The New York Times reports that Saddam Hussein tried to make a last minute deal to avoid war.

As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal.

Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct an independent search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections.

The messages from Baghdad, first relayed in February to an analyst in the office of Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy and planning, were part of an attempt by Iraqi intelligence officers to open last-ditch negotiations with the Bush administration through a clandestine communications channel, according to people involved.

Interviews and documents show that Saddam approved of the efforts. Before rebuffing the overtures, Pentagon Advisor Richard N. Perle met in London with the Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage.

Mr. Perle said he sought authorization from C.I.A. officials to meet with the Iraqis, but the officials told him they did not want to pursue this channel, and they indicated they had already engaged in separate contacts with Baghdad. Mr. Perle said the response was simple: "The message was, `Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad.' "

There's lots more to the story, go read the whole thing.

Dwight Meredith, writing for Wampum Blog hits the proverbial nail on the head in deciphering the "joint statement" released by Atrios and Donald Luskin settling their (happily) short-lived feud:

Luskin: Man, did I ever screw the pooch? Having a lawyer write the letter threatening suit against Atrios was a stupid mistake. Not only would any such lawsuit be frivolous, but the truck-load of scorn heaped upon me by the blogosphere has decimated whatever small shreds of credibility I may have previously possessed. Therefore, I have decided to fold my cards and cut my losses.

Atrios: Okay.

Go over and read how Dwight arrived at this analysis.

The Patriot Act is being used in a public corruption trial in Las Vegas. It's a case that has nothing to do with terrorism. he charges involve strip club owner Michael Galardi and politicians.

Federal authorities confirmed Monday the FBI used the Patriot Act to get financial information in its probe of Galardi and his dealings with current and former politicians in Southern Nevada. "It was used appropriately by the FBI and was clearly within the legal parameters of the statute," said Special Agent Jim Stern of the Las Vegas field office of the FBI.

Like we've said before, Congress got hood-winked into passing the Patriot Act. It was always the Justice Department's intention to use the powers authorized by the Act in non-terror related criminal cases and Congress, in its post-9/11 fervor, just looked the other way.

Balloon Juice is covering the story as well.

Every Saturday night in November and December, there will be a peace march in St. Petersberg, Florida. 6:30 to 8:30. Meet at 2nd Ave. N. and Bayshore Dr. N. between Baywalk and the pier. The message: Get out of Iraq. Get out of Afganistan. And more:

GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ!!!! NO MORE DEAD AND WOUNDED SOLDIERS! Enough is enough. Iraqi resistance is growing. Things are getting very ugly. The longer we stay, the more terrorists will be created. The invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and so is the occupation. Sure, leaving Iraq will create problems, but staying will create even more. Bring in the U.N. and have elections in Iraq. If we believe in democracy, let's do what the majority of Iraqis want -- get out of their country!

Details at St Pete for Peace.

The AP reports:

Legal experts say the plea bargain with the Green River Killer raises a thorny question: If the state of Washington is not going to execute someone who has confessed to murdering 48 people, how can it ever again put anyone to death?

It is a question of simple fairness: Under state law, the Washington state Supreme Court is required to review every death sentence handed out, and must consider whether the sentence "is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant."

Some lawyers say a death sentence for someone who killed one or two people could well be considered "disproportionate" when compared to what Gary Leon Ridgway got.

Let's hope so. Our friend Rev. Mr. George W. Brooks, J.D., Director of Advocacy of the Kolbe House, in Chicago writes:

The DP is reserved for the "worst of the worst", the most egregious killers. Obviously killing 48 is not the "worst of the worst". Maybe abolitionists can compromise and have the death penalty apply to those who kill 50 or more. It could be called the "Half-Bucking Death Penalty Reform Act"

Update: George adds the thoughts of a friend of his, "What if this was the murder of 48 police officers? What if it was 48 middle class men ( white of course) ?

People For the American Way gets it right in its description of the GOP's scheduling a second cloture vote on Alabama Attorney General William Pryor who was filibustered and prevented from obtaining a seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals:

"With apologies to The Who, all I can say is ‘meet the new vote – same as the old vote.’ William Pryor’s record hasn’t changed. This is a cynical exercise in politics. The Republicans don’t want a judge – they want a campaign issue to appeal to their hard-core conservative base."

On a related topic, here's new information on California Justice Janice Rogers Brown, detailing why her nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals should be defeated.

Here are the phone numbers for the Senate Judiciary Committee members if you'd like to call and voice your opinion.

Bump and Update: Colin Powell has agreed to turn over any Canadian informant who claimed a link between Arar and al-Qaeda--"if he can find it." Sounds like doublespeak to us intended to buy time and cover for the likelihood there was no such Canadian informant:

"This morning, a few minutes ago, secretary Powell said he will try to find out if there is in reality one Canadian involved in that (incident) and the name will be given to Canada if there is one, and we will act accordingly," Chretien told the House of Commons.

We still can't get over how the U.S. media ignored Mr. Arar's story while the Canadian press and weblogs stayed on top of it. Shame on them. We think this will turn out to be the post-9/11 outrage of the Bush Administration. Rightfully so.

Update: Here is his lawyer's description of his case.

Damn Foreigner has more.

*******************
Original Post:

While the Canadian press has been diligent in following the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian deported to Syria by the U.S. where he was imprisoned a year and tortured, the U.S. press has been noticeably silent. Today the Washington Post finally covers the story.

Maher Arar, 33, who was released last month, said at a news conference in Ottawa that he pleaded with U.S. authorities to let him continue on to Canada, where he has lived for 15 years and has a family. But instead, he was flown under U.S. guard to Jordan and handed over to Syria, where he was born. Arar denied any connection to terrorism and said he would fight to clear his name.

U.S. officials said Tuesday that Arar was deported because he had been put on a terrorist watch list after information from "multiple international intelligence agencies" linked him to terrorist groups. Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Arar case fits the profile of a covert CIA "extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of turning over low-level, suspected terrorists to foreign intelligence services, some of which are known to torture prisoners.

Arar recites what happened to him and it is appalling:

The debate continues to rage on the issue of charging juveniles as adults. We oppose it. We oppose any kind of one-size-fits-all justice. Here's the latest from the Baltimore Sun on the matter.

Rikki Klieman, former prosecutor, defense attorney, Court TV Anchor, and now NBC Legal Analsyst, wrote in her recently published memoir, Fairy Tales Can Come True, about her unsuccessful attempt as a prosecutor to have a juvenile charged with manslaughter convicted as an adult:

[Background: Rikki insisted the juvenile be tried as an adult. He was convicted on a lesser assault and battery charge, but the Judge exercised his discretion and sentenced him as a juvenile. She was furious. Years later, she ran into the young man who had become a kind and productive member of society. He even thanked Rikki for sending him to jail.]

How wise was Judge Young. How biased was I. The hubris of a young prosecutor, to think that I knew so much, that I had such power and zeal to put a young man in prison forever without any effort at rehabilitation. If we cannot rehabilitate our young people, who can we ever rehabilitate? Placing prosecutorial power in the hands of people perhaps too young or too lacking in life experience is sometimes not wise. Judge Young, being far older and more seasoned—and more learned—than I, understood that we could not give up on these children, we needed to give them another chance….As a prosecutor, I could only see the crime. Although I knew all about the defendant’s lives, I could not see their humanity.

Bruce Laingen, the highest-ranking U.S. official held hostage in Iran, writes of The Agony and the Empathy for Imprisoned:

Official U.S. government policy on the Guantanamo detainees insists that circumstances surrounding their capture justify the manner of their detention. But even granted the limits that the war on terror imposes on judicial proceedings, what appears to be happening in the camp, and, yes, what is not happening, is wrong. The effect on our image abroad is increasingly adverse. And it is unworthy of American traditions and precepts of justice.

The death penalty cannot be made foolproof. Mass. Governor Romney's attempts to institute the death penalty in his state are misguided and wrong. Here's the latest from the Christian Science Monitor. Go over and take the poll --vote that the death penalty must be foolproof. A civilized society cannot tolerate the execution of a single innocent person.

Massachussetts is not free of wrongful convictions. This week prosecutors asked a Judge to overturn a first degree murder conviction and a life sentence after fourteen years--citing,

...newly discovered evidence, the failure of prosecutors to disclose some exculpatory evidence, and possible official wrongdoing during the original investigation and prosecution.

Foolproof? Not possible. Human error and human misconduct are always possible. DNA may help free the innocent and convict the guilty, but there are far too many more variables at work to be able to make any death penalty system foolproof.

The candidates were asked at last night's debate whether they had smoked marijuana. The Answers:

Dean, John Edwards and Senator John Kerry all said they've used marijuana in the past.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, retired General Wesley Clark, Al Sharpton and Senator Joe Lieberman said they've haven't.

Former Senator Carol Moseley Braun refused to answer.

Wal-Mart has acknowledged receiving a target letter from the Government advising that a federal grand jury will be investigating accusations that it violated immigration laws. The New York Times reports:

...two federal law enforcement officials said in interviews that Wal-Mart executives must have known about the immigration violations because federal agents rounded up 102 illegal immigrant janitors at Wal-Marts in 1998 and 2001. In the October raid, federal agents searched the office of an executive at Wal-Mart's headquarters, carting away boxes of papers. Federal officials said prosecutors had wiretaps and recordings of conversations between Wal-Mart officials and subcontractors.

The use of illegal workers appeared to benefit Wal-Mart, its shareholders and managers by minimizing the company's costs, and it benefited consumers by helping hold down Wal-Mart's prices. Cleaning contractors profited, and thousands of foreign workers were able to earn more than they could back home.

But the system also had its costs — janitors said they were forced to work seven days a week, were not paid overtime and often endured harsh conditions. Foreigners got jobs that Americans might have wanted. And taxpayers sometimes ended up paying for the illegal workers' emergency health care or their children's education in American schools.

On the human side, the article has the story of Pavel, one of the undocumented workers: