Archive for December, 2006
Just What Is A Bigot?
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Decomposing Time
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Decomposing Time
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Closing the Year
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Closing the Year
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Fourth Circuit and RLUIPA
Saturday, December 30th, 2006In Madison v. Virginia, on appeal from the W.D. Va., the Fourth Circuit in an opinion by Judge Wilkinson, joined by Judges Michael and Duncan, held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is constitutional as applied to the Commonwealth of Virginia except to the extent that it authorizes awards of money damages.
On the Spending Clause issue, the Court rejected Virginia's arguments, including the claim that the Supreme Court's decision in Rumsfeld v. FAIR somehow restricted the authority of Congress - since after all, that case "rejected a Spending Clause challenge."
On the money damages issue, the Court concluded "that RLUIPA's 'appropriate relief against a government' language falls short of the unequivocal textual expression necessary to waive State immunity from suits for damages." The Court went on to conclude that the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Act was inapplicable to RLUIPA.
This outcome sounds like one of those Rehnquist-era federalism decisions, but since the panel included Judge Michael it seems unlikely that there would be a different outcome on rehearing by the en banc court.
In Lovelace v. Lee, Judges Michael and Wilkinson disagreed on the claims of a Muslim inmate at Keen Mountain against prison officials under RLUIPA and the First Amendment. Judge Kiser for the W.D. Va. granted summary judgment for all defendants on all claims.
Judge Michael, joined by Judge Motz, vacated summary judgment against a correctional officer in his individual capacity on the plaintiff's Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims, and vacated summary judgment against the warden in his official capacity. Judge Wilkinson agreed the claims against the individual officer should go forward, but dissented as to the official capacity claims against the warden.
In response to Judge Wilkinson's strongly-worded dissent, Judge Michael explained: "Today's remand provides nothing akin to a license for courts to plunge into prison policymaking or prison management. We merely require that the prison itself explain in a responsive fashion why the Ramadan policy's burdens on religious exercise are justified under RLUIPA's standard. It is our dissenting colleague who delves into prison policymaking by coming up with his own reasons as to why the policy's restrictions are necessary to insure safety and security. If a court could, as the dissent would have it, offer explanations on its own, then prisons would be effectively relieved of their responsibilities under RLUIPA. Or what is more fundamental, court-generated explanations would cut severely against Congress's intent to provide inmates with greater protections in the area of religious exercise."
Of the claim against the warden, Judge Wilkinson wrote: "Thus the majority's remand must be seen for precisely what it is: an invitation to finetune prison policy from the judicial perch. While a prison policy may well be called into question where it imposes a substantial burden on religious freedom, this is not such a case. It is plaintiff Lovelace who must prove under the statute that the policy, as opposed to Lester's violation of it, somehow imposed a substantial burden upon his religious exercise, and he has not even begun to do so. To enlarge a case involving an essentially individual act into a wholesale attack upon a sound prison policy, on no fewer than three different grounds, not only makes a mountain out of a molehill but also reinforces the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Under the majority's view, the most progressive and enlightened prison policy imaginable, a policy that accomodates every religion in every way, would be called into question by a single policy violation. Forcing prison officials to pay for their own progressive steps to protect religious liberty runs counter to the precise statutory and constitutional provisions that the majority purports to enforce. I therefore concur in the judgment remanding the case for further proceedings against defendant Lester, but I respectfully dissent from the majority's RLUIPA, free exercise, and due process determinations as to the prison policy itself."
Somewhat obscured by these fireworks, the Court's discussion about qualified immunity strikes me as wrong. Judge Kiser held that the individual was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutionality of RLUIPA was clearly established. Judge Michael rejected this conclusion, because at the time of the events in question, no court had yet ruled one way or the other on the constitutionality of the new statute. RLUIPA was passed by Congress after the Supreme Court held that its predecessor was unconstitutional. To say that its constitutionality was clearly established in 2002, when it was an open and difficult question for the appeals courts when they made their decisions in 2003 and later, seems to turn the qualified immunity analysis upside down. RLUIPA was born of constitutional uncertainty, which is the very stuff of which the qualified immunity defense is made.
