We were out of town and missed our good pal Skippy's first anniversary. He's taking comments, so go over and wish him many more. Skippy is one of the most generous linkers out there, and has a unique, extremely upbeat blogging voice. We bet if you submitted five blog entries to us, we could pick Skippy's out every time. (no money on the bet though.) Anyway, congrats, Skippy, and thank you for your many kind words about TalkLeft during the past year.

Sen. Joe Biden's 'Rave Act' (renamed the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003) is still drawing well-deserved criticism. Biden slipped the Act into the Amber Alert bill that became law on April 30, 2003. Critics charge that the law

... could not only throw innocent promoters in jail, but also scare off property owners from renting out halls, clubs and fields for any event - from concerts to political rallies - where someone might use an illegal drug. That, they say, could violate Americans' rights to free speech and free assembly.

"The law is so wide open that it could shut down anything, like a Rolling Stones concert, a hip-hop show, any kind of show," says Alex Virasayachack, a Cleveland promoter and disc jockey. "It's a pretty Draconian thing," says Marvin Johnson, a counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Owners and promoters can go to jail for something that they have no control over."

As evidence of their charge, critics point to the DEA's actions in Montana last month which resulted in NORML cancelling a benefit.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has acknowledged that an Eagles Lodge in Billings canceled a May 30 concert scheduled on its property after a DEA agent showed up that day with a copy of the new law and suggested the lodge could be held liable if concertgoers used drugs. The concert was a money-raiser for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Ed Childress, a DEA spokesman in Washington, said the incident appears to have resulted from a misinterpretation of the law by the local DEA agent.

The DEA says it has drawn up guidelines for the enforcement of the Act.

Prosecutions will be aimed, he said, at people holding events "for the intended purpose of promoting" drug use or sales. The agency also has directed agents to coordinate any enforcement of the law with headquarters, he said.

....The real targets of the law, he said, are people who promote electronic-music dance parties known as "raves" in a way that makes clear that drugs like Ecstasy will be available.

The assurances of the DEA that concert promoters and business owners won't be charged just because patrons illegally use drugs at a concert is somewhat reassuring. But, these are guidelines only, which means they could be revised. Guidelines are not law. The law still needs to be amended to make this point clear. [link via What Really Happened]

The Guardian has an extensive report on the Bush Administration's marketing of the Iraq war, Trading on Fear, by public relations analysts analysts Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber.

From the start, the invasion of Iraq was seen in the US as a marketing project. Selling 'Brand America' abroad was an abject failure; but at home, it worked. Manufacturers of 4×4s, oil prospectors, the nuclear power industry, politicians keen to roll back civil liberties - all seized the moment to capitalise on the war.

Our favorite part is the description of the Administration's assault on civil liberties since 9/11:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared on Meet the Press this morning. He said we should expect more Iraqi attacks on U.S. troops this summer--that we are still at war--and that our troops will be there "for the forseeable future." Currently, there are about 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Since May 1, when Bush declared the end of major combat in Iraq, 31 U.S. soldiers have been killed and "scores have been wounded in hit-and-run attacks."

Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Judge Gilbert Merritt is in Iraq studying documents as one of 13 experts selected by Department of Justice to help rebuild Iraq's judicial system. He writes in The Tennessean that he has come across a "List of Honor" published in November, 2002 in the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper, run by Uday Hussein. The list contains the names of 600 people deemed to be regime persons.

Judge Merritt writes:

Halfway down the middle column is written: ''Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.''

Judge Merritt then reports:

At the same time this was published, Saddam was denying that he had any relationship with Osama. Therefore Saddam had all the papers confiscated, and he ordered that publication of the paper be stopped for 10 days.

From this, Judge Merritt concludes:

I believe that President Bush was right when he alleged that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama and was coordinating activities with him.

It does not prove that they engaged together in any particular act of terror against the United States.

But it seems to me to be strong proof that the two were in contact and conspiring to perform terrorist acts.

Instapundit takes this as extremely significant proof of the Saddam/Osama connection. We don't think anyone ever denied there is a relationship between Saddam and Osama. But where is the proof they "conspired to commit terrorist acts?" We think the critical sentence in Judge Merritt's article is this one:

It does not prove that they engaged together in any particular act of terror against the United States.

There still has not been any evidence that we are aware of that Saddam was a part of 9/11 or any specific terrorist act against the U.S. We take Judge Merritt at his word, but we don't think this information in any way establishes the need for a preemptive strike against Iraq.

In fact, the Associated Press reported yesterday:

"There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann said this week. Intelligence agencies agreed on the "lack of a meaningful connection to al-Qaida" and said so to the White House and Congress, said Thielmann, who left State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research last September. Another former Bush administration intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, agreed there was no clear link between Saddam and al-Qaida. "The relationships that were plotted were episodic, not continuous," the former official said.

Update: SKBubba has this priceless gem about the Osama-Saddam connection. Too funny.

Michael Kramer of the New York Daily News explains why Bush could be a one-termer.

Update: The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows support for Bush is declining. Daily Kos has analysis of the poll here. We find this aspect of the poll significant:

And for the first time, slightly more than half the country -- 52 percent -- believes there has been an "unacceptable" level of U.S. casualties in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.

It's only going to get worse for Bush as casualties increase and Saddam remains at large.

Kos also examines the latest Newsweek poll which finds the Dems are now evenly matched against Bush.

This is not good news for Dog the Bounty Hunter, also known as Duane "Dog" Chapman. We also wonder whether Puerto Vallarta has a rabid prosecutor on its hands.

Marco Roberto Juarez, a state prosecutor in Puerto Vallarta ... wants to slap Chapman with organized-crime charges and is preparing to ask for his extradition. "We are going to make this a precedent to show that you can't just come here and do this kind of thing with impunity," Juarez said.

Organized crime offenses? Talk about trumping up charges...

[comments now closed]

The Democrats vying for the presidential nomination are going after Ashcroft. Our favorite quotes:

Richard Gephardt: "In my first five seconds as president, I would fire John Ashcroft as attorney general."

John Edwards: "We can not allow people like John Ashcroft to take away our rights and our freedoms."

John Kerry: "When I am president of the United States, there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights."

Kerry advisor Chris Lehane, who was Al Gore's press secretary, chimes in: "He is a living, breathing troglodyte who happens to run the Justice Department."

Even Republicans are getting in the act:

Some Republicans expressed concern about potential damage the often unvarnished Mr. Ashcroft might cause this president. "None of those Democrats can beat George Bush, but John Ashcroft can," said one Republican strategist.

Kobe Bryant was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times Saturday. He asserted his innocence:

When everything comes clean, it will all be fine, you'll see," Bryant said during a brief telephone interview with the Los Angeles Times.

Bryant declined to discuss the case but said, "But you guys know me. I shouldn't have to say anything. You know I would never do something like that."

Bryant sounded surprised at the rumors being spread about that night. "Man, there's a lot of crazy stories out there," he said.

The New York Times has an excellent article outlining the hesitancy of civilian defense lawyers to participate in military tribunal proceedings .

As Lawrence Goldman, President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) writes in this month's Champion magazine:

"In view of the extraordinary restrictions on counsel, however, with considerable regret, we cannot advise any of our members to act as civilian counsel at Guantánamo," he wrote. "The rules regulating counsel's behavior are just too restrictive to give us any confidence that counsel will be able to act zealously and professionally."

Among the rules defense lawyers object to:

• Conversations with our clients are subject to being monitored

• Lawyers have to pay for their own transportation to and from Guantanamo, represent the accused for free, and pay for their own security clearances, estimates of which run about $2,800.00. Unlike the federal court system, the Government is not offering compensation at reduced rates, and the trials could take months. Who can afford it?

• Even with a security clearance, defense will not be entitled to see all the documents. Only the military counsel may see everything.

The Government has made two welcome changes in the rules to encourage civilian counsel to particpate. Lawyers will be allowed to confer with colleagues on their cases, and it will not be required that all legal work be done at Guantanamo.

Here's more on the rules and why lawyers are afraid the tribunals will be sham proceedings to which they should not lend legitimacy. And Calpundit reprints a chart from the new issue of the Economist (subscription only) showing the difference between the military tribunals, U.S. Criminal trials and court- martial proceedings (which use the Code of Military Justice). His comment:

This is disgraceful. Our children are going to look back on this the same way we look back on Japanese internment camps and McCarthy-era loyalty oaths.

Two dozen more detainees have arrived at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from Afganistan.

They join the 625 prisoners currently being held there, some for more than a year. The Government says all are suspected of helping the Taliban in the war against Afganistan.

Amnesty [International] says the U.S. government has arbitrarily imprisoned the detainees and has denied them "the right to humane treatment, to be informed of reasons for detention, to have prompt access to a lawyer, to be able to challenge the lawfulness of the detention, and to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise." Other violations the group has listed include prolonged solitary confinement, heavy shackling, and lack of adequate exercise.

Not to mention there have been 15 suicide attempts, including four in the past three weeks.

We got back this afternoon and are making our way through a few hundred plus emails. Courtesy of one reader, we see that Bushcroft is seeking permission from the Supreme Court to punish physicians for recommending pot to their sick patients.

The administration would revoke the federal prescription licenses of doctors who tell their patients marijuana would help them, a prerequisite for obtaining the drug under the state's voter-approved medical marijuana law.

Justice Department lawyers this week asked the high court to take up the issue in its next term, which begins in October. The department is appealing a ruling by an appellate court in San Francisco that said the proposed penalties would violate the freedom of speech of both doctors and patients.

If the justices agree to review the case, it would be their first look at medical marijuana since May 2001, when they upheld the federal government's authority to close down a pot dispensary in Oakland and others in the state.

The Justice Department's Supreme Court appeal argues that a physician 's "recommendation" under California law is the equivalent of a prescription for illegal drugs, an action the government can forbid without violating free speech. Department lawyers said the federal policy would not penalize a doctor for merely discussing marijuana with a patient -- as long as the doctor makes it clear that the drug is illegal under federal law, that federal authorities consider it dangerous and medically useless, and that the doctor is not recommending it.

Arthur over at Light of Reason has some harsh words for the Administration on this: