Sex, Lies And American Justice: French Still Try To Understand Strauss-Kahn Case (Time.com)

By PIOTR SMOLAR / LE MONDE / WORLDCRUNCH Piotr Smolar / Le Monde / Worldcrunch – Sat Jul 2, 2:25 am ET

This post is in partnership with Worldcrunch, a new global-news site that translates stories of note in foreign languages into English. The article below was originally published in Le Monde.

The startling turnaround in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn affaire has nothing to do with what happened May 14 in the now famous Sofitel hotel room 2806. It is all about the credibility of the plaintiff, the Guinean housekeeper who has accused "DSK" of sexual assault. For the American judicial system, in its Protestant and Puritan culture, lying is considered absolutely unacceptable.

According to the revelations in the New York Times, and subsequent details from prosecutors, there was a healthy amount of incoherence in the statements of the Sofitel Hotel employee. (See pictures of the legal battle of DSK.)

"The American system is based on truth," explains Arthur Dethomas, a Parisian lawyer who is also a member of the New York bar. "Litigants take an oath, they swear not to lie, even in matters that involve themselves. In France, on the contrary, a person who is testifying on his own case is not required to be sworn in, because it is assumed that he can protect himself."

The French system thus gives the accuser a sort of "right to lie." In court, before any statement is recorded, the witnesses are questioned about their connections with the individuals involved in the case. Are they close friends or relatives? Have they had any connection of dependence on them, such as a salary?

According to Dethomas, the revelations mark a decisive turn of events in the investigation. "It has to do with an unexpected affair in a closed room, between two individuals," says the lawyer. "The accusation rests on a sexual encounter between them. For a rape to be established, there must be an absence of consent. If the person who claims to have not given consent ceases to be credible, it's over. Even the fact that she possibly lied on a federal document, the application she filled out for refugee status, would be a felony, a perjury sufficient enough to disqualify everything else she says." (Who was Strauss-Kahn's accuser?)

U.S. Justice Works Both Ways

Between France and the United States, the differences in judicial philosophy and practice, notably concerning the status of the victim, explains part of the incomprehension coming from this side of the Atlantic. But so too does the soap opera of a judicial procedure that has taken place since the beginning in New York against Dominique Strauss-Kahn: his being paraded before the media, handcuffed in front of the cameras, his three-day temporary detention, then the heavy weight given to the prosecution, in contrast to the tactical silence of the defense. "In its brutality, the American justice system works both ways," says a Parisian lawyer.

For his part, Patrick Baudoin, a lawyer as well as the honorary president of the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), listened rather incredulously to the avalanche of commentaries since the latest turn of events. "One thing struck me: as soon as certain unfavorable, thorny elements were discovered in the past history of the plaintiff, it was deduced that her testimony no longer stands."

Baudoin himself encountered the ways of the American justice system when he defended the mother of Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of having wanted to participate in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The comparison between the United States and France prompted him to distinguish justice from public life. "In terms of public morality, it is much better in the United States," he notes. "In France, there is much more leeway and allowance for half-truths. However, in terms of law, it is striking to see what is going on in the United States from one extreme to another. We saw a vilified and reviled DSK who was being dragged through the mud. Suddenly, the victim, who contrary to the French system is merely a witness and not a plaintiff, is discredited." (See pictures of the flashly life of Strauss-Kahn.)

The lie is not only a "mortal sin" inside the courtrooms of America. It is also devastating in front of the cameras. In 1998, Bill Clinton was nearly thrown out of office through an impeachment procedure for having been accused of perjury in the Monica Lewinsky affair. He was not criticized for having a sexual relation with his assistant, but for having lied about it.

In the same way and more recently, the Democratic representative Anthony Weiner had to resign from his position in Congress on June 21. He had sent risquE photos of himself in his underwear through his Twitter account. But the reason for his fall was caused by his first version of the facts, which were misleading and dishonest. He had pretended that his account was hacked. This insupportable line of defense forced him, within a few days, to backtrack and confess with sobs in his voice in front of the cameras. It was already too late.

Also from Worldcrunch:

Human Trafficking in the Middle East
- Die Welt

Food-Safety Scares in China Prompt Government to Choke Press Freedom
- Economic Observer

Surviving a Night in Zurich's Worst Hotel
- Tages Anzeiger

See France's reaction to the collapse of the DSK case.

See pictures inside Rikers Island.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Yahoo! News

Swift Justice in Murder that Stirred Anger in China (Time.com)

One month after a traffic fatality touched off widespread protests in the northern Chinese region of Inner Mongolia, a court has sentenced a coal truck driver to death for running over and killing an ethnic Mongolian herder. The rapid trial and sentencing showed the speed with which Chinese authorities have moved to tamp down unrest in the region.

On Wednesday the Intermediate People's Court of Xilin Gol league found driver Li Lindong guilty of murder immediately after a six-hour trial, Chinese state press reported. The court ruled that Li had intentionally run over and dragged Mergen, who like some ethnic Mongolians goes by a single name. Mergen was part of a group of herders who had blocked coal trucks to protest the damaged they caused to traditional herding lands. A fellow defendant who had been in the cab of the truck with Li was sentenced to life in prison, and two other men were given three-year sentences for interfering with the police investigation. (Photos: Mongolia Marches Toward Modernity)

Mergen's May 10 killing touched off a series of protests in the frontier region, where decades of immigration by China's Han majority have raised complaints about the exploitation of natural resources and the decline of the traditional culture of ethnic Mongols, who now comprise 20% of Inner Mongolia's population. Mergen's killing was followed five days later by the death of another Mongolian, Yan Wenlong, who was crushed by a forklift during a protest at a coal mine. Chinese authorities responded swiftly to the protests, dispatching thousands of armed police, blocking Mongolian students from leaving campuses and restricting discussion of the events on Chinese websites.

In recent years China has seen deadly race riots in other border regions with large minority populations including Tibet in 2008 and Xinjiang in 2009. But the Inner Mongolia protests were particularly unsettling for the government. While there is a small movement of Mongolians who would like Inner Mongolia to split from China and form an independent state or join with the nation of Mongolia to the north, the region has been largely free of the sort of unrest seen in China's western frontier regions. As with the Tibet and Xinjiang riots, the Chinese government placed the blame on outsiders. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu accused "overseas groups" of seizing on the deaths to "cause trouble." She said the government would deal with the cases according to the law and address the broader grievances raised. Last week an official with the Ministry of Environmental Protection told a press conference that China would restrict projects in environmentally sensitive parts of Inner Mongolia. (Photos: On the Cutting Edge -- China's Extraordinary Buildings)

In China, high-profile criminal cases that arouse public anger and attention sometimes see rapid trials. The time between Mergen's death and the sentencing of his killer was just over four weeks. Last year a man who stabbed to death eight children at a primary school in southeastern Fujian province was sentenced to death just over two weeks after he committed the murders. He was executed 20 days later.

See more international news in Global Spin

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Yahoo! News

Justice Stevens says bin Laden killing legally justified

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens spoke of the bin Laden raid in remarks at Northwestern University."I must say I was very proud of the SEALs," retired Justice Stevens says"I haven't the slightest doubt it was entirely appropriate," he saysStevens has been unusually outspoken for a retired justice

Washington (CNN) -- Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has voiced support for the killing of al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces, saying it was legally justified.

In remarks Thursday evening at his alma mater, Northwestern University, the 91-year-old former justice said the order by President Barack Obama for the covert mission by U.S. Navy SEALs was "to remove an enemy who had been trying every day to attack the United States," according to two people who attended a symposium and dinner that was closed to the media.

Stevens said he was pleased the president took the risky decision to launch the May 2 commando assault on bin Laden's compound in Pakistan. The justice added, "I must say I was very proud of the SEALs."

No sitting member of the Supreme Court has commented on the bin Laden killing and is not likely to, since current or related executive branch issues may someday come before them.

There have been legal questions surrounding whether U.S. and international law would permit a unilateral executive decision to kill a terrorist leader with no ties to any government. Attorney General Eric Holder said the day after the mission, "It's lawful to target an enemy commander in the field."

As founder and head of al Qaeda, bin Laden was viewed by the administration as a combatant actively involved in past and current hostilities against the United States and other countries.

The insistence by Obama officials that the killing was justified come despite bin Laden not being armed when commandos stormed his third-floor room. Those officials insist the Saudi native "resisted" and made no clear indication he would surrender.

Stevens said based on his knowledge of the facts, "I haven't the slightest doubt it was entirely appropriate for American forces to act" as they did. "It was not merely to do justice and avenge September 11."

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog first reported Stevens' remarks.

He stepped down from the high court last year after nearly 35 years on the bench, and was replaced by Justice Elena Kagan.

Unusually for a retired justice, he has been outspoken on current hot-button cases his former colleagues are considering and on other news events. He voiced support in November for a planned Islamic community center near the site of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York, urging religious and ethnic tolerance.

He announced this week he has almost completed writing a memoir of sorts, a look at the five chief justices he has known and worked with over the past 64 years. Called the "Five Chiefs," and to be published by Little Brown this October, the book will also give an inside look at the court and Stevens' personal insights on colleagues past and present, including current Chief Justice John Roberts.

Before retiring, Stevens had been a consistent supporter of limited rights for terror suspects in U.S. custody overseas to challenge their detention in federal courts. In the first terrorism case to arise in the high court from the 9/11 attacks, Stevens said foreign-born terror suspects captured abroad and held at a Navy-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, did have some basic rights.

"What is presently at stake is only whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing," he wrote in 2004.

Stevens is a World War II veteran. He served as an intelligence officer in Hawaii, where his work included supervising the cracking of secret Japanese codes. He was speaking in public Friday to graduates at his old law school in Chicago, where he graduated in 1947 at the top of his class.

CNN

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

An Eye for an Eye: Iran's Blinding Justice System (Time.com)

Iran's judiciary has postponed the blinding of a man as punishment for throwing acid in the face of a young woman in 2004, after she rejected his offer of marriage. The delay came in the face of mounting outcry both inside Iran and in the West over the sentencing, which is permissible under qesas, a principle of Islamic law allowing victims analogous retribution for violent crimes.

The case has stirred passionate interest in Iran since 2004, when Majid Movahedi, a university student, accosted Ameneh Bahrami on a Tehran street and tossed a red bucket of sulfuric acid in her face. Bahrami, an attractive young engineer, had repeatedly spurned Movahedi's proposals and reported his harassment to the police. She was blinded and severely disfigured in the attack, and has spent the intervening years between Iran and Spain undergoing numerous unsuccessful operations to reconstruct her face and repair her sight. (See photos of a semi-official view of Iran.)

Much of the public outcry in Iranian media, news websites, and blogs, surrounds the Iranian legal system, which produces such verdicts by practising an 'eye for an eye' approach to justice based on seventh century Islamic jurisprudence. These principles effectively offer victims of violent crime two legal choices, forgiveness or qesas, analogous retribution. "Bahrami must sit in the place of the judge and either forgive her attacker or take revenge" says Asieh Amini, an Iranian women's rights activist living in Europe? "The legal system pushes her into a dead-end, and it's really the law that's deficient here." Bahrami eventually chose qesas, determined that her experience would serve as deterrence for future crimes. "I want people like him to know that they will suffer forever if they cause someone such suffering," she said on BBC Persian television Saturday.

Speaking on the interactive television program Saturday, Bahrami said she favored a more modern course, suing for damages. "I want him to be punished foremost. But if there are human rights considerations, then I'll accept two million Euros and his life imprisonment," she said. The program featured an emotional exchange between Bahrami and Movahedi's weeping mother, who begged for her forgiveness. It drew a flood of callers from inside Iran, many of them concerned that Bahrami's "forgiveness," while perhaps the most humanitarian course, would encourage such a horrific crime by implying legal leniency. "Ameneh, daughter of Iran, we understand your joy and we support you," wrote a prominent Iranian blogger, Dalghak Irani, featured on the program. (See photos of health care in Tehran.)

Bahrami, who was scheduled to herself administer the blinding drops to an anaesthetized Movahedi, learned of the delay outside the Judiciary Hospital in Tehran. Human rights groups and Western governments pleaded with Iranian authorities last week to call off the punishment. Iran's government usually responds to such foreign pressure by lashing out rather than backing off, but Bahrami's case poses a unique dilemma: unlike many human rights cases which excite opinion primarily in the West, it has resonated deeply throughout Iranian society; the attention inside Iran raises the prospect of a public backlash at a time when the regime is deeply divided by political infighting. "There's no doubt public opinion inside Iran has been stirred up," says Amini. "There's been a huge outpouring of sympathy for both of them, and this puts pressure on the government."

Apart from its headline-grabbing story line, the case is transfixing Iranians because it reflects how their society's old mores are clashing with modern norms. This was no village crime committed by an illiterate, but a tragedy that unfolded in the nation's capital between two educated urbanites. It underscores how Iranian women's social standing - they are now in the majority at universities and active throughout society - fits awkwardly with deep-seated patriarchal attitudes. Women direct top-grossing films in Iran, run galleries, and write best-sellers, but are still covered by cultural mores that often approximate the severe conservatism of neighboring Afghanistan. "This case really highlights the sexist attitudes and double standards within Iran society," says Nayereh Tohidi, an Iran expert and a professor of women's studies at California State University, Northridge. "[Based on] such customs, a man sees it as his prerogative to want and possess the woman he desires, regardless of her feelings and mutual love." Tohidi adds, "This 'eye for an eye,' tribal approach to crimes underlies how the law reinforces a cycle of violence instead of reducing it. A young blind man is going to be added to a young blind woman for society to take care of."

See the world's most influential people in the 2011 TIME 100.

See TIME's 140 best Twitter feeds.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Obama giving NYC its moment of justice on bin Laden

NEW YORK — President Obama punctuated his success in bringing to justice Osama bin Laden on Thursday with a visit to those on the front line of the 9/11 attack — families and colleagues of those killed at the site .

President Obama participates in a wreath laying ceremony at the 9/11 Memorial in New York City, May 5.

Under sunny skies, multiple construction cranes, and the unfinished bulk of the first tower to rise at Ground Zero, Obama laid a wreath at the emerging 9/11 memorial in a solemn ceremony. He placed the flowers in front of a tree that survived the attack and then turned to hug Payton Hall, 14, who was standing with her friend, Madison Robertson, 14.

Both girls, from Rumson, N.J., lost their dads on 9/11 and had written letters to the president - and to Justin Bieber - several months ago.

"I just wanted to share my story,'' Payton said.

"He just said how proud of us he is,'' Madison said.

Payton also said she was stunned when the White House called. "I was so shocked," she said. "I did not think he would write back.''

Crowds with flags and cameras lined Church Street on the eastern edge of the 16-acre construction site.

