The Voice of Treason

Dick Cheney’s trip was cut short when he had to race back to Washington to vote. Now Donald Rumsfeld is in Iraq. I know I’m too old to believe in Santa, but I tend to think big this time of year. Any chance George Bush will be making a trip to visit the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan this holiday season?

Part of me thinks that would be wonderful, so if it doesn’t happen I’m just setting myself up for disappointment. And part of me knows that Bush will get criticized if he doesn’t go and criticized even more if he does go (it’s a photo op and nothing more…he’s using the troops for political gain…blah, blah, blah…)

Personally, I think it would be a good thing. On some level there would be the thought that this might be the last chance for the president to visit the troops in Iraq because a year from now they’ll all be home. (Okay, I know I said I like to think big at Christmas, but I didn’t say I was delusional - I know the troops will still be there next December.)

I don’t know. Ever since Condi Rice’s trip to the Middle East, I’ve been thinking: Who else is going? I wasn’t surprised when they announced Cheney’s surprise trip, but I was pleased. His stop in Afghanistan was important and historic, and it was largely ignored - much like Joe Lieberman’s trip.

T and I don’t exchange Christmas gifts, and I don’t keep a list of items I want to receive. But 2005 has been a mostly unpleasant year, so I’m going to cross my fingers for this one thing. I’m prepared to fall back on the usual wish for peace on earth, good will towards men…and dogs, but this is a season of hope.

So I’ll continue to do just that.

When you think of Michael Bloomberg, you might think of many things, but Republican isn’t one of them. But he’s been re-elected mayor of New York and that’s probably a good thing. If I remember correctly, I’d once heard that Bloomberg would personally distribute checks to his employees on payday and thank each person as he handed them a check. He was present.

Since he has established himself as a nice guy, I don’t think anyone would mind if this holiday season he did something bold. Just as Brit Hume announced that he and the panel would be discussing the NYC Transit (illegal) strike, I was making my way to the kitchen and said:

“Remember Ronald Reagan! Fire ‘em all - let God sort ‘em out!”

By the time I got back to the other room, Fred Barnes was essentially saying the same thing. Meanspirited? Not at all. This strike is costing the city hundreds of millions of dollars and it’s not only inconveniencing, but endangering, millions of citizens. It’s the holiday season, it’s cold, and there are tourists in town. I’d say it’s those who are striking who are meanspirited. (Unions care about people. Sure they do.)

I have friends in New York. One lives in New Jersey and commutes to his job in Times Square. How is he getting to work? New Yorkers displayed a lot of class after September 11, and they’re showing their stuff again now. They deserve better and they have a right to be angry.

Mayor, don’t worry about being called a grinch. Don’t worry about being called meanspirited. Fire people at Christmas time? Think of the millions of people who voted for you trudging through the elements to get to their jobs - if they still have them. And aren’t there New Orleans RTA bus drivers still looking for work?

You’re a businessman, Michael. It’s not personal. It’s strictly business.

Now that’s a press conference! What was it? Forty-five minutes? An hour? Looks like George is out of that Newsweek bubble - something the MSM might regret. Frankly, he made a few of the reporters look silly, although several of them were doing a good job of it without his help. Do you ever wonder if journalists read the newspaper?

And if I have to hear that reporter ask one more time for Bush to admit his biggest mistake…Dude! Get a new question! Get a question that can be answered. Seriously, I can think of a few mistakes off the top of my head, but there’s no way Bush can mention them because they’ll make someone else look bad. For instance, what if he said choosing Harriet Miers was a mistake? That’s a good way to further humiliate someone you’ve called a friend. And once he says that publicly, every other appointment or nomination he makes comes into question. Besides, some people - one or two at least - suspect that the Miers nomination, because it was so bizarre, was some kind of “strategery.” (No, the man isn’t back on the bottle.)

Bush unscripted is fun to watch. Sometimes without one he appears more focused and articulate, intense and passionate. Scripts suppress his sense of humor - and his anger. I like to see him in a “natural” setting, when he says what’s on his mind - no matter how it comes out of his mouth. Yes, he was feisty. And it’s about time. He keeps this up, those poll numbers will rise.

