In another first for a low blow to civil liberties and our right to peaceful assembly, the FBI has subpoenaed records of the National Lawyers Guild:

The National Lawyers Guild will move to quash an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force subpoena issued on Wednesday, February 4, 2004. The subpoena asks Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, to produce all records relating to a November 15, 2003 antiwar conference at Drake University called "Stop the Occupation! Bring the Iowa Guard Home!" The conference was sponsored by the Drake Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild and was followed the next day by a demonstration at the Iowa National Guard Headquarters in Johnston, at which 12 protestors were arrested on misdemeanor charges.

The subpoena asks Drake University for all records relating to the November 15 conference, as well as information about leaders of the Drake University chapter of the National Lawyers Guild and the location of Guild offices and any annual reports since 2002. In addition, it asks for "all records of Drake University campus security reflecting any observations made of the November 15, 2003 meeting, including any records of persons in charge or control of the meeting, and any records of attendees of the meeting."

Writing for Alternet, Kari Lydersen gives us the bad news: Judging by the first two weeks of the year, the forecast is not good for the Bush Administration's treatment of civil liberties.

If the first few weeks of 2004 are any indication, the Bush administration is stepping up its assault on civil liberties. A few legislative victories for civil liberties have done little to stop the over all trend toward more and more repressive legislation. Looking at what’s happened in just the first two weeks of 2004, here’s an overview of eight things to expect the rest of the year.

Guantanamo detainees, the Patriot Act, emphasis on the death penalty, more mandatory minimum sentences, pushing the drug war, treating immigrants as "exploited workers" and "guests." Scary, read the whole thing.

In a related piece, Lyderson explores whether civil liberties will be a non-issue in the 2004 election.

Jason Zengerle, writing for the New Republic, explores the resurrection of liberal talk radio. Can it succeed now?

.... growing liberal anger at and alienation from mainstream media is just one reason why the latest liberal talk radio efforts are far more likely to succeed than past ones.

Martha Stewart's lawyer, Robert Morvillo, began his cross-examination of the Government's star witness Douglas Fanueil today. The cross is ongoing, so far, Morvillo has hit hard on Faneuil's memory. Fanueil also repeated his testimony about his fears of telling the truth.

Full CNN/Money coverage of Martha's trial is here.

Joel Rogers argues in The Nation that Wisconsin's progressive voters should vote for John Edwards:

Where Edwards diverges from Kerry is in addressing a series of issues of distinctive concern to progressives--inequalities of race and class, abusive corporate power, neoliberal globalization, ghetto poverty and prison, and the importance of worker and community organization outside the state. And what makes him distinctive is not just that he regularly touches these third-rail issues but is effectively running on them.

He is unabashedly pro-union. He regularly challenges white audiences to confront "the white problem" of continued racial injustice. His "two Americas" stump speech is all about class. He appreciates and notes the sheer pervasiveness of corporate crime--from tax evasion to union avoidance, predatory lending to environmental degradation, unsafe working conditions to subsidy abuse. He is sharply critical of the "Washington Consensus" on international trade and finance. He talks about the growth of poverty and dead-end jobs. And he's the only candidate who does this in engaging language ordinary voters understand.

Vincent Jones, writing for US Liberals, argues that the Dems should nominate an African-American in the veep slot in 2004. On the Bush side, he talks about Colin Powell possibly taking Dick Cheney's place, but he doesn't list any names for the Democratic ticket. We wonder who he had in mind?

The White House has been too white for too long. It's time for a change, no doubt about it. We'd welcome some diversity on the ticket.

by TChris

The general manager of CNN acknowledges that "his network overplayed the infamous clip of Dean's 'scream' after the Iowa caucuses." No kidding. But it wasn't just CNN.

Instead, the cable and broadcast news networks aired Dean's Iowa exclamation 633 times -- and that doesn't include local news or talk shows -- in the four days after it was made, according to the Hotline, a Washington-based newsletter.

The repetition may have contributed to Dean's declining support. But it's not just a problem for Dean. Witness the overplayed footage of Janet Jackson's breast (suitably fogged for our protection). David Bauder has an interesting take on the phenomenon of excessive coverage (or uncoverage, in Jackson's case) of news events that don't quite warrant all the fuss.

by TChris

Before sending troops to Iraq, the Bush administration explained

that it was necessary to topple Saddam because he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, was trying to build a nuclear weapon and represented a grave danger in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.

In the absence of any such weapons, the President today said the administration and others thought that Saddam had weapons, but offered a different justification for the war:

"But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network," Bush said.

The difference has not gone unnoticed by Democratic front-runner John Kerry.

"This is a far cry from what the president and his administration told the American people through 2002," Kerry said. "Back then President Bush repeatedly told the American people that Saddam Hussein has got chemical weapons."

"They told us they could deploy these weapons within 45 minutes to injure our troops," the four-term senator from Massachusetts added. "It was on that basis that he sent Americans' sons and daughters off to war."

Unless voters have short memories, are easily deceived, or just don't care, the President's growing credibility gap will play a significant role come November.

Mohammed Ismail Agha was 15 when he was sent from Afganistan to Guantanamo. Here is his story:

[Agha] said he and a friend had left their farming community in search of work when Afghan militiamen stopped them. "They said, 'Come and join us,' but we told them we are poor people, jobless, and we don't want to join the militia, we want to earn money," Agha said. "Then they said, 'You are Taliban.' "

Agha said he was handed over to U.S. soldiers, who first took him to the southern city of Kandahar and then to Bagram, where he was held in solitary confinement. He lost track of his friend, Mohammed Wali, in Kandahar and has not seen him since.

He said U.S. forces interrogated him at Bagram Air Base, north of the capital, Kabul, about whether he was a Taliban supporter. Yet once he reached Cuba, there were few questions.

It turns out, Agha is not bitter about his experience:

"At first I was unhappy with the U.S. forces. They stole 14 months of my life," Agha said. "But they gave me a good time in Cuba. They were very nice to me, giving me English lessons. "For two or three days I was confused, but later the Americans were so nice with me, they were giving me good food with fruit and water for ablutions before prayer." Besides teaching him to read and write English, the military provided books in his native Pashto language and a Quran, Islam's sacred book.

Still, his family did not hear from him for ten months --that's how long it took to for them to receive a letter from him through the Red Cross--they did not know if he was dead or alive. Agha did not get a trial. He was not afforded a lawyer. No charges were ever brought against him.

Surely, if as he says, he was barely questioned after reaching Guantanamo, it should not have taken the U.S. military over a year to send him home. The young Mr. Agha is far more forgiving than we would be if he were our son.

[link via Left i on the News]

Jeanne at Body and Soul has many insightful comments on Bush's performance on Meet the Press today. Our favorite:

The funniest moment was Bush saying that what troubled him about Vietnam was that "we had politicians making military decisions." Gosh, glad that didn't happen this time around.

Calpundit:

On Meet the Press this morning President Bush said he'd be delighted to turn over all his service records from his time in the Texas Air National Guard. Good news! But just as Russert was moving on to the next question, he added, "We did so in 2000, by the way." So the bottom line is: he doesn't plan to release anything he hasn't already released.

The transcript is here.

Dennis Kucinich on the drug war--this is definitely worth watching. Pass it on.

by TChris

While some complain that "junk science" promotes frivolous lawsuits, a British court has recognized the far greater harm that results when prosecutors rely upon bad science to obtain a criminal conviction. Overturning the convictions of Angela Cannings for the murder of her two babies, the court ruled that substituting theory for fact caused Cannings' conviction to rest "almost entirely on a tidy presumption of guilt, rather than on solid evidence."

The popular theory at issue: "one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is a murder, unless proven otherwise."

The hypothesis, which is widely quoted, became known in Britain as "Meadow's law." But those assumptions are now being re-examined.

Cannings' first child died after thirteen weeks. Her second child died after seven weeks. As is often the case, doctors could not explain the deaths. Her third child, who was closely monitored, experienced breathing problems but survived after being rushed to a hospital. She is now eight years old.

Cannings' son Matthew was born in 1999. When Matthew was four months old, an alarm alerted Cannings to the fact that he was not breathing properly. Cannings called her husband, then "sat in shock until he rushed home and called an ambulance." Matthew died. Cannings' daughter was removed from her home and Cannings was charged with murdering Matthew and another child. The evidence consisted of "a suspicious pattern of deaths" and Cannings' decision to call her husband, not an ambulance, when she discovered that Matthew wasn't breathing properly.

The prosecution's expert witness, relying on the theory that three deaths is proof of murder unless the parents prove otherwise, told the jury that his clinical diagnosis "would be this was characteristic of smothering."

But he had never seen the babies or interviewed the parents and, as the appellate court pointed out, there was a dearth of evidence: no cause of death could be determined; there was no sign the babies had been injured; and there was no history of parental violence or abuse. In fact, relatives and friends described Mrs. Cannings as a loving mother.

Although other experts advanced other opinions, Cannings was found guilty. Thankfully, after Cannings spent twenty months in prison, the appellate court ruled that a suspicious pattern of deaths isn't enough to prove that a murder was committed. The court said:

"Unless we are sure of guilt, the dreadful possibility always remains that a mother, already brutally scarred by the unexplained death or deaths of her babies, may find herself in prison for life for killing them, when she should not be there at all. In our community, and in any civilized community, that is abhorrent."

The decision prompted the British attorney general to announce "a thorough review of 258 criminal cases similar to Ms. Canning's case," although not all of those cases will likely be revisited. As tragic and emotional as the death of a child always is, mere suspicion must never supplant proof in a criminal prosecution. This case is an important reminder of that bedrock principle.