Gary Hart explains his decision not to run in an op-ed today in the Denver Post. He will continue to fight, but not as a candidate.

Hart was interviewed by the Denver Post about his and others' chances at securing the Democratic presidential nomination.

In a long, biting survey of his own chances and the nine Democrats currently running, Hart said that young supporters could have raised $20 million for him over the Internet in eight months and that he had the best chance to beat President Bush. While resisting a request to handicap the remaining contenders for the White House, the former Colorado senator offered these observations about some still in the field:

Bush is still "inexperienced" as the chief executive, having pushed ineffective tax cuts that have failed to kick-start the economy. Bush is hiding a "stealth agenda" of radical federal cutbacks from the American people. In evaluating Bush on three key leadership areas, Hart gave the president nearly failing grades on his stewardship of the economy and as a head of state but relatively high marks as commander-in-chief, based on successes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, lacks crucial defense or foreign policy experience.
Joe Lieberman, U.S. senator and former vice presidential candidate, is making a futile appeal to the "amorphous middle" by parroting Bush policies.

But Hart concluded that he couldn't trim his own complex vision of American economic revitalization and international cooperation to television-friendly sound bites, and he acknowledged that at age 66, he may be 20 years too old to take a populist fight straight to a majority of voters.

Political analysts interviewed in the article say that Hart "accomplished his goals of restoring himself as a national sage and a respected critic of both Republicans and Democrats."

There's lots more in this article on Hart's positions on domestic issues and his view of the Democratic contenders--we highly recommend you read it all.

Update: Two terrific bloggers who became a central part of Gary Hart's testing the waters campaign, Matthew Langer of Untelevised and Kevin Thurmond of Getting in the Game provide their thoughts on his decision.

Howard Bashman's superb appellate law blog How Appealing turned one year old yesterday. Congratulations, Howard and a big thanks, for providing such a valuable resource.

Court TV Anchor and former criminal defense attorney Rikki Klieman's memoir was released yesterday--today it is ranked #586 on Amazon.

Buy the Book Today!

We describe the book on CrimeLynx:

"a riveting, brutally honest memoir by celebrated criminal trial attorney and Court TV Anchor Rikki Klieman, in which she details not only her triumphs as a pioneer in the male-dominated arena of criminal defense, but the price she paid for success-- and the toll it took on her personal life and physical health. The book becomes filled with spirit and joy, however, as Rikki describes falling in love in middle age and learning that she can have it all."

Salem Pax, also known as Where is Raed, has surfaced and has new entries on his blog. [Via Instapundit]

Former Illinois Governor George Ryan is in Italy, campaigning for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty. The Roman Colosseum was lit up in honor of his visit. From the Hands Off Cain newsletter:

The Italian capital city’s most famous landmark was brightly lit last night to mark a visit by former Illinois governor George Ryan. Rome has been illuminating the gladiator’s arena every time a positive development in the fight against the death penalty worldwide occurs since 1999. The Colosseum first shone for Ryan in January 2000 when he announced a moratorium on executions and a second time on January 11 this year after he announced the commutation of the death sentences of 167 people on the Illinois death row and pardoned four others.

Ryan, in Italy to campaign for a worldwide moratorium on executions, on Monday became an honorary president of Hands Off Cain, that first launched this campaign on an international level in 1993.

[Thanks to Rev. George W. Brooks, Director of Advocacy for Chicago's Kolbe House for the tip.]

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to rehear a controversial gun decision that upheld a ban on assault weapons. The underlying issue, whether the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms, is likely to reach the Supreme Court.

Justice Alex Kozinski penned a sharp dissent to Tuesday's decision not to rehear the challenge to the California ban, taking particular issue with the notion that arming citizens in order to maintain a militia was an outdated relic of the Colonial period that did not apply to modern society where gangs and shootings are rampant in some areas.

In his lengthy and eloquent opinion, Kozinski said that all amendments of the Constitution were to be held in equal esteem. "It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as spring-boards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us," Kozinski said. "As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions."

An email is making the rounds asking people to sign onto a letter protesting the stoning death of Amina Lawal on June 3. If you receive it, please know it's not true. Here is the correct status of the Lawal case, according to this just published by Amnesty International:

Amnesty International today moved to correct misleading information falsely attributed to one of the web pages of the Spanish section of Amnesty International. Information has been widely distributed by email falsely claiming that Amina Lawal's execution had been set for 3 June 2003 and referring to Amnesty International as a source.

Contrary to this information widely circulated on internet, Amnesty International has consistently published accurate information about the case on all its official web pages.

Amnesty International regards Amina Lawal's case as of the highest priority and appreciates the support that members of the public have given the campaign. However, circulating emails with inaccurate information causes many problems for all the groups working hard to defend Amina Lawal and women's human rights in Nigeria.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has upheld a warrantless search of a man's buttocks.

The majority opinion, written by Judge Mike Keasler, said that in December 1997 a police officer received a tip from a "concerned citizen," saying that McGee and two juveniles were selling crack cocaine at a particular intersection. The tipster gave officer Steven Rowan the names of McGee and one of his companions, provided a detailed description of the clothing worn by all three individuals and alleged that McGee was hiding crack cocaine between his buttocks, Keasler wrote.

According to the opinion, Rowan and his partner went to the location and found three men who matched the description provided by the tipster. The opinion said Rowan testified that he smelled marijuana, saw blue smoke surrounding the trio and found a cigar containing marijuana on the ground near McGee. Rowan testified that he and his partner handcuffed the three men, placed them in a patrol car and drove them to a fire station, where McGee was required to drop his pants, bend over and spread his buttocks, the opinion said.

Rowan testified that he saw several rocks of crack cocaine wrapped in red plastic lodged between McGee's buttocks and that McGee tried to push the cocaine into his anus, the Court of Criminal Appeals noted in the opinion.

Legal experts say among the questions raised by this decision is what happens when the suspect is a female? One commented, "If officers can do this, no telling where this will stop. It easily could have been a female who was told to spread her legs and got searched."

A law professor, George Dix, pointed out that the probable cause for the arrest was the defendant smoking pot with two of his buddies. It's two separate things -- selling cocaine from an inventory in your rear and smoking dope with your buddies."

This type of search is known as a "full cavity body search." There was a similar case in Denver last year, which lawyers referred to as the "crack crack case." The defendant ultimately took a plea and avoided having the Court decide the legality of the search.

One judge in the Texas case dissented saying there was no evidence that the crack cocaine between the man's buttocks would have been destroyed during the time necessary to obtain the warrant.

There has been a lot of coverage today of Saddam and his son Qusay taking $1 billion in cash from the Iraqi Central Bank right before the bombing. The BBC says some are speculating the money went to Syria.

the possibility that some of the cash may have gone to Syria could refocus attention on Damascus' relations with the former regime. During the war, the US accused Syria of giving help to Saddam Hussein and threatened reprisals. Washington officials also said they believed that a number of regime officials had sought refuge in Damascus.

On April 14, we wrote

After the second bombing targeting Saddam, we began leaning towards believing Saddam escaped both bombings.

Here's our current theory: One of Saddam's sons was killed in the first "decapitation" attack. Saddam was slightly wounded. He was at the location of the second attack and survived. He used a cell phone to put into effect pre-arranged plans to transfer $1 billion to Syria in exchange for safe haven. He and his second son are in Syria.

We have no idea if the money went to Syria or not, but that's still our best guess.

A Virginia Judge today upheld most of the teen sniper suspect's confession. The legal buzz around here is that the Judge erred. That's our position as well.

Defendants are not allowed to appeal adverse suppression rulings before trial. So the jury will hear John Malvo's statements to police, and if convicted, you can be sure it will be a major ground for appeal.

Essentially, the Judge ruled that 17 year old Malvo had waived both his right to a lawyer and his right to remain silent.

The interview with Detective Boyle and the F.B.I. agent, Brad Garrett, began at 4 p.m. When they told Mr. Malvo they wanted to talk to him, he said, "Do I get to talk to my attorneys?" Detective Boyle said yes. Mr. Malvo then said, "Because the lawyers told me, don't talk until they get here."

Detective Boyle testified that she then told Malvo he "was now facing some new charges in Virginia and they needed to get some information about him."

Defense lawyers argued that the questioning should have stopped when Malvo asked about his lawyers. But Roush disagreed, ruling that Malvo's questions about his lawyer are "at best a request for a clarification of his Miranda rights."

Malvo's lawyers had this to say:

``From our perspective, the actions taken by law enforcement with regard to Mr. Malvo's detention, transport to Virginia and interrogation were deliberate and designed to circumvent his constitutional rights,'' the defense said in a statement.

The Judge's 23 page opinion is available here.

We just got word from Gary Hart's media spokesperson that Gary Hart has decided not to run for President. There will be articles in the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News and Associated Press, and that is pretty much it. Sen. Hart leaves on a European trip tomorrow.

We're sad, we really hoped he would run. He feels he can have his voice heard and get his ideas out without running for office --he will still be active in public service.

We wish Sen. Hart the best and know it was a tough decision.

Update: We just received a newsletter from Hart in which he says he will continue his blog.

Mike Hawash entered a not guilty plea yesterday in the Oregon terror case. Trial is set for October 1. An op-ed column today examines whether the Government's use of a material witness warrant against Hawash constituted an abuse of the material witness statute.

In order to obtain the material witness warrant against Hawash, the Government had to tell the Court that Hawash was a flight risk and that his testimony was needed before the grand jury.

Hawash was not brought to testify before the grand jury. After five weeks in custody, and one day before his scheduled release, he was charged as a defendant in an existing case.

Hawash's case raises some very troubling questions: If the government had a basis for criminally charging Hawash all along, why didn't it offer that as the reason for his detention, rather than invoking the material witness statute? Was the reason for detaining Hawash as a material witness so that the government could use the intimidating confinement to obtain information, while avoiding the basic protections that are given criminal defendants? What motivated the government's conduct?

....For five weeks, unless he was scheduled to be somewhere else, the government kept him in solitary confinement in an 8-foot by 12-foot cell for 23 hours a day, 7 days a week. Whenever he left his cell, prison guards would strip-search him and place him in chains before he was moved about. Hawash could call home only once a week and only received a visit from his wife or attorney three times a week. What interest has been asserted by the government to justify this deprivation?

Lawyer Brian Lehman, author of this commentary, makes the argument that the Government's use of the material witness warrant in Hawash's situation (and others similarly situated) may violate the Fourth Amendment.