An ex-boot camp officer who abused a probationer by plunging his head into a toilet has been convicted of official oppression.

His punishment: two years' probation, a $1,000 fine and 10 weekends (160 hours) scrubbing toilets at the boot camp.

The prosecutor described the guard as "a sadist."

He said [the guard] Vera picked up a 5-foot, 100-pound probationer, "slammed him into a wall, kicked him, stuck his head in the toilet and flushed it."

The jury deadlocked 11 to 1 for conviction on charges he did the same thing to a second probationer. A third probationer has now come forward with the same accusation.

Just desserts.

Donald Rumsfeld today said that most of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba will be held until the global war on terror ends but they will not be afforded trials.

Rumsfeld said the 660 or so men held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base are imprisoned not as punishment but "to keep them from going back and fighting again and killing people." He said most would be held until the global war on terrorism is over - a fight that Rumsfeld has said could last years, if not decades.

The defense secretary said he expects some suspects to be tried before military tribunals but prefers that most continue to be imprisoned indefinitely.

"Our interest is in not trying them and letting them out," he said in a question-and-answer session after a speech to the National Press Club. "Our interest is in - during this global war on terror - keeping them off the streets, and so that's what's taking place."

So we're going to continue to pay to incarcerate hundreds of men for possibly decades? With no criminal charges, no access to a lawyer and no judicial hearings or trials? What country is this?

Sorry, can't resist.... The Clark Sphere

The criticism of Bush's new Patriot Act starts slow, a few paragraphs at the end of a news article otherwise devoted to his speech and his supporters. But it's there. And if you join in, and call your elected officials in Congress at their toll-free number, it will grow louder and louder until we can't be ignored.

From the Knights Ridder News Service....in major newspapers tonight around the country (14 so far):

Critics of the original Patriot Act wasted no time Wednesday in attacking the administration's call for extending its reach.

"Politically and legally, further erosions of judicial oversight and the basic checks and balances that protect us and our democracy from political abuses of power are the wrong path to take," said Charlie Mitchell, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Denver lawyer Jeralyn Merritt, the treasurer of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, called the proposed provisions dangerous.

"We are watering down judicial oversight to the point that it's meaningless and giving away much too much power to the executive branch," she said. "Once you give up power to the government, very rarely do you ever get it back."

Toll Free Switchboard: 1-800-839-5276 . Call now. Call often. Your voice counts.

Update: More than six bills have been introduced in Congress to repeal portions of Patriot Act I--Bush has threatened to veto them.

Here's the Transcript Arnold Schwarzenegger on 'The O'Reilly Factor' - who won?

Update: We just finished watching the 30 minute interview in its entirety. It wasn't a debate. It was a love-fest. O'Reilly was positively smitten. Still, Arnold did well. Excellent demeanor --he really seems to have the fire in his belly to help California--and he showed some knowledge.

While we strongly disagree with his opposition to drivers' licenses for undocumented residents, at least he ultimately balked at militarizing our borders (he first said it was ok, then backtracked and said he'd have to study the issue more-- but his face showed opposition to us) . And he said he will not attempt to interfere with a federal court order to provide services for the undocumented residents.

His passion is infectious. We like him.

But....vote "no" on recall, it's still the right decision.

Update: Arnold and Maria will be on Oprah Monday. Their first joint interview of the campaign. Celebrity sells, no question about it.

The new death penalty provisions Bush announced today as part of his new terrorism bill (consisting of three provisions of Patriot Act II) should scare everyone. There is no intent to kill requirement. Death by tragedy is sufficient.

Consider this--as the ACLU has done:

While the DOJ labels this provision as providing for the death penalty for terrorist “murders,” there is no language in the text that requires any showing by the government of an intent by the defendant to kill; it is sufficient that death results from the defendant’s actions.

Some of the ACLU's examples:

• Protesters at Vieques Island, the military bombing range, cut a fence to trespass and a bomb explodes killing one of the protesters. The surviving protesters could face the death penalty.

• Or if Greenpeace try to block an oil tanker from entering a port to protest the company's safety record and a crew member drowns while attempting to block the activists' boat, the activists could face the death penalty.

Dangerous protest activities should not be treated as terrorism. And death penalty eligible offenses should require an intent to kill.

Unbelievable. Bush and Ashcroft's lust for power knows no bounds. On the eve of the second anniversary of 9/11, Bush will make a speech at 3:15 ET today announcing a new terror bill--a remake of the bill known as Patriot Act II. Bush got busted earlier this year trying to sneak Patriot Act II to Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, and when it got leaked to the media, he took it off the drawing board. Many, including us, have been warning that the Administration was not going to give up, but rather, give the bill shiny new packaging and introduce it piecemeal, so as to prevent an uproar of criticism.

A few of the provisions have already been passed. Today, Bush will announce a few more, including expanded use of the death penalty, denial of bail to terror suspects, and allowing investigators bypass grand juries to issue subpoenas.

This stinks. Here are the details of the three major provisions:

* Allowing law enforcement authorities to bypass a judge or grand jury and issue "administrative subpoenas" in terrorism investigations where "time is of the essence." Such authority is available in other types of investigations such as drug probes, McClellan said.

* Denying bail for terrorism suspects, to prevent them from fleeing. Bush was to cite as an example of the need for such legislation a case where a material witness in a terrorism case fled after being released on bail, McClellan said.

