Posted by Andrew Zajac at 5:25 p.m. CDT
This just in from the U.S. Department of Justice:
The number of suspects and defendants processed in the federal criminal justice system grew substantially during the 10-year period of 1994 to 2003, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.
Ya think?
After 20 years of crime crackdowns and 'sentencing reforms', not to mention the growing concern about illegal aliens, and the post 9-11 focus on rounding up illegals, this might not be the most surprising or enlightening way to begin a press release about the feds' latest round of crime number crunching.
But we blog with what we have.
Not surprisingly, immigration offenses and drug cases drove the increases, according to BJS.
A substantial share of the case load was born by federal officials in the southwest's five federal judicial districts (Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Southern and Western Texas. Read: high-growth areas with a long border with a much poorer country) The region processed 31 percent of all federal suspects arrested and booked during the 1994-2003 period, 19 percent of all investigated suspects, 23 percent of the cases filed in U.S. District Courts and 28 percent of offenders sentenced to federal prison.
The number of non-citizens in the federal criminal justice system increased steadily from 1994 through 2003. The U.S. Marshals Service arrested and booked 131,064 suspects during 2003, of which 38 percent were non-citizens, compared to 27 percent in 1994.
The bureau reports that U.S. federal prosecutors investigated more than 130,000 suspects during 2003 (a new record), up from 99,000 men and women in 1994.
While the law-and-order loving side of us may draw comfort in knowing that more bad guys and gals are off the streets, most of them eventually do get out, tagged with a prison record that limits prospects for contributing to society.
But that's grist for another report.
The BJS study can be found at the Justice Department's Web site; follow this link to the report.





Comments
We blog with what we have, eh? Hey high-paid reporter, here's a story you haven't blogged on: a lawyer for former assistant secretary of state Richard Armitage admitted that Armitage was the original source for Robert Novak's column that "outed" former CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. You think this might warrant a mention in The Swamp?
Maybe considering the amount of people who have incorrectly assumed it was Karl Rove for three years now? I guess I should know better than to expect an item that doesn't vilify Bush, Rove and company.
Posted by: Bill | August 30, 2006 5:29 PM
Bill,we read the papers,yes it was Richard Armitage to out Valerie Plame.
You sound proud that it was just another Republican and not Rove.
Maybe now you can admit the seriousness of your party outing a CIA agent for political purposes.
Posted by: Raving Loon | August 30, 2006 6:57 PM
Wasn't that supposed to have been turned into a non-story because President Bush had declassified the information? If it's a non-story, why are you wasting so much effort on it?
Posted by: John | August 30, 2006 7:40 PM
A huge part of what's wrong with the American political process is that too many people treat it like it's a football game. They're in such an utterly mindless frenzy about their teams' gains or losses on the field that matters like the truth, or justice, or how we should practically address our problems are simply ignored.
I see that with depressing regularity on this blog.
Many an sniveling idiot here has chided me "your party"; as if the phrase is an epithet. They never proffer an alternative, there's no give and take of ideas. It's simply "your party sux... [drool]".
And the funny thing is that the "your party" that they badger me about has at various times been both the Republican and Democratic parties!
It's not a football game, people. It's in our best interest to divorce the issues from competition.
Keep giving them hell, Bill.
Posted by: Juanito | August 30, 2006 8:04 PM
Thanks, Juanito. I'm not proud that it was Armitage or any republican that did it, even though no crime was committed. What bothers me is that many people have used this supposed evidence as their proof that Rove is evil and a traitor for turning on a CIA agent for political reasons. I'd like some of the people posting that to admit they were wrong. I've done it before on this blog, I don't see why no one else can. I'd like them to admit there was no plot to "get" Joe Wilson that went from Bush down. That would be nice.
Armitage was never in Cheney's inner circle and if he were still employed by the administration, and there's a reason that he's not, I have no doubt Bush would fire him posthaste.
Posted by: Bill | August 30, 2006 9:05 PM
John got to call you on that one. Friz's recoeds show the info was not declassified until after she was outed. Sorry again facts please
Posted by: Dale Peters | August 30, 2006 9:09 PM
I remember so well the lefty nitwits drooling with hope that Rove was going to be "frog marched" out of the white house.
Or,it's going to be a "Happy Fitzmas!"
NEXT!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | August 30, 2006 9:28 PM
Karl Rove was the second source for Bob (the traitor) Novak's article...this is a fact! What people refuse to discuss is the damage that this outing caused. Brewster/Jennings was an undercover CIA operation working on issues of nuclear proliferation (you know, the crap Iran is currently involved with) and had to be shut down. No one in the Republican controlled congress (now there's a surprise!) has called for a damage assessment report. Know why? Because these traitors in now both the White House and State Dept. know that their little political shenanigins shut down an on-going, undercover operation. Additionally, regardless of the righties definition of under cover operative, any person who had contact with V. Plame is now in danger. These people never think before they act...ever!
Posted by: Neal | August 31, 2006 8:27 AM
Juanito,if your ambition is to be a writer,please call Bill,he's an editor,maybe he can help you.
But please spare us the editorials you're becoming known for.
Try and respond to the article as presented by the Swamp.
Remember Juanito,Bill said politics is a contact sport.If you guys want to reduce this to a badminton match,let me know.
Posted by: Raving Loon | August 31, 2006 8:43 AM
Bill, Bill, Bill... I think you've finally cracked. Nevermind what anyone has ever said about your political leanings or postings, the craziest thing you have ever uttered is "high paid reporter." If you think reporters earn a hefty wage you REALLY need to get your head examined.
Posted by: Jeff | August 31, 2006 9:52 AM
Bill,your assumption that there was no plot to get Joe Wilson,makes no sense.
Why would the the top people in power,from the Prez,Cheney,Rove,Libby,even be discussing Valerie Plame.
Did they just wake up one morning and say,geez,I wonder who Joe Wilson's wife is.
You of all people,know how politics works,and for you to say nothing was going on really strikes as partisanship.
Let's see when the civil suit goes to court and the top boys have answer questions under oath.
Posted by: Raving Loon | August 31, 2006 10:11 AM
Dale, I remember it that way too. The timeframe I'm finding is: 3/3/03 -- Joseph Wilson (Plame's husband) authors first of anti-Iraq-war articles in "The Nation." 7/6/03: Wilson's article in "New York Times" states he had found no evidence that Iraq had pursued nuclear material.
Posted by: John | August 31, 2006 10:22 AM
I'm sorry -- posted before I was done. I retract that post and explain that my original post was written to describe how we were first told that the Plame leak was a source of several investigations, that people could potentially be indicted for their part in the scandal. President Bush at that time promised that if anyone working for him was found to be involved, they'd be held accountable (I recall it originally being that they'd be fired, but that apparently got changed). Then, in April of this year, we were told that the document being used as the major part of the evidence was actually declassified BY the President -- which meant that there wouldn't have been a "leak." I recall many people posting at roughly that time that this whole thing was a "non-story."
Posted by: John | August 31, 2006 10:45 AM
Drooling Imbecile,
FYI politics happens to be about ideas. If you ever have one, please let us know.
Posted by: Juanito | August 31, 2006 11:05 AM
Read the undercover intelligence act of 1983 to get the full explanation of the five-year rule. The Wilsons moved back to washington in late 1998 and the "outing" happened in late 2003.
Being a second source doesn't matter, all it means is you have confirmed something a reporter already knew. It doesn't "out" anyone. Besides, Fitz's office says Rove won't be charged in the investigation. And Neal, how do you know that Rove even WAS Novak's second source? Are you investigating this? Did Fitzgerald tell you?
Your answer, loon, is that they were discussing Joe Wilson's wife because three different reporters kept asking them about it. They were confirming what Richard Armitage had already told Novak, who had in turn told several other reporters. They couldn't just put the genie back in the bottle once the news was out. Would you rather that they lie? And Joe Wilson knew the game he was playing. The little turf fight between him and the administration is just business as usual in Washington. What's really funny is watching him act all sanctimonious now even after he and his wife appeared in "Vanity Fair," which pretty much any undercover use she'd ever have.
John, that document that Bush declassified did NOT reveal Plame's name and that she worked for CIA. Only Armitage did that. That's the "leak." Armitage quit in 2005, so it'd be damned hard for Bush to fire or hold him accountable now.
Jeff, it's true, there are no high-paid reporters. Although the Tribune guys do better than most.
Posted by: Bill | August 31, 2006 11:29 AM
Billy, JaunitoSanDiego,
Quit telling people how,and what to post.
I know,if the storys posted in the swamp,(according to you two whiners)were only more conservative everything would be right in your world.
The reason you're not seeing much GOP "good news" is because there isn't any these days.
Maybe you should examine the leadership of your beloved GOP,because Dubya is sinking that ship right now.
Posted by: John E. | August 31, 2006 2:05 PM
John E, i know it's probably pointless for me to ask you this, but precicely why do you think I'm necessarily a Republican?
Posted by: Juanito | August 31, 2006 4:56 PM
Hola Jaunito,
Because I read your posts.
Posted by: John E. | August 31, 2006 9:34 PM
Hey John E., explain to me exactly how the revelation that a top republican official from the state department leaked this information helps republicans? My only interest in this story is to disprove the tripe that all the posters who were just so sure that it was Karl Rove that did it for two years espoused in this space.
Regardless of whether it's good news or not, it's definitely news.
Posted by: Bill | August 31, 2006 10:07 PM
John E, it's a serious question. Please attempt to answer it seriously.
Posted by: Juanito | September 1, 2006 7:29 AM
The Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought, ran an editorial recently that admitted there was no plot to get Joe Wilson by outing Valerie Plame. Except for maybe the New York Times, the Post has the investigative reporters that know the most about this story. An excerpt that shows Wilson lacks all credibility:
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
And here's the kicker:
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.
Read the whole thing if you'd like. No plot. Nothing to do with declassified documents. Armitage mentioned the name off-handedly as if it was gossip. Where's the evil orchestration here?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460.html
Posted by: Bill | September 2, 2006 10:52 AM