Crime

OK, pretend you didn't read the headline to this story. Now, have a look at the following quote:

"So as far as leadership and patriotism goes, I think it's really important that those things have to take place. And I think he's [Obama is] the best Democratic candidate we've had since Bill Clinton. And that's coming from a Democrat."

Be honest. Would you have ever, in a million years, attributed it to country music star Toby Keith? The baritone patriot who regularly confuses viewers of "The Colbert Report" is, if you didn't already know, famous for such anthem-like lyrics as:

Oh, justice will be served and the battle will rage:
This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage.
An' you'll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A.
'Cos we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.

But if you think that Keith's vote is in the bag for Obama, you'd do well to consider a recent exchange between Keith and firebrand talk-show host, Glenn Beck, during which Keith remarked:

"I think the black people would say he [Obama] don't talk, act or carry himself as a black person."

"What does that even mean?" the audibly shocked Beck replied.

"Well, I don't know what that means," Keith drawled, "but I think that that's what they would say. Even though the black society would pull for him I still think that they think in the back of their mind that the only reason he is in [the general election] is because he talks, and carries himself as a Caucasian."

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine may be wishing he steered clear of an ex-girlfriend that continues to be in legal trouble.

Carla Katz is under federal investigation for her management of the Communication Workers of America Local 1034, the largest state-worker union, The Star-Ledger reports today. The criminal inquiry is being conducted by the office of U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie, who the paper says is thought by some to be a leading GOP contender to challenge Corzine in next year's gubernatorial election. A Christie spokesman would neither confirm not deny whether a subpoena was issued or if an investigation is under way.

The New York Post says investigators from the Newark US Attorney's Strike Force unit - which investigates union corruption and organized crime - showed up at CWA headquarters in Washington, wanting the financial and management records of Katz.

Federal agents served a subpoena on the national headquarters of the CWA in Washington on Tuesday, three people familiar with the subpoena told the Ledger. Sources said authorities are focusing on an internal CWA probe that recently accused the Katz of misappropriating union money.

Katz and her attorney Paul Fishman said Wednesday they were not aware of any federal probe.

"I hadn't heard that, but it wouldn't surprise me given all the reprehensible things the national union has done," Fishman told the Ledger.

Last night, I posted a piece about John McCain's latest brush with women's issues, but I just missed out on including this vile tidbit. The Nation reports that John McCain might not be all that sensitive to the ladies:

According to the Tucson Citizen, here's what McCain, then a two-term Congressman from Mesa, said during his run for the Senate:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, 'Where is that marvelous ape?'

Here's a link to the original article. At the time, McCain said, "How dare you, HOW DARE you make such an accusation?"

Wait, sorry, what he said, through a spokesman, was "John does not recollect telling that joke..."

The original article was very well-sourced.

McCain has a history of making disturbing jokes, such as a crack about then-18-year-old Chelsea Clinton, but nothing this heinous.

Here's what makes it worse, at least for me. I've heard this joke before, told by a loudmouthed nieghbor during a card game with my folks. Only when he told it, it was a black joke.

The McCain campaign released John McGruff..sorry..McCain's Crime-Fighting Strategy today, which includes support for a massive giveaway to convicted criminals: (via email)

John McCain Supported The Second Chance Act Which Authorized Up To $360 Million For Reentry Services In 2009 And 2010.

Last year, approximately 750,000 inmates were released from custody and returned to our communities, and typically one-half will return to incarceration. The Second Chance Act funds programs, many of them faith-based, which prepare prisoners for the transition from prison to society by providing job training, counseling, mentors, counseling, and more. Some programs report reducing recidivism rates by 50 percent.

McCain is on the right track here. Recidivism is a huge problem, and it brings into sharp relief the fact that we don't have prisons in America, we have criminal farms. While sweeping reforms to our criminal justice system are really what's in order, the fact that McCain is addressing recidivism is encouraging.

The Teamsters, a union that has been under the government's watchful eye for nearly 20 years due to its past connection with organized crime and the mafia, may have found a friend in Barack Obama.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that Obama won the endorsement from the organization of James P. Hoffa's (son of former Teamster's President Jimmy Hoffa, whose 1975 disappearance is still fodder for lore and mystery) in February after the Democratic presidential hopeful said privately he was in favor of ending the strict government oversight of the group to root out corruption. Monitoring of the union has largely been left to the Justice Department. Hoffa - who has been campaigning for Obama in Pennsylvania and Indiana, the latter of which has its primary tomorrow - has been advocating for an easing of oversight since he became union president in 1999.

Hoffa says it's Obama's criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement that won the group's support.
Both camps say there was no quid pro quo between the endorsement and oversight issue. Obama today denied any sort of agreement between the two.

"I wouldn't make any blanket commitments," Obama said this morning on "Good Morning America." "What I've said is I would examine what is going on in terms of the federal oversight that's been taking place.

"The union has done a terrific job cleaning house. The question is whether they're going to be able to get treated like every other union. Whether that time has come is something I'll absolutely examine when I'm president of the United States."

A friend of mine asked me to take a look at this video for my Videos of the Week column. It's a short documentary about reaction to the verdict in the Sean Bell case.

The video is very inflammatory, especially without any context. I realize that the filmmakers were somewhat limited in their ability to provide context, and I'm not sure if they knew how this would play to mainstream white audiences.

As documentarians, they do a good job of not manipulating the viewer. You could be outraged at the verdict, and relate to the protesters, or whipped into a fury by utterances of "F**k the police."

I don't recall covering the Bell case for the PM, but I thought it important to flesh this story out a little bit here.

In a surprising ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional right of police to conduct searches even in cases where state laws make the search illegal. The ruling, in the case of Virginia v. Moore, says that police in Virginia were within their rights to search the car of David Lee Moore even though Mr. Moore was stopped for a minor traffic offense in which Virginia state law required that he be ticketed and released. Instead, police searched the car, found crack cocaine, and arrested Moore on drug charges. He was convicted and sentenced to three and a half years in prison.

The ruling is surprising not only for its conclusion but for the fact that it was unanimous. Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Court's most conservative justices, said that the Constitution permits police to search a suspect when they have probable cause that he has committed a crime in their presence. Scalia said that the Court had held that position for "half a century." All of the Justices on the Court joined in the opinion except Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who agreed with the outcome, but cited different reasons.

Earlier this month, I told you the story of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who are serving 11 and 12 years in prison, for shooting a Mexican drug runner in the butt. Well now, that drug runner - whose testimony helped put the agents in prison - may just get his due.

Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, 27, yesterday pleaded guilty to federal drug smuggling charges. He admitted that beginning around June 1, 2005, through Nov. 30, 2005, he conspired with others to import and to possess with the intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana (when he was shot by Ramos and Compean in February 2005, he was trying to bring into this country 700 pounds of pot). Additionally, on Sept. 24, 2005, and then again on Oct. 22 and 23, 2005, Aldrete-Davila admitted to trying to distribute more than 100 kilograms of the stuff.

To put this into perspective, Aldrete-Davila is admitting to running drugs into the U.S. while he was in discussions with the U.S. government on how he would testify against Ramos and Compean to put them behind bars.

"Just as Aldrete's illegal conduct did not excuse the crimes committed by Compean and Ramos, likewise, their crimes did not excuse his," said U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who has come under rapid fire for his prosecution of the agents. "Compean and Ramos had their day in court and an El Paso jury convicted them after a two and half week long jury trial. Now, Aldrete has had his day in court and will soon be paying for his crimes."

Ramos' father-in-law said that while he doesn't know what impact the plea could have on the pending appeal of his son and Compean, "it proves that the government lied to the jury."

Many of you may not know the story of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean - the two border agents who shot a Mexican drug runner in the buttocks and now are serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively, for it. In solitary confinement, no less. Their case has had the border agent community, lawmakers, and others up in arms.

Long story short: On Feb. 27, 2005, Ramos and Compean shot at the drug runner after they tried to stop the vehicle he was driving. They say they thought he had a gun and that the vehicle he was driving was carrying drugs across the border into the U.S. It was, in fact - 700 pounds of marijuana. But that's not important here.

The smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, tried to flee, they shot at him and a bullet went into his butt and shattered his urethra (wahhh). They were convicted of shooting him and trying to cover it up; federal sentencing guidelines mandates 10-year prison terms just for the shooting. Excessive? Yes. Even the prosecuting attorney has alluded to such in interviews with me in the past, but he claims he was just doing his job. Lawmakers have asked President Bush to pardon the agents but he has refused. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., one of the agents' most vocal supporters, has said Ramos and Compean are worse off in solitary than Al Qaeda suspects are at Gitmo. They are in their cells 23 hours a day, don't get to partake in the same activities as other inmates, such as regular telephone use, daily showers, or TV access.

Ramos and Compean went before the Fifth District Court of Appeals in New Orleans in December and are still awaiting a decision. The three-judge panel, which was quite sympathetic to the agents' cause, was supposed to issue a decision in 70 to 75 days; it's been 124.

"I literally choked up – it was the first time we had an objective, legal mind analyze this case," Tara Setmayer, Rorhabacher's spokeswoman, told Political Machine today of the appeals proceedings. "Even though we were hoping it would come down sooner, I think it's a good sign, it's positive."

After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. The money this afternoon, the smart money seems to be where the smart analysis was all along, namely that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective one. The passage that threw so many off is that clause, "a well regulated militia," which many have taken to mean that individuals have no rights at all, but only ... the state?

Of course it flies in the face of the Bill of Rights to suggest that anything there protects the state. Against whom, one might ask? The entire thrust of the Bill of Rights is to protect the individual against the state. Clearly, that was the intent here.