he's got public sentiment working for him. All he needs is to convince 12 people that he needs to die, and he becomes a new martyr. A thug in life who was despised by the terrorists he worked for, in death, he will become a powerful symbol for them. And the state will be entirely complicit.

This is the critical failure of the "War on Terror". Four years later, and we have brought charges against only one man who was not involved in the 9/11 plot, or was, at very least, a low-level, bumbling operative who was shut out by the main organization. We supposedly have the mastermind of the plot, but in violation of our own laws, we've "dissapeared" him, thus denying any chance at justice for the victims. Moussaoui is small fish. Yes, he should rot in prison. He's heartily admitted to terrorist activities, and for that, he must pay.

Taking his life is what he wants. He wants us to make him a martyr. He wants us to create a myth for him. Throwing him in prison to die a feeble old man would strip him of that myth.

"Strike me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!"

That's what Moussaoui is saying. We need to not play into his hands.

-pb

California execution delayed as doctors walk out - Anesthesiologists raise ethical concerns


Morales' attorneys had argued that the three-part lethal injection cocktail used in California and 35 other states violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. They said a prisoner would feel excruciating pain from the last two chemicals if he were not fully sedated.

Defense lawyers requested a stay from the federal judge who last week ordered San Quentin State Prison to have an anesthesiologist on hand to minimize Michael Angelo Morales' pain as he was put to death by lethal injection. A second anesthesiologist was retained as a backup. Both anesthesiologists withdrew, citing ethical concerns raised by his ruling.

In order to get around the concerns that filling a man's body with a lethal dose of a drug is somehow "cruel", they ordered two doctors to violate their medical oaths and make him "more comfortable" while being murdered. Sounds logical. The state doesn't care that they're committing murder, why should they care that they're asking doctors to commit an ethical violation that they would otherwise prosecute them for?

Regardless of whether or not sedating a man before killing him is "cruel", our death penalty is unusual, except in Texas. California has over 600 inmates on death row, yet last year they executed FIVE. If the current California death row numbers and "rate of loss" is maintained, California will run out of inmates to execute in about 90 years. Not because they'll have executed them all, but because the youngest one right now would be 108 and would probably have died of old age. So how can they justify it not being "unusual"?

-pb

DNA frees man after 24 years in prison

No, Alan Crotzer was not on Death Row. However, he did spend 24 years in prison out of a 130-year term for a crime he did not commit. He lost over half of his life, but he gets to have what's left of it back. If they had jammed a needle in his arm, all the DNA evidence and compensation in the world wouldn't help him.

Every time a prisoner is freed after being wrongly imprisoned, another case is made for abolition of execution as a form of 'punishment'. Every time someone commits a murder, there's another case where execution simply wasn't a deterrent. We cannot teach society that murder is wrong by murdering those who murder. We cannot teach society that we are just and equitable and fair as long as even the slightest chance remains that we could execute an innocent person.

-pb

"At no point are we not going to value the sanctity of life. We would resuscitate him."

~ San Quentin State Penitentiary prison spokesman Vernell Crittendon, responding to 76-year old death-row inmate Clarence Ray Allen's request that if he suffered another heart attack prior to his exectuion, to not be resuscitated. Allen required two doses of lethal injection to die.

Don't you go and die only hours before the state gets a chance to kill you!

"At no point are we not going to value the sanctity of life, except, you know, until we jack a needle into the arm of this frail, 76-year old man, and dose him up with a toxic coctail. But up until then, life is SACRED!"

-pb

The Death Penalty is one of my many hot-button issues, so I feel the need to explain my position.

The Death Penalty is never, ever justified, under any circumstances, anywhere, for anyone. Pol Pot? Life in prison. Slobodan Milosevic? Life in prison. Saddam Hussein? Life in prison. Josef Stalin? Life in prison. Adolph Hitler? Life in prison.

That being said, I'm not "weak on crime" as some "stupid on crime to the point of causing more of it" right wingers would have you believe. Our system isn't tough on crime. It's tough on criminals, making them worse. That's not to say I think prison should be a joyride, but there are a few things prison shouldn't include: Gang warfare. Gang rape. Being sold for cigarettes. Contracting HIV. Being ignored by guards while you're gang raped for cigarettes and contract HIV. What should prison include? Making prisoners into model citizens. Attacking the root cause of why they committed their crimes. Making sure they don't repeat their crimes or go on to worse crimes. Giving them the tools to operate in society.

