compared with another’s political ambition?
While state attorney general in 1992, Burris aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983.
But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris’ own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.
Burris refused. He was running for governor.
“Anybody who understood this case wouldn?t have voted for Burris,” Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, told ProPublica. Indeed, Burris lost that race, and two other attempts to become governor.
Burris’ role in the Cruz case was “indefensible and in defiance of common sense and common decency,” Warden said. “There was obvious evidence that [Cruz] was innocent.”
Deputy attorney general Mary Brigid Kenney agreed and eventually resigned rather than continue to prosecute Cruz.
Fortunately, there are still profiles in courage:
It’s a safe bet that Geert Wilders won’t be Time magazine’s Man of the Year any time soon. If anything, the unusually coiffed Dutch MP is a favorite hate figure of the Western media, which has spent years vilifying him as a “reactionary,†a “particularly dangerous type of demagogue,†a “racist†and an “Islamophobe.†Wilders would almost certainly plead guilty to the last charge, and with ample reason. His tireless campaign to sound the alarm about the growing threat of Islamic radicalism in the West has turned him into a target of Islamic jihadists and the object of untold assassination plots. A 2006 death threat, one of hundreds he’s received, declared that his “infidel blood will flow freely on cursed Dutch streets.†Al-Qaeda has specifically singled him out for slaughter.
Against this menacing background, it would have been no failing in his character if Wilders had decided that the price of speaking out about Islamic fundamentalism was too high; others in his prominent position would have reached just that conclusion. Instead, Wilders has persevered. Braving daily death threats and sacrificing the security that his critics take for granted, he has opted for the often-thankless task of saving Western civilization from its Islamist discontents – beginning with the valuable reminder that the demands of Islamic zealots are not only not congruent with Western values but are, in fact, in direct conflict with them. For his impressive personal courage, his steadfast political commitment, and his refreshing disdain for the suffocating pieties of political correctness, Geert Wilders is Front Page Magazine’s Man of the Year in 2008.
The steep risks involved in Wilders’s anti-Islamist campaign are tragically illustrated by the fates of two of his countrymen. Pim Fortuyn, the popular Dutch politician who warned against the Islamisation of Dutch society and railed against the “backwardness†of certain Islamic traditions, was gunned down by a crazed animal-rights activist in 2002. His killer later claimed that he had shot Fortuyn in order to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.
Next on the hit list was Dutch provocateur and documentarian Theo Van Gogh. In 2004, Van Gogh was gruesomely murdered in Amsterdam by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-born Islamist who judged Van Gogh’s film on the mistreatment of women in Islam, Submission, to be a crime deserving of death. To Van Gogh’s butchered body, Bouyeri pinned a list of “infidels†who “deserved to be slaughtered.†Among the names singled out for execution was Geert Wilders.
On the flip side, what’s one man’s exculpation? Or, How Sen. Harry Reid hunted down Rolando Cruz for some sweet, sweet Press avails!
[Does anyone happen to know whether Sen. Reid is related to former PGA golfer Mike “Radar” Reid?]
And on a related though distinct topic, the Illinois Sec. of State White’s stance refusing to sign the Blagojevich Burris appointment ought, in itself, to be enough to lose White his job. He’s got no veto on the Governor’s power at his own whim and to assert one is disqualifying, I should think.
How can there be any question of the absolute integrity of Roland Burris? After all he has the ringing,
endorsement of the sitting Governor of the State of Illnois, Rod Blagojevich. A man of, so far, un-impeached character himself.
The Obama Presidential run and win seems to have had the effect of throwing a torch into the Chicago “Well of Souls”. Now the movement on the floor is revealed to all.
Illinois’ own Ricky Ray Rector…
There’s an explaination for this. Cruz was Hispanic. The bruthahs are just not down with the beaners. Burris was just doing his job as he saw fit, know what I’m sayin’.
Geert Wilders, a classical liberal?
OUTLAW!
Anyone else laying in extra popcorn for next Tuesday?
It’s going to be friggin’ awesome if Reid really has Burris ejected from the Senate by armed guards.
“Rule of Law?”, said Harry, “Not on my watch, buddy.”
Notice how troll-free this thread is.
None of our esteemed left-wingers want to touch this issue.
Why could that be, I wonder?
Surely on account of “It’s dull and boring” they’d say, don’t you think SBP? Heh.
Well, sure. According to nipply, his “local paper” isn’t even covering the Blago story any more.
As a Bush supporter, I don’t get the nastiness against Burris for supporting the death penalty? I mean that’s so rare in a democrat that he must be deemed a singularity. I also don’t see any comments here about Bush giving the death warrant (and not pardoning) a female death row inmate during the 2000 Presidential election and also supposedly joking about her situation. If Burris had given in to the innocent brigades, I believe most of the people here would be trumpeting him as a soft on crime liberal. While I am glad the Courts eventually freed the prisoner, and that DNA tests vindicated him; but do we want someone who does not vigorously uphold the law, and jury verdicts of conviction especially in death penalty cases; or someone who say, might be more inclined to pardon persons such as oh, a Bill Ayers, or FALN terrorists?
Worst concern troll ever.
Sure, where would we be without folks trying to impose death penalties even after the accused has been virtually exonerated? Society as we know it would fall into dust, probably.
As a Bush supporter
Buh-bye, moby.
Best. Headline. EVAR!!1!1!.
I mean, Teleprompter Jesus is trying frantically to scrape these people off the bottom of his shoe, and it’s just not working.
It’s not entirely clear to me yet but I have read one story that had Burris’ mandamus filing with the Il. Supreme Court (ISC) as having been done on Wed. last (Dec 31).
Today’s papers say that it appears the ISC will not get to the case until next Wed. (Jan 7) at the earliest, due, somehow, to Il Att. Gen. Madigan’s office’s delay in response to Burris’ filing, though I have no idea what would move the ISC to act — either way — whether earlier or later, outside their own choices. In any case, next Wed. is too late for Burris’ purposes, since he wants to show up at the Capitol on Tues, Dec 6, with the completed documentation in hand, fully authorized to take his Sen seat.
Sen Durbin could, but evidently won’t, escort Burris to his seat on the floor, even in the absence of the proper documents, entailing an immediate move by the Senate to recognize Burris’ right to the seat. That wouldn’t do, says Harry Reid.
Another story claimed (I plead ignorance of the procedure) that Gov. Blagojevich has Senate floor privileges as a sitting Gov. and could, if he chose, perform the same function as Durbin in the preceding scenario. Blagojevich has already said he will not go to Washington.
So Burris will go it alone. He says he won’t make a fuss and try to enter the Senate chamber if turned away. But it does appear for now that he will make the Senate turn him away.
I won’t even speculate how the Supreme Court is going to come down on this, but most of the law blogs seem to think that Reid has no authority to keep him out.
We’ll see a lot of Dem fratricide before the case gets decided, though, and I’ll enjoy every minute of it.
It wasn’t Dixie that Bobby Rush was whistling the other day, that’s for certain SBP.
I have to agree with Sdferr.
The correct process for Sec White, would be to resign, citing his refusal to certify as reason.
Will the Gov just appoint a more pliant Sec State? Yep. How far into the barrel will he have to go to find one and how many will be hacked by that?
I agree that White should resign if he doesn’t want to sign.
I think we’ve seen that movie before.
Sec State White is merely posing/posturing, ala Lisa Madigan, so as to limit the campaign commercials the GOP will inevitably produce re: Dem corruption/Blago = DEM!!!1!1!
IL SCT would grant mandamus, as they showed they have no stomac for all this posturing crap by tossing Madigan’s “petition” into the crapper – both D and R Justices alike.
They want to stop Balgojevic from exercising power – throw him out via impeachment.
As I understand it, Blago has floor privileges but they do not extend to dragging Burris along with him. Burris could be blocked, Blago could not. But to the terms of Blago’s bail allow him to travel to DC?
Probably – he would be restricted from leaving the US – hence his having to turn over the passport. As a former prosecutor, I can tell you it would be hard to tell a judge with a straight face that he would be “a flight risk” or “could continue his criminal activity” considering the spotlight he is in, and how radioactive his fellow pols, etc consider him to be.
As for the Dems “blocking” the Senate Floor – I am sure Rep Bobby Rush would be screaming of some sort of Southern Governor blocking the schoolhouse doors in Little Rock (Orville Fabius?). I should hope they don’t need to federalize the DC Guard and bring in the 101st Airborne. Heh.
It’d be cool if he led him into the chamber while wearing one of those electronic ankle bracelets.
This would be more balanced if you also denounced those Democrats in the Senate who say they can and should refuse to seat him. Surely you should attack all Democrats equally, unless they’re actually conservative?
What?
Again, I have to agree with Sdferr.
What?
David, what are you saying?
Near as I can figure, everyone here (and most of the legal blogs I’ve been following on this) agrees that Reid has no basis for refusing to seat Burris.
We’re just enjoying the spectacle, especially (in my case, anyway) watching Harry “Cryptkeeper” Reid get hammered by the same race-card tactics that have been the stock-in-trade of the Dems for decades.
