by TChris

Editorial writers in the New York Times and Washington Post are unpersuaded by Justice Scalia's 21-page justification of his decision to sit in judgment of his hunting buddy's task force. The Post questions Justice Scalia's objectivity while defending itself from his charge that its editorial page had misleadingly described an oil company executive as an "oil company executive." The Times concludes that Justice Scalia "comes across as more concerned with defending his right to accept 'social courtesies,' like rides on the vice president's jet, than with protecting the Supreme Court's integrity.

TalkLeft recently gathered other editorials here.

The 9/11 Congressional panel will hear some troubling information next week from aides of former President Clinton:

Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation — and how the new administration was slow to act.

They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.

Richard Clarke, Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, whose book, Against All Enemies : Inside the White House's War on Terror--What Really Happened, is being released Monday, says:

...the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led. At the time of the briefings, there was extensive evidence tying Al Qaeda to the bombing in Yemen two months earlier of an American warship, the Cole, in which 17 sailors were killed. "It was very explicit," Mr. Clarke said of the warning given to the Bush administration officials. "Rice was briefed, and Hadley was briefed, and Zelikow sat in."

The White House does not dispute that it received the information. The dispute is over what was done with the information. The Clinton aides say the Bush administration sat on it and that terrorism was a low priority until Sept. 11. Bush says he made terrorism a top priority and followed through on Clinton's policies.

A Judge in Spain Friday found enough evidence linking three Moroccans to Spain's bombings to order them held without bond.

All three denied involvement and said they were sleeping at the time. One shouted his innocence in court. Another cried.

The Judge found no evidence to link an Algerian suspect to the bombings, and ordered him released. The two Indian men arrested last week were ordered held on charges of collaborating with a terrorist organization.

This apparently was a low-budget bombing--officials estimate it cost less than $1,000.00. The perpetrators used a stolen van and got the explosives for free.

A Spaniard arrested Thursday allegedly knew one of the Moroccans from a prior jail stay and provided the blasting caps as a favor.

Update: The Washington Post reports that the investigation is focusing on a terror cell in Tangiers.

by TChris

The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in a case that asks whether reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by defining the United States as a nation "under God." The Ninth Circuit said that it does.

To better understand the controversy, read Elisabeth Sifton's article exploring the history of the Pledge and of the Founders' beliefs about the role of God in government. She explores flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides of the debate, and asks whether the debate itself sidesteps the real question: Do we need the Pledge at all? She also argues that the religious right will use a probable victory for the words "under God" as an opportunity to further religious encroachment into other aspects of government.

An interesting side note: Justice Scalia, who sees no reason to recuse himself from a case involving hunting buddy Dick Cheney's energy task force records, has recused himself from the Pledge case because he had criticized the lower court's opinion in a speech.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces issued an interesting opinion today. Here are the issues:

I. Whether appellant was denied the fundamental right to conflict free and effective assistance of counsel when the lead defense counsel and appellant engaged in a secretive homosexual relationship. II. Whether the army court of criminal appeals erred when it determined that appellant’’s sexual relationship with his lead defense counsel did not create a conflict of interest denying appellant effective assistance of counsel.

The ruling: Military defense attorneys may not engage in homosexual sex with their military clients. "For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Appellant did not receive effective assistance of counsel and reverse."

Among the Bush Administration's new drug war plans: Spending $25 million to test high school students for drug use. First off, drug testing is ineffective:

Despite the administration's claim that mandatory drug testing curbs adolescent drug use, a recent federal study of 76,000 students by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research paints a far different picture. According to the study's findings, published in the Journal of School Health, there is no difference in the level of illegal drug use between students in schools that test for drugs and those in schools that do not.

"Drug testing of students in schools does not deter use," states a University of Michigan news release summarizing the findings of the four-year study, the first national, large-scale survey ever to assess student drug testing. "At each grade level studied -- 8, 10, and 12 -- the investigators found virtually identical rates of drug use in schools that have drug testing and the schools that do not."

More importantly, students should not have to shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door:

Though random student drug testing may sound like a "silver bullet" in the
administration's campaign to discourage adolescent drug use, it opens a
"Pandora's Box" of practical, ethical and financial questions. Students
should not be taught that they must abandon their constitutional liberties
at the school door or that they must submit to an invasion of their privacy
because some leaders in Washington are willing to write off an entire
generation of students as potential criminals in their overzealous "war" on
drugs.

The Government is seeking to expand the witness protection program to include witnesses in terror cases. Ever wonder what the requirements are? The AP lists them here.

Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal has an essay up at Slate today called Gitmo' Better Blues: The folly of the new Guantanamo trials.

These military charges are unconstitutional, inconsistent with international law, and unwise....They will demonstrate what critics of the military tribunals have been saying all along: that the administration has sought to create an end run around guarantees of fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution and universally accepted agreements such as the Geneva Conventions.

Katyal is also chief counsel to the military defense lawyers in the Guantanamo case pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. [link via How Appealing.]

Talk about the absurdity of our federal drug laws....

Miguel Mendoza Palominos grew up in extreme poverty. He was shoeless throughout his childhood and often without a roof over this head. He did not go to school and has never been able to read or write. At times, his mother sent him to beg for food. His alcoholic father played little or no role in the family's day-to-day struggle for existence. At age 21, Palominos came to California from his village deep in Mexico on the promise of "agriculture" work that would enable him to better support his mother and sisters.

Only after being delivered to a remote area of Tehama County and tasked with watering marijuana plants was he aware of the job's precise nature. He was never paid, and when the camp was raided two months after his arrival by sheriff's deputies, he was the only one of five "irrigators" caught. A jury found him guilty in November of manufacturing 1,000 or more plants and Palominos, now 23, was sentenced Wednesday in Sacramento federal court to 10 years behind bars.

After he serves 8 1/2 years, Mr. Palominos will be deported to Mexico:

"When Mr. Palominos is done swabbing prison floors, somewhere between 2010 and 2014, he will be given a one-way ticket back to poverty," defense attorney Timothy Zindel noted in a court document. "The ones who exploited him are out there somewhere today carrying on business as usual."

The prosecutor, Samuel Wong, thinks the sentence is fair. In fact, he's made a specialty of going after Mexican immigrant grunt workers.

Juan Cole, writing for Salon says Welcome to the Quagmire:

The Bush administration invaded Iraq a year ago expecting a shower of rose petals. Today, the country is on the verge of chaos, and there may be no way to stop it.

Is this a bad time for John Kerry to take a vacation? Some think so. We don't. We're of the mind that this is March, and while it's true that Kerry has yet to become fully defined for the voters, there's time enough for that. The issue for the Democrats is booting Bush....Kerry has the nomination sewn up. A six day absence won't change their minds. Kerry has been going non-stop since Iowa, let the man get some rest and recharge.

Oliver Willis, writing for DailyNewsOnline, says the culture war is over and the radical right has lost.