by TChris

Following on the heels of Wednesday's criticism by leading scientists of the Bush administration's suppression or distortion of scientific evidence to provide a smokescreen for its unscientific approach to the environment, health care, and arms control, the administration admitted that "it improperly altered a report documenting large racial and ethnic disparities in health care."

The theme of the original report was that members of minorities "tend to be in poorer health than other Americans" and that "disparities are pervasive in our health care system," contributing to higher rates of disease and disability.

But that theme doesn't mesh well with the administration's cheery view of an America where racial inequality is a thing of the past, so the administration adopted its usual spin strategy: when the facts are inconvenient, ignore them or change them. And so,

the final report has an upbeat tone, beginning, "The overall health of Americans has improved dramatically over the last century."

The authors of the report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, led by Dr. Carolyn Clancy, resisted the bureaucratic pressure to doctor the report, but in the end gave in.

The Guardian/Observer has a special report of the five British detainees at Guantanamo who are to be sent back to Great Britain. It's called To Hell and Back.

Lawyers for the detainees are now convinced that the releases were designed to head off growing disquiet in the White House about their cases being heard in the Supreme Court in April. Two of the soon to be released Britons - Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal - were subjects of a petition to the court arguing that Camp Delta, although in Cuba, fell under American jurisdiction and under US law their detention without trial would be illegal. That only leaves an Australian, Mamdouh Habib, as the case's sole remaining active petitioner.

Stephen Watts, a lawyer for the four men, said that he would not be surprised if Habib was either released or put up to a military tribunal before the Supreme Court hearing. 'By doing this the US government can try and show the court there is a proper process going on here or that the case is no longer a live one,' Watts said.

Though it has controlled Guantanamo Bay for years, the US argues that it is sovereign Cuban soil and that it just rents the land under the terms of an agreement reached with the pre-Fidel Castro government in Havana. Castro has always refused to accept the annual US rent payments. As a result of the dispute the US base has fallen into a legal black hole which the prisoners' cases will challenge at the Supreme Court.

'All these releases and other things are designed to preserve what is essentially an American gulag in the Caribbean,' Watts said.

The Red Cross visited Saddam Hussein in Iraq this week. The visit was conducted by an Arabic-speaking delegate and an ICRC doctor in accordance with the ICRC's standard procedures. As of now, Saddam still has POW status. What does that mean? According to the Red Cross:

The ICRC believes that POW status for Mr. Hussein is legally correct as he was commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces. This status does not grant Mr. Hussein immunity from prosecution for crimes allegedly committed before capture, nor does it prevent him from being interrogated. When questioned, however, POWs are not legally obliged to give more than their surname, first names, rank, date of birth and service number (or similar).

If prosecuted by the detaining power, POWs must be tried by the same courts, and according to the same procedure, as for members of the armed forces of the detaining power. Thus, a POW held by US forces must be tried by courts martial operating under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice. In all circumstances the court must offer essential guarantees of independence and impartiality.

POWs may be transferred out of the country where they were captured. No specific provision is made under the 3rd Geneva Convention for family visits, but when the POWs are held in their own country, it seems logical to grant them the same right to family visits as granted to civilians protected by the 4th Geneva Convention.

The Red Cross is not commenting on Saddam's condition, medical or otherwise. Here's why the Red Cross visits prisoners.

A British paper, the Sunday Express, is reporting that Bin Laden is surrounded and trapped like a rat, waiting only for Bush to give the order to take him in:

The report goes on to say bin Laden and his men "sleep in caves or out in the open. The area is swept by fierce snowstorms howling down from the 10,000-feet high mountain peaks. Donkeys are the only transport". The special forces are "absolutely confident" there is no escape for bin Laden. All are waiting for the order to go in and get him.

"The timing of that order will ultimately depend on President Bush. Capturing bin Laden will certainly be a huge help for him as he gets ready for the election. It will be an even bigger bonus than getting Saddam."

Our view: It's one newspaper's report, unsubstantiated, and we don't think anyone takes him out alive.

Democrats aren't the only voters disenchanted with Bush. So are many independents and Republicans, including those that voted for him last time around:

In dozens of random interviews around the country, independents and Republicans who said they voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 say they intend to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate this year. Some polls are beginning to bolster the idea of those kind of stirrings among Republicans and independents.

This one interviewee summed it up pretty good:

In the 2000 presidential election, Bill Flanagan a semiretired newspaper worker, happily voted for George W. Bush. But now, shaking his head, he vows, "Never again. The combination of lies and boys coming home in body bags is just too awful," Mr. Flanagan said, drinking coffee and reading newspapers at the local mall. "I could vote for Kerry. I could vote for any Democrat unless he's a real dummy."

We really enjoy reading about Teresa Heinz Kerry. We always learn something new about her, and it's refreshing to see a candidate's wife with a distinct personality and a persona of her own. The Sunday New York Times has this long profile of Ms. Heinz Kerry. The new item we learned about her today?

But Ms. Heinz Kerry, a physician's daughter who peruses medical journals and toxicology articles and is intrigued by alternative medicine and Eastern philosophy, knew enough to have her husband's blood retested for C-reactive protein, a little-known indicator of potentially cancerous inflammation. Two days before Christmas, his doctor told Mr. Kerry that his wife's fears were well placed; he was in the very early stages of prostate cancer. Ms. Heinz Kerry may well have saved her husband's life.

by TChris

TalkLeft advised Martha Stewart last week not to testify. Others agree that the risks of taking the stand to tell her story outweigh the benefits, given the weakness of the prosecution's case.

The media-savvy Stewart may also think her public expects her to take the stand. Heeding that urge, however, would expose her to prosecutors' questions and the possibility of a public meltdown. And that could be fatal to her case, lawyers said.

"Cross examination is not appearing in front of a board of directors or on an analysts call. . . . The questions are going to be tough. If there's even a flash of arrogance or anger, it will be devastating to her," said Alan Lieberman, a former federal prosecutor.

But only Martha Stewart can choose, and she will have to wait before she can make a fully informed decision.

Stewart's lawyers will also almost certainly urge her to wait to make her decision until Monday when U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum says she will decide whether to dismiss the most serious charge in the case -- a securities fraud count that carries up to 10 years in prison.

As Roger and TalkLeft observed in comments to an earlier post, a dismissal of the securities fraud charge would send a message to the jury that the prosecution made a serious mistake bringing this case, leaving little reason for Stewart to accept the risk of testifying.

by TChris

John Kerry and John Edwards have agreed to debate each other, one-on-one. The "showdown" will take place on February 29.

by TChris

On Wednesday, TalkLeft reported the arguments of Rush Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, in opposition to Florida's use of a search warrant to obtain Limbaugh's medical records without Limbaugh's consent. Black argued that prosecutors should have applied for a subpoena and given Limbaugh notice so that he could object. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons filed an amicus brief with the court yesterday in support of Limbaugh's position, arguing that upholding the warrant would have an intimidating effect on Florida doctors. Also supporting Limbaugh in the court of appeals are the American Civil Liberties Union, the Florida Pain Initiative, and the National Foundation for the Treatment of Pain. The court of appeals in West Palm Beach yesterday gave prosecutors 15 days to respond to Limbaugh's argument.

In the meantime, Limbaugh disclosed yesterday that prosecutors have, in fact, subpoenaed records from his doctors.

On his radio show Friday, Limbaugh said Palm Beach County prosecutors sent subpoenas to the offices of four of his doctors, "demanding a list of every employee at every doctor's office I visited, from March to September of 2003," according to a transcript of the program on his Web site.

"They're already figuring they're going to win the opportunity to see my medical records, and once they see them, they want a list of names at these doctors' offices that they can re-subpoena and bring in for interviews," Limbaugh said.

Adding another layer of controversy to the case, the former maid who blew the whistle on Limbaugh's alleged drug use is angry at his on-air assertion that a "lawyer, with Democrat connections ... went to the state attorney and got [her] immunity."

There are more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities denied to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families because they cannot legally marry in this country. Here are just a few:

• ability to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency.
  petition for partner to immigrate.

• up to 12 weeks leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner.

• parenting responsibilities of children brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means.

• ability to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

All American families deserve the same protections. Check out the Million for Marriage page of Human Rights Watch and sign a petition to end the discrimination.

by TChris

Four Utah death row inmates who want to face a firing squad may have their wishes fulfilled, despite a new law that, if signed by the Governor, will ban that form of execution. While firing squads have not been widely used in this country since the Civil War, Utah has imposed the death penalty on thirty-nine prisoners (including Gary Gilmore) by shooting them to death. Sadly, debate in the Utah legislature focused not on the barbarity of a practice that is authorized only in two other states, but upon the value of the publicity surrounding the executions.

During the Senate debate on Thursday, Sen. Ron Allen, a Democrat, said allowing murderers to choose firing squads so they can "go out in a blaze of glory" makes heroes of criminals and causes victims' families more pain.

But Sen. Dave Thomas, a Republican, argued that media circuses are "exactly what we want" in executions.

"We don't want these sentences to be carried out in the dead of night so no one knows," said Thomas, adding that lethal injection is painless and "the easy way out."

Sigh. Governor Olene Walker is expected to sign the law changing Utah's method of execution to lethal injection.

by TChris

When an accused murderer is willing to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence without parole, does it make sense to insist on a death penalty trial? Can a judge accept a guilty plea in exchange for a life sentence over the objections of death-seeking prosecutors? These are the questions posed by Jonathan Mills in New Haven, who has been trying to plead guilty for three years.

In their motion to be filed this week, Mills' lawyers argue that Judge [Jon] Blue "has the inherent discretionary sentencing power" to accept Mills' plea. Prosecutors' insistence on the death penalty, the motion says, "is irrelevant to the court's sentencing powers."

If Blue agrees, he could provide finality for the families of victims and murderer alike. He would also save Connecticut taxpayers money--at least $1 million, probably much more.

Connecticut has not executed a prisoner since 1960. Assuming that prosecutors are successful in their efforts to persuade jurors that death is the appropriate penalty for Mills, it may take decades for post-conviction proceedings to conclude, at a cost to taxpayers of at least $2.5 million (an estimate that the New Haven Advocate suggests may be "ridiculously low"), far more than the cost of imprisoning Mills for the rest of his life.

Is it worth it?