Australian Prime Minister John Howard missed the message in Singapore's barbaric execution yesterday of 25 year old Nguyen Tuong Van.

"I hope the strongest message that comes out of this ... is a message to the young of Australia -- don't have anything to do with drugs, don't use them, don't touch them, don't carry them, don't traffic in them," Howard told Australian radio.

No. The message is that mandatory executions of non-violent drug offenders are inexcusable acts of barbarism that warrant sanctions against the offending government.

by Last Night in Little Rock

The NY Times reports this afternoon that NYC police searches of bags in subways are constitutional under the Fourth Amendment as a deterrent to terrorists.

by Last Night in Little Rock

The Democratic National Committee had a contract for two billboards near both of Rep. Jean Schmidt's offices in the Cincinnati area to criticize her for her comments about Rep. John Murtha for "attack[ing] one of our veterans for cheap political gain."

The graphic on the DNC's website shows the billboard as saying "Shame on you Jean Schmidt."

Lamar, however, inexplicably backed out of the contract just as the billboards were to go up, as discussed in an e-mail from the DNC to contributors to the billboard campaign because of the content of the billboards, already approved by Lamar, was determined to be "inappropriate."

by TChris

The bad news is that Kevin Boyd was executed this morning, making him victim 1,000 of the death penalty since its reinstatement in 1976. The good news is that the nation appears to be falling out of love with death.

Amid the refinement of DNA techniques and the sporadic release of inmates from death row because of uncertain guilt, a growing number of people tell pollsters they believe that innocent prisoners have been executed. Although the majority of cases over the past three decades have been upheld, legal errors and sometimes poor defense work revealed during layers of appeals have convinced many Americans that the system is imperfect.

I've been waiting years to see a report like this in today's Los Angeles Times.

A recent inspector general's investigation of the FBI's informant program noted violations in that agency's use of snitches in 87% of cases reviewed.

The story behind the story:

A Yemeni immigrant's activities cast a shadow on federal agencies' use of informants. One man the felon fingered didn't go quietly to prison.

Ismael took on the system and won:

He says he never lost faith that the truth would emerge. "I knew there were corrupt agencies, like you see in the movies," Ismael said. "But I figured the court couldn't be corrupt, too. "If the court were corrupt, people wouldn't want to live in America."

Snitch testimony is purchased testimony. It is bought with promises of leniency. Freedom is a far more precious commodity than money. The incentive to lie is enormous. Only by telling the Government's version of the truth does the snitch get his pay-off: a lesser sentence for his own misdeeds.

Say no to snitching.

Jeanine Pirro has met with Gov. Pataki and decided to stay in the New York Senate race.

Earlier this week, New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno urged Pirro to switch her candidacy from the Senate race to the Attorney General's race. Crooks and Liars reported, via today's New York Post, that Jeanine was holding an "emergency summit" with Gov. Pataki (who has been one of her few important consistent backers)to discuss it.

My view: Jeanine in the Senate race is political suicide.

The right wing news site Insight reports through anonymous sources that Bush has relieved Cheney of national security duties. It would be great news, if true, but given the source, I'm suspect. [Via Raw Story.]

This paragraph is the most intriguing:

Mr. Bush is not expected to replace Mr. Cheney unless the vice president follows the fate of his former chief of staff. The sources also said Mr. Rumsfeld is expected to remain in his post until U.S. troops are withdrawn from Iraq.

Is Cheney really in jeopardy from Fitz's investigation?

by TChris

Before and during the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court, Arlen Specter seemed quite concerned about the limits of judicial power. In particular, he thought the Court had overreached in limiting or striking down legislation enacted by Congress, including the Court's decision declaring unconstitutional a portion of the Americans With Disabilities Act that prohibited state governments from discriminating in employment on the basis of disabilities.

Sen. Specter seems to be satisfied with Judge Alito’s views on abortion after quizzing him today. But why isn’t Specter asking Alito the very question that consumed him earlier this year -- whether Alito respects the authority of Congress to legislate?

Alito doesn't think Congress has the power to regulate machine-gun possession, or to broadly enforce the Family and Medical Leave Act, or to enact race or gender discrimination laws that might be effective in remedying race and gender discrimination, or to tackle monopolists. Alito thus neatly joins the ranks of right-wing activists in the battle to limit the power of Congress and diminish the efficacy of the judiciary.

Will Specter ask Alito why he voted to strike down the Family and Medical Leave Act as it applies to state governments -- a position that was too extreme even for former Chief Justice Rehnquist? Is Specter still interested in ferreting out adherents of the Constitution in Exile movement, who believe courts should strike down a variety of health, labor and environmental laws as beyond the scope of congressional power? Why is Specter suddenly silent on these issues? (More on Alito’s record of judicial activism here and here.)

Another first from the ACLU. It will sue the Government for flying detainees on Ghost Air. From the press release:

[The ACLU will bring]the first ever lawsuit to challenge the CIA's practice of abducting foreign nationals for detention and interrogation in secret overseas prisons. The plaintiff, an entirely innocent victim of "extraordinary rendition" at the hands of the CIA and who was released without ever being charged, will be present at the press conference.

The lawsuit will charge that CIA officials at the highest level violated U.S. and universal human rights laws when they authorized agents to abduct an innocent man, detain him incommunicado, beat him, drug him and transport him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan. The lawsuit charges that the unlawful abduction and treatment was the direct result of an illegal CIA policy known as "extraordinary rendition." The CIA continued to hold the victim in the notorious "Salt Pit" prison in Afghanistan long after his innocence was known.

The day job beckons, so I will only be checking in sporadically until Tonight. The conversation is your's until then. Enjoy.

North Carolina Governor Mike Easley earned his footnote in history today. From now on he will be known as "Mike Easley, the North Carolina Governor who okayed the 1,000th execution in the United States since 1976 when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court."

Kenneth Lee Boyd will be executed in North Carolina at 2:00 am ET.

Maybe there should be a new license plate that reads, "North Carolina: Home of the 1,000th Execution."

The New York Times details Time reporter Viveca Novak's conversation with Robert Luskin, lawyer for Karl Rove, that supposedly led to the discovery of the Rove-Hadley e-mail and Karl Rove's return to the grand jury in October, 2004, during which appearance he acknowledged his conversation with Matt Cooper.

As far as I can see, there is only one thing in the article that Jane of Firedoglake and I have not previously reported: While the subpoena for Novak-Luskin's conversations dates to May, 2004, sources tell the Times that the conversation at issue (when Novak told Luskin that Rove had talked to Cooper about Valerie Plame Wilson) didn't take place until late summer or early fall, 2004. This puts the conversation much closer to Rove's October 15, 2004 recantation to the grand jury. It also puts the conversation after Cooper was ordered jailed on August 6, 2004 for not complying with his subpoena about Libby and perhaps after his August 26, 2004 deposition about his conversation with Libby, which he provided to avoid going to jail.