Stupid is as stupid does -- and stupid really did this time!

Rudy Villanueva and Tony Logan, alleged members of a Miami-Dade County street gang called the Bird Road Boys, were seen in the video brandishing a shotgun, assault rifle and handguns. Villanueva was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement late Tuesday evening, and Logan was arrested early Wednesday morning.

Villanueva, who goes by the names King Bird Road and Bird Road Rudy, is the alleged leader of the gang and is seen on the video saying, "Metro Dade Gang Unit, here I am baby." Villanueva went on in the video to say "we's out here fighting a Cold War" and that "they come at us if they want to."

Logan appears in the video saying "come get it" while flashing gang signs and pulling the triggers of the two handguns he is holding.

The Fifth Amendment gives you the right to remain silent in order not to incriminate yourself. It strikes me that these fools should have acted accordingly. But fortunately, they were too stupid to do so -- and so the community will likely be a safer place.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

I was particularly struck by this story as it broke yesterday, because of the connection of a former congressman/diplomat to terrorism. But as i look at this story, I'm struck by one thing -- this case appears to be less about terrorism than it is about garden variety greed and avarice, and an ordinary white collar crime.

A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

Mark Deli Siljander, a Michigan Republican when he was in the House, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying — money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

And the more I read about the case, the more confirmed in my opinion that Siljander was not conspiring to support terrorism so much as he was to line his own pockets. The indictment seems to confirm that

Siljander, 56, is founder and chairman of Global Strategies in Great Falls, a public relations and marketing firm, and is slated to publish a book in June focused on bridging the divide between Christians and Muslims.

The charity, which was based in Columbia, Mo., allegedly paid Siljander $50,000 in March 2004 to lobby the Senate Finance Committee in an attempt to be kept off a list of terrorist organizations. Senate records indicate that Siljander has not been registered as a lobbyist since 1998.

According to the indictment, the money was stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development, and Siljander lied to federal agents about his role.

In other words, his role seems to have been one of lobbyist, not a knowing participant in an effort to fund terrorism. Indeed, if he had not engaged in a course of action designed to shift government funds from their intended purpose to his own bank account and later lying about it, he would in all likelihood be guilty of nothing criminal. But the actions of which he is accused are clearly part of a scheme to defraud and deceive, and that is criminal in and of itself, even without the ties to a terrorist related group. But I wonder to what degree Siljander was duped by a group that was already seeking to dupe the government -- after all, there is no honor among thieves.

Debbie Schlussel has a post of note about this case. Many years ago, Siljander was not just her congressman, but also her employer. Her words on the matter seem to confirm my take -- namely that this has has less to do with supporting terrorism than it does with a desire to grab some cash. She notes that Siljander has had financial problems since leaving Congress, and that he had a consistent pro-Israel record and was outspoken against Middle Eastern terrorist groups.

H/T Captain's Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 541 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, today is the day for oral arguments on one of this year's big cases.

The Supreme Court, in a case being watched around the world, on Monday hears arguments about whether to ban the lethal three-drug cocktail used in most U.S. executions because it inflicts excruciating pain.

The hour-long session marks the first time in more than a century the court has examined a specific method of capital punishment. It comes at a time when the death penalty itself appears to be in retreat in one of the few democracies that still practices it.

Arguments will focus on whether the commonly used lethal injection method violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but the case has also prompted a wider debate about capital punishment.

* * *

The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could decide if the current lethal drug combination is constitutional or whether states have to come up with alternatives that pose less risk of pain and suffering.

Now it is beyond question that the death penalty is constitutional, as I pointed out the other day in the context of a different case.

And since the Fifth Amendment clearly contemplates and authorizes the use of the death penalty in its provisions related to capital crimes, putting persons in jeopardy of life and requiring due process for the deprivation of life, any ban on executions for non-homicides would be on tenuous constitutional grounds.

The issue, then, is how much pain the criminal is permitted to feel as justice is rendered. And at least two of our major newspapers have made it quite clear that they want the court to impose a standard so high that it would amount to a de facto declaration of unconstitutionality for ANY method of execution.

The New York Times, of course, admits that the clear language of the Constitution authorizing executions does not interfere with its judgment on the issue of the death penalty's constitutionality.

We believe that the death penalty, no matter how it is administered, is unconstitutional and wrong. If a state does execute anyone, it must do so in a way that is humane and does not impose needless suffering. KentuckyÂ’s method does not meet that standard.

The problem, of course, is that this ignores the fact that lethal injection is humane, and that the Constitution does not mandate that criminals not feel any anguish or experience any pain or suffering while justice is delivered. That is true whether or not we are talking about a stint in the county jail or the imposition of the ultimate sanction. the requirement is that the penalty not be "cruel AND unusual" -- and the Supreme Court has said that this means that the method of executions hould not shock the conscience. Frankly, I don't think that your average American (2/3 of whom support the death penalty) is shocked by the notion of a criminal feeling some pain or anguish during execution -- indeed, that they feel some small measure of what they inflicted upon their victims appears to be an appropriate part of the sentence..

But another major newspaper goes even farther in its position on this case. Here are the words of the editorial staff of the Washington Post.

But if capital punishment is to be carried out, it should be done as humanely as possible by a method that causes no pain. Evidence submitted in the Supreme Court case suggests that the current protocol for administering lethal injection cannot meet this standard.

That is, of course, a standard that cannot be met. The inserting of the IV needle itself would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under standard the Washington Post seeks -- never mind that it is performed tens of thousands of times daily in medical facilities around the country.

Now one can argue the efficacy and the desirability of the death penalty. That is, however, a policy question, and one properly left to the states and to Congress. But to cloak abolition of the death penalty in the guise of making it more humane is a constitutional parlour trick that the Supreme Court should reject.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Mark My Words, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 758 words, total size 6 kb.

As far as I am concerned, this is not a question for the courts to decide. It is one that is instead appropriate for the American people to decide.

The U.S. Supreme Court Friday added another dramatic death-penalty case to its docket, agreeing to decide whether a Louisiana man can be put to death for raping his young daughter.

The case joins an appeal set for argument Monday where the Supreme Court will decide whether lethal-injection procedures used in many criminal executions violate constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The lethal injection appeal, in Baze v. Rees, spurred what has become a de facto nationwide halt on death penalty executions until the appeal is decided.

In contrast, the Louisiana rape case for now may affect the fate of just one man -- Patrick Kennedy. His attorneys say he is the only person set to be put to death for rape in the last 40 years.

Nevertheless, the appeal gives the Supreme Court the chance to revisit whether the death penalty can be used for crimes that don't involve someone's death. In recent years, five states have enacted laws allowing the death penalty for child rape and nine additional states and the federal government have seldom-used laws that allow death penalty convictions in certain instances that don't involve murder.

There is certainly nothing in the Constitution that requires the death penalty to be limited to cases of murder. Indeed, any attempt by the courts to so limit the imposition of capital punishment to those involving a fatality would be a gross act of judicial arrogance that would be the best of all possible cases for the impeachment for judges for official misconduct while in office. After all, the Eighth Amendment specifically only bars "cruel and unusual punishment". And since the Fifth Amendment clearly contemplates and authorizes the use of the death penalty in its provisions related to capital crimes, putting persons in jeopardy of life and requiring due process for the deprivation of life, any ban on executions for non-homicides would be on tenuous constitutional grounds.

Besides – can you think of a more fitting punishment for raping a child ?

MORE AT Volokh Conspiracy

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Allie is Wired, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 4 kb.