Justice

Can DNA Falsely Convict You? The Chances Are Higher Than You Think

Bill Egnor — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:10:24 -0600

Let’s do a thought experiment; you are at home and there is a knock at the door. You open it and there is a police detective there. He wants to question you about a murder from thirty-one years ago. You know you never murdered anyone, so you consent. Then the detective tells you that your DNA was matched to a sample from the crime scene, would you be worried? You should be.

Originally posted at Squarestate.net

The little scenario is exactly what happened to John Puckett. Michael Bobelian has a story in Washington Monthly with the details. In 1972 a nurse by the name of Diana Sylvester was sexually assaulted and murdered. There was an eyewitness who gave a very general description but the case never really went anywhere and relegated to cold case status.

In 2003 a slide with sperm taken from the victims mouth was unearthed and DNA tested. Thirty one years is a long time for DNA to stay viable and the sample was degraded. It produced only five and half of the markers called loci that allow identification of individuals. To have a 100% identification, you need 13, California requires a minimum of seven,. However this sample was run through their criminal database anyway. It produced a match, Mr. Puckett.

There are a lot of problems with this. First off, DNA is not the slam dunk that TV and exoneration's of some death row inmates make it seem. If you have all 13 of the makers there is almost no chance of a false identification. However as you get less and less markers the chances rise, steeply. From the article:

Barlow’s main point of contention was statistics. Typically, law enforcement and prosecutors rely on FBI estimates for the rarity of a given DNA profile—a figure can be as remote as one in many trillions when investigators have all thirteen markers to work with. In Puckett’s case, where there were only five and a half markers available, the San Francisco crime lab put the figure at one in 1.1 million—still remote enough to erase any reasonable doubt of his guilt. The problem is that, according to most scientists, this statistic is only relevant when DNA material is used to link a crime directly to a suspect identified through eyewitness testimony or other evidence. In cases where a suspect is found by searching through large databases, the chances of accidentally hitting on the wrong person are orders of magnitude higher.

The reasons for this aren’t difficult to grasp: consider what happens when you take a DNA profile that has a rarity of one in a million and run it through a database that contains a million people; chances are you’ll get a coincidental match. Given this fact, the two leading scientific bodies that have studied the issue—the National Research Council and the FBI’s DNA advisory board—have recommended that law enforcement and prosecutors calculate the probability of a coincidental match differently in cold-hit cases. In particular, they recommend multiplying the FBI’s rarity statistic by the number of profiles in the database, to arrive at a figure known as the Database Match Probability. When this formula is applied to Puckett’s case (where a profile with a rarity of one in 1.1 million was run through a database of 338,000 offenders) the chances of a coincidental match climb to one in three.

Think about that for a second. You are a convicted felon of some kind. Your DNA is in the States database. If they run an seven loci sample through the database, you have a one in three chance of matching the profile. This could lead to your arrest or conviction for a crime that you did not commit.

Now, you might be feeling pretty good about our justice system and think that you will be able to introduce the information about coincidental matches and let the jury sort out your innocence. That is probably a mistake too. Mr. Puckett’s attorney, Bicka Barlow, has a masters degree in genetics and molecular biology from Cornell. She is what you would call an expert on this very area of science. For all of that she was unable to get the judge to admit any evidence of coincidental matching.

Part of the reason is that the FBI does not want to allow this type of information to get into courts. They like the aura of infallibility that DNA evidence has.

Rather than try to sort out the disparities between its numbers and database findings, the FBI has fought to keep this information under wraps. After Barlow subpoenaed the Arizona database searches, the agency sent the state’s Department of Public Safety a cease-and-desist letter, warning that its conduct was "under review." Eventually, the Arizona attorney general obtained a court order to block Barlow’s distribution of the findings. In other instances, the FBI has threatened to revoke access to the bureau’s master DNA database if states make the contents of their systems available to defense teams or academics. Agency officials argue they have done so because granting access would violate the privacy of the offenders (although researchers generally request anonymous DNA profiles with no names attached) and tie up the FBI’s computers, impeding investigations. These justifications baffle researchers. In the December 2009 issue of the journal Science, dozens of biologists, geneticists, and forensic experts urged the FBI to change its secretive policy, saying that there was no way that allowing a handful of researchers to run database searches, each of which takes only a few minutes, would hamper investigations. They also dismissed the agency’s privacy concerns, saying, "The government frequently releases sensitive information under controlled conditions to verified researchers." Krane of Wright State University, who was the letter’s lead author, believes the real reason the FBI has blocked access is to avoid revealing the shortcomings in its own system. "Analysis of the offender database is sure to expose the misconceptions and errors in the method the FBI used to arrive at its rarity statistics," he told me.

In the end Mr. Puckett was convicted. There was almost no other evidence, since the case was 31 years old. The jury never heard the 1 in 3 statistic but was told the FBI’s 1 in 1.1 million statistic. Interviews with the jury afterwords showed this piece of information was decisive.

It seems pretty clear that an innocent man was convicted of a crime he did not commit. This is not very likely to be the last time. The FBI is pushing the expansion of DNA databases. They are taking DNA from all immigrants. States like California are now collecting and storing DNA from everyone arrested for a felony, whether they are convicted or not. With the expansion of the databases the chances for false matches on cold cases just goes up.

Unless the Courts start allowing juries to hear about the problems with cold DNA matches there will be more and more people like Mr. Puckett, arrested, tried and convicted for crimes that they did not commit, based on DNA evidence.

Torture Accountability Letter 5 - How Can There Be Justice For KSM?

Bill Egnor — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:46:44 -0600

Happy Monday and welcome to the Dog’s letter writing campaign for torture accountability. This series is a small attempt to assure the issue of accountability under the law for the apparent Bush administration torture program is not forgotten by those responsible for the investigation and prosecution of such acts. The way this series works is as follows; every Monday the Dog writes a letter to one of the decision makers involved and send copies to the rest. You get involved by either cutting and pasting the letter over your own signature or buy using it as inspiration for your own letter. The Dog even provides the e-mail links and where we are writing members of Congress who use filter the way to get past the filters.

Originally posted at Squarestate.net

This week we will be writing the Attorney General (the fact is he is the sole person who can start and follow through with investigations) with copies to the President, Speaker of the House Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, Judiciary Chairs Leahy and Conyers and Rep. Jerry Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee.

This week’s letter:

Dear Attorney General Holder;

I write you today, as I do most Monday’s to urge you to take the robust action that is needed in regard to the apparent crimes of torture and conspiracy to commit torture which high ranking members of the Bush Administration have admitted to participating in.

It is an on-going shame that the Department of Justice has failed to follow a clear set of crimes, the planning and commission of which have been admitted to in sworn testimony. Further it undermines the actions that the President and the DoJ are taking in regard to Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

I am quite happy with the insistence on a trial for Mr. Mohammed in Federal Court. This is in the best traditions of American law. More over it is the right thing to do both legally and morally.

However, it is impossible for me to see how we can insist on a trial for Mr. Mohammed when we will not even fully investigate the circumstances of his torture. I am aware that you have appointed AUSA John Durham to investigate anyone that exceeded the specious boundaries of the Yoo and Bybee memos. However, you have failed, to date, to investigate those who ordered the torture itself. This failure makes the trail of Mr. Mohammed and anyone else who credibly claims to have been tortured at the orders of the Bush Administration a mockery of justice.

You have said yourself that Mr. Mohammed will face the full penalty of the law, up to and including execution, if he is found guilty of participation in the 9/11 plot as well as other acts of terrorism. This is as it should be, but isn’t it more than a little hypocritical to talk of executing a man for war crimes he planned and ordered when we will not even start a full investigation of war crimes planned and ordered by officials of the United States Government?

The idea of justice is, at the core, one of impartiality. If there are special rules for the powerful, if laws can be broken and the acts admitted to publicly without cost for the powerful, there is no justice. No bank robber or drug dealer or murderer can admit to their crimes and expect to be shielded from investigation or prosecution. Why is it that the members of the Bush Administration are allowed to do so?

The need to show the world that we have a fair system of justice and will apply it fairly is the root of bringing Mr. Mohammed to trial in Federal Court, in the United States. However it will mean little if we do not also, at the very least, make the attempt to do so to those who tortured him and who ordered him tortured.

Attorney General Holder, this is your choice. You have the power to appoint a Special Prosecutor to fully investigate the allegations of torture. You can assure that when we try Mr. Mohammed and either hold him for the rest of his life or execute him; the United States can say that our system of justice is fair and uniformly applied, or you can do nothing and have doubt as to the fairness of our system follow this trial forever. The choice is and has been yours.

