The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld the gun-nutty 55 year mandatory sentence of 27 year old Weldon Angelos, who had no prior felony convictions.

Angelos was in possession of a gun, that he neither brandished, used nor displayed, when he conducted three marijuana sales. The total amount of pot involved was 24 ounces.

"Four former U.S. attorneys general and nearly 160 other ex-Justice Department officials and federal judges" filed an amicus brief on his behalf, arguing the sentence was so excessive as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In upholding the sentence,

.... the appeals court judges said they agreed with prosecutors who said the sentence was appropriate for Angelos' convictions and for other behavior involving drugs, guns and gang activity that prosecutors had evidence of, but did not charge him with.

by Last Night in Little Rock

From the list-servs: The New Jersey General Assembly adopted a moratorium on executions this afternoon by a vote of 55 to 21 with 2 abstensions. The NY Times noted Friday that this was the likely outcome, as did TChris here.

Update: (TL): Here's an AP article on the passage

by Last Night in Little Rock

... does it make a sound?

When 3,000 miners in China die in their coal mines, does it make a sound?

Not in the U.S., hardly ever. Yet our economy helps drive their need for electricity to produce. But, a coal miner's life is cheap in China, or so some Chinese think.

by TChris

Tom DeLay had hoped that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals would agree that he should be tried on a pending money laundering charge immediately. A prompt acquittal might have given him a chance to resume a meaningful (i.e., disastrous) role in Congress despite his decision to relinquish his leadership position. DeLay’s slim hopes were dashed today, however, as the Court of Criminal Appeals refused to give him his requested relief.

We all better learn to think twice before clicking our mouses. A new law signed by President Bush last week makes sending annoying anonymous e-mails or posting annoying messages on websites a federal crime.

Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.....Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

For people who comment on use-net groups and blogs, this could be a problem. Here's the actual text:

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

by TChris

TalkLeft discussed here the folly of the government’s prosecution of convenience store clerks — mostly Indian immigrants, many of whom spoke limited English — for selling cold pills (pseudoephedrine) and antifreeze to police informants. The informants supposedly indicated that they intended to use the products to manufacture methamphetamine, but it’s unclear whether the clerks understood what the informants were saying.

As the prosecution has progressed, more people are questioning the wisdom of prosecuting merchants for selling legal products, and of singling out convenience store owners of Indian descent.

Calling federal drug charges against dozens of South Asian convenience store owners racially biased, several hundred people rallied Sunday in Decatur for an end to prosecution in what federal agents have dubbed "Operation Meth Merchant.

Bump and Update: Here is the Der Spiegel interview with Chancellor Merkel in which she discusses her view of U.S. interrogation tactics applied to terror detainees.

SPIEGEL: The US government feels it is legitimate to hold prisoners under water until they believe they are drowning. Is this acceptable to you?

Merkel: There was a similar debate in Germany over the 2002
kidnapping of Jakob von Metzler, the banker's son. The issue then was whether it is legitimate to threaten or use torture to save the life of a child. The public debate showed that the overwhelming majority of citizens believed that even in such a case, the end does not justify the means. That is also my position.

SPIEGEL: Do you agree with Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble's view that in the fight against terrorism, it is necessary to use information that may have been obtained through torture?

Merkel: Not in a criminal proceeding. Information obtained under dubious circumstances cannot play a role in legal proceedings in a constitutional state. But everything that's available must be taken into account in threat prevention. What do you do when other countries' intelligence agencies give you information and you aren't entirely certain about its source? Simply ignore it? That's impossible. We have a duty to guarantee the safety of our citizens.

The Alito hearings are not the only hearings of note this week. Military tribunal hearings begin at Guantanamo. Ari Cover, a senior associate at Human Rights First is blogging live from Guantanamo.

The first hearings Wednesday will be pre-trial hearings of 19-year-old Canadian citizen Omar Khadr and 37-year-old Yemeni citizen Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul. Ari writes:

As pre-trial hearings resume Wednesday amidst all of this uncertainty, I’ll do my best to pass along what I learn from commission proceedings (the limit of my narrow invitation to GTMO). At the same time, I’ll try to explore many of the concerns mentioned above – the health of detainees; their possible transfer; and potential changes in military commission rules.

He does a great job today, covering everything from the hunger strike to the fact that this week marks the 4th anniversary of Gitmo detentions.

Say hello to Blog for Choice. You can see their ad on the right.

BushvChoice and NARAL Pro-Choice America are proud to announce the launch of the Blog for Choice campaign. Blog for Choice is bringing together top pro-choice bloggers to speak out on reproductive rights and health issues.

Who's blogging? Pandagon, Feministe, Bitch PhD, LiberalOasis, Majikthise, Pseudo-Adrienne's Liberal Feminism Bias, Blackfeminism, I Blame the Patriarchy, TalkLeft, MediaGirl, and Pacific Views.

I'll also be writing some Scoring Scotus pieces on the Alito hearings for Eric Alterman at Altercation.

Yesterday I mentioned PFAW's 155 page report on Judge Sam Alito. I also recommend the Alliance for Justice report, available here. Also, read why 500 law professors around the country signed this letter opposing Judge Alito.

The Alito hearing schedule is here. The Senate Judiciary Committee
is another good resource, and you can access the webcast of the hearing from this link on their site.

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by C.L.)

Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Sam Alito begin tomorrow. According to Bloomberg News, Sens. Schumer and Kennedy have not ruled out a filibuster.

This New York Times editorial succinctly describes the hot-button issues:

He has a lengthy and often troubling record he will have to explain away. As a government lawyer, he worked to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has disturbing beliefs on presidential power - a critical issue for the country right now. He has worked to sharply curtail Congress's power to pass laws and protect Americans. He may not even believe in "one person one vote."

The Times also points out that Alito's confirmation is not a done deal in the eyes of the public.

In a new Harris poll, just 34 percent of those surveyed said they thought he should be confirmed, while 31 percent said he should not, and 34 percent were unsure. Nearly 70 percent said they would oppose Judge Alito's nomination if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal - which it appears he might well do.

Time Magazine reports the White House intends to play up the debate over Judge Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court -- hoping it will distract us from the Washington scandals of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff.

Republican officials say they are so worried about the Abramoff problem that they are now inclined to stoke a fight with Democrats over the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in an effort to turn the page from the lobbying investigation. Outside groups plan to spend heavily, and the White House will engage in some tit for tat with Democrats as the hearings heat up.

Fat chance. We'll be reporting on both all week, and encourage everyone else not to let up on the scandal news while they cover the Alito hearings.

by Last Night in Little Rock

At 5:30 a.m., December 4, 2003, Baltimore Asst. U.S. Attorney Jonathan P. Luna was found drowned in a shallow creek in Lancaster PA, 70 miles away. He was the middle of a drug trial and did not show up for court. The death was ruled a homicide, based in part on 36 stab wounds. The story was put out that he was tortured.

His personal life was examined, and they found out about deep debt hidden from his wife, and sexual encounters attempted to be arranged on the Internet on his computer.