Here we go again, this time in Ohio.

There, death row inmate Kevin Keith is scheduled to be executed on September 15, despite strong new evidence of his innocence. Keith was convicted in 1994 for a shooting spree that killed three people and wounded three others.

Eyewitness testimony was the primary evidence used to convict Keith. Along with the fact that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, the new evidence discredits the eyewitness identification in this case. The evidence also identifies an alternative suspect, Rodney Melton, who may have actually committed the crime for which Keith was convicted. Keith has an alibi for the time of the crime, supported by four witnesses.

No court has considered the entirety of the evidence in this case. Therefore, it appears that there is reasonable doubt as to Keith’s guilt. And there is no excuse to execute someone when there is reasonable doubt that you’ve got the right guy.

Nevertheless, on August 19, the Ohio Parole Board rejected Keith’s clemency petition by a vote of 8-0. Charles Keith, the convicted man’s brother, described the Board’s demeanor during the review as “cold” and “like a death squad.” This seems to suggest that they are more interested in expediency than true justice. And it seems to suggest that they are willing to risk the possibility of executing an innocent man.

Sadly, Keith’s situation is not unusual. Cases are currently in the courts in Georgia, Texas, and elsewhere in which death row inmates are fighting for the right to prove their innocence. If any of them succeed, they will be among the lucky ones. Some are not so lucky.

In 2007, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) published a report titled “Innocent and Executed“, which highlighted four cases in which people were apparently executed for crimes that they did not commit. And those four are just the ones we know about.

One of those cases, that of Cameron Todd Willingham, made headlines last year when The New Yorker published an investigative article on the case. Willingham was executed in 2004 for setting a fire that killed his three daughters. However, a forensic review of the case led to the conclusion that “a finding of arson could not be sustained.” In other words, the fatal fire for which Willingham was executed was probably just an accident.

It’s no secret that lawyers, judges, juries, and crime labs make mistakes, and innocent people are convicted of crimes that they did not commit. In fact, to date more than 250 people in the U.S. have been exonerated as a result of post-conviction DNA testing. But, again, they are the lucky ones.

Given the proven fallibility and unreliability of the “justice” system, how many others may have been executed for crimes that they did not commit? And how many more innocent people will be executed in the future?

Why should Ohio or any other state take any more chances?

In the case of Kevin Keith, due to die on September 15, the final verdict now lies with Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. I hope he will do the right thing and grant clemency. Governor Strickland’s office can be reached by phone at (614) 466-3555 or online at http://governor.ohio.gov.

The world was with us in the days immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

But the world cringed five days later, on September 16, 2001, when President George W. Bush reacted to the attacks with the dreaded theopolitical “C-word”: “This crusade,” he said, “is going to take a while.”

That unfortunate choice of words brought to mind, of course, the Christian aggression against Muslims in the so-called Holy Land in the Middle Ages. You know, the capital-C Crusades you learned about (probably in a biased manner) in fourth-grade history class.

Nevertheless, Bush being Bush, the world cringed again when he repeated that C-word. On February 16, 2002, Bush said, “I want to tell you something, we’ve got no better friends than Canada. They stand with us in this incredibly important crusade to defend freedom, this campaign to do what is right for our children and our grandchildren.”

Bush’s handlers saw to it that he made clarifying statements recognizing Islam as a peaceful religion. But did those statements come from the heart?

The fact remains that Bush used that C-word repeatedly, and we know from experience that his damage-control efforts are not to be trusted. More importantly, al-Qaeda knows that, too.

And, since then, the American people seem to have caught the crusade fever.

Racism and xenophobia are nothing new in American culture. But the Islamophobia that began with some racial profiling and suspicious looks directed at Middle-Eastern-looking persons after the 9/11 attacks has grown into a dangerous new culture war that threatens our national security.

The escalation seems to have begun with the successful presidential campaign of Barack Hussein Obama. The right-wing talking heads went to town, emphasizing Obama’s middle name and the fact that he spent some of his growing years in Indonesia, which claims the world’s largest Muslim population. They did it in such a way as to imply that “Muslim” equals “terrorist” (or at least “terrorist sympathizer”).

To further scare the white sheep, the right-wing press falsely reported that Obama was educated in a radical Muslim madrassa. Again, they seemed to suggest that anything Islamic, anything Muslim, equals “terrorist”.

