There will be no fourth re-trial in the case of ex-cop Charles Schwarz, accused of assisting Justin Volpe in the brutal assault on Haitian immigrant Abner Louima in the police precinct bathroom. The jury was selected Friday, but Saturday night Schwarz plead guilty to perjury for lying about being in the bathroom during the attack in exchange for a five year sentence.

"U.S. District Judge Reena Raggi sentenced Charles Schwarz to five years in prison the maximum penalty for perjury. In exchange, prosecutors dropped outstanding civil rights charges and a second perjury count. At sentencing, Raggi scolded Schwarz for lying about "a senseless and brutal attack. No free society can tolerate such conduct from a police."

We think it is a just result. Schwarz has already served 33 months (before his first and second convictions were overturned on technical grounds) and there is little to be gained by putting Abner Louima, now living in Florida and trying to put the brutal assault behind him, through the rigors of testifying yet another time.

Under the terms of the plea ageement, "Schwarz could earn a 13-month reduction in his sentence if he, his wife and his attorneys comply with an agreement not to comment on the case until Schwarz leaves prison, his attorneys said. Along with credit for good time, Schwarz' attorneys estimated that he could serve less than three years." Another " central condition of the deal essentially prohibits Mr. Schwarz from stating publicly that he is innocent of the civil rights violation, that he held Mr. Louima down while another officer, Justin A. Volpe, sodomized Mr. Louima with a broken broomstick."

As an aside, the judge, Reena Raggi sailed through senate confirmation hearings this week with a unanimous vote for her appointment to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Christopher Krohn, the Mayor of Santa Cruz, CA explains Why I'm Fighting Federal Drug Laws From City Hall in today's New York Times.

"How did I, a mayor of a small town in California, wind up in a tug of war with the Drug Enforcement Agency? This week, I stood in front of Santa Cruz's city hall as a local group that provides medical marijuana went about its weekly task of distributing the drug to the sick and dying."

"My story begins on the morning of Sept. 5 when approximately 30 men, dressed in military fatigues and carrying automatic weapons, descended on a small cooperative farm run by the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in northern Santa Cruz County, about 65 miles south of San Francisco. They were pulling up organically grown marijuana plants."

Mayor Krohn astutely observes:

"The government is fighting a losing battle. In the states where medical marijuana has been on the ballot, it has received overwhelming approval from voters. Canada and Great Britain recently approved the medical use of marijuana and plan to have the government grow and distribute it. "

"As medical costs skyrocket, medical marijuana is a cost-effective way to treat people with chronic pain. Most of all, making medical marijuana available is an act of common sense and compassion. "

Daily Kos has an excellent post today on the true cost of the 1991 Gulf War.

He includes this documented fact: "159,000 Gulf War vets are receiving disability payments from the government -- suffering from the still mysterious "Gulf War Syndrome....Thousands suffer from memory loss, dizziness, blurred vision, speech difficulties, nerve disorders, muscle weakness. Many have chronic skin disorders, including rashes. They have reported incidences of cancers in themselves and birth defects in their children, though U.S. government studies deny they are related to the war. "

Kos also outlines why a new war with Iraq will be even costlier.

Calling them "America's Funniest Home Constitutional Interpretations," SouthKnoxBubba reprints some of Attorney General John Ashcroft's remarks on the extent of the President's constitutional powers ...and on the limits on the powers of Congress.

Tomorrow on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

"Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) debate congressional action on Iraq; Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) and former CIA director James Woolsey discuss the intelligence hearings on 9/11; a discussion of U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq with former U.N. chief inspector David Kay, former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Patrick Lang, American Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.); an update on the Middle East peace process with Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher, Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel al-Jubeir and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres; and former U.S. attorney Joe diGenova and defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt discuss terror cells in the United States. (CNN at noon)."

The terror cell debate will be at 2pm eastern time.

This might be the saddest thing we read today:

"The petty thief at the center of a nationwide debate over the use of electric stun belts on inmates died hours before he was to be released from prison, his attorney said on Friday."

