Update: The Judge ruled prosecutors can view Rush's medical records.

The judge said the state has a "compelling" interest in determining whether Limbaugh broke the law, trumping his right to keep his medical records private.

Rush's lawyers will appeal by the end of the day

**************************
At a hearing today on whether prosecutors are entitled to Rush Limbaugh's medical records, Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, told the court that the radio host was being blackmailed by his ex-housekeeper to the tune of $4 million--and that fear of becoming a criminal target stopped him from going to the FBI.

Prosecutors say Rush got prescriptions for 2,000 pills over a five month period--they are investigating whether he engaged in "doctor shopping" -- "getting multiple prescriptions from several doctors that he could not have received from just one" -- which is a felony in Florida. Prosecutors say he sometimes got more than one prescription in a single month. It is in connection with investigating Rush's prescriptions, rather than his dealings with his housekeeper, that prosecutors want to see his doctors' records:

Earlier this month, prosecutors executed search warrants to seize Limbaugh's medical records from two doctors. Under Florida law, a judge must give his approval before prosecutors can review those records.

At a hearing Monday afternoon, Limbaugh's attorneys argued that authorities should not be given access to the records, saying prosecutors could have used "less intrusive means" to obtain information for their investigation, such as issuing subpoenas to doctors for records and information.

On January 5, a new program to track foreigners will be in place in all 115 U.S. airports that have international flights.

The program, called US-VISIT, or U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, will check an estimated 24 million foreigners each year, though some will be repeat visitors. Inkless fingerprints will be taken and checked instantly against a national database for criminal backgrounds and any terrorist lists, [U.S. Homeland Security spokesman Bill ] Strassberger said. The process will be repeated when the foreigners leave the country as an extra security measure and to ensure they complied with visa limitations.

Strassberger said once screeners become proficient, the extra security will take only 10 to 15 seconds per person. Foreign travelers will also continue to pass through Customs points and answer questions. Photographs will be used to help create a database for law enforcement.

The ACLU is reserving judgment until it has more details as to how the progam will work.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (D.C.) has ruled that the military is in violation of federal law by administering mandatory anthrax vaccinations to military personnel without their informed consent. Judge Sullivan concluded that military personnel should not be used as the nation's "guinea pigs," and that the damage done to those who improperly received these shots may be irreparable. Bloviator , the terrific blog on all things medical, has the details and a thoughtful analysis.

Update: You can read the decision here (pdf file)

Hey, here's a Monday joke that we picked up from Pandagon who got it from The Corner:

Why was Saddam checked for lice and tongue-depressed? Because, unlike us, he gets free medical care.

Update: The transcript of the defense closing argument is here.

The defense has rested and closing arguments have been completed in the sentencing phase of the "sniper" trial of John Lee Malvo. Malvo did not testify in his own defense, but his father testified for him. The jury is now deliberating on life or death for Malvo.

The defense lawyers were trying to elicit testimony from their witnesses that showed that Malvo had some remorse for the sniper murders and that he had some redeeming qualities that might convince the jury to sentence him life in prison without parole instead of death.

If sentenced to death, Malvo will be the youngest person on death row in the country.

Dr. James Grigson, the Texas forensic psychiatrist whose testimony for the state helped send scores of defendants to the death house during the past 40 years is retiring:

Dr. Grigson, 71, has been known throughout the jurisprudence system as "Dr. Death" because of his tenacious and authoritative belief that seldom can murderers be rehabilitated. In more than 100 of the 167 capital cases in which he was involved, he testified strongly that a defendant would kill again if given the opportunity — a continuing threat to society, in other words. Jurors routinely admitted his testimony was the motivating factor for them to assess death instead of a lesser term.

Capital defenders have good reason to herald his departure:

Rick Halperin, president of the Texas Coalition Against the Death Penalty, isn't one of Dr. Grigson's admirers. "Just take the case of Randall Dales Adams, innocent and free today and getting on with his life," Mr. Halperin said. Mr. Adams was convicted of murder and sent to death row in 1977, but was released in 1989 when new evidence exonerated him. He later was portrayed in a movie, "The Thin Blue Line." "He wasn't guilty then and hasn't been in trouble since," said Mr. Halperin, "and yet 12 people took the word of Dr. Grigson, who said he was psychopathic and a degenerate."

Gen. Wesley Clark's testimony at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic has been released. Here is his Monday testimony. Tuesday testimony is here. Tuesday is here. [link via Political Wire.]

When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced after the capture of Saddam Hussein that he would be treated as a prisoner of war and provided the protections of the Geneva Convention, he issued a caveat: Provided, that Saddam was not involved in the post-war attacks on coalition forces. The Washington Times now reports exactly that:

Saddam Hussein was personally directing the postwar insurgency inside Iraq that has claimed the lives of more than 200 coalition troops, playing a far more active role than previously thought, American intelligence officers have concluded since his capture.

Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war only have to give their name, rank and serial number when being interrogated. They don't have to answer questions.

So, how long until Rumsfeld announces a change in Saddam's status? Bets, anyone? And what will result from the change? Will he be transferred into the custody of a country that allows torture during interrogation? Will he be shipped to Guantanamo or some other secret place? Or will he be turned over to the Iraqis to be put in an Iraqi prison? We'd bet on door #3.

As the terror threat gets elevated to orange, we're wise to remember that the arrest of Saddam has not made us any safer. As Eric Alterman points out, writing for Center for American Progress:

In the meantime, the true perpetrators of 9/11 remain alive and well. We have more than 10 times as many troops in Iraq as in border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan where bin Laden is believed to be operating. And here at home, we are hardly better prepared than we were last time. Our nuclear and chemical plants remain all but unprotected; so too our ports and infrastructure. Our first responders are untrained and our cities starved for resources to defend themselves.

Mark Glaser for Online Journalism Review takes a look back at online news reporting and weblogs in 2003 and a look at what's ahead for 2004.

The trial of Saddam Hussein will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Will the U.S. get stuck paying for it? Very possibly, if its tried before the new Iraqi War Crimes Tribunal and the death penalty is on the table:

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan closed the door last week to U.N. support for any tribunal that included the death penalty as a punishment. "This tribunal will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, if it's done professionally," says Scheffer. "It's extremely important that [the Iraqis] recognize that imposing the death penalty will shut the door to any U.N. or European effort to support the court."

Without funding from the international community, the United States could find itself in the awkward role of underwriting an Iraqi tribunal, thus creating the unwanted appearance of U.S. control.

Some more problems with an Iraqi tribunal:

According to the LA Times, the Justice Department is using a flawed terrorist yardstick to inflate the number of terrorist arrests.

DOJ cites 280 cases as proof that it is winning the terror war.

The growing list has been regularly highlighted by Ashcroft and other Justice Department officials in speeches and congressional testimony, and even by President Bush. In an address to federal law enforcement officials on the eve of the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush referred to the "more than 260 suspected terrorists" that the government has hauled to court.

In October, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christopher Wray, the Justice Department's criminal division chief, cited the growing number of charges resulting from terrorism probes — which then stood at 284 defendants — as evidence that the department has "enjoyed key successes" in the anti-terrorism war. Last month, in a speech before a Justice Department liaison group for federal attorneys, Ashcroft cited terrorism-related criminal charges against 286 people, declaring "we have been successful."

Partly using documents it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the LA Times conducted its own review of the cases.