We received this letter today in an email. The letter is written by concerned individuals in the legal community. If you agree with the letter and want to sign on as a signatory, e-mail Susan Serrano, at sserrano@lccr.com:

November 12, 2002

Dear Friend,

We are members of the legal teams that helped overturn the convictions of Fred Korematsu, Gordon Hirabayashi and Minoru Yasui in the mid-1980s for their refusal to obey the military orders aimed at Japanese Americans during World War II. Like all Americans, we mourn the loss of lives on 9/11 and remain concerned about the nation's security. But through the lens of the unique Japanese American historical perspective, we have become extremely alarmed at the Bush Administration's attempts, primarily through Attorney General John Ashcroft, to steamroll our civil rights and squelch any criticism or dissent.

We are concerned that the ugly precedent set by the Supreme Court's infamous decision in 1943 and 1944, which upheld Korematsu's, Hirabayashi's and Yasui's wartime convictions, are being revived by the Bush Administration to justify the mass internment of "suspected terrorists". By exploiting the tragedy of 9/11, Ashcroft, on behalf of this Administration, has pushed through legislation and issued orders that are seriously compromising our civil rights.

Here are some examples of Ashcroft's war on civil rights:

1. * He has secretly arrested and detained over 1000 people "suspected" of terrorism and has withheld their names from the public;

2. * He has proposed the creation of detention camps for U.S. citizens whom this Administration, without judicial review, secretly deems to be "enemy combatants";

3. * He has imprisoned U.S. citizens indefinitely in military brigs without bail, criminal charges, or access to attorneys, and has ordered people to be held in jail without charges, in violation of the Administration's own USA PATRIOT Act, which requires charges within 7 days of their arrest;

4. * He has breached the protective wall between criminal prosecutions and national security investigations, which was erected toprevent wiretap and surveillance abuse;

5. * He has authorized the monitoring of privileged communications between attorneys and federal
prisoners/detainees;

6. * He has ordered the continued detention of people in custody even after an immigration judge has found them eligible for release.

There are more examples, but it is clear to us that Ashcroft presents a clear and present danger to the Constitution, to civil rights and to anyone who chooses to dissent against the Administration's policies. We believe John Ashcroft is simply not fit for the position of Attorney General of the United States - he is a right wing extremist.

We believe it is now time to call for his removal as Attorney General.

Americans have been reluctant to stand up to Bush and Ashcroft because of the political authority conferred on them by the tragic events of 9/11. But silence now is the same silence which allowed Japanese Americans to go to prison with only a few isolated dissents. Ashcroft's policies and actions demonstrate that he is incapable of understanding or learning this lesson.

We would like to reach out to the larger American public with our concerns through the mass mailing of a letter similar to the above. If you agree with us, please signify your agreement via email response to this email so that we can use your name to support another letter to be sent to as many like-minded friends demanding Ashcroft's removal and offering specific ideas for breaking the silence and taking action. We will send you the final letter for your approval before we disseminate it.

If we receive an enthusiastic response we will coordinate an even larger public action calling for his removal. If we don't get such a response, we will try to publish that letter as an op-ed or open letter.

Signed: Fred Korematsu
Gordon Hirabayashi
Lorraine Bannai
Karen Kai
Dale Minami
Peggy Nagae
obert Rusky
Donald K. Tamaki
Eric Yamamoto
Gary Iwamoto
Rod Kawakami

Susan Kiyomi Serrano
Project Director
Equal Justice Society
131 Steuart Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 543-9444 ×233
(415) 543-0296 fax
sserrano@lccr.com

[Ms. Serrano asks us to note that this letter is not a project of the Equal Justice Society, but of an informal group of individuals very concerned about civil liberties under the Bush Administration.]

Democratic Senator Tom Daschle asks a vital question, one we have been asking ourselves for a long time: Is the administration's war against terror merely another version of The Emporer Has No Clothes? Daschle's comments today:

"We can't find bin Laden, we haven't made real progress" in finding key elements of al-Qaida. They continue to be as great a threat today as they were one and a half years ago. So by what measure can we claim to be successful so far?"

With the new Homeland Security Bill, once again we are going to limit our own civil liberties, but where is the evidence it will make us any safer?

The Houston Chronicle reports that Bush will resubmit Priscilla Owen for a judgeship on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals when the new Republican-dominated Congress reconvenes in January.

"She faces criticism from numerous special interest groups who claim she is a conservative judicial activist, depicting her state Supreme Court rulings as pro-business and unfriendly to the environment and abortion rights."

"Her record shows her willingness to ignore the law in pursuit of an ultraconservative agenda. And that agenda gets in the way of her responsibilities as a jurist," said Ralph Neas, president of the liberal, Washington-based People for the American Way."

"In numerous dissents, Owen has taken positions that would have effectively rewritten the law or disregarded the expressed language of the law," he said."

And so it begins.

The full text of the Homeland Security Bill that passed Congress is available here, courtesy of the White House.

We will resume blogging later tonight. In the meantime, we hope you will browse our recent posts, comment on a few and read the excellent blogs on the right.

Peter Greenspun, the lead lawyer for accused sniper John Muhammed took the police to task for their leaks Wednesday. Greenspun earned high praise from Miami lawyer Roy Black, who selected Greenspun as co-counsel in the Marv Albert biting case a few years back.

"His highest-profile case, though, was representing Marv Albert on charges of forcible sodomy after a woman claimed Albert bit her on the back and forced her to perform oral sex in a hotel room. Albert pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault, spent no time in jail and eventually had the conviction wiped from his record. "

"Albert's lead attorney in that case, Roy Black, said he was impressed by Greenspun's work. "We selected him because he was clearly the best criminal defense lawyer in that area of Virginia," Black said. "He's very good thinking on his feet; he's great with a jury."

Black said Greenspun's experience with that trial should prove helpful.

"I wish Greenspun good luck," Black said. "The only thing standing between Muhammad and a lynch mob is Peter Greenspun."

The New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners has revoked the license of former prison doctor John J. Napolean who was accused by inmates of sadistic behavior.

The complaints against Napoleon included charges that he doubted a prisoner's chest pains the day before the man suffered a fatal heart attack; suggested in records that an inmate was ''faking'' shortly before he died of a brain tumor; and delayed a prisoner's diagnosis of throat cancer.

An administrative law judge found Napolean had shown "contempt" for inmates in nine instances. The 13 member medical board unanimously agreed in seven of the nine cases, saying "Napoleon saw inmates as a ''sub-class'' undeserving of equal care. "

The Washington Post reports today that Democrats are ready to leave the centrism of the Clinton days behind them and take a turn to the left.

"A decade after Bill Clinton pushed his party toward the center of American politics, inspiring a vibrant movement of "New Democrat" followers in Congress, a liberal resurgence is sweeping the party, threatening to brush centrists to the side. There's little doubt that on issues of trade, gun control and tax cuts, House Democrats are about to take a left turn."

Al Gore, Howard Dean and Bob Kerry are said to be going along for the ride. The lack of support for Frost and Ford in their bids for the House leadership post "shows the strong grip liberals have on the party, especially at the congressional level."

Tom Daschle, described as "left of center" (news to us) in the article, was re-elected as minority leader yesterday.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of Megan's laws. Most of the justices appeared largely untroubled by the laws, which vary from state to state but generally publicize names, addresses and photos of convicted sex offenders on the Internet.

At issue are laws in Connecticut and Alaska, neither of which " make individualized determinations before posting names. The cases are Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. John Doe, No. 01-1231, and Otte v. Doe, 01-729. Signaling the Bush administration's interest in defending the laws, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued as amicus curiae in support of both state laws."

Law Professor Glenn Reynolds ( Instapundit), writing for TechCentral Station today, has some constructive ideas for how we citizens can help prevent and best respond to future terrorist attacks.

We compliment the Professor on coming up with concrete suggestions that can be implemented fairly easily. Too often, we all opine on what's wrong without providing constructive and do-able alternatives. Among his suggestions:

Training and arming citizens in what to be alert for "could be a very valuable last line of defense against terrorism. In almost every instance of terrorism, the true first responders will be the people already on the scene."

Training people in "first aid (especially the specific skills likely to be useful in the aftermath of a terrorist attack), in recognizing the signs of chemical or biological attack, and in various other disaster-recovery skills."

Encouraging people "to carry cameras, or video cameras, and use them in the immediate moments after an attack, when they might gather valuable data."

Prof. Reynolds concludes:

"One of the lessons that we should take from the D.C. sniper attacks is that even a massive law-enforcement presence can't prevent terror attacks, even when it knows they're about to happen. But an informed and prepared citizenry - which, after all, is what stopped "shoebomber" Richard Reid, helped stop Mohammad Hadayet, and kept Flight 93 from smashing into the Capitol, as well as being what actually caught Muhammad and Malvo - can be everywhere. "

If you have some other ideas, feel free to use the comments section below.

Political Wire noted yesterday that Gary Hart has not excluded himself from the 2004 presidential race. It seems newspapers have interpreted his remarks differently.

Here are Hart's comments on FoxWire this past Sunday in response to an inquiry by Host Rita Cosby (Available on Lexis ):

"COSBY: And Senator Hart himself was in the news earlier this week, when one newspaper reported that he was considering running for president in 2004. And one report said that he was not.

Well, I asked him about the two reports, and this is what he had to say.

HART: I think both reports are wrong.

COSBY: The press is wrong? Wait a minute.

HART: Well, the contradictory reports are wrong. I think it's much too early for anyone, particularly including myself, to be talking about presidential races.

I think the voters have, frankly, had enough with the recent election and all the negative campaigning, and all the money that was spent.

So, let's put all that off at least till next year.

COSBY: But does that mean that you would consider running again? That you're not excluding it?

HART: It doesn't - no, it doesn't mean anything. It just means, let's discuss the issues that are on people's minds."

The day before, November 8, Hart answered the question during a national security lecture to college students in Boulder, Colorado, this way: "I don't want to run for office, but I want to make a contribution," he said during a lecture on national security to University of Colorado students.

"I don't have any great need to be in public office, but I don't want to sit on the sidelines either," said Hart"

Some, like the Associated Press, reported "Former Democratic Sen. Gary Hart, whose 1988 presidential campaign was derailed in a sex scandal, has ruled out another run for the White House in 2004," while others took only as meaning he wasn't excluding himself. Seems the latter view is correct. (AP article available on Lexis.)

And on a war with Iraq, Hart is critical of plans to invade Iraq. Here's another q and a session from the same interview with Rita Cosby:

"And in the op-ed you said, "War in Iraq should be initiated only when the United States is fully prepared to deal with the potential serious domestic consequences of undertaking that war."

What do you see as the potential domestic consequences? And do you think we are ready? Are we prepared to go to war?

HART: Well, of course we're not. And the Council on Foreign Relations task force, which issued its report about 10 days to two weeks ago, said this nation is not much better prepared a year after the first attack than we were then.

So we are not prepared for the inevitable retaliatory attacks on this country that will occur when we invade Iraq. It is not possible, it is almost inevitable.

And so, any prudent commander-in-chief or president would not commit forces to Iraq until this country is fully prepared to deal with the consequences of that attack. And I think they will be consequential. "

There's been a lot of discussion this week about financial contributions to bloggers, starting with small-l Libertarian William Quick of Daily Pundit threatening to quit if he doesn't get donations, and Instapundit's agreement with Arthur Silber's article encouraging readers to contribute to bloggers they read regularly.

We agree that when you find a blog that you check in with frequently, either to see what's new or what they are saying, or because you appreciate their point of view and like the way they express it, donations are appropriate.

Our "tip jar" on the left asks for donations. We encourage them. We also really do need a new, lightweight laptop for the road so we can continue to blog and update our newsfeed when we're traveling, which we do quite frequently. So if you're a regular reader or browser of TalkLeft, we hope you will throw in a few bucks. [Or, if you are with IBM or Sony or other computer company, we'll be happy to accept a new laptop and in exchange, we will proudly display your company logo with a hotlink, here and on CrimeLynx.]