by TChris

The AP reports that U.S. helicopters fired on a wedding party in Iraq, killing more than 40 people.

Associated Press Television News footage showed a truck containing bloodied bodies, many wrapped in blankets, piled one atop the other. Several were children, one of whom had been decapitated.

Iraqis interviewed on the videotape said revelers had fired volleys of gunfire into the air in a traditional wedding celebration before the attack took place. American troops have sometimes mistaken celebratory gunfire for hostile fire.

The AP report says the military is investigating. An anonymous source at the Pentagon told the AP that a military operation was being conducted about 15 miles from the wedding celebration.

If the report is accurate, this incident represents another blunder that will convince Iraqis that the U.S. places no value on innocent Iraqi lives. Now that Wolfowitz has admitted that the Pentagon "miscalculated" the strength and endurance of the resistence occupation forces were likely to encounter, will the Pentagon also admit that it only harms U.S. interests by continuing to kill the innocent?

This just in by e-mail from Law Professor Michael R. Masinter (Nova Southeastern University):

Late this afternoon, a Miami federal trial judge granted a judgment of acquittal to Greenpeace in the government's unprecedented prosecution of an advocacy organization for the nonviolent civil disobedience of its members. Greenpeace was indicted for the offense once known as sailor mongering, more specifically, for boarding a ship as it was "about to arrive at its destination" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2279, and for conspiracy to violate that statute because its members boarded the ship to protest its cargo of unlawfully harvested mahogany.

As best as I can tell the court granted an MJOA because there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the ship was "about to arrive at the place of her destination, before her actual arrival and before she has been completely moored," the actual language of the statute, or because the statute as applied to the facts shown (the ship was three miles from port) was unconstitutionally vague for lack of fair warning that it could apply three miles offshore.

by TChris

The First Amendment prevailed in a dispute over an Oklahoma school's attempt to prevent a 12-year-old Muslim student from wearing a head scarf to school. The Muskogee Public School District agreed to change its dress code to make exceptions for religious apparel. (TalkLeft's prior coverage of the dispute is here.)

There hasn't been much cause to praise John Ashcroft's Justice Department, but its civil rights division did the right thing by protecting the free exercise of religion in this case. The dress code was a rather broad attempt to deter gang members from wearing clothing identifying themselves as gang members, but was mindlessly enforced without regard to its purpose. Props to Justice for setting the school district straight.

Rudy Guliani was greeted with heckles by families of 9/11 victims today as he as he appeared for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission:

Outraged relatives of World Trade Center victims heckled former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani on Wednesday as their hopes that he would be grilled by the Sept. 11 commission faded in the face of gentle questioning and effusive praise from panel members. "My son was murdered because of your incompetence!" shouted Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son died in the trade center. Seated three rows behind Giuliani, she jabbed her finger at the former mayor and waved a sign that read "Fiction" as he gave the city's emergency response a glowing review.

Giuliani finished his testimony and abruptly left the auditorium minutes later, leaving many family members upset that they received few answers. Monica Gab*ielle, who lost her husband, Richard, called it a "lost opportunity." "This was not a time for Rudy Giuliani to talk about all the great things he did on 9/11," she said. "He can save that for his talking tours. He should have told us what went wrong and what we should do now."

Why are they so angry?

by TChris

The House rejected an ill-conceived effort to turn doctors into snitches. A bill proposed by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) would have denied emergency room care to undocumented immigrants (only citizens and legal visitors have the right to live when an appendix ruptures, after all, and it's much better to have illegal workers spreading communicable diseases than coming in for treatment). It also would have invaded physician-patient privilege by requiring doctors to report undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities, a move that would have dissuaded illegal workers from seeking the health care that the bill denies them anyway.

Dumping on the desparate workers who cross borders for jobs used to be politically popular, but not this year. The bill was defeated 331-88.

The Denver Post has examined Pentagon records and is reporting that :

• five prisoners have died at four detention camps (including Abu Ghraib) while undergoing interrogation by the U.S.

• at least one of the deaths was previously reported as being from natural causes

• the soldiers got off light, mostly without criminal charges.

Here's more:

As expected, Jeremy Sivits has pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate against other soldiers in exchange for a lesser sentence--he got a year in jail and a bad conduct discharge.

"I'd like to apologize to the Iraqi people and those detainees," Sivits said, breaking down in tears as he made his statement. "I should have protected those detainees, not taken the photos."

The Abu Ghraib prison scandal is still big news. We're putting the morning news here, as we're ready to move on to some other issues:

Three Key Witnesses in Abuse Scandal Refuse to Testify
Los Angeles Times

Military Justice Put on Trial in Iraq Abuse Scandal
Legal Times

U.S. Faces Growing Fear of Failure
Washington Post

3 to Be Arraigned in Prison Abuse
Washington Post

Officer Says Army Tried to Curb Red Cross Visits to Prison in Iraq
New York Times

Officers Say Colonel at Abu Ghraib Felt Pressure to Get Inmates to Talk
New York Times

News Agency Employees Detail Abuse by U.S. Forces
Reuters

Legal Review Could Have Halted Abuse, Lawyer Says
New York Times

Former Abu Ghraib Intel Staffer Says Army Concealed Involvement in Abuse Scandal
ABC News

For more articles, check out Cursor.

According to a new Mason-Dixon Poll, George Bush Leads John Kerry in North Carolina--but if Edwards is on Kerry's ticket, the race is even:

President Bush leads Sen. John Kerry in North Carolina, but according to a WRAL/Mason-Dixon Poll, "if Kerry chooses Sen. John Edwards as his running-mate, the race in the state currently becomes a dead-heat."

"Statewide, Bush is supported by 48% of voters, while Kerry is backed by 41%, independent Ralph Nader draws 3% and 8% remain undecided. With Edwards as Kerry's running-mate, the GOP ticket of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney is favored by 46%, the Kerry/Edwards Democratic ticket gets 45%, Nader draws 2% and 7% are undecided."

[link via Political Wire.] And Oliver Willis asks, "Kerry/Edwards Just A Matter Of Time?"

We sure hope so. Edwards has the people-pleasing personality, the magnetism, the honest face and the genuine smile. Kerry ought to grab him quick if he wants to make the most of Bush's declining poll numbers. A dead heat when your opponent is falling is no great shakes.

Who wouldn't want Edwards as VP? Well, Hillary for one. If Bush wins in 2004, she might not want Edwards running against her for the nomination in 2008 as the "former VP candidate." If Kerry wins in 2004, she won't want Edwards running against her in 2012 as the "vice president."

Does anybody know how much impact Bill and Hillary have on Kerry? We always thought they viewed Edwards as their man, until Clark came along. What are we missing?

If Kerry wins this year, Hillary's out till 2012. If Edwards is his VP choice, that's a tough matchup for Hillary in 2008. If Bush wins now, she can come back for the Presidential race in 2008, with relatively no baggage.

We hope some astute politico type reading this post will send us an email or post what's wrong with our almost perfect view of a Kerry -Edwards ticket.

Via Phil Carter at Intel Dump:

The Defense Department announced the creation of a new administrative system today which will periodically review the status of detainees being held at Guantanamo bay to see if they merit further detention in America's war on terrorism. The U.S. has come under fire from international law critics for some time, because it has no 'competent tribunal' established in accordance with Art. V of the 3rd Geneva Convention for the review of prisoner status at this facility. The DoD release doesn't explicitly say this process will fit that bill, but it seems obvious to me that it is intended to do so.

We join Phil in wondering what took so long.

So you believed we were getting ready to pull out of Iraq? They fooled you.

While the Pentagon says it plans to scale back the U.S. occupation in Iraq, it's quietly doing just the opposite, high-level internal e-mails reveal. It has launched a massive nationwide call-up of former service members across the country who have not fully completed their eight-year contractual obligation to the US Army. They are known collectively as the Individual Ready Reserves, or IRR, and they number more than 118,000.

Even the IRS is being enlisted to help:

The Defense Department, strapped for troops for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, has proposed to Congress that it tap the Internal Revenue Service to locate out-of-touch reservists. It's one of the last options the military has before drafting civilians. And the move comes on top of rumors the Pentagon plans to redeploy to Iraq some 4,000 US troops stationed in South Korea. Call-ups for IRR members begin today, according to high-level Army e-mails I've obtained. Those who don't report could face AWOL or desertion charges.

Link via Unfair Witness. Also discussing this development is Daily Kos, Political Animal and Atrios .

Could it get any more obvious Bush is planning a draft next?

President Bush and the Democrats have reached an agreement to end the impasse over Bush's non-controversial judicial nominees:

Breaking a months-long impasse, the White House and Senate Democrats on Tuesday struck a deal allowing Senate confirmation of dozens of President Bush's judicial nominations in exchange for a presidential promise not to bypass the Senate again this year. Under the agreement, Democrats will allow votes on 25 non-controversial appointments to the district and appeals courts. In exchange, Bush agreed not to invoke his constitutional power to make recess appointments while Congress is away, as he has done twice in recent months with judicial nominees. The agreement was reached in a meeting among top Senate Democrats and Republicans as well as Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff.