Why is she sounding so tough on Iran?
Sen. Hillary Clinton sounded the warning this week: Iran should never use nuclear weapons against Israel if it wants to survive.
She doesn't support missile defense or the war on terror. But Hillary Clinton pledges to defend Israel with nukes. In a tight race for the presidency, she's learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
As we've repeatedly noted, Sen. Clinton has vigorously opposed development of defensive systems that would let us shoot down Iranian missiles before they reach their targets. She has voted to slash budget requests for missile defense and has slammed Bush for "focusing obsessively on expensive and unproven missile defense technology."
If we were to attack Iran as Clinton pledges, wouldn't it be better to do it pre-emptively, using conventional weapons, as Israel did when it sent a squadron of F-16s to destroy Iraq's French-built Osirak nuclear reactor before it could go live and begin producing weapons-grade nuclear material? Wouldn't it be better to do so before Iran has the capability to launch nuclear-tipped Shahab missiles in the direction of Tel Aviv and Haifa?
Shouldn't it be before Iran has the ability to strike European and American targets? That's what Bush's plan for missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic are designed to defend against.
On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran--which doesn't have nuclear weapons--on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to "totally obliterate them," in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Clearly the heat of a campaign is not the proper setting for consideration of a response to a threat from a nation that is a long way from developing nuclear weapons. Obviously the danger of Iran's developing such weapons can be met with a range of alternatives, from the diplomatic to the military, that do not involve genocide and at any rate must be considered in moral and not solely political terms. Or is it base political ambition that would guide Clinton if she received that middle-of-the-night phone call?
Stones form a cross where Matthew Shepard, a young gay man from Laramie, Wyo., was found murdered in 1999. Shepard's death sparked a national outcry for stronger hate crime laws.
Expanding federal hate crimes laws has been on the Democratic agenda for years now. On Tuesday, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., introduced legislation in a major defense policy bill to extend U.S. hate crime laws to cover gays and lesbians.
Hate crimes "are different" from other crimes: That was the argument for hate-crimes laws that Al Gore made during the 2000 campaign, and it is the argument that we are going to hear again this week, as Congress takes up federal legislation on the subject. Crimes motivated by hostility to the victim’s race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation are said to be different chiefly because they, supposedly, instill fear in entire communities and generate social division.
Even if this generalization is true -- and it is not obvious that it is -- it should not end our thought about hate. There is no evidence that adding hate-crimes laws on top of regular criminal laws does anything to deter these acts. Nor is there any evidence that federal action is needed. Most states already have hate-crimes laws; the federal government has a hate-crimes law that applies to victims who were engaged in federally protected activities, such as holding rallies.
The proposed legislation would allow the federal government to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, whether or not federally protected activities were involved, and to assist local law enforcement in fighting them. But there is no evidence that local law enforcement has a special need for federal resources to help it combat hate crimes.
Hate crimes terrorize entire communities. When Matthew Shepard died in 1998, thousands of gay men and lesbians across the country were reminded that their sexuality made them vulnerable to horrific violence. Criminal offenses against people of color, gays, lesbians, people with disabilities, and other minority groups often target individuals, but they create insecurity and anxiety in local communities and vulnerable groups nationwide.
Gays and lesbians are increasingly in the public spotlight due to the marriage equality debate, and the number of hate crimes against them has spiked in some parts of the country. Individuals with non-traditional gender identities also continue to be targets of brutal violence nationwide. Yet federal prosecutors do not have legal authority to intervene in cases of violence based on bias toward transgender individuals at all, and law does not require the FBI to even collect statistics on such cases. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would take a needed step to protect transgender Americans by allowing the FBI to gather statistics about the number of crimes motivated by bias against an individual’s gender identity and also to investigate and prosecute these crimes.
What will the Supreme Court decide?
The Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to cross-examine witnesses against them. But what if the crime is murder -- and the witness is the murder victim? The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments over whether juries should hear testimony of dead witnesses in such cases.
In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Supreme Court dramatically changed its conception of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The effects on criminal prosecutions will likely be very significant. Justice Scalia's opinion for seven justices in Crawford narrows the focus of the Confrontation Clause to statements that are considered "testimonial," but as to these the demand of the Clause is unequivocal: The statement cannot be admitted against an accused, no matter how reliable a court might consider it to be, unless the defendant has had an opportunity to examine the maker of the statement.
Prosecutors afraid that witnesses who have made favorable statements may not be available to testify at trial should no longer prepare to argue that the statements are reliable. Instead, they should arrange an early opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine.
For example, what are the consequences with respect to the admissibility of statements made in 911 calls, some of which seem more designed to create evidence than to secure immediate assistance? Should routine laboratory reports made in contemplation of prosecution be inadmissible if the technician does not testify? Shall statements to private persons, made in circumstances suggesting likely transmittal to the authorities, be considered testimonial? In what circumstances should a court find that an accused has forfeited the confrontation right, as by killing or intimidating the witness? The last two questions are particularly significant with respect to children, as are others: Shall some child declarants be considered at too early a stage of development, either cognitively or morally, to be considered witnesses?
Nancy Lemon, DVP director, co-wrote an amici curiae brief submitted on March 26, and the Court will hear oral arguments on April 22.
"We argue that the Constitution does not protect defendants from the consequences of their own wrongful acts,” says Lemon, who has specialized in domestic violence issues since graduating from Boalt in 1980. "If a defendant's willful conduct causes the witness's unavailability he forfeits his confrontation right, making prior statements by the witness admissible.”
After Giles appealed, Lemon and Timna Sites '06 co-wrote an amicus curiae brief to the California Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision and said Giles waived his confrontation right by directly causing Avie's absence. The court invoked the "Rule of Forfeiture," which holds that people forfeit their right to confront a witness if their wrongful actions prevented that witness from testifying. As a result, hearsay testimony from the absent witness can be admissible at trial.
The hope among domestic violence groups is that the Court agreed to hear Giles to clarify that the Sixth Amendment does not exclude victim testimony if witness unavailability was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.
"For years we've been urging prosecutors to treat domestic violence cases like homicide cases and to assume they won't have a victim to testify,” Lemon says. "Prosecutors were making good progress on how to use the Rule of Forfeiture, and I fear we'll have fewer prosecutions if Giles is reversed. It's a crucial decision for domestic violence victims and also for abused children who often are afraid to testify in
