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.

CNN has a running table up of U.S. and Coaliton Casualties in the Iraq War.

"There have been at least 47 confirmed coalition deaths in the war. The casualty list below reflects the names of the U.S. and British troops whose families have been notified. This list is updated daily." [link via Atrios]

FBI Director Robert Mueller was asked about the Iraqi interviews during his testimony before a House committee today. He refused to comment on how many of the interviewees had been arrested or detained.

Reaction remains mixed, at best, among the Iraqis selected for FBI interviews. As we reported yesterday, while the FBI would like us to believe that these interviews are fine with Muslim-Americans and not much more than a social tea, that's an overstatement. Many Iraqi-Americans have felt insulted or intimidated by them.

An American citizen, Hanna said the questioning sends a message that "U.S. citizenship is nothing more than a piece of paper," that the government doesn't "trust your loyalty."

We raise another issue now. Yesterday we also mentioned that last month Ashcroft gave the FBI the authority to arrest and detain Iraqi interviewees for immigration violations, which are not criminal offenses. Before, it was the INS who performed this function. But now that INS is kaput and the FBI works closely with Homeland Security, Ashcroft thinks it makes sense to let the FBI do it.

This morning on MSNBC, we watched a former FBI agent be interviewed by anchor Chris Jantzen. She asked him about the FBI's newly granted authorization to arrest Iraqis in the context of these voluntary interveiws. He acknowledged the authorization, but stressed that it was discretionary with the agents. Only 30 had been arrested and detained so far. (This number matches press reports.)

As we were trying to figure out whether he could possibly mean what we were afraid he meant by stressing that the FBI agents' arrest authority is discretionary, he came right out and said it: When they come across a selected interviewee who is in violation of an immigration regulation, the agents can tell the interviewees that they have the ability to overlook the violation if they cooperate with the interview. On the flip side, they have the ability to arrest them if they don't. Chris Jantzen asked the former FBI agent guest about this again, and he confirmed it, saying "It's leverage."

We do have a problem with the FBI using the threat of arrest or detention over a non-criminal offense as a tactic to get a voluntary interview. At court this morning, we were in the hall, waiting for a case to be heard and talking to an Assistant U.S. Attorney and a court interpreter. We told them what we had heard this former agent say on the show, and they both did doubletakes. Any federal law enforcement agents or prosecutors out there want to tell us why we're wrong to think this goes beyond the pale?

The Senate Judiciary Committee today voted on a party line, 10 to 9, to approve Texas Judge Priscilla Owen's Nomination to the Fifth Circuit. She still faces a confirmation hearing in the full Senate.

Democrats contend Owen, nominated by President Bush, is an anti-abortion and pro-business judicial activist whose opinions and rulings have been overly influenced by her personal beliefs.... It continues to be clear that Justice Owen is one of the most frequent dissenters on her court in Texas in cases involving workers, consumers, and victims of discrimination," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a written statement.

People for the American Way have lots more.

There was a debate on the Patriot Act at the University of Tennessee College of Law. Instapundit moderated.

[Professor Reynolds] said it's the citizens -not the courts - who bear the greatest responsibility for protecting civil liberties. "For people to defend their rights, they have to know what's going on," he said.

You can get a lot of information about Patriot Act I and II here and here. We all need to be vigilant and ensure that the Bush Administration-- Attorney General John Ashcroft in particular--doesn't use our increased attention in the war as an opportunity to slip some more of its privacy-intrusive bills past us.

Update: Amber Bill Package passed the House. It may or may not make it through the Senate: <The two bills will have to be reconciled by House and Senate negotiators before any version can be sent to the president. Last year, the Senate refused to consider the House bill, and the House refused to consider the Senate bill.

Democrats argued that the House-passed bill likely will meet the same fate in the Senate as last year, because its additional child protection measures face much more resistance in the Senate.

"Here we are again, facing the same misguided strategies, and this time again with even more reason for the Senate to reject the bill which the Amber Alert bill is buried in," said Rep. Robert Scott, D-Va."

*******

The Democrats in the House yesterday failed to pass a stand-alone Amber Alert bill.

The Republicans want the Amber Alert bill to be part of a larger anti-crime package--one with increased criminal penalties and expanded wiretap powers. The Republican measure is expected to pass the House today, but may run into problems in the Senate due to the anti-crime provisions. The Senate had already passed a stand-alone Amber Alert bill.

40 states already have Amber Alert systems in place. The federal law would create a national coordinator for the system in the Justice Department and provide matching grants to states for operating the networks. The New York Times warns that Congress should move slowly on the Amber Alert bill.

Our view, as we have expressed in the comments section to this post, is that we should leave Amber Alerts to the states, and put the money where it can save more lives.

Update: The House is poised to approve the Republican bill with anti-crime provisions.

TalkLeft had its best day every yesterday, 9,760 visitors and 16,500 page views. Lots of folks are coming over from warblogs.cc, and we welcome them. It's very gratifying to be so widely read. We're also dreading the bill for the increased bandwidth, so if you can help us out with a few bucks, please click on one of the donation links on the left.

There's lots of news today on Monday's Supreme Court arguments in the Texas Sodomy law case, Lawrence v. Texas. Dahlia Lithwick has great details of the exchanges between the Justices and the lawyers here. The New York Timess' Linda Greenhouse says it looks like the Justices will overturn the law. You can read excerpts of the legal arguments here. Tom at SCOTUSblog says the prosecutor gave the worst oral argument he's ever heard.

If you are into legal news headlines-- we certainly are-- check out The Daily Whirl, a news aggregator with fast loading headlines from legal news and information sites. You can hand-pick the sources you want to include--TalkLeft is one of the choices.

The Guardian has a good analysis of all the disputed claims to date made by the U.S. military and various media outlets. (Thanks to Untelevised for the link)

We wanted to write World-War-III to tell them we really like their warblog, but it seems to be not only anonymous, we couldn't find an email address.

Mac Diva, a frequent and articulate commenter on many blogs, has finally gotten her own. Silver Rights will concentrate on civil rights issues.

Lisa English of Ruminate This congratulates the new links at Altercation, which, yes, we compiled for Eric. The new additions are CalPundit, Digby, Junius, Orcinus, Pandagon, Road to Surfdom, Seeing the Forest and The Agonist.

We just finished reading Jeanne D'Arc at Body and Soul, and all we can say is she's done it again. Don't miss this one.

Update: The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article about Salem Pax (Where-Is-Raed) today.

Three law professors debate the best forum in which to try Saddam Hussein.

One professor believes the war is illegal under international law and therefore a trial in any tribunal would be tainted.

The second professor "has questions about the legality of U.S. military action -- though not its legitimacy -- but said a tribunal could work."

The third professor "believes Iraq's violation of the Gulf War cease-fire and succeeding United Nations resolutions, coupled with humanitarian interests and the right of self-defense from weapons of mass destruction, give the United States more than enough justification to prosecute the war."

There are four basic tribunal options: U.S. Military Tribunals, Nuremburg-style tribunals, U.N. tribunals and hybrid tribunals, meaning ones with a mixture of international judges and judges from a newly formed Iraqi government.

Another expert says the U.S. "blundered" in not joining the International Criminal Court. That option most likely is not possible now. However, this expert thinks it might be possible to expand the jurisdiction of the U.N. Rwanda and Kosovo tribuanls to include Iraq.

Like some of the experts mentioned in the article, we see a difference between Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, who directly attacked the U.S., and Iraq, who did not. The preemptive nature of the war, in our view, could make garnering support to try Saddam anywhere quite difficult.

Update: Brutal Hugs chimes in.

From Hill Connections:

Touched by the death penalty in the most opposite of ways, two men traveled a brave road to forgiveness, turning anger into healing and a fight for justice. It is hard to imagine two more disparate experiences than those of the men featured in this story. Juan Melendez spent 17 years on death row for a crime he did not commit. Bud Welch is the father of a young woman killed in the Oklahoma City bombing.