[Osx-nutters] Jeb Bush on the Death Penalty in Florida - Google Video

[Kevin Callahan]

sorry for top post -- I agree with Roger's analysis --
did anybody watch the youtube video ?

<<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291694866835252763&q=bush


On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Roger Howard wrote:

> On Tue, January 9, 2007 7:32 am, Chuck Bennett wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Kevin Callahan wrote:
>>
>>> video here:
>>> <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291694866835252763&q=bush


>>> +death&hl=en>
>>>
>>> related story:
>>> <unknown.gif>
>>>
>>>
>>> JAMES CARROLL
>>> The lynching of Iraq
>>> By James Carroll  |  January 8, 2007
>>>
>>> THE HANGING of Saddam Hussein Dec. 30 offered a view into the
>>> grotesque reality of what America has sponsored in Iraq, and what
>>> Americans saw should inform their response to President Bush's
>>> escalation of the war.
>>>
>>> The deposed tyrant was mercilessly taunted. As he stood on the
>>> threshold of the afterlife and was told to go to hell, the world
>>> witnessed a chilling elevation of the ancient curse, making an
>>> absolute villain an object of pity.
>>>
>>> And then, in chanting the name of Moqtada al-Sadr, whose family had
>>> been a particular target of Hussein's his executioners made clear
>>> that the execution was an act of tribal revenge, not of national
>>> restoration, much less justice. It was a lynching. This Shi'ite
>>> brutality is guaranteed to spawn Sunni savagery. Iraq itself is  
>>> hell.
>>>
>>> Officials of the United States, from military commanders in Baghdad
>>> to members of the Bush administration in Washington, sought to
>>> distance themselves from the bedlam, but they are essential to what
>>> happened at the last moments of Saddam's life. Decorum would have
>>> been the main note of his death if Americans had managed it, but
>>> the execution would have been no less an act of false justice.
>>>
>>> The harsh fact is that the Shi'ite dominated government of Nouri al-
>>> Maliki, in its contemptible treatment of a man about to die, laid
>>> bare the dark truth of Bush's war. This is what revenge looks like,
>>> and revenge (not weapons of mass destruction, not democracy) drove
>>> the initial US attack on Saddam Hussein every bit as much as it
>>> snuffed out his life at the end. The hooded executioners took their
>>> cue from George W. Bush.
>>>
>>> And why should they not have? Let's remember who this man is. As
>>> governor of Texas, he presided over the executions of 152 people,
>>> including the first woman put to death in Texas in a century. Her
>>> name was Karla Faye Tucker. Bush's response to the world-wide plea
>>> raised in her behalf was an astounding display of cruelty, a
>>> mocking imitation of the woman begging not to be killed.
>>>
>>> Bush rejected appeals for clemency in every death penalty case that
>>> came before him. The Texas death chamber, with its lethal injection
>>> gurney, is a place of decorum. And savagery. That executions
>>> defined the main public distinction that Bush brought to the US
>>> presidency sums up the national disgrace, while suggesting also how
>>> little surprise there should be that America is presided over now
>>> by an executioner-in-chief.
>>
>>
>> Completely  disingenuous..  In Texas, the Governor has very limited
>> power over executions.
>
> First, I do think the linking of the execution of Saddam to Bush's
> performance as Governor is disingenuous. Even if we had an anti-death
> penalty President I doubt, all other things being equal, it would have
> turned out any differently. While the conduct at the execution was
> disgraceful by US standards, it was hardly surprising to me;  
> frankly it
> was to be expected, and had nothing to do with Bush mocking Karla Faye
> Tucker.
>
> However, you seem to be taking issue with Carroll's assertions about
> Bush's   performance as Governor, with respect to executions. I don't
> think this article shows ignorance to Texas law - he states simply  
> that
> Bush didn't grant clemency in a single case that came before him.  
> That's
> fact, and an interesting one, which is supported by Bush's on-the- 
> record
> remarks that he believes every single execution was carried out on  
> people
> rightly convicted and deserving death. Given the even limited  
> possibility
> of a wrongful conviction, and the records in many other states  
> supporting
> the notion that it may be anything but limited, and given other  
> components
> of Texas' legal system including the lack of a public defender's  
> office,
> that's a pretty bold position, and it makes his record of not granting
> even a single 30 day reprieve relevant.
>
> I didn't see this article as suggesting Bush should have unilaterally
> acted to commute death sentences in violation of state law, and am not
> sure where you get that conclusion.
>
> And Bush's reaction to the pleas for Karla Faye's life was  
> reasonably seen
> as offensive. Executions, if they must take place, should be taken
> extremely seriously, and with an enormous amount of gravity. THey
> shouldn't be media circuses, and all efforts to ensure the fairness  
> of the
> verdict should be taken, yet politicians like Bush have repeatedly
> criticized the appeals processes and undermined attempts at allowing
> modern reexaminations of evidence using techniques that weren't  
> available
> at trial.
>
> On the one hand - ignoring my personal feelings about the death  
> penalty -
> I think that technical appeals can be abused, and what should  
> matter in
> all cases is the justness of the verdict, not procedural  
> technicalities
> (whether they are pro or against the defendent). But even there are  
> gray
> areas where procedural errors may be barely distinguishable from clear
> breaches of the defendents rights.
>
> On the other hand, the distaste over technical appeals has caused  
> many to
> also try to shut the door on appeals which are designed to address new
> evidence or new analysis of existing evidence. I can appreciate the  
> desire
> not to hold new trials on minor technical basis, but I can't  
> understand
> the resistance to allowing all defendents to have critical physical
> evidence undergo DNA testing where it would definitively connect or
> disconnect that evidence from the defendent.
>
>> Almost all of the power lies with the Texas Board of Pardons and  
>> Paroles
>>
>> Clemency
>>
>> When the entire appeals process has been exhausted, the Governor of
>> the State of Texas still may have a limited power to grant clemency
>> to the prisoner. In capital cases, the Governor has the
>> constitutional authority to grant an offender one 30-day reprieve of
>> a scheduled execution without a recommendation from the Texas Board
>> of Pardons and Paroles. Upon recommendation from the Board, the
>> Governor may grant one or more reprieves in a capital case for any
>> period of time that does not exceed the period recommended by the
>> Board members. If the prisoner submits a timely request for a
>> reprieve of execution, the Board must determine, by majority vote,
>> whether to recommend to the Governor that a reprieve be granted.
>> Similarly, if a death row inmate files a timely petition to the Board
>> from for a commutation of sentence to a lesser punishment, such as
>> life imprisonment, the Board will vote on whether to recommend the
>> commutation to the Governor
>>
>> <http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/vlibrary/outlines/deathpen.html>
>>
>> So, unless the appeals board recommends it, the governor can only
>> grant a single 30 day reprieve.
>>
>> Otherwise he simply has NO say in the matter.  Period.
>
> And how does that conflict with what the article wrote?
>
>>> Capital punishment is to individuals what aggressive war is to
>>> nations. The 20th century, for all its brutality (or because of
>>> it), marked the watershed era when world opinion shifted against
>>> both. Once, princes exercised life-and-death power over subjects
>>> with unchallenged authority. Once, the only check on a state's
>>> freedom to attack another state was its power to do so.
>>>
>>> These two absolutes of realpolitik have changed. From the Kellogg-
>>> Briand Pact of 1928 to principles laid down at the Nuremberg
>>> tribunals to the United Nations itself, wars of aggression stand
>>> condemned. The force of state violence is to be exercised only in
>>> self-defense or in defense of a victim people, in circumstances
>>> defined by international agreement.
>>
>>
>> So torture chambers and gassing his own people didn't qualify under
>> the "Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928" as "in defense of a victim people"
>>
>> WTF?
>
> I think what he's getting at is the immediacy of the violence.
> International opinions (I won't use law here) definitely agrees  
> that state
> violence is acceptable as an immediate reaction; for instance,  
> stopping
> genocides, defending one's land, etc. However, it's a big leap to  
> assume
> that an execution long after the fact is part of that concensus.  
> What he's
> saying is executing Saddam does nothing to defend the victims here;  
> it is
> punitive, not intervention. There's a big distinction there, that  
> at least
> has to be acknowledged in discussing the death penalty as a  
> mechanism for
> punishment. It's not, at least without a stretch, "defense" except  
> by way
> of the notion of deterrence (which, personally, I do not buy -  
> Saddam knew
> the moment he got into that business that he could end up dragged  
> through
> the street after a coup, for instance, let alone tried by a successor
> government's court). I simply don't buy deterrence as an effective
> justification for death penalty.
>
> Vengeance? Yeah, I get that.
>
>>> Similarly, nation after nation has abolished the death penalty,
>>> understanding the absurdity of defending human life by destroying
>>> human life. If killing can ever be justified, individually or
>>> communally, it is only as an absolute last resort. In sum, an
>>> international moral consensus has taken shape against unnecessary
>>> violence, whether targeting a criminal or a rogue state.
>>
>> Oh I get it.  It's just another anti-death penalty rant.    Saddam
>> was just low hanging fruit[1] for the argument.
>
> Personally I'm not shedding any tears for Saddam whatsoever;  
> however, I do
> think that executing him was a politically risky strategy that will  
> haunt
> us for years, and it was a politically convenient strategy for  
> avoiding
> trials damaging to his many previous allies (not only the US).
>
> And what part of the article lead you to think it was anything but an
> anti-death penalty article? Seriously, why the feigned suprise??
>
>>> With his lies at the beginning of this war, and his fantasy now
>>> that an honorable outcome remains possible, the president is a
>>> taunting killer, caught in the act. He lacks nothing but the black
>>> hood. Stop this man.
>
> I'm personally not sure i understand this paragraph; the vast  
> majority of
> the violence has nothing to do with state executions - if we were  
> seeing
> daily executions of Baathists in town squares I might see the  
> connection.
>
> Yes, he lied, and is at least publicly delusional about the  
> progress and
> prognosis for the war. But it's not the black hood he's wearing.
>
>> All and all, standard Bush Derangement Syndrome ranting.
>>
>> Then again, he felt this way about Clinton intervening against the
>> Serbs.
>>
>> "Clinton's War: The American People, Once Again, Must Find Ways To
>> Say, Stop The War!"
>>
>> <http://www.commondreams.org/kosovo/views/carroll2.htm>
>>
>> I'll grant the pacifist  idiot consistency, but a but a lot more
>> people would be dead if we listened to him back then.
>
> Please don't use pacifist as a derogatory term. As a principle it's a
> noble one; but many pacifists acknowledge there are cases of pragmatic
> necessity. I expect most pacifists fall into that camp; the problem is
> defining this war in Iraq as necessary.
>
> I'm a pacifist, but I'm all in favor of defending potential victims of
> genocide, and defending ourselves and our allies against an  
> aggressor. I
> can even acknowledge there could be cases of preemptive war that  
> would be
> reasonable, but this isn't preemptive - that suggests he was  
> gearing up to
> attack us, but rather "preventative". See the Cheney Doctrine.
>
>> *spit*  Fuck James Carroll.  If he didn't think we/NATO should have
>> involved ourselves there then he is both and idiot and a coward.
>
> Personally I know too little about Kosovo to get into details, but  
> I had
> no issue with Clinton intervening there.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters at tit-wank.com
> http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
> Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net

Kevin Callahan
http://www.kevincallahan.org/
http://www.kevincallahan.org/software/accessorizer.html



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tit-wank.com/pipermail/osx-nutters/attachments/20070109/5ec50b0c/attachment-0001.html