The wreath laying site is between two reflecting pools that mark the footprints of the destroyed towers. The tree was found growing on the site after the collapse and is called the Survivor Tree. It was taken away from the site, nursed back to health and returned this year.

After the wreath laying, Obama met with about 60 relatives of the nearly 3,000 people who died during the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Earlier Obama told a Manhattan fire fighting crew that lost 15 members on 9/11 that the death of bin Laden sends a strong message to both the nation and the world.

"When we say we will never forget, we mean what we say," Obama said during a stop at the fire station .

The president also visited a Manhattan police station to speak with more of the first responders, telling officers, "I am here basically to shake your hand and say how proud I am of all of you."

The weekend raid on bin Laden in Pakistan "sent a signal that we have never forgotten the extraordinary sacrifices that were made on 9/11," Obama said. "We did what we said we were going to do."

Obama's stop at the "Pride of Midtown Firehouse" in Midtown at 48th Street and Eighth Avenue was greeted to applause from a nearby crowd. Obama greeted each member of the company and then stopped to examine a plaque bearing the names of 15 fire fighters who gave their lives on 9/11.

"This is a symbolic site of the extraordinary sacrifice that was made on that terrible day almost 10 years ago," Obama told company members.

The president then went in to lunch with crew now assigned to Engine Company 54, Ladder 4, Battalion 9. The president joked that he also visited the firehouse because "I hear the food was pretty good."

One of the family members watching the wreath laying was Christopher Cannizzaro, 10, of Staten Island, whose father Brian was a firefighter. He said Obama gave him a fist bump and he gave the president a prayer card for his dad. "It was just a very nice experience," he said.

His mother, Jackie Cannizzaro-Hawkins, who remarried, said she told the president "Thank you. Thank you for seeing it through." Obama's visit to the WTC site "means the world to me. It was appropriate. He never forgot."

White House spokesman Jay Carney called the event a "cathartic moment for the American people."

Security was tight as crowds started to gather in New York in anticipation of Obama's visit.

Jim Riches, a retired deputy chief with the city fire department and father of Jimmy Riches, a firefighter who was killed in the collapse of the North Tower, was among those scheduled to meet with Obama. He recalled that at a meeting in 2009, Obama told the 9/11 families that he was determined to get bin Laden.

"He did a great job and he deserves credit for it. He had the conviction to do it,'' Riches said Wednesday evening.

"It'll be a pleasure just to shake his hand,'' said Bill Doyle, whose son Joey was killed in the twin towers.

Doyle was flying to New York from his home in Florida on Thursday morning to attend the meeting with Obama. "It was remarkable, the decision (to attack bin Laden's hide-out), and it was gutsy by President Obama,'' he said.

"I'd love to meet that Navy SEAL that put a bullet in that guy's head,'' Doyle said.

Susan Dahill, communications director for Voices of September 11, a family support and advocacy group, said that Mary and Frank Fetchet, the group's founders, would be among those at the meeting. They planned to take printed messages to Obama that family members who were not invited posted on the group's Facebook page.

The couple's 24-year-old son Bradley was killed on 9/11.

The message from Alexandra Luckett, who lost her brother in the collapse of the North Tower, was heartfelt: "Please thank President Obama from everyone in Ted Luckett's family for finally bringing us some justice!'' she wrote on Facebook. "I hope this brings a little peace to this country and that the war will soon come to an end. I love the Navy Seals! Great job. Thank you from the bottom of my heart!''

Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked jets and flew two of them into the World Trade Center's twin towers. Both buildings collapsed, trapping thousands inside and also claiming the lives of firefighters and others who had rushed to help them. A third plane slammed into the Pentagon. Officials have speculated that a fourth plane had been heading for the U.S. Capitol or perhaps even the White House when it crashed in Pennsylvania.

A few days later, President George W. Bush stood amid the rubble and spoke through a bullhorn. When one worker yelled, "I can't hear you," the president responded: "I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people — and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"

All these years later, Obama said this is no time for gloating. "We don't need to spike the football," he said as he told CBS on Wednesday that he would keep bin Laden's death photos sealed.

Obama invited Bush to join him Thursday, but the former president declined.

"The ceremony will provide some closure to a horrific event," said Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, who was invited by the White House to attend Obama's Ground Zero event.

Contributing: Martha T. Moore in New York; David Jackson in Washington, D.C.; Carolyn Pesce in McLean, Va.; Associated Press

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.We've updated the Conversation Guidelines. Changes include a brief review of the moderation process and an explanation on how to use the "Report Abuse" button. Read more.

USATODAY.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Justice Department opens antitrust inquiry into BCS process

The Bowl Championship Series determines which college football teams play for the national title and trophy.The Bowl Championship Series system makes it hard for some college teams to qualifyMillions of dollars in revenue are at stake in the football bowl selection processAssistant Attorney General Varney seeks an explanation

(CNN) -- In a letter to the NCAA disclosed Wednesday, the Justice Department said it has received several requests for an antitrust investigation into the current Bowl Championship Series system, and it wants information to help it decide what to do.

That controversial system makes it very difficult for teams in some athletic conferences to qualify for major bowl games, potentially costing millions of dollars in revenue to those not chosen.

"Serious questions continue to arise suggesting that the current BCS system may not be conducted consistent with the competition principles expressed in federal antitrust laws," Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney told NCAA President Mark Emmert.

The decision to release the letter came hours after Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a major opponent of the current system, demanded further consideration of the issue in a face-to-face appearance with Attorney General Eric Holder at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Holder responded by disclosing the Justice Department had sent a letter to the NCAA on the issue Tuesday.

In her letter, Varney asked Emmert to explain why college football does not have a playoff when so many other college sports do. She also asked what steps, if any, the NCAA has taken to create a playoff, and whether the NCAA has determined that there are aspects of the BCS system that do not serve interests of fans, colleges, universities, and players.

Officials acknowledge the NCAA is not legally required to respond, although lawyers following the case expect the association to do so.

Antitrust lawyers have been watching the debate grow for more than two years, to see whether the Justice Department will jump into the case.

One antitrust expert who declares himself neutral in the case says he doubts Justice will launch a probe because it has a full plate of more pressing issues.

"There is a problem, but not an antitrust problem," said Gordon Schnell of the New York firm Constantine Cannon. A court could never require a football playoff, but they could break up the current BCS system, he said.

Currently, the BCS system limits automatic bids to the winners of the Big Ten, Big East, Big 12, Atlantic Coast Conference, Pac 10 and the Southeast Conference, thereby leaving out other conferences, including almost all schools in the Rocky Mountain Region. Only two remaining at-large spots are available to all other colleges and universities.

CNN's Terry Frieden contributed to this report

CNN

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Obama on bin Laden: 'Justice has been done'

Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort. We've disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda's leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al Qaeda.

Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There's no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must a€“- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not a€“- and never will be -a€“ at war with Islam. I've made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we've done. But it's important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.

Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who's been gravely wounded.

So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda's terror: Justice has been done.

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.

And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.

The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

USATODAY.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

High gas prices prompt Justice Department to eye energy industry

Regular gas is nearly $5 a gallon at a service station this week in Washington. STORY HIGHLIGHTSNEW: Obama promises to ensure companies don't take advantage of U.S. consumersThere is no current evidence of illegal conduct, Attorney General Holder says"We will be vigilant in monitoring the oil and gas markets," he saysHe notes there are "lawful reasons" for increases in gasoline prices Washington (CNN) -- Prodded by growing public frustration over sharply rising gasoline prices, the Justice Department on Thursday announced the formation of a team -- the "Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group -- tasked with the goal of ensuring consumers are not victims of price gouging.

