« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Rule Change Shifts Death Penalty Responsibilities to Gonzales
Overwhelming evidence shows that Alberto Gonzales isn't fit to be attorney general. But despite that, his office continues to accrue important powers. Recently, the FISA bill took oversight powers from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and gave them to the attorney general. And next month, a new rule will come into effect that gives the attorney general new power over state death penalty cases.
In June, former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton testified about the nonchalance with which Gonzales' Justice Department views executing U.S. citizens. Charlton's office had convicted Rios Rico on murder charges, but Charlton did not want to seek the death penalty. His reason: "If a government seeks to take another person's life it should do so on only the best of evidence." The government had not obtained the victim's body, and the Department had refused Charlton's request to cover the cost of exhuming it.
After the Department overruled Charlton, deciding to seek the death penalty, he asked to talk it over with the leadership. He spoke with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and was subsequently told that McNulty had spent a "significant amount of time" with Gonzales on the issue -- as much as "5 to 10 minutes." When he asked to speak with Gonzales directly, he became an object of ridicule among Gonzales' senior staffers. After Charlton was fired, Department officials cited "insubordination" as one of the chief causes.
So that's how Gonzales has exercised his power over federal inmates. The new rules will give Gonzales new powers over how state death row inmates are able to appeal their convictions.
The Los Angeles Times explains:
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....
Frustrated with the pace of changes — and believing that judges were part of the problem — death penalty advocates Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) led a successful effort to include language in the Patriot Act last year that let the attorney general, rather than judges, decide whether states were ensuring death row inmates had adequate legal representation.
The rules are expected to be finalized and go into effect later this fall.
During Gonzales' hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) grilled him about the Rico case. Was it true that he'd only spent 5-10 minutes examining the case? Did he really think that was a "significant amount of time" on such a weighty issue?
Gonzales, characteristically, couldn't remember the case or anything about it:
"Well, Mr. Attorney General, I'm not totally unfamiliar with this sort of thing," Specter concluded. "When I was district attorney of Philadelphia, I had 500 homicides a year. I didn't allow any assistant to ask for the death penalty that I hadn't personally approved. And when I asked for the death penalty, I remembered the case."
Comments (53)
Ducky wrote on August 14, 2007 12:08 PM:God help us all!
scav wrote on August 14, 2007 12:15 PM:we may be beyond that point....
linda wrote on August 14, 2007 12:24 PM:**The rules implement a little-noticed provision in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act**
yet again, the jackasses in congress couldn't be bothered to read what new authorities they ceeded to this rancid administration.
gawd, i am so topped out on my utter disgust with them.
davcbr wrote on August 14, 2007 12:27 PM:"a little-noticed provision in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act "
Why does that phrase sound so familiar??
Dick wrote on August 14, 2007 12:27 PM:I wouldn't let Gonzales decide whether to put a dog to sleep.
footsore wrote on August 14, 2007 12:27 PM:Oh SH*T!
jak1 wrote on August 14, 2007 12:32 PM:footsore
Whats that?!?
Presidential Medal of Freedom?!? Already!
There giving a 'Retard' a gun?!?
Oh, more power to the incompetent. I see. And he really deserves it. After all he held true under the pressure of congress's questioning. A true warrior.
Anyone who "can't recall" should be given the Death Penalty Responsibilities.
At least it won't bother his conscience!
(that is if he still has one)
steambomb wrote on August 14, 2007 12:33 PM:"little-noticed provision".... I am getting sick and damn tired of hearing this. Is there any way to get this evil genie back in the bottle?
Anonymous wrote on August 14, 2007 12:34 PM:scary scenerio going forth.
One thing I am most scared about is the transfer of power scenerio. Of all things this group has shown is a total disregard for any balance of power, thus with the prospect of a new government, let us say Huckabee somehow magically garnishes the GOP nomination and Obama or Hillary the Dem nomination and it appears that the GOP is going to slip another percentage in the House and actually lose 4 or 5 Senate seats.
What then? Will they actually relinquish power. Ironically Dean calls this worse than Watergate and in the Nixon WH they discussed seriously in doing away with the term limit of the president.
What if there was a national emergency that ?
johnnydoughey wrote on August 14, 2007 12:36 PM:I guess we won't have to woory about building new prisons anymore...