Fourth Circuit and RLUIPA
Saturday, December 30th, 2006In Madison v. Virginia, on appeal from the W.D. Va., the Fourth Circuit in an opinion by Judge Wilkinson, joined by Judges Michael and Duncan, held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is constitutional as applied to the Commonwealth of Virginia except to the extent that it authorizes awards of money damages.
On the Spending Clause issue, the Court rejected Virginia's arguments, including the claim that the Supreme Court's decision in Rumsfeld v. FAIR somehow restricted the authority of Congress - since after all, that case "rejected a Spending Clause challenge."
On the money damages issue, the Court concluded "that RLUIPA's 'appropriate relief against a government' language falls short of the unequivocal textual expression necessary to waive State immunity from suits for damages." The Court went on to conclude that the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Act was inapplicable to RLUIPA.
This outcome sounds like one of those Rehnquist-era federalism decisions, but since the panel included Judge Michael it seems unlikely that there would be a different outcome on rehearing by the en banc court.
In Lovelace v. Lee, Judges Michael and Wilkinson disagreed on the claims of a Muslim inmate at Keen Mountain against prison officials under RLUIPA and the First Amendment. Judge Kiser for the W.D. Va. granted summary judgment for all defendants on all claims.
Judge Michael, joined by Judge Motz, vacated summary judgment against a correctional officer in his individual capacity on the plaintiff's Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims, and vacated summary judgment against the warden in his official capacity. Judge Wilkinson agreed the claims against the individual officer should go forward, but dissented as to the official capacity claims against the warden.
In response to Judge Wilkinson's strongly-worded dissent, Judge Michael explained: "Today's remand provides nothing akin to a license for courts to plunge into prison policymaking or prison management. We merely require that the prison itself explain in a responsive fashion why the Ramadan policy's burdens on religious exercise are justified under RLUIPA's standard. It is our dissenting colleague who delves into prison policymaking by coming up with his own reasons as to why the policy's restrictions are necessary to insure safety and security. If a court could, as the dissent would have it, offer explanations on its own, then prisons would be effectively relieved of their responsibilities under RLUIPA. Or what is more fundamental, court-generated explanations would cut severely against Congress's intent to provide inmates with greater protections in the area of religious exercise."
Of the claim against the warden, Judge Wilkinson wrote: "Thus the majority's remand must be seen for precisely what it is: an invitation to finetune prison policy from the judicial perch. While a prison policy may well be called into question where it imposes a substantial burden on religious freedom, this is not such a case. It is plaintiff Lovelace who must prove under the statute that the policy, as opposed to Lester's violation of it, somehow imposed a substantial burden upon his religious exercise, and he has not even begun to do so. To enlarge a case involving an essentially individual act into a wholesale attack upon a sound prison policy, on no fewer than three different grounds, not only makes a mountain out of a molehill but also reinforces the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Under the majority's view, the most progressive and enlightened prison policy imaginable, a policy that accomodates every religion in every way, would be called into question by a single policy violation. Forcing prison officials to pay for their own progressive steps to protect religious liberty runs counter to the precise statutory and constitutional provisions that the majority purports to enforce. I therefore concur in the judgment remanding the case for further proceedings against defendant Lester, but I respectfully dissent from the majority's RLUIPA, free exercise, and due process determinations as to the prison policy itself."
Somewhat obscured by these fireworks, the Court's discussion about qualified immunity strikes me as wrong. Judge Kiser held that the individual was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutionality of RLUIPA was clearly established. Judge Michael rejected this conclusion, because at the time of the events in question, no court had yet ruled one way or the other on the constitutionality of the new statute. RLUIPA was passed by Congress after the Supreme Court held that its predecessor was unconstitutional. To say that its constitutionality was clearly established in 2002, when it was an open and difficult question for the appeals courts when they made their decisions in 2003 and later, seems to turn the qualified immunity analysis upside down. RLUIPA was born of constitutional uncertainty, which is the very stuff of which the qualified immunity defense is made.
Fourth Circuit and RLUIPA
Saturday, December 30th, 2006In Madison v. Virginia, on appeal from the W.D. Va., the Fourth Circuit in an opinion by Judge Wilkinson, joined by Judges Michael and Duncan, held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is constitutional as applied to the Commonwealth of Virginia except to the extent that it authorizes awards of money damages.
On the Spending Clause issue, the Court rejected Virginia's arguments, including the claim that the Supreme Court's decision in Rumsfeld v. FAIR somehow restricted the authority of Congress - since after all, that case "rejected a Spending Clause challenge."
On the money damages issue, the Court concluded "that RLUIPA's 'appropriate relief against a government' language falls short of the unequivocal textual expression necessary to waive State immunity from suits for damages." The Court went on to conclude that the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Act was inapplicable to RLUIPA.
This outcome sounds like one of those Rehnquist-era federalism decisions, but since the panel included Judge Michael it seems unlikely that there would be a different outcome on rehearing by the en banc court.
In Lovelace v. Lee, Judges Michael and Wilkinson disagreed on the claims of a Muslim inmate at Keen Mountain against prison officials under RLUIPA and the First Amendment. Judge Kiser for the W.D. Va. granted summary judgment for all defendants on all claims.
Judge Michael, joined by Judge Motz, vacated summary judgment against a correctional officer in his individual capacity on the plaintiff's Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims, and vacated summary judgment against the warden in his official capacity. Judge Wilkinson agreed the claims against the individual officer should go forward, but dissented as to the official capacity claims against the warden.
In response to Judge Wilkinson's strongly-worded dissent, Judge Michael explained: "Today's remand provides nothing akin to a license for courts to plunge into prison policymaking or prison management. We merely require that the prison itself explain in a responsive fashion why the Ramadan policy's burdens on religious exercise are justified under RLUIPA's standard. It is our dissenting colleague who delves into prison policymaking by coming up with his own reasons as to why the policy's restrictions are necessary to insure safety and security. If a court could, as the dissent would have it, offer explanations on its own, then prisons would be effectively relieved of their responsibilities under RLUIPA. Or what is more fundamental, court-generated explanations would cut severely against Congress's intent to provide inmates with greater protections in the area of religious exercise."
Of the claim against the warden, Judge Wilkinson wrote: "Thus the majority's remand must be seen for precisely what it is: an invitation to finetune prison policy from the judicial perch. While a prison policy may well be called into question where it imposes a substantial burden on religious freedom, this is not such a case. It is plaintiff Lovelace who must prove under the statute that the policy, as opposed to Lester's violation of it, somehow imposed a substantial burden upon his religious exercise, and he has not even begun to do so. To enlarge a case involving an essentially individual act into a wholesale attack upon a sound prison policy, on no fewer than three different grounds, not only makes a mountain out of a molehill but also reinforces the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Under the majority's view, the most progressive and enlightened prison policy imaginable, a policy that accomodates every religion in every way, would be called into question by a single policy violation. Forcing prison officials to pay for their own progressive steps to protect religious liberty runs counter to the precise statutory and constitutional provisions that the majority purports to enforce. I therefore concur in the judgment remanding the case for further proceedings against defendant Lester, but I respectfully dissent from the majority's RLUIPA, free exercise, and due process determinations as to the prison policy itself."
Somewhat obscured by these fireworks, the Court's discussion about qualified immunity strikes me as wrong. Judge Kiser held that the individual was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutionality of RLUIPA was clearly established. Judge Michael rejected this conclusion, because at the time of the events in question, no court had yet ruled one way or the other on the constitutionality of the new statute. RLUIPA was passed by Congress after the Supreme Court held that its predecessor was unconstitutional. To say that its constitutionality was clearly established in 2002, when it was an open and difficult question for the appeals courts when they made their decisions in 2003 and later, seems to turn the qualified immunity analysis upside down. RLUIPA was born of constitutional uncertainty, which is the very stuff of which the qualified immunity defense is made.
Fourth Circuit and RLUIPA
Saturday, December 30th, 2006In Madison v. Virginia, on appeal from the W.D. Va., the Fourth Circuit in an opinion by Judge Wilkinson, joined by Judges Michael and Duncan, held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is constitutional as applied to the Commonwealth of Virginia except to the extent that it authorizes awards of money damages.
On the Spending Clause issue, the Court rejected Virginia's arguments, including the claim that the Supreme Court's decision in Rumsfeld v. FAIR somehow restricted the authority of Congress - since after all, that case "rejected a Spending Clause challenge."
On the money damages issue, the Court concluded "that RLUIPA's 'appropriate relief against a government' language falls short of the unequivocal textual expression necessary to waive State immunity from suits for damages." The Court went on to conclude that the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Act was inapplicable to RLUIPA.
