The Atlantic Monthly explores the role of Bush’s Attorney General-to-be in enabling his executions:

Gonzales’s summaries were Bush’s primary source of information in deciding whether someone would live or die. Each is only three to seven pages long and generally consists of little more than a brief description of the crime, a paragraph or two on the defendant’s personal background, and a condensed legal history. Although the summaries rarely make a recommendation for or against execution, many have a clear prosecutorial bias, and all seem to assume that if an appeals court rejected one or another of a defendant’s claims, there is no conceivable rationale for the governor to revisit that claim. This assumption ignores one of the most basic reasons for clemency: the fact that the justice system makes mistakes. A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence…

For this Thanksgiving, John Nichols looks to Daniel Webster:

Noting the communal nature of the Pilgrim experiment, which broke from the feudal structures of the European lands they had fled, Webster warned that America was becoming less equal. And, he added, “The freest government, if it could exist, would not be long acceptable if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accumulation of property in few hands, and to render the great mass of the population dependent and penniless.”

…He spoke specifically of America’s original sin: the practice of slavery. “I deem it my duty on this occasion to suggest, that the land is not yet wholly free from the contamination of a traffic, at which every feeling of humanity must for ever revolt — I mean the African slave-trade. Neither public sentiment, nor the law, has hitherto been able entirely to put an end to his odious and abominable trade…In the sight of our law, the African slave-trader is a pirate and a felon; and in the sight of Heaven, an offender beyond the ordinary depth of human guilt.”

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

This says more about the mainstream media than it does about youth – or about Jon Stewart:

America’s twentysomethings, who are tuning into politics, trust Comedy Central fake-news king Jon Stewart more than network vets Peter Jennings and Dan Rather, a new study shows. Asked whom they trust more to inform them on politics, 17% said NBC’s Tom Brokaw, followed by Stewart of “The Daily Show” at 16%. ABC’s Jennings had 15% and CBS’ Rather had 10%. And most people, 26%, picked “none of the above,” according to the survey by Global Strategy Group and Luntz Research.

Presumably, they’re not taken in by the myth that the problem with those anchors is “liberal bias” either…

Wal-Mart Watch: In China, Wal-Mart comes under pressure to allow unionization:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, said it’s willing to let its employees in China set up trade unions, responding to media reports of criticism by the country’s national union federation. “Should associates request formation of a union, Wal-Mart China would respect their wishes and honor its obligation under China’s Trade Union Law,” the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company said in a faxed statement. Local associates, or employees, manage all the company’s stores in China, Wal-Mart said. The All-China Federation of Trade Unions blamed foreign companies including Wal-Mart, Eastman Kodak Co. and Dell Inc. for not allowing unions in their Chinese operations, the China Business Weekly, a newspaper published by the official China Daily, reported on Nov. 16.

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart Canada is forced to share documentation of its anti-union strategy:

The Saskatchewan Appeal Court has struck down a lower court decision and ruled the Saskatchewan Relations Labour Board (SLRB) was within its rights when it ordered Wal-Mart to deliver evidence that outlines the company’s anti-union strategies. The order by the SLRB was originally issued to Wal-Mart in June 2004 during hearings by the board on an application by the UFCW Canada union to represent employees at a Wal-Mart store in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. “The appeal court has ruled unequivocally that Wal-Mart is not above the law,” said Michael Fraser, national director of UFCW Canada. “When the SLRB asked the union to turn over our own organizing materials we complied immediately. What does Wal-Mart have to hide?”

In May 2004, UFCW Canada Local 1400 applied to the SLRB for certification after a majority of the Weyburn employees had signed union membership cards. During the initial hearings the board ordered Wal-Mart to deliver internal anti-union strategy materials for the SLRB to determine if the company had breached Saskatchewan labour laws during the campaign. Wal-Mart refused to comply and in July successfully appealed to a judge of the Saskatchewan Queen’s Bench to set aside the SLRB order. Today’s ruling (see http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca for the written ruling) overturned July’s decision. The Weyburn certification hearings, which were suspended pending the appeal, can now proceed. If Wal-Mart declines to deliver the material as ordered by the SLRB in June, the company could be charged with contempt. “Wal-Mart’s stalling has already shown contempt for the Weyburn workers and the SLRB,” said Fraser. “Wal-Mart workers have the right to join a union. Let the board determine if that’s what the Weyburn workers want and whether Wal-Mart broke the law during this organizing campaign, just like they did in Quesnel, British Columbia and at the Brossard store near Montreal. As Québec’s Premier Charest stated recently, Wal-Mart has to play by the same rules as everyone else and obey the laws of the land.”

(Wal-Mart Watch archives here.)

Correction: CJ shares this correction of info in this post on an alleged “I-69” controversy – apparently it’s a piece of satire that got picked up from this website. Thanks, and my apologies.

Both candidates for Prime Minister of Ukraine claim victory:

Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko claimed a “convincing” victory today in the country’s disputed presidential elections, as some 200,000 of his supporters protested in Kiev at suspected election fraud. The western-leaning Mr Yushchenko accused the authorities of rigging Sunday’s vote in favour of the Kremlin-backed prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, who has been officially declared the winner. And tonight, at around 1800GMT, an opposition aide, who was standing next to Mr Yushchenko on a stage in a packed Independence square, told tens of thousands of supporters to march to the main presidential offices, which are around half a mile away. Reuters reported that Yulia Tymoshenko, who heads a faction in parliament backing Mr Yushchenko, told the crowd: “We are going to go to the presidential administration in a peaceful way, without breaking anything. And either they will give up their power, or we will take it.” As the opposition looked to people power, commentators said that a breakthrough was more likely to come from the increasing pressure from the West being placed on the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to withdraw his support of Mr Yanukovich. The EU, Britain and the US have expressed their concerns about the poll.

The crisis follows an election that was condemned by international observers. An exit poll, funded by western embassies, had put Mr Yuschenko ahead by 11%, but official figures gave Mr Yanukovich victory by around 3%. The results have been rejected by at least four local governments and the protests are mounting. Earlier, as his supporters staged protests and sit-ins in Independence square and surrounding streets, Mr Yushchenko told politicians gathered for an emergency session of parliament that “Ukraine is on the threshold of a civil conflict”. The session was convened by the opposition to discuss their requests to annul the election results and express no confidence in the election commission. Mr Yushchenko warned the parliament: “We have two choices: either the answer will be given by the parliament, or the streets will give an answer”.

Dave Sideman calls on Ben Nelson not to take the bait:

Reports have it that the Bush Administration has approached Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) to be Secretary of Agriculture. Isn’t that nice, reaching out across the aisle. Oh wait a minute, he tried this one before! Trying to erode the Senate Democratic Minority, making this an even more one-party state. I’d say Senator Nelson better stick to his seat in the United States Senate, and help his party and his country get through these next two years before we can take back Congress in 2006.

An excellent chance for Harry Reid to demonstrate a spine:

Lawmakers of both parties said today that the Pentagon played a clear role in the defeat of compromise legislation aimed at remaking United States intelligence agencies. They said the failure to act had left only slender prospects of reform this year, although Republicans in Congress and the White House vowed to push the measure next month. Some legislators said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had made clear his opposition to the proposed overhaul, which would have stripped the Pentagon of some budgetary control over its vast intelligence operations. A Defense Department spokesman denied any such Pentagon involvement. The Senate intelligence committee chairman, Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, was asked why the Republican-controlled House had been unable to pass a measure sought by President Bush and endorsed by the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and many relatives of victims of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “Some of it is turf, quite frankly,” Mr. Roberts said on CNN, “some of it is from the Pentagon.”

A harbinger of things to come:

The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such “conscience protection” to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers…The provision could affect millions of American women, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who warned Friday that she would use procedural tactics to slow Senate business to a crawl if the language was not altered. “I am willing to stand on my feet and slow this thing down,” Ms. Boxer said. “Everyone wants to go home, I know that, and I know I will not win a popularity contest in the Senate. But they should not be doing this. On a huge spending bill they’re writing law, and they’re taking away rights from women.”…The spending measure, called an omnibus bill, was the main reason Congress returned to Washington after the election, and members of both parties say that despite Ms. Boxer’s warnings, it is likely to pass with the abortion language intact.

Remind me which party it is that’s obstructing the legislative process again:

Indiana Republican Congressman John Hostettler is joining with local conservative religious groups to introduce legislation in the House that would change the name of an extension of Interstate 69 to a more “moral sounding number.” Hostettler explained his motivations thus: “Every time I have been out in the public with an ‘I-69’ button on my lapel, teenagers point and snicker at it. I have had many ask me if they can have my button. I believe it is time to change the name of the highway. It is the moral thing to do.”

The YDN covers the UnFarallon Day of Action:

The concerns of the group named UnFarallon — including undergraduates, Undergraduate Organizing Committee members, graduate students and Graduate Students and Employees Organization members — center upon Yale’s involvement with Farallon Capital Management, a hedge fund which privately manages equity capital for Yale and other colleges’ endowments, UOC member Phoebe Rounds ’07 said. The petition UnFarallon delivered Tuesday asked for a meeting with Swensen to discuss investment disclosure. The petition was circulated in response to the failure of the Investments Office to respond to another letter delivered to Swenson on Oct. 12, Rounds said. The second petition was signed by 175 students. Farallon itself responded Monday to a letter sent to it Nov. 9 by UnFarallon. The letter asked Farallon to disclose investment information. “As investors, we cannot comment on the appropriate approaches for universities to take regarding issues of community oversight,” Thomas Steyer ’79, a senior managing member of Farallon, said in a written response to UnFarallon’s letter…”Fortunately they’ve said the decision is up to the individual universities, which rightfully increases the pressure on Yale,” Eidelson said.

Andrea Johnson FES ’05 said that UnFarallon wants to start small, by first opening a dialogue with the Investments Office about what the group sees as a lack of transparency. “Yale needs to acknowledge that there is a need for more information, for more transparency,” Johnson said. “We’d like to have a dialogue because, yes, the Investments Office knows more about what the risks and what are the opportunities of disclosing more information.” Johnson said she is frustrated by UnFarallon’s inability to persuade the Investments Office “to acknowledge our existence.”…Other universities responded more proactively to letters sent to them by their campus’ chapters of UnFarallon, Johnson said. At the University of Pennsylvania, she said, UnFarallon was able to arrange a meeting with the university’s Board of Trustees. Tuesday’s events, which included a “teach-in” and a small skit, were part of National Day of Action which took place on nine campuses. “We want to discuss a way that Yale’s investments are in line with Yale’s goals as an educational institution and to work out a way that we all, as stakeholders, can know that its investments are socially and ethically responsible,” Rounds said.

An outrage:

The U.S. military said Tuesday it is investigating the videotaped fatal shooting of a wounded man by a U.S. Marine in a mosque in Fallujah. Iraqis condemned the act as “cowardice” and “something forbidden in Islam.” Investigators will determine whether the Marine acted in self-defense against what a spokesman described as an “enemy combatant.” The dramatic footage was taken Saturday by pool correspondent Kevin Sites of NBC television, whose report said the man who was killed didn’t appear to be armed or threatening in any way, with no weapons visible in the mosque. The slain man was among a group of men wounded in fighting a day earlier at the mosque and left there. Three others in the group were also shot again Saturday by Marines, Sites said.

The Marine involved in the fatal shooting was withdrawn from the battlefield pending the results of the investigation, the U.S. military said. “We follow the law of armed conflict and hold ourselves to a high standard of accountability,” said Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, commanding general of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. “The facts of this case will be thoroughly pursued to make an informed decision and to protect the rights of all persons involved.” The Marine statement said the investigators would look at “an allegation of the unlawful use of force in the death of an enemy combatant.”