This is unbelievable. Canada, which at least has appeared to be sympathetic to the plight of Maher Arar, whom the U.S. grabbed at JFK changing planes and deported to Syria where he says he was tortured, is now preparing to do the same thing to a suspect in its custody.

The federal government is moving to deport a suspected terrorist to Syria. Hassan Almrei, who recently ended a 40-day hunger strike at a Toronto-area jail, has admitted to using a false passport and making several visits to Afghanistan as a guerrilla fighter. Almrei, 29, will be deported within 2 1/2 weeks, a government official told a judge at a hearing Monday.

The Syrian refugee has been detained for the last two years on a security certificate, accused of being a part of an international document forgery ring with ties to al Qaeda. Almrei's last chance to stay in Canada now rests with a federal court judge, who could stay the deportation order until a court determines his status. A stay application is set to be heard on Wednesday in Toronto.

Almrei, who fled to Canada from Syria fours years ago and was given refugee status, says he will be tortured and maybe even killed if he is returned to the country of his birth.

How can a civilized country like Canada even contemplate returning a human being, any human being, to a country that practices torture? Its government today said relations with the U.S. have been strained by the Maher Arar case and called upon us not to send any more of its citizens to third countries--it has given lip service to considering an inquiry into the Maher Arar torture allegations.....yet it turns around and commits the same injustice against one of its detainees that the U.S. committed against Maher Arar?

Maher Arar sued Syria and Jordan today, charging he was beaten during his ten month detention there. No charges were filed against him. Arar is seeking "$31 million for kidnapping, false imprisonment and torture." We hope he gets every penny.

District Attorney Nola Foulston of Kansas tells Greta Van Susteren of Fox that she just got off the phone with Michael Jackson DA Tom Sneddon who emphatically said no love letters were seized from Michael Jackson's house. The finding of letters was reported by Diane Dimond on Greta's show last night. We really like Diane, but we think she might be better off flying to Salt Lake to investigate the Osmonds for jaywalking.

Despite the 24/7 media lynching of Michael Jackson the past five days, his new record has soared to number one in the UK. Fox News reporter Trace Gallagher said on tv tonight it's number 9 here, but the new Billboard will come out tomorrow. We're putting it on our wish list.

Fox News reporter Trace Gallagher also reports that hidden cameras recorded Michael Jackson, his make-up artist and Mark Geragos on their plane ride from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara. The plane was rented so it is doubtful the cameras were put there by Jackson. The company that owns the plane says the tape shows Jackson was calm on the ride, conferring with Geragos, and was not freaking out, vomiting, etc. as had previously been reported. The company is trying to sell the videos to the highest bidder.

Update: CNN reports on the accuser's dad.

Update: Article about cameras taping plane ride.

Update: Mother's divorce lawyer said she had only good things to say about Michael as late as April or May.

An attorney who represented the mother of Michael Jackson's accuser in her divorce from the child's father said the family never indicated to him that Jackson had sexually abused the boy. Attorney Michael Manning said Monday he remembers the mother saying positive things about Jackson as recently as April or May. ``'He was really good to us' - that's what she said at the time,'' Manning said. Asked if she had said anything else about Jackson, Manning added, "Nothing bad. ... If it turned sour, I don't know how.''

Update: Mark Geragos fumes over covert taping. He filed for and received a temporary injunction preventing the release of the tapes, which the plane company tried to sell to Fox for a six figure sum.

The city of Chicago has an ordinance that requires contractors with the city to disclose whether they have ever profited from slavery. Among the affidavits filed is one by Lehman Brothers, stating that the founders of the company, three brothers, bought at least one slave and may have owned more individually. The company was founded in Montgomery, Alabama in 1850. Of the 2,000 slavery affidavits filed to date, Lehman Bros. is the first to acknowledge the ties. Such admissions don't jeopardize the contract with the city--only lying on the affidavit will do that.