Make the right choice Mr. Holder. History and the world are watching.

Regards,

cc: President Obama
Speaker Pelosi
Majority Leader Reid
Senate Judiciary Chair Leahy
House Judiciary Chair Conyers
Rep. Jerry Nadler

Here are the links you will need to send your letters:

AG Holder, can be reached at AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. Be sure to put Attention then his name in the subject line.

The White House, Attention President Obama
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Majority Leader Harry Reid
Rep John Conyers - Judiciary Committee Chair
Chairman Leahy
Representative Jerry Nadler
(to get past Rep. Nadler's filter use Zip Code 11224-4561 and the address of 445 Neptune Ave, Brooklyn, NY)

Now it is all up to you. The Dog has made it as easy as he can, but in the end it will be your choice and about five minutes of your time that will make the difference. Will you act? History and the world await your choice as well.

The floor is yours.

Your Town Can Demand Justice More Powerfully Than You Can

davidswanson — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:11:58 -0500

By David Swanson

Most city council members take oaths to defend the Constitution. The Constitution makes the rights and standards in its amendments and in international treaties the supreme law of the land. Our nation has a rich tradition of local governments lobbying state and national governments through the passage of resolutions. Under Clause 3, Rule XII, Section 819, of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives local governments may petition Congress. Under the First Amendment, we all can.

Just in recent years, on issues of peace and justice, hundreds of cities have passed resolutions in favor of peace, diplomacy, restraint from launching wars, and the cessation of wars in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, including 287 cities, 4 counties, and 17 states on Iraq alone. Through this and many other means, we have thus far prevented an attack on Iran, and we've won over a majority of the country to support ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- which we will eventually end if we keep up the struggle.

Over 100 cities passed resolutions urging the impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney. They have yet to be impeached, but an impeachment push drove Alberto Gonzales out of town, may yet nail Jay Bybee and bring down the whole criminal power structure, and has solidly laid the groundwork for prosecutions. In fact, three cities have already passed ordinances committing their police to arresting Bush or Cheney should they dare to visit. I strongly recommend that your town do the same, as well as publicly backing the impeachment of torture-memo author Jay Bybee.

Meanwhile, Berkeley, Calif., has now joined United Nations human rights treaties that are not supported or complied with by the United States as a whole. And Amherst, Mass., may invite released Guantanamo victims to settle within its welcoming borders.

Perhaps most impressively, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) has led a campaign that has seen 414 local, county, and state resolutions passed defending our civil rights against abuses in the PATRIOT Act, and committing local police to noncooperation with federal violations of rights that were created by the U.S. Constitution.

Now the BORDC is launching a campaign to pass a pair of new ordinances, which I cannot recommend more strongly. These are powerful tools for restoring the rule of law and defending our civil rights. Passage of resolutions by towns often leads to their passage by states and to support for their substance by congress members, as well as to public education and a shift in media discourse.

The first model resolution offered by BORDC (which you can alter to suit local needs) limits local law enforcement efforts in support of federal warrantless spying. Of course, local and state police, as Americans, are required to comply with the Fourth Amendment anyway. But what happens when the feds say otherwise? This explicit legislation backs up those who take a stand.

The second model resolution is even more important. It places your town on record supporting federal and requiring local criminal investigations into torture. It includes an optional clause requiring the arrest of accused torturers as in the three ordinances noted above.

A third resolution that I can imagine but have not drafted would be modeled on this torture accountability resolution and require a criminal investigation of warrantless spying, which is not only unconstitutional but also illegal under state law in most states.

While we understand that there is strength in numbers in the abstract, too seldom do we employ that power through our levels of government from the smallest and most democratic up to the largest and most corrupt. Together, our towns can save our country, if we force our local representatives to take action.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book.

Morning Joe Defends Bush/Torture. The GOP is scared, and for good reason

MinistryOfTruth — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:45:25 -0500

Memo: Attach Bush to torture = make them defend both.

Though Morning Joe doesn't say Bush's name, I think we should, and Democrats will use this to pursue justice and Destroy the GOP. I consider it a great instance of killing two birds with one stone.

Republicans will say this will damage the President's popularity in polls, they will justify and lie and say anything to avoid owning this issue, but the fact is that the law was broken, and I believe this is the beginning of a well timed plan to get the ball rolling now, and then use it against the GOP for maximum effect.

More below the fold, and a call to action . . .

Q: Is sleep deprivation legal or covered under the Geneva Conventions?

Morning Shmo: Uh, yes. Every country has used sleep deprivation, my god, for a thousand years.

My God, indeed. Morning Shmo needs to read less Republican talking points, and more of the Geneva Convention.

“Torture lite” is still torture. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has ruled that sleep deprivation “may in some cases constitute torture.” The United States itself has also declared sleep deprivation to be a form of torture, as exemplified in the 2001 U.S. State Department report on Turkey, Israel, and Jordan that lists sleep deprivation among alleged torture techniques.

crimesofwar.org

Republicans are scared, scared shitless. If this investigation was a certain whitewash they wouldn't be defending it, the GOP would not have sent 9 GOP Senators to beg mercy of AG Eric Holder, they would be dismissing it and moving on to their next scare tactic.

But the GOP knows, as I know, how this can be used to destroy them. After 8 years of watching the rats running for cover, I have figured out which holes they run for first.

Morning Shmo: "Remember what happened with whitewater? "

~snip~

"These things expand"

Excuses, excuses.

The GOP and their enablers in the media will tell you that the American public is comfortable with sleep deprivation, torture and other war crimes, as if that somehow makes it legal and okay.

They are scared. Scared of accountability. Scared of having 8 years of criminal behavior by the last Republican Administration dragged into the news cycle on a daily basis. Scared of having to make the choice to defend or disown the Bush Administration. They know it is a losing fight for them either way, and they are scared, and for good reason.

I considered this yesterday at docudharma after learning of AG Holder's decision to name a Special Prosecutor, and I believe the ball has been set into motion, and that ball will roll uphill, all the way to the top.

The main issue here is timing. Why would they waste this story now, if they weren't going to build it up into more later? I suspect that this is exactly and what AG Holder is doing is starting slow now when it is the end of a slow news month in order to build a case that goes all the way to the top.

First of all, I believe that the Republican party is quietly shitting themselves over this. Their concerns give me hope. their fear gives me joy. The fact that already Joe Libereman and other prominent Republicans are already squirming on camera should point out how real this is.

More to the point, I am seeing a pattern in how Obama's administration operates. They start small, and then they hit you. While we fret over the waiting, they are getting ready to nail these people. If the nailing never happens I will be proven wrong, and I will be the Loudest to Yell my head off. Until then, I keep hope alive, and can see the upside to these things.

You see, if Obama lets Holder go after Yoo and Bybee now, it derails everything else, but, if we start with no names low level operatives and let the pressure and evidence build up, we can time the Bigger Investigations to coincide with upcoming elections, and, though that shouldn't be the point, I will gladly take it if that is how they will do it.

Never let a disaster go to waste, eh?

I firmly believe the Obama Administration and their advisors (Axelrod, Rahm, etc) will use a long, drawn out investigation that eventually leads to Bush and Cheney themselves as a way to run against Bush/Cheney in 2010 and 2012, putting the GOP on the defensive and forcing them to defend the most unpopular American Presidency since Nixon/Agnew.

This is one of those odd instances when doing the right thing in accordance with the rule of law and doing somethinng politically advantageous converge. Truly, politics makes strange bedfellows.

Some will call this beginning step too limited, and while I agree, I can envision an expanded investigation that leads higher and higher up the Bush/Cheney chain of command as more and more evidence builds up.

Further, I see the plan to get low level CIA operatives to implicate their superiors, which itself will snowball farther up the line. This is how, if I am correct, most RICO cases are built in order to prosecute organized crime. The irony is quite delicious.

Politically, this will allow President Obama to play good cop to AG Holder's bad cop, as Obama reiterates the independance of the AG's office, which is as it should be before that office was politicized by the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate Administration.

But, the fact is that Cheney's fingerprints are all over this scandal and these crimes, and it is very much in the political interests of the Democratic party to be able to drag Bush/Cheney's crimes into the spotlight, all while claiming the desire to "look forward"

This will force voters to choose between the Democratic party or another version of Bush/Cheney's Republican party, which, in my opinion, the GOP today is still to this day.

So, the GOP will cry, lie, twist the truth, demonize, play the victim, call it a witch hunt, call us fascists, whatever. It is nothing we haven't seen before, so we should not be surprised.

But they are scared, very scared, and for good reason.

If they were not afraid, that would be a reason for concern.

But they are not. Already the Right Wing Noise Machine is on the defensive. That is great for us, as Democrats and as believers in the Rule of Law, but it doesn't mean our job is done. Not by a long shot.

You can contact Attorney General Eric Holder and demand Full Accountability that goes all the way to the top, and Bush/Cheney here

BY MAIL

U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

BY PHONE:

Department of Justice Main Switchboard -
202-514-2000
Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555

U.S. DOJ FAX number for AG Holder

FAX: (202) 307-4613

BY E-MAIL

E-Mail the Attorney Generals Office at AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Disclaimer: THIS E-MAIL ACCOUNT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR SERVICE OF OFFICIAL, CASE-RELATED OR LEGAL DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT MONITORED FOR SUCH SUBMISSIONS OR FOR OTHER TIME-SENSITIVE COMMUNICATIONS. E-mails with attachments will be deleted because they may contain viruses.

Now the ball is rolling. Let's hope it rolls the Bush/Cheney torture architects, from bottom to top, along with the rest of the Republican party, off into oblivion and towards a place where justice awaits them, and where justice in America can be fully restored.

And while we are hoping, be sure to continue to Yell Louder.

Justice depends on it.

Crossposted at progressiveelectorate.com and docudharma.com

The System Is Working On Torture

Bill Egnor — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:49:00 -0500

So now we have vented, we were appalled at the evil of the Bybee memo and the other memos justifying state sponsored torture of prisoners. Here on the internet our outrage has flared and been shared. This is an important aspect as we must make it clear how seriously the people of the Untied States take this issue, but now it is time to pull back a little. Now it might sound funny for the Dog to be saying this especially after the letter he wrote to the President yesterday, but let the old hound explain a little and you will see where he is going.

Cross posted at Square State

One of the Dog’s primary focuses has been to get an independent investigation of the Bush administrations apparent state sponsored torture program going. While some are calling for immediate prosecution, the Dog has not for a couple of reasons. The first reason being this is a rule of law issue and if we are to demand the rule of law then we must, with the strictest of care for all the procedure follow the rule of law. To do otherwise is to make a sham of the entire idea of rule of law and due process.

The second reason is the Dog is 100% convinced we will get to prosecutions from such an investigation. The most heinous aspect of the Bybee memo was the bland acceptance of the premise waterboarding could be considered legal in any circumstances. The complete disregard for previous case law and precedent makes that memo legal malpractice at the very least. This being the case there is little chance it was arrived at in such a way as protect those who ordered torture. Further, we thought we knew the boundaries of the waterboarding, it was only done a few times, to very few people and it worked very fast. These have been shown in the torture justification memos to be false. Marcy Wheeler of Emptywheel fame was the first to point out that just Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the Dog objects to shortening his name to just his initials, it dehumanizes him) and Abu Zubaydah were waterboarded over 220 times. This puts the lie to the idea it worked or was short and limited. It also shows the torturers, even if they relied on this spurious memo to justify starting this torture were far beyond the limits outlined there.

Why is that important? There is some case law which would support the idea we could not effectively try the CIA agents who carried out the torture because they had this memo telling them it was legal and they acted in good faith, how ever morally corrupt it was. The thing is when they exceeded this fig leaf; they threw away all its protections. Had they adhered to the limits they might have been safe, but now it seems they can be investigated and prosecuted, not for the initial torture, but for exceeding the boundaries of that torture.

The fact they might have exceeded the limits can come as no surprise to anyone who understands torture. This is the reason the prohibition has to be absolute, once torture is justified it grows, no matter the attempts to limit it to the contrary. There is something in the human psyche which once released form this prohibition allows a continuing expansion of the justification and rationalization of expanding the limits of what is considered acceptable. This is also the reason we must, absolutely must, follow the rule of law, for if we leave this in the past, as some argue for a variety of reasons, it will continue to grow and gain further acceptance.

So, why should we pull back on our rage, if only some, at this time? The reason is the system is working. The Dog knows it might not feel that way to many who care about this issue, but let the Dog share some of things which are in the works you might not be aware of. Just yesterday, Sen. Boxer sent a letter to the White House asking (telling, but in a the form of a request) the Executive Branch to stop talking about anyone in the CIA or the Justice Department being safe from prosecution. Her committee is investigating these “enhanced interrogation techniques” and by saying the White House should stop trying to set the frame she has made a major statement that she and her committee do not like what they have heard so far and are far from willing to sign on to the White Houses efforts to draw a line in the sand and forget about this. She expects her investigation to be finished around the beginning of 2010, and is marking out some ground for it to find the need for criminal prosecutions.

Further, the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility is finishing up its report on the authors of the memos. This report in its original form was so devastating and damaging former AG Mukasey insisted the Office allow those in the report to respond as part of the report. This is highly unusual but it seems even with this departure from procedure the report means big professional trouble for Judge Bybee and Professor Yoo (think disbarment). It will also add weight to the idea of a fuller investigation.

There is also the aspect of the rest of the pictures from Abu Ghriab prison, which will be in the words of Sen. Whitehouse, shocking and appalling to the public. As with the torture memos these will enflame the country and hopefully bring those who are on the fence about this issue on the basis of other crises over to the side of getting to the bottom of this cesspit.

Finally, there is an aspect which we have forgotten during the lawless Bush years, the DOJ, while part of the Executive Branch does not in fact answer to the White House. This was a Nixonian idea, which the Bush administration resurrected, and it is a false one. The DOJ and the Attorney General are charged with upholding and enforcing the law. The President might weigh in on what he or she would like to see from the DOJ but he should not be the final say. The Presidents job is political, the DOJ’s is legal, they do not always follow the same logic, nor should they.

Michael Isakov have an article in this weeks Newsweek that details how inside the DOJ there is a lot of thought being put into doing just what the Dog and others have been calling for the appointment of a special council to investigate the criminal aspects of the Bush era interrogations form start to finish, he writes:

But the Obama administration is not off the hook. Though administration officials declared that CIA interrogators who followed Justice's legal guidance on torture would not be prosecuted, that does not mean the inquiries are over. Senior Justice Department lawyers and other advisers, who declined to be identified discussing a sensitive subject, say Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has discussed naming a senior prosecutor or outside counsel to review whether CIA interrogators exceeded legal boundaries--and whether Bush administration officials broke the law by giving the CIA permission to torture in the first place. Some Justice officials are deeply troubled by reports of detainee treatment and believe they may suggest criminal misconduct, these sources say. Even if prosecutions prove too difficult to bring, an outside counsel's report could be made public. For his part, Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is still pushing for a "truth commission." In a democracy, the wheels of justice grind on--and the president, for good reason under the rule of law, does not have the power to stop them.

You can find the entire article here.

There is a saying “The wheels of Justice grind slowly”. This is the point the Dog would like to make; these wheels do grind slowly but they are grinding away and it looks as though the system is working. Does this mean we should stop our efforts to pressure those in leadership positions to do what is right? Not at all! It just means we have to be sure what we are doing does not get to the point where it can be disregarded as shrill hysterics. The Dog gets a well deserved rap as being very measured and affable about his advocacy, but the reason he takes these measured tone is not that he is blind to the horrors of torture or is does not see red at the atrocities committed in the name of the United States and its security, he does. It is just there is little persuasion value in hyperbolic name calling. It is good for whipping up anger which is often needed to spur activists to action, but we are trying to get politicians to act and they rarely respond to name calling, even if they have earned the names.

So we enter into a new phase for our activism. The Dog feels we need to keep the pressure steady, but we also need to be ready to reinforce the good actions any of the above groups take. There is always the need for the carrot as well as the stick. The Dog knows it is hard to have faith in a system which has been so abused for the last 8 years and has produced less results than we have liked many times, but if we work to support the system, work to give aid and comfort to those working toward the rule of law, we have a much better chance to achieve the goal, actual justice, actual rule of law, applied evenly and fairly as our ideals require.

So, anger is hot and can be fun, we must bank those fires, keep them burning but not raging. If that white hot outrage is needed it will be there, a tool in our tool box, but not the only tool we have. If the current efforts of the system fail or flag we can use this fire to spur them on, but for now, we need to support the system of law and justice so it can work, for having the system work, regardless of its outcome, has to be our primary goal.

The floor is yours.