Gas prices exceeding $4 per gallon or higher are "tough" for most Americans, President Barack Obama told an audience in Reno, Nevada. "We are going to make sure that no one is taking advantage of American consumers for their own short-term gain."

"This gas issue is serious," the president said. "It hurts."

CNNMoney: Why is gas outpacing oil in price?

Attorney General Eric Holder made no secret the move is a direct response to public angst, not to current evidence of any illegal conduct.

"Rapidly rising gasoline prices are pinching the pockets of consumers across the country," Holder said in a written statement released at the Justice Department.

Gas price jumped while he was still pumping

View the Original article

Wisconsin Justice Pressures Challenger to Forego Recount

Associated Press

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet

MADISON, Wis. -- Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser's campaign consultants pressured his challenger to forego a re-count in their messy race Monday, warning that such efforts would be costly and frivolous. 

County tallies completed last week showed Prosser defeated JoAnne Kloppenburg by 7,316 votes. She has until Wednesday to request a re-count, which would be conducted at the expense of local governments across the state. 

Kloppenburg's campaign said Monday she was still weighing her options, but Prosser's allies pressured her to accept defeat. Prosser consultant Brian Schimming told reporters at a state Capitol news conference that Kloppenburg can't realistically make up 7,000-plus votes and a re-count would mean hundreds of hours of work for local election officials and cost taxpayers. 

"It's just not close enough to merit it," he said. 

Prosser's attorney, Jim Troupis, promised to fight any re-count request. He declined to say on what grounds, saying he wanted to see what Kloppenburg would use as a justification for a request. Under state law, a candidate must supply a reason for a re-count. 

"The idea that this is anything but frivolous ... is unsustainable," Troupis said. 

In response, Kloppenburg campaign manager Melissa Mulliken noted that state law provides for a recount at government expense if the margin between the candidates is less than one half of one percent of the total votes cast. The total falls within that margin, she said. 

"We are weighing the options and carefully making this decision and we have not made it yet," she said. 

Schimming and Troupis' remarks came after Prosser delivered a 25-minute victory speech. 

Wearing a tie emblazoned with tiny scales of justice, the conservative-leaning justice thanked voters for rejecting Kloppenburg supporters' efforts to link him to Republican Gov. Scott Walker and Walker's polarizing union legislation. 

He said judges should be impartial and their decisions should never be based on personal desires. 

Moments later he thanked people he met during the campaign whom he said were committed to advancing conservative values. He also thanked the high court's conservative majority for its support. 

He didn't directly address a re-count in his speech, referring questions to Schimming and his attorneys. But he did vow to fight. 

"I want my friends to know that come what may ... I do not intend to go gently into that good night," he said. He left the news conference with a wave and didn't take questions. 

Prosser, a 12-year court veteran and a former Assembly Republican speaker, went into the race as the heavy favorite against Kloppenburg, an unknown state attorney. 

But Walker's collective bargaining proposal changed the face of the race. 

The bill stripped nearly all public workers from of most of their collective bargaining rights and required they contribute more to their pensions and salaries, changes that amount to an average 8 percent pay cut. 

Walker said the plan would help close the state's budget deficit and help local governments deal with deep cuts to state aid. Democrats saw the plan as an attack on unions, which are among their strongest constituencies. 

The law sparked massive protests in Madison and 14 Senate Democrats fled to Illinois to block a vote on the plan. Republicans maneuvered to approve the measure without them, and Walker signed the plan into law last month. But the law is now tied up in court and hasn't taken effect. 

Kloppenburg's supporters redefined the Supreme Court race as a referendum on Walker, hoping a Kloppenburg upset would tilt the court to the left and set up the justices to strike the law down. 

Kloppenburg's campaign surged in the final weeks before the April 5 election. 

Initial returns showed she had beaten Prosser by about 200 votes, but then Waukesha County's clerk announced she had failed to report 14,000 votes. Those ballots flipped the race to Prosser. 

The clerk, Kathy Nickolaus, worked for Prosser when he was in the Assembly in the mid-1990s, but she has insisted she made an honest mistake and wasn't overtly trying to help the justice. 

Officials with the state Government Accountability Board, which oversees Wisconsin elections, planned to issue a report Tuesday on whether Waukesha County's numbers were accurate. A more comprehensive review of Nickolaus' election night practices is ongoing. 

Board spokesman Reid Magney said the board didn't have any estimates of what statewide recounts have cost in the past.

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article

Tally gives Wisconsin Supreme Court race to conservative justice

s campaigns had no immediate comment.

STORY: Wis. top court election adds fuel to 'powder keg'Kloppenburg faced an uphill fight against Prosser, a 12-year court veteran and former Republican Assembly speaker. But she got a boost in the weeks leading up to the election as her supporters worked to turn anger against Gov. Scott Walker and the union rights law against Prosser.

The law, which Walker wrote, strips most public sector workers of nearly all their collective bargaining rights. It also requires them to contribute more to their health care and pensions, changes that will result in an average 8 percent pay cut.

Walker, a Republican, has said the law is needed to help balance the state budget and give local governments the flexibility they need to absorb deep cuts in state aid. Democrats see it as an assault on unions, which are among the party

View the Original article

Canvass shows Wis. incumbent Justice Prosser has won re-election

A canvass of Wisconsin county vote results shows that conservative state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser has won re-election over his liberal challenger. The results aren't yet official, and a recount is expected.

Prosser defeated state Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg by 7,316 votes out of nearly 1.5 million votes cast, the Wisconsin State Journal reports. She has until Wednesday to ask for a recount.

State election officials won't begin an official review of today's results until after an expected request by Kloppenburg.

Last week, County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus announced that she had failed to report a city's 14,000 votes in initial totals. The revised tally gave Prosser a lead of about 7,500 votes over Kloppenburg, who until then held a slim lead.

State election officials have announced that they will investigate vote irregularities in predominantly Republican Waukesha County stretching back at least five years.

Tags:JoAnne KloppenburgJustice David Prosser .div-wrapper

View the Original article

Bonds convicted of obstruction of justice

A sentencing date will be set for baseball's home run king, Barry Bonds, next month. STORY HIGHLIGHTSNEW: Jurors find Bonds "evasive" in his grand jury testimonyNEW: Jurors came "very, very close" to convicting Bonds on one perjury count, juror saysNEW: Bonds' ex-girlfriend was not believable, jurors sayThe charges against Bonds stemmed from the BALCO steroids probeRELATED TOPICSBarry BondsSan Francisco GiantsDrugs in Sports San Francisco (CNN) -- Baseball legend Barry Bonds was convicted Wednesday on one count of obstruction of justice, but a mistrial was declared on three counts of perjury after jurors reported they could not reach agreement.

Jurors said they found Bonds to be "evasive" in his testimony to the federal grand jury investigating illegal steroids use by pro athletes, but they said that it was not proven that he lied when he said he had not knowingly used steroids.

The judge declared a mistrial on the three perjury counts after the jury said they were deadlocked on the charges in their fourth day of deliberations.

Bonds, 46, was tried in a San Francisco federal courtroom, less than two miles from the ballpark where he broke Hank Aaron's major league home run in August 2007.

Time.com photos: The evolution of Barry Bonds

Lawyers will be back in court on May 20 to debate whether Bonds should be retried on the perjury counts. A date for sentencing on the obstruction of justice conviction will also be set on that day, the judge said.

Bonds' testimony in December 2003 was part of the BALCO investigation that targeted employees of a California drug testing laboratory and Bonds' personal trainer Greg Anderson.

The testimony that led to Wednesday's conviction came when a grand jury prosecutor asked Bonds if Anderson ever gave him "anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with."

Bonds told the grand jury that only his personal doctors "ever touch me," and he then veered off the subject to say he never talked baseball with Anderson.

"That's what keeps our friendship," Bonds testified. "You know, I am sorry, but that -- you know, that -- I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don't get into other people's business because of my father's situation, you see."

A juror, who identified herself only as Jessica and who would not give her last name, told reporters they agreed unanimously that Bonds was "not directly answering the question, just kind of evading the question."

The jury came one vote short of convicting Bonds on the perjury charge that he lied when he told the grand jury that no one but a doctor ever injected him with a syringe, they said. One juror did not believe the testimony of Kathy Hoskins, Bonds' childhood friend and personal shopper, who testified that she witnessed Anderson injecting Bonds.

"She was believable for 11 of us," a male juror, who identified himself as Steve but who also would not give his last name, told reporters. "We were very, very close."

SI.com: Key questions in wake of Bonds verdict

There was one key government witness none of the jurors believed -- Bonds' ex-girlfriend Kimberly Bell, juror Jessica said.

"We were very against Kim Bell," Jessica said. "She wasn't as much sure in her answers and she seemed to be attacking Barry instead of just giving her own honest testimony,"

Bell testified that she noticed Bonds' testicles were shrunken, which prosecutors argued was a sign of steroids use.

Most jurors were divided 9 to 3 on the question of whether Bonds lied when he said he did not knowingly use steroids, the jurors said.

"The evidence that he did steroids might have been there, but did he knowingly do steroids was the question and we couldn't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt," one woman juror said. "There was just a piece of the puzzle missing."

Defense lawyers argued that Bonds' thought the creams and ointments Anderson was giving him were made of flaxseed oils.

Prosecutors were hampered in making their case because of the refusal of Anderson to testify against Bonds. With Anderson not taking the stand, prosecutors were unable to show jurors calendars that allegedly kept track of Bonds' steroid usage.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found Anderson in contempt of court on the first day of trial testimony when his lawyer informed her that he would not take the stand to answer questions about Bonds steroid use. He was released the day jury deliberations began.

Bonds' legal troubles began in 2003 when he was subpoenaed to testify before the federal grand jury investigating the illegal distribution of performance-enhancing drugs to athletes.

Bonds was told he was not a target of the investigation, which was centered on the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, known as BALCO. His personal trainer, Greg Anderson, was a target.

"All he had to do was tell the truth," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Nedrow said in his closing arguments last week.

Bonds lied to the grand jury because he knew the truth about his steroids use would "tinge his accomplishments" and hurt his baseball career, Nedrow said. "His secret was so powerful that he couldn't admit it, wouldn't admit it."

The grand jury transcript showed that when he was asked about anabolic steroids before the 2003 baseball season, he said he had not knowingly used them. He did acknowledge using substances Anderson gave him known as "the clear and the cream."

Nedrow argued that it was "implausible" that Bonds would take drugs "and really not know what they were."

A urine sample given by Bonds in the summer of 2003, just months before his grand jury testimony, tested positive for anabolic steroids, but another sample taken weeks earlier tested negative for the drugs.

The San Francisco Giants star ended his 21-year major league career in 2003 with 762 home runs. He also set the record for most home runs in a single season in 2001, when he hit 73.

Jurors had to decide if they believed the testimony of Steve and Kathy Hoskins, two former childhood friends who worked for Bonds during the years he allegedly used steroids.

Defense lawyer Allen Ruby argued that the Hoskinses were motivated by bitterness toward Bonds after he fired them and later accused Steve Hoskins of stealing. A federal criminal probe of Steve Hoskins was dropped after he became a prosecution witness, the defense argued.

Steve Hoskins, Bonds' assistant and sometimes business partner for a decade, testified that he tried to persuade Bonds to stop using anabolic steroids in 2000 and 2003.

Hoskins testified that he had several conversations with Bonds' doctor about the ballplayer's steroids use, but that doctor denied it when he was called as a prosecution witness.

While he never witnessed Bonds being injected, Hoskins said he saw Bonds and Anderson emerge from a bedroom with a syringe during spring training in 2000.

Bonds complained to him that year that steroid injections "were making his butt sore," Hoskins said.

Hoskins secretly recorded a locker room conversation with Anderson, Bonds' trainer who allegedly gave Bonds' steroids.

Jurors who spoke to reporters said they completely ignore the muffled audio recording since it did not have a clear "chain of evidence" and they were unsure if it had been edited.

Bonds' defense attorney suggested that Hoskins made the recording only after Bonds fired him in March 2003.

Steve Hoskins' sister, Kathy Hoskins, worked for Bonds his personal shopper until the spring of 2003.

She testified that she was in Bonds' bedroom packing his suitcase for a road trip in 2002 when Bonds told Anderson to "stay right here." He then lifted his shirt and Anderson injected him in his "belly button" with a syringe, Kathy Hoskins said.

"'This is Katy. That's my girl. She don't say nothing to nobody,'" Kathy Hoskins said Bonds assured his trainer.

Defense lawyers argued she lied about the injection incident to support her brother's testimony.

Bonds' lawyers also tried to discredit the testimony of Bonds' former girlfriend, who described physical and emotional changes in Bonds that prosecutors contended were evidence of steroids use.

Kimberly Bell testified in the trial that she noticed Bonds suffered testicular shrinkage, but she had told the grand jury in 2003 that she had not seen any shrinkage.

The eight women and four men on the jury heard 25 prosecution witnesses over two weeks, but the defense rested last week without calling a witness.

View the Original article

Retired Justice O'Connor Draws Criticism Over Political, Judicial Activities

AP

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor speaks at the Women's Conference Oct. 26, 2010, in Long Beach, Calif.

WASHINGTON -- Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor continues to hear cases in U.S. appeals courts, while also playing a role in public policy issues. Her critics say she should do one or the other, but not both. 

O'Connor, 81, was forced to apologize for 50,000 recorded telephone calls made to Nevada voters in which she supported a ballot measure to change the way state judges are selected. O'Connor said she did not authorize the calls featuring her recorded voice, much less their post-midnight delivery. But she also defended her involvement in the campaign that included her appearance in a television commercial. 

In September, federal judges in Iowa stayed away from a conference on judicial elections at which O'Connor spoke in the midst of another campaign over ballot issues. The judges had received an informal opinion that their presence would violate the judiciary's ethics code. 

Most recently, O'Connor hosted an after-hours reception at the court that was billed as a celebration of Bristol Bay in Alaska. But the featured speakers, other than O'Connor, were opponents of a proposed Alaskan copper and gold mine. They were in Washington to lobby lawmakers and regulators against the proposed Pebble Mine. 

Arthur Hellman, an ethics expert at the University of Pittsburgh law school, said O'Connor should consider stopping her participation in court cases if she "wants to engage in this level of political or politically related activity." 

Partisan-tinged questioning of conduct by high court justices has grown. 

Liberal interest groups have faulted Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas for speaking at a private dinner hosted by Charles Koch, one of two energy-company-owning brothers who, liberal groups say, have too much sway on policymakers. 

Some liberals have called on Thomas to sit out the expected high court fight over the health care law because of his wife's public criticism of the law. Some conservatives say Justice Elena Kagan should not take part in the health care case because of her work in the Obama administration before joining the court. 

O'Connor has traveled the country since her retirement in 2006 to criticize costly election campaigns for state judges, promote enhanced civics education for schoolchildren and advocate for Alzheimer's research. Her husband, John, died in 2009 of complications from Alzheimer's disease. 

Her primary focus has been on judicial independence, which she believes is harmed by electing judges. 

At the same time, she has heard cases on appeal since her retirement. It is not uncommon for retired justices to sit with federal appeals courts from time to time. Justice David Souter, who left the court in 2009, has heard cases with the Boston-based court. 

Through the end of March, O'Connor had written two appellate decisions and joined the majority in a half-dozen others this year. None of the cases involved judicial elections or the fate of the Alaska bay. 

The continuing judicial work allows O'Connor, who earns $213,900, to receive salary increases that are tied to inflation. Judges who stop hearing cases receive a pension equal to their final annual salary as a full-time judge, but are excluded from subsequent cost-of-living increases. 

Last week, O'Connor was the host of a Supreme Court reception "to celebrate the economic, cultural and ecological values of Alaska's Bristol Bay Watershed." 

Opponents of the proposed huge mine near the bay fear it will devastate the world's largest wild sockeye salmon fishery. The Environmental Protection Agency recently said it would study potential effects from the mine. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson attended and briefly spoke at the reception. 

O'Connor declined to answer questions for this story. But the head of the Wild Salmon Center, lead sponsor of the event, said O'Connor's participation came about because of their friendship and her love of fly fishing. 

Guido Rahr, the center's president, said his group hasn't taken a position on the mine and that the speakers were careful to "make sure we were respecting the location" of the reception at the court. 

Rahr said participants mainly "ate yummy salmon treats" and looked at National Geographic photos of the bay. 

But one speaker was a former Alaska state Senate president, Rick Halford, who told reporters the next day that the proposal was a "very, very dangerous kind of mine." 

Supporters of the project made their own visit to Washington a couple of weeks earlier. They were not received at the high court. 

Hellman, the Pittsburgh ethics expert, said he finds the court reception particularly troubling because "we're talking about political activity. It's a lobbying effort and she is lending her considerable prestige to that effort." 

Another ethics professor, Stephen Gillers of New York University, said that if the speeches were not about advocacy, then the event itself probably does not pose an ethical problem for O'Connor. On the other hand, Gillers said it is possible O'Connor would have to step aside from any appellate case involving the groups that sponsored the reception. 

The court hosts 50 to 60 after-hours events a year, many related to the court. Guidelines for use of the building forbid partisan political activity and fundraising, and require a justice to sponsor an event. A cash bar and dancing are not permitted. 

Supreme Court justices are not covered by the ethics rules that apply to all federal judges. Still, justices generally adhere to those rules, Hellman said. 

O'Connor's involvement in last year's ballot issues in Iowa and Nevada also drew a rare rebuke from another federal judge. 

Senior Judge Laurence Silberman of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., said "the issue of whether state court judges should be chosen or ratified by election or solely by appointment is a political issue on which serving federal judges should not publicly advocate, one way or the other." 

Silberman said that unlike the criticism of Scalia and Thomas, which he termed phony issues, O'Connor's advocacy "is a real ethical issue." 

O'Connor took part in a conference in Des Moines, Iowa, in September on the topic of judicial elections. That appearance came during a contentious campaign about whether voters should retain three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of a unanimous court ruling in favor of gay marriage. 

Federal judges in Iowa had been invited to attend by the Iowa State Bar Association, according to Chief Judge Robert Pratt of the Southern District of Iowa 

But Pratt wondered whether their attendance would be improper. 

Lacking the time for a formal opinion from the judiciary's ethics committee, the judge took advantage of a less formal process and called an ethics committee member for his views. 

Pratt said the committee member, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, informally advised the judges to stay away. 

They did, but O'Connor attended and said voters shouldn't punish judges when they disagree with their decisions. In the end, the three justices were ousted.

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article

Critics fault retired Justice O'Connor over ethics

By Mary Altaffer, AP

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor speaks at a law school in New York last April.

EnlargeCloseBy Mary Altaffer, AP

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor speaks at a law school in New York last April.

O'Connor, 81, was forced to apologize for 50,000 recorded telephone calls made to Nevada voters in which she supported a ballot measure to change the way state judges are selected. O'Connor said she did not authorize the calls featuring her recorded voice, much less their post-midnight delivery. But she also defended her involvement in the campaign that included her appearance in a television commercial.

In September, federal judges in Iowa stayed away from a conference on judicial elections at which O'Connor spoke in the midst of another campaign over ballot issues. The judges had received an informal opinion that their presence would violate the judiciary's ethics code.

Most recently, O'Connor hosted an after-hours reception at the court that was billed as a celebration of Bristol Bay in Alaska. But the featured speakers, other than O'Connor, were opponents of a proposed Alaskan copper and gold mine. They were in Washington to lobby lawmakers and regulators against the proposed Pebble Mine.

Arthur Hellman, an ethics expert at the University of Pittsburgh law school, said O'Connor should consider stopping her participation in court cases if she "wants to engage in this level of political or politically related activity."

Partisan-tinged questioning of conduct by high court justices has grown.

Liberal interest groups have faulted Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas for speaking at a private dinner hosted by Charles Koch, one of two energy-company-owning brothers who, liberal groups say, have too much sway on policymakers.

Some liberals have called on Thomas to sit out the expected high court fight over the health care law because of his wife's public criticism of the law. Some conservatives say Justice Elena Kagan should not take part in the health care case because of her work in the Obama administration before joining the court.

O'Connor has traveled the country since her retirement in 2006 to criticize costly election campaigns for state judges, promote enhanced civics education for schoolchildren and advocate for Alzheimer's research. Her husband, John, died in 2009 of complications from Alzheimer's disease.

Her primary focus has been on judicial independence, which she believes is harmed by electing judges.

At the same time, she has heard cases on appeal since her retirement. It is not uncommon for retired justices to sit with federal appeals courts from time to time. Justice David Souter, who left the court in 2009, has heard cases with the Boston-based court.

Through the end of March, O'Connor had written two appellate decisions and joined the majority in a half-dozen others this year. None of the cases involved judicial elections or the fate of the Alaska bay.

The continuing judicial work allows O'Connor, who earns $213,900, to receive salary increases that are tied to inflation. Judges who stop hearing cases receive a pension equal to their final annual salary as a full-time judge, but are excluded from subsequent cost-of-living increases.

Last week, O'Connor was the host of a Supreme Court reception "to celebrate the economic, cultural and ecological values of Alaska's Bristol Bay Watershed."

Opponents of the proposed huge mine near the bay fear it will devastate the world's largest wild sockeye salmon fishery. The Environmental Protection Agency recently said it would study potential effects from the mine. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson attended and briefly spoke at the reception.

O'Connor declined to answer questions for this story. But the head of the Wild Salmon Center, lead sponsor of the event, said O'Connor's participation came about because of their friendship and her love of fly fishing.

Guido Rahr, the center's president, said his group hasn't taken a position on the mine and that the speakers were careful to "make sure we were respecting the location" of the reception at the court.

Rahr said participants mainly "ate yummy salmon treats" and looked at National Geographic photos of the bay.

But one speaker was a former Alaska state Senate president, Rick Halford, who told reporters the next day that the proposal was a "very, very dangerous kind of mine."

Supporters of the project made their own visit to Washington a couple of weeks earlier. They were not received at the high court.

Hellman, the Pittsburgh ethics expert, said he finds the court reception particularly troubling because "we're talking about political activity. It's a lobbying effort and she is lending her considerable prestige to that effort."

Another ethics professor, Stephen Gillers of New York University, said that if the speeches were not about advocacy, then the event itself probably does not pose an ethical problem for O'Connor. On the other hand, Gillers said it is possible O'Connor would have to step aside from any appellate case involving the groups that sponsored the reception.

The court hosts 50 to 60 after-hours events a year, many related to the court. Guidelines for use of the building forbid partisan political activity and fundraising, and require a justice to sponsor an event. A cash bar and dancing are not permitted.

Supreme Court justices are not covered by the ethics rules that apply to all federal judges. Still, justices generally adhere to those rules, Hellman said.

O'Connor's involvement in last year's ballot issues in Iowa and Nevada also drew a rare rebuke from another federal judge.

Senior Judge Laurence Silberman of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., said "the issue of whether state court judges should be chosen or ratified by election or solely by appointment is a political issue on which serving federal judges should not publicly advocate, one way or the other."

Silberman said that unlike the criticism of Scalia and Thomas, which he termed phony issues, O'Connor's advocacy "is a real ethical issue."

O'Connor took part in a conference in Des Moines, in September on the topic of judicial elections. That appearance came during a contentious campaign about whether voters should retain three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of a unanimous court ruling in favor of gay marriage.

Federal judges in Iowa had been invited to attend by the Iowa State Bar Association, according to Chief Judge Robert Pratt of the Southern District of Iowa

But Pratt wondered whether their attendance would be improper.

Lacking the time for a formal opinion from the judiciary's ethics committee, the judge took advantage of a less formal process and called an ethics committee member for his views.

Pratt said the committee member, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, informally advised the judges to stay away.

They did, but O'Connor attended and said voters shouldn't punish judges when they disagree with their decisions. In the end, the three justices were ousted.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters

View the Original article

Dems Furious After Vote Change Gives Lead to Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice

AP

April 5: Supporters for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg cheer while watch election results in Madison, Wis.

Democrats in Wisconsin were crying foul Friday after a significant vote-count change in the hotly contested Supreme Court election gave the conservative incumbent the lead in a race that could decide the fate of the state's new divisive collective bargaining law.

Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus said it was "human error" that resulted in more than 14,000 votes from her predominantly GOP county not being reported on Tuesday. The corrected totals gave conservative Justice David Prosser a 7,500-vote lead, according to unofficial tallies, and undid the earlier likelihood of a recount. 

Rep. Peter Barca, Democratic Assembly minority leader, said Nickolaus' revelation "raises disturbing questions, particularly in light of her partisan history."

"The new Supreme Court race vote totals she 'discovered' during canvassing not only swung the election but also put the race just barely past the amount needed to trigger a state-financed recount," he said in a statement.

"It doesn't instill confidence in her competence or integrity," he said, adding that the mistake could warrant an investigation.

Liberal groups also howled in protest.

"There is a history of secrecy and partisanship surrounding the Waukesha county clerk and there remain unanswered questions," Scot Ross, director of the liberal group One Wisconsin Now, said in a statement.

But Republican state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald told Fox News he believes Nickolaus made a mistake. 

"The canvas process in Wisconsin is pretty routine after an election happens," he said, "and, in the many that I have been involved in over the years, certainly there are changes to the vote totals that come in on election night."

Fitzgerald noted that Grant County had added more than 100 votes for challenger JoAnne Kloppenberg after the initial count.

Prosser had faced a surprisingly strong challenge from Kloppenburg, a little-known assistant state attorney general who drew last-minute support -- and significant get-out-the-vote efforts -- from opponents of Gov. Scott Walker's push to limit union power as part of a budget-balancing plan.

"I like to think that I have survived a nuclear firestorm of criticism and attack and smear," Prosser told Fox News Thursday night. "As far as I'm concerned, if these results hold up, I will be the winner."

Prosser added that he is waiting out the process.

"I'm not conceding, and I'm not congratulating. And I'm not claiming victory," he said.

Prosser said the race should not be considered a referendum on Walker or any legislation that may end up at the court.

The fate of that law, which is facing legal challenges, could end up before the state Supreme Court, where Prosser or Kloppenberg could tip the balance. On Thursday, the state attorney general sought expedited review from the state's high court.

Opponents of the law had hoped a Kloppenburg victory would set the stage for the high court to strike it down.

Fitzgerald said he didn't want to predict the outcome of  the law regardless of who's in the justice's seat, but he would be pleased if Prosser held the post.

"I wouldn't want to make any presumptions on what the Supreme Court might do. But, certainly, I think, you know, having Justice Prosser there, I think he has been a strong voice for the law, and a strong voice for Wisconsin for many, many years, and, I obviously, I'm certainly hopeful that the vote totals hold up for Justice Prosser, after the canvas is completed," he said.

Nickolaus apologized Thursday for the error, saying the most significant error occurred when she entered but did not save totals from the city of Brookfield, a suburb of Milwaukee.

"This is not a case of extra votes or extra ballots being found," Nickolaus said. "This is human error, which I apologize for."

Kloppenburg's campaign manager, Melissa Mulliken, demanded a full explanation of how the error occurred and said an open records request for all relevant documents would be filed.

Ramona Kitzinger, the vice chair of Waukesha County Democratic party who observed the canvass, said she is satisfied the numbers are now correct.

"We went over everything and made sure all the numbers jibed up and they did," she said.

The Government Accountability Board, which is in charge of overseeing Wisconsin's elections, will review Waukesha County's numbers to verify the totals, said agency director Kevin Kennedy.

Kennedy said it was unfortunate the clerk didn't double-check the data before releasing it to the media. Kennedy also said such mistakes are known to happen but that "we just don't see them of this magnitude."

Nickolaus has faced criticism before for her handling of elections and previously worked 13 years for a state GOP caucus that was controlled by Prosser when he was Assembly speaker in 1995 and 1996. She was given immunity from prosecution in a 2002 criminal investigation into illegal activity by members of the caucus where she worked as a data analyst and computer specialist.

The corruption probe took down five legislative leaders, all of whom reached plea deals. Nickolaus resigned from her state job in 2002 just before launching her county clerk campaign.

Nickolaus also has been criticized by the Waukesha County Board for her handling of past elections and lack of oversight in her operations.

An audit of Nickolaus' handling of the 2010 election found she needed to take steps to improve security and backup procedures, including not sharing passwords. The audit was requested after the county's director of administration said Nickolaus had been uncooperative with attempts to have county experts review her systems and confirm backups were in place.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article

Data error gives Wis. justice big lead over challenger

An apparent inputting error discovered in one Wisconsin county has resulted in Supreme Court Justice David Prosser gaining a 7,582-vote lead over challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg, who Wednesday was unofficially ahead by 204 votes.

Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus apologized today for error, explaining how 14,000 votes were not reported to the Associated Press, the unofficial source for election results. She explained that she had imported vote totals transmitted by the city of Brookfield but apparently had not saved the data. The mistake was caught during the vote canvass.

She said the mistake occurred on the "day-to-day system" she uses in her office and has "nothing to do with the election software or system at all," the Wisconsin State Journal  says.

"The purpose of the canvass is to catch these kind of mistakes," Nickolaus said, calling it "common in this process."

"This is not a case of extra votes or extra ballots being found," Nickolaus said. "This is human error, which I apologize for."

Prosser and Kloppenburg, an assistant state attorney general, each gained and lost votes during the day's review. But nothing came close to the reversal of fortune in Waukesha, which could prove to be decisive.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and WisPolitics have more on the day's stunning turnaround.

