It's difficult for people with criminal records to find employment. Young people sometimes hope that military service will provide them with civilian job skills and a fresh start, but the military has, until recently, refused enlistment to most of those who have a criminal past.

Given the military's ongoing shortage of new recruits, more individuals with criminal histories are finding a second chance in the military.

[Since 2003, the Army has] increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.

The number of waivers for felony convictions also increased, to 11 percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006, from 8 percent.

Desperation breeds forgiveness. Enlistees with conviction records made up almost 12 percent of the Army's recruits in 2006. It's unfortunate that the only opportunity to obtain employment available to many of these ex-offenders is in such a dangerous occupation. Fresh starts should be routine for those who have paid their debt to society.

[Cross Posted at Huffington Post]

The Libby trial is going out with a whimper. PlameGate followers, like Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, feel cheated. Without testimony from Vice President Cheney or Scooter Libby, there's no bang for the buck.

"When Ted Wells came back from lunch today and announced that he had released Dick Cheney as a witness I was damn near brokenhearted. After all that, and Shooter lets me down. Did he not want to testify on Libby's behalf, did Team Libby decide he could do more harm than good, or did they never intend to call him at all? We'll probably never know."

For those who believe criminal trials should be a search for the truth, I sympathize. But that's not the purpose of a criminal trial. A criminal trial is simply a testing of the evidence. The only issue is whether the prosecution can prove its charges (pdf) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scooter Libby is not required to prove he didn't lie or obstruct justice. All he has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors that he did.

The test for reasonable doubt is not a simple weighing of the evidence, after which the jury decides which side to believe more. That's the test in a civil case where the standard of proof is a mere "preponderance of the evidence."

In layman's terms, in a criminal case, if both sides' theories and arguments sound plausible, that alone is a reasonable doubt and the jury should acquit.

It took some time, but an indictment has finally been returned against defense contractor Brent Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, cronies of (and alleged co-conspirators with) former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham.

The [grand] jury returned 11 counts against Foggo and Wilkes that include conspiracy, wire fraud, conflict of interest and money laundering. It charges Foggo with using his seniority and influence within the CIA to direct the awarding of contracts to Wilkes, his lifelong friend.

A second indictment, which included 26 counts, names Wilkes and New York-based mortgage banker John T. Michael, who co-owned a mortgage company that provided loans to Cunningham. It charges Wilkes with conspiracy, wire fraud, bribery of a public official and money laundering.

The Foggo-Wilkes indictment is here, and the Wilkes-Michael indictment is here (both in pdf).

For her hard work in bringing the indictments, US Attorney Carol Lam was given the axe. Even as she announced the indictments today, the Justice Department was interviewing "four of her top advisers for the position of interim chief while a committee searches for a long-term replacement."

Wow. Ted Wells just announced neither Libby nor Cheney will testify. Evidence ends tomorrow, closings next Tuesday. More at Huffington Post.

Debate in the House of Representatives is underway concerning the president's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Predictably, most Republicans are relying on the canard that any criticism of President Bush will "embolden" terrorists, when in truth it was the invasion and occupation of Iraq that has increased the threat of terrorism. Some are trying to change the subject by pretending that disapproval of escalation equates to cutting off funding for troops who are in harm's way -- as if Congress intends to leave soldiers in Baghdad without food or ammunition.

The nonbinding measure states simply that the House "will continue to support and protect" troops serving in Iraq but that it "disapproves" of the troop buildup.

A few Republicans, understandably concerned about voter frustration with congressional inaction to stop the escalation, will break from the ranks.

Republicans conceded that the measure was headed for approval and said a few dozen party members were likely to break ranks and vote for it.

I'm over at Huffington Post live-blogging the Libby trial today. Come on over. For the blow by blow, check out Marcy Wheeler at Firedoglake.

This morning has been taken up with determining Andrea Mitchell won't testify, the NY Times' Jill Abramson had no recollection of Judy Miller suggesting she assign someone to cover the Joseph Wilson/Niger story and Cheney NSA Advisor John Hannah testifying how busy Libby was with heavy national security issues.

Arianna wrote a few days ago that there are two trials going on in the Prettyman courthouse in D.C. One is designed to determine whether Scooter Libby is guilty of making false statements to federal investigators, lying to the grand jury and obstructing justice. The other is a referendum on the symbiotic relationship between prominent journalists and high ranking Administration officials.

The currency in Washington has always been information. That's nothing new. But the Libby trial has laid bare, for anyone caring enough to take a look, how the Administration used the press to present its unfounded case for war.

The directive to combat Joseph Wilson's July 6 op-ed came from Cheney himself. To get a sense of how Libby and others snapped to attention when he cried "fetch," consider the July 12th flight to Norfolk. It was on this flight, carrying Cheney, Libby and Cheney press aide Cathie Martin to the commemoration of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, that Cheney gave his directive as if he were Tony Soprano: Go after this guy Wilson. So seriously did Libby and Martin take the command that they started roto-dialing reporters from Andrews Air Force Base the moment the plane returned from Norfolk.

I've been rough on Barack Obama. I think, fairly. Many say not fairly. But I am beginning to see qualities that I think are necessary for a successful run for the Presidency. Yesterday in Frank Rich's column, Obama addresses some concerns:

Mr. Obama is well aware of the serious criticisms he engenders, including the charge that he is conciliatory to a fault. He argues that he is “not interested in just splitting the difference” when he habitually seeks a consensus on tough issues. “There are some times where we need to be less bipartisan,” he says. “I’m not interested in cheap bipartisanship. We should have been less bipartisan in asking tough questions about entering into this Iraq war.”

No cheap Broder/Lieberman/McCain "bipartisanship" for Obama.

At dailykos, mcjoan calls attention to this Blue Jersey report of a heartening change of heart:

After all the uproar over Senator Menendez's vote a few months ago for the unconstitutional Military Commissions Act which eliminated habeas corpus and legalized torture, it appears he's had a change of heart. That vote was taken under immense pressure during the campaign, and he's now doing the responsible thing and cleaning up the mess he helped make.

Menendez is reportedly joining Chris Dodd to co-sponsor a bill that would restore the habeas review that the Military Commissions Act prohibits. Raw Story has a video of Dodd's reasoned argument in favor of the bill.

You'd think that FBI agents, of all people, wouldn't lose track of weapons. Or laptops that hold classified documents.

The FBI reported 160 laptop computers as lost or stolen in less than four years, including at least 10 that contained highly sensitive classified information and one that held "personal identifying information on FBI personnel," according to a new report released today.

An undetermined number of the laptops -- between 10 and 51 -- contained classified information.

The bureau, which has struggled for years to get a handle on sloppy inventory procedures, also reported 160 missing weapons during the same time period, from February 2002 to September 2005, according to the report by the Justice Department inspector general's office.

Incompetence is the norm in the Bush administration, but tolerance of such widespread ineptitude in a federal agency is inexcusable.

As TalkLeft reported last year, the Mexican Congress passed legislation to decriminalize the casual possession of recreational drugs for personal use. Vincente Fox vetoed the legislation to placate Washington. A new version permitting possession of smaller quantities is on its way to Fox's successor, Felipe Calderon. The question is whether Calderon has the will to stand up to the "War On Drugs" crowd in the Bush administration.

Ruling National Action Party Sen. Alejandro Gonzalez, who heads the Senate's justice commission and supports the bill, said on Monday that decriminalizing possession of small quantities of drugs and taking some pressure off addicts would free up resources needed to pursue dealers.

As TalkLeft wrote last year:

Smart move. The U.S. should take a look at doing the same.

Kudos to Bill Purcell, Nashville's mayor, for his veto of a mean-spirited and unnecessary ordinance that would have made English the "official language" of Nashville. The ordinance would have required nearly all governmental communications to be in English -- as if the official business of Nashville's government is transacted in any other language.

The mayor said there was the potential for litigation against the city, noting that such cases have reached the U.S. Supreme Court dating back to the 1920s. He also expressed a concern that Metro employees would be put in fear of wondering whether they would get reprimanded if they did communicate in another language with someone in need of services.

Do the residents of Nashville truly believe that city employees should be prohibited from giving directions to a tourist in French?