Why? Because, like it or not, we need leadership. I’ve complained before about my experiences with Boomer managers who cannot make a decision, look for consensus, then settle on the wrong path, and when it fails, they fail to take responsibility and look for someone to blame. They don’t know what they want, say one thing but mean another, and expect you to know what they’re really thinking. They either can’t or won’t communicate.

Everyone around them suffers, but they seem to rise up the ranks and continue to make things worse. They can be promoted, transferred, given strange new titles, but they never seem to get what they deserve.

The question is, then, is Bush a good leader?

Can someone really lead the way they envision when there are obstacles and pressures that result in watered down decision-making? Can the media and opposition just stand back and let those who were elected do what they want to do? After all, if our system works, these people can be voted out of office next time around. The job of the opposition is to present a better option. Something worth voting for.

Anyway, a reader has commented on Saturday’s posting and presents a website for perusal: supportmpscapegoats.com. Sounds like the military is just like any corporation, but with a more stringent dress code. The site states that its purpose is “to bring attention to the fact that seven MPs were made scapegoats based on the government’s version of events.” Goats or sacrificial lambs?

In a corporation, someone can be told to do something they suspect is wrong and refuse to do it. That person must be prepared to leave the corporation and look for a new job, hoping that the former employer won’t say something to the new employer that will damage their reputation. (Yes, I know that would be illegal, but I’ve witnessed HR personnel and supervisors do just that.)

The military is different. You can refuse to follow an order, but you can’t leave the organization. And there are consequences for not following orders.

There are two sides - at least - to every story, and Abu Ghraib is one of those stories. I wasn’t there and I don’t know anyone who was. Would I be surprised if the government twisted the truth? Of course not. Is this site twisting the truth? I don’t know.

There were photos. There was outrage. There was a campaign to have those responsible punished. Some say those at the top should have been reprimanded and relieved of their duties. Rumsfeld, some say, should have resigned.

Stories like these are not new. Every war has its tales of abuse. It’s an ugly business. The solution, I think, is to get the work done quickly. The longer the war, the more opportunities for abuse, destruction, and death. Opposition to war is honorable, but it also slows things down. The other side must realize that we are engaged in a real war and work towards solutions to expedite victory.

Anyway, the site is worth checking out and I thank “Charley” for his contribution to the debate.

The administration is reading The V.O.T. See? Bush is monitoring the Internet, too! I’m so relieved. He must have read the part about keeping his speeches brief, because the one tonight from the Oval Office was short and sweet.

The man is amazing. Has all this time to listen in on calls, read blogs, torture insurgents, oppress black people, blow up levees, kill 30,000 innocent Iraqis, and he still manages to eat right, exercise, get a good night’s sleep, and spend quality time with the terriers and Laura. That’s time management!

And he can do all this from inside that bubble.

It’s the Reagan principle all over again. Reagan is diabolical and responsible for all that’s wrong in the world; he plots, he plans, he lies. The ignorant, senile, pussy-whipped fool. See how silly that sounds? You can’t have it both ways. Choose one version of the man and stick with it.

The Right is now encouraged because Bush is out and about, defending himself after being attacked by all sides for so many months. Yes, he should have come out sooner, but how could he in the middle of hurricane season?

This is fun to watch, in a weird way, like chess. The Left moves and attacks the administration. The administration quickly responds. Here are the facts. Oh, look - a success. A victory. The Left comes back with a leaked story to put a damper on any success. You have a positive, we have three negatives. Two are false, but who cares? We get more air time.

It’s like a corporation. There are the people who keep a low profile and do their jobs. Then there are the people who walk around and tell everyone how busy they are, how much they’re doing, and point out everything they do. See this? I made this spreadsheet! Meanwhile, the others, quietly working at their desks, produce more and are producing quality. And who knows about it?

But everyone knows how much that guy who walks around telling everyone how much he’s doing is doing. See that spreadsheet he made last week? Amazing!

George Bush and his father never wanted to be that guy. Cheney and Rumsfeld? Not that guy. They’re the guys doing the job, assuming that others see what’s getting done and appreciate it. Mistake!

The administration has to get out there often and with big purple crayons. I watched the speech, I heard what he said, and I only have one suggestion. Visual aids. People like to look at pictures. Charts. Oh - and throw in a couple spreadsheets.

And that’s precisely the reason relationships and wars can be so messy. People do things they normally wouldn’t do when they’re in love, out of love, or fighting for their lives. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Like torture. Whatever that is.

For weeks we’ve been hearing about torture. Can someone give me some specifics? Can you show me, or at least describe, what this torture is? Is it fingernails being torn out of hands? Or is it watching someone pick his nose? Is it cutting off body parts? Or is it watching someone pick at a scab? Is it holding someone under water? Or is it making someone listen to Mariah Carey?

Is the threat of torture torture? Is humiliation torture? Is letting a large dog bark in someone’s face torture?

What are we talking about exactly? Like pornography, you can’t describe torture, but you know it when you feel it, I guess. For instance, diabetic dog has had a few restless nights. There have been times that he has gotten up and wanted to go outside…just about every hour on the hour. On several nights, I take him out with the flashlight so he can see. It’s cold out there. I’m staggering. We get back inside and I try to go back to sleep after he appears to be settled in. Just as I start to doze, he wants to go out again. I know all about sleep deprivation. Is that harsh treatment, or is that torture? In my case it feels like torture, but it would be absurd to say that my dog is torturing me.

I keep hearing that we don’t torture within our borders. Well, then, that would be an excellent reason to keep the fight within someone else’s borders. I’m trying to put myself in the shoes of an enemy combatant. If I know that I might be tortured by an American, will I fight to the death to avoid capture? Conversely, if I know that I cannot be tortured by an American, do I surrender quickly so I can be taken into custody, be a prisoner with all the rights of an American, and be treated to a clean bed and warm meal? Hmmm. Which is better for our troops?

I hear the arguments and, yes, ideally we should be better than the average barbarian. We should not torture. But nice guys finish last. While we’re going out of our way to be sensitive, someone somewhere is getting tortured by someone who doesn’t care about offending us.

Senator McCain seems to think that torture doesn’t work. Um, it works on some people, John. By pleading with America to ban torture, he conveniently reminds us that he was tortured for the cause of freedom. Please keep that in mind when you go to the polls, America.

So the other side says it would be lovely in a perfect world if no one was tortured and we threw pillows at each other instead of explosives, but we don’t live in a perfect world. If we have reason to believe that someone knows when and where one million Americans are going to be annihilated, do we torture that person? No! That would be barbaric! We’re better than that!

I’m sure the families of the million dead Americans will feel very good about themselves, knowing that we did the right thing. Why? Because we’re nice, and we care about the feelings of others. Well, okay, maybe not so much about the feelings of those victims and their families, but the terrorists will think we’re kind.

Yeah, right. If we haven’t given them reason yet to stop trying to wipe us off the planet, being nice to them isn’t going to change their minds. Dick Cheney got a lot of bad press recently (so, what else is new?) when he said that we weren’t going to rule out torture as an option. Uh, Dick is correct. It isn’t something we should rule out.

So George and John get together and come to terms with the issue. But John says that the president has the right to make the hard decision about torture in extreme cases. In other words, John McCain doesn’t want us to torture, wants us to say we don’t torture, wants us to swear we don’t torture, but when something comes up - like the example of one million citizens being massacred - it’s okay to torture. As long as the president gives it the big okay. And takes all responsibility. And says he ordered it. And lets us fully investigate to make sure it was the right decision.

Is McCain just waiting for an opportunity to have the president exercise this right, just so Bush can be crucified by the media and the Democrats for torturing someone? Surprise! John wants the top job. He’s setting the stage in the event that he wins the election. So…would McCain exercise his right, as president, to torture someone, knowing what he knows about torture? We must then ask ourselves:

WWJD? What would John do?

Hey, I’m with Thomas Sowell on trade-offs. The world isn’t perfect, but we do what we have to do while we’re trying to get it perfect. If we are in a position where we must torture, we torture. The Left points to the greater good all the time, so why can’t we? And, for good measure, let’s throw in one of those we-understand-but-we-don’t-condone speeches. Yeah. That’s the ticket.

