The Washington Post has been digging into the story of Private Jessica Lynch's capture by Iraqis and rescue by Americans. Here's some of what they found:

The Ambush:

Lynch was riding in a Humvee when it plowed into a jacknifed U.S. truck -- a precarious position that led to major injuries, including multiple fractures and compression to her spine, that knocked her unconscious, military sources said. The collision killed or gravely injured the Humvee's four other passengers.

....Lynch tried to fire her weapon, but it jammed, according to military officials familiar with the Army investigation. She did not kill any Iraqis. She was neither shot nor stabbed, they said.

The U.S. says Lynch was abused by her captors, but no details have been released, and witnesses detailed in the article say she was not--both believe her most severe injuries are from the car crash.

The Rescue:

Days later, tipped that Lynch was inside Saddam Hussein General Hospital in Nasiriyah, the CIA, fearing a trap, sent an agent into the facility with a hidden camera to confirm she was there and help draw a blueprint for her rescue, intelligence sources said.

The Special Operations unit's full-scale rescue of the private, while justified given the uncertainty confronting the U.S. forces as they entered the compound, ultimately was proven unnecessary. Iraqi combatants had left the hospital almost a day earlier, leaving Lynch in the hands of doctors and nurses who said they were eager to turn her over to Americans.

Lynch's doctors say she has no memory of the ambush, her capture or her treatment during her captivity. This is a very long, detailed article of her capture, condition, treatment and rescue, compiled by many sources.

Booth reported from Nasiriyah, interviewing Iraqi doctors and nurses in the hospitals where Lynch was treated, and Iraqi citizens who witnessed elements of the initial capture. Priest and Schmidt reported from Washington, interviewing military and intelligence officials with detailed knowledge of Lynch's capture and rescue, as well as officials close to the Lynch family.

It will be interesting to see how accurate the article is when more details emerge.

Update: An astute reader noticed that our subtitle"the capture" should have said "the rescue" - we've edited accordingly.

[comments now closed]

The Abolitionist Action Committee is holdingit's 10th Annual Fast & Vigil, Starvin' For Justice, on the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court in Washington from June 29 to July 2, 2003. You don't have to fast to attend.

The purpose of this event is to maintain a presence at SCOTUS between the dates of the anniversaries of when the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional in practice in 1972, and when new laws were upheld in 1976. Much of the time is spent talking to individuals and educating people about the death penalty. Several larger events are held at key times during the event to highlight specific concerns.

The Fast & Vigil takes place on the sidewalk in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, considered by many to be the heart of the legalized killing machines in this country. In addition to the strong public witness, this is an excellent opportunity to meet other abolitionists and to "recharge your batteries" while engaging in public outreach and maintaining a physical presence at the Court.

Spread the Word.

We've had some complaints that TalkLeft isn't readable in Opera. There was a problem with the "border width" setting in the css template. Thanks to some help from some Opera browser user, we think the problem is fixed. If the page still doesn't load correctly in Opera, please let us know. Thanks.

CNN's Late Edition yesterday included a discussion of the Sam Waksal sentencing and Martha Stewart Indictment. Joe DiGenova, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, now in private practice, had this to say about Waksal:

But he got exactly what he deserved. And remember, he pleaded guilty in order to spare his father and his daughter from criminal charges.

By the way, unbeknownst to us until very recently, according to published reports, he is cooperating with prosecutors, which means he may be providing evidence against Martha Stewart or helping in that case somehow, which means that he could possibly get his seven-year sentence reduced by cooperating.

We've done a Lexis check and cannot find any published reports that Sam Waksal is now cooperating with prosecutors. If any readers do, please post them in the comments.

The way we see it, the only way Sam Waksal testifies against Martha is if it is against his will. If the Government subpoenas Waksal, he will assert his Fifth Amendment privilege as he has not been charged with wrongdoing with respect to Martha and could have some liability there. The Government will respond by granting him immunity from prosecution for any activities involving Martha (or Bacnovic). Once immunized, Waksal will no longer have a 5th Amendment claim. If Waksal refuses to testify at that point, he would be held in contempt of court and sentenced. The contempt sentence would run consecutive to the 7 years he is serving now. That could make him change his mind and decide to cooperate.

We don't think the Government will go that route just for Martha for the very simple reason that the Government doesn't allege Sam told Martha to dump the ImClone stock. Sam allegedly told Bacnovic who told his assistant who told Martha. The assistant is the one who cooperated. If Sam didn't talk to Martha directly, what evidence can he provide as to why Martha sold her stock?

But the Government might immunize Waksal to get his testimony against Bacnovic. This would make it critical for Martha to get a severance (separate trial) from Bacnovic. Severances are pretty tough to come by in federal court.

Anyway, we still wonder what published reports Joe DiGenova read that say Waksal is cooperating now in exchange for a sentence reduction. We don't buy it.

John Muhammed, the older of the two suspects in the 'Sniper Case' has filed a motion to waive the jury and have his guilt or innocence decided by the judge.

Muhammed's lawyers say there is no fair place in Virginia he can get a fair jury. In addition, a made for tv movie is in the works, as well as two books. Potential jurors everywhere will be subjected to the prejudicial publicity.

One last note....Muhammed and Malvo's lawyers are raising an issue we brought out months ago that we haven't heard others mention:

On June 10, 2003, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) gave a speech in the House of Representatives, 'Bush administration deceptions about Iraq threaten democracy'. You can read it here, courtesy of Smirking Chimp.

Bad news for prisoners. The Supreme Court today upheld a Michigan prison policy which precluded prisoners who have sustained two controlled substance violations while in prison from even non-contact visitation with family members and friends, and which limited contact visits for all prisoners.

The case is OVERTON V. BAZZETTA (02-94)

Respondents--prisoners, their friends, and family members of the Michigan prisoners filed a 42 U.S.C. sect. 1983 action, alleging that the regulations as they pertain to noncontact visits violate the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court in Michigan and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed invalidating the restriction as unrelated to legitimate penal interests. The Supreme Court reversed.

Under the Michigan policy, inmates could not have visits with minors other than their children or grandchildren, or with former prisoners unless they were immediate family. Inmates with two substance abuse violations in prison could only see clergy or lawyers.

The policy covered both noncontact visits - in which the prisoner sees visitors through glass or some other barrier - and contact visits. A lower court upheld the rules for contact visits, so the Supreme Court focused on noncontact visits. The justices said prisoners may have some right to associate with family members, but that Michigan prison officials have good reasons for limiting family visits.

.... Michigan changed some of its rules after the case began. In 2001, minor siblings were added to the list of immediate family members who could visit. In May 2002, minor nieces and nephews were allowed noncontact visits, and the substance abuse policy changed to limit prisoners to only noncontact visits after one violation.

21 states and the feds weighed in with the Court by filing briefs in support of Michigan's position.

The Supreme Court today sharply limited the Government's ability to drug mentally ill defendants in order to render them competent to stand trial.

The Justices imposed conditions that the Government must meet before resorting to drugging defendants:

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, said the government must show that involuntary medications ``will significantly further'' the goal of bringing the case to trial. And courts, in considering individual cases, must consider ``alternative, less intrusive treatments'' of defendants, he wrote.

The case required the court for the first time to balance the government's interest in punishing nonviolent crime with a person's constitutional right to control his or her body. Justices said that the Constitution allows the government to administer drugs ``in limited circumstances.''

Currently, the Government drugs hundreds of defendants every year to make them stand trial.

Breyer said forced medications may be permitted only rarely. Some groups had called on the court to use the case to ban forced medication outright. ``Hopefully, courts will use this test carefully to protect against coercive drugging,'' said Judith Appel, an attorney with the Drug Policy Alliance, which contends that people -- not government -- should decide what drugs they take.

The federal government puts hundreds of defendants on medication each year to make them competent to stand trial. Most take the drugs willingly. In a recent 12-month period, 59 people were medicated against their wishes and about three-fourths were restored to competency, the government has said.

Atrios is posting from his undisclosed location in Europe today, go read.

Bad Attitudes speaks our mind on Ashcroft's push for more death penalty prosecutions.

Don't miss The Dark Side of Innocence in Sunday's New York Times Magazine.

The Bush Administration is pressing the Supreme Court to accept review in an important alien detention case.

The Sixth Circuit, following Supreme Court precedent in Zadvydas v. Davis, ruled that the Government cannot indefinitely detain excludable or deportable aliens whose countries do not want them back.

The current case is Snyder v. Rosales-Garcia. The Government argues that the ruling in Zadvydas does not apply to aliens already in this country, as opposed to aliens trying to enter the U.S.

The Sixth Circuit, en banc, disagreed,

...finding that "excludable aliens -- like all aliens -- are clearly protected by the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."

Judge Karen Nelson Moore, writing for a 6-3 majority, added, "If excludable aliens were not protected by even the substantive component of constitutional due process, as the government appears to argue, we do not see why the United States could not torture or summarily execute them."

We agree with the Sixth Circuit. We have always appreciated the Court's ruling in Zadvydas that:

... the Due Process Clause applies to all "persons" within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.

The Supreme Court will decide Thursday whether to accept review of the case.

Welcome to the autocracy in Congress. This is infuriating. Read how the Republicans under the leadership of Chair David Dreier (R-CA) are using the House Rules Committee to block Democrats from having their legislation come to a vote:

Dreier now rules the House Rules Committee with an iron fist and routinely prevents Democrats from getting votes on their more liberal ideas.

On many high-profile issues, Dreier, whose committee decides the rules for each debate, has refused to allow Democrats an opportunity to offer a substitute amendment on the House floor. He has infuriated Democrats by denying them votes on their plans for everything from unemployment insurance to tax cuts.

This may sound like inside baseball, but it has a huge impact on what bills pass the House and become laws....By preventing Democrats from offering amendments, Republicans virtually eliminate the possibility of the House passing legislation not endorsed or written by GOP leaders.

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said the GOP's "autocratic" rule is thwarting the will of the estimated 140 million people represented by the 206 Democrats in Congress.

Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy has made a proposal to President Bush: consult democratic leaders before nominating a replacement for any retiring Supreme Court Justice. The President would be wise to agree--otherwise, as Leahy warns, there will be a political war.

"Though the landscape ahead is sown with the potential for controversy and contention over vacancies that may arise on the court, contention is avoidable, and consensus should be our goal," Mr. Leahy wrote on Wednesday. "I would hope your objective will not be to send the Senate nominees so polarizing that their confirmations are eked out in narrow margins."

Consultation with the minority party in the Senate would not be a first.

Mr. Leahy and Mr. Schumer noted that the chairman of the committee, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, had taken some credit for advising President Bill Clinton in his selection of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer for the Supreme Court.

Bush has not responded. Nor is he likely to. We hope his arrogance results in all Democrats getting so angry they demand their senators filibuster all his candidates, not just the most objectionable ones. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and we should not allow Bush unlimited rein to pack our courts with right wing ideologues.

Supreme Court Justices serve for decades. Anyone Bush appoints will be shaping the law not just for our lifetimes, but for those of our children. Make yourself heard on this issue. It's really that important. Demand Bush respond to Leahy's reasonable request for consultation with Democratic leaders and consensus-building prior to committing to a Supreme Court replacement Justice.

Call your senators --bookmark the number--1-800-839-5276