Say hello to a new death penalty blog that launched today -- Executed Today:

Executed Today is a blog of history, sociology, biography, criminology, law, and kismet —- an unrepresentative but arresting view of the human condition across time and circumstance from the parlous vantage of the scaffold. This blog each day chronicles an historical execution that took place on that date, and the story behind it.

....Executed Today is a daily chronicle — each day the story of an historical execution that took place on this date, and the story behind it.

While the author is personally opposed to the death penalty, he says the blog is neither pro or anti-death penalty:

More...

In a much cited WSJ Op Ed piece, former Carter Administration Attorney General Benjamin Civilleti writes with Republican Dick Thornburgh and former FBI Director William Webster that:

Public disclosure of the NSA program also brought a flood of class-action lawsuits seeking to impose massive liability on phone companies for allegedly answering the government's call for help. The Intelligence Committee has reviewed the program and has concluded that the companies deserve targeted protection from these suits. . . . We agree with the committee. Dragging phone companies through protracted litigation would not only be unfair, but it would deter other companies and private citizens from responding in terrorist emergencies whenever there may be uncertainty or legal risk.

Unless they reviewed the material, it is hard to see how they could have agreed. But leave that aside. The authors of the piece may have reached this conclusion in good faith, but their conflicts of interest need to be disclosed. Civiletti is a Senior Partner in the Washington law firm Venable, which represents telcos. Similarly, Thornburgh is affiliated with Kirkpatrick and Lockhart, also a telco law firm. And Webster is with Milbank Tweed, also a telco law firm. It may have had no effect on their views, but its disclosure is necessary to maintain journalistic ethics. Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal choose not to disclose these facts.

On the SJC page. Via the Daily Kos Live Blog, the schedule:

More...

One of the biggest disappointments of last night's debate for me was Senator Chris Dodd's refusal to discuss (sure Russert and Williams were not going to ask about it, but so what, thrust the issue into the debate) the raison de etre for his candidacy - restoration of the Constitution ad the rule of law. And today, as Glenn Greenwald discusses, Senator Jay Rockefeller reaches a new disgraceful low, as he argues for total disrespect for the rule of law:

Today there is significant debate about whether the underlying program -- the president's warrantless surveillance plan -- was legal or violated constitutional rights. That is an important debate, and those questions must be answered. In the meantime, however, these companies are being sued, which is unfair and unwise. As the operational details of the program remain highly classified, the companies are prevented from defending themselves in court. And if we require them to face a mountain of lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future.

What drivel. Losing their support in what? Breaking the law? What in blazes is rockefeller talking about? The telcos will not honor duly issued warrants because they are being sued? Ah, there's the rub. Rockefeller does not believe in the NEED for the government and telcos to follow the law. What's the rule of law to Rockefeller? Nothing at all. He is a disgrace. More.

Last night's debate was a bad night for Hillary's opponents, and especially for my candidate Chris Dodd. Let's take a look at the so- called "highlight" for the attacks on Hillary, the licenses for illegal immigration moment (the so called double talk moment):

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap.

There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

How in the world is this a problematic answer? It seems correct in every particular to me. What progressive Democrat could disagree with this? Why, my candidate, Chris Dodd, shame on him:

As long as the Executive Branch does not exceed its constitutional authority, the Judicial Branch must generally defer to a prosecutor's charging decisions. Judges are nonetheless occasionally critical of particular prosecutions. Rarely are they as vocal as Judge Phil Gilbert.

Gilbert says even though [Katie] Heath co-operated with a drug investigation, she was hit with a mandatory sentence of 20 years. That's after she's already served time in state prison.

Katie served a year in state prison on a methamphetamine distribution charge. After her release, she made progress toward living a stable life. She got a job. She went back to school. She was taking care of her kids. Leave it to the federal Justice Department to destroy her chance at living a meaningful life.

"She obviously was trying to turn her life around and then this federal indictment hits her with a 20 year mandatory minimum" says Judge Phil Gilbert. "It just raised a lot of questions of fairness."

Judge Gilbert recused himself rather than imposing the 20 years. He has the integrity to refuse to play along with the Executive Branch’s vicious and heartless charging decision. Good for him. (more ...)

This story addresses British sex offender laws, but it teaches a lesson to state and federal lawmakers in the United States: courting votes by advancing whatever new “tough on crime” legislation is in vogue only leads to confusing and conflicting legislation.

The simple question before the judges was whether the defendant was guilty of an offence of failing to register as a sex offender contrary to the 2003 Sexual Offences Act. “Any intelligent observer would have been baffled to discover there could be any doubt about whether or not the defendant was guilty of this criminal offence," said the judge, one of a panel of three hearing the case.

“For the Court of Appeal to decide the issue, we heard detailed submissions about the legislative provisions in no less than five statutes... The problem was so complicated that three judges had to reserve judgment because at the end of the hearing we could not work out whether or not the defendant was guilty. After reserving judgment we concluded that no offence had been committed. Yet the appellant had spent time in custody.”

Almost all acts or omissions that can sensibly be criminalized have been criminalized. Give it a rest, lawmakers. We don’t need the hodgepodge of criminal statutes you enact in a rush every election year. Criminal justice codes should be revised and simplified on occasion to further coherent and consistent policies. Sentencing practices in most jurisdictions would benefit from comprehensive reform. Unless legislators want to deal with the criminal justice system as a whole, they should learn to leave it alone.

A federal grand jury indicted Orange County Sheriff Michael Carona on charges of mail fraud and witness tampering. The indictment alleges that Carona and others (including, reportedly, his wife and mistress) used illegal campaign contributions to secure Carona’s election and then used Carona’s official position to enrich themselves.

The details are reported here.

Here's the movie trailer to Running Down the Dream, a 4 hour documentary by Peter Bogdanovich covering the past 30 years of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.

It just was released last week and Sundance Channel aired it the other night. I saw about 2 hours of it and loved it. It will air again Nov. 1 at 3am ET, so tivo it if you get the Sundance Channel.

A Studio and bigger version of trailer here.

Big Tent Democrat and I will be live-blogging tonight's Democrats Debate at Drexel University.

The New York Times says all eyes will be on Obama.

Hillary has already fired the first salvo.

I just hope some sparks fly.

Updates below, mostly in the comments.

"The Justice Department and the FBI cannot discuss the facts of the Blackwater case, which is under active investigation. However, any suggestion that the Blackwater employees in question have been given immunity from federal criminal prosecution is inaccurate. The Justice Department and the FBI continue the criminal investigation of this matter knowing that this investigation involves a number of complex issues. We are unable to comment further at this time."

*****
Original Post
Wording of Blackwater Immunity Deals

ABC News has obtained the text of the use immunity provided Blackwater guards by the State Department.

More....

Capital punishment watchers have been anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court's action on the execution of Earl W. Berry, scheduled for tonight in Mississippi.

With 15 minutes to spare, the Court has stayed the execution. The vote was 7 to 2. Scalia and Alito dissented.

Is this a signal that the Court will find lethal injections to be cruel and unusual punishment when it decides the Kentucky case it has agreed to review?

ABC News has more, as does Capital Defense Weekly and Scotus Blog.