However, that's all for non-Death Penalty cases. When it comes to the Death Penalty, I believe that there are some on the Left who really are weak on crime. These are the people who call for the RELEASE of convicted killers. Oh no. I don't want people like John Wayne Gacy prowling the streets ever again. But it's not the Gacy's that they scream for the release of. Most of the time, it's people who were Convicted While Black. Now, don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that the system is racist, and there are innocent people on death row who are there simply because they're not Caucasian. That doesn't mean that everyone who is on death row is innocent.

Take Mumia Abu-Jamal, for instance. A lot of people scream and rant and rave that Mumia was the target of a COINTELPRO op, and that he's innocent and all that happy crap. Of course, no one can explain why Mumia was unconcious at the scene of the crime holding the murder weapon. Did Mumia get a fair trial? I do not believe he did. Does Mumia deserve a new trial? Yes, he does. Did Mumia kill Daniel Faulkner? In my opinion, I believe that he did. If I were on the jury, would I have voted to convict? From what I have seen, I would have been unable to convict him of first-degree murder, and I certainly would not have voted in favor of execution. However, even if Mumia Abu Jamal had single handedly slit the throat of every Philadelphia cop, drank their blood while sodomizing their spouses, and then drop kicked their kids into the Delaware, THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO JACK A NEEDLE INTO HIS ARM. Of course, I hope he rots in prison.

Being a Leftie does not excuse your actions when you fuck up. Being Black does not excuse your actions when you fuck up. Being Poor does not excuse your actions when you fuck up. Killing people to teach them that killing people is wrong DOESN'T MAKE THE STATE TOUGH ON CRIME. It just makes it as guilty as the person it just killed.

-pb

Just after midnight, Pacific Standard Time, there will be an execution style murder of a gang member near San Francisco. There will be many witnesses to this crime, yet the murderers will not be punished.

They are the State of California.

Stanley 'Tookie' Williams will be executed by lethal injection for the murder of four people. The role of our "corrections" system is supposed to be just that - "corrections". However, this case highlights that our prison system has no connection to rehabilitation. It's merely a holding pen, and for some, a disposal unit. Tookie Williams committed a crime, and regardless of what happens afterwards, he will die for it. He has used his time behind bars to change his life. The co-founder of the Crips, once incarcerated, he became an anti-gang advocate, even writing a number of childrens books aimed at steering kids away from gang involvement. He donated the proceeds to anti-gang organizations. At one point, Williams was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. None of that matters.

Williams has always maintained his innocence in the crimes that landed him on death row. However, once there, he changed his gangland ways. His refusal to admit culpability in crimes he insists he did not commit, however, will get him the needle.

"Stanley Williams insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologize or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case," said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption."

Williams refuses to admit to the crimes, even knowing that refusing to do so means his death. If the truth sets us free, it does so by killing Tookie.

If Williams is indeed guilty of the horrific crimes he was convicted of, then certainly he deserves no less than to rot in prison for the rest of his life. However, his actions inside the walls of confinement have, at least in part, mitigated some of his crimes. If ever there was a case for clemency, this is it. But the State doesn't think so. The State doesn't believe that, even in the face of all that Williams has done behind bars, he deserves to be spared.

The State has sanctioned his murder. In about four hours, The State of California will be as guilty as the man who killed those four defenseless people. This is a premeditated vengeance killing, pure and simple.

-pb

Ruben Cantu was murdered by the state, in retaliation for a crime he did not commit.

Proof positive that the death penalty should be outlawed. One innocent victim is one too many.

-pb

Virginia Dem takes flak for anti-death penalty stance

This is from an attack ad by Tim Kaine's opponent:

Kaine had "suggested he would not favor sending even Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or Idi Amin to the gallows."

Another Rethug ad that has solidified my support for a Dem. Can I move to Virginia real quick and vote for this guy?

-pb

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

Let me know if anyone reading this thinks this is a death-penalty worthy offense, so I can remove you from my friends list.

I mean, wow. What next? "This man gave me a dirty look after I beat him up!" "EXECUTION!" It's like the Queen of Hearts or something.

Luckily, the family of the 'victim' isn't the legal system.

-pb

Oh gods, it's not just rabbits anymore.

Soylent Revlon is HUMAN FLESH

"A Chinese cosmetics company is using skin harvested from the corpses of executed convicts to develop beauty products for sale in Europe, an investigation by the Guardian has discovered."

"In China it is considered very normal and I was very shocked that western countries can make such a big fuss about this"

"In June 2001, Wang Guoqi, a Chinese former military physician, told US congressmen he had worked at execution grounds helping surgeons to harvest the organs of more than 100 executed prisoners, without prior consent... Dr Wang said that in 1995 he skinned a shot convict's body while the man's heart was still beating."

This is beyond repulsive. This is inhuman (not just inhumane). Didn't we invade Iraq because of rape rooms and WMDs? Where the fuck is our rhetoric against this bestial government? Why do we continue to fellate China while shitting on democracy in Taiwain?

We are just as much to blame for them cutting lips off of still-bleeding people who were shot in the brain stem because they walked the wrong way down a one-way street.

-pb

"I wouldn't say that 20 or 30 [exonerations] out of 8,000 [death sentences] constitutes a broken system."

~ Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

I'd like to know the exact point that this guy and people like him convinced themselves that the execution of one innocent person was worth the ability to execute guilty people.

Of course, it's not the exonerations that are the indicators of a broken system. It's the fact that over 90% of those sentenced to die could not afford their own legal council, and are often defended by overworked and underpaid public defenders, who have often not worked a capital case, and may not even have experience in defending criminal cases. It's not a matter of guilt or innocence, it's a matter of adequate council. The system is broken, and will never be fixed as long as we insist on teaching people who kill people that killing people is wrong by killing them.

-js?!

Justices abolish death penalty for juveniles

What does the US no longer have in common with the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China and Yemen?

We no longer execute children. That's right folks, the number of countries that execute children has dropped to seven as of a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court calling the execution of those who committed crimes as minors "unconstitutionally cruel".

Interestingly enough, those seven countries above accounted for 20 executions of minors since 1990. Worldwide, there were 39. We were responsible for the deaths of nearly half of all child criminals executed in the last 15 years.

We've executed more children than China has over the same period of time. They've got 4 times our population, and just looooove to execute people (without appeals!).

It's a monumental victory. Now we just need to work on the rest of the executions.

-pb

"Ah, George Walker Bush, do solemnly swar to faithfully execute every last retard in Murka, jes' like I did down in Tixis."

Did anyone notice that Darth Vader swore him in?

-pb

So, I sent a letter a while back to the Iraqi Provisional Government and our current administration. I recieved a letter from John D. Negroponte's chief adjutant, who told me that the Iraqis had jurisdiction (thanks, I knew that).

The other day, I got a letter from Iraq.



Full text is here.

If anyone can give me a translation, I'd be really happy.

Also, when I picked it up, the mail clerk said something like "Ohhh... Iraq!. From bin Laden?"

It caught me so off guard I didn't even respond. But yeah, WHITE BREAD HONKEY that I am is exchanging pen-pal letters to Public Enemy #1 IN THE WRONG COUNTRY.

Wow.

So, yeah, if you know Arabic, or someone that does, please let me know.

-pb

I wrote a letter to the Iraqi Interim Government (here) asking that they spare the life of Saddam Hussein and his 11 compatriots if they are found guilty. Lock 'em up and throw away the key, but don't kill them. I carbon copied it to the entire council, their Ambassador to us, our Ambassador to them, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and George W. Bush.

I didn't expect a response from anyone. Perhaps an impersonal form letter, but even that, I didn't really expect.

Today, I recieved a letter from James F. Jeffrey, Chargé d'Affaires ad interim for John Negroponte, the US Ambassador to Iraq.

Thank you for your letter to Ambassador Negroponte in which you shared with us your views on the ongoing trial of Saddam Hussein and other high-level Ba'ath Party officials. As you stated, the trial is being conducted by the Iraqi judiciary and as such they have complete jurisdiction in this matter.

Hand signed, not a stamp. They actually took 5 minutes to tell me something I already know, instead of the typical "Dear Person: Kiss Off. Signed, Me."

I'm kind of excited.

-pb

So, the GOP finally got a candidate to run against Barack Obama for the senate seat in Illinois. They had to go all the way to Maryland, but they did it. They got Alan Keyes. He's black, just like Obama, so race won't be an issue here (one would hope). One of them will be the fifth black senator EVER. That, in itself, is disturbing. Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing more Hispanics in office, considering they are the largest minority.

Alan Keyes is a fascist, plain and simple. If anyone in Illinois is reading, take notes. Here's a look at Keyes, in his own words. And don't worry about Obama. You'll hear enough dirt about him (real or imagined, it doesn't matter) between now and November 2nd.

...[A] prohibition on moral judgments against various sexual behaviors is a violation of the freedom, even of the religious liberty, of those who view such behavior as wrong.

Conservatives hate Political Correctness. However, like all things they hate, they'll stomach them long enough to use them to their own advantage. Keyes says here that stopping laws against sexual behaviors is actually against Freedom of Religion, because it would offend people who think that such behaviors are offensive. So, wait, if I find something that someone else does in private to be offensive to my religion, I can consider that to be against my First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion? I found it pretty offensive when Jerry Falwell accused pagans of being the cause of 9/11 (along with homosexuals and abortionist). Does that mean that Jerry Falwell has violated my rights? You know, much as I'd love to believe that, it's just not true.

He goes on to say:

Can the free exercise of religion really mean simply that I have the right to believe that God has ordained certain things to be right or wrong but that I can't act accordingly?

I love the delusion that just because someone has been granted the right to love and/or have consensual sex with anyone, in any position, somehow that means that EVERYONE HAS TO DO THE SAME. Because if two men are engaged in vigorous anal copulation somewhere, and it's completely legal, then Alan Keyes is legally obligated to engage in some man-on-man action of his own. Because if you make it legal for two men to marry, they obviously, you're making it illegal for a man and a woman to marry.

There are certain circumstances in which the death penalty is essential to our respect for life. If we do not in our law send the message to everybody that by calculatedly, coldly taking a human life in a way that assaults the structures of law in a society or shows a cold-blooded and studied disregard for the value of that life, if we are not willing to implement the death penalty in those circumstances, then we are actually sending a message of contempt for human life. We are encouraging people to believe that that step is not in fact a terminal step, when they fatefully and fatally decide to move against the life of another human being. So I think that there are circumstances under which it is essential, in fact, that we have and apply the death penalty in order to send a clear moral message to people throughout our society that we will not tolerate that kind of disrespect for life.

This is one of the best arguments I've ever heard in terms of 'things that make me anti-death penalty'.

If we don't have a death penalty, we'll be showing contempt for human life. If we don't kill people, then we'll be showing that we don't care about killing people.

If we don't show disrespect for life, then we're showing disrespect for life! War is peace! Hate is love!

The Federal Government should cease funding & regulating K-12 education.

He's anti-education. In a fascist state, the government likes to control the education so that their doctrine is pushed above all others. Keyes wants the government out of education, but he wants religious schooling to supplant secular schooling. So, the effect is the same. The ruling doctrine would still be enforced.

Our first priority should be restoring the moral and material support for the marriage-based two-parent family. The disintegration of the family is the major contributing factor in poverty, crime, violence, the decline in educational performance, and a host of other expensive social problems.

This is in the greater vein of anti-homosexual rhetoric. Keyes apparently believes that if a mother dies in childbirth, then the single father is less capable of raising that child, and therefore, is aiding in the rise of poverty, crime, violence, etc.. Same goes for a single mother who lost her husband in Iraq. Likewise, two well-adjusted, affluent, supportive, yet homosexual parents are also aiding in this cycle of violence. Conservatives never bring up the fact that US divorce rates are over 50%. They just look at same-sex couples and think "they're destroying our culture".

I believe that the [missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan] last week does serve the best interest of the country.

This falls under the category of talk out both sides of your mouth. Here, we've got support for Bill Clinton's foreign policy, and here...

We need to end the Clinton policy of interventionism on behalf of all kinds of globalist interests that are of not direct relevance to our values. Kosovo was an example. We ought to avoid interventions that are based on propaganda.

...he attacks it. Because halting genocide (especially against Muslims) is something that the US just shouldn't be doing. Also, it wasn't genocide, it was just propaganda. Kinda like when foreign media outlets report that we're holding prisoners off the record and allowing our 'allies' to slaughter enemy citizens. That's just propaganda.

After all, asking whether we should spend $300 million to cure an incurable disease [AIDS] is kind of an academic point, and you should realize that.

So, AIDS is incureable. Just like Polio. Just like the Black Plague. Just like Smallpox. Don't bother helping the millions of dying Africans, because you can't cure them. Don't even try.

The 2nd Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts’ content. The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

Actually, the wording is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording of the amendment itself nullifies it. A well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, because we have a standing military. Everything after that is therefore null and void.

That being said, I have no problem with people owning hunting rifles and the like, because they are designed for hunting. Can they be used to kill another person? Sure. It's just not easy to hide one in the waistband of your pants. I'd love to see bullets regulated. Own a handgun? That's fine. No bullets for you, though. Want to go hunting? Great. Show your permit to purchase your bullets. Remember, guns don't kill people, bullets do. I'd rather fight with swords. It's a much more personal form of combat. If you don't have another person's blood on you when you kill them, you're a coward.

Keyes also advocated the imprisonment and possible execution of one of my favorite writers/cartoonists, Ted Rall for his criticism of the Bush administration in the months following 9/11. Alan Keyes is very anti-First Amendment, very pro-gun (above and beyond the Second Amendment), and a religious fanatic. Just keep that in mind when you head to the polls, Illinois.

-pb

To the New Iraqi Government;

Today marks a glorious day in the history of your country. Iraq is a free country, a sovereign nation. In the first hours as a democratic government, you have brought charges against Saddam Hussein, your former dictator, and eleven of his top government officials. These charges include war crimes and genocide, which cannot be called anything less than the most heinous of crimes. Now, in the first days of your new government, you have the power, capability, and right as a state to bring to redress grievances against the former leaders who stand accused of being a menace to both neighbor and countryman alike. You are now charged with a grave and solemn power: you must adequately prosecute these men, while offering them the finest in defense. For the legal council of these men to be anything less than exemplary would render the entire proceeding a failure of the new system that so many have died to create.

In proceeding with this responsibility, please bear in mind the hundreds of thousands of your countrymen that have died during the thirty-five years of Saddam Hussein’s rule. Some would say that the sand itself cries out for their blood to be avenged. To this, you must consider that, with all the blood that has been shed, will the blood of twelve more men avenge those that have gone before?

Certainly not. Please consider all the violence over the millennia, and what little good it has created. You have brought forth a new era in Iraq. Where in ages past stood the center of the civilized world, now stands a bright beacon in the Middle East; a democratic state ruled by the people, not a tyrant. So many have fought and died for this, and you as a government owe it to them to promise that no more will ever be deprived of life by the will of the state. If you find any or all of these men guilty of the terrible crimes brought against them, please, do not seek to create martyrs of them. Their power will never diminish if the last memory of them is defiance in the face of execution. Death is all too final, all too quick.

With the entire world watching for the outcome of this trial, show them that the new Iraq is not a nation of blood, but a nation of peace, liberty, and justice. Do not follow the example set by years and years of bloodshed, but instead, seek to lead with a new example. Show the world that Death itself is no longer a tool of the state. Show the world that Iraq is merciful, benevolent and just. The opportunity to declare yourself a leader in human rights is within your grasp. Seize it! You will never have a chance to erase the history of this new beginning. Do not write that history in blood, as your predecessor did.

-pb

Abortion?:	Keep your laws of my woman!
Death Penalty?:	If there were a flawless way to determine guilt or innoncence, I would approve of the death penalty dor crimes that normally warrant a life sentence.
Prostitution?:	The first profession! It should be legalized and regulated to make it safer for all involved.
Alcohol?:	I like the hard liquor.
Marijuana?:	While I've never partaken, I have no problem with it, and think that the government keeps it illegal out of spite.
Other drugs?:	Now, there's a genuine problem.
Gay marriage?:	There should be no restrictions on consenting, unrelated adults marrying.
Illegal immigrants?:	Why do they keep coming here when we keep sending our jobs somewhere else?
Smoking?:	Gave it up.
Drunk driving?:	Should be a much longer prison sentence.
Cloning?:	Human cloning is impractical and stupid. Stem cell research should be promoted.
Racism?:	Ethnic penis envy.
Premarital sex?:	A religious issue. I don't care who sleeps with who under what pretenses, as long as it's not rape or incest. Get over it.
Religion?:	It's the cause of billions of deaths throughout the ages.
The war in Iraq?:	Illegal, immoral, unjust, and all about oil.
Bush?:	A fascist fundamentalist warmongering criminal.
Downloading music?:	Not as damaging as the RIAA makes it out to be.
The legal drinking age?:	Health studies have proven that 21 is the best minimum drinking age... but that didn't stop me.
Porn?:	It's a ton of fun!
Suicide?:	Pretty friggin' dumb.

What is your stand on..... brought to you by BZOINK!

-pb