B&G were professional executers when they were in Texas...
Thank you, Democrat Leaders... you are nw assassins...
Duckman GR wrote on August 14, 2007 12:41 PM:Yet another reason why the Dems should never rush to pass anything that Bushco says they need right away. Not that they should be passing anything Bushco wants in the first place.
jak1 wrote on August 14, 2007 12:41 PM:I'll bet things are still being added as we speak!
I'll second that, "gawd, i am so topped out on my utter disgust with them."
Maybe it would be a good idea to review that 'Patriot Act'. Ya think?!?
>>**The rules implement a little-noticed provision in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act**
yet again, the jackasses in congress couldn't be bothered to read what new authorities they ceeded to this rancid administration.
Posted by: linda
jawbone wrote on August 14, 2007 12:46 PM:Date: August 14, 2007 12:24 PM <<
On a quick read through of these comments, the number of typos is amazing--and indicates to me a high level of anger and anxiety.
I feel exactly that myself on reading this post.
God help us, because our representatives sure don't.
Security word is "seed"--perhaps a symbol of hope and renewal? Or of the seeds of evil sown and cultivated by this maladministration?
crystalmethod wrote on August 14, 2007 12:47 PM:Check out this video interview with charlton. He talks about the pressure from Gonzales to seek the death penalty and when he refused they went after him. Disgusting. Why is congress allowing this man to have more power?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070207J.shtml
TheraP wrote on August 14, 2007 12:51 PM:Let's put all this together. Let's suppose some people are tortured (by the administration that does "not torture - like the Canadian you reported on yesterday). And those who are tortured provide information that makes it look like you or I are doing nefarious, treasonous things. And we are somehow accused, and tried, secretly on the basis of info gathered from these tortured persons. Or maybe they torture us and we admit to things we never did. And then we are condemned to death. And thanks to AG AG ....
This is truly getting out of hand! Could be you. Could be me. Could be the man behind that tree. But no matter, they've put in place a way for people to end up as targets, as prisoners, and dead.
It just gets worse and worse.
Please Dems in Congress, your constituents are waiting!
parrot wrote on August 14, 2007 12:56 PM:To the dumb trollers here:
So...we should blame the Democrats for laws passed when the GOP had complete control of the government now? Wow, guess the Democrats had more power than they knew.
Two words for you: The Hague.
gchaucer2 wrote on August 14, 2007 1:05 PM:I'm not going to defend the Democrats for their failure to actually read legislation, however, where the hell were we (I'm including me, big time) when this proposed rule was placed in the Federal Register? The comment period ended on August 6.
I am wondering if anyone has actually looked at the docket to see how many comments were submitted and what is the substance. I'm making it a routine now to look at the proposed rulemaking in the FR -- a few agencies a day.
BlueInTexas wrote on August 14, 2007 1:06 PM:The rules implement a little-noticed provision in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act
Remember the Rubber Stamp Congress? That ain't nothing compared to the murdering son of a bitch that is Alberto Gonzales. He's got at least one innocent person executed on his watch here in Texas. Probably got the same 5-10 minutes review for typos before his fate was sealed.
Long Memory wrote on August 14, 2007 1:07 PM:The only good thing I can come up with on this business is that when a Democrat takes the White House, the Republicans in Congress will want to get rid of all this stuff. And the Democrats don't have the cojones to stop them repealing all this Big Brother legislation they put in there and the Democrats allowed to fester on the body politic.
Orwell's Intuition wrote on August 14, 2007 1:08 PM:security code: snake
No further comment needed. I rest my case.
Aaaargh wrote on August 14, 2007 1:13 PM:The problem is, the Democrats are STILL passing laws that cede control of the government to this lawless group of fascists. If they were holding firm it would be one thing, but no one in Congress is deserving of an iota of respect other than Feingold.
security code: waste. My sentiments, exactly.
cramer wrote on August 14, 2007 1:25 PM:Defendants have a constitutional right to competent counsel. And that constitutional right will always be enforced by the judiciary. Congress cannot transfer it to the AG by statute. And the procedural rules sound like they are merely Justice Department administrative rules implementing their statutory role of approving fast track death penalty procedures. Which doesn't amount to much given that death penalty procedures are heavily constrained by constitutional due process concerns.
