Robert Prather of Neolibertarian News Portal defends the writ of Habeas Corpus today. Thanks, Robert!

The New York Times reports on the Administration's new tools for domestic spying...and qualms about them:

"From New York City to Seattle, police officials are looking to do away with rules that block them from spying on people and groups without evidence that a crime has been committed. They say these rules, forced on them in the 1970's and 80's to halt abuses, now prevent them from infiltrating mosques and other settings where terrorists might plot. "

"At the same time, federal and local police agencies are looking for systematic, high-tech ways to root out terrorists before they strike. In a sense, the scuba dragnet was cumbersome, old-fashioned police work, albeit on a vast scale. Now officials are hatching elaborate plans for dumping gigabytes of delicate information into big computers, where it would be blended with public records and stirred with sophisticated software. "

"In recent days, federal law enforcement officials have spoken ambitiously and often about their plans to remake the F.B.I. as a domestic counterterrorism agency. But the spy story has been unfolding, quietly and sometimes haltingly, for more than a year now, since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "

"Some people in law enforcement remain unconvinced that all these new tools are needed, and some experts are skeptical that high-tech data mining will bring much of value to light."

"Still, civil libertarians increasingly worry about how law enforcement might wield its new powers. They say the nation is putting at risk the very thing it is fighting for: the personal freedoms and rights embodied in the Constitution. Moreover, they say, authorities with powerful technology will inevitably blunder, as became evident in October when an audit revealed that the Navy had lost nearly two dozen computers authorized to process classified information."

There's much, much more. Go over and read the whole thing.

Via Politics in the Zeros, the story of Chesa Boudin, son of former members of the 60's Weather Underground who are now in prison. Chesa, himself an activist, particularly on the issue of children of the imprisoned, has just been named a Rhodes Scholar from Yale.

"Since his parents' arrests, Boudin has become part of the family of two other former Weathermen, Bill Ayers, now an education professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago, and Bernadine Dohrn, director of the Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University. "

"Boudin often is invited to speak at conferences, to prison officials and other groups as an advocate for children whose parents are imprisoned. He also is member of Yale Coalition for Peace, helping organize protests against military action in Iraq. He hopes to pursue a career fighting for human rights and social justice issues in developing countries in Latin America."

What a great story and affirmation that we can influence and inspire our children--it really resonated with us. We don't talk about "TalkLeft, Jr." much here as we don't want to interfere with his privacy, but we don't think he'd mind us mentioning that he is interning this year, his senior year at N.Y.U., at the Cardozo Law School Innocence Project, run by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, and is in the process of applying to law schools. In high school, he worked for McVeigh's lead attorney Stephen Jones. According to him, it was then he decided the values of the defense side were not just the values of his mother, but his own.

Three months after the McVeigh trial ended, we were asked to write an article for an internet publication, Women of Colorado, and we were given our choice of topics. We chose the death of Princess Diana, which had happened a month earlier. We had been home watching tv the night of her fatal car accident, and when it was confirmed that Princess Diana was dead, it shook us pretty badly--even though we hadn't really been Diana admirers up to that point. We opened the laptop and began writing to try to sort our our feelings, and it was this piece that we chose for publication in Women of Colorado. We called it "Diana, Queen of Hearts," and while it began with our reflection on her contributions to those less fortunate, it ended up being about the contributions the rest of us could make. It began:

"The Princess of Wales died this evening."

"Mostly I remember her contributions and her humanitarianism. She went to Bosnia and Angola to protest land mines. She was photographed shaking hands with an AiIDS patient. She visited sick children around the world. Even after her divorce from Prince Charles, she continued her contributions - to the Red Cross and other charities, particularly those dedicated to helping the sick and the young."

"Outpourings of shock and sympathy were received tonight from heads of state the world over - particularly for her young children. Young and vibrant, the Princess clearly made her mark on the world. She was adored in Great Britain - and she will be eulogized for many years to come. I heard a newscaster say tonight that Princess Diana often said she wanted to be remembered as the "Queen of People’s Hearts." I have no doubt she will be. Will the rest of us be so fortunate?

..."I wonder what made so young a woman realize the gratification she would feel from making contributions to others instead of just being on the receiving end? This is the lesson I hope her untimely passing bestows upon the rest of us."

After some paragraphs discussing our feelings about the contributions that criminal defense lawyers make to society, we talked about bringing our 16 year old son on board as a member of the McVeigh Defense team:

" Every day after school from 3:00 to 5:00, he worked at Stephen Jones's office. I paid him myself, so it did not cost the public any money. He was a clerk, a gofer, a xeroxer, a discovery organizer. He helped with exhibits. He filed pleadings with the Court. He occasionally attended court sessions . He became part of the community of 30 people from Oklahoma, Texas and elsewhere who took a hiatus from their lives to preserve and protect our legal system, by ensuring as best they could that a defendant charged with the largest act of domestic terrorism in the nation's history would receive a fair trial. "

"The result: First, he and I had the closest year we ever had. We fully shared in and discussed the case. More importantly, we came to new levels of understanding of each other, as individuals, not just as mother and son. We related to each other as people - I finally learned to stop treating him like a child and began listening to his opinions. In return, he not only listened to mine, but sought them out, on a variety of topics important to teenagers, not just those related to the case."

"Second, and what I am so supremely proud of, are the values he learned and embraced by working inside our criminal justice system. He is proud of his contribution. He is proud of me. He has become deeply committed to the notion that everyone charged with a crime deserves the best defense possible, regardless of her ability to pay. He has learned that only when the trial is fair, can society trust in the integrity of the jury's verdict. "

"My son has learned compassion. He believes in his heart of hearts that the presumption of innocence lies at the very core of our criminal justice system, and that it must be preserved at all costs. He knows that while there are flaws, America has the best criminal justice system in the world. I believe he will bring these values and lessons with him, to college and beyond."

"I have learned the value of contributions to my own sense of personal well-being, as well as to those persons who directly benefit from them. If I could grant a wish for all of us, especially tonight as I find myself profoundly saddened by the loss of Princess Diana, it would be to be like her - to live our private lives as we wish, but to figure out how we can contribute to those less fortunate among us and then do it, so that we not only help others, but also enrich ourselves and teach our children in the process."

We have to believe that Chesa Boudin's parents are as proud of him as we are of our child--in the end, there is no greater contribution any of us can make as parents than to send our children out into the world to find their own way, and watch as they choose a career of public service, or one dedicated to improving the plight of those less fortunate, be it in medicine, law, politics, education, or any other field. Even law enforcement.

We hope we get to meet Chesa one day.

P.S. Happy Birthday Nic, 22 today.

100 Celebrities signed a letter opposing war with Iraq.

"More than 100 celebrities, including Kim Basinger, Matt Damon, Ethan Hawke, Samuel L. Jackson and Jessica Lange, have urged President Bush to avoid a war with Iraq in a letter that will be made public on Tuesday. The letter, also signed by a retired admiral and a former U.S. envoy to Iraq, will be made public at a press conference hosted by former "MASH" star Mike Farrell, who is co-founder of a new group called "Artists United To Win Without War."

The Supreme Court Monday refused to hear a case involving providing appointed counsel to death row inmates.

"The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider giving poor death row inmates more free legal help. The court had been asked to force the government to pick up the tab for inmates' legal bills during clemency proceedings and some last-minute appeals. Defense attorneys argued that a 1998 federal law requires death row inmates' lawyers to continue representing them through "every" stage of appeals."

"Congress made clear that people sentenced to death should not be abandoned by their lawyer as an execution date nears," University of California, Berkeley, law professor Charles Weisselberg told the court, on behalf of lawyers in a fees dispute. "Clemency is a critical part of our criminal justice system, and is particularly vital when the state seeks to take a human life."

"Many death row inmates are poorly education, retarded, or mentally ill, wholly unable to marshal the materials necessary to file their own clemency applications. They will be executed without clemency review," Weisselberg wrote in court papers."

The Bush Administration, through Solicitor General Ted Olson, opposed the funding.

The cases are In RE: Gary A. Taylor and William S. Harris, 01-1605, and In RE: Philip Alan Wischkaemper and Gary A. Taylor, 01-1623.

If you are an attorney and concerned about government monitoring of your attorney-client communications, here is a great list of resources on Defending the Attorney-Client Privilege from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). Thanks especially to NACDL director and esteemed Ethics scholar John Wesley Hall of Little Rock, AR.

Our post on MADD seems to have struck a chord with a lot of people--across party lines--we got an email praising our post from Drinking and Driving - National Motorists Association-- check them out, they have a lot to say and some good referral links. Their mission statement begins with:

"The NMA supports drinking and driving regulations based on reasonable standards that differentiate between responsible, reasonable behavior and reckless, dangerous behavior. The NMA does not support "zero tolerance" concepts, nor does it endorse unconstitutional enforcement and judicial procedures that violate motorists' rights."

Instpundit reports on MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) today. We thought we'd contribute a link to this site, DUI Gulag which takes MADD on front and center. From their home page:

"Despite what MADD propaganda would have you believe, in 1996 only .0000143 percent of the American population was killed in so-called "alcohol related" motor vehicle accidents where someone had a blood alcohol content as high as 0.10% . Government statistics indicate that each year more people die as a result of accidental drowning in America than die in low BAC related motor vehicle accidents. A recent study at a major U.S. university found that low BAC drinking drivers pose far less danger to public safety than do non-drinking drivers who have sleep apnea. In fact, your chances of being killed as a direct result of medical malpractice is 28 times higher than your chances of being killed in a motor vehicle accident involving a low BAC driver.

Despite the extremely low statistical threat to public safety posed by low BAC drinking drivers, more than 600,000 low BAC drivers are arrested and convicted for "drunk driving" in America each year.

Once arrested these otherwise law-abiding citizens are subjected to imprisonment; forced to pay huge fines and court costs; forced to pay the costs of probation; suffer unjust property forfeitures; forced to attend political re-education camps; subjected to psychological testing; forced to engage in involuntary forced labor; suffer government sponsored public humiliation; suffer the loss of driving privileges; suffer loss of respect for the courts and their government; suffer the loss of their jobs; their self esteem; and the destruction of their families.

This unfortunate state of affairs has been foisted upon America by an anti-alcohol, political action organization known as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, (MADD)."

Then read about MADD's "Real Political Agenda" and about MADD's Tax Exempt Status.

We're in court for the rest of the day, but we posted up a storm yesterday to give you all plenty of new material. We hope you read our entry on the death of lying lab chemist Fred Zain.

Update: NACDL media director Dan Dodson thinks we've missed the point on Madd and the real consequence/motivation behind the lowering BAC requirements. "The insurance industry likes the high-risk premiums that result--usually about four times regular rates. And no one can afford more than the minimum liability limits, so the victims of DUI convicts' later mistakes, DUI-related or not, have a minimal pool of insurance money for compensation."

We love it! The ACLU's anti-Ashcroft televsion ad. View it here.

(Via Politics in the Zeros)

The Los Angeles Times explains why today's crop of accused corporate executives are finding plea agreements preferable to the risk of going to trial--under the federal sentencing guidelines, they could be facing sentences of thirty years to life if convicted at trial.

"Even though the plea agreements still hold out the prospect of serious jail time, defense attorneys say these kinds of deals are becoming harder to turn down as federal officials, using tough new sentencing rules, threaten targets in corporate scandals with prison terms of 25 years, 30 years or more."

Faced with those kinds of numbers, many choose to plead guilty--even when they are innocent. They just can't take the risk. "Defense attorneys say prosecutors in major corporate corruption cases are proposing plea agreements containing 15-to-20-year sentences in negotiations with top executives who the defense contends never had any intent to commit crimes."

"What worries me is that there will be some white-collar guys who won't plead to an agreement like that, go to trial and get a 30-year sentence they don't deserve," [Washington lawyer Bob] Bennett said. "These draconian sentences heretofore have been reserved for the worst of the worst — drug kingpins and multiple murderers."

Actually, not just drug kingpins face those sentences. We have plenty of low-level clients who face them as well. Even a young, first offender can get 30 years to life under the sentencing guidelines if the offense involves a substantial amount of crack.

Bush and Ashcroft's love affair with building more prisons to house more low-level offenders and maintain our reputation as a Prison Nation will undoubtedly continue for the next two years--and longer if Bush is re-elected. Now that the rich will also fall prey to this Administration's mania, perhaps the wealthy will make substantial funds available to groups like Families Against Mandatory Minimums who have been working tirelessly for years to make the public see the folly of this response to crime.

Christopher H. Pyle teaches constitutional law and civil liberties at Mount Holyoke and is the author of an op-ed article in the Hartford Courant. He has first hand experience and information about his topic.

Read what he has to say about Poindexter and the Pentagon's proposed Total Information Awareness (TIA) program --the title of his op-ed is Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid, of Spying by the U.S. Army. (via Buzzflash).

First, as background:

"This isn’t the first time that the military has slipped the bounds of law to spy on civilians. In the late 1960s, it secretly collected personal information on more than a million law-abiding Americans in a misguided effort to quell anti-war demonstrations, predict riots and discredit protesters. I know because in 1970, as a former captain in Army intelligence, I disclosed the existence of that program."

Here's what Pyle says about Poindexter's plan:

"Under Poindexter’s plan, the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command, headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Va., will use high-powered computers to secretly search the e-mail messages, credit-card purchases, phone records and bank statements of hundreds of thousands of people on the chance that they might be associated with, or sympathetic to, terrorists."

"Much of INSCOM’S information will be sent to the Army’s new Northern Command, which is supposed to provide perimeter security, crowd control and technical assistance to civilian agencies in the aftermath of terrorist attacks. Nothing in the Northern Command’s mission requires it to keep dossiers on anti-war demonstrators or Muslim Americans, but the Northern Command expects to receive so many reports on individual terrorists and their sympathizers that it is planning to employ 150 people just to read them."

"The scale of this operation suggests that the Army is not just preparing to clear streets, defuse bombs and provide emergency services. It’s too early to tell how far the Army will actually go with its plans, but it is not too early to start asking questions."

An armed patrol of vigilantes have set out to lower the crime rate in Houston. Two weeks ago they went out looking for gang members. The Houston police department asked them to stop their patrols, and they have temporarily agreed.

We find this group's actions unacceptable - we hope that roaming around public streets in Houston with a gun and with intent to do bodily injury is a crime--and that these vigilantes find themselves in jail.

We have nothing against citizens being armed. We support Colorado's "Make My Day" law which allows a citizen to use deadly force against an intruder in their home. But to let citizens run around the streets with guns in search of members of a particular group they don't like is just pure lawlessness--and anarchy. This is not a Second Amendment issue. Vigilante justice simply has no place in a civilized society.