[Guest post by DRJ]

Attorney General Eric Holder says Osama Bin Laden will never be captured alive:

“Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Tuesday that Osama bin Laden will never face trial in the United States because he will not be captured alive.

In testy exchanges with House Republicans, the attorney general compared terrorists to mass murderer Charles Manson and predicted that events would ensure “we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden” not to the al-Qaida leader as a captive.

Holder sternly rejected criticism from GOP members of a House Appropriations subcommittee, who contend it is too dangerous to put terror suspects on trial in federal civilian courts as Holder has proposed.”

Days after 9/11, President Bush called for Bin Laden to be taken “Dead or Alive.” Liberals criticized his rhetoric. Remind me again why the Obama Administration is so much more nuanced and articulate than President Bush?

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Via Jonathan Adler at Volokh, “It May Be Clever, but It Is Not Constitutional.”

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

It appears Attorney General Eric Holder wasn’t truthful and forthcoming in his Senate confirmation hearings:

“Attorney General Eric Holder failed to tell the Senate about seven legal briefs he signed when lawmakers considered his nomination to his current job, according to a letter released on Friday.”

The briefs were not disclosed in Holder’s disclosure document submitted in connection with his Senate confirmation hearing. At least one brief involved Jose Padilla who was held as an enemy combatant for 3 years before being tried and convicted in federal court. The linked article states the “other six briefs related to issues such as race discrimination and a challenge to a prison sentence.” Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said in a letter to the Senate: “We regret the omission.”

Republican Senators plan aggressive questioning of Holder about these matters at an oversight hearing scheduled for March 23. One topic for questioning will undoubtedly be Holder’s statements in a 2004 Padilla amicus brief that civil liberties protections could hamper terror investigations:

“Bill Burck and Dana Perino have written a piece for National Review that unearths a 2004 amicus brief signed by Attorney General Eric Holder that states that civil liberties protections “might impede the investigation of a terrorist offense in some circumstances.”

They contrast that claim with President Obama’s words that American should reject “the false choice between our security and our ideals” and make a case that Holder is being disingenuous by claiming that trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts won’t harm national security.

“It is conceivable that, in some hypothetical situation, despite the array of powers described above, the government might be unable to detain a dangerous terrorist or to interrogate him or her effectively,” the 2004 brief states. “But this is an inherent consequence of the limitation of Executive power. No doubt many other steps could be taken that would increase our security, and could enable us to prevent terrorist attacks that might otherwise occur. But our Nation has always been prepared to accept some risk as the price of guaranteeing that the Executive does not have arbitrary power to imprison citizens.”

The brief in question discusses, in reference to the Jose Padilla case, whether the president has the legal authority to hold without charges a U.S. citizen captured on American soil, in the manor of an enemy combatant. “It may be true that in some instances the government will not be able to obtain information from citizens who are informed of their right to counsel, or that obtaining that information may be delayed,” it states.

“Back then,” Burck and Perino write, [Holder] understood that Mirandizing terrorists, to choose one example, is not without risk to our national security.”

They really are making this up as they go along.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed itself today:

“A divided federal appeals court Thursday reversed itself, ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate the constitutional prohibition against state-mandated religious exercise even though it contains the phrase “one nation under God.”

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2002, which deemed that requiring students to recite the pledge violated their rights to be free of religious indoctrination by the government, was one of the most controversial to come out of the court that is second only to the U.S. Supreme Court in its power to determine law for nine Western states and two Pacific territories.”

Judge Stephen Reinhardt again found his way onto the panel and was the lone dissenter. The Court also rejected a challenge by the same plaintiff, Michael Newdow, to the phrase “In God We Trust” printed on the national money.

I’m glad these opinions weren’t issued on April 1st.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Does Lindsay Lohan see herself as a milk-aholic boyfriend-stealing cutie?

“Lindsay Lohan is suing the financial company E-Trade, insisting that a boyfriend-stealing, “milkaholic” baby in its latest commercial — who happens to be named Lindsay — was modeled after her. And she wants $100 million for her pain and suffering, The Post has learned.

The actress filed a lawsuit yesterday in Nassau County Supreme Court over the commercial that debuted during the Super Bowl this year.”

Lohan reportedly has demanded $50 million in exemplary damages and another $50 million in compensatory damages. The E-Trade ad is at the link.

– DRJ

[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

For those who believe life in prison is an adequate punishment for murder, regardless of the circumstances, how do you propose to punish a man who, while already serving a life sentence for murder, kills his cellmate? From the Los Angeles Times:

A Compton gang member already sentenced to life in prison for murder and awaiting trial in a second slaying is being investigated for allegedly strangling his Twin Towers jail cellmate.

Jamar Lavon Tucker, 28, was found Thursday morning inside a two-man cell next to the body of William Levell Hansbrough during a security check at the county jail in downtown Los Angeles, officials said.

Tucker allegedly told deputies that he had just killed his cellmate, said Steve Whitmore, a spokesman for the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department. A coroner’s autopsy determined Hansbrough’s death was homicide by strangulation . . .

Tucker was being held at the jail because he is slated to go on trial May 10 for the 2005 murder of Kevin Watts. Prosecutors are pursuing the death penalty against Tucker if he is convicted in that case, officials said.

Tucker was convicted two years ago of a murder and attempted murder along with three other men, court records show. During the trial for the April 2005 home invasion robbery and carjacking in Redlands, Tucker pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder. Tucker received a life sentence.

When Redlands police arrested Tucker, they described him as a member of the L.A. gang the 107th Street Hoover Crips who goes by the name “Baby Hoover Ray.” Tucker, along with three other men, carjacked a car restoration expert and then forced him to drive them to his Redlands home.

Once there, the men fatally shot the carjacking victim’s 28-year-old cousin and wounded his 51-year-old mother. They then stole thousands of dollars in cash, according to police. As they drove back to L.A., Tucker shot the carjacking victim, according to authorities. The man faked he was dead and was dumped in Fullerton.

California still has the death penalty, at least in theory if not in actual practice, and if Tucker hasn’t demonstrated his worthiness for execution then surely no one has. If you oppose the death penalty, how would you propose he be punished for his second and third alleged murders, and how would you protect other prisoners and prison staff from a man for whom the law holds no punishment beyond that to which he has already been sentenced?

–Jack Dunphy