The Gray Lady, after sitting on this story for a year, has spilled the beans. George Bush is eavesdropping on your phone calls. Well, not exactly. He’s authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on some phone calls.

Presidents can do that. Chances are Bill Clinton did the same thing, but no one seemed to mind then. Now, what I thought I’d heard at some point was that we could eavesdrop on calls - say someone here talking to someone in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq - but we could only report one side of the conversation. The foreign side. This was helpful.

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: That sounds like what we had discussed here, also. Can you repeat the exact time you plan to detonate the device?

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: Two-thirty. Got it. I understand.

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: Forgive me. I thought you said two-thirty. I stand corrected.

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: Both bridges are set to detonate precisely at the same time, then. That was also as we had discussed. And what about the second phase?

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: That is new! And that is to be destroyed this afternoon? Before the scheduled attack?

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: Ha! Five hundred thousand? No! Much more than that! With the addition of the third location, two million - easy!

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: Precisely! But what maps are you referring to?

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: No, no. Those were sent to the other address.

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: Read that back to me again. Spell the street name, please.

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: Yes, that is where they were sent. You have the devices there, too, yes?

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: Yes, the fifth location is key! In two hours, yes! Give me the flight number again.

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: No, that was the powder in the package marked with the green colored label. It was picked up Tuesday with the second device.

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: Yes, he’s at the lab. He’s one of ours. We also have one at that paper in New York.

Domestic terrorist caller:

Foreign terrorist caller: Yes, yes. That’s the one. He knows my cousin, Walid.

So, let me get this straight. Accessing the whole conversation is a violation of our civil liberties. Outing the president’s order is not a violation of our national security. Gotcha.

Minimal violence, massive turn-out. Doesn’t mean the violence is over, doesn’t mean that the election will go the way we’d like it to.

But people showed up and they voted. It could be ten million or over eleven million. Sixty-percent of voters or over seventy percent.

We’ll find out. But we can learn so much from this. First, that it’s important to vote. No matter what stands in your way - traffic, weather, laziness, apathy, car bombs, snipers - it’s important to get out and vote.

Second, Americans have no excuse. If Iraqis can manage a ballot that looks like Joyce’s Ulysses, then we can manage our ballots. Even if they’re butterfly ballots. No matter the format, ours are shorter, simpler. We can do it.

So…will the American people show up to their polling places in 2006? Again, I have no idea how that election will turn out. But it’s so exciting I can’t stand it.

“A few blocks from here stands Independence Hall, where our Declaration of Independence was signed and our Constitution was debated. From the perspective of more than two centuries, the success of America’s democratic experiment seems almost inevitable. At the time, however, that success didn’t seem so obvious or assured.

– President George W. Bush, Philadelphia World Affairs Council speech

I think I know one reason why some people are so passionate about the introduction of democracy to Iraq. Sure, there’s the obvious: we’re fighting terrorism, and trying to make the world safer for Israel and the rest of us. But then there’s the revolution part. We who were mesmerized by the American Revolution and who missed it - why wasn’t it on video? - can now see the re-enactment of our independence movement. Sort of.

This is huge. And this is precisely why the other side can’t allow this to be a victory for George Bush and the Republicans. I’ve been thinking this week about past presidents and their accomplishments. Nixon’s deeds were overshadowed by Watergate and Vietnam, conveniently. He might have achieved more if he hadn’t been crushed in the media. But China was important and he knew it. It’s tragic that he wasn’t able to do more.

Jimmy Carter. What did he do to change the world for the better? Two words: Ronald Reagan. Again, it was important for the media and the Left to keep this man - this actor - from making a difference. Didn’t work. Reagan ended the Cold War and changed the world forever. And he cleaned up a lot of Carter’s mess.

Bill Clinton. Eight years, and what did he do to change the world? To be fair, I can’t think of a lot other than the Gulf War that Bush 41 did to alter world events, but I can’t really think of anything to attribute to Clinton. One could say that he might have accomplished more if he hadn’t had to deal with impeachment, but I doubt it. One might also say that his failures led to this war on terror. I invite Clinton supporters to point out what he did to make the world a better place.

And this is why it’s so crucial that Bush doesn’t succeed. Democracy in Iraq will change the world forever. He’ll leave his mark. He’ll do what other presidents tried to do and couldn’t. It isn’t popular and it isn’t easy, but he’s going for it.

I have no idea how this election will turn out. But it’s so exciting I can’t stand it.

“So the fundamental question is, do we have the confidence and universal values to help change a troubled part of the world. If you’re a supporter of Israel, I would strongly urge you to help other countries become democracies. Israel’s long-term survival depends upon the spread of democracy in the Middle East…I fully recognize that some say it’s impossible, that maybe only a certain kind of people can accept democracy. I just — I reject that. I don’t agree with that. I believe democracy — the desire to be free is universal. That’s what I believe. And if you believe that, then you’ve got to act on it. That doesn’t mean militarily. But that means using the influence of the United States to work with others to help — to help freedom spread.

– President George W. Bush, answering questions at the Philadelphia World Affairs Council

1. The speech was fine, although I get the feeling Bush prefers shorter ones, too. Again, he seemed confident and relaxed. He did something unusual after speaking: he took questions from a mixed audience. Meaning that not all questions would be easy to answer because they would be asked by non-supporters.

But Bush took the questions and answered each one enthusiastically, candidly. He was passionate, intense, witty, open, and comfortable. He was everything we who like the guy like about the guy.

“Thank you for letting me come. I thought I might answer some questions. Yes, ma’am.

THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We’ve lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.”

He said some important things. Then he left the auditorium. Immediately it was reported that over 30,000 Iraqis have died since the U.S. went in there. It was on TV and the radio non-stop. And it was the only bit of information that came out of the appearance.

2. I stayed up for Tookie’s execution. He was scheduled to be euthanized at 12:01 PST, so I surfed the major cable news networks for coverage. I settled on FNC and watched their reporter, in the thick of it, being harassed by Tookie supporters. They had a sign: “FOX LIES.” One person kept sticking his face in front of the camera to announce: “FOX lies!”

I switched to CNN. It was a re-broadcast of Larry King’s show. Went to MSNBC. A re-broadcast of Chris Matthews’ show. Back to FNC for news. The reporter was trying to be fair and balanced and described what was going on around him. He was patient as he was being talked over and shoved around. And he kept on reporting.

Behind him, people crowded in to get their faces on the network that lies. They mugged for the camera, called their friends on their cell phones, waved, gestured, smiled, laughed, and danced around.

A man was going to be executed. It was a somber time for all.

What was interesting was that after the execution, observers from the media were brought into a room and were asked about the experience. Vastly different versions of events, it seemed, because the reporters were talking about impressions and feelings. The FNC observer tried his best to report the facts - how the room looked, who was there, what Tookie did. He said “in my opinion” when he offered an impression.

An obvious liar.

When it was announced that Tookie had shuffled off his mortal coil, his supporters shouted, in unison, that the state of California had just killed an innocent man. The victims’ family members, it was reported, were visibly shaken.

After all was said and done, and bystanders scattered, it was announced that the governor was, in fact, the coldblooded murderer. Several people were concerned that Tookie had to wait 26 minutes for staff to locate a vein. No one seemed concerned that Tookie’s victims’ families had to wait 26 years.

While those around the FNC reporter pushed and shoved to get their faces on TV, the victims’ family members hid from the cameras. After 26 years, they’re still terrified, and they don’t want their identities known.

3. The doorbell rang and it was the neighbor’s kids again to report a couple more loose dogs. T had answered the door, then asked Hayley:

“Hey! Did that guy ever come back and give you your reward for finding his dog?”

She turned and slowly shook her head.

T turned to me: “Can you believe it? The guy stiffed the kid! What a dick!”

Yup. They’re everywhere.

“Me fearing what I’m facing, what possible good is it going to do for me? How is that going to benefit me? If it’s my time to be executed, what’s all the ranting and raving going to do?”

– Stanley “Tookie” Williams

“Stanley Williams has been convicted of brutally murdering four people during two separate armed robberies in February and March 1979. A California jury sentenced him to death, and he is scheduled for execution on December 13, 2005.

During the early morning hours of February 28, 1979, Williams and three others went on a robbery spree. Around 4 a.m., they entered a 7-Eleven store where Albert Owens was working by himself. Here, Williams, armed with his pump-action shotgun, ordered Owens to a back room and shot him twice in the back while he lay face down on the floor. Williams and his accomplices made off with about $120 from the store’s cash register. After leaving the 7-Eleven store, Williams told the others that he killed Albert Owens because he did not want any witnesses. Later that morning, Williams recounted shooting Albert Owens, saying “You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him.” Williams then made a growling noise and laughed for five to six minutes.

On March 11, 1979, less than two weeks later, Williams, again armed with his shotgun, robbed a family operated motel and shot and killed three members of the family: the father, Yen-I Yang, who was shot once in the torso and once in the arm while he was laying on a sofa; the mother, Tsai-Shai Lin, who was shot once in the abdomen and once in the back; and the daughter, Yee-Chen Lin, who was shot once in her face. For these murders, Williams made away with approximately $100 in cash. Williams also told others about the details of these murders and referred to the victims as “Buddha-heads.”

Now, his appeals exhausted, Williams seeks mercy in the form of a petition for clemency. He claims that he deserves clemency because he has undergone a personal transformation and is redeemed, and because there were problems with his trial that undermine the fairness of the jury’s verdict.

Williams’ case has been thoroughly reviewed in the 24 years since his convictions and death sentence. In addition to his direct appeal to the California Supreme Court, Williams has filed five state habeas corpus petitions, each of which has been rejected. The federal courts have also reviewed his convictions and death sentence. Williams filed a federal habeas corpus petition, and the U.S. District Court denied it. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed this decision. Williams was also given a number of post-trial evidentiary hearings, and he and his lawyers had the opportunity at these hearings to present evidence that was not heard at trial. The jury’s decision has withstood these challenges.

In all, Williams’ case has been the subject of at least eight substantive judicial opinions. Prior to the filing of the clemency petition, the state court habeas process was completed on June 21, 1995, when the California Supreme Court denied Williams’ fourth state habeas corpus petition. The federal court habeas process was completed on October 11, 2005, when the United States Supreme Court denied Williams’ writ of certiorari.

The claim that Williams received an unfair trial was the subject of this extensive litigation in the state and federal courts. The courts considered the sufficiency of his counsel, the strategic nature of counsel’s decisions during the penalty phase of Williams’ trial, the adequacy and reliability of testimony from informants, whether Williams was prejudiced by security measures employed during his trial, whether he was competent to stand trial, whether the prosecutor impermissibly challenged potential jurors on the basis of race, and whether his jury was improperly influenced by Williams’ threats made against them. There is no need to rehash or second guess the myriad findings of the courts over 24 years of litigation.

The possible irregularities in Williams’ trial have been thoroughly and carefully reviewed by the courts, and there is no reason to disturb the judicial decisions that uphold the jury’s decisions that he is guilty of these four murders and should pay with his life.

The basis of Williams’ clemency request is not innocence. Rather, the basis of the request is the “personal redemption Stanley Williams has experienced and the positive impact of the message he sends” (quoting Williams’ own clemency reply). But Williams’ claim of innocence remains a key factor to evaluating his claim of personal redemption. It is impossible to separate Williams’ claim of innocence from his claim of redemption.

Cumulatively, the evidence demonstrating Williams is guilty of these murders is strong and compelling. It includes: (1) eyewitness testimony of Alfred Coward, who was one of Williams’ accomplices in the 7-Eleven shooting; (2) ballistics evidence proving that the shotgun casing found at the scene of the motel murders was fired from Williams’ shotgun; (3) testimony from Samuel Coleman that Williams confessed that he had robbed and killed some people on Vermont Street (where the motel was located); (4) testimony from James and Esther Garrett that Williams admitted to them that he committed both sets of murders; and (5) testimony from jailhouse informant George Oglesby that Williams confessed to the motel murders and conspired with Oglesby to escape from county jail.

The trial evidence is bolstered by information from Tony Sims, who has admitted to being an accomplice in the 7-Eleven murder. Sims did not testify against Williams at trial, but he was later convicted of murder for his role in Albert Owens’ death. During his trial and subsequent parole hearings, Sims has repeatedly stated under oath that Williams was the shooter.

Based on the cumulative weight of the evidence, there is no reason to second guess the jury’s decision of guilt or raise significant doubts or serious reservations about Williams’ convictions and death sentence. He murdered Albert Owens and Yen-I Yang, Yee-Chen Lin and Tsai-Shai Lin in cold blood in two separate incidents that were just weeks apart.

But Williams claims that he is particularly deserving of clemency because he has reformed and been redeemed for his violent past. Williams’ claim of redemption triggers an inquiry into his atonement for all his transgressions. Williams protests that he has no reason to apologize for these murders because he did not commit them. But he is guilty, and a close look at Williams’ post-arrest and post-conviction conduct tells a story that is different from redemption.

After Williams was arrested for these crimes, and while he was awaiting trial, he conspired to escape from custody by blowing up a jail transportation bus and killing the deputies guarding the bus. There are detailed escape plans in Williams’ own handwriting. Williams never executed this plan, but his co-conspirator implicated Williams in the scheme. The fact that Williams conspired to murder several others to effectuate his escape from jail while awaiting his murder trial is consistent with guilt, not innocence. And the timing of the motel murders - less than two weeks after the murder of Albert Owens - shows a callous disregard for human life.

Williams has written books that instruct readers to avoid the gang lifestyle and to stay out of prison. In 1996, a Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang Violence children’s book series was published. In 1998, “Life in Prison” was published. In 2004, Williams published a memoir entitled “Blue Rage, Black Redemption.” He has also recently (since 1995) tried to preach a message of gang avoidance and peacemaking, including a protocol for street peace to be used by opposing gangs.

It is hard to assess the effect of such efforts in concrete terms, but the continued pervasiveness of gang violence leads one to question the efficacy of Williams’ message. Williams co-founded the Crips, a notorious street gang that has contributed and continues to contribute to predatory and exploitative violence.

The dedication of Williams’ book “Life in Prison” casts significant doubt on his personal redemption. This book was published in 1998, several years after Williams’ claimed redemptive experience. Specifically, the book is dedicated to “Nelson Mandela, Angela Davis, Malcolm X, Assata Shakur, Geronimo Ji Jaga Pratt, Ramona Africa, John Africa, Leonard Peltier, Dhoruba Al-Mujahid, George Jackson, Mumia Abu-Jamal and the countless other men, women and youths who have to endure the hellish oppression of living behind bars.” The mix of individuals on this list is curious. Most have violent pasts and some have been convicted of committing heinous murders, including the killing of law enforcement. But the inclusion of George Jackson (a militant activist who founded the Black Guerilla Family prison gang and was charged with the murder of a San Quentin prison guard) on this list defies reason and is a significant indicator that Williams is not reformed and that he still sees violence and lawlessness as a legitimate means to address societal problems.

There is also little mention or atonement in his writings and his plea for clemency of the countless murders committed by the Crips following the lifestyle Williams once espoused. The senseless killing that has ruined many families, particularly in African-American communities, in the name of the Crips and gang warfare is a tragedy of our modern culture. One would expect more explicit and direct reference to this byproduct of his former lifestyle in Williams’ writings and apology for this tragedy, but it exists only through innuendo and inference.

Is Williams’ redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise? Stanley Williams insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologize or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case. Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings there can be no redemption. In this case, the one thing that would be the clearest indication of complete remorse and full redemption is the one thing Williams will not do.

Clemency decisions are always difficult, and this one is no exception. After reviewing and weighing the showing Williams has made in support of his clemency request, there is nothing that compels me to nullify the jury’s decision of guilt and sentence and the many court decisions during the last 24 years upholding the jury’s decision with a grant of clemency.

Therefore, based on the totality of circumstances in this case, Williams’ request for clemency is denied.”

– Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s statement