It's hard to keep from nodding in agreement the whole read through Dianne Dees' Welcome to Amurika, the lead article in today's Democratic Underground.

"I never intended to be a citizen of Amurika. I didn't even know where it was the first five or six times I heard the president talk about it. Then I heard Chris Matthews droning about Amurika, soon the other talking heads followed suit, and - finally - I got it. Amurika is where I live. So why does it feels like a foreign land? "

And how do we get out of here? If only clicking our heels twice would get us back home.

Nightline Tonight:

Get caught with five grams of crack cocaine, and the mandatory minimum sentence is five years. Five grams of powder cocaine? Probably not much will happen, especially if you're affluent or famous. It takes five hundred grams of powder cocaine to get the same five years sentence. In other words, it takes one hundred times the amount of powder to get you the same sentence as a crack user would get.

Why the 100 to 1 disparity?

"Most people believe now that a lot of the assumptions that were made back then are wrong. Crack may not be more addictive. It may not cause more violence. The feared epidemic of crack-addicted babies never materialized. So there is a fair amount of support for making the penalties more equal. But it's also an election year. President Bush, just days before his inauguration, said the penalties for crack and powder should be the same. Now the administration says that would signal a retreat in the war on drugs. So the inequality continues. And so do the consequences."

"Tonight Nightline correspondent Don Dahler will have our report, and Ted will anchor. Twenty years after crack was declared a threat to this country and Miami Vice made powder cocaine cool, it's time to look around again."

(Source: E-mail received today from Nightline)

The AP reports that:

"Zacarias Moussaoui, who has derided his court-appointed lawyers as "bloodsuckers," is working through an intermediary to get legal help from the attorneys he despises as he prepares for his Jan. 6 trial as an accused Sept. 11 conspirator."

Recent pleadings filed by Moussaoui as well as those filed by his legal team indicate Moussaoui and his lawyers are communicating through Muslim professor, Sadiq Reza of New York Law School in Manhattan.

"It appears that Mr. Moussaoui, without changing his view that we are adverse to him, will be seeking assistance from Professor Reza, who has indicated he will need assistance from us precisely in the areas related to our discovery (evidence) review," the court-appointed team said in an Aug. 16 motion."

In another defense team motion, the lawyers said Moussaoui is communicating with them but still will not allow them to initiate motions on his behalf.

A review of the filings show that the lawyers have submitted legal authority in support of several of Moussoui's own motions--and some have been granted.

Is Moussaoui grateful or becoming more subdued about his dislike for his lawyers? Hardly.

"As a protection against any pig disease there will be no more unsanitize [sic]contact with the affected horde of standby lawyers," he wrote in an Aug. 8 motion. He still calls the team "bloodsuckers" in his motions."

Moussaoui can hate his lawyers all he wants. We still want him to receive a fair trial. It is the only way any future verdict of guilty or sentence to death can have any integrity.

As we've said before, Moussaoui has defenses both to the substantive charges and to the death penalty. He has the right to raise them and it is our duty to see that he is given the opportunity.

The American Civil Liberties Union and two other groups filed an expedited Freedom of Information Act request Wednesday demanding that the U.S. Department of Justice release data about its domestic surveillance activities.

"The groups are concerned the Bush administration may be trampling the rights of innocent Americans under the aegis of conducting the war on terrorism. The request asks for government data in 14 categories of agency records, including "sneak and peak" searches of private residences without prior consent, searches of public library and bookstore records and authorizations for wiretaps of phone calls and electronic mail."

For those not familiar with "sneak and peak" searches, Section 213 of the newly enacted Patriot Act allows the police to enter and search a home without telling anyone they have done so, seriously undermining the Fourth Amendment and one’s ability to mount a fourth amendment challenge to the search or any other kind of defense.

Section 213 is not limited to terrorism investigations. It applies to the search and seizure of any property or material pursuant to a search warrant “that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States.”

There is no sunset provision for this section.

Specifically, this section authorizes surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of “reasonable necessity” and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided.

Delayed rather than immediate notification is authorized if the Court finds reasonable cause to believe that immediate notification may have an adverse effect, such as by jeopardizing an investigation. In such event, notice must be given within a “reasonable time.” While federal statutes (Title III) authorize delayed notice of interceptions of wire and oral communications, there has never been a corresponding provision authorizing secret searches for physical evidence.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act greatly expands the record searching authority of the F.B.I. Instead of being limited to travel-related businesses, the F.B.I. now may access all documents and things maintained by all businesses. The type of sensitive information that can be disclosed under Section 215 includes “medical records, mental health records, financial records, video rental records, fingerprints, DNA samples from a person's hair, employment records, records of employment-based drug testing, and immigration records maintained by non-profit agencies. “ Here are more details by the ACLU.

Section 215 does not require the person from whom the records are sought to be the agent of a foreign power. It requires the judge to rubber stamp his or her approval of a request made of any person or business to produce any books, records, documents or items, so long as the F.B.I. submits an application certifying that the request is made in connection with a foreign intelligence investigation, or an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

Under prior law, much of the information covered by Section 215 was protected by privacy legislation, such as the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which was enacted with the intent of protecting highly sensitive information. Section 215 will take precedence over such statutes and eviscerate such privacy interests.

Persons receiving orders under this section are effectively gagged and may not disclose that they have been served. The person or business whose records are obtained is not notified. There is no requirement as existed under prior law that law enforcement be conducting a criminal investigation before seeking access to the records. There is no reporting requirement to the Court or Congress of the actual documents seized or their relevancy. Only the number of applications sought and granted must be reported.

If you aren't notified of the search, and you don't know the search even happened, how are you going to challenge it?

The Patriot Act was passed in haste, without adequate time for review by Congress. It is a bad law that infringes upon the freedoms of law-abiding Americans without giving us any assurance it will make us any safer.

Attorney General Ashcroft should quit monkeying around and turn over the requested documents to Congress--and the ACLU and others who ask for them under the Freedom of Information Act. Let us see how and against whom these new powers have been used so far.

Update: A terrific August 23, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle Editorial on the issue.

In Who Decides Whether Yaser Hamdi, Or Any Other Citizen, Is An Enemy Combatant? Columbia law professor Michael Dorf reviews the Government's arguments, and criticizes, in particular, its contention that the military alone -- without judicial review -- has the right to determine whether Hamdi was indeed an enemy combatant.

Joe Loya is an inmate in the federal system. He had a chance encounter with Charles Keating while Keating was being escorted to his first shower at the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles. Keating later went to a "Club Fed" and Loya was sent to do his time at the federal penitentiary in Lewisburg, PA.

Loya writes his perceptions of the punishment white collar offenders like Keating, Boesky, Milliken, etc. receive. His memoir is scheduled to be published by Harper Collins next fall.

Loya is not persuaded things will change with the current wave of corporate malfeasance. Here's a portion of his article, originally published in the LA Times, then by Pacifica News Service and now on Alternet.

"Middle-class Americans say they want to see greedy, dishonest CEOs punished. But in truth, middle-class Americans are more afraid of boys from the housing projects holding them up in an alley for 20 bucks than they are of Wall Street scoundrels gutting their pensions and portfolios.

Middle-class jurors and judges see something of themselves in the fallen rich. Men like Keating and Milken and former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay reflect the deepest dream of the middle-class -- wealth. Main Street finds Wall Street highly seductive.

The average prisoner understands this instinctively, which is why the men at the Metropolitan Detention Center delighted in intimidating Keating.

The moral panic about corporate America will subside. The average American will finally notice that the CEOs don't resemble the drug pushers, child abductors or terrorists on the nightly news. And just that quickly, CEOs will be fined nominally, given a year or two in Club Fed and allowed to keep their fortunes.

One day, some of them may even become famous philanthropists."

If you would like to correspond with Joe Loya, his email address is included in the Pacifica article.

The Libertarian Party has issued a press release and news article on their website, Medical marijuana ads play role in defeat of U.S. Rep. Bob Barr

Calling Barr the "worst drug warrior in Congress," the Party says,

"Over the past two weeks, Barr had been the target of a barrage of television ads produced by the Libertarian Party. The ads were run by Carole Ann Rand, the LP candidate for U.S. House in Georgia’s 7th Congressional district."

“Barr’s defeat is a victory for every American who believes that doctors and patients -- rather than politicians -- should be making medical decisions,” said Rand. “Like Babe Ruth pointing to a spot in the bleachers and hitting a home run, we pointed at our target and helped knock him out of Congress.”

"The campaign to bump Bob Barr was the first test of the Libertarian Party’s “Incumbent Killer Strategy,” which is targeting the worst drug warriors in Congress for defeat."

We say, more power to them and keep on fighting, we're behind you on this one.

The General Accounting Office has just released a new report on the extent of money laundering through credit cards. The report is directed to the Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. The link is to actual report.

The report concludes,

"The extent to which money laundering through credit cards may be occurring is unknown. Bank regulators, credit card industry representatives, and law enforcement officials we interviewed generally agreed that credit card accounts were not likely to be used in the initial stage of money laundering when illicit cash is first placed into the financial system, because the industry generally restricts cash payments. Bank regulators and credit card industry representatives we interviewed acknowledged that credit card accounts might be used in the layering or integration stages of money laundering."

"....Most law enforcement officials we met with were unable to cite any specific cases of credit card–facilitated money laundering in U.S.–based financial institutions. Further, a FinCEN analysis of its database of SARs filed by U.S.-based financial institutions revealed very little evidence of potential money laundering through credit cards."

"....Industry representatives generally reported that they did not have AML policies and programs focused on credit cards because they considered money laundering using credit cards to be unlikely."

"....We make no recommendations in this report."

Anyone want to speculate on how much this report cost us? We'd be interested to know.

David Westerfield was found guilty of all counts in the San Diego murder of Danielle Van Dam

Death penalty phase begins next Wednesday. Judge is telling the jury not to discuss case with anyone in the meantime.

MSNBC is carrying it live on the internet.

If not for Hamster, we would have missed this:

The New York Times is reporting that Negotiations Are Under Way for Clinton Talk Show on CBS

"Some associates of Bill Clinton and executives from CBS are involved in negotiations to make the former president the host of a daily afternoon talk show."

His asking price last year reportedly was $100 million over 2 years. Talks fell through.

We think Mr. Clinton would be a terrific talk show host. We also think he'd be a great addition to the MSNBC night-time lineup--he might be the one person who could really change the cable station's declining ratings. Somebody tell Eric Sorenson and Phil Griffin to jump on this.

VodkaPundit responds, "For that I could switch back from CNBC to MSNBC." (see comments to this post.)

How Appealing yesterday pointed us to the new Third Circuit ruling reversing a trial court that had ordered the release of a man who has served 7 years for civil contempt for failing to turn over 2.5 million in assets to his ex-wife when he has the ability to do so. The trial court had ruled that there was no substantial likelihood that the man would turn over the assets with continued incarceration and thus his imprisonment had become punitive instead of coercive.

The Third Circuit tried to distinguish its own precedent (unpersuasively to us) and stated the U.S. Supreme Court had never said the "substantial likelihood" rule was the test.

The rule is apparently alive and well in the Second Circuit, however, where the "substantial likelihood" factor is one for the trial judge to consider.

See, e.g., Simkin v. U.S., 715 F.2d 34, 37,

"It is familiar ground that a civil contempt sanction is a coercive device, imposed to secure compliance with a court order, ...and that "when it becomes obvious that sanctions are not going to compel compliance, they lose their remedial characteristics and take on more of the nature of punishment." Soobzokov v. CBS, Inc., 642 F.2d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 1981). When a recalcitrant witness is jailed for refusing to furnish unprivileged information in state court proceedings, it has been held that at some point in what otherwise would be an indefinite period of confinement due process considerations oblige a court to release a contemnor from civil contempt if the contemnor has then shown that there is no substantial likelihood that continued confinement will accomplish its coercive purpose."

In the grand jury context, the Second Circuit stated that the trial judge has broad discretion in making this determination.

"If the judge is persuaded, after a conscientious consideration of the circumstances pertinent to the individual contemnor, that the contempt power has ceased to have a coercive effect, the civil contempt remedy should be ended. The contemnor will not have avoided all sanction by his irrevocable opposition to the court's order. Once it is determined that the civil contempt remedy is unavailing, the criminal contempt sanction is available."

Here's what the trial judge decided in January, 2002 in Mr. Chadwick's case (2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10 (Jan. 2002).)

"If, as Chadwick contends, the confinement has lost its coercive force, it has become punitive. See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 600 F.2d at 423-24. The burden is on Chadwick to show that there is no "substantial likelihood" that compliance will be the result of continued incarceration. Id. at 425. His obstinacy during more than six and half years of imprisonment is persuasive that Chadwick will never voluntarily deposit the disputed funds with the court; it seems clear he is willing to remain incarcerated for life rather than allow his ex-wife access to a share of the funds."

"Now, after nearly seven years, it is no longer reasonable to conclude Chadwick's continued confinement might still result in compliance with the July 22, 1994 order. Chadwick's continued incarceration cannot be rationalized under Gompers or Bagwell in light of Chadwick's clear and convincing proof there is no "substantial likelihood" that his remaining in custody will result in his compliance; his confinement, no longer coercive, is an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. "

Bottom line to us: If the contemnor is "never" going to talk or turn over evidence or other demanded material, then suffering the consequences is punishment. He should be released from civil confinement and the state or Goverment as the case may be is free to bring criminal contempt charges.

Congressman Bob Barr, the outspoken ultra-conservative Republican from Georgia lost his primary race Tuesday by a significant margin. Barr, a former U.S. attorney, was swept into Congress in the 1994 GOP takeover, "Contract on America." (our words, not the AP's.)

We're not sorry he's lost. Here's a few examples why:

In November 1998, an initiative in the District of Columbia tried to approve medical marijuana. " For almost a year no one knew whether the referendum had passed, because Rep. Bob Barr (R., Ga.) impounded the $ 1.65 it would have cost to tally the vote. Finally, last September, the courts overruled Barr. Seven out of ten D.C. voters had decided in favor of legalization. Refusing defeat, Barr pushed a bill through Congress that blocked the spending needed to enact the new law. As fallback, Barr has also proposed a joint resolution of Congress to simply overturn by fiat the will of the people expressed freely and fairly at the ballot box. " (Harper's Magazine December 1, 1999, available on Lexis.com )

On April 24, 1997, in a prepared statement to the House Appropriations Committee, again on medical marijuana, also available on Lexis, he said:

"Knowing how hard it is for you as appropriators to find the limited money you have to fund critically important items like the Law Enforcement Commission, I was thunderstruck by a recent proposal from the Administration's Drug Czar to spend $1 million on an absurd study to evaluate the so called "medicinal" uses of marijuana. We ought not to do this ever, especially when we have so many truly pressing law enforcement needs. I have prepared an amendment that would restrict any anti-drug money from being used for such a study. "

He also has been an ardent (to put it mildly) supporter of the death penalty for drug kingpins.

We're not sorry to see Bob leave Congress. We suspect he'll be a political analyst on Fox in no time, just like Newt, probably in time for the November elections.