"I don't think it means that we're the only firm that has that part in our history. It just means that we took it very seriously and we're quick to disclose what we know," said Carole Brown, a senior vice president of the company and chairwoman of the board of the Chicago Transit Authority...."The Lehman Brothers in the 1850s is not the company that it is today," said Brown, who is black.

So, will the disclosure lead to reparations lawsuits?

The disclosure could encourage people to seek reparations from Lehman Brothers, experts said. "All of the efforts of the reparations movement ... have now paid off," Roosevelt University history professor Christopher Reed said.

Theresa Heinz Kerry weighed in on the Guantanamo detainees in Seattle. She said the detainees deserve prisoner of war status:

"They were captured while fighting a war," Teresa Heinz Kerry said at an informal discussion with minority activists in Seattle. "They should have the rights that other prisoners of war have had."

Heinz Kerry, the heir to the Heinz family's food fortune, said denying the detainees the protections of the Geneva Convention is "insulting, ignorant and insensitive" to the rest of the world.

She added that under President Bush, the United States, once known as the standard-bearer for human rights, is now considered a hypocrite. "The arrogance shown by this administration on human rights and in its foreign policy is horrible," she said.

So, does husband John agree? The article says yes, but if you read his position, the answer is no.

A spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign said Sen. Kerry supports his wife's position that the detainees should be given basic protections such as the right to an attorney. "As long as al-Qaida is actively trying to take down America, Sen. Kerry believes that these prisoners should be held as enemy combatants," spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said.

Unless Cutter got her candidate's position wrong, she's saying Kerry agrees with Bush, rather than his wife. Bush has emphatically and continuously insisted that enemy combatants are not prisoners of war and do not receive the protections of the Geneva Convention or our Constitution.

Maybe Theresa should be the candidate from the Kerry family.

The U.S. released 20 detainees from Guantanamo today. And 20 more came in to take their place. Here is the Pentagon's statement on the transfer.

There are still 660 prisoners at Guantanamo. 88 have been released to date. 84 went back to their home countries. 4 went to Saudi Arabia prisons for continued incarceration. Ouch.

Five of the men released this weekend went back to Pakistan, where they will be freed. The U.S. says it is negotiating with other countries to have some prisoners sent back "for a lengthy process of investigation, detention and prosecution." Six are scheduled for military tribunals, which are on hold while conditions for the trials are negotiated between the U.S. and Great Britain.

Since the Guantanamo prison opened in January, 2002, prisoners from 42 countries have been taken there for interrogation and detention. U.S. officials said their priority was to get intelligence to help avoid future terrorist attacks and keep dangerous people out of circulation.

Jeffrey Leon Battle and Patrice Lumumba Ford, two of the seven defendants in the Portland, Oregon terror case, were sentenced today to 18 years in prison.

Ford denounced Bush and his Afghan policiy of "cruise missile diplomacy"at the hearing. Both men stated they intended to protect fellow Muslims. Battle sang a ten minute song he had written in prison, that ended with "Free, free, free, for all humanity, release me."

The Judge was not impressed. He told one of the defendants:

"You do not represent the Muslim faith. Muslims do not engage in the activities you engaged in. You are an insult to that faith."

This is one case we would have liked to have seen litigated. The ACLU and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) teamed up to file an Amicus brief in the case challenging the Government's use of the secret FISA court to get wiretaps under the Patriot Act.

the ACLU, joined by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, says the Justice Department's use of a secret court to get authority for electronic eavesdropping violates constitutional protections of privacy and free speech and against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Defense lawyers in the Portland case have challenged the government's use of secret court-approved wiretaps, the collection of e-mail messages and the planting of microphones in the home of one of the suspects. They claim the covert surveillance approved by a special court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, should not have been granted in the case because the defendants are not agents of foreign powers, spies or terrorists, as defined in the act.

We think the sentences are too harsh for these defendants, who tried, but failed, to make it to Afganistan. They were turned back from Pakistan and Afghanistan after reaching China. We also think the LA Times was on target when it reported, "... the group "is more suggestive of bumbling, would-be holy warriors than of soldiers training for deadly missions."

The guilty pleas for Ford and Battle avoided the possibility of life sentences, had they been convicted at trial.

A detailed Portland Oregonian article describing the case, legal challenges and positions of the defense is here. Our coverage of the case is available here.

Actor Richard Gere had some suprise questioning in store for Wesley Clark last week at a fundraiser. We're glad Gere raised the issue, and we agree with him. But, in fairness to Clark, we also point out that Dean, Kerry, Edwards and the rest of the gang, with the exception of Kucinich, Mosely Braun and Sharpton, feel the same way.

Richard Gere ambushed Wesley Clark Thursday night at a presidential campaign fund-raiser. The activist actor asked the retired Army general to state his stance on the death penalty during a Q&A at Diane von Furstenberg's West Village atelier.

"I don't believe in the death penalty, per se, but I do believe we should reserve the right to use it in extreme cases, like that of Osama Bin Laden," the Democratic hopeful responded.

Gere, a devout Tibetan Buddhist, countered, "How can you not believe in the death penalty, but reserve that right for certain cases?"

An uncomfortable silence settled on the big-ticket crowd, which included Alexander von Furstenberg, writer Brad Gooch, producer Sandy Gallin, Hamilton South and Anne Dexter Jones. But Clark soldiered on, again trying to explain his belief that the death penalty should be considered in the face of the most heinous crimes.

"I believe only God has the right to take life," declared the star of "An Officer and a Gentleman." "We as people don't have that right." Clark looked as if he was about to order the actor to drop and give him 20, and wrapped it up. "We could have a philosophical discussion about this for hours," he said, "but I don't think this is the right venue."

The crowd retreated in formation to the bar, where laughter and applause, particularly that of the hostess, dominated the rest of the event. "She finds Wesley Clark very capable," says Jennifer Talbott, Diane Von Furstenberg's rep. "[Von Furstenberg] just became a citizen about two years ago, so it means a lot to her to do what she can."

Update: Wesley Clark hired a new campaign manager today--Paul Johnson--whose last position was manager of Florida Senator Bob Graham's campaign. The position has been vacant since last month when Donnie Fowler left. An interesting aside, one of Graham's daughters works for Dean, another for Clark.

After five and one half hours of deliberation, the jury in the "sniper" trial of John Muhammad returned a death verdict today.

Juror Dennis Bowman said he voted for life imprisonment on Friday but changed his mind Sunday night. "The man to me doesn't care about anything but himself and his," Bowman said. "The total lack of remorse seemed to cap it all for us."

The jury's choices were life without parole or death. As aggravators, the jury found the crime was particularly heinous and Muhammad represents a future danger to the public.

Jurors had two choices after finding him guilty of Meyers’ murder: life in prison without parole, or death.

...In Virginia, defendants spend an average of five years on death row before they are executed. Virginia appeals courts rarely overturn convictions and death-penalty sentences.

Our thoughts are with defense counsel Jonathan Shapiro and Peter Greenspun, both of whom conducted an excellent defense despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence against their client, a presumption of guilt in the minds of the public and their client's non-cooperation prior to trial. While criminal defense has greatly rewarding moments, the toughest is standing next to a client whose life has been in your hands and hearing the jury pronounce a sentence to death.

As to grounds for reversal, Elaine Cassel lays them out well here. Our views are here.

Billing itself as the Question Dean Blog, a new weblog attacks Howard Dean. It's written by a Vermonter under a pseudonym. We will support Dean if he's the candidate, and don't want to engage in Dean-bashing. We may endorse him before then --we just haven't made up our minds, and we like Clark and Edwards too. But we have, from time to time, pointed out his weaknesses on criminal justice issues and civil liberties. This article, from Vermont's Rutland Herald a few days after the 9/11 attacks, does cause us concern. We think the solution is for the Dean team to address and explain such prior remarks. If he doesn't think now that which he did but shouldn't have thought then, let's hear about it.

Dean's comments on civil liberties cause alarm
September 14, 2001

Gov. Howard Dean's call for a “re-evaluation” of some of America's civil liberties following this week's terrorist attacks was criticised Thursday by a Vermont Law School professor. “Good God,” Vermont Law School Professor Michael Mello said when read the remarks Dean made at a Wednesday news conference. “It's terribly irresponsible for the leader of our state to be saying stuff like that right now.”

....Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.”

Now, had we stopped reading there, we would be left with the impression that Dean was calling for a reduction of our civil liberties. But, reading the whole article, he didn't say that--he said he hadn't made up his mind and he expected there would be a debate on these issues.

Dean said he had not taken a position on these questions. Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — would have to be trimmed, the governor said: “I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely, but I frankly haven't gotten that far. Again, I think that's a debate that we will have.”

So, the Question Dean blog is valuable for pointing us to source articles, but not so valuable at telling us what they reflect about Dean. Again, we think it should be Dean's people that point this stuff out first and diffuse it.

On the other hand, we doubt Wesley Clark would have been indecisive on the issue--even right after 9/11.

[comments now closed]

Fox News reports on Michael Jackson's defense plan--it's an attack on the 12 year old's mother. We don't know why most of the U.S. press is now shielding the name of the 12 year old (or his mother, Janet Ventura-Arvizo) when the names have been reported in over 75 newspaper articles since February, 2003 when the Martin Bashir documentary was aired on television, according to Lexis.com .

Anyway, new details on the mom:

...sources said there are written statements .... which were signed late February by the boy and his mother in front of Jackson's attorney Mark Geragos. Also, Fox News has learned the Jackson team has been flooded in recent days with calls from witnesses who were at Neverland Ranch when the boy was there. These witnesses say the boy always acted happy and did not seem troubled.

There are also some employees of Jackson who will say they saw the mother of the boy often arguing with him -- sometimes, they say, high on crack -- and that she made demands.

The New York Post has these details about the child's life of turmoil with his parents.

Why would the boy's mother be signing a statement in front of Jackson's lawyer? Maybe because Jackson and the boy's mother had filed official complaints with the Broadcasting Standards Commission in the U.K. in addition to Jackson's suit for an injunction to stop Granada, the UK company that made the documentary, from releasing any more tapes.

If there is one civil liberties expert you should be reading regularly, it's Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, who writes a column for the Nation.

In the Dec. 1 issue, check out Syria, U.S. Torture Center, where Cole examines the Maher Arar case.

In the Dec. 8 issue, read Korematsu II, in which Cole explains why the Supreme Court's decision to hear cases involving the Guantanamo detainees may not be the blessing we're expecting.

Then there's Cole's book, Enemy Aliens.

David Cole is the country's great voice for civil liberties today. In this important book he shows how 9/11 has been used to undermine the legal rights of immigrants—and that after them, it will be easy to target American citizens

Update: We didn't realize when we posted this that the Nation articles were by subscription. Here are some a small portion of the articles, we recommend you buy the magazine or pay $.75 a week for the full online version. We are only going to leave the quoted portion up for a day or two as we don't want the Nation to get mad at us. If they ask us to remove the content sooner, we will.

If you have to go to jail, and you're not severely overweight, stay away from Alabama. It feeds it prisoners on $1.08 a day--usually by providing dehydrated meals to which the prison justs adds water, then brings to a boil.

The multicolored dish is the centerpiece of Tuesday lunch at Kilby Prison, and one of the many mysterious items that Food Service Director M.A. Warren serves to cut costs.

$1.08 covers three meals a day with two on Sundays and holidays. If you have the stomach for it, read the whole article. [Thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing for sending us the link.]