The U.S. has agreed to free 7 Guantanamo Detainees.

The seven are Pakistanis whom the Government has identified as neither being terrorists nor able to provide any intelligence information. They are the first prisoners the U.S. has agreed to release since January when it opened the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Pakistan is considered an ally in our war on terror. Sources say that prisoners from Kuwait, which is also considered an ally, may be freed next. Rumseld has already signed off on the release.

"The decision follows 10 months of outcry from human rights groups and some foreign governments about the indefinite detention without charges of hundreds of unidentified people apprehended abroad in the U.S. war on terror. Some advocates have also protested the conditions under which the detainees are being held and have said the inmates should either be charged criminally or released."

If you've been wondering where Attorney General John Ashcroft has been lately, we have the answer, thanks to Buzzflash: On a tour of Japan, China and Hong Kong.

Ascroft is due in Beijing Wednesday (which is Tuesday, or today here). He is scheduled to annouce the opening of a Beijing FBI office on Thursday.

The tour is part of a joint anti-terrorism and crime-fighting drive between Washington and Beijing. Ascroft first stopped in Tokyo and will be going on to Hong Kong after Beijing.

It's not known who he's meeting with in Beijing, but it isn't Chinese President Jiang Zemin who left China Tuesday for Bush's Texas ranch.

After his meetings and speech in Tokyo, Ashcroft said Washington and Tokyo were "making progress in negotiating a treaty to hasten the exchange of information in legal cases, including the prosecution of terrorists." The treaty he is referring to is The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). According to Agence France Presse, it would allow US and Japanese authorities to pool information in criminal investigations without having to go through the normal diplomatic channels.

The treaty would be a first for Japan. Ashcroft said we already have such agreements with 40 countries.

The Denver Post gets it right again with two endorsements today--for our favorites Congresspersons, Diana DeGette and Mark Udall. In Udall Perfect Fit for the Second, the Post praises Democrat Mark Udall who is seeking his third term in Congress:

"Voters should support Udall because his political courage and pragmatism are needed to help solve the problems facing America. Udall is deservedly known for his outstanding environmental record, including efforts to protect wilderness, clean up the air and water, promote renewable energy and make cars more fuel-efficient."

"Udall was among the few members of Congress voting against the recent resolution authorizing war with Iraq. While potentially unpopular, his position underscores his political courage and willingness to make tough decisions. Udall knows Saddam Hussein is dangerous, but says the United States should go to war only if there's new evidence that Iraq presents an imminent threat. If the United States does go to war, he says, it should be as part of a broad international coalition. The nuanced position can't be distilled into a soundbite, but shows the quiet reasoning crucial to foreign policy. Udall also worries about the erosion of civil liberties in the war on terrorism."

In Keep DeGette in the First, the Post says:

"Diana DeGette has worked hard on issues ranging from protecting the environment to improving children's health care. She deserves another term to continue her work for the 1st Congressional District. ...DeGette has an impressive record of working to secure federal funding for traffic management, preserve Social Security and reduce gun violence, along with her work on environmental issues and children's health. In her next term, she promises to work on legislation aimed at improving the lives of families."

"DeGette sees the economy as a key issue. In her view, President Bush's tax cuts, fallout from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and corporate fraud combined to sour the economy and constrain the federal budget."

"A member of the House Commerce Committee, DeGette has been a leader in the congressional inquiries into Enron, Qwest, WorldCom and Arthur Andersen. Thousands of Coloradans were among those who lost life savings in the corporate scandals. DeGette vows to work on reforming accounting practices, stock-option reporting and a comprehensive pension protection program....She also pledges to continue to work to protect the environment."

"....DeGette's proven effectiveness on issues important to her constituents argues strongly for her re-election."

We agree. We have known Diana since she was a mere lawyer, and Mark since his first term in Congress. The two have been consistently responsive to our issues and we have attended many fundraisers (even serving on host-committeesof a few) for them over the years where we've witnessed first-hand their constituents' high regard and deep appreciation of the efforts made on their behalf.

Both Diana and Mark voted against the Resolution on the War in Iraq. While neither is "soft on crime," they repeatedly have demonstrated their support for the Constitution and the rights of defendants by their votes and their willingness and availability to discuss issues with us. Both have signed on as co-sponsors of the Innocence Protection Act.

We are very pleased with the Denver Post this week, first for its enthusiastic endorsement of Senatorial candidate Tom Strickland and now, of Diana DeGette and Mark Udall.

Tom Strickland is still in a dead heat with incumbent Republican Wayne Allard. This could be the race that decides whether Republicans or Democrats control the Senate. There are 14 days left to election day. Donate to Strickland's campaign and enable him to air his final media campaign-- and don't forget to let us know you did or tell them TalkLeft prompted you to give.

Our reasons for endorsing Strickland, are here and here.

Activist-Actor Tim Robbins addressed the protesters of the War on Iraq in New York's Central Park a few weeks ago. The text of his comments, directed against fundamentalism, both here and abroad, are online over at the Nation.

One paragraph stood out to us in particlar:

"I do not like fundamentalism of any kind. Any movement that connects violence with God loses me, whether it's the murder of a doctor at an abortion clinic or the murder of busboys, firemen or businessmen in the World Trade Center. Radical fundamentalism at its core hates all the things I love: art, free expression, music, independent women, theater, good movies. We must be very wise in the way we frame our argument and how we proceed as we resist this new war."

Robbins goes on to discuss fundamentalism in our government and his belief that the war on Iraq is about business and oil, and about "distracting American attention from Enron and Halliburton, the financial scandals that directly connect this Administration to the heart of what is now wrong with the American economy."

We thought he was going somewhere else after the quoted paragraph. And since he didn't really go there, we will. We keep hearing people discuss the "religious right" and the "Christian right." There is nothing religious or holy or even Christian about these groups' political beliefs. By using these terms to refer to them, we endow them with a legitimacy to which they are not entitled. We would like to prevent them from connecting their radical political beliefs to religion.

Several years ago, we joined with other liberal groups in requesting people to stop referring to ultra-right wing fundamentalists as the Christian Right or Religious Right, and begin calling them what what they really are: "The Radical Right."

"Radical" does not convey a positive image to most Americans. Be it right or left, radicals are considered extremists and dangerous. Which is how we view, and want the public to view, right wing fundamentalists in this country.

Robbins is right that we have to be careful how we frame the argument. Since there is nothing religious about the "Christian Right," we hope to lessen their legitimacy in the eyes of the public by ceasing to use positive religious terms to describe or refer to them.

As to the fundamentalists who call themselves Islamic, we suggest we refrain from describing them as "Muslim" or "Islamic" and simply call them what they are, "radical fundamentalists."

Don't forget to go read Tim Robbins.

From the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Oct. 18, 2002) deciding an NRA sticker on a pickup-truck is not enough to justify a search of the truck for a gun.

"Indeed, if the presence of an NRA sticker and camouflage gear in a vehicle could be used by an officer to conclude he was in danger, half the pickups in the state of Texas would be subject to a vehicle search."

The case is Estep vs. Dallas County. You can read the full opinion here.

Sometimes Instapundit (Law Professor Glenn Reynolds) is just so right on the money--as he is today with this post on his disagreement with the way the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") is being used by the Government.

Prof. Reynolds agrees with another law professor, David Cole of Georgetown, who we link to frequently on civil liberties issues. Read his article Fight Terrorism Fairly from this Sunday's New York Times.

For those inclined to read the actual statute, it is 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, et. seq. A detailed description of the Act's provisions is available here.

Salon staff writer Eric Boehlert is guest hosting Eric Alterman's Altercation today and he's good!

We'll be back there Friday filling in for Eric with another "Slacker Friday"-- a mix of our thoughts and readers' letters. Eric will be back Monday, unless he's decided to become an ex-pat -- unlikely, he is way too much a New Yorker.

Sunday, we wrote about The Forgotten Prisoner: Mukkaram Ali. He is the student from Norman, Oklahoma who let his friend Hussein al-Attas and an acquaintance, Zacharias Moussaoui, stay in his apartment for several weeks during the summer of 2001 when Ali was elsewhere. Ali has been detained since September, first as a material witness for the Government, and now as a defense witness for Moussaoui. Our earlier post explains why his continued detention should be revisited.

The Government dropped its request to hold Ali months ago as their investigation concluded he was a mere acquaintance of Moussaoui and had no terrorist ties. He was friends with the second man, Hussein al-Attas. who Ali let stay in his apartment with Moussaoui.

We've written about al-Attas before as well, see Descent Into Federal Detention. Al-Attas has been detained as a material witness since September for having given Moussaoui a ride from Norman to Minnesota where Moussaoui was going to try again at flight school.

Al-Attas was sentenced today to time served for lying to authorities about Moussaoui. Ordinarily, he would be released or deported.

But no, al-Attas, whose criminal sentence has been served will not be released from jail. He is scheduled to testify for the Government against Moussaoui, and so he remains in detention until the trial is over (or his testimony is concluded and he is excused). Trial is now set for June, 2003.

This is one of the reasons the critics of Bush and Ashcroft decry these detentions. They are indefinite in scope. The material witnesses are kept in solitary or near solitary confinement 23 hours a day, with restricted access to counsel and family.

Ali overstayed his student visa and remains in jail for almost 2 years while al-Attas panicked when arrested and lied to the investigators about his knowledge of Moussaoui. The Government acknowledges that neither one was involved in terrorist activities. And they stay in jail for 2 years? Something is very wrong with this picture.

Oral argument was held Monday in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the case in which U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York ruled the federal death penalty unconsitutional.

Judge Rakoff based his ruling on the "increasing number of exonerations of death row inmates through DNA and other evidence [showing] there was an "undue risk of executing innocent people" in violation of the constitutional right to due process." Here is more on Judge Rakoff's decison.

The Government argued that the death penalty cases that have been overturned through DNA testing have all occurred in state cases, and that the federal system is better because the lawyers are better, there is less pressure on the judges to make popular decisions since they are appointed not elected, and because the Justice Department carefully screens the cases.

We were just about to debunk the Government's argument when we noticed further down in the article that Barry Scheck has already done so.

"Barry C. Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, said the conviction of innocent people in capital cases is "a far greater problem than we ever knew," and that the underlying causes of such wrongful convictions "apply just as much in federal court. "They're as prevalent as they are in state court," said Mr. Scheck, who appeared as a friend of the court. Mr. Scheck said such causes included mistaken eyewitness identifications, false confessions and lying witnesses."

One of the Judges hearing the appeal questioned why the issue was being raised for the first time in this case, implying that if the argument was valid, it would have been raised by other lawyers in prior federal cases. We disagree with that concept because novel arguments are raised all the time in legal cases. But we appreciated a portion of his comment (in italics):

"He cited the case of Timothy J. McVeigh, who was executed last year in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. "McVeigh had superb counsel, I think, by all accounts, and it didn't occur to them really to make this argument," he said."

There is a possibility the Second Circuit will sidestep the issue. "They asked whether the death penalty question was even properly before their court, given that neither of the defendants, Alan Quinones and Diego Rodriguez, has yet been tried, convicted, or sentenced to death."

The defendants' lawyer was ready for that one, answering (quite correctly in our view) that the issue was ripe for review because certain pre-trial procedures are very different in capital and non-capital cases, as Judge Rakoff had found.

For example, jury selection is very different. In order to serve on a death case, jurors have to say they would be willing to impose the death penalty. So all death penalty opponents are excluded from serving as jurors in capital cases. This skews the jury composition because people who support the death penalty are more likely to convict in the first place. If death is not being sought in a defendant's case, there is no reason to exclude death penalty opponents. By not making the ruling on the constitutionality of the death penalty until after trial, the defendant would get a death-qualified jury and face a greater likelihood of conviction. As defense lawyer Samuel Gross, also a law professor at the University of Michigan, told the Court, "Nobody seriously doubts that changes the courtroom in a momentous way."

Four Supreme Court Justices Monday declared their opposition "to executing juvenile offenders, a strong signal that sentiment is growing at the court for further restrictions on the death penalty in the United States. "

"The announcement by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- the court's most liberal members -- came in a written opinion dissenting from a 5 to 4 decision, in which the court's conservative majority refused to reconsider the question of whether executing murderers who committed their crimes at age 16 or 17 is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Constitution."

In their dissent, authored by Justice Stevens, the four justices opined that the practice is "a relic of the past [that] is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society.... We should put an end to this shameful practice."

"It was the first time since the court upheld the execution of 16- and 17-year-old offenders in 1989 that four members of the court have gone on the record in favor of reversing that ruling. Executing anyone younger than 16 remains barred under a 1988 ruling by the court."

"Opponents of the death penalty said the opinion means the court could hear a different case on the same issue relatively soon, after more state legislatures -- whose views the court considers in determining whether a "national consensus" against a particular aspect of the death penalty has formed -- have passed pending legislation outlawing the death penalty for juvenile offenders."

The opinion by Stevens likened the death penalty for juvenile offenders to the execution of mentally retarded offenders. The court banned that practice last June by a vote of 6 to 3, finding that a "national consensus" had emerged against it.

The dissent also argued that "like the mentally retarded, adolescents lack the impulse control of adults, and are thus neither deterred by the threat of death nor fully morally culpable for their actions. Society recognizes the immaturity of adolescents by forbidding them to vote, marry, drink or serve on juries, he wrote."

The opinion noted "a 'national consensus' repudiating executions of juveniles, in part because of poll data and also because no state has lowered its minimum age for execution since 1989 while five states have raised the age to 18."

Now for some facts:

The Washington Post finds the President enhances his facts and stretches the truth in his arguments for a War on Iraq.

Missing Canadian Maher Arar has been located in Syria.

"The Foreign Affairs Department said Monday that it had just been informed by the Syrian government that Maher Arar had arrived from neighbouring Jordan. Spokeswoman Isabelle Savard said Canadian embassy officials were trying to meet with Mr. Arar, who works as a consultant in Ottawa. "She said she didn't know if he was under arrest and she had no details of when he left the U.S. or how he was sent to the Mideast."

"Canadian officials have said Mr. Arar was deported without benefit of a lawyer. The lawyer chosen by Mr. Arar on the advice of Canadian consular representatives didn't show up for the dual Syrian-Canadian citizen's immigration hearing Oct. 7 in New York, an official said last week."

"Normally, a U.S. immigration court would deport a foreign citizen back to his last point of departure — in this case Zurich — but Mr. Arar was ordered sent to Syria. Mr. Arar's supporters in Canada have said he could face severe punishment in Syria because he avoided compulsory military service before leaving the country for Canada as a teenager."

"New U.S. laws permit officials to detain Canadian citizens born in Syria and several other Middle Eastern countries, forcing them to provide fingerprints, be photographed and fill out a form detailing their travel plans. Canada says the law is discriminatory."

Arar came to Canada in 1987 and was naturalized in 1991. He was arrested at JFK sometime last month and wad only been allowed one phone call to his family on October 3. The family called the counsulate and an immigration lawyer in New York, who met with Arar on October 5. The immigration lawyer relates that Arar was "confused, scared and emotional" and that he told her "he was interrogated for several hours by U.S. immigration officials and FBI investigators, and refused to sign an agreement to be deported to Syria."

In case you missed our recent posts with the history of Mr. Arar's (to us) gross mistreatment by the U.S., go here and here.

Thanks to Damn Foreigner for leading us to the Globe article and for his clear explanation of the facts.