-
The Contrarian Returns
I've been absent from the blog this week while I finished a feature story for the print magazine. (The story—the fourth in my series on faulty arson cases—will be out next week. It explores the causes of wrongful arson convictions and what can be done to fix the problem.)
I've plugged back into Texas politics to find that half the state is apparently running for governor (doesn't anyone want to run for school board anymore?).
The latest entrant—Houston millionaire Farouk Shami—plans to join the race today. I'm excited about Shami's campaign; it'll give me the chance to frequently employ the phrase "hair products magnate."
But The Houston Chronicle writes today that Shami's campaign might be dead on arrival. Political pundits are wondering if a Muslim American can successfully run for office folliowing the Fort Hood shooting. And it seems a right-wing talk show host believes Shami is some kind of pinko-commie, fascist, jihadist who shouldn't run for public office because he's shown empathy for Palestinians. The Chronicle story is truly dispiriting:
But it could be a tough sell for the naturalized U.S. citizen from the West Bank in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings and anti-Muslim rhetoric against the accused gunman. Even before the Fort Hood incident, Shami had come under fire from a national conservative commentator who claimed his support for Palestinian rights put him in opposition to Israel....
While Shami has a history of philanthropy in the United States and helping victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, he also has a history of actively pushing for Palestinian rights. He built a girls school and a company factory for Palestinians. In a 2007 article he wrote for the Houston Chronicle, Shami complained that Israeli policies were discriminating against Palestinians and holding back development in their lands.
“The absence of economic and social freedom for Palestinians is in no one's long-term interest not Palestinians, nor Israelis, and certainly not Americans,” Shami wrote.
Such sentiments brought him under fire from conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel, who suggested he is anti-Israel in a piece titled “Jihad and hair care: Meet Texas Dems' Palestinian Muslim candidate for governor.” Conservative talk show hosts have been railing against Muslims because a Palestinian-American is accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood.
And here I thought his main political liability was running for governor of Texas as a Democrat.
Posted under: The Horse RaceDoes John Bradley Get It?
I've been pulled away from the blog this week to finish a feature story about the recent controversy over arson convictions. (The story will be out in two weeks.)
But I wanted to highlight Rick Casey's excellent column in today's Houston Chronicle about the spat between John Bradley and Sam Bassett over the Forensic Science Commission.
Bassett was, until recently, head of the commission. Gov. Rick Perry replaced him with Bradley, the hard-line Williamson County prosecutor who appears to be slow-walking the commission's investigation into the controversial execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. (Willingham, of course, may well have been innocent.)
The two have been sniping at each other since Bradley appeared before a legislative committee earlier this week and criticized the commission's approach under Bassett.
Casey nails exactly what's at issue here:
Bradley is speaking like a prosecutor. He assumes that the commission's job is to decide whether the fire marshals, laboratory technicians, fingerprint experts and others engaged in solving crimes were negligent or incompetent.....
Here's the most important thing. The prosecutorial culture wants to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the people involved did something wrong.
The scientific culture wants to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether everything was done right. That's why findings are published, peer-reviewed, and subject to never-ending scrutiny.
The Commission actually voted not to attempt to define the terms “professional negligence” and “misconduct” at its February 2008 meeting in Dallas. The minutes show agreement that it was “unnecessary since we have no rule making and/or enforcement authority under the present statutory structure.”
In other words, their job as scientists wasn't to sanction the investigators, but to judge the quality of the science. That is the way scientists learn how to do things better.
The sole purpose of the findings, however embarrassing for the investigators, would be to improve future practices.
That's right on. As I've written before, Willingham is gone. His case is irrevocably closed. But we can use the lessons from Willingham's case to help innocent people still in prison on bogus arson convictions and to help prevent future wrongful convictions.
Bradley seems in no rush, though.
Even under the commission's original timeline for the Willingham investigation, a final report wouldn't have been ready until winter or spring of 2010 -- six years after the execution and four years after the commission first received a request to examine the case.
With Bradley in charge, it could be a year (or several years) before we see conclusions on the Willingham case.
And only the Legislature seems positioned to speed up that timeline.
Posted under: Science of ArsonThe Willingham Hearing
The small hearing room in the Capitol basement was packed this morning to see the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice take on the infamous Cameron Todd Willingham case.
Judging from the crowd, the hearing promised excellent political theater. Kinky Friedman was there (accompanied, as always, by sidekick Little Jewford), so was Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck, a number of Texas House members, Cory Session (the brother of the late Tim Cole), and, if I'm not mistaken, just about every reporter and blogger in town.
They had all come to hear the senators grill John Bradley, the prosecutor who Gov. Rick Perry appointed to lead the Forensic Science Commission. Critics have accused Perry of installing Bradley to stall or undermine the commission's investigation of Willingham, a likely innocent man executed in 2004 for murder by arson. Many forensic experts now believe the fire was accidental, not arson, and that Willingham was convicted by flawed forensics. (Background on Forensic Science Commission controversy here; and more on Willingham's case here.)
Once the hearing began, however, there were few theatrics. In fact, the Willingham case was mentioned only in passing (save for one speech by Sen. Dan Patrick).
Senators threw a few politically tinged questions at Bradley, who responded with combative answers, but the hearing largely focused on the most important aspect of this controversy: the forensic science of arson and how many innocent Texans may have been convicted by junk arson science.
No one really knows how many innocent people may be sitting in Texas prisons on faulty arson convictions. I've been writing a series on the topic this year, and have unearthed three cases of apparently wrongful arson convictions (Curtis Severns, Ed Graf, and Alfredo Guardiola).
Bradley, the hard-line Williamson County prosecutor, opened the hearing by outlining his vision for the Forensic Science Commission in the future. He wants to write rules and definitions for the commission and create more structure. He wants to work with the Office of Court Administration to come up with definitions for the commission.
He steadfastly refused to comment -- in both the hearing and a gathering with reporters afterward -- on the Willingham case or when the commission would finish the stalled investigation. He did say the commission would meet again in January. That was perhaps the biggest nugget of news to emerge from the morning's events.
(In a press conference after the hearing, Scheck and Sen. Rodney Ellis suggested that some of Bradley's ideas amounted to stall tactics. "How long can it really take to get a definition of 'negligence' from the Office of Court Administration?" Scheck said. "We hope Chairman Bradley moves forward in a timely way....There are potentially people in prison who shouldn't be there based on this kind of unreliable forensic science.")
Indeed, that's the real issue here. During the hearing, Ellis pointed out that more than 740 Texans are serving prison sentences for arson. In that sense, the work for the Forensic Science Commission is much larger than Willingham.
"We want to make sure we got it right," Ellis said. He then suggested that there was the appearance of politically motivated delays in the Willingham investigation.
Bradley shot back by questioning Ellis' role on the board of the Innocence Project, which brought the Willingham case to the commission. "I have to wonder if you're here on behalf of the New York nonprofit who filed the complaint," he said. Later, Rep. Tommy Merritt asked if Bradley had similar credibility concerns about other lawmakers on the dais, and Bradley quickly cut him down. "I don't even know your name," he said.
But the discussion kept coming back to fire science.
I've been writing for months that the focus of the Willingham investigation should be on the arson forensics. The prospect that Texas might admit executing an innocent man is alluring. But the real value of the Willingham case will be drawing attention to the kind of disproved arson evidence that has sent dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of innocent people to prison.
As Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa put it to Bradley late in the hearing, "Just focus on the arson techniques that were used."
Posted under: Science of ArsonThe Fort Hood Tragedy
I'd like to highlight some of the better news coverage of yesterday's stunning attack at Fort Hood.
The Washington Post has the most-revealing story I've seen yet about the shooter, Nidal M. Hasan.
He's from Virginia and -- as you probably know -- worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in D.C.
The Post story begins:
He prayed every day at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, a devout Muslim who, despite asking to be discharged from the U.S. Army, was on the eve of his first deployment to war. Yesterday, authorities said Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, a 39-year-old Arlington-born psychiatrist, shot and killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex.
In an interview, his aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, said he had endured name-calling and harassment about his Muslim faith for years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and had sought for several years to be discharged from the military.....
Hasan was born in Arlington and grew up in the Roanoke Valley of southwestern Virginia, a bookish young man who, his father hoped, would go on to significant professional achievement. He spent nearly all of his Army medical career at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the District, caring for the victims of trauma, yet spoke openly of his deep opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Post story is must-reading, if you want to know who this person is.
The Statesman has provided excellent, ongoing coverage on this blog.
The Statesman reports (for those of us in the Austin area who want to donate blood) that the central Austin blood center is overwhelmed today. The Blood and Tissue Center of Central Texas is asking that Austinites wait to donate blood during the coming holiday season:
Because of the donor response to this tragic event, the blood supply continues to be adequate at this time. Rather than give a donation today, we encourage you to make an appointment now to donate during the Thanksgiving or the Christmas holidays and continue to donate once a quarter.
Posted under: Law and Order« Older PostsWhy You Can’t Blame TMA for Endorsing Perry
Gov. Rick Perry picked up a key endorsement earlier this week from the political arm of the Texas Medical Association.
The endorsement wasn't a huge shock. TMA, which represents more than 40,000 doctors, has been tight with Perry since 2003, especially on tort reform issues.
But it wasn't an easy choice. TMA has also endorsed Kay Bailey Hutchison every time she's been on the ballot. On TMA's core policy issues, there isn't much difference between Perry and Hutchison. The doctors' group might have endorsed Hutchison or taken the easy path by sitting the primary race out and waiting to make an endorsement until the general election.
David Reynolds, the director of political education for TEXPAC (TMA's political arm), told me the group considers both candidates "friends." One advantage for the governor is that "Perry has been a friendly incumbent."
It's clear not everyone in TMA's leadership is thrilled with the Perry endorsement. Quorum Report wrote earlier this week that the vote by TMA leaders to endorse Perry wasn't unanimous. A group of present and past leaders at TMA have broken ranks to support Hutchison by forming a group called Physicians for Kay.
But no one should be angry with the Perry endorsement. TMA had no choice. Endorsements are political decisions, and this one was good politics.
For one, it's always wise to support -- as Reynolds put it -- a friendly incumbent. But it's larger than that.
Perry isn't just any incumbent. He's an incumbent who will carve your guts out if you cross him.
Let's flashback to 2002. TMA leaders were angry that Perry had vetoed a favored bill, and they endorsed Democrat Tony Sanchez for governor.
After Perry crushed Sanchez, the governor took revenge on TMA. As the well-told story goes, Perry's people pressured TMA to let go long-time lobbyist Kim Ross. The message from the governor's office was clear enough.
On the other side, I don't get the sense that Hutchison -- if she were elected -- would play hardball in quite the same way.
I suspect that if Hutchison is elected governor, she won't take revenge on the groups who endorsed Perry. She'll probably forgive and move on.
But had TMA endorsed Hutchison or stayed neutral, and Perry had won anyway....well, we've seen that scenario before.
So you can't blame TMA for endorsing Perry. It was just good politics.
Posted under: The Rick Perry Beat -
Recent Posts
-
The Contrarian Returns
-
Does John Bradley Get It?
-
The Willingham Hearing
-
The Fort Hood Tragedy
-
Why You Can’t Blame TMA for Endorsing Perry
-
Women More Likely to Be Uninsured
-
Dept. of Corrections
-
Manslaughter at a State School
-
Heath Care Reform Would Benefit Texas
-
The Supposed Willingham Confession
-
Back to the Science on Willingham
-
Public Option Lives
-
How the Health Care System Screws Us
-
As Burka Goes, So Goes the State
-
Public Option Ain’t Dead Just Yet
Archive
Categories
-
The Contrarian Returns
Subscribe to this feed via RSS