Nickolaus has been at center of two other election-related cases, the AP notes.

Last year, county officials raised objections to her practice of storing election data off the county's computer network, instead keeping it on computers in her office, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

The practice prevented the county's information technology specialists from verifying that the system was secure from failing, the county's director of administration said at the time. Auditors later recommended that Nickolaus improve security and backup procedures.

In 2001, Nickolaus was granted immunity to testify about her role as a computer analyst for the Assembly Republican Caucus, then under investigation - along with the Senate Republican Caucus and the Democratic caucuses for both houses - for using state resources to secretly run campaigns.

See photos of: WisconsinTags:WisconsinJoAnne Kloppenburg .div-wrapper

View the Original article

Justice could be near for California woman held 18 years

AP

Phillip Garrido, who faces multiple charges for the 1991 kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard, smiles at his wife, Nancy, as she leaves the courtroom in Placerville, Calif., on March 17.

EnlargeCloseAP

Phillip Garrido, who faces multiple charges for the 1991 kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard, smiles at his wife, Nancy, as she leaves the courtroom in Placerville, Calif., on March 17.

Defendant Phillip Garrido, a convicted rapist on parole when 11-year-old Jaycee Dugard disappeared while walking to a school bus stop, was expected to plead guilty Thursday as part of a plea deal that would keep him in prison for the rest of his life, attorney Stephen Tapson said.

The agreement was outlined last week during a closed-door meeting that Tapson said he attended with prosecutors, the public defender representing Garrido and the judge presiding over the highly publicized case.

"He is going to plead unless somebody gets ill or the power goes off in the courthouse," said Tapson, who represents Garrido's wife and co-defendant Nancy Garrido.

Deputy Public Defender Susan Gellman, who represents Phillip Garrido, and El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson declined to confirm a guilty plea would be entered.

The case attracted international attention after Dugard surfaced in August 2009 and authorities said she and her children had lived in a hidden compound of tents and sheds in the Garridos' backyard in Antioch, never attending school or receiving medical attention.

Phillip and Nancy Garrido were both charged with 18 counts of kidnapping, rape, false imprisonment, child pornography and committing lewd acts on a child.

If convicted on all counts, the maximum sentence for Nancy Garrido would be 181 years, while Phillip Garrido could get 431 years, according to El Dorado County Deputy District Attorney James Clinchard.

Nancy Garrido has pleaded not guilty in the case. Phillip Garrido has yet to enter a plea after his criminal proceedings were halted for more than four months while his mental competency to stand trial was under evaluation.

Both defendants gave full confessions to authorities and expressed interest in plea bargains that would spare Dugard and her two daughters — now 13 and 16 — from having to testify, Tapson said.

He said he has advised Nancy Garrido against pleading guilty unless prosecutors offer a deal that holds the possibility — however remote — that she would one day be freed from prison.

"She doesn't want to go to trial," he said. "This is her lawyer saying let's set it for trial and see what happens."

Tapson planned to ask El Dorado Superior Court Judge Douglas Phimister to dismiss the rape and lewd conduct charges against his client, since Nancy Garrido maintains she did not directly participate in any sex acts with Dugard.

Dugard gave birth to her daughters when she was 14 and 17, and Nancy Garrido delivered the children, according to court documents. The girls knew Phillip Garrido was their father but grew up thinking Dugard was their older sister.

The mother and daughters rarely interacted with the outside world. Phillip Garrido ran a printing business, and Dugard assisted him in producing business cards, brochures and flyers, occasionally interacting with clients through email.

A few neighbors and customers would later report having seen the girls but not thinking much of it, even though they knew Garrido was a sex offender.

Authorities said Dugard was grabbed by Nancy Garrido off her family's South Lake Tahoe street and forced into a car driven by Phillip Garrido on June 10, 1991, as her stepfather watched her walk to the school bus stop.

The FBI, police and volunteers searched in vain for the pretty blonde girl who was last seen wearing a pink wind breaker and pink stretch pants. But they never came close to finding her, even though Dugard's stepfather gave an accurate description of the couple's car and of Nancy Garrido, and despite the fact that Phillip Garrido was being monitored by federal and state parole agents because of his rape conviction.

Dugard's reappearance 18 years, four months and 16 days later came about almost as a fluke.

In the days before his arrest, Phillip Garrido had become more determined to tell people about the religious group he founded called God's Desire and a box he had built that he believed allowed him to speak with God. During that time, he delivered a handwritten screed called "Origin of Schizophrenia Revealed" to the FBI's San Francisco office.

But it was a visit to the University of California, Berkeley, that same day that caused his ragged family to unravel. He showed up at campus with his daughters with Dugard in tow, seeking a permit for a religious event.

Campus police officers became suspicious, and after running a background check realized he had been convicted of kidnapping and raping a woman in Reno in 1977.

The Berkeley officers contacted Garrido's parole officer, who was surprised to hear that he had young daughters and ordered him to come in for a meeting. Garrido complied and for a still unknown reason brought his wife, the girls and Dugard.

Dugard tried to conceal her identity, initially telling authorities she was hiding from an abusive husband in Minnesota and giving her name as Alyssa.

Wary investigators separated her from Phillip Garrido, who had described Dugard and the two girls as his nieces, and under further questioning he admitted kidnapping "Alyssa" and Dugard disclosed her identity, authorities said.

She was reunited with her mother the next day and has remained in Northern California with her and her daughters. She requested privacy and has not attended any of the court hearings. She is writing her memoirs, which are scheduled to be published in September.

The Associated Press as a matter of policy avoids identifying victims of sexual abuse by name in its news reports

However, Dugard's disappearance had been known and reported for nearly two decades, making impossible any effort to shield her identity when she resurfaced.

Dugard's case revealed problems with California's system for monitoring convicted sex offenders after it was determined parole agents had missed numerous clues and chances to find her.

She received a $20 million settlement under which the state acknowledged repeated mistakes were made by parole agents responsible for monitoring Phillip Garrido. California has since increased monitoring of sex offenders.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters

View the Original article

Obama Justice Department Appeals Judge's Health Care Ruling

AP

Attorney General Eric Holder speaks during a news conference in Washington March 9.

ATLANTA -- The Obama administration has appealed a judge's ruling that found the federal overhaul of the health care system unconstitutional. 

The Justice Department filed a 62-page motion Friday to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that said there's clear and well-established precedent that Congress acted within its authority in adopting the overhaul. It said Congress mad "detailed findings establishing a foundation" for exercising the authority. 

Florida and 25 other states filed the lawsuit that said Congress exceeded its authority by requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed in a Jan. 31 ruling that said Obama's entire health care overhaul is unconstitutional. It is considered the most sweeping ruling against the health care law. 

Some states, including Alaska, have cited the decision in refusing to cooperate with the health care law. But Vinson issued another ruling last week ordering states to continue implementing the law while the case makes its way through the courts. 

Either way, the broad challenge seems certain to be resolved only by the Supreme Court. Two other U.S. district judges have previously upheld the law, both Democratic appointees to the federal bench. 

Vinson's rulings have found that lawmakers do not have the power to penalize citizens for not doing something. But he has acknowledged that the 11th Circuit could disagree with him. 

"It is likely that the Court of Appeals will also reach divergent results and that, as most court-watchers predict, the Supreme Court may eventually be split on this issue as well," he wrote in the March 3 ruling. 

Other states that joined Florida in filing the lawsuit were: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article