What's it like to free the wrongfully convicted ? This article in today's New York Law Journal gives you a nice sense of it.

How sweet it was that day two weeks ago when two young lawyers and the man whose freedom they restored were finally able to do something as simple -- and anticlimactic -- as sit down together over coffee at a deli just around the corner from the Bronx Supreme Court.

Finally, a resounding defeat for the Total Information Awareness project -- "House and Senate negotiators have agreed that a Pentagon project intended to detect terrorists by monitoring Internet e-mail and commercial databases for health, financial and travel information cannot be used against Americans." The conferees also voted to restrict further research on the program absent "extensive consultation with Congress."

The only way this vote will not become law is if the Senate and House fail to agree on the total Spending Bill in which TIA is buried. Or, if Bush vetoes the Congressionally approved bill.

One of the principal objections Congress had to the bill involved the participation of John Poindexter.

Several members of Congress have said that the admiral was an unwelcome symbol because he had been convicted of lying to Congress about weapons sales to Iran and illegal aid to Nicaraguan rebels, an issue with constitutional ramifications, the Iran-contra affair. The fact that his conviction was later reversed on the ground that he had been given immunity for the testimony in which he lied did not mitigate Congressional opinion, they said.

Praise goes to Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who co-sponsored the Wyden amendment. Grassley said,

"Protecting Americans' civil liberties while at the same time winning the war against terrorism has got to be top priority for the United States. Congressional oversight of this program will be a must as we proceed in the war against terror. The acceptance of this amendment sends a signal that Congress won't sit on its hands as the TIA program moves forward."

We have reported frequently, here, here and here, on Ashcroft's overriding the recommendations of his local prosecutors and directing them to seek the death penalty. Here is a prime example of a case which Ashcroft has misjudged--it involves a Brooklyn murder prosecution in which the eyewitness testimony is in doubt.

Government scientists are recommending a combination of facial recognition and fingerprint scanning technologies for identity documents to be issued to foreigners.

The standards, which were Congressionally mandated as part of the U.S.A. Patriot Act and a border security act, would be used in all documents issued to foreigners by the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, including green cards, student visas and border crossing cards.

The scientists' report, which has been submitted to Congress, is the first step in instituting body-recognition technology, known as biometrics, as a governmental tool on a wide basis....

The technologies will be used to deny entry to foreign nationals who have a criminal record or who appear on government watch lists.

Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has drawn up Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Ashcroft and others in the present Administration. You can go to the site and sign the petition. Not to be a damper on the project, but we wonder how it could ever be successful with a Republican dominated Senate. That said, we think it may be valuable in garnering opposition to the Bush team for 2004, so we're linking to it.

Here's what you'll be signing:

I want my representative in the U.S. House of Representatives to vote to impeach President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John D. Ashcroft for high crimes and misdemeanors, and to have the case prosecuted and tried in the U.S. Senate.

From an editorial in today's Washington Post:

...the draft contains many troubling provisions. It would further expand intelligence surveillance powers into the traditional realm of law enforcement. Like a Senate bill soon to be taken up by the Judiciary Committee, it would allow foreigners suspected of terrorism to be watched as intelligence targets -- rather than subjects of law enforcement -- even if they could not be linked to any foreign group or state.

But it would go much further. It would allow intelligence surveillance in certain circumstances even when the government could not produce any evidence of a crime. It also would allow certain snooping with no court authorization, not only -- as now -- when Congress declared war but when it authorized force or when the country was attacked.

The result of such changes would be to magnify the government's discretion to pick the legal regime under which it investigates and prosecutes national security cases and to give it more power unilaterally to exempt people from the protections of the justice system and place them in a kind of alternative legal world. Congress should be pushing in the opposite direction.

Before the department asks Congress for more powers, it needs to disclose how it is using the ones it already has. Yet the Justice Department has balked at reasonable oversight and public information requests. In fact, the draft legislation would allow the department to withhold information concerning the identity of Sept. 11 detainees -- a matter now before the courts. At the very least, Congress should insist on a full understanding of what the department is doing before granting the executive branch still more authority.

Actor Steven Seagal was the star witness Tuesday in the NY trial of accused mobsters Peter Gotti and others. The Government is alleging that "reputed Gambino boss Peter Gotti (brother of the late mob boss John Gotti), and reputed capo Anthony "Sonny" Ciccone and four other men engaged in extortion, gambling, wire fraud, loan-sharking and sundry other illegal business practices. "

Based upon this lively recap of Seagal's testimony, we're sorry we missed it.

The actor described being "invited" to take a car ride two years ago to a meeting with a capo in the Gambino crime family who spoke to him in not-so-gentle terms about paying extortion. Afterward, Seagal testified another mob associate gave him the bottom line. "Y'know, if you had said the wrong thing, they were going to kill you," he said he was told....

In a nutshell, Segal and a connected pal were doing some films together, Seagal backed out when he thought the friend began acting erratic. The friend got "the mob" to threaten Seagal, so Seagal went to another branch of "the mob" for help.

When asked why he didn't go to the FBI for help, "Seagal said that working through the FBI would have been too time-consuming. "I am a movie star," he said. "If I want to continue to make movies, I can't go into the witness protection program."

Seagal was reportedly very nervous at first. But by the end of his four hours on the stand, he was an old pro.

Seagal became progressively more comfortable during the course of his four hours of testimony. At first, the judge took the role of coach, repeatedly prompting him to relax, breath deeply and speak up. By the afternoon, however, when defense attorney George Santangelo engaged in an energetic cross examination, Seagal conceded nothing.

"You want to scream at me?" Seagal demanded. "You think that's going to make it better? This is a court of law."

At this, Judge Frederic Block interceded. "Listen, I don't have any experience in the martial arts," he told Seagal. "But I do have other powers. So take it easy."

Findlaw's Sherry Kolb explains why it was wrong to prosecute Ed Rosenthal for growing marijuana. First, the factors that distinguished Ed's case from most drug cases:

First, Ed Rosenthal grew marijuana for sick and dying patients. Second, Rosenthal acted as an agent of Oakland, California's program to dispense marijuana to people whose doctors have prescribed it. Third, California's Proposition 215 expressly authorized the program.

After discussing the issues of states rights/federal rights, civil disobedience and more, Kolb concludes:

In considering the Rosenthal conviction, then, a number of factors turn out to be significant. First is the nature of the defendant's actions. Ed Rosenthal grew marijuana to relieve the suffering of sick people, and he harmed no one in the process. Second is the fact that he went to great lengths to ensure that his actions conformed to the law of California, by obtaining official authorization. And finally, the Administration that chose to prosecute Rosenthal was guilty, in so doing, of hypocrisy.

Because California is not alone in singling out the medical use of marijuana for protection, the Justice Department has apparently decided to make an example of Ed Rosenthal. He is dangerous because he dissents from the Attorney General's position.

Whether the issue is medicinal marijuana, our failure to execute enough people in the Northeast, or the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon, it seems, Ashcroft considers dissenters to be enemies of the State (or at least, of the federal government).

The Associated Press reports tonight that the FBI had information hinting at the OKC bombing before it happened.

It's a long article, but primarily refers to concerns by the FBI in early 1995 that separatists at the Elohim City compound in Muldrow, Okla., might be planning an attack. A month before the bombing, the FBI interviewed a reformed white supremacist, Kerry Noble, about a plan in 1983 to attack federal buildings in Oklahoma.

Noble told The Associated Press that his FBI questioners appeared particularly concerned about what Elohim City members might do on April 19 because one of their heroes, Wayne Snell, was being executed that day and another, James Ellison, was returning to Oklahoma after ending in Florida.
FBI officials confirmed Noble's account, including concerns the group at Elohim City might strike on April 19. Snell, Ellison and Noble had plotted to attack the Murrah building in 1983 with plastic explosives and rocket launchers, according to Noble and FBI officials. The plan never reached fruition before the group was arrested after a siege with law enforcement in 1985.

The ATF also had information about Carol Howe, an informant inside Elohim City who disclosed before the bombing that the group was preparing an attack on the U.S. Government through bombings and assassinations and the like. The Judge wouldn't let the defense call Ms. Howe at the McVeigh trial. The Nichols team had better luck. Ms. Howe is hardly news.

We think the main value to the article is not in concluding that the white supremacists and separatists were involved in the 1995 OKC bombing, but that there is a dismal failure of communications between and within law enforcement agencies in this country when it comes to locating and sharing information about possible attacks. A large part of it is due to the FBI's antiquated computer systems. The investigating agents don't know what information they have or how to find it. We think other causes include the failure or refusal of the ATF and FBI to work together and the lack of law enforcment's ability to effectively deal with intelligence information relating to future crimes.

On a related note, David Neiwert over at Orcinus discusses the OKC conspiracy theory today, in a different context.

We've been following the middle east/ separatist/white supremacist/militia conspiracy theories involving Oklahoma since 1996 and will continue to do so. We have not made up our minds definitively yet, although we lean against believing them.

April 19, by the way, had several significances as a date, the most important in the context of Oklahoma, was that it was the anniversary of the Waco killings. It also was a significant date in the Revolutionary War, but we're forgetting the details of this one. We'll update if we remember, or if one of you know, please post it in the comments.

Welcome back from a too long hiatus to Law Prof. Jeff Cooper of Cooped Up--he's moved to Movable Type and gotten a bloglift.

Issues Guy gives up anonymity and has a new article out at History News Network, go read.

Ignatz (Sam Heldman) gets a nice bloglift as well.

Lisa English of Ruminate This examines General Electric's ownership of NBC in the context of their status as a major producer of nuclear bombs and reactors.

Jim Capozzola of Rittenhouse Review on the latest code orange alert--we'd write some more but we're off to the grocery store to stock up on our three day supply of bottled water.

The Horse is all over the right-wing Kerry bashing

Don't forget Eric Alterman is on O'Reilly tonight-- Fox News Channel, 8 and 11 pm EST.

What Liberal Media?

by Eric Alterman


Buy the Book Today!

Presidential hopeful John Kerry is not having a good week. First he is the subject of media slurs, MHO has all the details. Now it's disclosed that he is going to undergo prostate surgery.

His doctors say they caught it early and there won't be much down time. We wish him a speedy recovery, and hope the media magpies find another target during his convalesence.

Despite a request from President Bush, Democratic senators today vowed to delay the vote on Miguel Estrada's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a major escalation of the increasingly bitter partisan fight over Bush's judgeship choices, Democrats announced they had enough votes to block an immediate vote on nomination of the conservative Hispanic attorney to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. While stopping short of saying they would kill the nomination, they said they would filibuster -- or delay a vote -- until Estrada more fully answers questions about his legal views and the Bush administration provides memoranda he wrote while he worked in the office of the solicitor general in the Justice Department.

Update: Lupe just posted her perplexity with the Democratic opposition to Estrada in our comments section. She'd like to see a hispanic on the Court and doesn't get it. Here is our response:

Lupe, thank you for asking. Here are some of the reasons we don't want Estrada.

A lot of hispanic groups oppose Estrada. Go here and read their opposition letters and memorandum of reasons. The groups include the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF); Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF); and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).