Congrats to Atrios and Daily Kos who have had 1 million unique visitors for the month of September--records for both sites. We always begin our blog day by reading both of them--it's no surprise that the rest of the politically-oriented news world does too.

This is an outrage.

CANTON, Ohio (AP) - A man who sold a bag of baking soda as crack cocaine to an undercover police officer in a drug sting has been sentenced to 11 years in prison. Kenyan L. Chandler, 22, of Massillon, was sentenced Tuesday in Stark County Common Pleas Court.

Police said Chandler negotiated a deal with the officer in July that he would deliver 4.5 ounces of crack for $8,000. Chandler produced a small bag and was arrested. Later, tests showed it was baking soda. A jury convicted him last week of cocaine trafficking, which Ohio law defines as selling or offering to sell the drug. It makes no difference that Chandler was peddling a fake, Stark County assistant prosecutor Joe Vance said.

The amount was found to be more than 100 grams, qualifying Chandler as a major drug offender. That brings a mandatory 10-year sentence, and a judge may add up to 10 more years.

Here's the kicker: Chandler could have been charged with selling fake drugs, known as counterfeit controlled substances. The maximum prison term for that offense is one year.

This is a state case. But under Ashcroft's new memos, it could happen easily in the federal system. The case is a great example of why it is such a horrible idea to grant more powers to prosecutors and direct them to file the most serious charges possible, while reducing the role of the judiciary to depart from mandatory minimums and guideline sentences in situations judges believe a departure is called for.

Hesiod at Counterspin has the latest on the varying reports as to whether Valerie Plame was a CIA analyst or undercover operative and who knew what when. He's got really good links up to sites with additional info on the topic. And he says the evidence is mounting.

Back in March we made reference to the arrest of anti-police brutality activist Laro Nicol on explosives charges in Tempe, AZ. We just received this update:

[Laro Nicol] is an activist being targeted by the BATF. He spoke at the College of Law yesterday and is a very committed and passionate person. He claims that he is the victim of a paid informant who told the BATF that Laro was a drug addict. Then the BATF raided his home and declared that the guns he possessed were illegal firearms and arrested him as a "prohibited possessor" due to his alleged "drug addiction".

Laro is extremely clean cut and eloquent. His job at the time was as an Air Traffic Controller, meaning that he was subjected to random drug testing for the previous 8 years (and he never had any problems passing). He is going to arraignment today for additional charges. The BATF is claiming that one of his guns is an 'automatic weapon'. Laro says that
this is not true.

We believe that Laro is being targeted due to several reasons:

A big thanks to Avedon Carol over at Sideshow who picks up on our posts on Florida's deadlines for DNA testing and adds her own insightful analysis:

The very idea that there are conditions in which we can deliberately and knowingly take the life of someone who may be innocent shouldn't even be a consideration, yet we actually have laws that are clearly designed to prevent freeing the innocent. Legislators and prosecutors can rationalize all they want to, but they cannot justify the taking of innocent life; it's murder, plain and simple. And if it's okay for them to do it, why bother to prosecute murderers in the first place? It's precisely to prevent the killing of the innocent that murder laws exist; if they can do it, why can't we?

Avedon has more, we hope you will read the whole thing. There should be no deadline on justice.

We are delighted to report that Lisa English of Ruminate This is back today after a short hiatus. She has an excellent post up about whether Bob Novak has anything to fear from John Ashcroft. As always, Lisa provides a unique perspective. We agree with her, go read.

Two books have been published about Karl Rove: Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential by James Moore and Wayne Slater and Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W. Bush by Lou Dubose, Jan Reid and Carl M. Cannon.

Here is an in-depth look at what the books have to say about Bush's "Hatchet Man."

Yes, Ashcroft is using the Patriot Act to subpoena reporters' records. Elaine Cassel over at Civil Liberties Watch reports:

The FBI has sent out letters to reporters who wrote about the [Adrian] Lamo case. The letters warn that subpoenas under the USA Patriot Act will be forthcoming for all of their notes, emails, interviews, content of conversations and investigations, and expense and travel reports related to stories they wrote about Lamo. The journalists are ordered to preserve these records for three months, this in spite of the fact that the articles were written a year ago.

Using the Patriot Act for forthcoming subpoenas is an effort to circumvent journalists’ privilege of preserving confidential sources under the First Amendment. Furthermore, reporters who talk to anyone—including their editors or lawyers (!) about the subpoenas will be subject to criminal prosecution under the Act. The gag order that violates the 1st Amendment right of speech, the 5th Amendment right to due process, and 6th Amendment right to counsel.

