Phillip Thompson, an aide to Virginia's Democratic Senator Jim Webb, was arrested today for bringing a semiautomatic, 9 millimeter pistol and two magazines through security at the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. Thompson faces felony charges of carrying a pistol without a license and possessing an unregistered firearm and unregistered ammunition.

Another Congressional official briefed on the case said the aide had told the authorities that Mr. Webb gave him the pistol while being dropped at the airport and that he inadvertently took it to the Capitol complex.

Webb gave him the gun? He inadvertantly took it through security? There has to be more to this story.

The writing was on the wall last night. Australian detainee David Hicks, brought before a military tribunal at Guantanamo today, agreed to plead guilty to one charge of providing material support to terrorists.

The guilty plea is sure to be seen by administration supporters as an affirmation of its efforts to detain and try terrorism suspects here, although the government’s detention policy still faces significant legal and political challenges.

Baloney. The plea is nothing but a sign that David Hicks wanted to be free one day, and this was the only way to assure it.

I have noted before that I consider David Sirota a good friend and a good progressive who wants the Iraq Debacle to end. I have also noted my almost complete disagreement with his analysis of the Dem House Iraq supplemental bill. One of my major points was that the strength of the anti-Iraq War movement was much more prevalent in the House than in the Senate and thus the "line in the sand" needed to be drawn there so that the inevitable "compromises" that the Senate would require could start from a more anti-Debacle position. And of course, Bush would veto any concrete anti-Debacle legislation. Thus ultimately, a staredown with the President would be required. That is why I endorsed this approach:

I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.

The House bill does none of these things.

Remember David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director and eventual critic of "trickle-down" economics? Stockman became a top executive at Collins & Aikman Corp., a company that ended up in bankruptcy court in 2005. Now Stockman finds himself under indictment for securities fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, and associated crimes.

At a news conference, U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said Stockman and his co-defendants "resorted to lies, tricks and fraud" from 2001 to 2005 to hide the truth about his failing company from investors and creditors. Garcia said Stockman let the company's employees mislead creditors about the company's revenues and the ability of Collins & Aikman to pay its bills ...

A federal law criminalizes the "pandering" of child pornography. The pandering law is violated by one who promotes "material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material" visually depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Note that the "material" need not actually depict sexual conduct, or even a minor. Note also that the panderer need not actually believe, and need not intend to advertise the belief, that the "material" depicts minors engaging in sexual conduct. Seems like an awfully vague law that doesn't carefully target actual wrongdoers, doesn't it?

In this lengthy opinion (pdf), the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the law is overbroad. Congress, the court concluded, may not "burn the house to roast the pig." Echoing a concern that Sen. Leahy raised, the court worried that the law "federally criminalize[s] talking dirty over the Internet or the telephone when the person never possesses any material at all." The court was particularly troubled that the law criminalizes speech that "reflects the belief" that material is pornographic een when the belief is unsupported by reality, and thus infringes not only upon freedom of speech but upon freedom of thought.

The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to review the Eleventh Circuit's decision, making another attempt to bring clarity to the murky world of child porn laws, which too frequently target material that isn't pornographic and that doesn't actually depict a child. The Court's prior child porn jurisprudence is summarized in the Eleventh Circuit decision, linked above.

Just sayin'

Nearly three-quarters of Americans (73%) – including 77% of Republicans, 78% of independents and 66% of Democrats – say Congress is doing only a fair or poor job dealing with Iraq. Just 22% say Congress has done an excellent (3%) or good job (19%) in this regard.

For Democrats, much of this frustration is linked to the sense that Congress has too little influence on Iraq policy, and has not aggressively challenged President Bush's approach. Most Democrats (56%) believe that . . . Democratic leaders in Congress have not gone far enough in challenging George W. Bush's policies.

Many independents share these criticisms – a plurality (41%) says that Democratic leaders in Congress are not going far enough in challenging Bush's Iraq policies. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) That's a lot of purity trolls.

Not that there is anything wrong with that:

Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.
"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd. He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

Hmm, that may well be but last I looked, Congress could not prosecute anyone, except for impeachment. Now there's a thought . . .

mcjoan has a very good post on why the White House is making the politically obtuse decision to not have AG Gonzales fall on his sword:

[G]iven any rational observer can see how damaging this situation is, and that it's only getting worse, what could be going on in their heads? Only two possibilities come to mind, and I suspect only one is really the answer. First, Bush truly is so stubborn, so willful, and so stupid as to not see the danger that Gonzales poses to the already damaged presidency, and he isn't going to let his Fredo go. But what is much more likely, Karl Rove needs the distraction, the deflection that Gonzales provides. As long as he's catching much of the heat, the White House stays out of the focus.

This makes sense to me. Rove got Gonzo into this mess and he will keep using him as a shield until it becomes impossible. mcjoan concludes that moving to impeach Gonzales is the best way to overcome this stonewall.

I'm heading over to court and 5280.com to blog the Joseph Nacchio trial proceedings. Big Tent is out of pocket today. TChris or Last Night may stop in, but in case not, here's a place for you to bring everyone up to speed on the news and your thoughts.

When Robert Novak's Republican sources weigh in against Bush and Gonzales, it's worth a read.

"Gonzales never has developed a base of support for himself up here," a House Republican leader told me. But this is less a Gonzales problem than a Bush problem. With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment.

Republicans in Congress do not trust Bush to protect them. That alone is sufficient reason to withhold statements of support for Gonzales, when such a gesture could be quickly followed by his resignation under pressure. ....

More....

The ACLU is one of four organizations that have been granted status as human rights observers at the military commission proceedings. Ben Wizner, an ACLU staff attorney will be blogging from Guantanamo here.

Bump and Update: The LA Times is on the three fired U.S. Attorneys who opposed the death penalty.

Original Post:

Fired Margaret Chiara and the Death Penalty

On February 24, I wrote about the possibility Michigan U.S. Attorney Margaret Chiara was fired because of her anti-death penalty beliefs.

Quoting the Washington Post,

Chiara -- who had once studied to be a nun -- is personally opposed to capital punishment....Another of the fired U.S. attorneys, Paul K. Charlton of Phoenix, also clashed with Washington over the death penalty.

The Washington Post today has more on Chiara's firing and it isn't pretty for the White House. She was well-respected by the judges, federal prosecutors and defense lawyers in her district.

More...