We have written before about the 1998 law which denies federal benefits such as student loans to people who have been convicted of drug crimes. The New York Times today has an article with a scathing attack on the law from a fairly unexpected source: The representative who wrote it, Mark Souder (R-IN). "It is absurd on the face of it," he said.

His complaint was that he intended the law to apply to current college students who commit drug crimes, rather than people who have committed drug crimes in the past, and have completed their sentences.

"I am an evangelic Christian who believes in repentance, so why would I have supported that?" he said.

Do you know someone who can't get financial aid for college due to a drug conviction? The John W. Perry Fund is awarding scholarships to help.

[Hat tip to Ray R.]

Jeanne D'Arc of Body and Soul expresses perfectly why we all should be outraged at charging Melissa Rowland with murder for refusing a c-section and delivering a stillborn twin:

Look at the picture of Melissa Rowland in the BBC's coverage of the story and tell me that the prosecutors' narrative about a woman obsessed with her physical appearance makes sense. The BBC also adds a rather significant detail the AP left out: Rowland -- by her own testimony, at least -- had two previous C-sections. Another detail that might have been worth mentioning appears in the Salt Lake Tribune: Melissa Rowland has a long history of mental illness. She was first committed to a mental hospital when she was twelve years old.

Suddenly the narrative shifts a bit. A frightened, mentally ill, pregnant woman, living on Social Security disability benefits, facing eviction, the father of her children gone, went from hospital to hospital looking for help, and no one knew what to do for her or how to reach her. And because of that, she has been in jail for nearly two months and faces murder charges.

Our original post on the case is here.

In a 72 page petition filed with the FTC, the DEA, FBI and Justice Department are teaming up to get the FTC to pass new wiretap rules that will allow for interception of internet communciations (WSJ, subscription only):

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department is proposing that regulators adopt sweeping new wiretap rules for broadband Internet communications services. The proposal was triggered in part by the rapid rise of Internet telephony, which the Federal Bureau of Investigation fears could be used to avoid wiretaps on conventional phones. But the proposal goes beyond Internet telephony, asking the Federal Communications Commission to consider rules making all broadband Internet services more compatible with wiretaps. And the proposal seeks rules requiring that new applications and services on the Internet be wiretap-ready before they are introduced to the market.

We wrote about the VOIP (Voice Over Interent Protocol) issue last month here. We noted some obstacles here.

This judge has a good point. It will anger many, but however you slice it, he's right:

District Court judge asked local officials this week to remove "so help me God" and other religious references from the courtroom whenever he is presiding. Judge James M. Honeycutt wrote that the court system is seeing an increasing number of people from other cultures that are not necessarily Christian. He asked that the court take extra steps to accommodate such diversity by changing witnesses' oaths, bailiffs' calls and other procedures. "I believe that the burden should not be on those individuals to speak up and request an oath that does not mention God or use the Christian Bible," Honeycutt wrote.

This case was big news in Denver when it happened in 1994. A Jewish couple and a non-Jewish couple were neighbors and didn't get along. The Jewish couple, the Aronson's, thought that their neighbors, the Quigley's, were trying to run them out of town because they were Jewish. The Aronson's took their beef to the Anti-Defamation League:

At a 1994 news conference, the ADL accused the Quigleys of perpetrating the worst anti- Semitic incident in the area since the slaying of Jewish talk-show host Alan Berg 10 years earlier. They were accused of launching "Operation Aronson," an effort to run their Jewish neighbors, Mitchell and Candace Aronson, out of town. Criminal and civil complaints filed by the Aronsons against the Quigleys, however, were eventually dropped by prosecutors or dismissed, and the Quigleys countersued the ADL, which had championed the Aronsons.

The Quigleys claimed that the Aronsons, upon the advice of the ADL, began tape-recording the Quigleys' cordless telephone calls and making notes of other clashes....[they] said the ADL "orchestrated a monstrous invasion of their privacy and a destruction of their good name."

The ADL and Aronson's had received legal advice that it was legal to tape cordless telephone calls. Their lawyers and the Deputy District Attorney with whom they conferred had been unaware that the statute had recently been changed to require a court wiretap order for cordless phone calls. There was a lot of embarassment all around, as the DA in Colorado dropped the criminal intimidation charges against the Quigleys. The lawyers were sued and settled. The ADL did not settle, and the case went to trial in 2000. The Quigley's were represented by one of Denver's finest civil litigators, Jay Horowitz. They won. The case has been on appeal since, and last week the Supreme Court refused to accept the case for review. The ADL has just paid up:

Thursday's payout of $12,169,557.61 represents the largest defamation verdict in the history of Colorado and the largest Federal Wiretap Act verdict in the history of the United States, Horowitz said.

A 2000 New York Times article has more details of the case and allegations. You can read all the ugly details in this 10th court opinion (html) upholding the judgment against the ADL.

Rep. Tom Feeney is back -- this time with an effort to draw adverse attention to the Supreme Court's use of foreign cases in their decisions .

Stick to U.S. law or risk impeachment, Rep. Tom Feeney is warning the Supreme Court. The Florida Republican and fellow House Judiciary Committee member Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., plan next week to propose a resolution that judicial decisions should not be based on foreign precedents. The lawmakers say they have 50 co-sponsors for the resolution, which will be non-binding, though Feeney warned that justices who flout it risk "the ultimate remedy ... impeachment" ...

Lawrence Goldman, past President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), has this reaction (received by email):

The latest Feeney bill, as amended today, would suggest that the U.S. Supreme Court not consider any legal rulings, statutes, declarations, edicts and regulations of any foreign nation, the United Nations or any international body, or any United States state or commonwealth court in which there is a Democratic majority or of which more than 3 members are judges or graduates of accredited law schools. Exceptions are made for the laws, etc. of South Africa during the apartheid area, Pinochet Chile, the Shah's Iran, Somoza Nicaragua or any other nation that is certified by the Department of Justice not to allow judges any sentencing discretion.

In 1990, former Panamian dictator Manuel Noriega was sentenced in federal court in Florida to 30 years in prison for drug smuggling. Because his crimes pre-dated 1987, he wasn't sentenced under federal guidelines but was given a sentence that included release on parole. He was denied parole twice, and requested another consideration.

He has just been denied parole again. This time, the federal judge who sentenced him, William Hoeveler, wrote a letter to the Parole Commission advocating parole for Noriega, who is now 70 years old. It is the first time the Judge made such a recommendation in his 27years as a Judge.

Under the old parole guidelines, Noriega can be made to serve 20 of his 30 years. However, the parole commission, in its discretion, can grant him early release Noriega's attorney, Frank Rubino, has promised to appeal:

Rubino said the U.S. attorney's office in Miami and the Department of Justice in Washington continue to politicize Noriega's case. Noriega was arrested in late 1989 on orders from President George Bush.

Noriega has a private apartment-style cell in Florida. He's 70 years old. Do we really need to continue paying for his upkeep and medical care? We say, parole Mr. Noriega now.

Bump and Update: The Mirrorhas more details of the released Guantanamo detainee's charges of mistreatment:

Their "cells" were wire cages with concrete floors and open to the elements - giving no privacy or protection from the rats, snakes and scorpions loose around the American base. He claims punishment beatings were handed out by guards known as the Extreme Reaction Force. They waded into inmates in full riot-gear, raining blows on them. Prisoners faced psychological torture and mind-games in attempts to make them confess to acts they had never committed. Medical treatment was sparse and brutal and amputations of limbs were more drastic than required, claimed Jamal. A diet of foul water and food up to 10 years out-of-date left inmates malnourished.

******************
Original post

One of the British detainees sent back to Britain from Guantanamo and subsequently released is sharing very unflattering details of his confinement with the media:

Jamal al-Harith told how US soldiers brought in prostitutes to the camp, and paraded them naked in front of the many devout Muslims. The 37-year-old also claimed he was kicked, punched and assaulted with batons. He told the Daily Mirror that detainees were shackled for up to 15 hours at a time in hand and leg cuffs with metal links to the skin. Mr Harith said punishment beatings were meted out by guards and prisoners were subjected to pyschological torture and mind games in an effort to break them.

Update: Here's more.

SKBubba has the latest on a proposed Tennessee constitutional amendment:

''Nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or the funding thereof; except the legislature shall have the authority to make such exceptions as the legislature deems necessary, including the authority to make exceptions in the case of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.''

SK adds:

At least the founding fathers had the foresight to make it pretty hard to change the Tennessee Constitution. An amendment has to pass both the House and Senate, not once, but twice in consecutive General Assemblies before being put on the ballot for the voters to decide in the next general election for Governor. That means that the issue can't be put to the voters until at least 2010, and the women of Tennessee are without protection from being forced to have abortions by liberal judges until then.

Noah at Defense Tech reports that while Total Information Awareness may be dea, DARPA has even bigger plans in store for the destruction of our privacy rights--a blimp that is three times bigger than the Goodyear blimp that can watch an entire city.

Update: More on DARPA and planned privacy intrusions.

This is absurd--and a dangerous precedent. A mentally ill woman refused a C-section while carrying twins and one was stillborn. She's now charged with first degree murder.

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University. "It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," she said.

A federal court in Alabama has rejected a government effort to obtain a protective order, under 18 U.S.C. § 1514(b)(1), to prohibit a defendant from maintaining a web site that will provide news about his case and ask witnesses to come forward if they can assist his defense.

The defendant plans to feature information that has been made public, including identities of the lawyers, witnesses (snitches), agents, etc. The government claimed that it could possibly result in retaliation against witnesses and/or law enforcement and wanted the court to order it shut down,or severely restrict what could be posted. After an evidentiary hearing, the Magistrate Judge issued an eleven page opinion denying relief.

Magistrate Judge Delores R. Boyd, in an opinion made public Wednesday, said Carmichael has constitutional rights to freedom of speech and a speedy trial. The judge also said the court is not free to simply embrace a governmental belief that an intent to post identities and photographs is an obvious attempt to intimidate or harass informants. [Defense Attorney Stephen] Glassroth also said his client wants residents to be able to read documents and transcripts at their convenience because deadlines limit newspapers and radio and television stations in their reporting. The defense also said it wants to receive information via the Internet about people Carmichael believes are lying about him and are not trustworthy.