Department of Corruption

Why is the Justice Department (DoJ) filing suit against Arizona over the state's new immigration law? It's probably motivated by the upcoming elections. I say that because if the case goes to the Supreme Court, the DoJ can't win! The Supreme Court has already ruled in a very similar case. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that questioning someone who's already in custody on their immigration status does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The summary of the ruling, found on Cornell Law's website is pretty straightforward. Full text for the ruling can be found on that page.

2. The officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit’s holding to the contrary appears premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to so question Mena. However, this Court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434. Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required. Cf. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. Pp. 7—8.

So why even pursue the case? They will lose. Unless overturning the law isn't their objective. If their objective was to make some noise, and show the Latino population who's on which side of the immigration debate, then they're succeeding.

Latino voters, consistently in the Democratic bag, aren't excited like they were in 2008. According to a recent CNN article, 2010 could have a very low Latino turnout, because Latinos aren't happy with the party in power.

In a year where the Democrats badly need support to avoid heavy losses in both Houses, isn't it convenient that the DoJ is making it so clear where the Democrats stand on illegal immigration? With 50 million Latino votes in the country, excitement in the Latino community for the Democrats could be the 11th hour rescue for the incumbent party.

This filing by the DoJ comes at a time close enough to the midterms to at least raise some eyebrows. The DoJ could very well be filing this suit just to draw the battle lines, and to drum up attention. They can't win the case, but they can win attention.

Cowardice in the State Department

What is it about the State Department and its tepid and gutless refusal to condemn injustice? In yesterday's State Department briefing, Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, had two good opportunities to boldly and decisively condemn the flagrant affront to liberty that is Iranian adultery law. He didn't even make an effort. Here's the transcript:

QUESTION: I know this issue’s been addressed previously, but Amnesty International is saying that the stoning execution in Iran is imminent, that it will imminently take place. Have there been any developments on this from the U.S. front? Has the U.S. made any appeals? Obviously, there are no diplomatic relations, but has the U.S. – does the U.S. have anything more to say on this case?

MR. TONER: Well, we’re deeply troubled by press reports of the planned execution by Iranian authorities of Ms. Ashitiani by stoning. Stoning, as a means of execution, is tantamount to torture. It’s barbaric and an abhorrent act. The recent United States General – United Nations General Assembly resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran called specifically on Iranian authorities to end the practice of stoning. We call on the Iranian authorities to live up to their due process commitments under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. And we condemn in the strongest terms of the use of the practice of stoning anywhere it occurs as a form of legalized death by torture.

Go ahead, Courtney.

QUESTION: Actually mine is the same question. But the British foreign minister has been – was a little bit stronger than that in his condemnation of this and beyond just the idea that it would be an execution by stoning, but the fact that this woman is being held at all for adultery. I mean, is there – has the U.S. made any kind of – I know there’s not strong diplomatic ties between Iran, but has the U.S. made any kind of more assertive effort to stop this or work through intermediaries to --

MR. TONER: Well, again, I mean, I think the language I just used was pretty strong in condemning the practice of stoning. I probably would need to get back to you on what, if any, diplomatic channels we’ve been pursuing. But obviously, we’re taking a strong public stance against it as a barbaric practice.

Given two opportunities, he condemned the practice of stoning, but ignored the fundamental issue. A woman is being executed for adultery. Whether by stoning, lethal injection, or smothering her with hugs (I suppose that last would be forbidden by Sharia law), SHE DIES ANY WAY.

As the supposed leader of the free world, the United States ought to decry the injustice of the abhorrent laws restricting liberty that are being enforced against this woman. The State Department instead decries "the practice of stoning." Stoning isn't the human rights violation, but arresting Ms. Ashitiani in the first place is.

"Courtney" gives Mr. Toner a chance to clarify the S.D. position, and come out against the true injustice and not just the barbarity of stoning. She even cites the Brit Foreign Minister, who apparently gets it, but Mr. Toner refuses to man up to the question.

There is an utter lack of courage in the State Department, and in our government all together. America is not, and will not be, a beacon of liberty unless we are clearly and vocally enemies of oppression and tyranny, wherever it rears its head.