"Ronnie Hawkins, 52, was serving a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life for petty theft -- his third felony under California's three strikes law -- when he died on Thursday of AIDS-related illness at a prison in Vacaville, California, his attorney Stephen Yagman said."

"Last month, a U.S. magistrate ordered Hawkins to be freed, ruling that he had served enough time for the crime he committed."

Here's more information on why three-strike laws should be repealed.

Nation Columnist and MSNBC blogger Eric Alterman poses some real questions about the Bush Administration's plans to invade Iraq. Here's a few that particularly resonated with us:

"Why can't the FBI afford a decent computer system and people who know how to run it? Can't they hire Microsoft?"

"Why is John Ashcroft arresting people who grow medical marijuana? Ditto New Orleans hookers? Isn't there a war on? Don't the terrorists win if we give up pot and hookers?"

"What about those detention camps Ashcroft wanted for the purposes of indefinitely incarcerating US citizens deemed to be "enemy combatants," while stripping them of all constitutional rights, including the right to trial? Is that still happening? That sounds kinda bad."

To answer the last one, yes it's still happening and we suspect will happen even more. The so-called "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla and Yser Hamdi are still in custody, without lawyers and without charges.

We think the military has the right to accuse someone of being an enemy combatant but it should be a judge who makes the decision. In open court. At a hearing where they are afforded a right to a lawyer, the right to review the evidence against them and to call and cross-examine witnesses. Until and unless a court determines they are an enemy combatant, they should retain their rights as Americans. To say otherwise means the Government can brand someone with a label and then imprison them indefinitely, even forever. We think that's way too much power to give the Government.

"Who elected this guy anyway?"

Not the American people, and we'll have a chance to correct it in 2004.

Today's editorial in the L.A. Times In Defense of the Innocent points out that "for every seven people executed since 1977, one person on death row is eventually exonerated by new evidence."

In calling for passage of the bipartisan Innocence Protection Act now pending before Congress, the Times notes:

"Some 3,700 men and women around the nation now have a date with the executioner. The prospect that innocent people could be among them should frighten every American."

Here's more on the Innocence Protection Act.

Calvin Burdine, whose case we have been following here and here has filed suit in federal court seeking an injunction against state court Judge Joan Huffman to have his long-time counsel who was successful in reversing his murder conviction represent him in his retrial.

"In a case that could have implications for indigent defendants' rights, a federal court will decide whether a trial judge, acting under color of state law in a criminal proceeding, may interfere with a long-standing attorney-client relationship."

"Calvin Burdine, the Texas inmate whose 1984 capital murder conviction was overturned because his lawyer slept through significant portions of the trial, wants the attorney who represented him during the 15-year legal battle to be appointed to represent him in the retrial. On Sept. 16, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit against state District Judge Joan Huffman because she has refused to appoint Robert L. McGlasson, an Atlanta federal public defender who won a new trial for Burdine. "

There will be a hearing in federal court on the injunction next Friday.

We see no reason to keep Mr. McGlasson off the case. "McGlasson has practiced full time in the area of death penalty defense litigation since 1983. McGlasson has been employed with the Federal Defender program in Atlanta since January 2000 and serves as its supervising attorney for the Capital Habeas Unit, the suit says."

While the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice has not been construed as applying to indigent defendants when it comes to the appointment of counsel to represent them, this case is different. Here, there is already an established long-term relationship and the issue is keeping a lawyer on the case as opposed to appointing a new one. The intent of the Texas Fair Defense Act was to allow defendants to have competent counsel, not to remove them.

We think the federal court should give Mr. Burdine his lawyer back.

The bond hearing continued today in the case of the six men from the Buffalo area charged with providing material support to Al Qaeda.

The Magistrate Judge hearing the case questioned the Government's assertion that the men pose an immediate danger.

"I haven't heard of any act of violence or propensity of violence in the history of these individuals," said U.S. Magistrate H. Kenneth Schroeder Jr. He said he would rule on bail requests by Oct. 3."

Two of the men claim they never went to Afganistan. One says he left after 10 days when he realized the nature of the camp. Another two of the men say that statements made by two of the others to the FBI are unreliable.

One admitted he went to Afganistan but said that a hunting rifle and scope the Government is connecting him to belong to the father of one of the other men and that a seemingly incriminating cassette tape was made in 1980 and refers to Russia's invasion of Afghanistan.

Two other suspected cell members (which would bring the group to eight) have been identified as Jaber Elbaneh and Kamal Derwish. Both are believed to be in Yemen and the Government believes Derwish is the ringleader.

The Judge must decide whether the men pose a risk of flight or a danger to the community if released on bail.

After that, the issue looks like it will be whether participating in terror school at a camp run by Al Qaeda constitutes providing "material support" to Al Qaeda.

In questioning the Government's contention that the men pose an immediate danger, the Judge said:

"I know there are people out there who say if we let these people out and we have another 9-11 God forbid but that's a risk I would be taking," Schroeder said near the end of Friday's hearing. "I'm not concerned with what other people think."

"He said his aim is to protect the Constitution, which he called "probably the most valuable aspect of all."

Thursday we complained about Houston Judge Joan Hoffman's insistence that the murder re-trial of Calvin Burdine take place 90 days after his new lawyer got on board. Defense lawyers in Houston wrote the Court in protest.

A brief recap of events until now: Calvin Burdine is the inmate on Death Row in Texas who had his state conviction reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals because his lawyer slept through the trial. Then, the lawyer who had worked for fifteen years to reverse his conviction was disqualified from re-trying the case because Harris County, Texas hasn't certified him as a capital defense lawyer. So a new lawyer was appointed. The trial judge was trying to force the new lawyer to be ready for trial in this 20 year old capital case 96 days after she was appointed.

We're pleased to report the Judge has agreed to move the trial from October to March, 2003. Charles Kuffner alerted us to this editorial in yesterday's Houston Chronicle criticizing the Judge. Here's a quote from it:

"Until Thursday, Huffman declined to grant a continuance to allow Burdine's new lawyer, Danalynn Recer, to prepare. The trial is now set for a reasonable March 3, instead of Oct. 7. "

"Judge Huffman's behavior to date exhibits either callous indifference to fairness or the indulgence of personal pique unbecoming of a judge. What would cause Huffman to reason that Burdine, undefended by a sleeping lawyer in his first trial, deserves a weaker than necessary defense at his second? What made her hesitate to grant a reasonable continuance? "

"State District Judge George Godwin, chief administrative judge of criminal district courts in Harris County, accused Burdine's supporters of whining, but there's no shame in decrying injustice. The shame is in ignoring it, as Godwin seemed eager to do. "

"Judge Huffman could easily correct her mistake by appointing McGlasson to assist in Burdine's defense, just as she gave in and granted the defense time to prepare. No state law prohibits Huffman from giving Burdine a fair trial. Duty and the Constitution compel her to give him a fair trial, at least the second time around."

How about it, Judge Hoffman? Give Mr. Burdine his counsel of choice. It's the right thing to do.

Matthew Yglesias cuts to a core issue in his post today on the Michael McConnell nomination.

A quote:

"The poor babies at the Washington Post are sad, sad, sad that Michael McConnell might not get to be a judge even though he's really smart and went to good schools and has some smart liberal professor friends. Said smart friends are contrasted with dastardly "liberal advocacy groups" with the crazy notion that protecting the rights of women, religious and racial minority groups, consumers, the poor, and the environment is more important than protecting the rights of smart intellectuals to become judges. This is really the worst kind of liberalism and the worst kind of rationale for inaction."

Addition: Via Hamster, we found Jack Newfield's article on the judicial selection process in the Sept. 19 issue of the Nation. It is very long and thorough but we liked the ending so much we are going to reprint it here:

"During America's first century, one of every four Supreme Court nominees was rejected by the Senate. The Founding Fathers gave the Senate the power of advise and consent for judicial nominees for sound reasons involving checks and balances among the branches of government that are elected and appointed.

Applying Herman Melville's "No! in thunder" to the extremist nominees for lifetime appointments is as American as baseball, the blues and the Constitution itself."