Gary Hart spoke out against the war in New Hampshire yesterday.

Former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart returned to New Hampshire yesterday and said the United States is not ready for terrorist attacks that may result from the war on Iraq.

Speaking to about 100 students and faculty at the University of New Hampshire, Hart said Islamic fundamentalists may use the war as an excuse to wage Sept. 11-type terrorist attacks on the United States.

"This country is not prepared for a terrorist attack," Hart said. "We do not have enough security at the state and local levels."

...He said the Council of Foreign Relations Task Force on National Security, which he co-chairs, warned the Clinton administration of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil as early as Sept. 15, 1999. The Bush administration was told the same thing, he said.

"We were warning the Bush administration of an attack well before it happened," Hart said.

While he encouraged people to treat returning U.S. soldiers with respect, Hart spoke out strongly against the war.

"The Constitution of the United States does not constitute us to overthrow another government unless provoked," he said. "And the Iraq situation is not one of those cases."

....He also spoke against sanctions.

"Sanctions are not a viable means of preventing the creation of weapons of mass destruction," Hart said. "There will be at least 20 countries in coming years that will have the capabilities to make these weapons. Some of them will most likely be ruled by dictators."

For more on Hart and his positions go to GaryHartNews.com

The state of Oklahoma is scheduled to execute Scott Hain, a juvenile offender, on April 3 for the 1987 murders of Michael William Houghton and Laura Lee Sanders in Tulsa. Hain, who is white, was 17 years old at the time of the crime, and had no prior history of violence.

TAPPED is right on with its commentary today on Turkey:

Whose fault is this? The wingnuts are already blaming the Turkish government, which, according to them, should have just disregarded overwhelming public opinion against the war to back a U.S. invasion.

But don't blame the Turks. And in particular, don't blame the Islamist parties in Turkey -- they weren't the problem. The Bush administration screwed this one up by cajoling and threatening Turkey. And instead of doing the smart thing -- taking up the French offer of a 30-day wait, which would have given us time to at least get another heavy division on the ground in the south, and possibly gotten Turkey to go along with us -- they decided to plunge ahead anyway.

How did we lose Turkey? The Bush administration lost Turkey. Kessler and Pan's article provides the grim, dispiriting details of this tale of incompetence, blundering and foolishness.

Too funny. New York Press asked readers for their suggestions on the 50 most hated New Yorkers. She-pundit clocks in at number 4, with this description:

Yes, she does live here. What a depressing age we live in, when a horse-faced Tri-Delt who spends her days hurling genocidal threats at foreigners and liberals--whose best come-hither look promises jackboots, pepper gas and the switch--can somehow be considered a sex symbol. What's next? Vlad the Impaler Beanie Babies? A children's show called Joseph McCarthy's Neighborhood? Please, before it's too late, bring back Charlene Tilton, and send this pampered, vicious bitch back to the stenographic pool where she belongs.

[link via Tapped]

The war is one week old and the media has already bungled 15 stories [link via Cursor]

A reporter explains why journalists stay in Baghdad.

Slate has a primer on the Geneva Conventions (there are three.)

The World Socialist Web Site has published several articles about these legal issues. We think its important to read the viewpoint of those who are not Americans, Republicans or Democrats--regardless of whether we agree with them. Reasoned debate is healthy. For the record, our view is that the war violates international law. We support our troops--bring them home now.

International legal experts regard Iraq war as illegal
By Peter Schwarz, 26 March 2003

Canadian law professors declare US-led war illegal
By Henry Michaels, 22 March 2003

The Bush administration repudiates international law
By the Editorial Board, 18 March 2003

[comments now closed]

The alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, captured in Pakistan last month, has told U.S interrogators that Moussaoui was supposed to prepare for a second wave of attacks that were to follow Sept. 11.

The Government also is relying on the word of a captured Malaysian chemist named Yazid Sufaat who they believe "hosted the hijackers and Moussaoui in Malaysia at different times in 2000 and provided Moussaoui with fake papers to make his way to the United States."

Remember all the Government's descriptions of Moussaoui as the 20th hijacker? FBI Director Robert Mueller now concedes they are wrong. The theory now is that Moussaoui "mirrored" the actions of the hijackers in preparation of a different attack that was "intended to kill thousands."

Moussaoui's case is on hold as the feds contest the trial judge's order to make Ramzi Binalshibh available to Moussaoui for an interview. An adverse ruling likely will result in the dismissal of Moussaoui's case in federal court and the institution of a military tribunal proceeding.

We have long argued that the evidence disclosed to date does not support Moussaoui's involvement in the 9/11 attacks and that most likely, he was being saved for a future attack. However, the AP article above, while it sets forth several links between Moussaoui, Binalshibh and Malaysia, doesn't amount to much more than connect-the-dots speculation.

Moussaoui is still a puzzle. He isn't talking. He won't talk. This is why America deserves to have his case heard in an open court. The public has a right to hear the evidence against him--particularly since the Government is seeking to execute Moussaoui. Pressure should be brought to bear on the Administration not to move Moussaoui to a secret military tribunal proceeding, even if the Appeals court rules against them.

If the Government truly believes that Moussaoui was part of a broader conspiracy than the one limited to the 9/11 attacks alleged in the Indictment, it can supersede with a new Indictment charging Moussaoui with the grander conspiracy. At least that would keep the case in federal court.

Our coverage of Moussaoui's case since its inception and the various Government theories about him is here.

Former Senator Gary Hart, who is in the process of deciding whether to run for President, is blogging about the war against Terrorism and Iraq and how to make restore the American republic. The blog went live today, comments are accepted. His voice is a welcome addition to the blogoshpere.

There is no better authority on terrorism. Hart has been against Bush's War on Iraq. He warns us that America is not prepared for retaliatory attacks. If you haven't read his speeches with concrete proposals for how we can become better prepared and how America should shape its foreign policy in the 21st century, we highly recommend them.

We say, Run, Gary, Run. He needs your encouragement. There is a meetup in Denver on April 3. We'll be there. He's also accepting contributions to help with expenses as he travels the country testing the waters for a possible presidential run.

We don't know how we missed this article detailing criticism of the the Patriot Act, especially since we're quoted in it, but we did. From March 23, 2003 Hartford Courant:

LEGALITY OF PATRIOT ACT QUESTIONED; SOME WORRY THE LAW INFRINGES ON CIVIL LIBERTIES by DIANE STRUZZI, Courant Staff Writer

From Seattle to New Haven, residents, librarians and municipalities are taking a stand. They're passing resolutions that reaffirm constitutional rights and take issue with some federal anti-terrorism laws enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks that they fear infringe on civil liberties.

....According to a running count maintained by the American Civil Liberties Union, they are among more than 60 municipalities nationally that have articulated opposition to several new laws designed to bolster the power of federal authorities to ferret out terrorists, including the USA Patriot Act....

....Critics of the USA Patriot Act -- which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism -- argue that the act gives federal officials too much power to gain access to private records and compromises the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The ACLU and the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union have been at the forefront of the fight to roll back some of the laws. As part of the ACLU's "Keep America Safe and Free" campaign, it offers a model community resolution on its website, at www.aclu.org, and presents guidelines for how to get such a resolution passed. While supporters acknowledge the resolutions are mostly symbolic, they say the goal is to voice concern publicly.

"If you think that you can take our freedoms away from us in the name of some sort of security ... this is the shot across the bow," said Bruce Bellm, a Democratic councilman in Mansfield who supported the resolution there. ... It's exercising our freedom of speech with an eye toward preserving that freedom and the rest of the freedoms that we have."

....some librarians see the USA Patriot Act differently. Nancy Kranich, chairwoman of the American Library Association's intellectual freedom committee, says the Patriot Act has a chilling effect on libraries, places built on a foundation of open access to information. "The right to speak, view and read are some of the most fundamental rights," Kranich said. "People use libraries for their very democratic rights of free expression and their right to inquiry. ... Because I'm interested in learning more about Osama bin Laden, does that make me suspicious?"

...."You're in such a dilemma. We're not just librarians, we're Americans," Geoffino said. "We want to see everyone who did terrible deeds to be punished, but I have an obligation to safeguard the library, the privacy of the patrons and the perception by the patrons that the library as an organization is without an agenda. ...

For some, the concern centers on what the USA Patriot Act and other laws will mean for the future. Jeralyn Merritt, a Colorado lawyer and secretary of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers who has written about the Patriot Act, said she fears Americans will become accustomed to less privacy.

"They're going to accept it in the same way they accept metal detectors going into schools or security at airports, and I think that's very sad," she said. "I think it means the terrorists have won. They have succeeded in making us a less-free country."

There's lots more, we recommend reading the whole article.

Here's another consequence of the war on terror and deposing the Taliban regime: Opium production is way up in Afghanistan, including in some districts in which the crop has never before been cultivated.

What's changed?

The production of opium, from which heroin is refined, was wiped out under the hard-line Taliban regime, but farmers began planting it again when the religious militia was deposed in 2001 during the U.S.-led war on terror. Some farmers ripped up their wheat fields to plant the lucrative drug-producing plant, which brings in hundreds of times the revenue.... The U.N. drug agency said opium yields had soared to 3,750 tons in 2002, making Afghanistan the world's No. 1 producer again, a record it had held prior to the eradication of poppies by the Taliban in 2001.

The new Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, last year offered to pay $500 for every acre that the farmes destroy. But there were few takers, with an acre of an opium crop bringing $6,400.00. And this year, the new Government discontinued the cash incentive plan due to lack of resources. A special report on opium growing in Afganistan finds there are 11 opium-processing laboratories in Badakhshan and that much of the opium was being smuggled over the border into nearby Tajikistan. One farmer interviewed said poppy is his only means of survival:

"Now at least we have a few roads, some electricity and some good teachers in schools, and all of this is the barakat [blessing] of the poppy," the angry peasant said, pointing out that no teacher or doctor would walk for hours or even days to a district for almost no salary, and knowing that he could not return for four to five months when it snows and roads were blocked. "They [government] comes by helicopter to destroy poppy, but not to bring us medicine, evaluate our needs and tackle our problems," he complained, mentioning that even though almost every family had a gun, they would welcome any fair and just decision by the government. "The people love Karzai," he said, hoping that the government would ultimately approach the issue in a positive and sustainable manner.

The new Homeland Security Agency has appointed its first Counter Narcotics "Czar"

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have named former CIA operative Roger Mackin to coordinate federal anti-drug efforts between the two agencies. The position will combine the existing duties of the United States Interdiction Coordinator (USIC), a currently held position within the ONDCP, with those of the newly established DHS Counter Narcotics Officer.

According to an ONDCP press release, the Counter Narcotics "Czar" will "ensure that all DHS counterdrug policies, initiatives, efforts, andresources are aligned with the President's National Drug Control Strategy," among other duties.

NORML Foundation Executive Director Allen St. Pierre criticized the formation of the new federal anti-drug bureaucracy under the umbrella of the DHS. "Adding another 'anti-drug' technocrat to the acronym soup of federal agencies already charged with drug law enforcement at this time of heightened security and federal belt-tightening is the embodiment of government waste and redundancy," St. Pierre said.

Though the ONDCP's press release alleges that Mackin has "unmatched experience" in coordinating anti-drug efforts and drug policy, an internet search-engine query under his name revealed virtually no references to his background. Mackin has worked as an intelligence officer for the CIA in Vietnam, and later in South America.

Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton said on Thursday that investigators had found 'substance' to molestation allegations against a top police commander and were seeking to bring charges against him. Sources close to the case said the allegations stem from three men who claim that Deputy Chief David Kalish, the LAPD's highest-ranking openly gay officer, sexually molested or assaulted them during the 1970s.

Bratton said the Department investigated the charges for five months before submitting a request the D.A.'s office for filing of charges. The allegations are currently the subject of civil suit filed against Kalish, so they are not secret. Bratton said that even if the DA declines to file charges, Kalish will still face administrative charges.

Bratton said he had to place Kalish on "home assignment" because the deputy chief could not be effective with the molestation allegations swirling around him. The chief said it would be impossible to keep the matter secret. The allegations apparently surfaced in a lawsuit by a man who claimed in a civil lawsuit that Kalish "harassed, sexually molested and assaulted" him in the 1970s, when they had contact through a teen program run by the Boy Scouts of America. Since then, sources said, two more men have come forward to say that they were molested by Kalish when they were young.