For more on Adrian Lamo, known as the 'homeless hacker" go here. For more on subpoenas to reporters, go here.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have agreed upon a compromise version of the Innocence Protection Act. It will be introduced today, along with a "Debbie Smith Act", in a bill called the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act. While $1 billion has been earmarked for the bill, it's important to note that $745 million goes to the Debbie Smith Act for DNA testing of old rape kits. There's a big backlog of those and Bush wants to get them entered into the Central DNA database. The remaining $245 million will be split among other things like free DNA testing to inmates with innocence claims, provided they meet certain criteria, grants to states to use for training lawyers in capital cases, increasing compensation limits for federal death row inmates who have been wrongfully imprisoned, and perhaps some others. A portion of the $245 will also go to states to help them pay for the added DNA testing.

The bills introduced in 2000 and 2001 had stronger protections for the innocent and for those facing capital trials. If you would like to compare them, here is S. 2073, the Innocence Protection Act introduced in Feb. 2000, and here is S. 486, the 2001 version of the Bill.

The final bill will be out sometime Wednesday, and we'll link to it when we come across it.

The current bill will lack some of the important features of its predecessors, but it is still a bill worth pushing for. While not a solution, it's a welcome step in the right direction.

Also, credit where credit is due: Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) and Sen. Patrick Lehay (D-VT) worked tirelessly to get this legislation passed for five years. With over 265 sponsors in the last Congress, some Republicans wouldn't budge and stymied the whole deal. After lengthy negotiations with Sensenbrenner and Hatch, some of the more vocal opponents of the bill, a deal was hammered out. It's as good as it's gonna get right now, and its worthy of support. It's also just a beginning. We have nothing but praise for those who worked so hard on behalf of the innocent imprisoned to get this through.

Have you been thinking of opening a new bank account? You may wish you had done it yesterday. The Patriot Act kicks in at banks today and banks will be requesting a lot more information from customers opening new accounts. Details are available here.

For existing account holders, banks will be on the lookout for suspicious transactions. Should they find and report one, they are not allowed to tell you. You might just find your account frozen with no explanation.

Krista Shonk, regulatory specialist with America's Community Bankers, says ....banks will continue to check all customers against a list of known terrorists and money launderers that's issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, but she adds that there is some concern about a list generated by law enforcement agencies of people who are merely suspects.

While the new rules will be expensive for the banks, particularly small ones, they are not cost-free to you, the customer. For example, the cost of opening a new checking account is expected to jump from $7.75 to an estimated $22.

They're calling Wesley Clark the flavor of the month out in Hollywood:

"There's a lot of buzz about General Clark now," Mr. Spahn said. "He combines in one package the attributes of several other candidates. He's got the Southern base of John Edwards, the outsider status of Howard Dean and a military record that trumps John Kerry."

But, it may not last:

He said, "We're sort of at the pre-honeymoon" stage in terms of Hollywood's falling in love with General Clark, adding: "He's an interesting guy. He's on everyone's radar now. He's the candidate most appealing — at the moment."

In other presidential candidate news, Dick Gephardt will not get labor's early endorsement. The AFL-CIO has decided to delay endorsing a candidate:

...a group of pragmatic union presidents, noting that Mr. Gephardt was not doing well in the polls or in fund-raising, warned that if the federation endorsed him and he flopped in primaries and caucuses, then labor would look weak and out of touch.

Other news: John Edwards has taken the lead in South Carolina. And Gary Hart has endorsed John Kerry.

We can't commend Arianna Huffington for quitting the California race:

"I am dropping out of the race so I can campaign full time between now and Oct. 7 against the recall and against Arnold Schwarzenegger," she said in a telephone interview this afternoon. She publicly announced her decision in an appearance on the "Larry King Live" show on CNN Tuesday night.

What about the absentee voters who already cast their vote for her? They are now voiceless if the recall succeeds. They wasted their vote.

When we were at a seminar in California a few weeks ago, we were suprised to learn that quite a few of the defenders there had cast absentee votes for Arianna as a replacement candidate after voting "no" on recall.

If the recall succeeds, their vote may as well have been for Arnold. Arianna knew she couldn't win when she began her campaign. If she was going to drop out, she should have done it before the absentee voters were allowed to cast their vote.

She gets no credit in our book. In fact, she gets a failing grade.