Very, very sad. NBC is reporting the bodies of four American contractors have been found in a shallow grave on the road between Abu Ghraib and Fallujah--and that the bodies were badly mutilated.

Instapundit brings up a good point today. National ID cards will not make us safer. As we said here:

It's a quick fix that won't do anything to stop terrorists or enhance our safety. It will only further diminish our privacy rights.

Avedon Carol at Sideshow:

Not too many people are claiming that the White House masterminded the 9/11 attacks; the issue is whether they upheld their responsibilities, and the evidence is pretty clear that they did not.The issue was never that there was a "silver bullet" the administration failed to use, it was that they were doing nothing to try to prevent an attack they had been warned was very likely to occur.

Sean Paul at the Agonist reports the Fallujah truce has been broken:

Al Jazeera: Occupation forces in Iraq have used F16 fighter planes to bomb the Nizal neighbourhood in Falluja, Aljazeera TV's correspondent has reported.

U.S. forces broke the truce in Al Fallujah on April 13, bombing several city quarters with F-16s, Al Jazeera TV reports. According to the report, fighting on the ground resumed along with the bombing and artillery and tank fire were heard across the city. Insurgents reportedly have destroyed two U.S. armored vehicles in the renewed violence.

We agree with law prof Eric Muller who writes the blog Is That Legal? when he criticizes Andrew McCarthy 's article in National Review about the wall preventing information sharing between intelligence and criminal investigation agencies. McCarthy says:

the "wall was . . . a deliberate and unnecessary impediment to information sharing. . . . It told national-security agents in the field that there were other values, higher interests, that transcended connecting the dots and getting it right."

Eric replies:

Umm, well, yeah. Those "other values" are little things called "civil liberties," and what makes them "higher" is that they're reflected in the highest law of the land, the Constitution. If you read this blog, you'll know that I'm no "sky-is-falling" civil libertarian who has howled about everything law enforcement has done since 9/11. But I am very worried by the direction that today's testimony before the 9/11 Commission is taking, and by what seems to be the Commission's emerging self-appointed role to diagnose problems and recommend changes in law enforcement practices.

From Rahul Mahajan at Empire Notes today:

At 3:30 am on Sunday morning, 100 American troops raided the mosque. They were looking for weapons and mujaheddin. They started the raid the way they virtually always do -- by smashing in the gates with tanks and then driving Hummer in. The Hummers ran over and destroyed some of the stored relief goods (the bulk of the goods had already been sent to Fallujah -- over 200 tons -- but the amount remaining was considerable). More was destroyed as soldiers ripped apart sacks looking for rifles. Rashid estimated maybe three
tons of supplies were destroyed. We saw for ourselves some of the remains,
sacks of beans ripped apart and strewn around.

Prometheus calls this statement by Justice Scalia the "The single most frightening statement ever made by a Supreme Court justice."

The electronic media have in the past respected my First Amendment right not to speak on radio or television when I do not wish to do so," he wrote, "and I am sure that courtesy will continue."

Prometheus says,

First Amendment right not to speak? The man is confusing the First Amendment with the Miranda decision! Let's see exactly what the First Amendment says:

by TChris

The 2004 Jefferson Muzzle awards, handed out to those who suppressed free speech during the past year, go to:

• CBS, for caving in to conservative pressure by deciding not to air a miniseries on Ronald Reagan that was, to the right wing, insufficiently reverential, and for refusing to run a Moveon.org ad during the Superbowl that was critical of the President;

• Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey, for canceling a showing of "Bull Durham" because its stars, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, oppose the war in Iraq;

• U.S. District Judge Miriam G. Cedarbaum, for barring reporters from jury selection in the Martha Stewart trial; and

• The Secret Service, for "investigating whether Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez of the Los Angeles Times could be charged with 'threatening the life' of President Bush for a cartoon depicting a man pointing a gun at Bush."

The awards are presented by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. Among last year's winners: John Ashcroft.

We received this from Deryl Dantzler, Dean of the (much revered) National Criminal Defense College:

The 911 Commission Staff Statement of 4/13 points out that the pervasive practice of concealment of information from criminal defendants was part of the reason that the FBI was unable to process the information they had. Efforts to circumvent Brady, Rule 16 and 18 USC 3500 prevented them from doing their jobs!

As prepared for delivery to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Law Enforcement, Counterterrorism, and Intelligence Collection in the United States Prior to 9/11 Staff Statement No. 9:

"

"Agents developed information in support of their own cases, not as part of a broader, more strategic effort. Given the poor state of the FBI's information systems, field agents usually did not know what investigations agents in their own office, let alone in other field offices, were working on. Nor did analysts have easy access to this information. As a result, it was almost impossible to develop an understanding of the threat from a particular international terrorist group.

"Agents investigated their individual cases with the knowledge that any case information recorded on paper and stored in case files was potentially discoverable in court. Thus, there was a disincentive to share information, even with other FBI agents and analysts. Analysts were discouraged from producing written assessments which could be discoverable and used to attack the prosecution's case at trial."

"

The full text of the statement is available here. (pdf)

by TChris

Attorney General John Ashcroft seized the opportunity afforded by 9/11 to launch an assault on the Constitution and on legislation designed to hold the power of law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in check. But what did Ashcroft do about the threat of terrorism before 9/11? Not much, according to sources who have seen draft reports by the 9/11 commission.

TalkLeft has called attention to documents indicating that Ashcroft de-emphasized terrorism and to reports that he may have actually hindered counterterrorism efforts. It appears that the draft reports of the 9/11 commission confirm that view.

They said the draft reports, which are expected to be completed and made public during two days of hearings by the commission this week, show that F.B.I. officials were alarmed throughout 2001 by what they perceived as Mr. Ashcroft's lack of interest in terrorism issues and his decision in August 2001 to reject the bureau's request for a large expansion of its counterterrorism programs.

The draft reports, they said, quote the F.B.I.'s former counterterrorism chief, Dale Watson, as saying he "fell off my chair" when he learned that Mr. Ashcroft had failed to list combating terrorism as one of the department's priorities in a March 2001 department-wide memo.

The Justice Department has launched an aggressive campaign to persuade the commission to rewrite sections of the report that are unflattering to Ashcroft. Whether or not that happens, word is out about Ashcroft's inattentiveness, and his defense (amounting to "nobody ever told me that terrorism might be a domestic problem") will be a hard sell when he testifies before the commission.

Via NPR, here's what's on tap for today at the 9/11 Commission hearings:

On Tuesday, April 13 and Wednesday April 14, the 9-11 Commission (the National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States) will hold public hearings. The Commission will hear from current and former top-level officials from our nation's law enforcement and intelligence communities. Attorney General John Ashcroft, Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III will testify before the Commission, as well as former Attorney General Janet Reno, former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh and former Acting FBI Director Thomas J. Pickard. NPR's Frank Stasio will anchor our coverage which will originate live from the Hart Office building in the Capitol complex. The hearings are expected begin at 8 a.m. CT. Additional information can be found at the Commission's website .

We'll be in court for the morning and unable to tune in, so here's an open thread to discuss the hearings.

A year after his release from jail, Josiah Sutton finally receives some justice. Sutton served 4/12 years of a 25 year sentence for rape before DNA tests proved he could not be the culprit. A Houston judge has recommended his conviction be overturned. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will make the final decision.

State District Judge Joan Huffman's recommendation was the latest court victory for Josiah Sutton, 22, who was freed from prison more than a year ago after new DNA tests discredited the original analysis performed by the Houston Police Department crime lab. Huffman said "inaccurate scientific evidence was admitted during the trial" and there was "clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence." Huffman's ruling will be sent to the state Court of Criminal Appeals, which will decide what to do with Sutton's conviction.

Sutton's justice is not complete, however. The Judge refused to find prosecutorial misconduct based upon Sutton's claim that the prosecution withheld evidence at his trial.