"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:

A nice profile on Senator Robert Byrd and his emergence as the Senate's Most Forceful Voice Against War

LA Weekly examines LA Police Chief William Bratton's decision to open up the Ramparts scandal to an independent investigation in Bring on the Dirty Cops:

But even before he applied for the job last year, Bratton knew the department would never fully recapture its stature, its morale or its effectiveness until the subject of Rampart was finally closed. And he knew that to be closed, it must finally be fully opened.

In October, before taking the oath as chief, Bratton called for a new internal LAPD probe into the whole disaster. But a few months on the job convinced him that another inside report would never remove the stain of scandal. Last month, he told the Police Commission that he wants an outside, independent probe.

This is what police reformers had been seeking, and City Hall had been resisting, for years. Why the change now? The first answer is the most obvious one --Bratton is an outsider. No matter how disturbing the revelations that may come out of any new probe, they will not directly tarnish this chief from New York with the Boston accent.

This is something that could never be said of career LAPD officer Bernard Parks, who was in charge of Internal Affairs and later Operations when much of the misconduct occurred, even though he fervently insisted as chief that it was his leadership and discipline that brought the conspiracy to light.

There's lots more, go read the whole thing. Then go over and read two more LA Weekly articles:

The new guy in town — Bill Bratton — has a good idea. He wants to know just how deep Rampart-style sins go in L.A. Here are two cases that might be worth another look by the chief. CELESTE FREMON records the final moments of the life of 19-year-old Flavio Aragon, who bled to death in 1994 in the presence of police officers. CHARLES RAPPLEYE examines the death of Erik Vega, who was shot in 1996 after officers dropped him off near rival gang territory.

Barry Sheck and Peter Neufeld call for an end to the DNA debacle and for the creation of an independent committee to review questionable cases.

Neufeld and Scheck, based in New York City, are cofounders and directors of the Innocence Project, a national nonprofit legal clinic devoted to freeing the innocent.

The case of Gideon v. Wainwright is about the right to a court-appointed attorney. Its importance is only underscored by developments today in the cases of American born detainees Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. Robert C. Boruchowitz, director of The Defender Association and a Soros Justice Senior Fellow of the Open Society Institute, explains the connection .

From our earlier post:

We will be in Washington with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for the 40th Anniversary of Gideon commemoration and to do some lobbying with some Republican members of Congress on the Innocence Protection Act on Tuesday and Wednesday. We will be blogging evenings and early mornings from D.C.

If you're in Washington, come to the Gideon Symposium. It is free and open to the public. You can access the brochure here. Details:

March 18, 2003, 9:30 am - 5:00 pm
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC