Former Senator Gary Hart has an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post titled A Detour From the War on Terrorism . Here's the beginning, go read the whole thing.

The urgent necessity to disband terrorist networks abroad and to secure the American homeland has been replaced by the Bush administration's puzzling preoccupation with Saddam Hussein. He has become George Bush's White Whale, an obsession that has cost us international solidarity in eradicating terrorism, the goodwill of tens of millions of people worldwide and the role of benign democratic world leader. While deploying divisions to the Middle East our government has not been training and equipping police, fire and emergency health responders in the United States. While splitting the United Nations and NATO, our government has not made our vulnerable ports safer. While paying tens of billions of (deficit) tax dollars to Turkey, Yemen and other countries for basing rights in the Middle East, our president is not preparing the United States to respond to the terrorist attacks the CIA has predicted will most probably occur as a response to our preemptive invasion of a sovereign Arab nation. It is difficult to imagine that the president seriously believes an invasion of Iraq will reduce the terrorist threat to the United States.

The Los Angeles Times reports Former Colorado Senator Gary Hart is moving closer to deciding to run for President.

Moving closer to a possible presidential campaign, former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado said Friday that he intends to begin raising money and hiring a staff to more systematically explore entering the Democratic race. "I think we will probably begin some preliminary fund-raising very soon, just to be able to test the waters," Hart told The Times Friday.

We sat down to our first cup of coffee this morning, opened the Rocky Mountain News, and were excited to see a full two page profile on Hart. It is well-balanced and gives you a good sense of what drives him, why he might run again, why his family (wife of 44 years and two adult children) support him, and best of all, how favorable public reaction has been to him during his past few months giving speeches across the country.

As to the 1988 Donna Rice incident. We say, Get over it. It will be a non-issue, except among Bush supporters.

Newsweek [Thanks, Atrios]

Daily Kos has this roundup of the reviews of Bush's speech, and calls them "decidedly negative."

What a great description of Florida's attitude towards criminal justice under the stewardship of Governor Jeb Bush:

Led by one of the nation's toughest anti-crime governors and guided by an attorney general known as "Chain Gang" Charlie Crist, Florida can hardly be considered a vacationland for criminals. The Sunshine State in recent years has resurrected the chain gang, built an additional 21 prisons and passed a law that requires prisoners to serve 85 percent of their sentences. In January, Gov. Jeb Bush called for the closing of state legal offices that represent inmates awaiting execution, a move that critics fear would speed the walk to death."

But that's not really the reason to read the article. This is:

Yet, despite Florida's unchallenged image as hard-nosed on crime, several law-enforcement agencies in the state's southern region have decided to voluntarily begin videotaping police interrogations, a process that many law-enforcement officials and prosecutors across the nation consider too costly and a barrier to their ability to solve crimes.

Proponents assert that electronic taping can only enhance justice by limiting or ending the number of wrongful convictions obtained through forced confessions or false admissions. They contend it would save tax money by reducing multimillion-dollar awards in wrongful arrest lawsuits and police misconduct cases. Likewise, there would be fewer costly court hearings to suppress confessions, they say.

Richard Ofshe, an authority on police interrogation tactics and false confessions, said the willingness of Florida police departments to embrace videotaping "might start the snowball rolling down the hill" and bring reluctant police departments everywhere into line.

Fort Lauderdale, all of Broward County and Miami, have already adopted the policy. Smaller Florida cities, like Coral Springs, are adopting the policy. False confessions and forced confessions do happen. They cause innocent people to be convicted--even sent to Death Row. Taping interrogations should be the rule everywhere. It protects police and it strengthens cases against the guilty. It's a win-win for everyone.

We had over 4,000 daily visitors for the first time Friday. Over 6,500 page views. Thanks, everyone, especially (in alphabetical order) Atrios, Cursor and Instapundit.

While the Washington Post is reporting that the Air Force is backing Air Force Academy officials , the New York Times is reporting that the Air Force is warning senior officials at the Air Force Academy that they could be held accountable "for complaints by female cadets that they faced indifference or retaliation when they reported rapes and sexual assaults."

Both of these accounts are at odds with the statements of Air Force Secretary James G. Roche last week. Roche "laid full responsibility for charges of sexual misconduct on a "fringe element" of cadets."

Sounds like a classic case of "he said/he said" to us. We hope someone is paying attention to the "she-saids."

No Death-Penalty Doubts at Justice :

Although Ashcroft says it's a top priority to prevent innocent people from being sentenced to death, he has not pushed initiatives to upgrade the quality of defense lawyers in state capital-murder cases or increase death-row inmates' access to DNA testing. Both steps are crucial to eliminate tragic errors in death-penalty prosecutions, according to a broad coalition of reform-minded activists.....

Asked if Ashcroft believes death-penalty administration is deeply flawed, as the activists submit, Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo says, "I think we would argue that the system is overwhelmingly fair."

....The attorney general has displayed no more enthusiasm in advocating legislation to reduce the risk of innocent people being convicted in capital cases. No less a dyed-in-the-wool conservative than Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor devoted a speech to the subject in July 2001. O'Connor, whom President Reagan had appointed and whose support of the death penalty dates back to her days as an Arizona legislator, said, "Serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this country." She went on to decry the lack of minimum standards for appointed counsel in death-penalty cases and the unavailability of post-conviction DNA testing . [Via Hamster]

More on the same theme from Cindi Ross Scoppe over at the South Carolina State:

IN MISSOURI, a prosecutor went before the state Supreme Court and told justices they should not allow a death-row inmate a new trial "even if," as one of the justices put it, "we find Mr. Amrine is actually innocent."

In federal court in the same state, the state convinced judges that despite "a nagging suspicion that the wrong man may have been convicted," the death-row inmate was entitled to "no relief, even as the facts suggest that he may well be innocent."

In Alabama, prosecutors objecting to a hearing on new evidence in a death-row case said: "If the State of Alabama has to spend even one additional day in Birmingham, Alabama, defending the state, the state will be unduly injured in the form of additional per diem expenses, transportation expenses and loss of two assistant attorney generals for a complete work day."

By taking such hard-and-fast positions, prosecutors are doing more than opponents ever could to undermine public confidence in the death penalty.

But how certain can I be about justice when our prosecutors fight to make sure no jury ever hears new evidence that calls into serious question the condemned's guilt? How certain can I be about justice when our laws and procedures prevent courts from reopening such cases?

These are not just hypothetical questions, and not just questions in a few states where prosecutors say outrageous things. As The New York Times noted in putting together these examples, such arguments are becoming more frequent, as death penalty opponents become more aggressive in trumpeting innocence claims.

DNA has exonerated 123 people in the last decade, according to Cardozo Law School's Innocence Project. Twenty-Five of them are from Florida. No matter--DNA testing may be coming to an end in Florida this fall when

a two-year statute of limitations runs out on raising DNA challenges to Death Row convictions. Florida lawmakers created the two-year window of opportunity in 2001 after the exoneration of Frank Lee Smith, a Broward man who died of cancer while appealing his death sentence.

There should be no time limit on justice, critics say. 'If we later find out that we executed an innocent person, we can't dig up their grave and say `Whoops! Sorry, we made a mistake,' '' said former Florida Supreme Court Justice Gerald Kogan. Kogan was one of six legal experts participating in a discussion on wrongful convictions Thursday at the University of Miami Law School. Others on the panel included former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, Miami-Dade County Public Defender Bennett Brummer, attorney Bill Laswell with the Broward Capital Crimes group, Death Row attorney Martin McClain and Catherine Arcabascio, a professor at Nova Southeastern University's Innocence Project.

In the last two years, the Florida Innocence Project at Nova Southeastern Law School has received more than 600 cases of prisoners claiming innocence. Project members have identified 150 of those as DNA cases. But, they say, there's not enough time to review cases before the fall deadline.

One more time, there should be no time limit on justice.

Red Alert for Bill of Rights by Nat Hentoff is up at the Village Voice. It's another Ashcroft bashing, this time for Patriot Act II. How's this for an opening quote?

"This nation . . . has no right to expect that it always will have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. . . . [If] the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. --United States Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan, 1866, declaring Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and other abuses of the Bill of Rights unconstitutional

If you'd like to know more about Patriot Act II, here's the ACLU's 19 page analysis.

Getting in the Game today writes a long and thoughtful post on why he has decided Gary Hart is his "candidate." Here's a portion:

So today I declare that I support Gary Hart as candidate for President of the United States. I will in a series of four similar articles explain the path and cycles on the four areas that Senator Hart has spoken on, and why he has developed policy that can both regenerate the Democratic Party and is realistic enough to accomplish. Before those, I will post my analysis of the current field of candidates including George W. Bush tomorrow afternoon. In that I will explain why this strategy I have outlined and Gary Hart puts forth, is not only the right thing, but a winning strategy for the party not only in 2004 but the years beyond.

Ken G., one of our frequent commenters, writes in (see the comments section here for his remarks in full):

Personally, I am re-energized politically at the thought of the amazing guerilla campaign that can be run for a progressive with great name recognition that doesn't owe anyone a thing. Although I am a fan of many of the current Dems in the race, none of them have the ability to ignite the idealistic beliefs that got me involved in his earlier campaigns.

Keep in mind Hart has not said he will be a candidate. He is still considering whether to run. We hope he does make the decision to run, and if you want to express your support for him directly, you can do so at his website Gary Hart News.Com

Fox News, Thursday, March 6, 2003, The Factor
Bill O'Reilly, Host and Former Colorado Senator Gary Hart
_______________________________________

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Continuing now with the presidential press conference. Joining us from Santa Monica, California, one time Democratic presidential contender and former senator of Colorado, Gary Hart. Senator, the three most important things you heard this evening?

GARY HART (D), FMR. COLORADO SENATOR: Well the president took justifiable credit for the capture of Shaikh Mohammed, which is a significant development. He did say that Iraq is in non-compliance. And, finally, he said they are a direct threat to us.

What was more interesting to me is what he did not say or refused to say. He did not clearly state what our objective is in Iraq. Second, he did not deal candidly again with the issue of cost and human lives and capital. And, third, he did not deal with what is perhaps the most important question, and that is, are we prepared for the inevitable retaliation against this country? And there I think he did not do well.

Here's the latest on which Democratic contenders are taking public financing for their campaigns.

Those that accept public financing are limited in what they can spend. Those that forego it, like Bush in 2000, can spend whatever they want.

Bush spent $100 million in 2002. "With an increase in contribution limits under the nation's new campaign finance law, some of Bush's fund-raisers think he can raise $200 million or more for the primaries, money he could spend through the spring and summer to take on the presumptive Democratic nominee."

"The presidential campaign fund is financed by taxpayers with a $3 checkoff on their tax returns. In 2000, those who accepted public financing, including then-Vice President Al Gore, were entitled to up to $16.9 million in matching funds. In exchange, they had to abide by spending limits; Gore could only spend $40.5 million in the Democratic primaries, for example."

Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich are taking public financing. Kerry is up in the air. Edwards most likely will take it. Graham hasn't gotten around to thinking about it yet, he's still assembling a campaign team.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) filed comments with the Department of Defense today objecting to its February 28 proposed instruction on military tribunals. The organization contends that the proposed instruction poses a threat to the safety U.S. military personnel abroad.

Citing a concern, among others, that U.S. military personnel could face danger due to its provisions, criminal defense bar leaders filed comments today with the Department of Defense General Counsel's Office commenting on the DoD's draft Instruction pertaining to crimes and their elements, as well as procedures, for use by military commissions. The proposed Instruction was issued on February 28th.

The comments by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers raised the concern that the proposed Instruction is so alien to recognized principles of international law, especially the Law of Armed Conflict, that by implementing them, the Department of Defense is seriously jeopardizing the legal rights and privileges of American military members abroad, should they become captured.

"Our concern [with the Instruction] is founded in part on the prospect that American prisoners of war in future conflicts may be harmed if this Instruction is used as a justification for improper treatment of Americans," said Lawrence Goldman, president of NACDL, in a letter to DoD General Counsel William J. Haynes which accompanied the comments.

"Foreign countries capturing American military members would have no incentive to grant them POW status," said Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr., a criminal defense lawyer in Rochester, New York, and co-chair of NACDL's Military Law Committee. "Using our own DoD principles contained in the proposed Instruction, our enemies could subject them to 'trials' in violation of international law."

President Bush, by a prior order, authorized use of military commissions, often called tribunals, to try alleged terrorists and other military "detainees," in order to avoid public trials in federal courts.

NACDL's Military Law Committee, co-chaired by Rehkopf, Terri R. Z. Jacobs, and Jack B. Zimmerman, each of whom have extensive military law backgrounds and experience, drafted the comments. In forwarding NACDL's comments to the DoD, Goldman noted that the proposed Instruction is fundamentally flawed.

"There is a serious Constitutional question about the Defense Department legislating crimes and their elements," said Goldman, a criminal defense lawyer in New York City. "According to the plain language of Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, it is the duty of Congress, not the Defense Department, to 'define and punish …offenses against the Law of Nations.'"

According to NACDL's comments, the proposed Instruction also ignores numerous federal statutes that Congress has enacted dealing both with military commissions and trials of persons accused of war crimes and terrorist acts. The proposed Instructions "simply fail to acknowledge Congressional will in this area," said Goldman.

The comments also address significant ex post facto problems and a fundamental shifting of the burden of proof that is contrary to accepted principles of Anglo-American law, according to the comments. "Requiring a defendant to prove his or her innocence is not part of our Constitutional framework, nor is it a recognized concept under international law," Goldman said.

NACDL also objected to the proposed Instruction's provisions on self-defense and duress, its failure to recognize statutes of limitation under American and international law, and various definitions pertaining to concepts of criminal justice.

"For the DoD to run the risk of jeopardizing the lives of America's military members, for the sake of expediency in prosecuting an alleged terrorist by a military commission, is an unconscionable slap in the face to those who wear the uniform to defend America," said Rehkopf.

You can read the draft instruction, NACDL's filed objections and an analysis of the draft instruction here.