Sign the Petition to Support the Dixie Chicks.

We wish to express our support for Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks and their right to dissent from President Bush's style of diplomacy. As a result of the Bush administration's disrespect for the United Nations and international law, all Americans have suffered injuries to their reputations in the eyes of the world community, which most acutely affect those Americans working and traveling abroad. It was therefore well within Maines's rights to dissociate herself from the views and actions of the President before a London audience. Maines has subsequently made clear that she intended no disrespect to the office of the President or to the American soldiers serving in the Gulf.

We applaud Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks for giving voice to the voiceless majority of Americans who do not support President Bush's decision to invade Iraq without UN authorization. We deplore the efforts of radio stations and other media outlets and organizations to boycott the Dixie Chicks. We find it especially ironic that these efforts to chill future voices of dissent are being led by broadcasters to whom the public has entrusted our most vital First Amendment rights.

We call for an immediate end to all such boycotts, and encourage all Americans to show their support for the Dixie Chicks by signing this petition and continuing to enjoy their music.

Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, the whistleblower referred to in today's news articles about the 3,000 criminal cases that may be tainted due to "flawed science" and "skewed testimony" at the FBI lab prior to 1997, has this to say about the matter:

The present director of the FBI crime lab is Dr. Dwight Adams. You may remember that one of the improvements to the FBI crime lab taken in 1997 was that the lab would be managed by an outside scientist, not an FBI agent. That individual was Dr. Don Kerr. He stayed about 3 years and left and was replaced quietly by ... an FBI agent. Back to normal. Dr. Adams is an FBI agent and has been one for close to twenty years. He originally worked in the serology section of the lab, went to the field to the New York FBI office and returned in about 1996 or 1997 and zoomed up the ladder of management.

Supervisory Special Agent Adams, now director of the FBI crime lab, tells us that the number 3000 cases affected by the lab's woes is not necessarily alarming as the lab has 650 employees working hundreds of thousands of cases. That Adams would say that is in itself alarming. But look behind those numbers. The IG report only looked at the work product of 13 examiners. The lab employs 650 personnel. If 13 employees caused the work in 3000 cases to be suspect then if you do the math you could imagine that on the average one lab examiner might mess up 230 cases in a career. Multiply that by 650 and you get a universe of 149,500 cases that might be flawed. In reality only about 200 of those 650 employees in the lab are examiners who render opinions. So let's assume that the 450 technicians do perfect work during their whole career (fat chance). That will reduce the possible universe of flawed cases down to a mere 46,000 cases. Dr. Adams should be relieved by that number. The question you should ask yourself then is, are you relieved knowing that only 46,000 cases may have been screwed up by the FBI crime lab and the US Department of Justice only found 3000 of those cases.

But there is more.

With war imminent, some veterans are very angry at Bush.

Gary Hart is now officially accepting donations while considering whether to run for President. Give soon, give as much as you can. Every little bit helps. Here's the donation link.

His website is garyhartnews.com

"Senator Ron Wyden (D.-Ore.), who earlier this year spearheaded an effort to cut off funding for the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program, won Senate Commerce Committee approval last week of an amendment to require Congressional oversight of the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) being developed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)."

We're on the road today, we hope you will scroll down to read our weekend posts and also visit the sites on the right. We'll be back posting tonight.

Feel free to hit the paypal and "chip in" buttons --your contributions are very much appreciated.

Conservative columnist Stuart Taylor in today's Opening Argument : All "falsely accused" detainees should receive due process:

[Courts have held in dismissing lawsuits that ] Guantanamo was outside U.S. "sovereign territory" because Cuba technically retains sovereignty.

The legal black hole in which this leaves any and all innocent detainees held by U.S. forces abroad is both unjust and insulting to the international community. If this is the law, then the law needs amending.

Fundamental American values and international norms require some kind of due process for all prisoners, no matter where detained. Congress should now force the administration to do what it should have done long ago: assign military tribunals to interview every detainee and to provide all those who plausibly claim that they are not enemy combatants with a fair opportunity to prove it.

We welcome Mr. Taylor's position, howver, we'd extend it to all detainees, not just those a tribunal feels have a "plausible case" of innocence.

Check out these war protest photos from this past weekend (March 14 - 15). They express some powerful sentiment.

And don't miss Tom Tomorrow.

