Perry has insisted that this was standard operating procedure, all part of the regular cycle of appointments. But troubling comments from the deposed chairman suggest that the governor's efforts to change the course of this inquiry began months ago.
The commission is examining the arson-murder case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was sent to his death in 2004. Fire science experts have emphatically rebuked the arson investigation, but the governor has attempted to plug his ears and push aside accumulating evidence that Texas might have executed an innocent man on his watch.
Samuel Bassett, who was replaced as chairman two weeks ago, said the governor's aides pressured him as they expressed displeasure with the investigation, questioned the cost of the inquiry and even hinted that the commission's funding could be in jeopardy.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Well Megan, I really don't see any smoking gun in this case. We know you're anti death-penalty but this is grasping at straws.
Yes, as a long-time reader, it amuses me to see Megan accused of conservative bias one week, and liberal bias the next. Clearly it's a more productive use of time to dwell on your opponent's bias, rather than their actual arguments.
The Dallas Morning News, hardly a liberal rag
No bearing on the topic, but what makes you think that? Back when I was still subscribing, it certainly deserved that label.
I’m not familiar with the Dallas Morning News but my experience has been that many nominally “pro business” periodicals tend to also skew pretty far to the left when it comes to many “cultural” or “social issues” like capital punishment. Megan’s old periodical, the Economist, was pro-SSM as I recall and even had a cover entitled “Let Them Marry” with a picture of two “grooms” on what was purportedly a wedding cake.
Actually I think the commenters in question were referring to what they took as a tendency on your part to accept liberal’s characterizations of conservatives at face value and when presented with contrary facts, digging your heels in rather than admitting you’re wrong. They pointed out the fact that (a) the terms of the replaced members of the commission had already expired and they were due to be replaced and (b) under Texas law, the governor apparently* doesn’t have the power to commute or pardon a death sentence without a recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
I’m not saying that characterization of you is necessarily true ((I’m a fan from back in the “Live from the WTC” days so I might have a different perspective than some of your newer readers) but I think some of your newer readers are going off the way you parroted Andrew Sullivan’s accusation that Rush Limbaugh was encouraging white supremacy (or whatever drivel is coming out of the Atlantic’s resident birther’s excuse for a mind these days) and that is driving the impression of you.
* I haven’t verified this but I’ve seen that point made on a couple of different forums frequented by other attorneys and so far no one has challenged it.
I suspect Megan of libertarian, not liberal, bias. A libertarian sees investigation of what may have been a politically embarassing mistake apparently being side-tracked; and thinks that the politician in charge is trying to cover up the facts. Doesn't matter what the mistake is, or what colours that politico runs under; it is the guy in charge trying to duck responsibility for what he did. Libertarianism is about doing what you want to do and paying for it, in full.
We non-libertarians are more realistic. We only reckon that the odds are 10 to 1 that Perry's people are trying to get him out from under a mess that he has been administering for some years.
My comment yesterday was more to point out the anti-Perry bias of the piece you used to support your suspicions. Phrases like "suddenly replaced", "against their wishes", "brazenly corrupt" - okay, I guess it is an opinion piece, but still - immediately triggered my warning bells and upon further digging the truth of the matter seems much less conspiratorial. Your suspicions may yet be vindicated, but - again - please bring more to the table than a hit-job article if you want to avoid this kind of criticism.
What does Perry really gain, anyway? Can't the new chair call the hearing at a later date? This isn't really sweeping anything under the rug...
I’m curious how far along the commission was in their investigation. If they had just about finished up their investigation and only had one last hearing and then a final report of their findings but then Perry chose to make his replacements, I could see wondering if there was a cover-up.
But if they still had a long ways to go and were only about half-way completed (as one of the comments in the Dallas Morning News suggested), I don’t see the point in further delays in the replacements of the new commission members.
So unless someone is going to suggest that the commissioners should be able to stay on indefinitely (even though they were appointed for a finite term which had already expired), if the facts are closer to the second rather than first scenario, I don’t think that what Governor Perry did is necessarily unreasonable or smacks of a “cover up.”
Especially if the new commissioners are comparably qualified to the old ones which they appear to be.
This is my point exactly. I don't think we know enough of the facts, and that stuff Megan cited was using some pretty inflammatory prose. Politics aside, that alone makes me suspicious of the accuracy of their portrayal.
Megan,
You can not simply cite a bunch of people who are all citing the same source you are citing and then call it more evidence.
Sheesh!
It was entirely legitimate to be suspicious about that case.
Perry made a mistake in the first place, then made a mistake by trying a cover up.
But lets not forget that the Texas Court system also failed, as did the prosecution.
I was one of the critics yersterday. I was responding to the knee-jerk bashing of flyover country, similarly displayed on the Limbaugh thread and a couple of others.
I'm also a reader since the WTC days. I read because 85%+ of your writings are valuable enough to overlook the Eastern Establishment bigotry...I'm sure many of us have friends like that, we enjoy their company enough to overlook the occasional homophobic or misogynistic comment.
As others have pointed out, the Dallas Morning News is pro-business, but it's liberal. I think it goes back to the fact that Dallas REALLY wishes it was on the East coast, and apes the fashions of what it imagines NYC or Boston did circa 1940. Whereas Ft. Worth and Houston pretty much don't care, they'll kick your a** in a fight, just try them, bud. Austin fell asleep on the train and thinks it's somewhere between Denver, Portland OR, and San Fran.
FWIW, I'm anti-death penalty myself. I've seen too much overreaching (Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, Jamie Olis, others too numberous or anonymous to mention) to think that prosecutors aren't as abusive as defense lawyers; or that rich people get more justice than poor people.
I'm sure many of us have friends like that
Or pastors!
I meant to say "...prosecutors ARE as abusive as defense lawyers..."
You know god created the death penalty for cases like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom_Murder
Check it out - it's one of the most horrifying crimes in American history.
The Dallas Morning News has a blog devoted to the death penalty. The most prominent poster appears to be vehemently against it. The other named poster has two posts, one pointing out that it's popular, but the other pointing out that Marylanders don't like Texas's approach to the death penalty (and on the second, she was pointed in that direction by an anti-DP site she reads). A guest blogger also opposes the death penalty. Nothing there actually supporting the death penalty, even in theory. That they might not accurately portray the situation is not a long-shot.
It appears that there really wasn't justification for executing Willingham, this should be investigated and Perry should not be stymieing the investigation. These are bad things. There does not appear to be any proof that he didn't do it, which you don't need to avoid being put to death, but you do need to say "Texas killed an innocent man!!!" as many are.
I oppose the death penalty and would even if we had some magical way of knowing that only guilty people would be executed. I am less concerned about the guilty being put to death than the innocent, for sure, but the state should not be killing people even if they deserve it in some fashion or cosmic justice.
>>>There does not appear to be any proof that he didn't do it, which you don't need to avoid being put to death, but you do need to say "Texas killed an innocent man!!!" as many are.>>>
I suppose you could say that there is no such thing as an innocent man, if you tend that way philosophically. But I think it is fair to say that Texas executed a man for a crime when there was A) No evidence that that particular man had committed any crime, B) no evidence that any crime had been committed at all, and C) compelling exculpatory evidence that was disregarded or withheld at the 11th hour. I think in practical terms, rather than philosophic terms, that's as close as you can come to saying Texas executed an innocent man.
The question in my mind is whether anyone involved with derailing the legal system and its protections here should be up for a manslaughter charge.
Samuel Bassett, who was replaced as chairman two weeks ago, said the governor's aides pressured him as they expressed displeasure with the investigation, questioned the cost of the inquiry and even hinted that the commission's funding could be in jeopardy.
That's just business as usual. Next you'll be telling me that it's wrong for a senator to call up a US Attorney and ask him what's holding up that indictment.
The judicial branch, including the appeals process, has primary responsibility.
Everything here ignores that in favor of attacks on Perry, because he is the target.
Actually, both the judicial branch and the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole have primary responsibility. Perry has almost nothing to do with the death penalty process.
But, as I noted below, Perry is one of those icky Republicans from the midwest. The coastal elite, such as Megan, look down upon folks like him. Hence, their approbrium is focused on Perry, even if he had virtually nothing to do with the execution.
Texas is in the Midwest? Since when? I'm sure there are a lot of Texans and Midwesterners that would take significant offense to that characterization. It looks like you're the one lumping all of the people from flyover country together.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that your comment was ingnorance and not snark, I read Alex S's reference to the "Midwest" as Flyover Country. IE, Non-Coastal Elite Land.
Thomas Frank used a similar figure of speech in the title of his book "What's the Matter with Kansas." He used Kansas as a metaphor not only for that State or the Midwest as a whole, but everywhere he thought people were voting Republican in contrast to their interests...Wyoming, Utah, the Florida panhandle, Texas, etc.
I am also a long-time reader from back in the "Live From the WTC" days. There was no accusation of liberal bias in my comments, just that you appear to have a certain gullibility (or lack of skepticism) when posting liberal characterizations of the icky conservatives from flyover land like Rush Limbaugh or Rick Perry.
The editorial you post and link to here seems to me to be no better than the link you provided yesterday. It states that Perry "abruptly unseated three commission members." As noted yesterday, this is false - to be "unseated", the commissioners must have a seat in the first place, and that seat had expired before the governor replaced them. Hence, the comparison in the editorial to the "Saturday night massacre" is inappropriate and infammitory. And this doesn't even get into the question of whether the evidence of innocence - which there isn't.
I'm not from Texas and I'm not a student of Governor Perry's management style, so maybe there's something I'm missing here. But if you desired to replace the members of a commission, wouldn't you have their replacements lined up before their terms were up? Or is it standard practice for people on government commissions to just keep serving after their terms expire until someone notices they shouldn't be there anymore?
The timing of Perry's belated discovery that the wrong people were on the commission is problematic. It may be innocent, but it lends suspicion to the idea that he replaced commission members when he did because they wouldn't play ball and he wanted this hearing stopped. And given the context, the governor should have been alert to the dangers of looking like you're guilty of something, even if you're innocent.
That said, I think the ire directed at Perry personally is over the top. I don't think he's covering for his own failure to pardon, so much as trying to protect the system Texas relies upon to maintain public safety.
"Perry has almost nothing to do with the death penalty process."
I don't know what "almost nothing" is supposed to mean, but at the very least procedurally he can grant a stay and can request a clemency hearing. Then as far as the board of pardons is concerned, he appoints all those people in the first place, no? So really, the governor is in near complete control of the clemency process, which is the last failsafe in these cases. And in the case of a wrongful execution, the part of the process that is really on the hot seat. Unless I'm missing something about procedure in Texas, I really don't understand what you mean.
"but at the very least procedurally he can grant a stay"
Once, for 30 days.
Yeah, once, for 30 days. So that the evidence can be reviewed in a clemency hearing. Not only is that not "almost nothing," at the point at which the use of the bogus science was brought to light, it was everything. It was all that was left, and the final safeguard of the system.
So I still don't get your point. Perry and his appointed commission were in fact the ones that could have averted this. Maybe you don't believe that for some reason, but I think most people who look at the situation would come to that conclusion. That is what created a political problem for Perry, and IMO that is the most logical explanation why the board Perry controls is suddenly unable to complete an investigation.
What's your theory, that Perry just decided it was time for some bigtime turnover on the board, and that this decision had nothing to do with the most controversial case ever before them coming due in a matter of hours? OK.
One of the last things JFK may have seen was a bronze statue about 50 yards away in the plaza that he was entering. It was Dealey Plaza and the bronze statue at street level is of George Bannnerman Dealey, the first publisher and founder of The Dallas Morning News. The same family still controls the paper. A lot of things they get wrong. They may not have the 'right' view on the death penalty. They favor the general direction of the Democrats health plans. But Texas politics is office politics for them. Thus if they say Perry is obstructing an investigation and give you the players and what they say, it's relevant.
A couple of points.
First, the editorial page editor of the Dallas Morning news is Keven Ann Willey. She's a liberal that ran the editorial page at the Arizona Republic (which I read for several years while she was here) before departing to Dallas. I suspect that she has a lot more say over the editorial page content than anyone else. Yes, from an editorial page standpoint, under Keven Ann Willey, The Dallas Morning News is a "liberal rag."
Second, in most states, the governor can pardon or parole people. That is not true in Texas. Go read the Texas state constitution. In Texas the governor cannot pardon or parole people. Hence, a having person put to death "on the governor's watch" is not something that the governor can control.
The governor in Texas technically can't simply give permanent clemency by fiat. What he can do is give a 30 day stay, and ask his appointed board to review the case for clemency and give him a recommendation which he can approve or reject. Now if your argument is that he has no control over a process that he initiates, and over which he yields appointment power and approval/veto, I guess you're right. This would be like the president's power over legislation, if the president were allowed to appoint all the senators and congressmen and could replace them at any time for any reason. If that's not enough "control" for you to call it control, then you must be pretty legalistically minded.
However you want to look at it, the Governor is clearly the most instrumental agent in what was set up as the last safeguard against exactly what happened. He didn't do the job, and was obviously as glib and oblivious as the prosecution. Now whether he has a good reason for failing here, I don't know. But his approach is obviously to stop the investigation to protect his political interests.
You're a libertarian?
>>>This would be like the president's power over legislation, if the president were allowed to appoint all the senators and congressmen and could replace them at any time for any reason.>>>
Oh, and introduce bills too. I forgot that part.