The Constitution prohibits any religious test for public office and forbids the establishment of an official religion, making this proposal the stupidest idea of the week:

The American Family Association, a nonprofit organization that focuses on the news media's influence on society, has entered the fray, calling on people to ask members of Congress to pass a law that would make the Bible the only book that could be used during swearing-in ceremonies.

Some are upset because Keith Ellison, a Muslim who is newly-elected to Congress, might hold the Quran in his hand when he takes his oath of office. These are the same people who insist the United States is a Christian nation, when in truth it is a religiously diverse nation.

Whether Ellison holds one of the many versions of the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, or the most recent Playboy magazine is his business. That's what freedom (including religious freedom) is all about. Why does the AFA hate our freedoms?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's website has a link to the affidavit and search warrant in the search that led to the death of Kathryn Johnston on November 21st, previously posted here.

The no-knock provision was based on the alleged surveillance cameras that the informant reported to the police which showed up in the affidavit. (No surveillance cameras or monitors were found.) The affidavit for the search warrant also described the house as having a wheelchair ramp in the front. The latter would seem to be a tip off to the police that there was somebody else in the house besides the alleged drug dealer, if they had bothered to investigate.

CNETnews.com has this article by By Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache: FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool.  Brave new eavesdropping via a cellphone that is not even turned on:

USA Today on Friday had, via AP, an article about the controversial body scanner with "backscatter" technology that graphically reveals everything about your body, in an effort to see what an airline passenger may be carrying on his or her body.  Don't want to be seen nude on a computer screen?  Then you can be subjected to a patdown instead.

Via Federal Defender David Beneman in Maine:

New Federal Rules take effect December 1, 2006.

Criminal Rules 5, 6, 32.1, 40, 41, and 58.

Evidence Rules 404, 408, 606, and 609.

Appellate Rule 25 and new Appellate Rule 32.1

Criminal Rules:

The ACLU (received by e-mail, on line link should be here later) brings our attention to a new Government program in the works called the Automated Tracking System:

The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned an unprecedented new program for generating terrorist ratings on tens of millions of travelers, including American citizens, maintaining those ratings for 40 years, and making them available throughout the government.

"Never before in American history has our government gotten into the business of creating mass 'risk assessment' ratings of its own citizens," said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project. "That is a radical new step with far-reaching implications - but one that has been taken almost thoughtlessly by expanding a cargo-tracking system to incorporate human beings, and with little public notice, discussion, or debate."

Originally intended for cargo, it's now going to be applied to people, and scheduled to be implemented December 4.

Update: It also tracks what travellers eat.

It's official. House speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has named former Border Patrol agent and current Congressman Silvestre Reyes to head the House Intelligence Committee.

What's his background?

Known as "Silver" to friends, Reyes was drafted into the Army and served during 1966-68 as a helicopter crew chief and gunner. His service included 13 months in Vietnam.

He rose through the ranks during 26 years of service in the Border Patrol, leaving as a senior law enforcement official in Texas in 1995. He won his seat in Congress the next year.

What will the agenda be?

Bob Somerby does excellent though sometimes he goes off the rails. But his column today is Grade A, as he explains in clear detail how our Media simply fails at its job. This time he discusses Margaret Carlson's latest travesty in discussing Al Gore and the 2000 election:

There are no words, except bad words, to describe this new column by Margaret Carlson . . . [She] muses about the lessons we can learn from the events of Campaign 2000. And omigod! Even today—even after Iraq—Carlson simply refuses to stop. Her cohort is shameless beyond all compare. They’re disgraceful, like those who enable them:

CARLSON: George W. Bush's win (if that's what it was) over then-Vice President Al Gore was attributed in part to style. Gore took every opportunity to lecture voters on how a bill becomes a law. He even invoked the “Norwood-Dingell” patients' bill of rights legislation in a debate to show how much his 24 years of government experience mattered versus his opponent's five.

Even today—even after their conduct has led to Iraq—these people are determined not to stop. In the first paragraph quoted above, Carlson refers to the third Bush-Gore debate, the “town hall forum” held in St. Louis on October 17, 2000.

Question: Did Gore mention the Dingell-Norwood bill “to show how much his 24 years of government experience mattered versus his opponent's five?” Did he mention this bill because he “took every opportunity to lecture voters on how a bill becomes a law?” Yes, that’s what the laughable fellow did—if you live in the fictionalized world of a moral disgrace like Carlson. In the real world, though, a different reason intrudes; Gore mentioned Dingell-Norwood (not “Norwood-Dingell”) for a good and obvious reason. Bush had been saying that he supported a “patients bill of rights” too; Gore wanted to show that Bush was supporting a weak bill, one that was favored by industry.

This is interesting:

The latest example of a lack of grace in Washington is the exchange between Jim Webb and President Bush at a White House Christmas party. Mr. Webb did not want to pose with the president and so didn't join the picture line. Fair enough, everyone feels silly on a picture line. Mr. Bush approached him later and asked after his son, a Marine. Mr. Webb said he'd like his son back from Iraq. Mr. Bush then, according to the Washington Post, said: "That's not what I asked you. How's your son?" Mr. Webb replied that's between him and his son.

For this Mr. Webb has been roundly criticized. And on reading the exchange I thought it had the sound of the rattling little aggressions of our day, but not on Mr. Webb's side. Imagine Lincoln saying, in such circumstances, "That's not what I asked you." Or JFK. Or Gerald Ford!

"That's not what I asked you" is a sentence straight from cable TV, from which many Americans are acquiring an attitude toward public and even private presentation.

The President of the United States should not behave like Sean Hannity. In public or private. Good for Noonan.

h/t - Jason Zengerle

Today's addition to the list of wrongly convicted prisoners is Marlon Pendleton, who served 12 years for a rape he didn't commit. Judge Stanley Sacks in Cook County, Illinois ordered Pendleton's release yesterday.

The conviction could have been avoided if the government's scientist had done her job. (It may be, of course, that she saw her job as supporting the arrest rather than discovering the truth.)

The judge's ruling follows an announcement last week that DNA tests ruled out Pendleton as the source of genetic evidence left by the person who attacked and robbed a woman on Chicago's South Side in 1992.

Pendleton had claimed from the outset that he was innocent of the attack. He was convicted after Chicago police crime lab analyst Pamela Fish, whose work has been linked to several wrongful convictions, said there was not enough evidence for DNA testing.

But a forensic serologist chosen to analyze evidence by prosecutors and Pendleton's attorneys found that, even after the crime analyst used some of the evidence in her testing, he still had enough material to develop a profile.

Via Facing South, Pedro Parra-Sanchez, age 44 and a resident of California, moved to New Orleans to assist with the Katrina recovery. Six days later he was arrested for assault.

13 months later, he had still not seen a defense attorney -- or brought before a judge. He doesn't speak a lot of English. Other inmates alerted the Tulane law clinic. He finally was located and brought to court -- last week.

At his arraignment -- a court proceeding the law requires to take place within, at most, a month after charges are filed -- Parra-Sanchez could speak only through a translator about his extended stay in a prison system that officials from several agencies admitted simply lost him, failing to secure him the most basic American rights.

Apologies have been forthcoming:

At the hearing, Assistant District Attorney Greg Thompson expressed the prosecution's "formal apology" for Parra-Sanchez's "prolonged incarceration," while Criminal District Court Judge Darryl Derbigny called his time in jail "unacceptable."

What went wrong?

Two months ago, TalkLeft introduced you to Majid Khan, a Baltimore resident who was detained in secret overseas prisons before he was moved to Guantanamo. Earlier this month, TalkLeft chided the government's effort to preclude Khan's defense lawyers from talking to him.

An editorial in today's Appleton Post-Crescent takes up the cause:

The reason [for preventing contact between attorney and client], as offered by an "information review officer for the National Clandestine Service," is because he was held in a "top secret" program and "may have come into possession of information, including locations of detention, conditions of detention and alternative interrogation techniques." And the government wouldn't want his attorney to reveal any of that information in court because of national security.

So the U.S. captured Khan, put him in a hiding spot for three years, finally allowed him legal representation to — we presume — defend himself, but doesn't let him talk to that legal representation because the U.S. captured him and put him in a hiding spot for three years.

Give it up, President Bush. When you've lost Appleton, Wisconsin, you've lost pretty much everyone.