Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(77,078 posts)
Thu May 5, 2016, 09:18 AM May 2016

The Inside Story of How Bill Clinton Sacrificed Prisoners’ Rights for Political Gain


(The Intercept) On the eve of the New York state primary last month, as Hillary Clinton came closer to the Democratic nomination, Vice President Joe Biden went on TV and defended her husband’s 1994 crime bill. Asked in an interview if he felt shame for his role passing a law that has been the subject of so much recent criticism, Biden answered, “Not at all,” and boasted of its successes — among them putting “100,000 cops on the street.” His remarks sparked a new round of debate over the legacy of the crime bill, which has haunted Clinton ever since she hit the campaign trail with a vow to “end the era of mass incarceration.”

A few days later, on April 24, a lesser-known crime law quietly turned 20. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 — or AEDPA — was signed by Bill Clinton in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. While it has been mostly absent from the recent debates over the crime policies of the ’90s, its impact has been no less profound, particularly when it comes to a bedrock constitutional principle: habeas corpus, or the right of people in prison to challenge their detention. For 20 years, AEDPA has shut the courthouse door on prisoners trying to prove they were wrongfully convicted. Americans are mostly unaware of this legacy, even as we know more than ever about wrongful convictions. Barry Scheck, co-founder and head of the Innocence Project, calls AEDPA “a disaster” and “a major roadblock since its passage.” Many would like to see it repealed.

If the Clintons have not been forced to defend AEDPA, it’s partly because neither the law nor its shared history with the crime bill is well understood. AEDPA’s dizzying provisions — from harsh immigration policies to toughened federal sentencing — were certainly a hasty response to terrorism. But the law was also the product of an administration that long before the Oklahoma attack had abandoned its party’s core principles on criminal justice, deciding instead to wield crime policy as political weapon. After the Republicans seized control of Congress in the historic 1994 midterm elections, the Clinton White House sought to double down on its law-and-order image in advance of the 1996 presidential race. In the short term, it was a winning political strategy for Clinton. In the long term, it would help pave the way to one of the worst laws of his presidency.

The story that sets the stage for AEDPA can be partly told through White House memos from the time, a trove of which were released in 2014. Buried among hundreds of thousands of digital records housed in the Clinton Digital Library are previously confidential documents that shine light on Clinton’s criminal justice strategies in the mid-90s, yet have been largely overlooked.

One memo reveals a White House weighing its options in the weeks after the “Republican Revolution.” Dated November 22, 1994, it was written by top Department of Justice lawyer Ron Klain, who sent it to his boss as well as members of President Clinton’s inner circle, including Bruce Reed (the operative behind the famed pledge to “end welfare as we know it”) and senior White House adviser Rahm Emanuel. The memo was titled “Crime Bill ‘Redux.’” ..................(more)

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/04/the-untold-story-of-bill-clintons-other-crime-bill/




14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
1. Shameful bias alert...
Thu May 5, 2016, 09:37 AM
May 2016

Greenwald has publicly said he will do everything in his power to prevent a Hillary presidency no matter the cost...

So why should I view Glenn's "news" site any differently than Fox, Glenn Beck or the Daily Caller?

Asking for a friend

marmar

(77,078 posts)
2. So does Greenwald's bias change any of the facts in the story?
Thu May 5, 2016, 09:39 AM
May 2016

Are these things not documented truths?


enough

(13,259 posts)
3. I love how the anti-Greenwald static always arrives right on cue,
Thu May 5, 2016, 09:43 AM
May 2016

leaving no time for actually discussing the facts of any given article.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
8. Kind of like how I always get attacked for posting Greenwald criticism?
Thu May 5, 2016, 09:58 AM
May 2016

You mean exactly like that?

Let's call it what it is...

xocet

(3,871 posts)
9. Do you actually substantiate your criticism or is your criticism purely criticism by assertion? n/t
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:08 AM
May 2016

xocet

(3,871 posts)
12. I would not know which arguments are your best: thus, I would rather not waste my time wading...
Thu May 5, 2016, 06:44 PM
May 2016

through the flood of fallacious piddling that this thread's lack of substance so sincerely promises to that effort.

Nitram

(22,794 posts)
5. I love how the relentless anti-Clinton drumbeat doesn't stop for a second.
Thu May 5, 2016, 09:46 AM
May 2016

Keep it up if you support Trump. It's either Trump of Clinton.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
7. Well you don't have to be a Greenwald about it
Thu May 5, 2016, 09:55 AM
May 2016

So why don't you go Greenwald your grandma in the Greenwald, you Greenwalding piece of Greenwald?

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
11. You know, you're always welcome to crash my Greenwald criticism threads
Thu May 5, 2016, 03:26 PM
May 2016

assuming you have the stones to show your face...

But that's cool... Call me names, spew out the insults, etc... That's all you Snowdenistas have been able to use against me for two years now... I'll take all you fucking people on.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
6. The words "selective outrage" mean anything to you?
Thu May 5, 2016, 09:53 AM
May 2016

Never before have I seen so much attention from the pseudo left paid to a 22-year-old crime bill (and I remember when it was being debated, so I know what pundits were saying then) while at the same time whitewashing the fact that Sanders himself voted for it...

Then when you have some free time, go scour the Intercept site and count all the negative hot takes about the Clintons and Obama (they average out to about one per day), and see how many negative think pieces you'll find about Sanders (and Putin, for that matter).

 

clg311

(119 posts)
13. Clintons racist policies have done more harm than Republicans racist policies.
Fri May 6, 2016, 03:19 PM
May 2016

Because the victims of his policies voted for him.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The Inside Story of How B...