Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle justly takes Bush to task for the puny mercy he exhibited in the limited pardons he granted last week.

"Those sentences are peanuts compared to the sentences being served by many first-time nonviolent drug offenders in the federal system this Christmas. Laws that were supposed to put away drug kingpins have been subverted so that drug dealers can turn in the help and get soft time, while their gofers may serve decades-long sentences."

"If, in 1986, Congress had told the public that it was passing a sentencing law that looked to be tough on kingpins but in fact would enable the biggest drug players to avoid long sentences, Americans would have been appalled. If the public had understood that the only true check on prosecutors who are harsher on petty criminals than high-level drug dealers would be the presidential pardon, Congress (one would hope) would have been too ashamed to pass the legislation."

"If Congress didn't know what it was doing then, federal law enforcement knows all too well now what the law has wrought: Get-out-of-jail-free cards for kingpins; and despair for their dupes."

"Only one man in America has the power to end these injustices and insure that the punishment fits the crime. How it breaks my heart that George W. Bush, who is such a giant, has limited himself to meting out pardons to bootleggers and a man who rolled back an odometer. It is beneath him."

We just took the Libertarian test that we found on Radley Balko's The Agitator, and here are the results:

"You would feel most at home in the Southwest region You advocate a large degree of personal freedom and a large degree of government control over the economy. Your neighbors include such folks as Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, Hilary Clinton, and Zack de la Rocha of Rage Against the Machine, and may refer to themselves as "liberals," "left-wing liberals," "civil libertarians," "democratic socialists," "egalitarians," or "anarcho-socialists."

We always knew we were to the left of Jesse Jackson.

Michigan Governor John Engler has signed the bill approved by the state legislature that eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. The bill is effective March 1 and will apply to those already in prison.

Under the new law, Judges can use sentencing guidelines to impose sentences based on a range of factors in each case, rather than solely drug weight. The bill also replaces the lifetime probation requirement for the lowest-level offenders with a five-year term of probation. The board will have the discretion to grant early to some inmates.

The passage of this bill was years in the making. Major kudos are due FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums). Laura Sagar, FAMM's executive director had this to say:

"Harsh mandatory minimums, originally intended to target drug "king pins" warehoused many nonviolent, low-level drug offenders at a very high cost to taxpayers. Now judges can use their discretion under sentencing guidelines to more closely fit the punishment to the crime and the offender."

"This change is being closely examined by states across the country as they grapple with the unintended consequences of their own mandatory minimum sentences."

"This historic act is also a victory for a grassroots movement for justice. "It is the culmination of years of grassroots lobbying efforts by thousands of FAMM members affected by mandatory minimums that were among the harshest in the nation. These families brought the human face of sentencing injustices to lawmakers and convinced member of both parties that change was urgently needed."

The bill was a bipartisan measure supported by groups such as the "Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the Michigan Judges Association, the Michigan Association of Drug Court Professionals, the Michigan Catholic Conference, Michigan's Children, and the NAACP (Detroit Branch), among many others."

Why did the prosecutors go along? David Morse, President of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, said:

Michigan's prosecutors recognize that an effective drug policy is a combination of criminal justice strategies, readily available drug treatment programs, incarceration where appropriate, and prevention activities in schools, businesses, and homes. That is why we support a responsible approach to replacing the mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes with sentences that are appropriate for the crime."

Former Michigan Republican Governor William G. Milliken has said his signing mandatory minimum drug sentences into law in 1978 was "the worst mistake of my career" and campaigned for their repeal.

This is FAMM's second win in Michigan. In 1998 they led the drive to repeal a law that mandated life without for anyone convicted of delivery or conspiracy to deliver 650 grams or more of heroin or cocaine.

FAMM's analysis of the new drug sentencing laws is here.

The Telegraph of London reports on LA Police Chief Bill Bratton's attempts to rid LA of street gangs and crime. They call him the blunt super-cop, because he has promised to:

"...flood the districts where gangs operate with foot patrols, ending a policy that advised officers not to get out of their vehicles for their own safety in what were essentially unofficial "no go" zones.

To try to disrupt the gangs' territorial nature he has also ordered daily cleaning of the coded graffiti by which they mark their sphere of influence, and in a series of high-profile raids his officers have already seized several caches of assault rifles.

Mr Bratton, 54, described the gangs' activities as "homeland terrorism", and added: "It is time to fight the internal war on terrorism as well." It is an approach that has resulted in the Los Angeles Times nicknaming him "supercop" and gained him the full backing of the local police officers' union."

Bratton has his detractors, but many, particularly mothers and relatives of the many murdered young men,"have embraced the possibility of a new dawn."

"This news is sweet," said Alice Brown, who recently led a demonstration of dozens of women in support of the crackdown. "We are watching our children die like dogs. We have to stop this."

The article has several links to other articles about Bratton, including this one by TalkLeft.

Former NYC cop Charles Schwarz has begun serving his five year prison term for his role in the brutal assault by his partner, Justin Volpe, on Abner Louima.

He will be serving his time at the Federal Prison Camp in Deluth, MN.

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."