The U.S. has announced the formation of Operation Gray Lord, a joint task force of the DEA and FDA which will pursue those involved with the buying and selling of illicit drugs on the internet:

The Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration, have formed a special task force to crack down on the growing tide of illicit sales of narcotics on the Internet.

And for the first time, regulators are hinting that those who order the drugs may face prosecution. "It's illegal to import narcotics," Mark B. McClellan, the F.D.A. commissioner, said in an interview. "We do have steps in place to intercept such products and to take further legal action."

The task force, called Operation Gray Lord, will include officials from the Justice Department, some local law enforcement agencies and perhaps even top law enforcement officers from Canada because much of the trade originates there. Task force members intend to pursue the purveyors of prescription narcotics aggressively...

Elizabeth Willis, chief of the drug operation section of the D.E.A.'s office of diversion control, says:

If a prescription is written by a doctor based solely on information from an online questionnaire, it's not valid, so the distribution is illegal."

We don't like the idea of going after drug purchasers -- the ultimate users. Here's where the "Rush Limbaugh defense" may kick in, if he ends up not being charged. Why should he get to go into treatment and avoid prosecution for illegally purchasing prescription drugs if others don't get that opportunity? Our recommended solution is not to prosecute Rush, but to afford all purchasers caught through Operation Gray Lord the option of a diversion program to avoid a criminal prosecution and conviction.

Some people just can't count. Today's big Kobe Bryant news claims the accuser in the case wasn't harmed by allegations that she had had sex with boyfriend a few days before her encounter with Kobe. The articles quotes a former prosecutor (and oddly, only a former prosecutor, who is also a victim's rights advocate, not quite fair and balanced) who says the evidence shows only that the accuser had sex with her boyfriend and with Kobe.

Here's the evidence that was presented at the hearing, all from the prosecution witness and his reports:

• The accuser told the officer she had consensual sex a June 27 or June 28, two to three days before her encounter with Kobe on June 30. Her partner was wearing a condom.

• June 30: Sex with Kobe. The officer says the accuser provided him with the underwear she wore durign the encounter when he went to her home to interview her on the afternoon of July 1.

• July 1: Later on July 1, the accuser goes to Valley View Hospital for her rape exam wearing yellow knit underwear that is not the same underwear she wore during the encounter with Kobe, which she had already provided to the police. The yellow underwear contains blood and semen. The semen is tested for DNA and it is not Kobe's semen. A caucasian pubic hair is also found in her underwear.

If the partner in encounter number 1 was wearing a condom, the logical inference is there would be no semen in her underwear afterwards--particularly three days afterwards. Thus, three men in three days.

The number of men is not important except to show repetitive sex within a short period of time. The defense is arguing there was no sexual assault by anyone. The injuries were not the result of the application of physical force by Kobe or anyone else. They will likely present expert testimony at trial to show that repetitive consensual sex within a three day period can cause bruising and slight bleeding and the kind of pin-point lacerations on the posterior fourchette as experienced by the accuser.

Don't miss GW Law Professor Jonathan Turley's op-ed in the LA Times, "Students, Nuns and Sailor-Mongers, Beware: Ashcroft is pulling out all the stops to prosecute protesters."

Turley takes Ashcroft on for the Miami prosecution of Greenpeace under an obscure law (last week we wrote about the details of the case ). Turley opines:

The Greenpeace case is particularly chilling because of the extraordinary effort to find a law that could be used to pursue the organization. The 1872 law is a legal relic that must have required much archeological digging through law books to find.

The extraordinary effort made to find and use this obscure law strongly suggests a campaign of selective prosecution — the greatest scourge of the 1st Amendment. Greenpeace was engaged in a classic protest used by countless organizations, from those of the civil rights movement to anti-abortion groups. It is a way for citizens to express their opposition by literally standing in the path of the government.

...Unless deterred by Congress or the courts, Ashcroft will continue his campaign to protect Americans from the ravages of free speech. If he succeeds, it will not be sailors but free speech that will be shanghaied in Miami.

So this is how we treat our returning soldiers. The UPI reports on hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. troops held in squalor:

Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait -- sometimes for months -- to see doctors.

The National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers' living conditions are so substandard, and the medical care so poor, that many of them believe the Army is trying push them out with reduced benefits for their ailments. One document shown to UPI states that no more doctor appointments are available from Oct. 14 through Nov. 11 -- Veterans Day.

....One month after President Bush greeted soldiers at Fort Stewart -- home of the famed Third Infantry Division -- as heroes on their return from Iraq, approximately 600 sick or injured members of the Army Reserves and National Guard are warehoused in rows of spare, steamy and dark cement barracks in a sandy field, waiting for doctors to treat their wounds or illnesses.

The Reserve and National Guard soldiers are on what the Army calls "medical hold," while the Army decides how sick or disabled they are and what benefits -- if any -- they should get as a result.

Disgusting.

From Ziska, who has been following the Portland case since the beginning. He hasn't been blogging much lately, but his old posts on the case are here. Today he e-mails:

There are some interesting aspects to the case. Everyone pled guilty to plea bargains. The ringleaders got 18 years, which is very high for what they actually did (try to go to Afghanistan) but low for what they're supposedly guilty of (being an al-Qaeda sleeper cell).

According to one story, the fact that the the "ringleaders" did not have to agree to cooperate in order to get a plea bargain was a victory for the defense, since no broader conspiracy was proved or even seriously alleged. Apparently also the plea bargain was motivated by the prosecution's unwillingness to deal with a FISA challenge: "The sources said the driving force behind the government's offer was to avoid possibly losing an argument on the merits of FISA as amended by the Patriot Act".

At the same time, it seems likely that the guilty pleas were motivated in part by the extraordinary powers granted the prosecution by the Patriot Act. None of the evidence against the defendant publicly available so far seems terribly compelling, though there may have been more that has not been released.

Kent Ford, the "ringleader" is a well-educated and talented individual whose parents are well thought of in the Portland political community.

ASHCROFT: "Sometimes the enemies are here at home," said Ashcroft, who also used the case to defend the USA Patriot Act. "We cannot overlook the threat posed by United States citizens."

Rep. John Conyers is great sometimes. Like today. Check out Buzzflash which reprints this letter Conyers wrote to Rumsfeld complaining about Lt. Gen. Wesley Boykin's inappropriate religious comments:

While every American has the freedom to speak his mind and express his opinion, it is essential that those who hold high profile, policymaking positions in our government exercise judgment in their public speaking. Lt. Gen. Boykin clearly lacks such judgment. I urge you to reassign or reprimand him; we cannot afford to have such an extremist speaking on behalf of our nation and our military.

Conyers provides more details about Boykin's past statements:

Lt. Gen. Boykin's remarks over the past few years, including remarks that Islamic extremists hate the United States because "we're a Christian nation," that "our spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus," that President Bush "is in the White House because God put him there," and that Boykin's "god was a real god and [the Muslim god] was an idol," are disgraceful and wholly inappropriate for a man in his position. These remarks are inflammatory to Muslims in our communities and abroad.

An editorial in today's New York Observer asks, Wesley Clark: Is He The Man to Beat Bush?. It's answer: Quite possibly.

As a chorus line of Democratic candidates jostle for the job of taking on Mr. Bush next fall, there may be one who seems to have what it takes to actually win and save the country from four more years of Mr. Bush’s stunning ineptitude. We’re talking, of course, about Wesley Clark....As a candidate, he’s about as good as they get.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, George Bush has been hiding behind a false cloud of bravado and patriotism. If Wesley Clark becomes the Democratic nominee, he stands a good chance of calling Mr. Bush’s bluff and returning the country to a saner, wiser place.

[Thanks to Media Horse for the link]

The Clark campaign has released more than 200 pages of documents highlighting his military career, available here.

It seems no one is happy with the independent report commissioned by the Justice Department on its hiring practices and diversity initiatives. The Justice Department has censored most of it by blacking out huge portions, including the principal findings and all recommendations.

Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, who was in charge of the diversity initiative, didn't like the report:

There were some things in there that as an African-American that I maybe didn't agree with," said Thompson, who recently left Justice for the Brookings Institution. "And there were other things that I didn't think we could do from a legal standpoint."

People for the American Way and other civil rights advocacy groups were less than thrilled as well. It seems the initiative was flawed from the get-go when Ashcroft and Thompson decided to add two categories to the study--economic and geographic background. Rather than promoting ethnic and minority diversity, those categories ended up "extending attorney outreach to many others, including white men."

The Illiniois Supreme Court reversed two murder convictions today, excoriating prosecutors for misconduct it says happens way too often:

In a sharp rebuke of prosecutorial misconduct, the Illinois Supreme Court on Friday ordered new trials for two men convicted in the 1995 slaying of a Chicago police officer. The high court threatened to overturn more cases to stem what it called the "alarming frequency" of misconduct by Illinois prosecutors.

"We mean it as no hollow warning when we say that prosecutors risk reversal of otherwise proper convictions when they engage in conduct of this kind," Justice Philip Rarick wrote in the court's opinion.

....Rarick wrote that prosecutorial misconduct cannot be allowed to continue unchecked because it threatens "the trustworthiness and reputation of the judicial process, and this court will take corrective action to preserve the integrity of the process."

There was no dissenting opinion.

Four U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq in the past day.

"The deaths bring to 101 the number of U.S. soldiers killed in combat since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1."

We've all heard about suicide attempts at Guantanamo. But now, we learn, the Army is Concerned About Suicides of U.S. Troops in Iraq:

At least 13 U.S. troops have committed suicide in Iraq, representing more than 10 percent of American noncombat deaths there, and the Army dispatched a suicide-prevention expert to assess the problem, officials said on Thursday.

At least 11 U.S. Army soldiers have committed suicide during Iraq operations, most with self-inflicted gunshot wounds, and two Marines have committed suicide using firearms, officials said.

Our view: What are we waitng for? Bring our troops home now.

Update: Check out Scrivner's Error who relates his first hand experience with the issue.

Update: Reuters is reporting our troops may stay in Iraq until 2006.

This strikes us as somewhat odd. The younger of the two sniper suspects, John Lee Malvo, has refused to testify at the trial of his alleged cohort, John Muhammed. So Malvo is being flown to Virginia Beach to be an "exhibit".

Malvo will not be called to testify but will be in the courtroom so that witnesses who say they saw the pair together at a shooting scene may identify them, sources said. Malvo's appearance would allow jurors in Muhammad's trial to see the teenager who authorities allege was under Muhammad's control during the 13 Washington area sniper shootings last year.

Malvo has said in court that he will not testify about anything incriminating, but prosecutors can use him as an "exhibit" against Muhammad by simply subpoenaing him to the courtroom. Prince William Commonwealth's Attorney Paul B. Ebert obtained the subpoena Wednesday, said Michael S. Arif, one of Malvo's attorneys.

In other "sniper" case news, the Judge in the Malvo case has prohibited the use of video testimony, which means defense witnesses from Jamaica and elsewhere will have to travel to Virginia to testify. Malvo's lawyers said this is a setback for the defense. One of the witnesses they wanted to call was Malvo's mother.

It's not just a question of money. On that, we say the state of Virginia better pony up the money to fly these witnesses in. The real problem is that some of the witnesses have been barred from entering the United States.

We also think this throw-away comment by the prosecutor was unnecessary:

"Some of our best witnesses are no longer with us. You don't hear us complain."

Jury selection for Muhammed should be completed tomorrow, with opening statements and testimony beginning Monday.