The U.S. Supreme Court has handed Ashcroft another victory. The Court refused to allow the ACLU, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ( NACDL) and other groups to intervene and appeal the FISA Review Court decision allowing expanded secret searches of mail, email and conversations and the unprecedented sharing of the seized information between intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, so the issue likely be back before the Court at some point.

The Bush administration has argued the surveillance, and a special court that oversees sensitive domestic espionage tactics, are indispensable tools in the war on terror. The ACLU used an unusual maneuver to get the case to the Supreme Court, filing an appeal on behalf of people who don't even know they're being monitored. The justices would have had to give special permission to allow it. They refused, without comment. The action was not a ruling on the merits of the ACLU's challenge, and the issue is expected to return to the high court later.

Civil liberties watchdogs are concerned about the expanded use of FISA for secret surveillance and searches because there is "little or no" oversight by the courts or outide parties over the process. Further, the target of the surveillance never has to be informed that the government has obtained his personal records or put him under surveillance, and those who turn over records are effectively gagged from disclosing they received an order and complied with it.

Our summary of the case that was decided today is here. Our detailed coverage of the case, the arguments against the ruling and the FISA and Patriot Act provisions that underlie Ashcroft's justification for the expanded surveillance, can be found here.

The Washington Post reports today on Ashcroft's significant expansion of the number of wiretaps and other searches since the ruling by the FISA Review Court.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Justice Department and FBI have dramatically increased the use of two little-known powers that allow authorities to tap telephones, seize bank and telephone records and obtain other information in counterterrorism investigations with no immediate court oversight, according to officials and newly disclosed documents.

The FBI, for example, has issued scores of "national security letters" that require businesses to turn over electronic records about finances, telephone calls, e-mail and other personal information, according to officials and documents. The letters, a type of administrative subpoena, may be issued independently by FBI field offices and are not subject to judicial review unless a case comes to court, officials said.

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft has also personally signed more than 170 "emergency foreign intelligence warrants," three times the number authorized in the preceding 23 years, according to recent congressional testimony.

Update: You can read the opinion here.

"A second of six Yemeni-American men accused of training at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks pleaded guilty today to charges he supported al Qaeda."

"Shafal Mosed, 24, entered the plea to a charge of knowingly and unlawfully providing and attempting to provide material resources to a foreign terrorist organization, namely al Qaeda.
Authorities indicated they would seek an eight-year prison term."

Phyllis Bennis, author of Understanding the U.S.-Iraq Crisis: A Primer, and John Cavanagh, director of the Institute of Policy Studies, have prepared these Talking Points on the U.S.-Iraq Crisis. From the introduction:

This preventive war (it isn't even preemptive because there is no imminent threat to preempt) is among the most dangerous and reckless actions ever taken by a U.S. president. It isn't the first time the U.S. has launched an unjustified illegal war. But it is the first time such a war has been justified through a "doctrine" of preemptive war that abandons all understandings that war, with all its horrors, can be used only as the last possible resort when a nation's security and survival are threatened.

Some of the points:

The war at home

This war threatens Americans. We are now at greater risk. This war will increase anti-American sentiments around the world, and will serve as a recruiting poster for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations....This is an illegitimate war, and stands in violation of the UN Charter and international law. We hold the U.S. accountable for this illegal war.

The War Abroad

This war will be devastating for Iraq and Iraqis. The Pentagon's plan of "shock and awe" to open the main air attack against Baghdad will send 3,000 cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs into a crowded city of 6 million people. That is ten times the number of such bombs used in the entire Gulf War in 1991.
The humanitarian consequences will be severe.

What we should do

We should demand that Congress refuse to pay for waging an illegal war. We should also be clear that the U.S. is accountable for paying the costs of rehabilitating Iraq's war-shattered infrastructure as well as the emergency costs of refugees, food aid, etc. That money should be channelled through the UN humanitarian agencies, not paid to U.S. corporations, especially those (like Halliburton - already offered a $1 billion + contract) with direct links to the Bush administration.

We should urge the General Assembly to convene in emergency session under the terms of the Uniting for Peace precedent at the UN. That allows the Assembly to take up issues ordinarily reserved for the Security Council - such as war in Iraq -- when the Council is paralyzed because of disagreements among the five veto-wielding permanent members. A General Assembly resolution (where there is not veto) could condemn the U.S. war (important for delegitimating future such wars), demand an immediate halt to the war, request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the war, or more.

The Judge in the Michigan terror trial now underway in federal court has refused to adjourn the trial because of the preducial effect on the jury of the War on Iraq. The men on trial are charged with providing material aid to terrorists --the Government alleges they were in a sleeper cell. Our most recent, detailed explanation of the case is here.

Former Senator Eugene McCarthy on the War in Iraq:

"I'm not clear as to what a pre-emptive strike means," McCarthy said. "I don't think we should call it a war. It's kind of a police action."

Update: U.S. says the speech may be an old one.

This from Reuters.... Hussein Makes Televised Speech

Monday, Mar 24, 2003; 3:21 AM

BAGHDAD, March 24 (Reuters) - Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, dressed in a military uniform, appeared on state television on Monday and hailed the Iraqi military on the fifth day of a U.S.-led invasion to overthrow him.

"We made a lot of sacrifices to avert war," Saddam said, praising the "valiant" contribution of the Iraqi military in resisting a U.S. and British war against Iraq that began on Thursday.

He said the invasion forces were "trapped" by heroic Iraqi resistance.

Reuters correspondents in Baghdad and elsewhere in the Middle East said they were confident that the man appearing on live television was Hussein. The Iraqi leader has a handful of lookalikes who sometimes stand in for him.

Speculation has abounded about Hussein's fate since the war started with air strikes on Baghdad intended to kill him. Some reports said he was dead, others that he was so badly wounded he had to receive a blood transfusion.

Within three hours of the first U.S.-led attack on Baghdad on Thursday, a tired-looking Hussein appeared on television, in a military uniform, urging his people to fight. But the CIA says it could have been pre-recorded -- even though he referred in the address to the start of the raid at dawn.

Update: Here is the text of Michael Moore's acceptance speech:

Michael Moore: Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.

Michael Moore rocked the Academy Awards tonight with his acceptance speech following the Best Documentary Award for Bowling for Columbine. At first there were a few cheers but they quickly turned to jeers when he said "Shame on President Bush" whom he called a fictitious president running a fictitious war. By the time he was done, there were loud boos. Moore was laughing, he knew his remarks were over the top, but he clearly intended to shock, and the boos were his confirmation that he succeeded.

We weren't offended by his remarks. But we think he wasted a good opportunity and instead accomplished just what we were afraid of: turning millions of people off. Not by his beliefs, but in the way he chose to express them. It's his right of course, but he certainly didn't help the anti-war movement, in our opinion.

After Moore, host Steve Martin came back and got a laugh with his line, "As you might expect, things are going great backstage. The Teamsters just loaded Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo."

Update: Contrast Moore with Adrian Brody who got cheers and a standing ovation for his heartfelt plea that the war end soon.

Smythe's World: "For all the reaction that [it] caused, I have yet to hear anyone say that a single word of what Michael Moore said last night was false. Sometimes it's tacky to tell the truth. "

Lisa English of Ruminate This is really angry at Bush at the fate of the detainees:

If one follicle is touched on the head of any American service personnel in captivity, we can blame the new war policies of our terrorist president, George Bush. It's really not a hard one to figure out, and so one begins to wonder about the collective sanity of this administration. Is it mental illness or just another case of stunning neoconservative hubris? You decide. Since when is this Administration so damn concerned about adhering to the tenets of the Geneva Convention?

We've written about the U.S. and torture of Al Qaeda captives several times--take a look at of there's our prior post, Torture Lite. Or these, about torture and homicides at Bagram Air Base which is under U.S. military control.

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?

The Iraq Ambassador said today that POWs won't be mistreated and that Iraq will follow the Geneva Convention.

UPI is reporting that Saddam Hussein chaired an emergency meeting with senior military officers and government officials.

Matthew at Untelevised.Org has some thoughtful and harsh words for the media and its capitulation to the Bush Administration in its war coverage.

There is an excellent article by Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker on terrorism and torture. A quote:

...just as the victims of torture are utterly helpless, the perpetrators of it are utterly debased. Like capital punishment, torture is abhorrent not only for what it does to the tortured but for what it makes of the torturer. It is the perfect opposite of what we like to think our country has stood for. It is surely not what we wish to become.

Also in the New Yorker is Unembedded, journalist Hampton Side's article on why he backed out of being an embedded journalist. [Links via Bloviator who has some very good commentary of his own.]

Sean Paul at the The Agonist has put up the link to the still pictures of the five captured Amercian soldiers shown on Al Jazeera television. Viewers beware, we looked and we are somewhat sorry we did.

We're just appalled that we put our youth in such harm's way. But, we're mentioning it because after viewing the photos, our resolve to protest this unjustified, preemptive war was strengthened --as was our desire to oust the Bush/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft regime in 2004. We hope viewing them will do the same for others with anti-war leanings, and even convert a few who don't. We're not reposting the link to the photos themselves, just the link to Sean Paul and Hesiod at Counterspin who also has it up. Oliver Willis has exceptionally clear photos up. Again, viewers beware.

"President Bush plans to tell congressional leaders on Monday that the war in Iraq will cost about $80 billion, administration officials said, three days after both chambers of Congress passed budget plans and authorized tax cuts without three days after both chambers of Congress passed budget plans and authorized tax cuts without a war-cost estimate from the administration."

The amount "includes about $60 billion for combat and the first months of reconstruction, with the rest going to foreign aid, homeland security and humanitarian relief. "