This is a terrible idea. It figures it would be backed by law enforcement. We're talking about a proposed DNA databank in California.

The measure, championed by a Newport Beach, California, man whose brother and sister-in-law were murdered in 1980, would expand the range of crimes for which felons must submit DNA samples to the state's database to include nonviolent offenders, juveniles and uncharged suspects. The proposal has inflamed civil libertarians, who contend it flouts constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and has drawn the ire of public defenders who say it overburdens the cash-strapped state.

"Should we allow the government to engage in widespread searches?" Francisco Lobaco, the American Civil Liberties Union's legislative director, said. "It's the same concept as engaging in a non-consensual search of everybody leaving a mall because somebody has stolen something ... and putting that (information) in a database," Lobaco said.

....If voters approve the measure, it will allow California authorities to get DNA samples from everyone arrested or convicted on felony charges, as well as from misdemeanor sex offenders -- both adult and juvenile.

Let's hope the prohibitive cost of conducting 400,000 DNA tests a year will knock some sense into Californians. Isn't their budget crisis serious enough? Bruce Harrington, the sponsor of the bill--the man whose relatives were murdered--is a lawyer and real-estate developer who has already sunk $1.5 million into the measure. The state district attorneys association is supporting it and it may make it onto the November, 2004 ballot.

Laws should not be enacted out of grief or passion in response to a singular event--no matter how horrific.

Democratic contender Joe Lieberman and his wife have rented a two bedroom apartment and are moving to New Hampshire until the Jan. 27 primary. We must say, ole' Joe is making the most of his temporary surge resulting from Gore's backing of Howard Dean (the sympathy factor) and the capture of Saddam (as a pro-war candidate.)

Daily Kos reports Joe's surge has already peaked and is on the wane.

Newsweek gives Liberman the bad news -- the crocodile tears are helping him no longer. Poll conducted 12/18-19. MoE 6%. (12/11-12 results in parenthesis)

Dean 26 (24)
Don't Know 20 (14)
Clark 15 (12)
Lieberman 7 (12)
Sharpton 7 (5)
Kerry 6 (5)
Gephardt 5 (10)
Edwards 5 (5)
Braun 1 (3)
Kucinich 1 (2)

We admire Lieberman's spunk. We hope he loses.

Saddam does have supporters after all. Lawyers from Jordan and France are seeking to visit him and represent him at an Iraqi War Crimes Tribunal:

Saleh Armouti and French attorney Emmanuel Ludot are asking the U.S. State Department for permission to visit Saddam, who is being held by the American military at an undisclosed location in Iraq after his Dec. 13 capture.

"As soon as we get the authorization from the State Department we shall travel to Iraq and meet with Saddam Hussein to get an official empowerment from him," Armouti told The Associated Press.

The Arab state, while maintaining close relations with the United States, also has historically strong ties with neighboring Iraq and relied on Saddam's regime for its entire oil supply. Jordanian professional organizations, including the bar association, have long supported Saddam, including during Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Bar association president Hussein Mejali said last week he believed Saddam was unlawfully deposed by coalition forces and unlawfully captured by U.S. troops.

Of course, Saddam's lawyers don't need to support him personally or his past actions or his regime -- only his right to a fair trial. We believe he should have a fair trial and a vigorous defense. But the tone of this article suggests that these lawyers support Saddam as well. Does that mean they will try to show his actions were justified? Or backed by the U.S. and other countries? How much power will the Bush Administration have in the decision as to who represents him in a foreign proceeding?

Update: More than 600 Jordanian lawyers have now volunteered to represent Saddam:

A Brooklyn, NY jury has rejected Attorney General John Ashcroft's push for the death penalty and returned a life sentence for a crack dealer convicted of murder.

The capital case, only the third in three decades in Brooklyn's federal district, drew attention last year after Ashcroft overruled local prosecutors' decision to seek a life term.

As we reported here, the defense told the jury in closing:

``This death penalty prosecution was ordered by John Ashcroft,'' defense attorney Richard Levitt told jurors. ``You don't have to listen to John Ashcroft.''

And at least one of them didn't. For more on how Ashcroft has been pandering the death penalty--even over the objections of his prosecutors--go here and here and here and here.

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.