Through Political Parrhesia we found the 2002 First Amendment Report disclosing that support for the First Amendment has declined.

49 of Americans polled think the First Amendment provides too many protections. Last year only 39 felt this way.

It gets worse. According to the Freedom Forum press release on the study :

"More than four in 10 said they would limit the academic freedom of professors and bar criticism of government military policy." (Muzzle Instapundit? No way!)

"About half of those surveyed said government should be able to monitor religious groups in the interest of national security, even if that means infringing upon religious freedom. "

"More than four in 10 said the government should have greater power to monitor the activities of Muslims living in the United States than it does other religious groups."

This survey on the state of the first amendment has been conducted annually since 1997 by the Center for Survey Research & Analysis at the University of Connecticut.

The study "examines public attitudes toward freedom of speech, press, religion and the rights of assembly and petition."

American Journalism Review magazine was a partner in this year's study, and the complete results of the study are in its September issue. You can also access and download them here.

John Walker Lindh is now cooperating and seeking forgiveness according to his lawyers.

"Lindh never contemplated that he would be fighting in a war that Americans would enter, the lawyers said. He now believes he made a terrible mistake by enlisting with Afghanistan's former harsh Islamic rulers and wants Americans to forgive him..."

"Lindh understands Americans' extremely negative feelings toward him, West said. He wants his countrymen to know that he was not a terrorist and never joined Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, even though he met bin Laden in a military training camp in Afghanistan."

"He understands Sept. 11 changed the way people view Islam and that he came into national consciousness at a time there was a great deal of justified national pain and anger," West said."

"He made a mistake. He admits he made a terrible mistake. No one wants to be judged by the worst mistake they made when they were 20 years old."

Lindh is awaiting sentencing. His plea agreement calls for a 20 year sentence but others have opined he could get as little as 13 if the terrorism adjustment does not apply.

Rather than re-capping the events of September 11 and their aftermath, we'd rather review the responses and reactions to date of the Bush administration, including but not limited to Attorney General Ashcroft.

We begin with comedian and political humorist Barry Crimmins who has this to say about Bush (via Blah3):

"W says he doesn't need Congress to approve of his war. He says he doesn't need trials to dispose of people he deems dangerous. He says doesn't need to answer questions about obvious ties to enormously corrupt corporations or about his own sleazy business dealings. Perhaps if we had just insisted on him needing to be elected before he took office, he wouldn't have drawn some of these other bizarre conclusions."

On a more contemplative note, we recommend Let it Begin Here's take on Ashcroft, the media, and what people seem to care the most about.

Atrios sends us to Frank Rich's column in the New York Times today where he recaps the last year in Slouching Towards 9/11.

After questioning whether Bush's strange assertion of executive privilege over the Clinton Pardons isn't just a prelude to his administration clamming up over Enron, Rich turns his attention to Ashcroft and the detainees.

"There's a legitimate debate whether the defeat of terrorism justifies constitutional shortcuts and that argument is playing out in court, where there have now been four judgments against the government this year, including a unanimous appellate decision this week. But more and more the argument is academic. The administration's blanket secrecy has less to do with the legitimate good of protecting our security than with the political goal of burying its own failures."

"By keeping the names and court proceedings of his detainees under wraps, John Ashcroft could for months cover up his law enforcement minions' inability to apprehend a single terrorist connected to 9/11. The same stunt has been pulled by designating prisoners "enemy combatants" at Guantánamo. Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomber," whose arrest was trumpeted by the attorney general as the breakup of a major terrorist plot, turns out to be a nonentity who may not be charged with anything. But as long as Mr. Padilla is locked away in a legal deep freeze, that embarrassment can be kept on the q.t."

Moving on to the subject of war with Iraq, Rich says:

"An all-out attack on Iraq will entail a level of risk and sacrifice that the U.S. has not assumed since Vietnam," wrote the author of "Black Hawk Down," the combat journalist Mark Bowden, this week. As this reality sinks in, support for war with Iraq is falling — from 70 percent last fall to 51 percent now, according to the new Time/CNN poll. A Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that only 40 percent would approve if there are ground troops and significant American casualties. "

Our view: Hardly a passing grade, let alone the inspired leadership we deserve from this team.

UPI Legal Affairs Correspondent Michael Kirkland writes about the real reason America uses the death penalty in On Law: Execution as revenge.

The focus of his article is the execution of juvenile offenders. He ponders why America still allows it. For what purpose ?

38 states in the U.S. allow the death penalty. Of those, only 16 require that the minimum age of the offender at the time of the crime be 18. That leaves 22 states that allow kids who were 16 and 17 at the time of their crimes to be put to death.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 21 men have been put to death for crimes they committed as juveniles.

The only other countries that allow the execution of juvenile offenders are Islamic countries.

Kirkland makes the key point:

"But as a nation we are swiftly reaching the point at which we may have to ask ourselves: Do we really want take the ultimate revenge against people who did some truly brutal things when they weren't adults?"

"Are these adult death row inmates even the same people they were when they were teenagers? Is anybody? Are you?"

Bill Bratton used to be New York's "top cop." Before that , he was top cop in Boston and he is now hoping to become top cop in L.A. We hope L.A. has the sense to hire him, because he is the one person who could turn around that battered and corrupt police department.

Bratton is married to our good pal Rikki Klieman, the vivacious, smart, savvy and articulate Court TV anchor who in her prior life was one of the leading criminal defense attorneys in Boston, and one of the best female trial lawyers in the country.

The Boston Globe ran a great profile of their life together yesterday called Partners in Crime. We thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish and think you will too.

This is very exciting...the first weblog devoted exclusively to Military Law .... Instapundit sent us the link and we couldn't wait to put it up...check out:

Jaghunters

It has a wealth of links. We also like its lead quote:

"I can think of no more fitting expression of this country's appreciation for the sacrifices of our young servicemen than to grant them the same rights they are defending."

Senator Sam J. Ervin

Steve Glassroth, Montgomery, Ala. criminal defense lawyer and member of the board of directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, has an op-ed piece in today's Montgomery Advertiser on the Innocence Protection Act. It provides a thorough analysis of the pending bill and points out a fact too often overlooked:

"...for every wrongful conviction, a real criminal remains free to prey on others. "

For details, visit the Innocence Project, the website of Senator Patrick Leahy and the Justice Project-- all are a wealth of information on the pending legislation-- and then pick up the phone or fax a letter.

The Rocky Mountain News is reporting that before indicting James Ujaama this week for conspiracy to provide assistance to Al Qaeda by scouting training camp sites and designing a website, the Feds considered offering him immunity.

According to Ujaama's Denver lawyer, Dan Sears, one of the leading and most respected defense lawyers in the state,

"There have been discussions concerning an application for 'use immunity' by the prosecutors' office back in Virginia" where Ujaama is held, Sears said. "I understand that representations were made that application (for immunity toward Ujaama) was going to be made by the Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's office back east. But whether that application was ever made or not, I don't know."

"Sears also said that discussions with the U.S. Attorney's office in Seattle included Ujaama making a "proffer" - in which a witness provides testimony that lets prosecutors decide whether an immunity offer is appropriate."

"Although immunity never was offered formally to Ujaama, Sears said the fact that prosecutors even discussed it indicates that federal authorities are looking at bigger targets, beyond him."

"If you're going to indict and convict someone, you don't even talk about the prospects of offering use immunity," said Sears, a former federal prosecutor. "

Sears is right about how it usually works. An offer of immunity is made to people who can help the Government fry bigger fish (or at least more of them.) With exceptions, (Sammy Gravano in the John Gotti case immediately comes to mind) a defendant who did something really bad is usually allowed to plead to a lesser crime, not given immunity from prosecution--which is a walk.

Ujaama has proclaimed his innocence.. It may be he didn't want talk to the feds or he doesn't have the information they think he has, and that's why the offer wasn't made. And the opportunity for Ujaama to resolve his own case by cooperating may come up again in the future.

Of course we are just speculating here, trying to read between the lines of what his attorney is saying.

The Justice Department is staying mum.

Columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson weighs in on Alternet on the issue of the new Delaware police "jump squads."

In A Troubling Real Life Minority Report Hutchinson says:

"...the Wilimington police policy, even if there are no constitutional issues at stake, is a horrible policy. It criminalizes those whose only crime is being the wrong color, and in the wrong place at the wrong time. A promo line for Minority Report warned, " You can’t hide, get ready to run."

"Beware: The actions of the Wilmington police, and any others tempted to follow their lead, could make those watchwords for us all. "

Lisa English of Ruminate This , an excellent blog we try to read daily, expands on our prior pleas for you to contact your legislators and urge passage of the Innocence Protection Act. Go over and read it, and spend some time browsing her other interesting posts and links on all sorts of topics.

And then visit the Innocence Project, the website of Senator Patrick Leahy and the Justice Project-- all are a wealth of information on the pending legislation-- and then pick up the phone or fax a letter.

110 have been freed so far, how many more are waiting in prison cells for DNA testing that could prove their innocence?

Michael Skakel was sentenced to 20 years to life today.

We have been following and commenting on for the past four years, ever since the investigation was reopened with Michael Skakel as the chief suspect.

We attended a day of the trial and we know the defense attorney Mickey Sherman well. He did a great job at trial. The media on the whole predicted an acquittal because there was little physical or forensic evidence, no dna, no witnesses to the crime. And there were plenty of other suspects. So what went wrong?

We'll write a long analysis this weekend [ed. note: earlier today we wrote that we'd finish it tonight but we didn't.]

So check back this weekend, and in the meantime, if you're curious about the Skakel case, check out our comprehensive coverage at Crimes 'R Us: The Legal Side of Crimes in the News where we've been chronicling the case and providing defense-oriented coverage for a few years now. There's archives too.