The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers today issued this press release on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision denying habeas rights to Guantanamo detainees:

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is extremely disappointed in the decision in which a divided panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that none of the prisoners at Guantanamo Naval Base have any right to challenge their indefinite imprisonment in federal court. The court ruled, in effect, that the United States can imprison people virtually forever without judicial review.

These prisoners were captured by the United States, are confined in prisons built by the United States, are guarded by members of the United States Armed Forces, are subjected to interrogation by the United States intelligence services, and may be imprisoned for the rest of their lives, yet they cannot even petition a court for a writ of habeas corpus for determination whether their imprisonment was the result of a mistake.

I'm off now to San Diego where I'll be speaking Thursday on using the internet for legal research and investigation and on Friday, conducting a workshop on blogging for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).

I'll be checking in periodically, and of course, staying on top of the Scooter Libby jury deliberations.

After the verdict is in, I'm scheduled to do a live chat for the Washington Post

Here's an open thread to discuss other issues, and as always, a big thanks to TChris and Big Tent Democrat for keeping TalkLeft going while I've been on Libby assignment.

Marcy (Empty Wheel)was in the media room and courtroom today live-blogging at Firedoglake and watching the jury and lawyers.

I just received this email from DOJ spokesman Randall Samborn:

Mr. Fitzgerald will not be available after a verdict for one-on-one interviews or talk shows. We do anticipate that he will speak to the media after a verdict outside the Courthouse.

My main question which I hope a reporter asks: Is this investigation over? I sure hope the answer is "no."

Due to the length of Scooter's grand jury testimony and the voluminous exhibits introduced, I would not be surprised if this jury doesn't come back before Friday. I'm not going to make a prediction for conviction or acquittal. But, I do think a very fast verdict means acquittal and a very prolonged one means a split (compromise) verdict or a hung jury.

One of the infamous legal theories that has underpinned the abuse of the Constitution by the Bush Administration has been the Unitary Executive:

What does a "unitary executive mean . . . for Bush:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

But in order to distinguish the SCOTUS' Rasul decision in the recent Gitmo habeas case, the Bush Administration has disavowed implicitly the unitary executive theory. Yes, heads will spin.

I'm so conflicted.

I believe that the Office of the Vice President, particularly Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby, went all out to attack Joseph Wilson after his July 6th New York Times Op-ed criticizing the intelligence relied on by the Administration to justify its decision to go to war in Iraq.

I believe the evidence at Scooter Libby's trial established that Cheney was livid over Wilson and that he used the C.I.A., the State Department and the Department of Defense to search for dirt on him. Through his inquiries, Cheney learned that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, worked for the CIA in the counter-proliferation division on weapons of mass destruction. He received information that she might have had a role in sending Wilson to Niger to check on intelligence claims that Iraq was acquiring uranium for use in WMD's.

More...

California's plan to outsource its prison management problem to private prisons in other states met with a judge's disapproval, forcing the state to confront the reality of its bloated prison population. The decision is a loss for Gov. Schwarzenegger in his struggle with the state's powerful prison union.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association and the Service Employees International Union challenged Schwarzenegger's transfers for violating the emergency act and a provision in the state Constitution. That provision prohibits using private companies for jobs usually performed by state workers. The judge agreed with the unions on both points.

The governor worries that the state will be forced to release dangerous prisoners to alleviate overcrowding. If the governor used his pardon power to free prisoners serving lengthy "strike" sentences for nonviolent crimes and to shorten drug sentences, he'd find it easier to house the violent criminals.

The evidence is in: voter ID laws suppress voter turnout, particularly in minority populations. But the GOP already knew that.

States that imposed identification requirements on voters reduced turnout at the polls in the 2004 presidential election by about 3 percent, and by two to three times as much for minorities, new research suggests.

In 2004, TalkLeft called attention to the abusive conditions under which a mentally ill inmate had been confined in Dallas County. Three years later, Dallas County is paying $950,000 to settle the lawsuit filed by the families of three mentally ill prisoners who were denied medication during their confinement.

Just over half of the award went to James Mims, a Dallas County jail inmate whose psychiatric medications were withheld for two months in 2004, his attorney David Finn said. Mims also nearly died when water was shut off in his cell for two weeks.

Dallas County taxpayers might want to ask whether the jail plans to improve its management of mentally ill prisoners.

Tony Blair has had enough.

Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported.

The administration's spin: Blair's cut-and-run strategy is "a sign of success."

Jim Wallis a few months ago:

"When the Democrats became just the party of rights, they lost something, a moral appeal," Wallis contends. The Democratic patchwork frayed as some of its largest constituencies, particularly working-class whites, began to feel culturally estranged from the party. The breaking point was in 1972, when Republican Richard M. Nixon argued that a vote for Democrat George McGovern was a vote for "acid, amnesty and abortion." To many voters, McGovern embodied an emerging perception that liberals were outside the American mainstream.

Jim Wallis today:

So Kos, let’s made a deal. How about if progressive religious folks, like me, make real sure that we never say, or even suggest, that values have to come from faith – and progressive secular folks, like you, never suggest that progressive values can’t come from faith (and perhaps concede that, in fact, they often do). If we progressives, religious and secular, could stop fighting among ourselves (shooting ourselves in the foot) and join together on some really big values issues – like economic fairness, health care, and a more just foreign policy – think of the difference we could make. How about it?

You first Jim. As Kos responded:

I have no idea what Wallis is talking about. Isn't his point exactly what I wrote? Maybe I'm missing something, but it's as if Wallis didn't bother reading my post and merely heard about it second-hand.

With "friends" like Jim Wallis, Dems need no enemies.

See also Frederick Clarkson and PastorDan.

In a divided 2-1 ruling, Boumediene v. Bush, a panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the "enemy alien" detainees at Guantanamo do not have a Constitutional right to a writ of habeas corpus. The decision is an exercise in disengenuity. It accepts as undisputed fact, with the merest discussion - that the detainees do not have a Constitutional habeas right because (1) Guantanamo is outside of the control of the US government in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court holding in Rasul and that (2) the detainees are "enemy aliens" for habeas purposes.

The DC Circuit concedes at fn. 8 that in fact the detainees are NOT enemy aliens, but that it does not matter anyway - thus standing Eisentrager on its head. And this is not insignificant - for the reasoning could be read to allow the Executive to detain American citizens outside US territory as well.

Consider this language:

[U]nder the common law [habeas corpus], the dispositive fact was not a petiotioner's alien enemy status, but his lack of presence within any sovereign territory.

In essence, the DC Circuit adopts the flawed thinking of Judge Robertson's Hamdan decision. The key passage begins at p. 17 of the DC Circuit opinion. Just like Robertson, the DC Circuit misreads Eisentrager and Rasul. The DC Circuit has now perversely opined that, with regard to the Great Writ, the Congressional power extends to jurisdictions that the Constitution did not. Ironic in light of the view of the Unitary Executive and the all powerful wartime Commander in Chief.

I'm live blogging the Scooter Libby closings at Huffington Post.

• Government
• Defense

Also check out Marcy at Firedoglake.