In keeping with his intention of petitioning his way on the ballot if Ned Lamont wins the August 8 Connecticut primary, Joe Lieberman filed papers today to start his own party: Connecticut for Lieberman.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said Lieberman will be able to secure a higher position on the November ballot by creating a new party rather than petitioning his way on as an individual. Bysiewicz said Lieberman would be fifth on the ballot under the new party, compared with eighth or ninth as an individual.

He must collect 7,500 signatures by 4 p.m. Aug. 9, the day after the primary.

Mark Fiore cartoon today: United States of Incarceration. "You don't have to go to Guantanamo to find a broken, unjust prison system." We've got one right here.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan has upheld the search of Congressman William Jefferson's office. The opinion is here. [Via How Appealing.]

Here's the first paragraph:

"All laws should be made to operate as much on the law makers as upon the people; . . . Whenever it is necessary to exempt any part of the government from sharing in these common burthens, that necessity ought not only to be palpable, but should on no account be exceeded." 2 Founders' Constitution 331 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987) (James Madison, The Militia Bill, House of Representatives (Dec. 16, 1790)).

100 of Ken Lay's friends and family filled the Aspen Chapel yesterday for his memorial service. I wrote a detailed post on it over at 5280.com, which I'm sure Lay haters won't like. It ends:

His last weeks could not have been pleasant, facing the prospect of decades in jail and the separation from his wife, children and life as he knew it. The Enron victims may be angry, as if they were cheated of seeing Lay receive a just punishment, but from my vantage point, he paid the ultimate price for his misdeeds. He certainly didn't get off easy.

Update: Sen. Frist has announded the Senate will not take up the issue of legal rights of the detainees until after the August recess.

*******

It seems like the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan (opinion here, pdf) has thrown the legislative and executive branches into a tailspin. They can't figure out what to do with it. Nonetheless, the Senate is set to begin debate on how to try detainees and the debate could take the rest of the summer.

In its decision, the Supreme Court said, on a 5-to-3 vote, that the planned commissions were unauthorized by federal statute and violated international law.

In opposite corners:

On one side of the debate are Republicans who believe Congress should give the president the authority to set up the kind of military commissions that were struck down by the court. Such commissions would sharply curtail defendants' rights.

On the other side are those who say the trials should be modeled on the military system of courts-martial, an approach that would give detainees more due-process rights than would the commissions. In between, many Republicans and Democrats alike argue for starting with the military judicial system and tweaking it to reflect the differences of trying terrorism suspects.

Karl Rove spoke at the Aspen Ideas Festival Sunday. Aspen Daily News reporter Troy Hooper has the full run-down. There's vintage Karl:

Karl Rove praised the military and civilian leadership's flexibility in managing the Iraq war, which has required field commanders to adapt to unconventional combat styles and means of rebuilding communities. Rove noted that his own cousin has served three tours of duty over there.

There's Rove in spin mode on Iraq:

"You know it's not going to be U.S. style. It's not going to be a Midwest small-town atmosphere. It's going to be Iraq with deeply felt sectarian strains with bad guys and people with lots of guns, but it is going to be a functioning society. It already is a distinct improvement on the society that existed."

I realize that reporters may not get to choose the headlines for their articles, but whoever wrote the AP headline "Suspect in Tunnel Plot Said to Vist U.S." should be fired. Not because it's untrue, but because it's misleading. The headline panders to the fear-mongers who want us to believe that New Yorkers were in imminent danger from those arrested in the Holland Tunnel case. As I wrote yesterday, the New York Times and other media outlets have reported this was another aspirational plot in the gestation phase.

The headline to the AP article conveys fear by suggesting that the plot had advanced to a threatening stage because the main suspect had visited the U.S. But the article says:

In the U.S., a federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said Hammoud had visited the United States at least once - a trip to California six years ago. Authorities are still trying to trace Hammoud's steps during that trip but say they have no record of him going to New York.

The official said Hammoud had a legitimate visa for a brief stay, and was believed to have been visiting either family or friends. The visit occurred long before authorities say the tunnel plot began to unfold.

(Guest Posted by A Big Tent Democrat)

If Joe Lieberman wins the August 8, 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary, I think all Dems should support him in the November general election. If Lanny Davis believes that Joe Lieberman is the superior candidate, then his activism on behalf of Lieberman is admirable, even though, to the best of my knowledge, Davis is not a Connecticut resident.

I happen to believe that Joe Lieberman is not the best choice for Connecticut Democrats. I believe Ned Lamont is the better choice. I understand that many in what is termed the "Left Blogs" or the Netroots agree with my view. And that some in the Media do not think kindly of the Netroots involvement. That David Brooks flails in ridiculous terms against Netroots involvement in Democratic primaries and in favor of an apparently saintly Lieberman, is not surprising nor troublesome really. After all, he is a Republican.

But when Democrats like Jon Chait object one has to wonder what is going on here. Chait writes today in the LA Times:

It was a year ago, after the London mass transit bombings, that New York City initiated a policy of requiring subway riders to submit to a search of their bags. It was supposed to be a temporary measure. Guess what? It's likely here to stay. As I always say, once you give the Government power, it rarely gives it back. How successful has the program been?

The program has resulted in five arrests - not for terrorism, but for drug possession, disorderly conduct and other minor charges.

My solution: A TalkLeft Fourth Amendment Subway Tote or Messenger Bag.

Let the 4th Amendment speak for you as you hand your bag over for a search by a subway or airline security guard. It's a silent protest and reminder to authorities that you consider searches without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to be an infringement of your privacy rights. Graphically challenged as I am, I designed them myself, so you can't get them anywhere else.

Larger photo here. Order here.

Two weeks ago, the FBI was crowing about the bust of some Miami terror wannabes who aspired to blow up the Sears Tower but couldn't acquire boots, explosives or even transportation to Chicago on their own.

Now it's the New York Holland tunnel plot. The FBI, Mayor Bloomberg, Port Authority and the NYC Police Commissioner held a big news conference to announce the arrest of a man in Lebanon believed to be leading the plot. The facts, as the New York Times notes, are these:

Federal and local law enforcement authorities identified the main subject of the investigation as Assem Hammoud, 31, a Lebanese man who was arrested on April 27 in Beirut and was still being held there. The locations of the other two men in custody were not revealed. The eight "principal players" planning the attack, the authorities said, had secured no financing, had gathered no explosives and had not visited New York -- or even the United States -- to conduct surveillance. At least one of the planners has been in Canada, the authorities said.

A North Carolina Senate committee, following the lead of the N.C. House, has passed a measure that would allow a 3 judge panel to hear inmate's claims of factual innocence and order them released if they find by clear and convincing evidence they are innocent.

The House approved last year the establishment of an eight-member N.C. Innocence Inquiry Commission that would conduct inquiries into "claims of factual innocence" based on new evidence that hadn't been presented in court.

If five of the eight members agree there is enough evidence, the case would be sent to a three-judge Superior Court panel. Charges would be dismissed if all three judges determine there "is clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant is innocent.

Last week Steven Green was charged in federal court with the rape and murder of a teenage girl in Iraq and the murder of her family members. Four of the other alleged participants in the crime have now been charged and will face military trials. A fifth soldier faces charges of dereliction of duty.

The U.S. statement said the five soldiers still on active duty will face an Article 32 investigation, similar to a grand jury hearing in civilian law. The Article 32 proceeding will determine whether there is enough evidence to place them on trial.
One of the soldiers was charged with failing to report the attack but is not believed to have participated in it directly, the statement said.

The other day I wondered why others had not been charged in light of the allegations in the affidavit for the arrest warrant. Here's my shorter version from reading the affidavit of what allegedly took place: