by TChris

When Sen. Frist was last strutting about, threatening Democrats with the “nuclear option” if they even thought about filibustering a Bush nominee to a federal judgeship, Republicans seemed to hold unassailable power. These days, Frist’s threats seem hollow. In the words of our prophetic president: “Bring it on.” Democrats may finally have developed the backbone to fight against the Republican tactic of changing rules they don’t like.

Minutes after the Senate returned from a three-week vacation [Sen.] Byrd challenged Frist, a Tennessee Republican, in an unusually pointed floor debate.

"If the senator wants a fight, let him try. I'm 88 years old but I can still fight and fight I will for freedom of speech," Byrd said.

by TChris

Senators who oppose a “compromise” that would extend the Patriot Act’s most obnoxious provisions are finding support from editorialists around the country. The San Jose Mercury News reminds readers that "[t]he right to privacy -- the right of ordinary citizens to be free from government snooping -- is paramount to America's democracy, and a handful of provisions in the anti-terrorism law ride roughshod over it." The Vacaville Reporter complains that the proposed revision “still doesn't go far enough to protect individual liberties.” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin urges Congress to allow provisions to expire that infringe on people's liberties.

by TChris

European investigators suspect that prisoners once secretly detained by the CIA in Europe are now being held in North Africa. Senator Dick Marty, who leads the Council of Europe investigation, says it is “still too early to say if there has been any involvement or complicity of member states in illegal actions.” If member countries permitted the CIA to hold detainees “without judicial involvement,” Marty warns that “the member states would stand accused of having seriously breached their human rights obligations to the Council of Europe.” (TalkLeft coverage of the rendition program is collected here.)

by TChris

More details are available today regarding torture at the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s detention centers. Yesterday’s disclosure of the torture is discussed here.

Prisoners had their bones broken and their fingernails pulled out, were subjected to electric shocks and had burning cigarettes crushed into their necks and backs, said the Iraqi official. A 13th detainee there was starved to "bones and skin," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

More than 120 prisoners in two detention centers have been abused or tortured, according to U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad.

What are you thinking about today? If you feel like talking about it, here's some space.

Update: 12:37 am Stanley "Tookie" Williams is dead. He went to his death at 51 years of age. Rest in peace, Stanley "Tookie" Williams. A press conference will begin shortly, with reports from the warden and the media visitors. Here it is (live blogged):

Steve Lopez, LA Times: He came in without resistence, shortly after 12, he was helped onto a converted dentist's chair. He gave no resistance at any point. He lifted his head several times to look at people. He was declared dead at 12:35.

Reporter Two: There was a problem with the second IV, he grimaced at the difficulty. At 12:22, a female guard announced it would begin. So it was a 13 or 14 minute actual execution. He breathed heavily, his stomach area rose several times, then his breathing slowed, and there was no movement.

Reporter Three: Has witnessed six executions, this one was different. Williams had supporters at the back of the room. When he was still conscious, they gave black power salutes to him. On their way out, they yelled "The state of California just killed an innocent man."

Reporter Four: Supporters blew kisses to him, whispered "I love you," "God bless you." He spoke a lot but they don't know what he was saying.

Jane at Firedoglake reports that Washington Post reporter Jim VandeHei dropped a bombshell on Hardball tonight. Crooks and Liars has the video. The money quote (via Lexis.com) from Vandehei:

We still don`t know exactly where Karl Rove originally learned about Valerie Plame. That`s still one of the mysteries. We know one of them he had heard it from Hadley as just sort of chatter inside the office, but he had learned it earlier from some other place. And we still don`t know where that is.

Like Jane, I don't remember anyone reporting previously that Rove learned of Valerie Plame Wilson (by any name) from Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. But, it sounds right. [Update: Jane reports that Vandehei now says he misspoke on Hardball and meant to say Libby.] It's hard to believe they didn't discuss her, when Rove's e-mail to Hadley said "I didn't take the bait" and when they were both members of the White House Iraq Group.

A Florida Judge has ruled that even though proseuctors have obtained medical records from Rush Limbaughs' doctors, they cannot question the doctors about his medical condition or about what Rush may have told the doctors while they were treating him. Roy Black, Rush's lawyer, says:

We are pleased with the court's ruling upholding the patient's statutory right of doctor-patient confidentiality. We've said from the start that there was no doctor shopping but Mr. Limbaugh should not have to give up his right to doctor-patient confidentiality to prove his innocence.

The medical records that the State has seized and reviewed now for nearly six months show that Mr. Limbaugh received legitimate medical treatment for legitimate medical reasons. Mr. Limbaugh has not been charged with a crime and he should not be charged.

Congrats to Roy.

Instapundit has a post on the anti-meth bill that conferees inserted into the Patriot Act compromise legislation agreed upon last week. The meth bill restricts the number of over-the-counter cold pills you can buy. Glenn is 100% correct when he writes:

....the problem with this is that it has nothing to do with terrorism. Putting it in the Patriot Act just reinforces my fears -- present since the beginning -- that this had more to do with finding an excuse to enact bureaucratic wishlists into law than with protecting us from terrorism....this is a dumb idea, it undercuts the entire rationale for the Patriot Act, and it's a reason to be suspicious of the whole renewal enterprise.

Glenn also notes Diane Feinstein is behind the bill. I'm not surprised. She's has as little in common with true Democrats as Joe Lieberman.

TalkLeft has previously criticized North Carolina's use of its "weapons of mass destruction" law to charge a meth lab owner (follow-up here), as well as Oklahoma's law and John Edwards and John Kerry's plan to introduce a federal restriction on buying cold pills.

Countdown to execution.

Bump and Update: The Supreme Court has denied Stanley "Tookie" Williams request for a stay of execution. He will die at 12:01 am tonight (Tuesday Morning).

Update: Mike Petrelis has Schwarzegger's five page statement of denial of clemency.

Beautiful Horizens finds a death penalty dissent by Justice Marshall.

Sean Paul at the Agonist: "What requires more courage: revenge or forgiveness?"

Susan Hu of Booman Tribune at Daily Kos:

What matters for me is that murdering Tookie solves nothing, makes the United States look barbaric to the rest of the world, and destroys Tookie's future chances to influence more young people against entering the gang life. And his execution may cause terrible suffering in Los Angeles, which needs another race riot like it needs another earthquake.

Keep scrolling down below to read updated reactions from organizations, bloggers and others.

***********

Original Post: Arnold Denies Clemency for Stanley "Tookie Williams":

It's official. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has denied clemency to Stanley "Tookie" Williams. He made the announcement by e-mail. portion:

I could find no justication for granting clemency.....there is no reason to second guess the jury's decision of guilt or raise significant doubts or serious reservations about Williams' convictions and death sentence."

by TChris

Federal prosecutors are complaining that a judge has "not seemed fair since she wrote a 2004 article for a legal publication saying it was the duty of judges to protect individual rights in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." It shocks the government, apparently, that any judge would think it important to protect individual rights. The prosecutors have gone to the court of appeals to seek the judge's removal from a perjury case.

Their basis for claiming unfairness? The judge has expressed skepticism about the evidence in the government's perjury case against Osama Awadallah, and has made some rulings the government doesn't like. At one point, the judge dismissed the case, but it was reinstated on appeal.

The Second Circuit seemed to be unimpressed with the government's request to substitute a judge who is more to its liking.

by TChris

Texas Republicans strong-armed their way to redrawn congressional districts that favored Republicans prior to the last congressional election. The Supreme Court today agreed to review that action.

In agreeing to hear two hours of argument in four different appeals dealing with the Texas redistricting plan, the high court is poised to confront to what extent the Constitution permits blatant partisanship in redistricting. In addition, the court could use the case to confront whether districts can be redrawn whenever a state legislature wants or must only be redrawn once every 10 years, when new census data is available. The court will also examine to what extent the concept of one-person, one-vote supersedes partisan considerations in redrawing election districts.

The Court has been deferential to the political process so long as the process produces districts that generally adhere to the “one person, one vote” principle. Why did the Court agree to revisit the issue in this case? Perhaps the justices were influenced by recent news reports revealing that political appointees in the Justice Department overruled career lawyers who believed the redistricting reduced minority voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Perhaps some of the justices were offended by the blatant nature of the partisan redistricting, which resulted from political will rather than new census data.