CNN has some early coverage of the release of POWS.

Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson is escorted by U.S. soldiers to a waiting C-130 transport plane at an air base in Iraq, Sunday

All seven pows have now been released from the military hospital in Kuwait City, only three required medical treatment. That is great news.

Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Tommy Franks live now:

No confirmed weapons of mass destruction but they have found materials they are testing and will be looking for more.

The Iraqi army has been destroyed
There is no Iraqi regime control or command in place

Forensic teams are performing tests of places that were bombed where Saddam may have been. He said we have Saddam's DNA and we will do all available tests. He won't consider Saddam dead until we have confirmation.

Can't declare total victory yet because there are still pockets of people fighting--including mercenaries and small group hit squads and suicide bombers paid by Iraqis. He said many are coming from Syria. They have found a lot of recruiting material. He would not say the recruiting effort was endorsed by any other government, including Syria.

Franks will be going to Baghdad in the next few days but there will be no victory parade in Baghdad.

***********

We are very happy that the POWs were freed. They all walked under their own power to the waiting transport. Five are described in good condition, two not so good. They may have gunshot wounds. CNN reported the release was at the instance of the Iraqi's who were holding them --they wanted to surrender. Someone tipped a marine.

pdate: CNN has this report on the Franks interview. Our report was typed watching the interview live.

Psychologists for Social Responsibility, opposed the war in Iraq before it began. Now that it is about to conclude, they make these observations:

Now that the Bush administration has implemented this so-called preemptive strike on Iraq, PsySR has reviewed the situation and still considers the war unjust and provocative. While military action appears to have liberated the Iraqis from Saddam's rule, it was done at a tremendous cost without exploring nonviolent strategies for accomplishing the same ends with less damaging means. It is falsely assumed that this was the only way. While military action in Iraq may be successful in the short run, it has the potential to reduce the security of the United States, erode our basic freedoms and civil rights, and ultimately hasten the decline of US influence for good in the world.

In considering what should be done in Post-War Iraq, they recommend the following:

The defense laced into the credibility of the Government's star witness at the Detroit terrorism trial today. First, they attacked his history of credit card scams and other misdeeds. Then,

The lawyers tried to paint Hmimssa, an illegal immigrant from Morocco, as trying to get a shorter sentence on fraud charges he pleaded guilty to last week in exchange for his cooperation. They said he was concocting stories about the men, three of whom were once his roommates.

You have lived a life of lies since you got here, haven't you," Leroy T. Soles, Koubriti's attorney, asked Hmimssa.

"I didn't lie," he responded. "I scammed for money."

Soles repeatedly asked him why he did not tell federal authorities about the alleged terrorism until six months after he was arrested in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Nov. 28, 2001.

....Defense attorneys have portrayed the four defendants as scapegoats in a national effort to show Americans that law enforcement is doing something to protect the nation from future terror attacks.

We'll stay tuned.

Update: The New York Times says the witness' testimony has moved from chilling to confusing.

Via Paper Chase:

Amnesty International Friday released a report on use of the death penalty worldwide in 2002:

By April 2003, 76 countries and territories had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. A further 15 countries had abolished it for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes. Twenty-one countries were abolitionist in practice: ie had not carried out any executions for the past 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions. At present there are 112 countries which are abolitionist in law or practice and 83 countries which retain and use the death penalty.

In 2002 at least 1,526 people were executed in 31 countries. At least 3,248 people were sentenced to death in 67 countries. These figures include only cases known to Amnesty International; the true figures were certainly higher. The vast majority of executions worldwide are carried out in a tiny handful of countries. In 2002, 81 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran and the USA.

Here is the Press Release. Full Report is here.

Via Instapundit:

JOE BIDEN'S DUMB ANTI-RAVE BILL has passed both houses of Congress. Biden -- and everyone else involved with this lousy piece of legislation -- should be doubly ashamed: first for being associated with such a crappy bill, and second for sneaking it through without hearings and attaching it to an unrelated piece of feelgood legislation.

It is truly a lousy bill, and we are all the more dismayed that a Democrat, Senator Joe Biden, is behind it. And that in the Senate, the bill passed 98 - 0.

Why did this bill pass without hearings? Because our congresspersons and senators are scared to death of being perceived as soft on crime. They wanted to get the amber alert bill passed and were going to put up with any rag tag legislation that got tacked on to do it. Sensenbrenner has been the key driving force in the House behind the Amber alert bill.

