Anniversary of the Reagan shooting

The Washington Post has a piece about the events of March 30, 1981, 25 years ago, the day on which John Hinckley Jr., shot President Reagan and three others. It's actually a rather unsatisfying piece, missing the big issue of what might have happened differently in history had Reagan been killed. (Perhaps that's why it's relegated to the Metro section.)

Here's what easily might have been different: The single most significant event of the second half of the 20th century -- the collapse of the Soviet Union -- might not have occurred. There isn't time for me to flesh out the reasons I think this. All I will say for now is that for those of us who grew up while the Cold War was being waged, the fact that there's no Soviet Union now is still something that seems miraculous 15 years later. Reagan did not accomplish that feat alone, but he was one absolutely critical part of the force that brought the Soviet Union down.

Click here to read more . . .

Sniper to represent himself in Maryland

John Muhammad, the elder statesman of the two snipers who terrorized the greater Washington area in 2002, is being tried in Maryland, after already having been convicted and sentenced to death in Virginia.

Muhammad is showing his respect for State's Attorney Doug Gansler, whose office is prosecuting the case, by insisting that he can act as his own attorney and firing his public defenders. Yesterday, the judge in the case ruled that Muhammad is competent to defend himself.

While telling Muhammad, "I don't think it's the right decision," Circuit Court Judge James L. Ryan acknowledged that the defendant had a constitutional right to be his own lawyer. He ruled that Muhammad understood the implications of that choice and had shown no sign of incompetence.

"You haven't said anything that wasn't appropriate. You laughed when it was appropriate. You got mad when it was appropriate," Ryan said. "You've convinced me you do understand how serious this is."

And today, the public defenders bowed out of the case. The judge wanted to appoint two of them as standby counsel in case Muhammad decided to change his mind, but the public defenders told the judge they have a policy against such a status: "Once you discharge us, you are out."

I am not naive about these matters, although I would admit I'm idealistic. So what I want to ask is why Muhammad, who's competent to defend himself, isn't competent to admit that he's been caught, convicted, and sentenced to death, and to plead guilty. It would be the honorable thing to do. I really don't intend any irony here. The man participated in murder and terror and is the lowest of the low. But there comes a point at which anyone, caught fair and square, should just take his punishment like a man.

Click here to read more . . .