This should probably be chalked up to another sneeky patriot act provision that nobody paid attention to at the time. Once again, nice work congress.
Rodney wrote on August 14, 2007 1:56 PM:Why is everybody so down? It is perfect. Once Hillary becomes President and appoints Bill as Attorney General, they can use these new Patriot Act powers to arrest Gonzales, Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, ... for jay walking and then give them the death penalty in a fair and balanced way based on the precedents of the previous Attorney General. Bush will be appointed special envoy to Iraq.
slb wrote on August 14, 2007 1:59 PM:>> So...we should blame the Democrats for laws passed when the GOP had complete control of the government now? Wow, guess the Democrats had more power than they knew. <<
Your point is well taken -- this was done under the last Congress, not the current one -- but yes, the Democrats had more power than they evidently were willing to exercise. They could have filibustered this abomination in the Senate, but they didn't. That would have meant taking some heat with an election at the door, and God forbid they should have to do that.
Of course, to be fair, the full measure of Gonzo's mendacity had not yet surfaced at that point. That boil on the butt of the government only came to a head after the election.
Anonymous wrote on August 14, 2007 2:10 PM:More from the article:
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. California and several other states applied to the program starting in the late 1990s. But federal courts ruled that they were not doing enough to provide defendants with competent attorneys.
Frustrated with the pace of changes — and believing that judges were part of the problem — death penalty advocates Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) led a successful effort to include language in the Patriot Act last year that let the attorney general, rather than judges, decide whether states were ensuring death row inmates had adequate legal representation.
Under the law, the attorney general's decision could be challenged before the federal appeals court in Washington.
Justice Department officials are seeking public comment on the rules until Sept. 23, after which they will be finalized "as quickly as circumstances allow," said department spokesman Erik Ablin.
Some critics question whether the rules would have the desired effect. The rules would require that states establish a "mechanism" for supplying lawyers to death row inmates in order to qualify for the expedited procedures but would not ensure that the lawyers were competent or adequately funded, these critics say.
Arizona and California have state-supported programs that aid defense counsel in capital cases, but there are still not enough lawyers to go around. And funding for legal bills and other expenses is far from adequate, lawyers for death row inmates say.
"If you are going to impose the kind of incredibly stringent deadlines that this statute imposes . . . you need to ensure people get adequate representation throughout the state process," said Robert Litt, a former Justice Department official representing the American Bar Assn. in the rule-making dispute. "This is the opportunity that the Department of Justice has missed."
He said: "Without a set of standards to guide the attorney general, there is a tremendous potential for arbitrariness here, and to put a thumb on the scales on the side of the states."
The Judicial Conference of the U.S., the policy-making arm of the federal courts, also sees problems.
States might be able to qualify even if they had not provided lawyer services "sufficient to enable federal court litigation to proceed fairly within the expedited time period," the group said in a letter to the Justice Department this month.
Critics also say there is a major conflict of interest for the nation's top law enforcement officer to judge the qualifications of lawyers defending people whom government officials are seeking to put to death.
Others have doubts about giving Gonzales in particular more power. His judgment has been challenged over his handling of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year, among other matters.
Death penalty foes also say his record on the issue inspires no confidence that the rules will be administered fairly. As legal advisor to then-Texas Gov. George Bush in the 1990s, he gave what many saw as cursory treatment of clemency petitions of capital defendants whom the state subsequently put to death.
"It is almost a cruel joke for Congress to have said, 'What we would like to do is improve the way states handle these' . . . and then put it in the hands of, all people, the attorney general," said Lawrence Fox, a Philadelphia lawyer who teaches legal ethics at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. "It really is quite extraordinary. He is the chief prosecutor of the United States. He couldn't possibly be unbiased."
Fox said he would have problems with any attorney general wielding that power.
jeffgee wrote on August 14, 2007 2:10 PM:The GOP is all for states' rights when it comes to voting, labor law, civil rights and minimum wages but favors centralized control on death penalty, right to die and medical marijuana issues.
Anonymous wrote on August 14, 2007 2:11 PM:As usual, they want it both ways.
What this means is that now all death penalty cases are going to be fast tracked b/c AG Gonzales will never find any defense counsel incompetent, regardless of their performance, their qualifications or their resources.
Under the Constitutional standard, counsel have been considered "competent" even when they've slept through part of the trial, as long as the outcome of the case would not change.
Habeas is extremely complicated in terms of what you can challenge and when you have to challenge it. Any more roadblocks only make it that much worse.
Nathaniel wrote on August 14, 2007 2:14 PM:Well, thank God this administration is pro-"life." Whew.
EH wrote on August 14, 2007 2:16 PM:gchaucer: so in addition to our regular jobs, now we're supposed to be goodly democratic and start reading the federal register? why should we take on these second jobs when there are people whose first jobs is to take care of this?
jeffgee wrote on August 14, 2007 2:19 PM:5-10 minutes. An eternity in the Culture of Life.
judyinnm wrote on August 14, 2007 2:27 PM:Does AG AG have ADD?
Where are all the "state rights" people, in this? They should be marching in the streets, that the Federal guvmnt is taking away the right of the states to decide whether to kill their own ciminals. This really should be the BIG ONE for that issue.
Robert wrote on August 14, 2007 2:50 PM:Umm..I have a question for TPM. Is this law even Constitutional?
judyinnm wrote on August 14, 2007 3:00 PM:But, you have to love the irony - once again georgejr has made congress culpable in the high crimes & misdemeanors being perpetrated by the executive branch. Congress could never impeach any of the felons in the executive branch, without having to admit their own guilt. All power previously held by congress and the judiciary has been systematically (and voluntarily) handed over to georgejr, dick & gonzo, by fiat. Unfortunately, all our civil liberties have been legislated away, in the process.
There's bound to be hidden in some obscure legislation a provision that distinctly repeals Amendments #9 & #10, also - If george doesn't specifically grant us a certain right or power, it doesn't exist.
Remember when gonzo told congress that the Constitution doesn't specifically GRANT us the right to Habeas Corpus; it only specifies the conditions under which it can be suspended? Now that congress has made him judge, it would appear they agree with him.
Mooser wrote on August 14, 2007 3:05 PM:Where are all the "state rights" people, in this?
They want the right to kill. The right to not kill don't interest them. In fact, it's nice of them to take the responsibility out of their hands. "He was innocent and got executed? Not our fault. Blame the Feds!
judyinnm wrote on August 14, 2007 3:06 PM:Robert, Robert, Robert - Where have you been the past six and a half years? What does the Constitution have to do with anything? Who's going to enforce it? Congress has passed laws that state that the Judiciary can't review laws (and of course the "judges" have already made georgejr king)> Naive boy....
sailmaker wrote on August 14, 2007 3:20 PM:How the prosecutor in chief can also be the judge in chief? Giving one person both roles defies separation of powers.
Another point - why in 2003 did we think it permissible that then AG Ashcroft could be the judge over terrorists (which we were going to capture and put to death) ?
Roberta wrote on August 14, 2007 3:54 PM:Now wait a minute here.
If the AG has found a way to save our tax dollars by fasttracking death penalty appeals, we should all be grateful. Then more of those dollars can go toward our victory in Iraq. Even if it takes years.
And maybe you don't know that one of the fasttrack criteria he'll use is the one he used for Mr. Rico, explaining why "five or 10 minutes" is a significant amount of time. Here's a transcript from the discussion on Rios Rico:
Paul McNulty to AGAG: We've got that Charlton guy not wanting to seek the death penalty just because they never found a body and there was no forensic evidence. What should we do?
AGAG: Did Rico vote Republican?
gchaucer2 wrote on August 14, 2007 4:48 PM:EH
It takes only a couple of minutes a day to scan the Justice section in the FR. There are summaries and definitely not tons of new stuff coming out daily. Of course, as I lack executive power, I can't command you. Cheers.
Michael wrote on August 14, 2007 4:53 PM:I am missing something here: there is a constant chatter about "little-noticed: provisions in serious bills coming out of the Demoicratic-controlled Congress. What, just what, are the legions of public interest lawyers doing with their time when this type of thing is happening several times a session?
Never mind the bleeding whales, seals, wiolves and eagles....devote only half of your time to them...spend some of your time and the millions in donated dollars conducting citizen oversight on the clowns you are sending to Washington to conduct your business.
Michael wrote on August 14, 2007 4:54 PM:Michael
I am missing something here: there is a constant chatter about "little-noticed: provisions in serious bills coming out of the Demoicratic-controlled Congress. What, just what, are the legions of public interest lawyers doing with their time when this type of thing is happening several times a session?
Never mind the bleeding whales, seals, wolves and eagles....devote only half of your time to them...spend some of your time and the millions in donated dollars conducting citizen oversight on the clowns you are sending to Washington to conduct your business.
gchaucer2 wrote on August 14, 2007 4:54 PM:Michael
EH -- Well, let's see. Whose job do you think it is to scan the Federal Register? It isn't Congress's. The lobbyists certainly do, but they do usually represent me. Interested people who are effected by regulations are the ones who should be scanning or not be suprised when something like this nonsense appears. Folks scan the ones which are the most active or pertinent to their concerns. The Justice Department seems to me the most dubious -- along with the FDA, EPA and Interior just to name of few. It only takes a couple of minutes to scan proposed rules and notices and there is a summary section with each.
gchaucer2 wrote on August 14, 2007 4:58 PM:Michael
It may be that the public interest lawyers did pay attention and have submitted comments which is the only avenue to preserve the record and challenge the regulation. Without having seen the docket, I can't speculate as to whether or not they did, but I would be suprised if this proposed rule went unnoticed by them.
rogera wrote on August 14, 2007 5:38 PM:Michael
You are right. You are missing something.
This was done in the Republican controlled Congress where they forced the members to vote on it without giving them any time to read it, let alone "conduct oversight".
Bill wrote on August 14, 2007 8:20 PM:The brown stain in the underwear called Washington continues to grow wider and darker. If the economy tanks along with the stock market, few will be keeping their jobs in the next election.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on August 14, 2007 9:30 PM:It seems that I post the very same post once or twice every week:
Repeal both of the fucking PATRIOT Acts and the Military Commissions Act immediately.
articleV wrote on August 14, 2007 10:45 PM:Literacy is an important skill in legislators, one too often overlooked. Could we REQUIRE that all members of the house and senate actually read any bills presented to them for votes? I guess that would be too much to ask.
The repeal of all this rushed legislation (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, FISA amendment) is needed. It's all unconstitutional. And while they are at it, make it illegal to use the Nazi word "homeland."
statusquomustgo wrote on August 15, 2007 12:21 AM:holy crap...we are screwed
Peter Duffy wrote on August 15, 2007 10:25 AM:Leahy and Specter had better sort out Gonzales sooner rather than later. THEY will have NO CREDIBILITY left as legislators if they leave Gonzales to fast track executions, given their expressed mistrust of the Attorney General.
On his shabby record to date, unchecked, he can be counted to misuse his position and make them look like posturing poltroons.
Linda wrote on August 15, 2007 2:11 PM:Here's the thing that gets me about this whole issue of execution speedup by the AG. What on earth does the granting of this authority to the U.S. AG, through the Patriot Act, have to do with protecting our national security?! Not a damn thing!
Which logically leads to the next question. Since speeding up executions does nothing to protect U.S. national security, what are the real reasons the Bush Administration has finagled this authority, taking it away from the states and the individuals who know these cases well enough to rule on them sensibly, and handing it over to our horribly incompetent, shamelessly lying AG? When I consider the possible answers to this question, I get chills up and down my spine, not the GOOD kind of chills.
bunny99 wrote on August 15, 2007 8:53 PM:Raw Story has a piece about the state of Texas executing 400 people this month. 400 people!
bunny99 wrote on August 15, 2007 9:23 PM:It goes on to say that Evangelicals have been influencing the decision, and Governor Perry, like Bush before him, really doesn't get involved. Right, rather put the breaks on this insanity, he just let's it go. No surprise there. But 400! Is this the Crusades?
Raw Story has a piece about the state of Texas executing 400 people this month. 400 people!
Loanser wrote on December 4, 2007 10:08 PM:It goes on to say that Evangelicals have been influencing the decision, and Governor Perry, like Bush before him, really doesn't get involved. Right, rather put the breaks on this insanity, he just let's it go. No surprise there. But 400! Is this the Crusades?
Hello allне могу понять
refiance wrote on December 21, 2007 10:40 AM:.AdultFriendFinder
Hi. I find
refiance second mortgage bad credit