Gary Hart will be in New Hampshire on Thursday and Friday, March 27-28, and then Massachusetts and New Jersey on Saturday, March 29. Here are the details for the public events: (Updated 3/27/03)

Friday, March 28:

Dartmouth College, 4:30-6:30 PM
Panel Discussion (hosted by Rockefeller Center), "America At War"
Discussion centering on the perception of public opinion.
Dartmouth College, Dartmouth Hall 105
Hanover, NH

Saturday, March 29 (3 events):

Boston University, 12:00 PM
Audience discussion on the war with Iraq, moderated by Senator Hart
Boston University's Sargent College, Room 102
635 Commonwealth Ave.
Boston, MA

Amherst College, 4:00 PM
Public Forum to Discuss the War with Gary Hart
Sponsored by the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies
Cole Assembly Room, Converse Hall
Amherst College
Amherst, MA

Yale University, 7:30 - 8:45 PM
Audience discussion on the war with Iraq, moderated by Senator Hart
Yale Law School Room 127
127 Wall Street
New Haven, CT

Tuesday, April 1:

Milken Institute Global Conference (March 31-April 2), 7:00 - 9:30 PM
Panel discussion: "America''s Role in the World"
Beverly Hilton Hotel
Los Angeles, CA
More information

Thursday, April 3:

Gary Hart Meetup.com event - Los Angeles
Location: TBA, 7:30 PM - 9:00 PM
Please check the web site for event location and plan to arrive early!
More information

Please keep up with the web site for further schedule updates as Senator Hart is scheduling more events daily!

Don't forget to sign-up for your local Gary Hart Meetup event April 3 here

The House Judiciary Committee is considering voting on an unprecedented resolution that will allow it to subpoena a sitting federal judge and force him to locate and produce information regarding his sentencing decisions. In response to this crisis, Milton Hirsch, Chair of the Judicial Relations Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) prepared the following resolution, which has been adopted by the organization.

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OPPOSING CONGRESSIONAL ATTACKS ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE WHEREAS the Hon. James M. Rosenbaum is the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota; and

Human Rights Watch today called for the United Nations to appoint "a high-level expert to monitor the impact of counter-terrorist measures on human rights... Human rights abuses will fuel terrorism, not defeat it. Governments must be stopped from using counter-terrorism as a pretext for repression.” Yesterday, HRW released a report detailing abuses made in the name of fighting terrorism.

The report includes case studies from China, Egypt, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom, United States and Uzbekistan.

...The Human Rights Watch report highlights systematic violation of due process rights, far-reaching restrictions on civil liberties, crackdowns against internal political movements, allegations of torture, tightening of controls on refugees and migrants and arbitrary detention of non-nationals. For instance:

The United States’ response to September 11 has seen the arbitrary and secret detention of non-citizens, secret deportation hearings and the military detention without charge or access to counsel of U.S. citizens designated as "enemy combatants;”

Two of the eighteen recently released detainees at Guantanamo Bay have cited rewards and beatings as part of the treatment.

At the US detention center in Guantanamo Bay, prisoners who argue with guards are persecuted and sometimes beaten, while those who obey are rewarded with good food, clothes, hygiene, and even video games, according to interviews with the largest group of detainees set free so far from the main facility for Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects.

The eighteen men were sent back to Kabul from Guantanamo and have since been allowed to return to their homes. They were innocent of any connection to terrorism or Al Qaeda. Some were low level employees of the old Afganistan regime, e.g., drivers to Taliban leaders. To be fair, the article cites most of the released men as praising their treatment at Guantanamo. The bad treatment is apparently saved for those perceived to be terrorists or those who don't go along with the U.S.'s game plan.

Murtaza, 28, of southern Helmand province, was one of two who said they had received bad treatment. A driver for the Taliban who also fought as a soldier, his problems at Guantanamo began, he said, when he protested the confiscation of his Koran. US guards piled everyone's copies on the floor and then sat on them, he said. Murtaza also said guards had whistled loudly during the five-times-daily Muslim prayer calls, and had dragged chains on the ground to annoy inmates while they were praying. ''I was gassed till I fainted and hosed with water cannon for complaining and resisting the indignitites against the holy Koran,'' Murtaza said, pulling up his pant leg to show scars he says he got from being kicked by heavy-booted US soldiers when he protested their actions.

A U.S. spokesman denied the charges, alleging the detainees have no reason to tell the truth. That rings false to us in light of Murtaza's scars. Some more allegations:

The men said they did not know of anyone having been beaten during interrogation. But Murtaza complained about being put in rooms with frigid air-conditioning and invasive strip searches. ''It was life in a cage,'' he concluded. He said he saw a prisoner beaten until his arm broke after protesting guards dragging chains during prayers. ''There are many human beings suffering there, and praying and reciting the Koran is not a crime, nor is it proof of affiliation with the Taliban or Al Qaeda,'' he said.

If these prisoners are to be believed, and we tend to believe them, the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not being physically mistreated during interrogations, but when the authorities perceive them to be a discipline problem, the scenario changes substantially: rooms with freezing temperatures; kept naked for a week; strip searches; beatings; water torture and gassing; interruption of prayers and deprivation of prayer books.

Why did the U.S. hold these men in captivity for sixteen months before freeing them? Surely they knew fairly quicky the men were neither terrorists or criminals. How many more of the 660 men currently being warehoused at Guantanamo are being held, and perhaps mistreated, despite being innocent?

With all the war news this week, and the Texecutions last week, we overlooked this article appearing in the March 22 Washington Times:

President Bush yesterday announced his intention to nominate Karen P.Tandy, head of the Justice Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, as the new chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration. If confirmed by the Senate, she would be the first woman ever to head the anti-drug agency.

A veteran prosecutor, she would replace acting administrator John B. Brown
III, a longtime drug agent who was named in January to succeed former Rep.
Asa Hutchinson. In his announcement, Mr. Bush noted that Mrs. Tandy, a deputy associate attorney general, had previously served as both chief of litigation in the Justice Department's asset-forfeiture office and as deputy chief for
narcotics and dangerous drugs.

The president said she also was an assistant U.S. attorney in Virginia and
Washington state, where she handled the prosecution of violent crime,
complex drug cases, money laundering and forfeiture cases.

Are there any Virginia or Washington defense lawyers out there who want to give us their take on Ms. Tandy? You can use the comments section and post anonymously if you want.

John Broder and Eric Schmitt on CNN tonight said that military officials confirmed to him that new intelligence suggests that some of mechanics who strayed off the main road over the weekend were executed by Iraqi captors. This is apparently based on an intercepted converstation. Even though as of yet there is only a single source for this information, it appears credible when considered with the pictures shown over weekend of some GI's who appeared to have been shot at close range.

There were witnesses, townspeople present, during the alleged executions and an investigation is ongoing in which the Government is seeking corroborating evidence.

More information is available in a Wednesday New York Times article by Eric Schmitt and David Sanger, here.

Some of the Army mechanics captured on Sunday after they took a wrong turn in the Iraqi town of Nasiriya were apparently executed by their captors, probably in front of townspeople, American officials charged tonight. The officials cautioned that the information was based on one source, apparently a communications intercept, and that they were seeking corroborating evidence. It is unclear how many of the seven soldiers were executed, rather than killed in fighting, as the Iraqis contend. Five other Americans were taken prisoner and at least three were still missing.

We received word of this article today from a very smart and good friend of our's in Miami --unfortunately, it didn't come with a source cite--but we like it enough to post anyway. Even if the last two paragraphs aren't entirely factual, they sound like they could be:

Mr. Bush says this invasion will be different. He has broadened his war aims in recent weeks from removing Mr. Hussein and any weapons of mass destruction to transforming Iraq into a beacon of freedom in the Middle East. In a news conference March 6, Mr. Bush said U.S. troops would remain to help run Iraq until a new, representative government could take control. With the passion of a convert to nation-building, he spoke movingly of confronting totalitarianism, of spreading "God's gift" of liberty "to each and every person," and of how "Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us."

Napoleon proclaimed a similar new era of equality and respect for "true Muslims" as he marched into Cairo in 1798, killing a thousand members of Egypt's ruling caste. He was accompanied by 100 French scientists, researching an encyclopedia and spreading European "enlightenment" to bemused Egyptian intellectuals.

"Peoples of Egypt, you will be told that I have come to destroy your religion," said Napoleon as he entered Cairo. "Do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights!""

Bill Frist is up to his old tricks with the Eli Lilly vaccine legislation. Wampum Blog pleads for you to help.

Senator Bill Frist, with the help of Judd Gregg (R-NH), is resubmitting the Eli Lilly Thimerosal provison, with additional devastating changes to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Markup is scheduled for today. Frist thinks he may have the votes.

Call these committee members using toll-free Congressional switchboard at 1-800-839-5276:
Gregg, Judd (R - NH)
Frist, William (R - TN)
Enzi, Mike (R - WY)
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN)
Bond, Christopher (R - MO)
DeWine, Mike (R - OH)
Roberts, Pat (R - KS)
Sessions, Jeff (R - AL)
Ensign, John (R - NV)
Graham, Lindsey - (R - SC)
Warner, John (R - VA)

Ranking Members
Kennedy, Edward (D-MA)
Edwards, John (D - NC)
Dodd, Christopher (D - CT)
Harkin, Tom (D - IA)
Mikulski, Barbara (D - MD)
Jeffords, James (I - VT)
Bingaman, Jeff (D - NM)
Murray, Patty (D - WA)
Reed, Jack (D - RI)
Clinton, Hillary (D - NY)

Please, call and fax the following Senators and ask that they not agree to this horrible legislation which will essentially gut the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, not only for children with mercury-induced neurological disorders, but possibly for ANY vaccine-injured child (and there have in fact been thousands of claims previously settled.)

Wampum's got all the details over there, so go visit.

A third defendant in the Buffalo Six alleged "sleeper cell" case pleaded guilty today to providing support to Al Qaeda, which carries a sentence of up to ten years.

The Government has disclosed that all six of the defendants will plead guilty.

Steve Glassroth, Birmingham, AL criminal defense lawyer and NACDL board member has an eloquent and all too true commentary up in the Montgomery Advertiser on The Unrealized Promise of Gideon .

Forty years ago last week, on March 18, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright and announced a principle we all take for granted: that everyone who is accused of a crime is entitled to be represented by a lawyer, even if the accused is too poor to hire one.

No one can seriously question that a fair trial cannot be possible unless a competent lawyer is provided to those who cannot afford one. As the justices said, this "seems an obvious truth." However, decades later Gideon's promise remains largely unkept as we still find that the quality of justice frequently depends on the ability to pay for it.....

While we hear the horror stories of sleeping lawyers, scant attention has been given to the major underlying cause of inadequate representation: lack of resources.

Ninety percent of Americans questioned in a recent poll said that the quality of justice people receive should not be determined by the amount of money they have. That poll also found that Americans want lawyers defending the poor to have salaries, resources and workloads equivalent to those of prosecutors. They want national quality standards for the defense of the poor, much like standards for doctors, architects or teachers.....

The keys to reforming the system for effective representation for those unable to afford lawyers are simple and basic -- things like proper training, resources proportionate to those for the prosecution, adequate payment for lawyers providing services, manageable caseloads and a guarantee of independence so that politicians or judges are unable to arbitrarily reduce lawyers' pay or fire them simply because they are effectively doing their jobs.

To do this will require spending more money, something that is never politically popular. However, failing to take the necessary steps will only further erode public confidence in a system that treats the wealthy and poor differently and can tragically contribute to wrongful convictions.....The time has come to invest in justice for all.

Senator Edward Kennedy writes in the March 24 Legal Times (subscription only) on both the unfulfilled promise of Gideon and the need for the Innocence Protection Act:

There are a myriad of crime-related political and injustice issues related to the War in Iraq. We feel we would be remiss if we didn't cover them. Towards this end, we have teamed up with Warblogs:cc , a one stop source for what we think is the best warblog news and commentary.

This means that what we post on TalkLeft about the War in Iraq, War on Terror, Civil Liberties, individual terror cases and the detainees will automatically appear on Warblogs:cc.

Warblogs:cc is the brainchild of Christopher Allbritton, George Paine, Sean-Paul Kelley and Mike Hudack. It is designed to provide you with a birds-eye, up to the minute view of the War in Iraq, the American government and civil liberties issues in the United States.

We won't be posting here less--we're not doing double duty. But Warblogs.cc provides the advantage of reading these terrific war bloggers, as well as us, all in one place:

— The Agonist

— Back to Iraq

— Warblogging

— Stand Down

— Daily Kos

— Tacitus

We'll continue to provide news and analysis of domestic criminal justice issues, including the death penalty, legislation, Supreme Court cases, wrongful convictions and more as we've always done. These posts will not appear on Warblogs:cc, only here.

TalkLeft has substantially increased in popularity the past few months. We passed 500,000 page views over the weekend and have steadily been receiving 3-5,000 visitors a day. If you appreciate our efforts and can spare a few dollars, please hit one of our donation buttons--it sure will help with the increased costs of bandwidth--and make us feel good. The Amazon (chip in) link is for anonymous donations. The Paypal (make donation) link will let us know who sent the money. Thanks to all of you.

In One Rule for Them , The Guardian's George Monbiot examines the hypocrisy of Rumsfeld's decrying Iraq's non-compliance with the Geneva Convention for American POW's while the U.S. has not afforded such protections to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Here are the violations Monbiot lists with respect to the Guantanamo detainees:

The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72). They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery.

Moniot debunks the Government's theory that the Guantanamo detainees are exempt from POW status.

But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war. Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal".

We've argued these same points many times, most recently here.

Yes, we know the difference according to the Administration between enemy combatants and prisoners of war. The Administration argues that Al Qaeda members don't qualify because they don't have these qualifications: (1) being under a responsible command; (2) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (3) carrying arms openly; and (4) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. At times they have included the qualification of wearing a military uniform. Back last February, Bush said the Taliban and Al Qaeda were enemy combatants. After a lot of heat, he revised his position to recognize that Taliban soldiers were entitled to POW protections but not Al Qaeda. This Administration has been making up the rules as it goes along and refuses to concede that enemy combatants are entitled to judicial review of its decision.

"Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that if there is "any doubt" as to whether captured combatants should be recognized as POWs, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." In other words, if doubt exists, the status of each detainee must be determined individually, not by a blanket decision of the President."

"Even if not technically prisoners of war, al Qaeda and Taliban captives still qualify for "humane treatment" under the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1988."

We believe in treating all prisoners as human beings and with dignity. As we said here, "If we treat the citizens of other countries this way, why won't these other countries retaliate with similar or harsher treatment when they capture members of our military?" Don't we reap what we sow?