Bump and Update: From Tom Paine.com's Take on the News:

One important detail has been overlooked: The constitution states that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam." Although there are provisions protecting women's rights, Afghan women are rightly concerned that there is nothing protecting them from the harsh application of Sharia—or Islamic— law.

Why is this a problem? Ziba Mir Hosseini, author of the book Islam and Gender explains: "We do not have in modern times any state which has introduced Sharia and has been able to respect women's rights." By ignoring this very troubling element of the new consitution in its laudatory statements, the Bush administration reminds us women's rights are important only when protecting them serves their foreign policy goals.

****************
original post 1/5/03 12:06 am

A new Constitution has been approved in Afganistan.

The charter, ratified after a last-minute deal to recognize minority languages, creates a strong presidential system that the country's U.S.-backed interim leader, Hamid Karzai, says is critical to uniting a country torn by two decades of war. It also states that men and women should be treated equally - a key demand of human rights groups. The Taliban barred girls from school and banned women from all public life.

....The new constitution is a "significant milestone" on the path to democracy, said U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who worked with U.N. officials to help secure the agreement. "With the world watching, you have adopted one of the most enlightened constitutions in the Islamic world," he said in a statement. "You have made history."

The charter makes the president commander in chief of the armed forces, charges him with determining the nation's fundamental policies and gives him considerable power to press legislation.

Here's the old Constitution.

The ACLU says that the new fingerprinting system is likely to cause confusion and will continue to track Muslims and Arabs based on national origin.

"Contrary to assertions by the Homeland Security Department, the US VISIT program is an addition to -- not a substitute for -- the notorious special registration program that singled out Arab and Muslim men because of their national origin and that continues to subject them to special and confusing requirements," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Only one part of the special registration program -- the part that requires re-registration at local immigration offices -- was suspended last year. But, Arab and Muslim men are still subject to different requirements than other visitors."

[link via TomPaine's Take on the News]

John Dean gives his theory on why Ashcroft removed himself from the Plame investigation:

Dean contends that the progress of the investigation -- including Attorney General Ashcroft's decision to recuse himself -- strongly suggests that at least one key witness has already come forward to cooperate with the government.

Hmmm.....who would that be? Did s/he get immunity? Can you trust the word of someone who's singing for his or her supper in such a high stakes investigation without some strong corrorboration?

We're dubious of Dean's theory. We think it's more likely that they know the culprit and Ashcroft is so close to him or her that everyone would scream "whitewash" if Ashcroft were still in charge at the end when he isn't charged. If you missed Dean's earlier column in which he argues the leak is a felony, you can read it here.

We also note that despite the headline of this article suggesting that Bush is urging his staff to cooperate with the investigation, he hasn't said that he told them to release reporters from their confidentiality agreements.

It's midnight and -3 degrees outside. Doubtful it will get warmer by the time we leave for court at 7:30 am. So we're calling it a night. We'll be dreaming of beaches with soft white sand and aqua color water--and fishing--and wishing we were headed there soon. Thanks to all who stopped by today.

Drug WarRant has a lot of great stuff Monday--from pain doctors criticizing the drug warriors to the Rocky Mountain News railing on the DEA:

Oh, it's good to be the king. You float high above the law and plunder your subjects with impunity.

To the link to the transcript of last night's mandatory minimum segment on 60 minutes. A sample:

"Judges throughout the country, of all political persuasions, feel that they have to have discretion so that they can do justice in the individual cases," says Martin, who is resigning from the bench.

"It is unjust. It's taking people who are low-level violators and putting them in jail for 15-20 years. I had a situation where a defendant was an addict. He sat on his stoop. People came to him and said, 'Do you know where I can buy some crack?' He told them about an apartment where there was crack being sold. For this, the people who sold it every once in a while gave him some crack for his own personal use. The guideline range for that man was 16 years in jail. That doesn't seem to me like justice."

We hope you are reading the Rant every day. We do.

Mohamed Kamel Bellahouel was secretly jailed after the Sept. 11 attacks. His court case was kept secret. It's now before the Supreme Court. The Bush Administration has filed a request to continue to keep the case secret. More than 20 media organizations have filed requests to open the proceedings.

Justices sometimes are asked to keep parts of cases private because of information sensitive for national security or other reasons, but it's unusual for an entire filing to be kept secret.

Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she was disappointed by the government's request. "The idea that there is nothing that could be filed publicly is really ridiculous," she said. "It just emphasizes our point that we're living in frightening times. People can be arrested, thrown in jail and have secret court proceedings, and we know absolutely nothing about it."

Behind the Homefront has much more on the case. The motion to intervene is here. The amicus brief is here. The case is The case is M.K.B. v. Warden, 03-6747.

Update: Arthur at Light of Reason has more.

[no comments on this post because they got spammed.]

Alabama is vying to be next to try and kill now-convicted sniper John Lee Malvo.

In a letter to Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Montgomery County District Attorney Ellen Brooks said Alabama has a strong case against Malvo, a tested death penalty law and should be one of the next jurisdictions to try him.

Brooks, who earlier sent a similar letter saying she wanted to try Muhammad, said as soon as Malvo's Virginia trial ended she began efforts to let Virginia authorities know "we were willing and able to prosecute Malvo. I wanted to make sure the governor and attorney general and anyone else were aware of the abilities of our office, our laws and strength of our evidence," Brooks said.

A trophy killing. What a waste of state resources.

[comments now closed]

Britney Spears' divorce attorney is esteemed Las Vegas criminal defense attorney David Chesnoff. Before becoming Mayor of Las Vegas, Oscar Goodman and David were law partners. What a formidible pair. As good as it gets. We just saw David on tv, denying that Britney was drunk when she got married. He said she didn't understand what she was doing. Sounds like a prank gone too far, to us--if she didn't understand the consequences, she didn't understand the nature of her actions. Or something like that. We're glad the Judge annulled it. Nice job, David.

Update: Smoking Gun, of course, has the annulment papers. The grounds:

Plaintiff Spears lacked understanding of her actions to the extent that she was incapable of agreeing to the marriage because before entering the marriage the plaintiff and defendant did not know each others likes and dislikes, each other's desires to have or not have children, and each other's desires as to state of residency. Upon learning of each other's desires, they are so incompatible that there was a want of understanding of each other's actions in entering this marriage. Additionally, there was no meeting of the minds in entering into this marriage contract and in a court of equity there is cause for declaring the contract void.

These are the statutes at issue:NRS 125350 and 125330. Write them down, you'll never know when you may need one.

Update: The bridegroom speaks.

[comments now closed]

Media Horse is back--go over and vote on Media Whor! of the Year.

Update: Jim at Rittenhouse Review dissects the nominees.

Remember the Stratford High school drug raid in Goose Creek where agents pulled their guns and no drugs were found? The principal has resigned. Calling it "instant karma," Last One Speaks has the latest.

In a new autobiography, My Prison Without Bars, Pete Rose admits for the first time that he bet on baseball games. He hopes to end his lifetime ban from baseball and be admitted into the Hall of Fame.

Rose says he was a big-time gambler who started betting regularly on baseball in 1987 but never against the Reds, according to excerpts from the book released to Sports Illustrated for its issue that hits newsstands Wednesday.

"Yes, sir, I did bet on baseball," Rose told commissioner Bud Selig during a meeting in November 2002 about Rose's lifetime ban.

"How often?" Selig asked.

"Four or five times a week," Rose replied. "But I never bet against my own team, and I never made any bets from the clubhouse."

"Why?" Selig asked.

"I didn't think I'd get caught."

Rose repeated his admission in an interview on ABC News' "Primetime Thursday," parts of which aired Monday on "Good Morning America."

We give him credit for the honest answer. We sat in the row behind him a few months ago on a plane somewhere (he was in bulkhead and we were in row 2.) There was a steady stream of passengers coming up to him. He was polite to all of them. He wears a lot of gold jewelry. A lot. And he's a very beefy guy.

So will the book do it for him and will he get back in?

Update: The nominees for best single issue blog are now up and we've been included. So we're proud to be semi-finalists in both this category and best blog. We hope to make it to the finals in at least one, so we hope you'll go over and vote!

************************
The list of semi-finalists for nominees for best blog are up at Wampum for the 2003 Koufax awards. Last year, TalkLeft won for being the best single-issue blog. While the nominees for best single issue blog have not yet been announced, this year we are a semi-finalist for a nominee for best blog. The competition is awesome. What does best blog encompass? According to Wampum,

The category seeks to recognize the best overall work across the entire year, in writing, focus, relevance, accessibility, etc. In other word, who do you consider indispensable?

Wampum is taking votes from among the following list of semi-finalists: