The Government has asked the Judge presiding over the Jose Padilla trial to allow a CIA agent to testify in disguise, complete with wig, glasses and facial hair.

The agent's testimony will be about Padilla's application to participate in mujahadeen training, described as al-Qaeda's holy warrior program.

Authentication of the document will come from a cooperating witness.

After the U.S. military invaded Afghanistan to oust its Taliban rulers in late 2001, authorities found a locker full of applications to join al Qaeda's holy war overseas.

At Padilla's bond hearing in January 2006, [Prosecutor] Pell said [Padilla's application] was found among 80 to 100 other mujahadeen (holy warrior) applications found in the country, which harbored al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden before he masterminded the Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. terrorist attacks.

Pell said Padilla's application was authenticated by a ''cooperating government witness'' convicted in an unrelated case who had once filled out the same Arabic ''mujahadeen data form.'' She said Padilla's date of birth, Oct. 18, 1970, was on his application along with his adopted Muslim name, Abu Abdullah Al Mujahir.

It's not an unprecedented motion.

More...

Last Night's Hardball with Chris Matthews debated the U.S. Attorney purge, and he had fired New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias (video; transcript will be here, when it is posted) explaining how he was shaken and stunned that a U.S. Senator would call him about whether charges would be filed against some Democratic office holders before last election day.  He was fired by AG Gonzalez less than six weeks later.

Before Iglesias came on the air, the three participants with Matthews said that Sen. Domenici should be subpoenaed as well, and one commented that "he has already lawyered up."

Jared Stern, the fired and federally investigated gossip writer for the New York Post's Page Six has sued Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Give me a break. I refrained from criticizing Stern when he was represented by my pal Joe Tacopina. But who's representing him in this suit? Clinton-hater Larry Klayman.

In my opinion, this suit isn't worth the toilet paper it was printed on.

Gawker says:

While Stern's primary beef deals with Burkle and the Daily News, he spares no one in his lawsuit. The lawsuit names another Burkle spokesman, his head of security, even former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Clintons are friends with Burkle, and Stern says they were all part of a vast conspiracy against him and the paper.

Is Immigration reform on the horizon?

A bipartisan proposal for comprehensive immigration reform that would allow millions of illegal immigrants to participate in a guest-worker program and possibly gain citizenship was introduced in the House yesterday, the first to be submitted since Democrats took control of Congress this year.

The proposal from Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.) is a far cry from a measure passed by the Republican-controlled House in 2005 that focused on tough enforcement actions to reduce illegal immigration. The House bill died in a conference committee along with a competing Senate bill that was similar to the Flake-Gutierrez proposal.

Of course, Tom Tancredo calls it an amnesty bill. It's anything but. My question is, is it enough? I haven't seen a copy of the bill, but I'll update when it becomes available.

I'm not sure why this is news since it was all but assured in Jack Abramoff's plea agreement, but the U.S. Attorney in Florida has signaled he will be requesting a reduction in Jack Abramoff's 5 year 10 month sentence.

Abramoff's plea agreement is here. As I wrote at the time of his sentencing,

I don't think Abramoff will do more than three to four years. But, with a $21 million restitution order hanging over his head, he may never be a fat cat again.

....I ...think he will get a 50% reduction in the Washington case, and a further Rule 35 reduction in the Florida case so both come out to about or just under four years.

Abramoff has continued cooperating since his sentence and incarceration. He will get credit for everyone who he cooperated against who has since pleaded guilty or been found guilty. That's the way our system works. It's called moral bankruptcy.

The number of deserters from the U.S. Army is higher than the military has reported.

A total of 3,196 active-duty soldiers deserted the Army last year, or 853 more than previously reported, according to revised figures from the Army.

The new calculations by the Army, which had about 500,000 active-duty troops at the end of 2006, significantly alter the annual desertion totals since the 2000 fiscal year.

Who is considered to be a deserter?

More....

Our friend (Jeralyn and mine) Markos says:

Is the supplemental perfect? Nope. But ultimately, it matters little. Bush will veto it, just like he'd veto a "tougher" bill. The would-be-emperor from the unaccountable administration has no interest in agreeing to even the most mildest of oversight requests.

But what bill will Bush see? The Senate now starts from a weak baseline - and McConnell has the filibuster power. What bill will Bush see? If he sees any bill, it will certainly be even weaker than this bill. Then Bush starts to negotiate. Markos thinks this is the end of the concessions. It is only the beginning of the "compromises."

In 1998, Congress enacted the Child Protection Act, which made it a crime for an website operator to permit those under 17 to access sexually explicit material posted on the site.

Today, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled the law unconstitutional.'

In a detailed decision, Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. found that the Child Online Protection Act would not be effective in protecting children from online pornography, and that parents could shield their children by using software filters and other, less restrictive means that do not curtail adults' rights to free speech.

You can read the 84 page opinion here (pdf).

The ACLU declares victory.

More...

The Drug Enforcement Administration was busy this week. The Bad Guys (a blog of U.S. News & World Reports) reports the DEA seized the most cocaine and most money ever.

So, what does $205 million look like?

What does 42,845 pounds of cocaine look like?

Update [2007-3-22 20:28:52 by Big Tent Democrat]: And now those who advocate for this bill will have their theory tested:

Four prominent liberal Democrats said Thursday they have given House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) the support she needs to pass the $124 billion wartime spending bill, even though they remain steadfastly opposed to any additional funding for the war.

All right all you proponents of this bill, what is the famous "next step" for this strategy? As Johnny Friendly says in "On the Waterfront," "you want him, you got 'em." What now?

Dem speaker after Dem speaker has defensively said the Iraq supplemental bill is "just a first step." At Daily Kos, Miss Laura repeats this talking point without examining whether it is is true or not:

The House of Representatives today began debate on the Iraq supplemental funding bill. . . . [T]oday the question comes down to yes or no on this bill, which does, for the first time, set a withdrawal deadline. . . . MoveOn expressed support for this bill, at least as a "first concrete step to ending the war." . . .

I say to her, saying it is a first step don't make it so. Indeed, by its own terms, it should NOT be so. It should be a last step setting a date certain for total withdrawal. That Miss Laura argues that it is a first step is the evidence that indeed the date certain is not so certain.

The debate on the House Iraq supplemental funding bill, HR 1591 now reaches the debate on the bill itself. Rep. David Obey (D-WI), leads off for support of this bill.

As I did below, I will be live blogging the debate. Sorry, duty called.

Obey's argument - 'we try to do three thing with this bill - (1) direct monies to the right war, Afghanistan, (2) protect the troops, and (3)send a message to the Iraqi politicians. This bill sets a timetable for getting out of Iraq. It sets benchmarks, and set "a target" for ending our incolvement under any circumstances.'

Same argument. The bill does none of part 3 imo. The benchmarks are a charade as the PResident certifies there completion. The end date certain is phony as this Congress will never cut off funds in September 2008, two months before an election. This bill will never become law. It will be filibustered in the Senate and this bill will thus be weakened. IF it has a tooth left, the President will veto it.

It does not help politically. The Dems get nothing from this bill. It does not help towards ending the war in Iraq. This bill hurts this cause. It should be voted down.

Update [2007-3-22 16:21:27 by Big Tent Democrat]:Procedural vote passes with 224 votes. 1 GOP vote, Walter Jones presumably. More debate and the big vote tomorrow.

Open Thread. I'll be updating with my observations, which as always, are attributable only to me. You can follow along on c-span or at the c-span website.

Louise Slaughter, voting Yes, (D-NY) says "this its the first time Democrats get the chance to change the course of the war and we will do it."

Not with this bill you are not Representative. You talk a good game but push came to shove and you balked at standing for ending the war. You are supporting staying the course for all practical purposes. Your changes are unenforceable. Your withdrawal deadliine a sham. You have not honored your word on this.