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.

We knew there was justice somewhere in Florida....

The Florida Supreme Court set aside a Wednesday deadline for inmates to request DNA testing of evidence that could prove their innocence. By a 4-3 vote today, the justices said they were putting aside the deadline so they can take more time to consider the inmates' appeal challenging the deadline's constitutionality. They said they will hear oral arguments Nov. 7.

Here's background, along with a TalkLeft mini-editorial on the issue.

The AP reports on who is conducting the CIA-Plame investigation:

For now, the investigation is being done by FBI agents in the counterintelligence division, based at the FBI Washington field office, and overseen by 11 career prosecutors in the counterespionage section of the Justice Department's criminal division.

The article says Ashcroft could decide to go with a special prosecutor:

While the administration appeared cool toward naming a special counsel, Ashcroft has not ruled out that possibility, a senior law enforcement official said.
That decision will depend on a number of factors, such as whether a suspect is identified who presents a potential conflict for the Justice Department

News execs and reporters have concerns about subpoenas:

News executives expressed concern that the investigation could lead to subpoenas of reporters' notes and phone records — and the journalists themselves. "The question really comes down to whether there are other ways to do this that do less damage to the idea of the First Amendment, said Bill Felber, editor of The Manhattan (Kan.) Mercury, who handles freedom of information issues for the Associated Press Managing Editors. "This ought to be last resort, not a first resort."

There seems to be some interest focusing on whether Robert Nowak can be made to divulge the source of the leak about the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. First Amendment expert and law professor Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy tentatively weighs in. Here's the applicable provision of the Code of Federal Regulations:

28 CFR 50.10

§ 50.10 Policy with regard to the issuance of subpoenas to members of the news media, subpoenas for telephone toll records of members of the news media, and the interrogation, indictment, or arrest of, members of the news media.

Because freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news, the prosecutorial power of the government should not be used in such a way that it impairs a reporter's responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues. This policy statement is thus intended to provide protection for the news media from forms of compulsory process, whether civil or criminal, which might impair the news gathering function. In balancing the concern that the Department of Justice has for the work of the news media and the Department's obligation to the fair administration of justice, the following guidelines shall be adhered to by all members of the Department in all cases:

(a) In determining whether to request issuance of a subpoena to a member of the news media, or for telephone toll records of any member of the news media, the approach in every case must be to strike the proper balance between the public's interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information and the public's interest in effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice.

(b) All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain information from alternative sources before considering issuing a subpoena to a member of the news media, and similarly all reasonable alternative investigative steps should be taken before considering issuing a subpoena for telephone toll records of any member of the news media.

Update: Arianna drops out. She vehemently opposes the recall but does not endorse anyone as a replacement. She just wants to see Arnold defeated. Californians, please, vote no on recall.

Bump and Update: Arianna will announce her decision tonight on Larry King Live.

Arianna Huffington is scheduled to decide today whether to quit the recall race and announce her opposition to the recall and support for Bustamante. We think it's a noble move, but probably too little, too late.