* Imposing the federal death penalty for terror-related crimes, such as sabotage of a military or nuclear facility "in a way that takes innocent life."

Protest loud. Protest often. These are your rights and civil liberties at stake. Ashcroft and the Justice Department are misleading the public as to the effect of the Patriot Act on average Americans.

Read this new report from People for the American Way and learn what freedoms you have already lost from the Bush and Ashcroft assault on the Constitution.

The first response we've read comes from Senator Patrick Leahy's office:

A Senate Democratic aide said he was unfamiliar with details of the legislation Bush is proposing, but said the action appears to violate a pledge by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"The attorney general has repeatedly promised to consult with Congress in drafting any sequel to the Patriot Act. To this point, that has not happened," said David Carle, spokesman for Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

David Ignatius writes Gen. Clark's Critique - Via The Horse

What makes Clark such a good candidate:

It's the fact that, like Dwight Eisenhower talking about Korea in 1952, the retired general can argue that he's the man to get America honorably out of a war others created.

A final reason to pay attention to Clark's version of "I told you so" is that it's linked to a broader analysis. He will argue in a book to be published next month that the administration showed "a fundamental misunderstanding of modern war." By rushing into battle, it lost the biggest advantage of American power, which is "the incredible leverage to bring other allies on board to help us." Bush's mistake, he argues, was not in overestimating U.S. power but in underestimating it.

When will Clark decide? He'll have some catching up to do, no question, but we'd like to see him get in the race -- and the remaining debates. We think this is still anyone's ballgame.

We got home late, missed the news on the debate, and are now watching the rerun. Our thoughts:

Sharpton rocks, he has the best lines.

John Edwards was surprisingly good-- he's not giving our civil liberties over to Ashcroft--and he's got presence and dynamic delivery. Very telegenic. We think he's going to move up in the polls.

Kucinich made great points. He also makes the most sense. He'd repeal the Patriot Act.

Dean fell a little flat. Not enough personality or inflection when he talks.

Kerry is depressing.

Gephardt had some snap but we can't remember what he said. He needs a new line besides "miserable failure." That only works once.

Lieberman was like the elder statesman. He was also rude. He talked the longest after his time was over and he interrupted Dean and demanded an extra sentence.

Bob Graham was witty.

Carole Mosley Braun held her own.

So who won? No one yet (the second round just ended.) But we're glad we watched. It was good to watch nine politicians all bashing Bush and his policies.

Update: Graham just lost his witty description. He opposes same-sex marriage because marriage is for the purpose of nurturing children and that takes a man and a woman? Wow....

Edwards scores again with "College for Everyone." This man's going to move up in the polls, just watch.

Dean was good on gun control and the need for white people to talk to white people about race.

Carole Mosely Braun scores on the Patriot Act--she showed some real passion.

Kucinich: Bring the troops home. Get the U.N. in and the U.S. out.

Final Update: It's over. Here are our impact ratings--who made the greatest impression--

The losers: Graham, Gephardt, Kerry and Dean

Middle: Lieberman, Mosely Braun

Winners: Sharpton, Kucinich and Edwards

Best lines and quickest on his feet: Sharpton
Most personable: John Edwards
Stiffest: Howard Dean
Worst Closings: Gephardt and Graham

Mark Kleiman is all over the retraction of the ecstasy report--seems there are some problems with Riucarte, the study's principal researcher.

The experiment was purportedly intended to represent in an animal model the consequences of human "recreational" MDMA use, and perhaps of therapeutic use of the drug were it ever approved for that purpose. In the experiment, two out of fifteen animals died. The death rate among human MDMA users is no more than one in a million.

Yet it appears that the researchers failed to investigate the causes of those deaths. Moreover, they went on to draw inferences about the effects of MDMA on humans from the observed damage to the brains of the remaining animals. That didn't seem to trouble the reviewers for Science or the administrators at the National Institute on Drug Abuse who trumpeted the findings as evidence of the dangers of MDMA. (Science is published by the AAAS, whose president, Alan Leshner, was the Director of NIDA when the grant in question was awarded; he made MDMA his particular crusade.)

Our initial report is here.

Barbara Comstock, the Justice Department's spokesperson, is resigning to take a job in the private sector. [Link via Liquid List]

Comstock is the fourth high-ranking Justice official to leave this year.

Others are Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, the criminal division chief, Michael Chertoff and Viet Dinh, head of the Office of Legal Policy.

Think Ashcroft will take the hint?

Does this take the cake, or what? We've been reading for months about the music industry's intent to sue music downloaders. We assumed they were going to go after the worst abusers. They settled on suing 241 people. We expected these would be users who would be reselling the music for profit.

Not quite. Turns out sued a 12 year old. Not only that, they accepted a $2,000.00 settlement from the girl's mother.

We're sorry the mother settled. This would have been a public relations disaster for the music industry:

The family lives in a city housing project on New York's Upper West Side, and they said they mistakenly believed they were entitled to download music over the Internet because they had paid $29.99 for software that gives them access to online file-sharing services.

If you are worried about liability (this rash of suits is just the first wave), they are offering amnesty if you 'fess up before getting sued and promise never to be bad again.

In an effort to soften the legal attack, the record industry group is also offering amnesty for file sharers who turn themselves in before legal action is taken against them. Under the "clean slate" program unveiled by the industry yesterday, people seeking amnesty must destroy files that they have downloaded illegally and sign a notarized form pledging never to trade copyrighted works again.