Three new criminal justice bills have been introduced in Congress:

S 1322 (Schumer, D-NY), to require states to make certain information regarding sexually violent predators accessible on the Internet, to Judiciary. S8439, CR 6/24/03.

HR 2574 (Kucinich, D-OH), to abolish the death penalty under federal law, to Judiciary. H5813, CR 6/24/03.

And -- just for kicks:

HJ Res 61 (Johnson, Sam, R-TX), proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to abolish the federal income tax, to Judiciary. H5814, CR 6/24/03.

You can get more information on any of the bills at Thomas, the Federal Legislation Server.

Many legal experts have declared that the rules for proposed military tribunals are unfair and stacked in favor of the prosecution.

The guidelines for the military terrorism trials allow suspects and their civilian lawyers to be barred from some proceedings, restrict defense investigations and don't allow for review by independent courts, said military law experts and human rights groups opposed to the system.

Donald Rehkopf, co-chair of the military committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, called the planned military commissions ``an embarrassment to democracy.''

``This is a show. It's a kangaroo court of the worst sort,'' he said, describing the rules as crafted to guarantee convictions, compel guilty pleas and make it as easy as possible to get the death penalty.

"These (rules) are fundamentally contradictory to the American tradition of a fair trial," said Michael Noone, a professor at Catholic University's law school and a retired Air Force colonel.

We agree. Among the more troubling provisions:

- One rule requires defendants to prove they were justified in taking actions the government says are war crimes. Critics say that erodes the presumption of innocence that underlies American civilian and military trials. "That's an inversion of the burden of proof," said Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps judge who teaches a course on the law of war at Georgetown University.

- Decisions by the tribunals can be appealed only to a special panel of judges appointed by the Defense Department, and then directly to the president. "Bush, through his designees, can serve as prosecutor, judge and jury, and executioner. There's no independent judicial review of verdicts," said Wendy Patten of the group Human Rights Watch.

- Defendants and their civilian lawyers may be excluded from some proceedings where secret evidence is discussed.

- Civilian defense lawyers are not paid by the government and must do their defense work from the site where the military tribunals will be held.

Grant Lattin is a retired Marine Corps lawyer who has applied to be a civilian defense attorney for the tribunals. He astutely notes, "It's difficult to get civilian attorneys willing to go to Guantanamo Bay and spend a month or longer to defend these people on your own dime."

The rules for military tribunals are accessible here.

A new CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll shows that Bush's re-election support has dropped to 50%.

In a recent CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, 50 percent said they would vote for Bush and 38 percent backed the unknown Democratic candidate, with the rest undecided. Those numbers aren't very different from those garnered by Bush's father in June 1991, when the commander in chief was praised for the U.S. success in the Persian Gulf War and the Democrats were scrambling for a candidate. Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in the 1992 election.

Expert consensus on the reason for the drop: the Economy.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) has introduced the Restoration of Freedom of Information Act of 2003 in the House of Representatives, as a companion to S. 609, introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, to restore aspects of the Freedom of Information Act modified by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

The Restoration of Freedom of Information Act of 2003 would clarify that the Homeland Security Act only covers certain records the government does not already have a legal right to obtain. The bill would also remove restrictions on the government’s ability to act in response to information it receives. Finally, the Frank bill would restore whistleblower protections by removing criminal penalties on disclosure.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz will be in charge of military tribunals, CNN reports. Rumsfeld has delegated his authority.

Individuals brought before the tribunals would have no right to a jury trial, no right to confront their accusers and no right to judicial review of trial procedures or sentences, which could include death.

Wolfowitz will be the one to decide who faces trial.

After the chief military prosecutor drafts charges against a detainee, Wolfowitz will have the authority to approve those charges and send the detainee to trial.

How's this for a review process.....instead of judicial review,

Wolfowitz, a review panel and Rumsfeld would examine the sentence before it went before Bush.

The War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties In An Age of Terrorism

While we were out of town last week, we had a chance to read this excellent new book, The War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism. It is a compilation of articles authored by many experts and journalists--one is even a civil rights attorney.

In each generation, for different reasons, America witnesses a tug of war between the instinct to suppress and the instinct for openness. Today, with the perception of a mortal threat from terrorists, the instinct to suppress is in the ascendancy. Part of the reason for this is the trauma that our country experienced on September 11, 2001, and part of the reason is that the people who are in charge of our government are inclined to use the suppression of information as a management strategy.

These essays by top thinkers, scholars, journalists, and historians lift the veil on what is happening and why the implications are dangerous and disturbing and ultimately destructive of American values and ideals. Without our even being aware, the judiciary is being undermined, the press is being intimidated, racial profiling is rampant, and our privacy is being invaded. The "war on our freedoms" is just as real as the "war on terror"--and, in the end, just as dangerous.

It is published by the not-for-profit, non-partisan Century Foundation. We really think you will like it and learn from it. So go, buy. With the 4th of July coming up, Independence Day, what book could be better suited?

The European Union and the United States will sign an extradition agreement today that allows terrorism suspects to be handed over to U.S. authorities.

First, the good news:

The laboriously negotiated deal, part of Europe's response to the September 11 attacks, makes it clear that anyone likely to face execution will not be surrendered.

Other provisions of the agreement allow:

US and EU law enforcement agencies access to bank accounts in the fight against crime and terrorism, complementing the arrangements on cooperation between the FBI and Europol, the EU's police agency..... and the US to search containers leaving EU ports.

The Bush Administration's decision to drop a federal criminal action against Qatari student Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri one month before his trial, and transfer him to military custody in a South Carolina brig where he awaits a decision as to whether he will be tried in a military tribunal proceeding, marks a change in Administration policy according to Administrative officials and experts.

The move does not bode well for Zacarias Moussaoui, whom experts predict will also be declared to be an enemy combatant and removed from the federal criminal justice system.

The Administration claims the move of Mr. Marri is intended to allow them to interrogate him about al Qaeda.

Critics of the Bush administration tactics said today that they believed the decision to declare Mr. Marri an enemy combatant set a dangerous precedent and exposed inconsistencies in the administration's treatment of terrorist suspects.

By declaring Mr. Marri an enemy combatant, the administration also sends a message to other terrorist suspects now in the criminal system about what could happen if they do not cooperate with investigators, officials said.

Defense lawyers for some criminal defendants in terrorism cases in Lackawanna, N.Y., and elsewhere have complained that prosecutors used the threat of enemy combatant status to coerce pleas. Justice Department officials have denied such a tactic, saying it would be unethical. But a senior F.B.I. official said today that the Marri decision held clear implications for other terrorism suspects. "If I were in their shoes, I'd take a message from this," the official said.

....Civil liberties advocates and military law experts said they were troubled by the decision to declare Mr. Marri an enemy combatant less than a month before his trial. They said he posed no imminent threat to the United States because he had been in custody more than 18 months. "The fact that a person is removed from the framework of the federal district courts and thrust into a legal environment with few if any protections can't help but be disturbing," Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said.

You can read the text of Bush's Executive Order declaring Mr. Marri an enemy combatant here.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a decision on what constitutes internet libel under the 1996 Communications Decency Act.:

In a case where a "tipster" sent information about an alleged Nazi heir with old European paintings to the operator of a Web site that tracks art thefts, the divided three-judge panel found that site operators may be liable for Internet libel if they post information that a reasonable person would have known wasn't meant for publication.

A State Department expert on weapons testified before congressional committees last week that the Bush Administration pressured him to distort some evidence in his analysis of the Iraq situation.

A top State Department expert on chemical and biological weapons told Congressional committees in closed-door hearings last week that he had been pressed to tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters to conform with the Bush administration's views, several Congressional officials said today.

The officials described what they said was a dramatic moment at a House Intelligence Committee hearing last week when the weapons expert came forward to tell Congress he had felt such pressure. By speaking out, they said, the senior intelligence expert, identified by several officials as Christian Westermann, became the first member of the intelligence community on active service to make this sort of admission to members of Congress.

Remember Bush's State of the Union speech in which he promised huge dollars for drug treatment -- provided by religious groups? Or his "faith-based" initiative in 2000 that mercifully died? Well, he's not giving up. But he's delusional if he thinks his new plan will get through Congress.

Bush is trying to get Congress to exempt religious groups from adhering to anti-discrimination laws on hiring policies. In other words, he is seeking to allow religious groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and religion when hiring.

A White House position paper sent to Capitol Hill argues that "religious hiring rights" are part of religious organizations' civil rights. "When they receive federal funds, they should retain their right to hire those individuals who are best able to further their organizations' goals and mission," the document says.

In a letter to MoveOn.org, Senator and Presidential hopeful John Kerry says that the Supreme Court is a major reason the Democrats need to take the White House away from Bush.

I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman’s right to choose, on civil rights and individual liberties, and on the laws protecting workers and the environment.

Kerry has prepared a petition which he promises to deliver to Tom Daschle, Senate Democratic Leader and Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as their Republican counterparts

The criteria are basic: Any person who thinks it’s his or her job to push an extreme political agenda, rather than to interpret the law, should not be a Supreme Court Justice. Any person who thinks it’s his or her job to carry out the President’s political agenda, rather than to provide justice to ordinary Americans, should not be a Supreme Court Justice.