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.

Associated Press Reporter David Ammons reports from Olympia, Washington that the FBI now concedes that its "voluntary" interviews of Iraqis and Iraqi-Americans in the U.S. are causing anxiety among the interviewees. (article available on fee-based Lexis.com.) The FBI wants us to think all is hunky-dory with the interviews. It's not. In Columbus, Ohio, there have been 16 harassment complaints filed. The Seattle- Post-Intelligencer reports ,

Some Iraqi immigrants in Washington, already anxious because of the war in their native land, say unannounced home visits by federal agents are further elevating stress levels and causing distrust of the government.

One Iraqi woman was home alone when agents came to interview her. She "thought they were going to arrest her husband," said Yahya Al-Garib, community advocate for the Iraqi Community Center in West Seattle. "They feel like they're in Iraq right now."

An immigration-rights group is working to provide legal assistance to the jittery immigrants, who are being interviewed this week in a nationwide effort to counter terrorism, curb hate crimes and track down illegal immigrants.

Annette Lamoreaux, East Texas regional director of the American Civil Liberties Union, sat in one of the interviews last week when an Iraqi woman was being questioned, and she saw it differently.

"With each question, I felt more and more embarrassed to be an American. I mean, this is not my America," says Ms. Lamoreaux, who advised the frightened woman being interviewed not to answer most of the questions. "These interviews may be legal, but I find them morally offensive."

What are the Iraqis being asked?

The questions go like this: Do you support Saddam Hussein? Do you know any Saddam sympathizers? What is your religious affiliation? What are the names and addresses of your Iraqi family members living in the United States?

Sounds to us just like the communist witch hunt in the 1950's, shades of Joe McCarthy. There are real concerns with the interviews.

"It's viewing the foreign born and newcomers with suspicion, a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach. We need to find that balance between being open to immigration and remaining safe." Contributing to the problem are contradictory signals from the government, says Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and a former INS commissioner. For instance, having FBI agents simultaneously conducting interviews and enforcing immigration laws could exacerbate immigrants' fears.

As for the FBI's assertions that they are not seeking to arrest and deport Iraqis, but only to question them, consider this, from the Associated Press:

CBS News and the Associated Press reported today that lawyers carrying heavy law books are traveling with the American and British troops in Iraq in case the U.S. decides to impose martial law in Iraq.

Via Jurist's Paper Chase, you can find a detailed "explication" of rules and regulations to be applied in territories under the military jurisdiction of the US Army, in Chapter 6 of US Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, Occupation. We're going to study it for a while as we haven't read it before. As a sample, here's what it says about treatment of detainees (section 446.)

Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein. They shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtaining in prisons in the occupied country.

They shall receive the medical attention required by their state of health.

They shall also have the right to receive any spiritual assistance which they may require.

Women shall be confined in separate quarters and shall be under the direct supervision of women.

Proper regard shall be paid to the special treatment due to minors.

Protected persons who are detained shall have the right to be visited by delegates of the Protecting Power and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in accordance with the provisions of Article 143.

Such persons shall have the right to receive at least one relief parcel monthly. (GC, art. 76.)

Here is the American Bar Association's letter that was sent to Congress today protesting the planned subpoena of the sentencing records of Federal Judge James Rosenbaum. We wrote earlier today about the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' (NACDL) Board Resolution opposing such a subpoena. Background on it is here.

March 24, 2003

The Honorable James Sensenbrenner
Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
2332 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner:

On behalf of the 410,000 members of the American Bar Association, I write to express our grave concern about the pending proposal to subpoena Judge James Rosenbaum regarding his sentencing practices. Such a subpoena, to our knowledge unprecedented outside of impeachment proceedings, represents a significant threat to the independence of our judiciary and to the separation of powers doctrine.

If the purpose of this action is to obtain information in furtherance of the Committee's oversight responsibilities with respect to the sentencing guidelines, it would not focus on this one judge. There is a wealth of statistical material available on implementation nationally, most notably from the U.S. Sentencing Commission itself.

If there is a belief this judge has in some manner violated his obligations as a federal judge, a complaint may be filed under the procedures established by Congress when it enacted the Judicial Discipline and Disability Act of 1980.

If there is concern over the outcome in a particular case where a downward departure from the sentencing guideline was imposed, the Department of Justice has the authority to challenge such action in the Court of Appeals.

We are concerned that issuing a subpoena will suggest to all members of our federal judiciary that decisions they make which may be disagreeable to certain Members of Congress will result in their being compelled to appear before Congress to explain themselves. Such an action would be a serious threat to the independence of the Third Branch of our government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

We urge you and your colleagues not to issue a subpoena but rather pursue other means to obtain whatever information your Committee may require to carry out its duties.

Sincerely,

Alfred P. Carlton, Jr.

cc: Members of the Committee on the Judiciary
The Chief Justice of the United States
The Hon. James Rosenbaum

From Natasha Hunter at Tom Paine.Com

The charges laid out in William Safire's recent two part series -- "The French Connection" – have emboldened the anti-French chorus. But as former 60 Minutes producer Barry Lando writes, “Safire's double broadside is more Francophobia than fact. He is way off beam; the articles are filled with error and innuendo. What makes matters worse is that editors at both The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune knew there were serious questions about Safire's charges, yet the papers went ahead and published the second part of his series.”

Barry Lando's full article can be read here.