NY Op/Ed: DOJ's Selective Prosecution (Americans Put In Jail To Help Win Elections For Republicans)

[Hissyspit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mon1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Editorial
Selective Prosecution

Published: August 6, 2007
One part of the Justice Department mess that requires more scrutiny is the growing evidence that the department may have singled out people for criminal prosecution to help Republicans win elections. The House Judiciary Committee has begun investigating several cases that raise serious questions. The panel should determine what role politics played in all of them.

Putting political opponents in jail is the sort of thing that happens in third-world dictatorships. In the United States, prosecutions are supposed to be scrupulously nonpartisan. This principle appears to have broken down in Alberto Gonzales’s Justice Department — where lawyers were improperly hired for nonpolitical jobs based on party membership, and United States attorneys were apparently fired for political reasons.

Individual Democrats may be paying a personal price. Don Siegelman, a former Alabama governor, was the state’s most prominent Democrat and had a decent chance of retaking the governorship from the Republican incumbent. He was aggressively prosecuted by both the Birmingham and Montgomery United States attorney’s offices. Birmingham prosecutors dropped their case after a judge harshly questioned it. When the Montgomery office prosecuted, a jury acquitted Mr. Siegelman of 25 counts, but convicted him of 7, which appear to be disturbingly weak.

- snip -

Georgia Thompson is a Wisconsin state employee wrongly put in jail on corruption charges by the Milwaukee United States attorney. Despite strong evidence that she was innocent, Steven Biskupic prosecuted Ms. Thompson for corruption and got a conviction. The news hit shortly before a bitterly fought governor’s race, and opponents of James Doyle, the state’s Democratic governor, used the conviction to attack Mr. Doyle as corrupt. An appeals court later freed Ms. Thompson, but only after she had spent months in jail.

- snip -

The Bush administration is throwing roadblocks in Congress’s way. It missed a deadline for turning over documents, and it has refused to make some of the principal actors available to testify. The Judiciary Committee should not be deterred. If Americans are being put in jail for political reasons, Congress must put a stop to it.

MORE

[Hydra]

1. Does everyone like the new face of america?

Laws are for people without sufficient money or power, or in the wrong camp.

Laws don't apply to the Tree House Gang in the WH, or in congress, or in most gov't offices.

It's truly amazing to see stuff like this out in the open. This used to be dark corners and underground stuff.

[madrchsod]

2. this is from the newspaper

that put him in power and backed everything he did...now they realize he`s a monster? tad bit late new york times

[Hissyspit]

3. .

[DeSwiss]

4. Aside from the BRASS BALLS....

...that it took the the NYT to publish this Op/Ed, considering how their previous position on the Bush Administration was that of sycophant. They, (as they did with the Josh Marshall piece last week), are just now coming around to the idea that hey, maybe this isn't such a cool idea! Just in time. Thanks you bastards.

And Congress sits on their ever-grubbing hands doing nothing. They're allowing Bush and his people to throw the finger at Congress without a ripple. Until they start throwing some people in jail, this isn't going to change. I vote for Harriet Miers. I have a feeling that if she's put in a jail cell she'll start squealing like a pig. Which she is.

Now, I feel better....

- K&R!!!

[formercia]

6. And when the dictatorship is cast in concrete

they can argue that they tried but failed to stop it.

Where were they in the beginning, when there was nothing but darkness in the tunnel?

[radfringe]

5. The House Judiciary Committee has begun investigating

investigate all ya want - but if you aren't willing to take the next step, then it's just the noise of paper being shuffled

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. And I'll bet the repukes are shaking in their boots!

The Judiciary Committee!! :scared:

:sarcasm:

[radfringe]

8. if dems aren't willing to step up to the plate

then it's all swing, no bat

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Well I am getting tired of waiting for them to step up

And after they caved on FISA, why should we expect anything different? :shrug:

[formercia]

13. Not to worry

They will put on a good show for the election. You won't even recognize them.

Term limits are a good thing.

[Solly Mack]

9. and that's our America....does it feel good yet?

[annabanana]

11. Sorry, no time to consider this. .have to go check the "latest

back-to-school fashions for the hip young set. . "

It is sad to watch the belated awareness dawn on the formerly clueless.

[formercia]

12. Show trials are for wealthy, high profile Democrats

yes, Martha was one of them. When it comes to poor people, other methods apply.

If you can't cage the vote, cage the voter.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/formercia/18

Posted by formercia in Latest Breaking News
Mon Jun 25th 2007, 06:48 PM
I believe there is a direct connection between the War on Drugs, a War that is not designed to be won, and voter suppression.
Massive quantities of illegal drugs are imported into urban areas that historically tend to vote Democratic. The resulting increase in crime and the numbers of minorities convicted of Felonies serves to reduce the Democratic base, even if the conviction does not cause the loss of the ability to vote. Just showing up at a polling place can be a very intimidating experience for fear of being pulled aside, interrogated and possibly being arrested for some minor infraction. The polling place is where the 'Man' is, and a lot of folks are afraid to go there for that very reason.



I hear the Poppy crop in Afghanistan is going to be just in time for the '08 elections.

That's how Poppy got his name....

[JHB]

14. They missed a significant point...

They skirt it by bringing up a few weak cases that wer lost, but they never say it outright:
Some of those cases were brought specifically to affect the election, to hit a Democratic candidate for office with headline-grabbing corruption charges right in the middle of an election campaign. While doing so might be the right thing to do if there was a clear, strong case, these cases were weak to the point of being embarrasing. The only reason for pressing these false charges was to affect the election.