When will Attorney General John Ashcroft truly become a "Respect Lifer"? When will he stop micro-managing and killing in his bid to end crime?

A New York federal jury deliberated two hours before rejecting the death penalty for two drug dealers who tortured and murdered a police informant. The pair will serve life in prison without parole.

The government's argument for death was undercut by the fact that two other defendants who might have faced death sentences pleaded guilty to avoid them and became witnesses for the prosecution. One of them, Hector Vega, revealed with chilling indifference, under questioning by Lee Ginsberg, a defense lawyer, that he had committed a long series of violent crimes apart from his role in the murder. In addition, Mr. Rodriguez had a lesser role in the murder, which was driven mainly by Mr. Quiñones's desire for revenge against the informant.

The judge, Jed S. Rakoff, made no secret of his "personal, albeit heartfelt, disagreement'' with the Justice Department's decision to push for the death penalty [out of the presence of the jury.]....Judge Rakoff said he had no doubt "that the defendants committed a vicious murder." But he added, "There is also no doubt in the court's mind that a reasonable exercise of discretion by the powers that be would not have favored seeking the death penalty in this case."

The local prosecutors didn't want to make the case a death one. Ashcroft insisted. After the disagreement between prosecution camps became known, the Department of Justice changed its rules, so the public couldn't find out about such splits in the future.

Sources say Alan Keyes has decided to run against Obama in Illinois.

Obama's the man. The only thing Keyes' entry will accomplish is making Obama even more of a star.

Meet Mary Walker. General counsel to the Air Force. Bush appointee to the select working group on interrogations. Plagued by controversy, and for good reason. First, the past:

Last year a blue-ribbon panel headed by former congresswoman Tillie Fowler practically accused Walker of a cover-up after the GC issued a report absolving Air Force brass of responsibility in sexual abuse scandals at the Air Force Academy.

Fast forward to the present:

Now Walker, a former Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison lawyer appointed by President George Bush, is back on the hot seat. At issue this time is her role heading a U.S. Department of Defense group that issued a controversial report in March 2003 giving the administration enormous latitude in interrogating alleged terrorists....Walker's report is one of a series of government memos uncovered in recent months that seem to rationalize the use of torture on detainees.

Who's the first Bush lawyer in the cross-hairs on the torture topic?

Has anyone noticed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft have been conspicuously absent lately as Administration spin-men? We have.

So has Chisum Lee, one of our favorite civil liberties reporters at the Village Voice, who reports on Ashcroft. Harold Meyerson reports on Rumsfeld.

Sen. John McCain, a former POW in Vietnam, has asked President Bush to condemn the latest ad attacking John Kerry's Vietnam service. A major Republican donor from Texas helped finance the ad.

As McCain defended the Democratic nominee, Kerry for the first time criticized Bush for indecisiveness in the moments after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, underscoring how personal issues of war, terrorism and military service have become.

At a morning appearance before minority journalists in Washington, Kerry faulted Bush for spending seven minutes reading to Florida schoolchildren after learning the World Trade Center had been attacked. "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to," Kerry said.

The scenes of Bush continuing to read to children in a classroom after being told by aides of the WTC attacks were some of the most compelling in Fahrenheit 9/11. What was Bush thinking? Did he not understand? Did he think it would all go away? Was he really at such a loss as to what to do that he decided to sit there until someone gave him instructions?

Why do people praise his handling of the terror war post-9/11? Bush chose to go after a target that was not an immediate threat to the U.S., at the cost of failing to stop Al Qaeda, which his administration now tells us is about to launch an even bigger attack against us. What has he accomplished? His Attorney General put some young wannabes from Buffalo and Oregon in jail, but dropped the ball on the real terrorists. Osama's at large (unless he's in hiding for a timed perp walk before the election.) The security restrictions we now live with on a constant basis resemble those of a foreign dictatorship, not a free democracy.

Picture a crisis, and the enemy being successful at getting Bush's advisors away from the Oval office, leaving Bush alone inside. Would you feel comfortable with any decisions he had to make on his own? Or are you terrified at the thought?

Make your answer heard at the voting booth in November.

For more on the already discredited ad attacking Kerry, visit Media Matters.

Update: Joe Conason has more.

Update: Kevin Drumm says "I told you so."

Josh Marshall has the story of Katherine Harris's bogus terror threat comments Monday, in which she said a middle-eastern man was arrested in connection with a plot to blow up a power plant in Indiana. She claimed an Indiana mayor told her....the mayors say they don't know what she's talking about.

Florida residents take note:

Harris, a Republican from Longboat Key who is running for re-election, said the case was an example of the nation's success in fighting terrorism.

She should be booted along with Bush.

Update: Ms. Harris attempts an explanation.

Update: Here's More from Harris on Monday: [link via Agonist] Here's what she said there:

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris said Monday that the United States has "literally defeated 100 (potential) terrorist attacks on this country" in the past three years, some of which could have been as deadly as the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center. Speaking Monday night in Venice at a rally in support of President Bush, Harris said the United States is winning the war against terrorism. "His remarkable leadership … has made our country safe," Harris told an overflow crowd of more than 600 at the Holiday Inn. The event was sponsored by the Republican Club of South Sarasota County.

Jeanne D'Arc of Body and Soul gently reminds us all that while the news has been focused on the elections, conventions and terror threats ( not to forget bands against Bush, Kobe, Scott and the missing jogger in Utah,) there's still a war going on in Iraq. Go read her accumulated update of recent events.

James Barney Hubbard, 74 years old, suffering from colon and prostate cancer and other diseases, was executed tonight by the state of Alabama. He was Alabama's oldest death row inmate:

Hubbard had asked the Supreme Court to stop his execution because he is too old and sick to be put to death. The Supreme Court denied his motion on a 5-to-4 vote. Moments later, Alabama Gov. Bob Riley announced he would not intervene in the execution.

Hubbard’s lawyers argued that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment for their client who had developed cancer, emphysema, hepatitis and dementia during his 27 years in prison. Groups that track and oppose the death penalty said Hubbard would be the oldest inmate executed in the United States since 1941 if the lethal injection was carried out.

Too much court today...missed the whole day of news. Let's hear what you have to say.

Update: Bruce writes an op-ed in today's New York Times. [link via Cursor.]

**********************
Live blogging of Bruce Springsteen on Nightline: He's most concerned about foreign policy. He says he likes Kerry and Edwards, it's not just an ABB (anybody but Bush) thing, but he also says there's not that much difference between Bush and Kerry. He says no candidate has it all. But it seems like he really does like Kerry and Edwards. Ted Koppel doesn't buy it and comes back for a second round at the topic. Ted Koppel gets him to acknowledge that he wants to get rid of Bush. So what, that doesn't mean he doesn't think Kerry and Edwards are up to the job. He does.

Bruce says he's afraid America is becoming an oligarchy. Oligarchy?

Oligarchy is a form of government where most political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, military strength, ruthlessness, or political influence). Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to become inheritors of the power of the oligarchy, often at some sort of expense to those governed. In contrast to aristocracy ("government by the 'best'"), this power may not always be exercised openly, the oligarchs preferring to remain "the power behind the throne", exerting control through economic means. Unlike plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged cadre.

Bruce knows he's going to piss a lot of people off. But he says most of his fans know where he stands on the issues and he wants to make a difference in the election. Bush has taken us away from mainstream American values. Bush has burned his bridges on foreign policy.

The purpose of the concert series: Change the direction of the government, mobilize progressive voters, and change the Administration in November.

Overall reaction? Thank you, Bruce. We need you to stand up against Bush. We need the money you can raise. We need the votes you can get out. We need you to dissipate the apathy among young voters.

Background on planned anti-Bush concerts is here. The New York Times covers the tour here.

The International Red Cross issued a strong statement yesterday about the abuse allegations made by released British detainees at Guantanamo against their American captors: The Americans may have committed war crimes.

The organisation, which maintains a rigidly neutral stance in public, took the unusual step of voicing its concerns in uncompromising language after the former detainees, known as the Tipton Three, revealed that they had been beaten, shackled, photographed naked and in one incident questioned at gunpoint while in US custody.

Their vivid account of the harrowing conditions at the camp, as told to their lawyers and published for the first time in yesterday's Guardian, has reignited the debate about the treatment of prisoners and the British government's role in their questioning and detention. Last night the Red Cross was joined by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which argued that if the allegations were true they indicated systematic abuse, amounting to torture.

If you missed the original report of the Tipton 3's charges, you can read it in yesterday's Guardian. They were captured in Afghanistan, shipped to Guantanamo where they were held for 2 years, and finally released in March with no charges ever being brought against them.

Lawyers for Kobe Bryant's accusers Wednesday said she is re-evaluating whether she wants to continue to participate in the criminal proceeding against him. They said she may rather bring a civil suit against him.

One of the accuser's attorneys, Atlanta civil attorney Lin Wood said, "I'm of the mind that she's only going to be treated fairly in a civil case, where the playing field is level and Mr. Bryant's life will be scrutinized." Wood joined the case several weeks ago. According to legal experts, his hiring by the accuser's family indicates more emphasis is being spent on the civil portion of the case.

Legal analysts aren't surprised. The case against Kobe has been going downhill for some time. With the release of a pre-trial hearing transcript containing testimony by a defense expert that she believes the accuser had sex after the encounter with Kobe and before she arrived at the hospitial for her rape exam, a conviction will be hard to obtain.

But the same credibility problems that have plagued the accuser in the criminal case will follow her into the civil case. Unless a settlement is agreed upon, I don't see a civil case coming out in her favor. This sounds like a last-ditch attempt at a graceful exit strategy.