Brian Mitchell, the suspect in the Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping case, has a lawyer. The lawyer went on television Sunday and said Mitchell considers the teen as his 'Wife'. The lawyer, Larry Long, said that his client..."wanted me to tell the world that she is his wife, and he still loves her and knows that she still loves him, that no harm came to her during their relationship and the adventure that went on.''

Long said Mitchell did not consider Elizabeth's disappearance a kidnapping, but a ``call from God.''

Long also suggested that giving a light sentence to his client -- whom he referred to as ``the perpetrator'' -- could send a signal to kidnappers that they should keep their captives alive.

``If we can somehow set up some structure where the message gets out that if you bring the girl back alive, that there's some kind of commutation of the sentence, we may be much better off as a society.''

Long said Mitchell is on a fruit-only diet in the jail and wants to be called ``Immanuel David Isaiah.'' He wants Barzee to be known as ``Hephzibah Eladah Isaiah'' and for Elizabeth to be called ``Shear Jashub Isaiah,'' or ``Remnant Who Will Return.''

``I found him to be very intelligent, very knowledgeable, very coherent and very articulate in his expression of his views,'' Long said.

[comments now closed]

Here is the latest Iraq Travel Warning from the State Department. You can check other countries on their websites. The UAR was added on March 10, 2003.

IRAQ February 19, 2003 This Travel Warning is being issued to alert American citizens that following the temporary closure of the U.S Interests Section at the Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Baghdad, other embassies and consulates have also suspended operations in Iraq, further limiting any assistance to Americans. No consular services are available to U.S. citizens at this time in Iraq. The U.S. Government continues to urge all U.S. citizens to avoid travel to Iraq. U.S. citizens in Iraq should depart. This replaces the Travel Warning of February 7, 2003.

Any bets on when war will break out? We say Thursday, so that the Administration can give 72 hours notice to people to get out.

The Chicago Tribune today has a long investigative article on how the recent arrests of allegedly high ranking Al Qaeda members reopen questions about military tribunals. The article contains this description of the difference between tribunal and federal court proceedings:

How military and civilian courts would differ

The Bush administration wants to try suspected terrorists in a special military commission that would likely act in secret. Here is how a military commission, as proposed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, would differ from a federal criminal court:

MILITARY COMMISSION

CRIMES: Defined by the Defense Department

PRESIDING OFFICIAL: A military lawyer, called a judge advocate, who is appointed and acts as a member the panel.

DELIBERATORS: A panel of three to seven military officers.

DEFENSE : Appointed by the defense secretary or someone he names as the appointing authority.

RULES OF EVIDENCE: A military lawyer is assigned to represent the accused, who can hire a civilian lawyer as well. The civilian lawyer could be barred from sensitive proceedings and evidence. The presiding officer decides whether admit or exclude evidence. There are rules governing suppression of evidence.

SECRECY: The presiding officer has broad discretion to close the proceedings.

DECISIONS: Conviction and sentencing require a two thirds vote.

DEATH SENTENCE: Only by unanimous vote of a commission of seven members.

RIGHT OF APPEAL: The accused cannot appeal to a civilian court. A review panel of three military officers or commissioned civilians, including judge, can recommend new proceedings.

FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT

CRIMES: Defined by Congress and state legislatures

PRESIDING OFFICIAL: A federal judge, nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate and appointed for life.

DELIBERATORS: A jury of 12 civilians, randomly drawn from voter lists, sometimes combined with driver lists. The lawyer for the accused can eliminate potential jurors.

DEFENSE: The Constitution requires that the judge appoint a defense attorney if the accused cannot afford one.

RULES OF EVIDENCE: Federal rules and case law exclude certain types of evidence, such as hearsay and illegally obtained statements.

SECRECY: The Constitution guarantees a public trial, except in certain cases, normally involving children.

DECISIONS: Must be unanimous in conviction and sentencing.

DEATH SENTENCE: As in all sentencing, the jury must be unanimous.

RIGHT OF APPEAL: The accused has the right to appeal the conviction or sentence to a higher (appellate) court.

Sources: U.S. Department of Defense, National Institute of Military Justice, FindLaw, Cornell Law School

Legal analysis and criticism of the proposed military tribunals is available from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) here. The draft of the rules released by Rumsfeld are here. Here are the principal NACDL objections, as contained in its report: