While the military says they were prepared for suicide attempts by detainees at Guantanamo Bay, psychologists say conditions at the prison are partially to blame:

In the course of one week in mid-February, three detainees tried to kill themselves, raising the number of suicide attempts to 19 since detainees were brought to the island in January 2002. Nine of those attempts have been recorded since mid-January.

The suicide attempts -- most by hanging using clothes or bedsheets -- involve 16 detainees. Three have made multiple attempts. None of the suicide attempts has been successful, though at least one detainee is in serious but stable condition at the base hospital.

... experts in correctional psychology say the problem is likely heightened by the hopelessness and stress some of the detainees may experience because of a long confinement with no foreseeable end, and by prison rules that forbid contact with families and lawyers.

What did the military expect when they made plans to lock people up indefinitely, thousands of miles from their home countries, without giving them the protection of prisoner of war statutes, access to lawyers, telephone contact with family members, or even charging them with a crime?

"As far as they know, they're going to be there forever," said Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights. "It must give people a sense of desperation. . . . This is like a Devil's Island."

Particularly when you add in the stress resulting from the military's "aggressive interrogation techniques." How does this bode for U.S. servicemen and women who will be undoubtedly be captured in hostile countries once the war officially begins? Typical of the way this country operates, those who cooperate with their captors will receive favorable treatment. What about the non-terrorist captive who has no information with which to barter? He's apparently out of luck.

The detainees are held in one-person cells inside three maximum-security blocks -- known as Camps I, II and III -- which replaced the open-air holding pens, known as Camp X-Ray, that were used when detainees arrived on the island. An undetermined number of detainees who have cooperated with interrogators will be transferred sometime this month to a fourth prison building, a new minimum-security facility capable of holding as many as 200 inmates. It has large, communal housing bays and common rooms where detainees can gather to play games or socialize, according to Army Lt. Col. Bill Costello, a spokesman for the joint military task force that runs the prison.

Once again we are being kept in the dark. Officials won't disclose the nature of the suicide attempts or the identities of those detainees who attempt it. They won't discuss the size of their medical staff. Or whether they are going to change their interrogation methods. But they want us to believe they have a handle on it. We're not buying it--any more than we buy their explanation that many of the suicide attempts are fake and manipulative. We hope the human rights organizations keep pressing for details. "No comment" is simply not an acceptable response.

It turns out that the FBI has been recruiting and protecting violent informants for years.

For decades, in cities from coast to coast, FBI agents recruited killers and crime bosses as informants and then looked the other way as they continued to commit violent crimes.

When the practice first came to light in Boston - unleashing an ongoing investigation that has already sent one agent to prison for obstruction of justice - FBI officials in Washington portrayed it as an aberration.

But AP interviews with nine former FBI agents - men with a combined 190 years of experience in more than 25 bureau offices from Texas to Chicago and from Los Angeles to Washington - indicate the practice was widespread during their years of service between the late 1950s and the 1990s.

Link via Unlearned Hand, who sagaciuosly comments,

Some of the arguments made by the agents resemble arguments made in defense of torture and other such means:

"You have to weigh the odds of whether killing one or two people is better than killing a whole planeload," said Wesley Swearingen, whose service as an agent from 1959 to 1977 included tours in Los Angeles and Chicago.

Combine an institutional willingness to look the other way with the war on terrorism (and the proposed Patriot Act II), and a dangerous stew could be brewing.

The ACLU is on top of things, as always. Click here to learn what the proposed Patriot Act sequel contains, and to send a fax to Congress sharing your opinions on it.

If there was ever a group that deserves a donation for its yeoman work the past year and a half, it's the ACLU. Give what you can.

Here is the link to the Feb. 28, PBS trancript of Bill Moyers' interview with Nat Hentoff . [via Take Back the Media].

Sometimes students cut right to the quick of things. That's what we think about Nick Huggler, and his commentary in the Oregon State Daily Barometer, titled Justice should be blind, not a mystery:

Republicans love Estrada. They go nuts for Estrada. If there were a new state brought into the Union, perhaps Costa Rica, Senate Republicans might consider naming it Estrada. Miguel Estrada is the poster child for the Republican outreach to the Latino community....

The courts are not an idle political tool where the risk of a mystery justice can be taken. Courts are more and more actively coming to bear on environmental policy, the right to privacy, a woman's right to choice, the detainment of suspected terrorists and the guidelines of speech and democracy that guide this nation and protect its hold on freedom. It is important to know where an appointed justice will stand, regardless of what side of the aisle he played on before he was brought to the bench.

It is unconscionable that the administration would resist the requests of the senators. Judicial nominations are not the place for politics to be played, but are instead the place for full disclosure and an open discussion -- as we are hiring justices for life. Miguel Estrada should be the first to ask the White House to turn over his memos, and he should answer all of the questions posed to him.

In these times of tension, this is the first of many chances given to show some real cooperation in Washington and to do the government's business as it should be done -- with an eye on a better future and the chance to make the country better each day.

[link via How Appealing]

All these stories in the breaking news section of the Sunday London Times, and more:

UN confirms Iraq missile destruction

UN inspectors says Iraq has begun destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles and agreed to a timetable to scrap the rest of them within a matter of weeks. UN spokesman Hiro Ueki said the procedure went more slowly than expected because the rockets were so sturdy, but four missiles were destroyed. Ueki said two interviews -- with a biological weapons expert and with a missile engineer -- were conducted on Friday night, the first since February 7. Deputy chief inspector Demetrius Perricos said other interviews were under way, although he gave no further details.

Turkish vote on US troops overruled

A vote by the Turkish parliament to allow in 62,000 US troops in readiness for a war against Iraq has been overruled by the speaker. Bulent Arinc ruled that a majority of legislators present had not voted in favour, and closed parliament until Tuesday. The decision is a serious blow to the US. The vote was 264-250 with 19 abstentions, four short of a simple majority. The bill's rejection is likely to seriously increase tensions with the United States which had been expecting a positive vote.

Americans want UN backing for war

Almost half of US citizens believe war should be launched on Iraq only with the backing of the UN, according to a new poll. Some 44% of Americans polled for BBC1's Panorama said there should be a unanimous UN mandate before military action, against 31% who were ready to see war waged without UN backing. US President George Bush has made clear that he reserves the right to lead a "coalition of the willing" against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, with or without the support of the UN.

How difficult would it be for you to prove your innocence, particularly if you were in a foreign country and the FBI said it was after you? For this 72 year old Englishman, on a wine-tasting vacation in South Africa, it was pretty tough--he spent 20 days behind bars in Durban, due to the FBI's mistake.

The FBI's conduct in the case sounds pretty bad to us- they never even went to interview the Englishman they had caused to be imprisoned.

"My criticism of the FBI is extreme," said Bond during a news conference after his release. "America is meant to be a humane country, but under no circumstances did they behave in a humane way."

So, if you think people who are arrested must have done something wrong or else they'd be able to explain things and go home, this is a powerful lesson it doesn't always work that way. We can only imagine the horror of spending 20 days in a South African jail at the age of 72--because no one would listen to us when we protested our innocence.

The problem with Houston's crime lab is growing fast.

"Prosecutors have ordered new DNA testing on evidence used to convict 10 more people, four of them now on death row, after an independent audit uncovered widespread problems at the Houston police lab." "Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal has said several hundred cases perhaps as many as 400 will be retested. Twenty-one had been ordered by Saturday, including seven involving death row inmates."

One of the main problems with the Houston lab was that holes in the roof leaked water, possible contaminating the DNA samples and compromising the testing. But for a state audit in December, this might have gone unreported. As a result of the audit, DNA testing was suspended at the lab.

Sooner or later, if it hasn't happened already, an innocent person is going to be put to death. Not only does Texas lead the country in number of executions, but if Houston were a state, it would come in second. This should be the final straw to imposing a moratorium on the death penalty in Texas.

Jeffrey Steinborn, a criminal defense attorney in Seattle, has these thoughts on why we should all care about the Adminstration's treatment of the detainees, including U.S. Citizens like Jose Padilla:

Remember Pastor Niemoller. His message was simple but reflects what appears to be an inevitable rule of history -- if you don't stand up for those whom we all most detest, it won't be long before there's no one to stand up for us. What I have observed in some 35 years as a soldier in the war on drugs is that the U.S. government hones and polishes its techniques -- pre conviction forfeiture without effective due process, trial by ambush, erosion of the bill of rights . . . etc -- by using them on those for whom the fewest will speak up. Having polished these techniques and getting them accepted by the public as legitimate law enforcement techniques, they then turn them against the rest of us. Drug dealers have been a convenient target for a long time. Look how far the government has been able to push the constitution in the name of the war on drugs. Now we have someone even more easily branded as unworthy of due process. Of course Pastor Niemoller was talking about a situation where people were targeted for overtly religious or ethnic reasons and exterminated. We're much too modern and sophisticated for that. We now target them because they're evil. And, instead of killing the detested folks we now just lock them up forever. Nor do we have to tattoo them anymore -- now we have DNA. The whole system is a bit more expensive than just killing everyone, but reasonably effective.

That's where we defense lawyers come in and do our job as an essential institution in a democracy. We are the last few who will stand up. True, we despise this enemy, and fear his undemocratic terror tactics. The point of our system is that it's strong enough and flexible enough to survive this sort of threat, so long as we don't abandon our basic due process principles. And, of course, there is no evidence that we are going to make ourselves any safer even if we do give up a bit of liberty. Do you trust the Bush crime family to know where to draw the line? Operation Pipe Dreams suggests that they don't. With domestic law enforcement turned over to an administration that covers the breasts on statues I don't think we can afford to take their word for it when they single out a person and claim that person has engaged in conduct that exempts him/her from due process. To the contrary, that's the point where due process becomes the most important.

Anyone who thinks the line between military action and police action still has some significance in this society isn't paying attention to current law enforcement techniques. For more than a decade the military has been heavily involved in domestic drug law enforcement. The posse comitatus act is a shadow of its former self. In Washington, where I live, the government regularly uses military personnel and equipment to conduct routine two-bit marijuana investigations. The military is trained and equipped for domestic law enforcement of all kinds. They have learned the drill by practicing on drug suspects. This line has already been breached. Allen is not just being paranoid when he fears that the war on terrorism will extend to the war on drugs. Drugs were co-opted into the war on terrorism almost immediately. Remember the super bowl adds following 911? The fact that drug dealers are tried and convicted in courts doesn't answer the question. The real danger here is in the erosion of the rights that once made that trial process fair. The erosion process is pretty subtle, particularly if you're not directly involved in it. But for many accused of drug dealing it's only one step away from what the administration now does with those it labels "terrorists." It just looks a little better on the surface.

It seems to me if there's not enough evidence to convict persons at a trial, then there's not enough evidence to detain them indefinitely without counsel. It reminds me of the system they have in the terribly modern country of Singapore. Accused have the right to counsel so long as counsel would not interfere with the investigation. And, of course, until the accused confesses, counsel would indeed interfere with the investigation. Meanwhile they lock you up incommunicado, and throw a little cold water on you now and then when you think about sleeping. Sooner or later you confess and then you get a lawyer. I wonder what we do to the detainees we call terrorists?

Jeff Steinborn
"Fight Terrorism -- Smoke Homeland Grown"

There will be anti-war protests of a unique kind in 900 cities around the world Monday--the dissenters will be reciting an Anti-War comedy as an artistic protest of war against Iraq. For example, in Bellingham Washington,

A reading of Aristophanes' "Lysistrata: A Woman's Translation," written by former Bellingham resident Drue Robinson Hagan begins 7 p.m. Monday at the Mount Baker Theatre's Encore Room, 112 W. Champion St. in Bellingham."

Here's more on the Lysistrata Project. [link via Jim at Rittenhouse Review.]

Nathan Newman sticks up for Dennis Kucinich in Racism, Poverty & the Candidates. He also calls Ashcroft the most "anti-liberty Attorney General in the Post-WWII era."

Orcinus (Dave Neiwert) is back from his trip to Idaho and has resumed his series on facism.

Lisa English of Ruminate This says the resignation letter of career diplomat J. Bradley Kiesling to Colin Powell should be required reading for all Americans. He resigned over disagreements with Bush's foreign policies.

Patrick at Electrolite writes about Bush's credibility problems with leaders of other nations.

Hesiod at Counterspin, Jeanne D'arc at Body and Soul and Barry at Ampersand take on the recent leaking of a document that counters justification for war in Iraq. It relates to the Adminstration's misrepresentations of the debriefing of Iraqui defector, General Hussein Kamel, Saddam's executed son-in-law. Newsweek reported on it but apparently left some things out.

Kevin Drum of Calpundit reports on junk science and how to spot it.

And welcome to new blogger Unlearned Hand, who picks up on our post about Bush/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld's potential dismissal of the federal prosecution of Moussaoui in favor of prosecution by military tribunal, and comments:

Whatever my feelings about military tribunals (and the possibility that in three years I will be taking part in them), it does seem like the government ought not have it both ways. Either the prisoner should be subject to a civilian criminal court or a military court. Once the civilian court process has begun, it should be allowed to continue. To submit cases to civilian courts but then remove prisoners from that process at the first adverse ruling could do far more to undermine the courts than the tribunal system standing alone.

The blogs' author is in law school and upon graduation will begin service as an officer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He calls himself an "independent thinker who disagrees with everyone on at least one issue.

With that, we're off to shop for birthday presents for our mother who turns 80 on Monday and due to health issues, can't get out much anymore. Suggestions would be appreciated, we can shop tomorrow too.

Former President Bill Clinton has been tapped for jury duty in a New York murder case. The Judge is inclined to excuse him due to the publicity and effect of the constant presence of secret service--she wants the trial to stay focused on the evidence.

Clinton filled out his questionnaire, and said he could be fair. His lawer, David Kendall, says he's ready to serve. The prosecution wants Clinton excused. The defense says, "not so fast."

We would love the opportunity to voir dire Clinton --but ultimately, we feel sure we would excuse him. Too many crime bills came in under Clinton, particularly the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Under his Admnistration, we saw big increases in the number of death penalty-eligible offenses, the number of wiretaps and mandatory minimum sentences. While most people think of Clinton as liberal and tolerant, he was terrible on criminal justice issues.

So while we wish he was still President for other reasons, we know we wouldn't want him on a murder jury. We'd make a challenge for cause, and if that was denied, he'd be peremptory challenge number one. Sorry, Bill.