Then the so-called “birther” movement took conspiracy theories to a new level by refusing to believe that Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate was good enough to prove his U.S. citizenship. And to this day I continue to receive email from birthers who still cling to their long-debunked theory even after the Roberts-led Supreme Court upheld sanctions against birther queen Orly Taitz for filing frivolous lawsuits challenging Obama’s citizenship. It’s the same kind of thing. The right has stopped at nothing to present Obama as something exotic, not American enough, not Christian enough, and not the kind of person whom the average voter in Kansas can relate to. And, again, they suggest he’s a Muslim, as if that means he’s in cahoots with Osama. (Oh, yes, the right didn’t let that one-letter name difference go unnoticed, either.)

And the propaganda has worked.

United Church of Christ Pastor Jeremiah Wright notwithstanding (apparently he’s a Muslim, too), a recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that an alarming 18 percent of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim. That’s up from 11 percent in March 2009. Even more disturbing is the explanation offered by Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. According to the ultra-conservative Washington Times, Kohut alleges that the poll results reflect “the intensification of negative views about Obama among his critics.” By citing “negative” views in that breath, Kohut clearly implies that being a Muslim is a bad thing. That sort of bias is particularly shameful for a leading poll taker.

Still, it doesn’t take a poll to know that Islamophobia is rampant. And the latest proof of that is the recent hysteria over the proposed Islamic Cultural Center in lower Manhattan.

First of all, the Center has been wrongly described as a mosque. While it would include a prayer space, it would primarily look just like a YMCA, with a fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, culinary school, and food court. What’s so threatening about that?

Furthermore, while it has been described as the “Ground Zero Mosque”, it sits two large city blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center. Within those two blocks between the controversial “mosque” site and Ground Zero sit some strip clubs, fast-food restaurants, check-cashing agencies, and bars. Are those businesses more worthy of their location near that hallowed ground than a gym and a cooking school?

Those questions, of course, are rhetorical ones. But, for al-Qaeda, it all validates their perception that the so-called “war on terror” really is a war on Islam. It validates their perception that this really is a crusade. And that validates their jihad.

And so it endangers us more than ever.

Nice going, bigots.

Canadian citizen Omar Khadr is now facing trial via a U.S. military commission at Guantanamo Bay. Khadr is accused of throwing a hand grenade which killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan in 2002 and injured two others. His is the first trial before a military commission under the Obama administration. The trial began during the week of August 9, but is now on hold for 30 days as the defense attorney recovers from a sudden illness.

Khadr was only 15 years old when he was detained and sent to Gitmo, where he was allegedly subjected to harsh interrogations, beatings, and other ill-treatment. Interrogators allegedly threatened to kill Khadr’s family if he didn’t cooperate. According to IPS News, “there seems to be little or no evidence that Khadr actually threw the grenade that killed the soldier, other than ‘confessions’ allegedly obtained under suspicious circumstances.”

And, notes IPS, “Patrick Parish, the military judge working on the case in Guantanamo, has decided to admit the statements extrapolated during these interrogations into court.” This is despite the fact that information obtained under torture and other forms of coercion is known to be unreliable. So the deck is already stacked against him.

Human Rights First (HRF) has identified some additional problems with the case. “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and international juvenile justice standards require prompt determination of juvenile cases and discourage detainment of juveniles at all except as a last resort,” says HRF on its website. “Such standards have not been heeded by the U.S. government in the case of Khadr. Khadr was held for two years prior to being given access to an attorney, waited more than three years prior to being charged before the first military commission, and is now in his eighth year in U.S. custody. During Khadr’s time in detainment, he has been held both in solitary confinement as well as with adult detainees, contrary to international standards requiring that children be treated in accordance with their age and segregated from adult detainees.”

Additionally, says HRF, “In 2002, the U.S. ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, which prohibits the use of children under 18 in armed conflict and requires signatories to criminalize such conduct and rehabilitate former child soldiers as well as provide ‘all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration.’ The U.S. has failed to heed these legal obligations in the case of Khadr.”

But, of course, it’s been a while since the U.S. government has cared about complying with international law and human rights standards.

And today that remains another unkept promise of the Obama administration.

In a statement to the military judge in a pre-trial hearing in July, Khadr had asked, “How can I ask for justice from a process that does not have it?”

That is a very good question.

Unfortunately, the answer is probably not so good.

A Philadelphia suburban district attorney has announced that he will not seek the death penalty against a woman and her lover for the June murder of the woman’s husband, Kevin Mengel.

Chester County DA Joe Carroll said the case does not meet the conditions required to pursue the death penalty.

Carroll also noted that the victim’s parents did not want the death penalty for their son’s murderers. And that is why I am writing this.

Whenever I write or speak about my opposition to the death penalty, I invariably hear from death penalty proponents who argue that killing the killer serves the best interests of the victim’s family, giving them closure. But not all families are thirsty for revenge. This Chester County case is one example of that. So are the cases of the many family members who form the organization Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation (MVFR). Founded in 1976, MVFR actively works for abolition of the death penalty in all states that still use it.

These enlightened souls offer a wide variety of reasons for their opposition to the death penalty:

• Endless trials re-open emotional wounds and put off the time when real healing can begin.

• The vast resources and attention spent on the death penalty is better spent supporting crime victims and their families, and preventing crime in the first place.

• The risk of executing the innocent — something that appears to have happened in more than one known case — is too high a price to pay.

• Biases of geography, race, and class plague the system.

• Executions create more families who have lost a loved one to killing.

• And many think it is just plain wrong for the state to kill.

MVFR’s perspectives are shared by a growing majority of the world community. Indeed, there is an unmistakable worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty. According to Amnesty International (AI), “Since 1990, an average of three countries each year have abolished the death penalty, and today over two-thirds of the world’s nations have ended capital punishment in law or practice.” AI calls the death penalty “the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights.”

In maintaining the death penalty here in the U.S., we align ourselves with the other executing nations of the world such as Afghanistan, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and a handful of other countries known for their systematic violations of human rights.

It’s been said that you are the company you keep.

Shouldn’t we instead keep company with those who are less barbaric?

Some may accuse death penalty opponents of being soft on crime. But we don’t want to free the criminals, we want to lock them up for life without parole. And isn’t life in prison actually a harsher punishment than death? When the execution is done, the punishment is over. With life in prison, the punishment lasts much longer.

And, of course, killing a killer will never bring the victim back. It’s just more killing.

Haven’t we had enough killing?

The ongoing national debate on immigration reached a fever pitch on July 28, when U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked some of the more draconian provisions of Arizona’s controversial anti-immigrant law (SB 1070), which was scheduled to take effect the following day.

Judge Bolton blocked a section requiring police officers to question and verify the immigration status of anyone “reasonably” suspected of being an illegal alien. She also blocked a section requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times.

The ruling is in response to lawsuits by the U.S. Justice Department and a coalition of civil rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (MALDEF), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

The coalition’s lawsuit challenged SB 1070 on human rights grounds. According to the ACLU, “the law would subject massive numbers of people – both citizens and non-citizens – to racial profiling, improper investigations, and detention.”

Fortunately, Judge Bolton gets it.

But the law’s proponents apparently don’t care about human rights. It seems like they just want to crack down on the brown people. Their fear and bigotry are misplaced, dangerous, and sometimes deadly. And they have already filed an appeal.

In the meantime, human rights groups are weighing in on the case.

Julie Su, litigation director for APALC, commended Judge Bolton’s ruling: “We applaud the judge for seeing the imminent danger of having this law enacted,” said Su. “SB 1070 presents a distinct and separate immigration scheme that conflicts with federal law and policy, and would have a devastating impact on Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Latinos, and other people of color in Arizona. Indeed, some of those negative effects have already been felt. This ruling makes clear that intimidation of immigrant communities, pretextual stops to ask for ‘papers,’ and rhetoric about who belongs in Arizona and who doesn’t under the guise of enforcing SB 1070 should cease immediately.”

But the whole bill must go, said Allison Parker, U.S. program director at Human Rights Watch: “The federal court ruling throws a monkey wrench, at least temporarily, into the worst parts of a discriminatory law,” said Parker. “In truth, Arizona needs to repeal the whole thing, and similar bills under consideration in other states should be defeated.”

And Lory Rosenberg, advocacy and policy director for refugee and immigration rights for Amnesty International USA, painted a grim picture of the law’s implications if ultimately allowed to stand in its entirety: “Laws like SB 1070 don’t just threaten human rights and fly in the face of the United States’ obligations under international law. They also flagrantly disregard the Constitutional rights of immigrants who have or are eligible for lawful status,” said Rosenberg. “What makes this so frightening is that anyone who ‘looks like an immigrant’ in Arizona, including a U.S. citizen, is likely to be treated as suspicious and will be detained indefinitely while the state conducts a document check.”

Like Gitmo in Phoenix.

And such could be the fate of any non-white persons who dare to appear in public in Arizona if Judge Bolton’s ruling is overturned.

Hopefully the appeals court will see things from Judge Bolton’s perspective, and rights and humanity will again manage to trump bigotry and fear.

And hopefully Washington will soon deter any further Arizona-style state measures by enacting some intelligent and practical immigration reform based on rights, compassion, and opportunity.

After all, the Statue of Liberty is still standing. And she still invites the world to “give me your … huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”