The report by the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar has been released (pdf.)

This was one of the more telling disclosures:

In October 2002, (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) officials knew that the United States might have sent Mr. Arar to a country where he could be questioned in a "firm manner." In a report to his superiors dated October 11, 2002, the CSIS security liaison officer (SLO) in Washington spoke of a trend they had noticed lately that when the CIA or FBI cannot legally hold a terrorist suspect, or wish a target questioned in a firm manner, they have them rendered to countries willing to fullfull that role. He said Mr. Arar was a case in point.

Spencer Ackerman at TPMMuckraker has more. Some background is here. While Canada awarded Mr. Arar $9 million in damages and issued a public apology, the U.S. has kept him on the terror watch list.

All of TalkLeft's Maher Arar coverage is accessible here.

Luck has run out for former Adelphia execs John Rigas and his son Timothy. Three years after being found guilty of fraud, they reported today to federal prison in Butner, N.C. to begin serving their 15 and 20 year respective sentences.

While they didn't get their choice of prison locale, they were allowed to serve their sentences at the same institution.

John Rigas is 83 years old and suffers from bladder cancer. It's a death sentence for him, just like it is for Bernie Ebbers who got 25 years.

America. Prison Nation. It's just sick.

James Ujaama was one of the early terrorism suspects who took a deal to avoid a big jail sentence. I followed his case extensively at the time because he was arrested in Denver.

The Government initially alleged he scouted for terror camp locations in Bly, Oregon. He ended up pleading guilty only to providing cash, computers and fighters to the Taliban, in exchange for his cooperation against others. He was sentenced to two years, about one of which had been served in pre-trial detention. He's been on supervised release since 2004.

The Government was counting on Ujaama to testify at the trial of London cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri.

Ujaama, it seems, got cold feet and split to Belize using a fake Mexican passport.

On Friday, the Judge in Seattle where he pleaded guilty in 2003 revoked his plea deal. Today, in federal court in Manhattan, he pleaded guilty to the original terrorism charges lodged against him and now faces up to 30 years when sentenced.

On a related note, I still think that Condi Rice confused Ghost detainee Khaled el-Masri (also spelled al-Masri, a German shoe salesman) with the London Cleric and only ordered his release after the cleric al-Masri was arrested. By then, el-Masri had been in jail for five months.

Among the more curious details of the mix-up, if there was one: al-Masri the cleric, has one eye and a hook for hands. You would think someone would have noticed the difference between him and Khaled el-Masri before five months went by.

Alberto Gonzales, fresh from his trip to Iraq, is headed to....Harbor Springs, MI.

He'll be conducting a press conference and meeting there with "Michigan's Twelve Sovereign Indian Nations Leaders to discuss efforts to combat violent crime in Indian Country."

A skeptic might say they don't want Gonzales in Washington or anywhere near the Justice Department.

The Government gave its closing argument today in the terrorism trial of Jose Padilla. The AP reports intent is key.

Was Padilla the "star recruit" of a terrorism support cell run by Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi whose ultimate goal was violent establishment of fundamentalist Islamic regimes around the world, as prosecutors claim?

Or did Hassoun and Jayyousi intend to provide relief and charity for innocent Muslims suffering in global conflict zones? And was Padilla simply an American who had recently converted to Islam and traveled overseas not for terrorism but to learn Arabic and the Quran?

The lawyer for one of the three defendants, Adham Amin Hassoun, also gave his closing today:

But Hassoun attorney Kenneth Swartz said in the first of three defense closing statements that "this case is all about speculation. It is not about proof of a crime. There is no intent to murder. The only intent is to provide relief."

Lawyers for Kifah Wael Jayyousi and Jose Padilla will close tomorrow. More on today's defense closing is here.

The Christian Science Monitor takes a long look at the case in tomorrow's paper. It says

Despite warnings, officials used 43 months of severe isolation to force Jose Padilla to tell all he knew about Al Qaeda.

Peter Boyer, exposed here as clueless by mcjoan, misses the significance of one of the bigger pieces of news in his New Yorker story (see Jeralyn's post on the article):

Among those smiling appreciatively at Giuliani’s remarks was retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte, seated several rows back. Schachte gained notoriety in 2004 as a key figure in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against John Kerry. Schachte had been Kerry’s commanding officer in Vietnam and, in August, 2004, declared that he was on Kerry’s boat the night Kerry saw combat action that brought him his first Purple Heart. Schachte asserted that Kerry had not encountered enemy fire that night. (Kerry and two of the men who served with him have said that Schachte wasn’t on the boat.)

Rudy has eagerly accepted the support of lying skunk SwiftBoater Schachte. Before I asked, how low will Rudy go? The bottom has not been found yet.

This piece of news DOES make this, via Sargent, Newsweek article very ironic.

Some of Dick Cheney's neighbors are unhappy to have him vacationing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in part because it's just annoying.

Since his arrival here earlier this week, Cheney has come under fire from locals complaining about black helicopters, presumably part of the vice president’s security detail, flying overhead and disturbing their peace.

The helicopters may be keeping an eye on protesters who, unlike the vice president, have a sense of humor.

During the pre-march rally, a towering effigy of the vice president, carrying a fishing pole and squirting oil derrick, and smaller bust of President Bush, with red devil’s horns, was unveiled to hoots, hollers and other expressions of approval prior to performances by musicians and speakers. ...

Upon rolling the wobbly, 11-foot tall effigy over a mile to the front gate of Cheney’s residence, shouting protesters waved anti-war signs at passing and honking motorists, as U.S. Secret Service officers sitting in a black truck and sheriff’s deputies looked on, while Stanford hung a lasso around the effigy’s neck.

To the chants of “No more war,” Stanford, Spence and others toppled the Cheney effigy a second time, knocking the head off as it smashed into the pavement. The delighted crowd applauded and hollered in mock victory as a man draped in a white beach towel, waving an American flag, kicked the effigy’s head toward the busy street.

During the early days of the Iraq war, American soldiers and Iraqis memorably toppled a statue of Saddam Hussein that had stood in Baghdad.

After an unproductive meeting with Justice officials, the ACLU writes a letter to Attorney General Gonzales:

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

Today, my staff was briefed by the Justice Department regarding guidelines to institute the new foreign to domestic wiretapping authority Congress granted to you this month by The Protect America Act.

Regrettably, my colleagues reported that they learned virtually nothing new about how you intend to use the broad new authority to intercept emails and phone calls when one party is in the U.S., or how those U.S. people will be protected from unwarranted government intrusion. With so much at stake, the public needs to have a fuller understanding of what its Justice Department will be doing with its most private communications.

More...

Yglesias points to this piece by Moira Whelan and it give me an excuse to repeat a point I made to Peter Beinart in 2006. Whelan writes:

Sitting back and expecting that everyone will walk towards the light that is the sound foreign policy as presented by whoever is writing the piece, simply ignores the political realities that exist. Ignoring political realities that exist in other countries is considered irresponsible in foreign policy wonk circles. (Take, for example, the arguments used against the administration ignoring political realities in Iraq.) Ignoring it here is standard fare. . . . The line between "foreign policy" and "politics" exists only in the minds of some in the Foreign Policy Community. . . .

Hear, hear! That's what I told Peter Beinart, and told Yglesias and Atrios again recently:

TalkLeft has frequently called attention to the problem of false confessions. Donald Connery writes today about three Connecticut convictions that were the product of untrue statements made during police interrogations. Two of the innocent confessors have been set free, but the judge in Richard Lapointe's case has, in Connery's view, shown little interest in finding the truth.

I heard Judge Stanley T. Fuger proclaim, "I don't know anything about this case." Worse, he seemed determined not to know anything. He told the lawyers at the beginning that he would read no briefs at the end. He refused to look at a just-arrived DNA report favorable to Lapointe. After just three days of testimony, he abruptly announced that he had heard enough.

A Lapointe supporter asks:

"How could he do it? It was a highly athletic murder. Boy Scout knots were tied around her neck and arms - Richard could hardly tie his shoes," said Perske, who has been making the hourlong trip from his house to visit Lapointe at least once a week for the past 17 years.

Lapointe's case is another example of the injustice that follows when "confessions" aren't recorded. The jury never heard the the interrogation tactics that were employed against the mentally disabled man, and therefore had no basis for deciding whether his incriminating statements were coerced.

Kevin Drum writes:

Instant analysis: It doesn't really matter. History will judge Rove a colossal failure, a man who never understood how to govern and, for all his immense knowledge of polls and politics, never really understood the times he lived in. It was 9/11 that both made and broke the Bush presidency, not some kind of mystical McKinley-esque realignment. Rove was blind to that, and blind to the way Bush should have governed after 9/11. His one-track mind, in which every problem is solved by wielding the biggest, nastiest partisan club you can lift, just couldn't adapt. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) What was Karl Rove's job? It was to win elections and expand Republican control. Until 2006, Karl Rove was spectacularly successful, especially considering the weak government he was working with. Karl Rove did not decide to invade Iraq, but he used Iraq in 2002 to further Republican control. That was his job. It was a job that should not have existed. But Republicans believed that using national security issues to expand political control is fine.

Iraq has led to the downfall of Bush and the Republicans. Rove did not decide that. More.

Karl Rove is leaving the Bush Administration at the end of the month. He needs some more family time.

Update: Christy live blogs the Bush-Rove Press Conference.

Reaction from Joseph Wilson (received by e-mail):

“Karl Rove’s resignation signals the final chapter in the Bush administration's betrayal of the identity of a covert CIA officer. When this breach of national security occurred, the President promised the American people that anybody in his administration responsible for the leak would be removed. Rove, identified by the prosecutors as one of the leakers, not only was not summarily dismissed, but has been allowed to leave on his own terms, to praise from the President. This sordid tale of compromising national security to cover-up and distract from the false rationale for the invasion of Iraq will forever remain in history a black mark on the Bush presidency”

Update: Arianna weighs in.