Dan Abrams' MSNBC show, The Abrams Report, has been cancelled. Dan will stay on as NBC/MSNBC's chief legal corresondent--appearing on news shows like Today and Nightly News, and doing some afternoon anchoring for MSNBC. Dan's show was fun to watch, he put his heart into it. We hope he gets another show soon.

Update: Dan's show has been reinstated, not to worry.

Gary Hart is seeking volunteers as he continues his "testing of the waters" for a presidential run. From his newsletter, received today:

WE NEED YOUR HELP - GET INVOLVED! In 1984, the enthusiasm of volunteers vaulted a young senator from Colorado to challenge for the Democratic presidential nomination. In 2003, we are no less dedicated to building a foundation of passionate volunteers. We currently need people across the country who are willing to help us promote local appearances, organize local volunteer groups, and contribute ideas in support of Gary Hart's efforts to test the waters of a potential candidacy. If you're interested in volunteering, please email us at .

Sounds like a good opportunity to get in on the ground floor of a possible campaign.

"What are the rights and obligations of “Occupying Powers,” the legal term for countries that occupy an adversary’s territory?"

Michael N. Schmitt is Professor of International Law at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. In this article, he notes that "As growing portions of Iraq fall to U.S. and British forces, it is a propitious time to review the basic requirements of that body of law."

We recommend Schmitt's tour of The Annexed Regulations to Hague Convention IV of 1907, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, and customary international law setting forth the laws of belligerent occupation applicable in this conflict.

Nat Hentoff continues to ask, "Where's the Press?" We join him. Check out his new column in the Village Voice explaining the dangers of the proposed Clean Air Act, FBI spyplanes and CAPPS II:

Every time the administration removes another strand of the liberties in the Bill of Rights, we are told it has to be done in the vital interest of our homeland's security against the terrorists. But it is increasingly clear that we the citizens need to be secure from our government—not only where our liberties are concerned but also with regard to our health and our very lives. An astonishing proposal in the Bush-Ashcroft draft of Patriot Act II—hardly reported, if at all, in much of the press—subverts the Clean Air Act so radically that residents in towns and cities around the country could be affected.....

Then there is the issue of the FBI Spyplanes, reported March 15 in the Associated Press:

In the March 15 Daily News, there was an Associated Press report from Washington that more than 80 FBI planes and helicopters are being used to "track and collect intelligence on suspected terrorists and other criminals." Note the key word, "suspected."

Among the FBI's aircraft, the AP story continues, "are several planes, known as Nightstalkers, equipped with infrared devices that allow agents to track people and vehicles in the dark.

"Other aircraft are outfitted with electronic surveillance equipment so agents can access listening devices placed in cars, in buildings, and even along streets, or listen to cell phone calls. . . . All 56 FBI field offices have access to aircraft. . . . [Legally,] no warrants are necessary for the FBI to track cars or people from the air." The good news, as it were, is that the FBI does need warrants to monitor cell-phone calls, even if from a plane.

Hentoff also addresses CAPS II:

A February 27 warning from the ACLU, about which I've seen few follow-ups in the press, begins: "A secretive new system for conducting background checks on all airline passengers threatens to create a bureaucratic machine for destroying Americans' privacy and a government blacklist that will harm innocent Americans."

Hentoff asks, where is the mainstream press follow-up on these stories? We can't speak for the mainstream press, but bloggers have been timely following them. Our continual coverage of Patriot Act II is here and CAPPS II here. We wrote about the the spyplanes here. Other bloggers have too, including Instapundit and Patriot Watch.

Our Legislation and Civil Liberties archives are two of the most frequently accessed pages on TalkLeft. Feel free to use them and share them. The search engine works really well too.

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.