This should be getting more attention. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) have successfully pushed their proposed Victim's Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution through a Senate Panel vote. But the bill has many detractors in Congress.

Every Democrat on the panel voted against her. Think about it for a moment. A constititutional amendment? Why? Wouldn't a federal law do, if that's what Congress wants to pass?

While just about everyone in Congress says they favor increasing the rights of crime victims, some say a constitutional amendment isn't needed and threatens to do more harm than good.

...33 states, including California, have victims' rights amendments in their state constitutions that provide for everything from restitution to requiring prior notice of all court or parole board appearances in their cases.

Her measure, co-written with Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., grants victims of violent crime the right to prior notice of any public proceeding in the case, as well as notice of the release or escape of the accused or convicted, the right to be heard at trials and pardon hearings, access to any court decisions in their case and the right to restitution.

But opponents of the proposed amendment said the proper route would be to first try a federal law -- which can be changed relatively easily -- rather than the far more permanent step of enshrining victims' rights in the Constitution.

"I will fight this with everything I have," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N. Y. "No one has shown we need a constitutional amendment." (empahsis supplied)

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who as a state senator voted for Wisconsin's victims' rights amendment, said he feared the Feinstein measure would undermine the criminal justice system.

We wrote this detailed article about why the VRA is a lousy idea some years ago. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post opposed it in editorials, here and here.

A new BBC poll finds that the majority of the world is opposed to Bush and the Iraq war.

The poll, which surveyed more than 11,000 people in 11 countries, showed 57 percent of those asked had "a very unfavorable or fairly unfavorable attitude toward the American president," the British broadcaster said in a statement.

Some 56 percent felt the United States was wrong to attack Iraq, including 81 percent of Russian respondents and 63 percent of those polled in France.

[comments now closed]

The Senate Commerce Committee is voting tomorrow on whether or not to recind the June 2 F.C.C. giveaway to Big Media. This is an unprecedented opportunity to participate, go over to Ruminate This where Lisa English has all the details on how you can participate. It will only take two minutes. The petition Lisa asks us all to sign will be walked over to the Senate Commerce Committee tomorrow before the vote.

According to Eli Pariser of Moveon.org, "This bipartisan bill would keep a single company from owning broadcast outlets that reach more than 35% of American households (as opposed to 45% post-rule-change). A crucial amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and Snowe would keep newspapers and TV stations from merging."

Here's all you need to do:

1) Go to the petition campaign. It's easy and self-explanatory.
2) Personalize the message to your Congressional delegation
3) Enter email addresses of friends and colleagues in your state
4) Send your message. It will be printed out and walked to your members of Congress, and this message will be forwarded to your contacts. Your friends will not receive spam as a result of this petition.

Neal Pollack reports on the new Rave Act in The Right to Party.

Daniel Forbes writes in The Nation about how the Rave Act is being used to stifle political dissent.

NORML reports on how the DEA is using the Rave Act to trample the First Amendment.

A scheduled concert to raise funds for a local NORML/Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) affiliate was shut down last week after the venue's management was informed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that they could potentially be fined $250,000 under provisions of the newly enacted "RAVE Act." The law, formally known as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, permits federal law enforcement to prosecute business owners and event organizers if they make their property available for "the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance." The incident is believed to be the first time the law has been used to prohibit a public event since it was enacted in April as an amendment to the Child Abduction Prevention Act, also known as the "Amber Alert" bill.

Don't forget who we have thank for this unnecessary, oppressive piece of legislation, sneakily tacked onto the Amber Alert bill at the last minute: It's Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). Just in case he decides to throw his hat in the ring for President, we want everyone to know.

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.