This outcome sounds like one of those Rehnquist-era federalism decisions, but since the panel included Judge Michael it seems unlikely that there would be a different outcome on rehearing by the en banc court.
In Lovelace v. Lee, Judges Michael and Wilkinson disagreed on the claims of a Muslim inmate at Keen Mountain against prison officials under RLUIPA and the First Amendment. Judge Kiser for the W.D. Va. granted summary judgment for all defendants on all claims.
Judge Michael, joined by Judge Motz, vacated summary judgment against a correctional officer in his individual capacity on the plaintiff's Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims, and vacated summary judgment against the warden in his official capacity. Judge Wilkinson agreed the claims against the individual officer should go forward, but dissented as to the official capacity claims against the warden.
In response to Judge Wilkinson's strongly-worded dissent, Judge Michael explained: "Today's remand provides nothing akin to a license for courts to plunge into prison policymaking or prison management. We merely require that the prison itself explain in a responsive fashion why the Ramadan policy's burdens on religious exercise are justified under RLUIPA's standard. It is our dissenting colleague who delves into prison policymaking by coming up with his own reasons as to why the policy's restrictions are necessary to insure safety and security. If a court could, as the dissent would have it, offer explanations on its own, then prisons would be effectively relieved of their responsibilities under RLUIPA. Or what is more fundamental, court-generated explanations would cut severely against Congress's intent to provide inmates with greater protections in the area of religious exercise."
Of the claim against the warden, Judge Wilkinson wrote: "Thus the majority's remand must be seen for precisely what it is: an invitation to finetune prison policy from the judicial perch. While a prison policy may well be called into question where it imposes a substantial burden on religious freedom, this is not such a case. It is plaintiff Lovelace who must prove under the statute that the policy, as opposed to Lester's violation of it, somehow imposed a substantial burden upon his religious exercise, and he has not even begun to do so. To enlarge a case involving an essentially individual act into a wholesale attack upon a sound prison policy, on no fewer than three different grounds, not only makes a mountain out of a molehill but also reinforces the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Under the majority's view, the most progressive and enlightened prison policy imaginable, a policy that accomodates every religion in every way, would be called into question by a single policy violation. Forcing prison officials to pay for their own progressive steps to protect religious liberty runs counter to the precise statutory and constitutional provisions that the majority purports to enforce. I therefore concur in the judgment remanding the case for further proceedings against defendant Lester, but I respectfully dissent from the majority's RLUIPA, free exercise, and due process determinations as to the prison policy itself."
Somewhat obscured by these fireworks, the Court's discussion about qualified immunity strikes me as wrong. Judge Kiser held that the individual was entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutionality of RLUIPA was clearly established. Judge Michael rejected this conclusion, because at the time of the events in question, no court had yet ruled one way or the other on the constitutionality of the new statute. RLUIPA was passed by Congress after the Supreme Court held that its predecessor was unconstitutional. To say that its constitutionality was clearly established in 2002, when it was an open and difficult question for the appeals courts when they made their decisions in 2003 and later, seems to turn the qualified immunity analysis upside down. RLUIPA was born of constitutional uncertainty, which is the very stuff of which the qualified immunity defense is made.
Rewriting Kaine History
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Is that how you remember recent history?
Well, apparently there are those who would have you believe such nonsense:
Not even close to the truth.Best & Worst Transportation: 2006
By NRVToday
When it comes to do-nothing legislative gridlock, the Virginia Legislature wins our “Jeer of the Year†hands down for its complete failure to act responsibly in funding transportation.Virginia Governor Tim Kaine heard plenty from voters about the crisis in transportation and so he ran - and won - on a platform to improve mobility in the Commonwealth. That platform, informed by public transportation forums across the state that were standing room only, included increasing some taxes and fees to fund the necessary and long overdue transportation improvements.
So it was no surprise when he sent forward an aggressive, but reasonable transportation funding package to the General Assembly. When the Legislature ended up deadlocked over transportation funding during its regular session, it decided to postpone transportation funding for a special session. Adding insult to injury, lawmakers in the state abruptly ended a special session on transportation early after members failed to agree upon a $2.4 billion transportation plan that was on the
table. In the end, it approved another status quo budget that continues the starving of transportation in the Commonwealth, while gridlock builds and transportation infrastructure crumbles. (link) [my emphasis]
The author of this jewel would have you believe that Governor Kaine held his public townhall meetings that dealt with transportation issues during his campaign. In fact, he held off the announcement of his plan until after he was elected and only held his first forum the following week. After he was elected.
During the campaign, he was utterly and intentionally ambiguous on the subject of taxes and transportation, except to say that he wouldn't consider raising taxes until a secure process of funding was in place to deal with ongoing needs. It was immediately after he was voted into office that he changed his tune and signed on to a whopping tax hike that was proposed by liberal Democrats and spineless Republican state senators.
"Virginia Governor Tim Kaine heard plenty from voters about the crisis in transportation and so he ran and won." Too slippery by half.
Oh Good. Another Trail.
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Judge puts Salt Trail on a path to fruitionThat last quote is rather telling. The downtown area has been cleared. As has much of Southwest Virginia as more and more citizens have moved out to find gainful employment.
Debra McCown, Washington County News
The trail will go through.
That’s what Saltville officials say will happen after a circuit court judge ruled earlier this month that the town owns the railroad bed through the Clinchburg community.
Some adjoining property owners challenged the town’s claim of ownership and its plans for a 13-mile trail from Saltville to Glade Spring on the old railroad bed, similar to the Virginia Creeper Trail.
In recent years, the idea of a hiking and biking trail similar to the Virginia Creeper Trail has caught on, and work already has begun on the Salt Trail.
"I’m pretty pleased with what we’ve accomplished at this point, just having the downtown area cleared and cleaned up," [John] Summitt said. ( link )
Downtown Saltville cleared to make room for another trail. Consider me excited.
Oh Good. Another Trail.
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Judge puts Salt Trail on a path to fruitionThat last quote is rather telling. The downtown area has been cleared. As has much of Southwest Virginia as more and more citizens have moved out to find gainful employment.
Debra McCown, Washington County News
The trail will go through.
That’s what Saltville officials say will happen after a circuit court judge ruled earlier this month that the town owns the railroad bed through the Clinchburg community.
Some adjoining property owners challenged the town’s claim of ownership and its plans for a 13-mile trail from Saltville to Glade Spring on the old railroad bed, similar to the Virginia Creeper Trail.
In recent years, the idea of a hiking and biking trail similar to the Virginia Creeper Trail has caught on, and work already has begun on the Salt Trail.
"I’m pretty pleased with what we’ve accomplished at this point, just having the downtown area cleared and cleaned up," [John] Summitt said. ( link )
Downtown Saltville cleared to make room for another trail. Consider me excited.
Another Trail?
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Is Saltville in the process of constructing two hiking/walking trails?
It seems so. In addition to the "Salt Trail" mentioned above, there's going to be a "bird trail" that will meander through the area:
New bird trail under constructionShrewd move, guys. If, as Congressman Rick Boucher believes, a hiking trail or a bike path will bring economic prosperity to a local community, just think what two such paths/trails will bring.
By Dan Kegley, Staff, Smyth County News
Saltville officials broke ground for construction of a long-awaited bird trail through the well fields last week. According to Mayor Jeff Campbell, Christine Helton of Saltville wrote a grant application for trail funding in 1998, and the contractor bid on the project in June.
The 3,000-foot path has trail heads at the Food Country parking lot and on Blake Avenue near the town shop and passes through some of the richest birding habitat in the Saltville Valley adjacent to the salt ponds. (link)
The mind boggles.
Another Trail?
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Is Saltville in the process of constructing two hiking/walking trails?
It seems so. In addition to the "Salt Trail" mentioned above, there's going to be a "bird trail" that will meander through the area:
New bird trail under constructionShrewd move, guys. If, as Congressman Rick Boucher believes, a hiking trail or a bike path will bring economic prosperity to a local community, just think what two such paths/trails will bring.
By Dan Kegley, Staff, Smyth County News
Saltville officials broke ground for construction of a long-awaited bird trail through the well fields last week. According to Mayor Jeff Campbell, Christine Helton of Saltville wrote a grant application for trail funding in 1998, and the contractor bid on the project in June.
The 3,000-foot path has trail heads at the Food Country parking lot and on Blake Avenue near the town shop and passes through some of the richest birding habitat in the Saltville Valley adjacent to the salt ponds. (link)
The mind boggles.
Where’s The Rest Of The Story?
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Wise County judge suspended
News Channel 11 Staff Reports
The Wise County courthouse in Virginia is without a juvenile and domestic relations court judge.
Judge Mickey Shull was suspended for inappropriate behavior.
A complaint filed against Shull alleges he acted inappropriately with a female witness in the courtroom last week.
We know Virginia state police delivered the papers, and he's not allowed to return to work, pending a hearing. (link)
So what was the "inappropriate act" that got Shull suspended? Did her tell a joke? Did he fondle her? Did he ask about her sordid past? Comment on a zit on her chin? Call her names?
We'll never know because the reporter didn't get the job done.
Good grief.
Where’s The Rest Of The Story?
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Wise County judge suspended
News Channel 11 Staff Reports
The Wise County courthouse in Virginia is without a juvenile and domestic relations court judge.
Judge Mickey Shull was suspended for inappropriate behavior.
A complaint filed against Shull alleges he acted inappropriately with a female witness in the courtroom last week.
We know Virginia state police delivered the papers, and he's not allowed to return to work, pending a hearing. (link)
So what was the "inappropriate act" that got Shull suspended? Did her tell a joke? Did he fondle her? Did he ask about her sordid past? Comment on a zit on her chin? Call her names?
We'll never know because the reporter didn't get the job done.
Good grief.
Quote Of The Day
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Should the Press Cut and Run?James Taranto, Best of the Web Today , December 29, 2006
Journalists are quite proud of their own profession's sacrifices, as evidenced by ... by this report from the Canadian Press :
"The deteriorating situation in Iraq coupled with the targeted killings of reporters in several countries made 2006 the deadliest year on record for journalists, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression report.
At least 82 journalists lost their lives as a direct result of their work--up from about 60 the previous year--with war zones proving the most dangerous locales, the group reports.
'A lot of those journalists were killed in war zones, particularly Iraq, where 39 journalists, at least, lost their lives this year,' said Julie Payne, manager of the Toronto-based group."
We don't ever remember a journalist saying that war reporting just isn't worth the risk--that the networks, wire services and newspapers should cut and run from Iraq or any other war zone.
Do journalists think theirs is a more noble calling than the liberation of a country?
Quote Of The Day
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Should the Press Cut and Run?James Taranto, Best of the Web Today , December 29, 2006
Journalists are quite proud of their own profession's sacrifices, as evidenced by ... by this report from the Canadian Press :
"The deteriorating situation in Iraq coupled with the targeted killings of reporters in several countries made 2006 the deadliest year on record for journalists, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression report.
At least 82 journalists lost their lives as a direct result of their work--up from about 60 the previous year--with war zones proving the most dangerous locales, the group reports.
'A lot of those journalists were killed in war zones, particularly Iraq, where 39 journalists, at least, lost their lives this year,' said Julie Payne, manager of the Toronto-based group."
We don't ever remember a journalist saying that war reporting just isn't worth the risk--that the networks, wire services and newspapers should cut and run from Iraq or any other war zone.
Do journalists think theirs is a more noble calling than the liberation of a country?
There’ll Be No Rat Hole Where He’s Going
Saturday, December 30th, 2006Dictator Who Ruled Iraq With Violence Is Hanged for Crimes Against Humanity"Hanged for Crimes Against Humanity ..." How powerful that message is. Too bad there is a host of Americans who fight the notion.
By Marc Santora, James Glanz, and Sabrina Tavernise, The New York Times
Baghdad, Saturday, Dec. 30 — Saddam Hussein, the dictator who led Iraq through three decades of brutality, war and bombast before American forces chased him from his capital city and captured him in a filthy pit near his hometown, was hanged just before dawn Saturday during the morning call to prayer.
The final stages for Mr. Hussein, 69, came with terrible swiftness after he lost the appeal, five days ago, of his death sentence for the killings of 148 men and boys in the northern town of Dujail in 1982. He had received the sentence less than two months before from a special court set up to judge his reign as the almost unchallenged dictator of Iraq. ( link )
I expect the U.N. to respond with a call for more weapons inspectors and a resolution condemning ... something ...


