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.

Instapundit reports on an email from Eric Alterman alerting that "C-SPan II will broadcast my talk at the LA Bookstore, Skylights on Saturday, March 1 at 4:30 pm and Monday, March 3 at 7:00 am."

What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman


Buy the Book Today!

The Pentagon has released a list of two dozen crimes that will be subject to prosecution in a military tribunal.

The crimes include use of poisons or analogous weapons and the taking of human shields--as well as more traditional offenses such as the taking of hostages, murder, rape during an armed conflict and conspiracy.

Pentagon lawyers and other legal experts described the 19-page draft as a codification of the laws of war amid the new landscape of international terrorism.

It's been 15 months since Bush signed the order authorizing trial by military tribunal for non-U.S. citizens, and Rumsfeld says they are getting closer to finalizing the rules for such proceedings.

The military commissions are expected to involve a small number of prisoners held in camps outside the United States and would be conducted outside this country. Only a small number of the 650 detainees at the U.S. Navy prison at Guantanamo Bay and the 100 or so in a U.S. military compound in Bagram, Afghanistan, are likely to be taken before a tribunal, government officials have said.... Defendants will be given military lawyers and have the right to see evidence against them, unless it is classified. A decision by a two-thirds majority of judges would be required for conviction. .

The President makes the final decision as to whether a specific individual is tried by tribunal. Zacarias Moussaoui, now awaiting federal trial in Virginia, may become the first person to be tried in before a military tribunal if the Government loses its bid in the 4th Circuit to keep Moussaoui's lawyers from interviewing Ramzi Binalshibh, a witness who could provide exculpatory information for Moussaoui.

Jim Capozzola at Rittenhouse Review, just about the best writer we've encountered in the blogosphere, has outdone himself in a blogorama today--telling us who's got the goods on whom--he had to have been up all night to read that many blogs and then cleverly write up what they were writing about --we're going to try and read them all. We may use what he said about us as our blog anthem.

Thanks to (in alphabetical order) Atrios and Instapundit, TalkLeft received its most visits ever today--3600--and 5500 page views.

Thanks to the anonymous tipster who chipped in $25.00 today, our biggest tip yet. Even a few bucks helps us defray the increasing bandwith and news and other subscription costs and makes us feel appreciated. The Amazon tip jar means you stay anonymous. The Paypal donation link lets us know who gave.

And a special thanks to all of you for reading us. You keep us going.

Congratulations to Miami criminal defense lawyer Neal Sonnett for his big win in the Bermuda Short money laundering trial--based on a Government sting operation. His client, Jack Purdy, was found . The jury decided the snitch was lying and Mr. Purdy was entrapped by the Government. This was a big loss for Florida prosecutors.

We were wondering when someone would get around to noticing Clarence Thomas's Cruel View of Prisoners. Derrick Z. Jackson, columnist for the Boston Globe just did.

Eight members of the Supreme Court this week agreed in Miller-El v. Cockrell ruled that a death row inmate should get a hearing on whether the prosecution's exclusion of 10 of 11 blacks from his jury deprived him of a fair trial by a jury of his peers. The lone dissent was Clarence Thomas.

The Los Angeles Times reported on the decision:

"The culture of the district attorney's office [in Dallas] in the past was suffused with bias against African Americans," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Moreover, "happenstance" cannot explain why more than nine out of 10 eligible black jurors were turned away by the prosecutor, he added.

"We question the dismissive and strained interpretation" that allowed judges to explain away this evidence, he said....

In Miller-El's case, defense lawyers cited a 1963 manual that told Dallas prosecutors to exclude certain people from juries whenever possible. "Do not take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or well educated," the manual advised.

Though versions of this manual were used into the mid-1970s, judges in Texas refused to believe race bias was behind the exclusion of most blacks from Miller-El's jury....

Justice Kennedy said that the prosecutors in Miller-El's case questioned blacks and whites differently. "Disparate questioning did occur," Kennedy wrote, and that alone is "evidence of purposeful discrimination" that calls for reopening the case.

In a nutshell, a black man is tried for capital murder, the prosecutor excludes 10 of 11 blacks from the jury, eight white members of the nation's highest court are disturbed enough about the effect of the exclusion to order the court below to give him a hearing on the issue, and the one black man on the High Court disagrees. Justice Thurgood Marshall must be turning over in his grave. But Derrick Jackson is right--Clarence Thomas has a history of cruel rulings:

Last year Thomas was one of three dissenters, with Rehnquist and Scalia, in the 6-3 decision that found that executing the mentally retarded was ''cruel and unusual punishment.'' Also last year, Thomas dissented from a 6-3 decision to ban the practice in Alabama of chaining prisoners to outdoor ''hitching posts'' and abandoning them for hours without food, water, or a chance to use the bathroom. While the majority also called that ''cruel and unusual,'' Thomas said the hitching post served ''a legitimate penological purpose,'' encouraging a prisoner's ''compliance with prison rules while out on work duty.'' Now, once again, Thomas has struck a blow that makes one wonder figuratively who beat him up in some long forgotten alleyway of his life. Once again he has issued a dissent that makes him a better fit for Saddam Hussein than the Constitution. Bush says Hussein delivers nothing but war, misery, and torture. If Clarence the Cruel truly had his way in his private war, there is no telling how much more misery and torture would go unseen and unheard in the courtrooms and the prison hallways of America.

[comments now closed]

Union Federation, the country's largest labor federation, has passed a resolution opposing war with Iraq:

The nation's largest labor federation declared its opposition Thursday to war against Iraq at this time, saying President Bush has not made a case for an attack without broad support from U.S. allies.

The executive council of the AFL-CIO, made up of 65 unions, ended its four-day meeting by unanimously passing the carefully worded resolution, which also says Saddam Hussein must be disarmed - with "multilateral resolve, not unilateral action."

The president has not fulfilled his responsibility to make a compelling and coherent explanation to the American people and the world," the resolution said.

Organized labor has typically backed military action in the past, including strong support for the Vietnam War. "By historical standards, this is unusual and this is significant," Robert Bruno, labor professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said of Thursday's resolution.

U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao spoke to the group on Wednesday and was not well received, according to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.

Perhaps the defining moment was Wednesday's address by Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, which shocked and enraged labor leaders, Sweeney said. They were particularly angry about her response to a question about the department's proposed new financial reporting requirements. She read from a paper a list of criminal charges involving one union.

Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff' has a new column out today-- Ashcroft Out of Control --on the Patriot Act II. If you've been wondering what Ashcroft's proposal provides in plain English, go read.

Like Hentoff, we too are curious as to why this hasn't gotten more attention in the mainstream media. We think the reason that the draft of the proposed bill was sent to House Speaker Dennis Hastert instead of being introduced in Congress, is that Ashcroft and Bush were planning on waiting until we were officially at war with Iraq, when there would be less oppostion, and then they were going to try to get it past Congress without hearings and opportunity for review--the way they did Patriot Act I. By sending it to Hastert, they could claim (unjustifiably) that this wasn't a stealth move since they had put Hastert on notice.

War or no war, the Patriot Act sequel is an unnecessary piece of legislation that will strip Americans (and non-citizens) of their rights without any guarantees it will make us safer. Be prepared to jump on the phone to your Congresspersons the second it is introduced, if not before.

For more, visit EPIC and the ACLU and the Center for Public Integrity.

Bump and Update: The Associated Press reports that the investigative articles below have resulted in halting confirmation hearings for Ernesto Velasco as the head of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Velasco was the executive director of the Cook County Jail for the past seven years, until last month when he resigned. Illinois residents owe a big thank you to reporters Steve Mills and Maurice Possley. Credit also goes to Ill. Governor Rod Blagojevich who nominated Velasco and today decided to halt the confirmation until receiving more information.

Chicago Tribune Investigative reporters Maurice Possley and Steve Mills continue their excellent coverage of the mass beatings of inmates and cover-ups by the Cook County Sheriff's Department they revealed yesterday. It turns out there was a second and separate such incident a year and a half later.

Seventeen months after a team of 40 guards at Cook County Jail allegedly terrorized and beat inmates, another group of guards punched and kicked five other inmates while they were shackled, according to two former jail guards.

The two former guards allege they received death threats from other guards and were harassed into resigning this month after they refused to cover up the July 29, 2000, beatings....

I saw them hitting them with elbows, stomping on their faces and heads, kicking them in the face," Fairley testified. "I yelled at them to stop because what I saw was too violent. But they didn't."

The inmates contend that during a shakedown for contraband and weapons, guards began tossing all of their belongings out of their cells, then forced them to run a gantlet of officers who punched them. That touched off a brawl that ended with the handcuffing and shackling of the five inmates and then the alleged beating....

The Cook County sheriff's Internal Affairs Division ruled that the claims of the inmates and the guards were "inconclusive," a middle finding between sustained and exonerated. Other guards who have been deposed so far have denied the beating....

When the disturbance erupted, Fairley said, he was summoned from another tier in the cellblock to help.

"I heard screaming. I heard people hitting each other, flesh upon flesh," he testified. "I saw blood splattered all over the doors, all over the walls, all over the piles of garbage and the floor of the corridor. A lot of blood."

When the fight ended, the five inmates were handcuffed and four were shackled at the ankles and put in an area known as the "pump room." Fairley said he went to the doorway. The four guards, he said, were "jumping in the air, coming down on their heads with their knees. I saw them kicking them in every part of their bodies with all their might."

....In a telephone interview, [inmate] Fields said the beatings were sparked by a complaint he wrote to the Cook County state's attorney's office and the FBI about the alleged beating of another inmate. Fields said that after he complained, two jail officers told him, "Anybody who don't like what happened, we'll send you to the hospital."

Fields said the guards "beat us like we were savage animals. They beat us down to the ground. They stomped us, kicked us in the face."

....Richard Gackowski, 37, another guard and a friend of Fairley's, testified in a separate deposition that the lieutenant later told him that before the inmates were cuffed, he had grabbed Mitchell, the inmate who had a cast on his leg.

"He stated to me that he grabbed inmate Mitchell's good leg and did everything he could--twisted it, jumped on it, hit it--did whatever he could to get that leg to snap," Gackowski said. "And it just wouldn't snap and he laughed about it. He thought it was funny."

Nathson Fields, one of the inmates quoted in the article, had his death penalty conviction reversed because his trial judge took bribes, for which he was sent to prison. One of the bribes was from Fields' co-defendant. The States Attorney promised a prompt re-trial ( or really a first trial as reviewing judge said) but has done everything he can to drag it out. (Thanks to Rev. Mr.George W. Brooks, Director of Advocacy, Kolbe House for the Fields update.)

Why aren't Ashcroft's federal prosecutors all over this, charging federal civil rights offenses against the offending Sheriffs? Oh, we forgot, they're out busting bong sellers and re-directing websites.