We thought Rave Raids were bad. How scary is this? It's happening in England, not here...yet. So be aware.

Pub and club revellers face a drugs test as soon as they enter the premises. Anyone going into a bar, whether they arouse suspicion or not, will be asked to take a swab test, which highlights any drug use.

The scheme is being run by police in south Staffordshire and will initially cover the towns of Cannock and Stafford.

Police have warned that anyone refusing will automatically arouse suspicion and have told establishments that do not co-operate that it will be held against them when their licences come up for renewal.

Liberty, the civil rights pressure group, said it was "deeply worried" and accused the police of operating "by coercion rather than by consent".

Chief Supt Nick Lowe, division commander, said: "The beauty of it is that it is so quick. It will allow us to test hundreds of people in a very, very short amount of time. A swab will be placed on the hand and will show up green, amber or red, depending on if there are drugs in the person's system.

"If it shows red, which means definite contact with drugs, the police can intimate their powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act to stop and search the person, and then arrest them if necessary.

"If it is green or amber no action will be taken. If someone refuses, then it is a tick in the first box of suspicion. Police officers are present and it may be that further questions will be asked."

The equipment used is a £40,000 computer the size of a briefcase, funded by the Communities against Drugs Fund. A swab on the back of the hand, which is then fed into the computer, will test for ecstasy, cannabis, heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and also rohipnol, the so-called date rape drug.

The test with results takes about eight seconds and does not provide officers with a DNA sample. The swabs are thrown away immediately.

Mr Lowe said: "We have clear evidence that a large volume of crime is drugs-related, whether it be for violence, vehicle crime or anti-social behaviour.

"The tests appeal to the general majority of the public who want to use drug-free premises. Most people are happy to do it."

Because there is only one computer, the police will also be operating with dummy ones in other premises.

Gareth Crossman, a Liberty spokesman, said: "This is an extremely questionable use of police powers. The police cannot force someone who is not under arrest to take a drug test but they are implying they can.

"To then use a perfectly legitimate refusal to comply as part of the justification for suspicion is an abuse of policing powers."

How Appealing, the top-rated appellate law blog by Howard Bashman, got a bloglift - go take a look. Nice job, Howard, we love the new color scheme.

Update: Political Wire by Taegan Goddard got one too. Very clean looking and sharper color scheme.

A balloon performer with two misdemeanor convictions for sexually abusing children over 20 years ago cannot be refused a permit to perform for donations at Playland, an amusement park in Rye, New York, according to an order issued on December 23 by a federal judge in Westchester County. The full opinion, dated December 23, 2002 is on Lexis (fee based) at 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24569.

We'll be debating the decision on the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News tonight with Cal Thomas, who is guest-hosting for Bill O'Reilly. Cal doesn't like the decision which is based on First Amendment considerations, whereas we think the decision is appropriate and correct.

A budget crisis looms in Wisconsin and many other states. We applaud an editorial today in the Racine Journal Times that exposes the denial of legal representation to those below the poverty line, and relying upon the Constitution, pleads with the legistature to change the rules.

....The governor and the Legislature must also find a way to correct an evergrowing injustice in our obligation to defend the indigent.

When we have come to the point where poverty equals a guilty plea and a conviction, that is simply not justice at all.

That may well be the case in Wisconsin today because the state has not adjusted the poverty guidelines on who qualifies for public defender assistance for a decade and a half.

That means a single person who makes a mere $3,000 a year doesn't qualify for state-funded assistance -- even though that figure is a third of the federal poverty level.

You really have to be a pauper to fall below the state's guidelines, which were pegged to 80 percent of the poverty level in 1987 and have not changed since.

Some contend it's an oversight. Perhaps it started that way but it has grown much larger than that and now undermines the basic rights of our citizens -- yes, the poor are still citizens -- to legal representation in a court of law.

That right is granted in the U.S. Constitution.

....It's a matter of money, but more than that, it's a matter of equal justice. The state must do what's right, even if it adds to our budget woes.

The editorial correctly points out that groups such as the ACLU will file suit if changes are not made. Last month in Michigan, the principal legal groups that represent poor defendants in the Detroit area sued the Chief Judges of the Wayne County Circuit Court to seek adequate compensation for their services. The suit is one of several reform projects being pursued in trouble spots around the country by the Indigent Defense Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Thanks to Pete Karas of Progressive Racine for sending us the link. Pete is also a major source for updates on the Racine Rave Raids and the Wisconsin green party. We hope he signed up with Daily Kos to be a part of his new state legislative action blog which should be up and running after the first of the year.

Andrew McCrae, who allegedly ambushed, shot and killed a Red Bluff, California police officer as he was gassing his police car, is fighting extradition from New Hampshire where he was arrested. What makes this case especially unusual is that Mr. McCrae allegedly confessed on the Internet at SF Indy.Org. "McCrae was captured in New Hampshire a day after announcing on a left wing web site that he shot the officer to send a message to global corporate interests. McCrae is facing the death penalty in California."

In a post called Proud and Insolent Youth Incorporated at SF Indymedia, Andrew writes:

"Hello Everyone, my name's Andy. I killed a Police Officer in Red Bluff, California in a motion to bring attention to, and halt, the police-state tactics that have come to be used throughout our country. Now I'm coming forward, to explain that this killing was also an action against corporate irresponsibility."

He goes on and on, as do the comments to his post. Thanks to the police blog The Guardroom for alerting us to this case.

The San Francisco Chronicle points out the problems with the move of the INS from the Justice Department into the Department of Homeland Security in its Thursday editorial , Immigrants as 'Enemies'

"The White House says that the new department would "make certain that America continues to welcome visitors and those seeking opportunity within our shores." It will create an ombudsman to "assist individuals and employers" in resolving problems" getting visas or citizenship papers."

The new chief of the INS is former Congressman Asa Hutchinson, who worked so hard to impeach President Clinton that he ended up with the job of Chief of the DEA.

"But these warm and fuzzy elements do little to disguise the radical shift that has taken place: Immigration control has now become indistinguishable from the fight against terrorism. New immigrants will almost certainly face delays and confusion in getting their visa applications approved. The more insidious danger is that xenophobic forces trying to restrict immigration will exploit the new linkage to promote their own short-sighted agendas."

"A coalition of leading civil rights, religious and labor groups plans to ask the new Senate majority leader, Republican Bill Frist of Tennessee, to translate his party's pledges of inclusiveness into policy changes."

The group wants Frist to:

Oppose five of President Bush's 15 federal judicial nominees who were left in limbo when Congress adjourned in November: Charles Pickering of Mississippi; Priscilla Owen of Texas; Carolyn Kuhl of California; Terrence Boyle of North Carolina and Jeffrey Sutton of Ohio. They have "records of deep hostility to core civil rights principles," the Leadership Conference contended. Supporters of the five say they are being opposed because they are conservative.

Support legislation that would encourage federal investigations and prosecutions of hate crimes — acts believed to have been prompted by race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or disability. Most Senate Republicans have opposed the hate-crimes legislation on the grounds that all violent crimes are heinous, regardless of the motivation.

Support funds for election reform. In October, Bush signed legislation that requires states to improve their voting procedures. So far, however, none of the $3.8 billion needed has been approved. "That's a real betrayal of a commitment," Henderson said.

And isn't this reassuring...."But Frist will also be getting an earful from Republican colleagues, some of whom already have said the Lott incident should not change the party's legislative priorities. "It will not alter the agenda," Sen. George Allen of Virginia, a member of the GOP Senate leadership team, said last week."

The United States and India have signed a non-extradition pact, promising not to turn over each others' citizens to a third country or to an international tribunal. UPI reports:

"The two nations have agreed to stand by each other if a third country or an international tribunal seeks the extradition of the other's nationals to be tried in multilateral forums such as the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. Neither will surrender people of the other country to any international tribunal without the other country's express consent."

This sounds like a purely manipulative gesture to try and defeat the power of the International Criminal Court--had we signed on to the Rome Statute, we'd be in there with the other 139 countries right now, making up the rules. Instead we're left out. The Court will go on without us or our input. We were ambivalent about the ICC in the beginning, but last year we had a chance to review the draft guidelines under consideration, and heard a panel of military and international law professors and experts dissect and debate it, and we changed our mind. Here is the list of countries that are part of the Court.

From the overview section of the ICC's website:

An international criminal court has been called the missing link in the international legal system. The International Court of Justice at The Hague handles only cases between States, not individuals. Without an international criminal court for dealing with individual responsibility as an enforcement mechanism, acts of genocide and egregious violations of human rights often go unpunished. In the last 50 years, there have been many instances of crimes against humanity and war crimes for which no individuals have been held accountable. In Cambodia in the 1970s, an estimated 2 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge. In armed conflicts in Mozambique, Liberia, El Salvador and other countries, there has been tremendous loss of civilian life, including horrifying numbers of unarmed women and children. Massacres of civilians continue in Algeria and the Great Lakes region of Africa.

The Judgment of the Nürnberg Tribunal stated that "crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced" -- establishing the principle of individual criminal accountability for all who commit such acts as a cornerstone of international criminal law. According to the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, completed in 1996 by the International Law Commission at the request of the General Assembly, this principle applies equally and without exception to any individual throughout the governmental hierarchy or military chain of command. And the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the United Nations in 1948 recognizes that the crime of genocide may be committed by constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

In situations such as those involving ethnic conflict, violence begets further violence; one slaughter is the parent of the next. The guarantee that at least some perpetrators of war crimes or genocide may be brought to justice acts as a deterrent and enhances the possibility of bringing a conflict to an end. Two ad hoc international criminal tribunals, one for the former Yugoslavia and another for Rwanda, were created in this decade with the hope of hastening the end of the violence and preventing its recurrence.

Most perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity throughout history have gone unpunished. In spite of the military tribunals following the Second World War and the two recent ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, the same holds true for the twentieth century. That being said, it is reasonable to conclude that most perpetrators of such atrocities have believed that their crimes would go unpunished. Effective deterrence is a primary objective of those working to establish the international criminal court. Once it is clear that the international community will no longer tolerate such monstrous acts without assigning responsibility and meting outappropriate punishment -- to heads of State and commanding officers as well as to the lowliest soldiers in the field or militia recruits -- it is hoped that those who would incite a genocide; embark on a campaign of ethnic cleansing; murder, rape and brutalize civilians caught in an armed conflict; or use children for barbarous medical experiments will no longer find willing helpers.

What a chilling thought:Expecting a Vacancy, Bush Aides Weigh Supreme Court Contenders.

Bush aides already are having discussions about replacements for Chief Justice Rehnquist in the event he retires at the end of this term. They are also preparing for the possibility of more than one vacancy: John Paul Stevens is 82, Chief Justice Rehnquist is 78, and Justice O'Connor is 72.

Who's on deck right now?

In almost all of the possibilities, officials said, Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel and a longtime legal adviser to Mr. Bush from Texas, would be a candidate. Mr. Gonzales would be the first Hispanic member of the Supreme Court. Mr. Bush's top aides, notably Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, are described as keenly aware that this would provide a political bonus for both him and the Republican Party, which has been aggressively courting Hispanic voters. "I don't think there's any question the president would turn to him," said a senior administration official who knew details of the informal but high-level discussions.

Also under discussion is Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the chief judge of the very conservative 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Va., and Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., a federal appeals court judge in Newark, who used to clerk for Scalia and is referred to as "Scalito." Here are some of the other possibilities:

Judge J. Michael Luttig who also sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court. Justice Brown, a black woman, wrote the majority opinion in 2000 interpreting the state's referendum against affirmative action in a way that delighted conservatives. Another candidate is Judge Edith H. Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans who is noted for sharp conservative opinions. ....Also mentioned has been Larry D. Thompson, the deputy attorney general, who would give the court two black members.

Packing the Supreme Court with conservatives will be one of Bush's longest lasting legacies. The judicial and criminal justice systems will change markedly. Protections we have taken for granted since childhood will disappear.

There will be no reason for every child over the age of 9 to be able to recite Miranda warnings or know a cop has to have a warrant if they want to come in the house or search. They won't know these things because they won't have seen them a hundred times on tv on the cop shows. They won't be referred to on the cop shows since there won't be any more Miranda or 4th Amendment rights to speak of--the exceptions to these principles will become the rule. Exigent circumstances, good-fath exceptions, the inevitable discovery doctrine, just wait till you see what they will think of next.

Since the Justices are appointed for life, we fear we won't see the pendulum swing back again in our lifetimes. What a legacy to leave our children.

If there is one reason not to back a third party candidate who can't possibly win over a Democrat who can, this is surely it.

"After spending four years in prison for allegedly sexually abusing his children, a Leesburg, Va., attorney was acquitted of the charges this month in what may be Virginia's first case in which the susceptibility of children to suggestion played a major role."

Atrios informs us that Susan McDougal has written a book on why she wouldn't talk in the Whitewater case and on her treatment in jail. We've heard her speak on these topics a few times in recent years, and we still keep our "Free Susan McDougal" button on prominent display.

"At 47, her life is now dedicated to raising awareness about the plight of women in prison, an issue that became dear to her after hearing the stories of the women who shared her various cellblocks. She travels around the country giving speeches on the issue, visiting prisons."

Atrios has posted the quotes from the article on the details of her prison life.

The business section of today's New York Times has an article on Ashcroft's directive to the Bureau of Prisons that white collar offenders with short sentences must serve their time in federal prison, not half-way houses. For the past decade, the BOP has been allowing such offenders to go directly to a halfway house.

"In a memorandum last week to Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, the director of the Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Ashcroft said that the practice violated federal sentencing laws that require imprisonment and that it offered favorable treatment to white-collar criminals. The directive from the attorney general was first reported by Newsweek."

Because of Ashcroft's new policy, about 125 white collar offenders now in halfway houses will return to federal prisons.

The New York Times article also addresses in detail the proposed sentencing guideline changes for white collar offenders under the newly enacted Sarbanes-Oxley Act --changes with which the Justice Department is not happy.

When a law is enacted that increases penalties, the U.S. Sentencing Commission is directed to draw up new sentencing guidelines. They send them out for public comment. Then they vote on them. After that, unless Congress affirmatively takes action, the new guidelines automatically become law.

The Commission promulgated new guidelines on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and sent them out for comment. In two weeks, the Commission will vote on them. The Justice Department strongly objects to the proposed guidelines because they are not tough enough for low level fraud offenders. The two agencies have been feuding for months over this issue.

"Justice Department officials said in recent interviews that they plan to broaden their corporate investigations to focus more intensely on the professional "gatekeepers" - lawyers, accountants and others - who may have facilitated frauds."

Maybe now that Aschroft's actions are going to affect some prospersous people, some of whom undoubtedly must have "connections", we'll hear louder protests of Ashcroft and his brand of non-compassionate conservatism.