The Daily Background

On Sunday, I wrote about how Hillary is alone in the Democratic field in opposing retroactivity for former crack users who are the victim of racist mandatory minimum statutes. “In principle I have problems with retroactivity,” Clinton said, explaining her position at the Black and Brown Forum recently.

Matt over at Open Left notices the same thing (and is equally distressed), but also picks up a point I hadn’t thought of. He writes:

So ‘in principle’ she’s against retroactivity.

Here’s what she said about the FISA bill with retroactive immunity in it for corporate criminals.

“I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee. I haven’t seen it so I can’t express an opinion about it. But I don’t trust the Bush Administration with our civil rights and liberties. So I’m going to study it very hard. As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently.”

Well, she also hasn’t seen any legislation that would deal with retroactivity for drug users. So she’s quick to say she’s against the retroactive reversal of racist sentencing for African Americans in prison (whose White counterparts were freed because they could afford a more pure form of the same drug), but she’s withholding judgment on retroactive immunity on rich telcos who have cooperated with the Bush Administration’s violations of the constitution and illegal spying on Americans?

Yeah, that sounds about right. We need a candidate who will stand up for the victims of a racist judicial statute, even if they have committed crimes in the past. It says a lot when candidates are willing to stand up for the rights of downtrodden people even though it may not be politically convenient for them to do so. And in this instance, Clinton is the only Democrat who won’t do it.

Filed under: Z-TDB Blog