As DNC says,

Save the Children, Screw the Rest of Us: RAVE Act, Measure to Limit Judicial Sentencing Discretion Pass House and Senate

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) took advantage of Congress' engrained inability to vote against anything that might "save the children" to win passage of two measures destined to cause pain and misery for untold numbers of adult partygoers, club owners, event organizers and criminal defendants. Biden, an inveterate drug warrior who authored the notorious "crack house" legislation of 1984, hitched his widely criticized RAVE Act (S226, now known officially as the "Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act," Biden having dropped the inflammatory moniker after running into unexpected opposition last year) to the popular Amber Alert bill (S151/HR1104), which sets up a national system of alerts for kidnapped kids and increases child pornography penalties, while Feeney used the bill to pass a measure to limit the ability of federal judges to grant downward departures in sentences -- a measure not limited to sex crimes against children and much more likely to be used to prevent federal judges from lightening sentences for drug offenders.

....Under Biden's RAVE Act, anyone who organizes an event or owns a venue where someone uses an illegal drug can be held liable for that drug use. Although expressly crafted and advanced as an attack on the rave culture, the bill's implications are frighteningly broad. It could be used against promoters of hemp fests, rock concert promoters or even -- in theory -- against professional sports franchises if fans are smoking joints in the stands.

Drug Policy Alliance will have more shortly on the details of the Rave Act. We're on the road this weekend --San Antonio for an ABA Criminal Justice Section Council Meeting and to lecture on the problems with eyewitness identification testimony--the hotel, while charming, has a 28.8 connection in the rooms. We just got hotel security to open up the business office with a high speed connection so we could read the over 200 emails and comments TalkLeft got today and do some last-minute Lexis research for our talk tomorrow.

The new legislation will be a hot topic at tomorrow's meeting here, with some very knowledgeable legislative experts advising us what really happened and what it all means. We'll report here after the meeting. We're particularly looking forward to hearing what Ron Weich has to say.

In the meantime, read the great sites on the right. We probably won't be able to update the newsfeed on the left until Sunday.

Bush's most recent nominations are drawing strong criticism --and not just from liberals or democrats. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is leading a move to delay the confirmation of James Leon Holmes who is up for a seat on the U.S. District Court in Arkansas. The New York Times reports Holmes is the former president of Arkansas Right to Life. But it is his writings that have come under fire.

One example the Democrats cited was a 1997 article that Dr. Holmes and his wife, Susan, wrote for a newspaper, Arkansas Catholic, about men, women and Roman Catholicism. The article said that "the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband" and that "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man" in the same way that "the church is to place herself under the protection of Christ." The same article went on to say, "It is not a coincidence that the feminist movement brought with it artificial contraception and abortion on demand, with recognition of homosexual liaisons soon to follow."

The second nominee facing criticism today is William Pryor of Alabama, up for a seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Washington Post, which has previously supported most of Bush's picks, has this to say today about Pryor in an editorial, Unfit to Judge:

Mr. Pryor is probably best known as a zealous advocate of relaxing the wall between church and state. He teamed up with one of Pat Robertson's organizations in a court effort to defend student-led prayer in public schools, and he has vocally defended Alabama's chief justice, who has insisted on displaying the Ten Commandments in state court facilities. But his career is broader. He has urged the repeal of a key section of the Votings Rights Act, which he regards as "an affront to federalism and an expensive burden." He has also called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history." Whatever one thinks of Roe, it is offensive to rank it among the court's most notorious cases, which include Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, after all.

You can read more about Pryor in today's Fulton County Daily Report, here.

Matthew Happold, a lecturer in Law at the University of Nottingham, writes in the Guardian today that it is illegal to hood Iraqi prisoners. While most of his comments are directed to Great Britain, he provides authority for extending the proposition to the U.S.:

There are no good reasons to hood detainees. It does not provide any extra protection to the detaining troops once the suspect is bound, nor is there any need for British troops to hide their identify from their captives. Hooding is a form of sensory deprivation. It is disorientating, frightening and possibly dangerous for those subject to it (particularly when their hands are also tied). Hooding also serves to dehumanise the person subjected to it, possibly leading to rougher treatment at the hands of his captors. Indeed, television footage of British troops escorting hooded suspects did not show them acting with much solicitude. Hooding has often been used as a "softening up" technique prior to interrogation. The fact that it is being practised by British troops does not give one confidence as to their behaviour once the cameras stop rolling and interrogation starts.

The last time British security forces hooded suspects was as one of the so-called "five techniques" used in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s. The four other techniques were wall-standing, subjection to white noise, and deprivation of sleep and of food and drink. These "five techniques" were found by the European court of human rights to constitute inhuman treatment, in breach of the UK's obligations under the European convention on human rights. British forces' present conduct similarly risks being in breach of our international obligations.

....The hooding of prisoners is one American habit we should not adopt. Their treatment of detainees - at Bagram air base, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere - has been heavily criticised. The concern must be that having adopting one American practice, the UK will adopt others as well. The British army has a reputation for discipline and for treating prisoners well. The ministry of defence should order the end of the practice of hooding prisoners immediately."

Read the whole thing. Link via Paper Chase.

The International Red Cross Alert today says that the situation in Baghdad hospitals is dire as anarchy grips:

BAGHDAD (11 April) The ICRC in Baghdad is extremely concerned about the anarchy and general chaos prevalent in the city. Lawlessness continues to be rampant, with ambulances being stopped and looted by armed individuals. The ICRC fears that the hospitals in Baghdad are no longer functioning and have been largely deserted by staff and patients. Most Baghdadis are too terrified to leave their homes. The ICRC will carry out assessments at different hospitals in the city if and when the security situation permits.

[link via Paper Chase]

Steven Rosenfeld has a provacative article, Gulf War Syndrome, The Sequel, over at TomPaine.com. Rosenfeld says the Pentagon failed to follow a law requiring screening of soldiers bofore and after deployment and that some soldiers already are sick.

Soldiers now fighting in Iraq are being exposed to battlefield hazards that have been associated with the Gulf War Syndrome that afflicts a quarter-million veterans of the 1991 war, said a former Central Command Army officer in Operation Desert Storm.

Part of the threat today includes greater exposure to battlefield byproducts of depleted uranium munitions used in combat, said the former officer and other Desert Storm veterans trained in battlefield health and safety.

Complicating efforts to understand any potential health impacts is the Pentagon's failure, acknowleged in House hearings on March 25, to follow a 1997 law requiring baseline medical screening of troops before and after deployment.

"People are sick over there already," said Dr. Doug Rokke, former director of the Army's depleted uranium (DU)project. "It's not just uranium. You've got all the complex organics and inorganics [compounds] that are released in those fires and detonations. And they're sucking this in.... You've got the whole toxic wasteland."

A divided Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday invalidated a Michigan program that required welfare applicants and recipients to submit to drug tests.

Under the Michigan program, people applying for welfare through the state's Family Independence Agency would be tested for illegal drug use, and 20 percent of those receiving welfare assistance would be randomly tested every six months.

....The ACLU sued on behalf of all Michigan welfare recipients, and U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts issued a restraining order to stop the testing, saying it likely violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Roberts' decision in October, saying the program was based on a legitimate need to protect the children of recipients and the public. But on Wednesday, the full court changed course and affirmed Roberts' ruling.

The ACLU hails the ruling.

It was a long time coming, but this ruling affirms that being poor is not a crime. Low-income parents should not be required to choose between providing for their children and relinquishing their privacy rights," said Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan and an attorney in the case. ....In the five weeks that the program was in effect, the drug tests were positive in only eight percent of the cases, a percentage that is consistent with drug use in the general population. Of 268 people tested, only 21 tested positive for drugs and all but three were for marijuana.

Michigan is the only state that had such a program.

The Terminator versus the national security adviser for California governor in 2006?

Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice are both considering bids to become Governor of California. Schwarzenegger met with Bush Advisor Karl Rove today:

If he decides to run, Schwarzenegger may face a challenge from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who has spoken to senior Republicans about running for California's top job, according to a Bush adviser. Rice's candidacy is a "real possibility," this adviser said, adding that Rice wants to take on an executive role.

At this stage, with the states' budget crisis and his general unpopularity, either one could beat Gray Davis. Any suggestions for a better Democratic candidate out there? If not, we'll take Arnold.

Update: Z in the comments section informs us that Gray Davis is term limited. He also makes the valid point that with the election 3 1/2 years away, issues could be vastly different by then. We'll revisit the matter in a few years, and in the meantime, we'll keep an eye on the rising political ambitions of some liberal California entertainers.