Former Colorado Senator Gary Hart continues to test the waters for a presidential run. An hour-long recently taped interview of Hart will air tonight on Denver's Public Television station, KBPI Channel 12, at 9pm mountain time.

Among Hart's comments:

"We could have avoided this bloodshed" through muscular diplomacy but for "hard-line elements in the administration who were hell-bent on war from day one."

President Bush continually changed the justification for invading Iraq and exaggerated Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda terrorists that were "never true."

There are 46 or 47 other nations with dictatorships who mistreat their people. "Do we overthrow them all? I don't think so."

North Korea's corrupt leadership has defied specific arms agreements with the United States far more directly than Iraq ever did...and poses a serious threat because of its nuclear ambitions.

He is considering challenging for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. ,,,he is "testing the waters" and has now launched a website to collect his comments and offer potential volunteers a place to sign up.

War supporters who want to dismiss the large American protest movement are "missing a point" about the national character. "We're a peaceful people. Most Americans don't see the U.S. as the cop of the world."

Insistent media questions about the Rice fiasco are slowly fading and that more people are asking and writing about his studies of terrorism and other issues.

Multiple terror attacks on U.S. soil remain likely and that a new president's focus should be on solving the intractable Middle East problems to secure Americans in the future. After addressing major international conflicts, the president should then turn inward to promote universal health coverage, "which we need," ... and energy independence.

Hart will be speaking in Albuquerque on Monday, April 21, New York City on Wednesday, April 23 and in Portland, Oregon on Thursday, April 24. Details below and at GaryHartNews.com

Two lawyers in Washington, DC have filed suit against the city in Superior Court to return all fines paid by persons who received a ticket via a camera photo.

The two litigators are seeking to represent the entire "class of automobile owners" ticketed since the red-light camera program began July 31, 1999, and since the photo-radar program started Aug. 6, 2001. "There is no proof that the owner is driving the car and the only way to get out of the ticket is to submit an affidavit identifying the person who was driving your car," Mr. Ruffin said.

Judges in other jurisdictions, such as Denver and San Diego have invalidated the camera programs. A lot of money is at stake in D.C.

The District has collected $26,451,367 from radar cameras since the program began through last month, according the data available on the Metropolitan Police Department's Web site (www.mpdc.dc.gov). The city has mailed out 510,667 citations, and 356,315 motorists have paid the fines. The red-light cameras have generated $20,983,495 for the city in nearly five years of enforcement, with 242,748 motorists having paid the fines out of 361,464 tickets issued.

Update: Kirk Parker notes in the comments section that the conservative Weekly Standard has a five part series on what's wrong with the DC red light cameras:

Red-light cameras are all over Washington--and coming to a city near you. The science behind them is bad and the police are using them to make money, not save lives. It's much worse than you thought."

"For the first time in New York since the state's high court opened courtroom doors to identification experts, a judge has said a jury can hear testimony that suggests eyewitnesses are particularly unreliable when identifying perpetrators of a different ethnicity. The judge rejected prosecutors' arguments that scientific experts had not reached generally accepted theories on the accuracy of "cross-racial" IDs."

"It has become one of the most researched issues in eyewitness identification today," Justice Massaro wrote in People v. Radcliffe, 3714/01. "Inexorably, the studies are conclusive that human perception is inexact and that human memory is fallible; where cross racial-identification is involved, this is especially so." ...The judge said that although courts can give jurors a separate instruction when a criminal case relies on one witness, the question of cross-racial identification is not covered by the instruction and could require expert testimony if certain circumstances are met.

Eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Juries need to be educated about the principles of memory and proper versus improper identification techniques. This opinion is a major step in that direction.

It should be noted that the Judge refused to allow expert testimony on the issue of eyewitness confidence. We think this is in error given the current state of psychological research showing that jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitnesses and that a witness' confidence in their selection of a suspect from a photo or live lineup is actually a weak indicator of reliability.

It's rare we re-print an entire editorial, but this one, Smuggling Away Liberty, from Wednesday's San Francisco Chronicle deserves nothing less:

WHILE THE NATION remains transfixed on the war in Iraq and distracted by the burden of a woefully downturned economy, a group of Beltway Republicans are crafting a scheme to forever wipe out the hallmarks of democracy.

With appalling guile, Republicans and the Bush administration are planning to make permanent the anti-terrorism provisions that granted the federal government unprecedent powers following Sept. 11, 2001.

The "Patriot Act," undermined due process and free speech by expanding eavesdropping and surveillance; legitimizing random looks at e-mail and other personal computer data; allowing the freezing of bank assets and monitoring of bank transactions; authorizing the indefinite and unspecified detention of citizens; and allowing warrantless searches of homes.

The act was hastily approved with no public debate. And, even if arguably justified by the Pentagon and World Trade Center horrors, it's a scary document that's marginally palatable only because it automatically expires at the end of 2005.

But with American public's eyes trained on the war, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, has slyly proposed to repeal the "sunset" clause and make the expanded powers permanent. The plan undoubtedly will be attached to another bill to further hide it from public scrutiny.

It's an affront to the Bill of Rights, the international ideal of liberty for 215 years.

Under the guise of fighting terrorism, Hatch's plot impugns the core of democracy -- openness and accountability. It risks leaving our nation with the same political imperfections we have long despised. This time, Congress should take a long, hard look at the consequences of keeping such an act in place.

The New York Times Friday comes out in support of a filibuster of Bush judicial pick Priscilla Owen:

Filibustering Judge Owen's confirmation would send the Bush administration two important messages: the president must stop packing the courts with ideologues, and he must show more respect for the Senate's role.

LiberalOasis on George Bush's agenda for the next two years:

… though Bush bravely trumpets the promises of a new world order abroad and takes bold steps to bring it about, his top aides blithely admit they have no agenda at home for the next two years…

...White House officials believe it may not be necessary for them to win passage of many domestic policies for Bush to win reelection next year...

…[A senior Bush] aide said, Bush will benefit from merely demonstrating that, unlike his father, he has a "busy agenda," even if it does not pass.
-- Washington Post, 4/14/03

“Look Busy” should be in everyone’s stump speech until the media simply cannot ignore it.

U.S. officials have said if they find out Saddam is in Syria, the military will go in and conduct a "snatch and shoot" to kill him.

All they need is "credible information." Didn't we hear that term used for the intelligence information that caused the March 20 and April 7 raids that, if Saddam is alive and in Syria, obviously missed him?

How much corroboration is necessary before the information is deemed "credible?" What if the U.S. Commanders merely want a cover to invade Syria--wouldn't "We had credible information Saddam was there" be the perfect excuse?

If US special forces in western Iraq have "credible evidence" of the former president's whereabouts, they have been told that they can enter Syria and grab him, the newspaper said. The action would be justified by US commanders under the doctrine of "hot pursuit", a disputed theory that soldiers hunting a terrorist suspect are allowed under international law to enter a foreign country without permission, the newspaper said.

We don't like the sound of this at all.

Update: Al Jazeera reports United States Central Command officials have denied the report.

When individuals are charged with doing business with enemy states or listed terrorist groups, there are press conferences and press releases, evidence leaks, criminal charges, ruined reputations and more likely than not, jail time. When it happens to a corporation, the penalty turns out to be a slap on the wrist.

Why is it so different for US companies quietly caught trading with the enemy?

...Why are the government's cops so reluctant to tell us about the crooks they've captured? Who ever heard of a shy prosecutor, especially one who can show success in the war against terrorism?

When deranged American citizens are accused of working with terrorist groups like al-Qaida, Attorney General John Ashcroft holds a press conference and the FBI puts a new name and face on its Top 10 Most Wanted List, even though the allegations have not been proved in court. The suspects can languish in jail for months without any formal charges.

And when a Muslim charity is suspected of laundering funds for alleged terror groups, the Treasury Department shuts it down and freezes its assets.

But when multinational corporations like Wal-Mart, Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil and Amazon .com agree with government prosecutors that they have violated laws that prohibit doing business with enemy states, the news is buried on an obscure government Web site.

Why the secrecy? Why the protection from the public?

In the past two weeks, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control has revealed that 57 companies and organizations have been fined more than $1.35 million for civil violations of the sanctions laws.

Law Professor Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) shines today in his MSNBC column about terror cases involving Americans at home. Bottom Line: We can't trust the Justice Department when they cloak their work in secrecy.

Reynolds notes that the Buffalo Six (Lackawanna) pleas may be tainted by their lawyers' comments that the pleas came about only after the Government threatened to move them out of federal court and have them held as enemy combatants.

Reynolds talks about the case of U.S. citizen Mike Hawash, a married, father of two, computer tech guy being held on a material witness warrant in solitary confinement in a federal prison in Oregon, although he has not been charged with a crime. Reynolds says, "It’s not right to hold American citizens without charges."

Here is the transcript of 'A Chill Wind is Blowing in This Nation...' , the speech given by actor Tim Robbins to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on April 15, 2003. Read the whole thing, it's really good.

Coalition of Arizonans to Abolish the Death Penalty has unveiled a poster of Jesus Christ's crucifixion to oppose the death penalty. The poster will be displayed in churches, particularly during Easter week.

[The poster] depicts Jesus Christ's crucifixion as an example of how innocent people are executed in imperfect justice systems.

....The first church to display the banner, which shows the crucifixion with the words "Executions Have Always Been Wrong," is Trinity Missionary Baptist Church, 1402 N. El Rio Drive. "I felt safe putting it up there," said the Rev. Elwood McDowell, "because I know how the congregation feels about the issue."

Because these are the days preceding Easter, called Holy Week, the CAADP chose to unveil the poster Monday. This raises a theological question, because Christians believe Jesus died to save humanity.

"The intended message is that it's just unconscionable that we could execute people in a very fallible criminal justice system that makes mistakes," McDowell said. "And I don't understand how we can get a perfect system.

"And I hope that it makes people feel since he forgave his executioners, those of us who have been victimized, as painful and as horrible as it is, we can still find a way to forgive."

You can view the poster by clicking on the link to the article.

Here is the text of Justice Stephen Bryer's speech last week on Liberty, Security and the Courts. Among the issues he believes the Court likely will face:

The detainee cases may ask the courts to decide, among other things: What law applies to the detainees in Cuba? What rights or guarantees does the applicable law grant them? Have those rights been respected? Are the restrictions imposed upon the two American citizens detained in military prisons consistent with basic Constitutional guarantees? What rights, if any, does the Constitution offer foreigners illegally present in the United States? What are the rights of material witnesses? In particular, to what extent and in what circumstances do ordinary courts lack jurisdictional competence to decide these questions?

Breyer is emphatic that the Courts will not shy from these issues and that detainees have the right to ask that they be determined.

But as you understand, answers will be forthcoming. Our judicial system is open. An individual detainee, or a "next friend" if that detainee lacks immediate access to a court, can file a court complaint. The complaint can ask the judge for relief, say freedom from detention, access to counsel, or an amelioration of detention conditions. The court will respond, yes or no, grant or deny. And the losing party can appeal -- eventually to our Court. Indeed, a party concerned with delay can move for a speedy response and can seek review of an adverse ruling. And, if the government claims that the court lacks jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, the court, not the government, will decide if that is so, with the result in a lower court being subject to appeal.

Breyer goes on to note: