Does Homeland Security agree with me?

Homeland Security revoked Gov. Blagovich's access to classified information.

Turns out the U.S. Department of Homeland Security agrees with me that action can be taken against Blagovich. Apparently, Homeland Security feels the charges are serious and credible enough. They don't buy his effort to shield himself from the consequences of his behavior with cries of "innocent until proven guilty."

Just like impeachment, this action is not a criminal sanction that requires a finding of criminal guilt.

This is similar to the example I cited in my previous blog, the suspension of a caregiver during the investigation of allegations of abuse.

Rod Blagovich: Innocent until proven guilty?

I've heard from various sources that Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois deserves his Constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I've am uncomfortable when that right is used by perpetrators and predators to shield themselves from the consequences of their behavior.

It is not unusual for someone to begin to suffer various non-criminal sanctions while the criminal charges are pending.

College athletes are often suspended after an arrest but before the criminal charges are resolved.

Health care staff are suspended with pay during investigations of abuse.

Even if no charges are brought or the the person is acquitted, the perpetrator is still liable for non-criminal consequences. While the evidence may have been insufficient for criminal conviction, the evidence might be sufficient for an athlete to suffer further non-criminal sanctions, including expulsion, or for a health care worker to be fired for the act of abuse of which he or she was acquitted.

The presumption of innocence only refers to the accused's relationship to the criminal justice system and not to the other non-criminal consequences of their behavior. Nor does it need to refer to the "court of public opinion."

Enough precedents exists to justify the suspension of Blagovich's gubernatorial authority while the criminal and non-criminal complaints are resolved.

My bottom line is don't let Blagojevich's invocation of "innocent until proven guilty" intimidate anyone for calling for his resignation now.

Corruption in Chicago

As I am native to Chicago, I am very aware of the corruption that has again dominated the national news and most tragically embarrassed Barack Obama.

One of the first political acts of my life was to serve as a poll watcher for a liberal opponent of the current mayor's father.

I am outraged by Gov. Blagojevich's crude and blatant behavior.

But I am disturbed by articles like the recent one in the NYT's :

In Illinois, a Virtual Expectation of Corruption

I don't think decent people ever accept corruption or other inappropriate behaviors. Rather, decent people are more likely intimidated into silence, either by retaliation or harassment they themselves suffered or what they observed happened to others who spoke out. The consequences of dissent can be high. While I hope the time has passed when one's physical safety is threatened, other very severe repercussions still occur such as permanent damage to one's career, personal or political.

Some who have opposed this corruption have found safe shelter, such Professor Dick Simpson at the University of Illinois, from whom I took a course when I was an undergraduate in the 1970s. Others have not been so lucky.

In a context where the consequences of standing up to corruption is retaliation and harassment with lifelong consequences and the perpetrators mostly get away, is it really acceptance or just a community battered into passivity and self preservation?