by TChris

Two of the government's key sources of evidence against Zacarias Moussaoui have told conflicting stories. Under the best of circumstances, stories told by informants are unreliable. When the stories don't match, it's time to look for better evidence.

[Ramzi] Binalshibh, the self-described coordinator of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, said he sent $14,000 to Moussaoui in July 2001 on instructions from [Khalid Sheik] Mohammed that he understood to be "part of the 9/11 plot," the commission's report says. The report says "there is good reason to believe" that Mohammed was preparing Moussaoui as a potential substitute pilot because one of the 19 hijackers was considering dropping out.

The language is a bit speculative, but this would be powerful evidence if it could be corroborated. Mohammed would be the logical source of corroboration if Binalshibh is telling the truth, but Mohammed has a different story.

Mohammed, who was al Qaeda's operations chief, "denies that Moussaoui was ever intended to be part of the 9/11 operation," the report says. Instead, it says, Moussaoui was being groomed for a second wave of attacks on the West Coast after Sept. 11. That wave fizzled, and Mohammed said the two other pilots who had been recruited for it already had backed out before Moussaoui was arrested in August 2001.

The government's theory may be that Moussaoui conspired to do something (even if it's not quite sure what), a theory that Moussaoui may be able to refute if he's allowed to question Mohammed and Binalshibh. The government hasn't been inclined to let that happen (TalkLeft background on the issue collected here). Not only has Moussaoui been denied the right to see the complete statements, but his ability to have a fair trial (if he ever has a trial) has been compromised by the public disclosure of portions of statements that don't tell the whole story.

Sources close to the case said the detainees' statements released by the commission are incomplete, adding that Binalshibh indicated at different points in his interrogations that Moussaoui was not part of the Sept. 11 plot. Both the federal judge overseeing the case in Alexandria and a federal appeals court have found that the detainees gave interrogators information that could help Moussaoui's case.

If the public gets to see evidence that hurts Moussaoui's case, shouldn't Moussaoui be able to see evidence that helps him?

Democrats today introduced the Civil Liberties Restoration Act to curtail the abuses of the Patriot Act:

U.S. Sen. Jon Corzine and four other Senate Democrats introduced legislation Wednesday designed to correct what they consider the excesses of the USA Patriot Act and similar national security measures. The legislation would end the special registration program aimed at immigrants from the Middle East, create an independent immigration court and eliminate harsh penalties for some immigration violations.

Civil rights and immigrant groups praised the proposal as a long-overdue effort to protect civil liberties. "This law is necessary to restore constitutional freedoms that are being encroached upon by this administration," said Corzine, D-N.J. "This law, however, will not compromise the nations security. We can be both safe and free."

Here's the good things the bill would do:

The changes proposed in the Senate bill would end the government's blanket right to conduct deportation hearings in secret, allowing closures on a case-by-case basis, and would guarantee prompt release-bond hearings. The legislation also would require detainees to be apprised of the charges against them within 48 hours and would eliminate criminal penalties for minor technical violations of immigration law, such as failure to report a change of address within 10 days. The bill would limit the secret seizure of private databases and individual records.

Co-sponsors include: Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin. U.S. Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and William Delahunt, D-Mass., co-sponsored it in the House.

[link via Patriot Watch]

Between March and May, John Kerry has raised a Democratic record $100 million for his campaign. He's not on easy street though. While his total is $140 million, Bush has raised $216 million and gets an extra month to fundraise because his party's convention is a month later than that of the Dems. So, if you haven't given yet, or if you can give some more do it now. Kerry's fundraising ends with the Democratic convention and then he only gets Government financing.

When you donate, drop him a line asking him not to pick Dick Gephardt as his veep candidate. Matt Yglesias, writing for American Prospect , tells you why. So does Left Coaster.

Don't miss This Won't Hurt Much in the Guardian--it's funny, and it shows the absurdity of the Administration's parsing of words when it comes to torture. It's written by Terry Jones, "Terry Jones is a writer, film director, actor and Python." How can you go wrong with Monty Python?

Earlier today, the Senate adopted the Durbin anti-torture amendment by unanimous voice vote. Senators McCain, Specter, Levin, Feinstein, Leahy and Kennedy joined as cosponsors. We just received a copy of Sen. Durbin's floor statement on the amendment and will post it in a few hours.

Update: It's now on the AP wire.

Update: Here is Senator Durbin's floor statement (pdf).

by TChris

Wes Owens, 19, decided to throw a "pasture party" on his parents' property in East Texas. Also attending were Colt Amox, 21, Cory Hicks, 24, and Dallas Stone, 18. They planned to smoke and drink and listen to music around a campfire. Along the way, they picked up Billy Ray Johnson, a middle-aged, mentally disabled black man, who was "a big hit at parties" because of his penchant for dancing.

What happened next is disputed, although Amox admits that he punched Johnson, who fell unconscious. Hicks had obvious reasons to fear being associated with a battery; he was a jailer for the Cass County Sheriff's Dept. Owens and Stone may have been afraid their underaged drinking would be revealed if they took Johnson to a hospital. According to the district attorney, all four took Johnson to a dump and dropped him onto an anthill. Hicks returned three hours later, then called the Sheriff to report that he'd found Johnson laying unconscious.

Johnson woke up three days later. Ants had ravaged his body. The four men have been charged with injuring a disabled person. Hicks and Amox go on trial June 28.

Whether this crime is race-related is unclear. The linked article presents both sides of a story that is both tragic and fascinating. It also provides background on some other incidents that may or may not be race-related in Linden's recent history.

by TChris

The U.S. military, growing more attentive to the need to respond to criminal acts committed against Iraqis in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, reportedly intends to charge an officer with murder for shooting a wounded Iraqi citizen. Soldiers fired on a vehicle carrying suspected al-Sadr loyalists on May 21, severely injuring the driver and a passenger.

After the vehicle came to a stop, the Army captain allegedly approached the car and shot the wounded driver, killing him instantly. Military officials told NBC's Jim Miklaszewski that the soldier was apparently acting in good faith, shooting the badly wounded driver to "put him out of misery."

Shooting a horse to put it out of its misery might be an act of good faith. Shooting a human, rather than providing medical care, is murder. The officer in question has not been publicly identified.

by TChris

Continuing the Bush administration's tireless efforts to persuade the public that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to protect the U.S., Vice President Cheney this week reiterated the claim that Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" to al Qaeda. Responding to those comments yesterday, President Bush claimed that the presence in Iraq of Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was "the best evidence of (a) connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda."

If that's the "best evidence," it isn't strong enough to persuade the 9/11 Commission that a link existed between Hussein and al Qaeda. According to a staff report released today:

"There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11 -- other than limited support provided by the Taliban after bin Laden first arrived in Afghanistan."

The report by commission staff said al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 and had explored the possibility of cooperation, but the plans apparently never came to fruition.

The administration never lets facts stand in the way of assertions, so expect no retreat from the claim that invading Iraq was necessary to protect the U.S. from another al Qaeda attack. Just remember the report's bottom line: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

by TChris

From the Department of Irony:

The Attorney General of New Hampshire, Peter Heed, has resigned in the wake of an accusation that he engaged in inappropriate behavior (described by witnesses as rude and boorish) with a woman while they were dancing. The irony? They were attending a conference on the prevention of sexual abuse.

Heed, who denies that he did anything wrong, is in good company. "Rochester District Court Judge Franklin Jones was suspended after the conference after several women claimed he groped them." Maybe all the talk at the conference about sexual misbehavior was just too titillating for these public officials.

Gen. Amir Saadi was a top official in Iraq under Saddam. He was the chief liaison between the Iraqi government and U.N. weapons inspectors. He surrendered to the U.S. in April, 2003, and says he has been illegally kept in solitary confinement:

Saadi was classified as a prisoner of war by U.S. authorities a month after his surrender. The Geneva Conventions say prisoners of war "may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health." They also may not be "threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind," if they refuse to answer questions, according to the conventions. Detlev F. Vagts, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in international law governing wartime, said in a telephone interview, "Clearly we [U.S. forces] and Iraqi forces will have the right to confine people causing trouble or suspected of insurgency," but he added: "That would not cover al-Saadi."

Saadi has written to his wife, through the Red Cross. She made the letters available to the Washington Post. Here's what he had to say:

Last week we put out an action alert asking TL readers to write their Senators urging support of Sen. Richard Durbin's "torture amendment" to the defense authorization bill. Today, the Washington Post endorses the Amendment.

It's not clear why interrogation techniques judged improper or illegal by a Pentagon legal team were subsequently adopted in Iraq. Nor is it clear what those standards are today, either in Iraq or elsewhere -- breaking with decades of previous practice, the Bush administration has classified them. Congressional leaders who have vowed to get to the bottom of the prisoner abuse scandal still have much to learn; they will not succeed unless the scale and pace of their investigations are stepped up.

The Senate, however, has an opportunity today to directly address the mess the administration has made of interrogation policy and of America's global standing. An amendment to the defense authorization bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), would reaffirm the commitment of the United States not to engage in torture, and it would require the defense secretary to provide Congress with guidelines ensuring compliance with this standard. Sadly, the Bush administration's policy decisions have cast doubt on whether this country accepts this fundamental principle of human rights. Congress should insist that it does.

If you haven't contacted your Senator yet, please do so today.

U.S. District Court Judge Lonnie Brinkema sentenced three defendants in the paintball terror case today. One got life, one got 85 years and one got 8 years. The Government described their criminal activity as

....training for holy war against the United States by playing paintball games in the Virginia woods as part of a jihad network.

Judge Brinkema was not happy about imposing the lengthy sentences:

Leonie M. Brinkema, the federal district judge who imposed the sentences, said that they were "draconian" but that she had no choice under federal law. "We have murderers who get far less time," Judge Brinkema said. "I've sent Al Qaeda members planning attacks on these shores to less time. This is sticking in my craw. Law and justice at times need to be in tune."

Judge Brinkema's comments are especially noteworthy since she was the judge who tried the case and found the defendants guilty--they had waived their right to a jury trial. She is also presiding over the on-again, off-again trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.