It’s like Robespierre in miniature, it is.
One step at a time, David. Reid can say all the stupid shit he likes. No need to pounce until after he does something stupid.
I denounce all Democrats in or out of the Senate, and all Senators regardless of party. Is that good enough, David?
#22 Maj. John:
It seems to me that with AG Madigan’s motion the Illinois Supreme Court made it clear they were not getting involved in political questions. If the law is clear, then follow it.* Based on that it is my guess that mandamus would be granted for Mr. Burris and the Illinois Sec. of State would be ordered to perfom his duty.
*Perhaps the Florida Supreme Court’s actions during the 2000 election is giving them some pause as to what the US Supreme Court would do if they ignored clear law and got involved in political questions.
#24 Maj. John:
Orval Faubus. An ex-five star general like Dwight Eisenhower was precisely the wrong person to play chicken with.
“What are you going to do, Ike?”
“Federalize the Arkansas Guard, order them out, and order the 101st Airborne Division in to enforce federal law. Your move, Orval.”
MikeyNTH, do you think it a problem that a high government official would act as Sec. White has acted and yet had seen so little public condemnation, to the contrary even, has received praise for his illegal act from the likes of Harry Reid?
Acting in a public capacity upon whim, in violation of clear law and line of authority has never been so lightly done, I think. The passive acceptance of it all seems somewhat alarming to me.
Odd that Ike never gets mentioned as one of the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement, huh?
And still this thread is troll-free, other than the most incompetent concern troll I’ve ever seen, and a weak appearance by David.
Odd, innit?
Now it turns out that Harry Reid also had “contacts” with Blago, apparently to say that he didn’t want JJJr. or Emil Jones in the seat.
The Blago camp, predictably, is spinning this as a conflict of interest on Reid’s part.
Popcorn, ladies and gentlemen. Popcorn.
Extra butter, please!
Wasn’t there a case — in the last year or so — where Kos came out and said the way to “deal” with a story was to completely ignore it? I’d bet a similar declaration went out on Townhouse II, or whatever they’re calling it. Eventually it filtered down to the trolls operating on the front line…
What about rum?
Rob, they certainly did a good job of ignoring the question of why Obama lied to the press.
Via Ace of Spades, Newsbusters points out that all three candidates Reid opposed were black, while the ones he favored were white (although it appears that Duckworth is half Asian).
Reid the racist!
#33 Sdferr:
I do see that as a problem; I also know that politics and law do not mesh fully. See Orval Faubus. Politically, he saw it as beneficial to defy a federal court order. He could have sparked another civil war if the Arkansas National Guard had not responded to being federalized and left. What if the Arkansas N.G. had refused to move and tried to face down the 101st? What would have happened if shots had been fired?
We have been fortunate that most politicians in this country will bend to a courts’ order; and that most courts will keep out of political questions. Whether that will remain is to be seen.
#40: I’m thinking tequila.
I found a praiseworthy (at least in my opinion and on this issue) Democrat politician, Phil Bredesen Gov. of Tennessee.
Why is it that they want to ignore Burris and Blago but not Ayers or Gore – I mean, come on, who’s more embarrassing?
That question kind of answers itself, doesn’t it Merovign?
I think the Blago case is going to be the gift that keeps on giving, Merovign.
Our trolls are ignoring it, hoping that it will go away (nipply even claimed that the story was “falling out of the news”).
#34 B. Moe:
He belonged to the wrong party.
But no matter his personal beliefs, he was going to support federal law under the Constitution. Under that genial exterior was a real get-the-job-done hardass.
Eisenhower was put in charge of a large training camp during WWI because he could get the job done; Gen. Fox Connor rated him (and George Marshall) high; he was MacArthur’s Chief of Staff when MacArthur was CoS of the Army; and Ike was on Marshall’s list of officers when war broke out. Ike was tops at the War College, and kept a coalition of egotists together.
To discount him is a mistake. To discount his influence as a president is idiocy. Elsewhere I called him a ‘Satan’s bastard child’, but that was in respect. No one gets to where he got in the Army without being very hard inside, and very smart.
Eisenhower got to where he did by being very good and very disciplined. His history shows that he would rather persuade, but if persuasion failed he would apply force. And when he decided to apply force it would be applied. In that he was akin to Lincoln and Washington.
From the link in #36.
The answer should be interesting. And not forthcoming because of that.
Ah, the Senate Democrats are thinking of giving Roland Burris a “special” position on their team.
From the article.
Can we say a “back of the bus” Senator?
Oh, that is just hilarious. Sad and disgusting, but hilarious.