We don't know why so many think Moussaoui's actions today were surprising. We've been saying all along that he would not get through a guilty plea, that he would not admit to every element of the charges to which he was pleading, or to participation in (as opposed to knowledge of) the September 11 attacks.

Since Moussaoui has always refused to admit participation in the attacks, we think his behavior today was both predictable and consistent with his earlier denials. See, Moussaoui Withdraws Sept. 11 Conspiracy Guilty Plea

We are also skeptical about the Government being able to prove his participation in the conspiracy to commit the September 11 attacks. Does the Government have even a single witness that will testify he knowingly joined or participated in that particular conspiracy? We haven't heard of any.

He has admitted to being a member of Al Qaeda, and to having knowledge about who committed the attacks. In our opinion, that is not enough to make him a co-conspirator in the Sept. 11 attacks.

One more thing: If the Government's evidence is that Moussaoui was a member of a different conspiracy than the one charged in the Indictment, the jury will be instructed to acquit on the charged conspiracy. They can't win by proving a different conspiracy than the one charged in the Indictment.

So if Moussaoui was being used by Al Qaeda to commit some other terrorist act, e.g. one involving crop dusters on another day in another city or if he hadn't yet been activated, or if they decided his crummy flight training record didn't warrant him being involved in Sept. 11, this case is no slam dunk for the Government. In our opinion, of course.

Attorney General John Ashcroft is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, his first such appearance since December.

A number of organizations, including the National Associaton of Criminal Defense Lawyers have issued a joint statement in hopes of encouraging close questioning of Ashcroft regarding the various tactics employed and powers assumed in the war against terrorism.

Kate Martin, co-author of Just the Facts, Mr. Ashcroft , an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post, helped draft the statement.

Among the principles addressed in the Statement are:

"Individuals should not be targeted for investigation or detention because of their race, religion, ethnic background or appearance, including Arab Americans, Muslims, or immigrants in general.

Immigration and other laws should not be selectively enforced based on race, religion, or ethnic background.

Secret arrests and secret detentions are unconstitutional and undemocratic.

Individuals seized in the United States should not be detained unless they are charged with either criminal or immigration violations.

Individuals charged with crimes or immigration violations should not be arbitrarily detained before trial on such charges.

Individuals should not be confined under abusive or unnecessarily restrictive conditions.

All persons have a right to effective assistance of counsel. There should be no interference with the attorney-client privilege.

Secret evidence should not be used to deprive individuals of their liberty or to try them for violations of criminal or immigration laws.

Military commissions should not be used to try civilians arrested in the United States.

The First Amendment protects the rights of peaceful dissent, free exercise of religion, and freedom of association. The government should not use its law enforcement powers to disrupt lawful political or religious activities, nor should it conduct investigations on individuals or groups based on their lawful religious or political speech or associations.

Secret searches and seizures, as well as secret wiretaps without necessary safeguards, are unconstitutional.

Governmental compilation of databases on individuals can pose severe dangers to freedoms of association, religion, and speech and the right to privacy. The government should not compile databases on individuals without procedures to protect against labeling them as suspected terrorists on the basis of their lawful religious or political activities, associations, or race, religion or ethnic background.

Due process protections must apply to any closure or wholesale seizure of the assets of charitable or religious organizations. "

The joint statement concludes with:

"We express our deep concern regarding the assumption of new powers by the executive branch that pose risks to human rights and civil liberties, particularly when such powers have not been authorized by the Congress and there has been no public debate concerning them."

Arguing that Moussaoui is incompetent and mentally ill, the court-appointed stand-by lawyers with whom he refuses to speak asked for a delay of today's arraignment on the Third Superseding Indictment.

The lawyers say that their mental health experts confirm their belief Moussaoui is mentally ill, and need more time to determine whether he is legally competent to proceed.

The lawyers also filed motions challenging parts of the Indictment. They argue that airplanes are not "weapons of mass destruction" and that the death penalty cannot be applied to conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism and conspiracy to destroy aircraft.

Muddying the waters even further is a petition for mandamus filed Tuesday in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by attorney Charles Freeman, Moussoui's lawyer of choice to advise him on federal law, seeking to overturn Judge Brinkema's prior rulings prohibiting him from meeting with and advising Moussoui.

According to Freeman's petition, only he can prevent Moussaoui's guilty plea.

Finally, there is a very readable profile on Public Defender Frank Dunham in Tuesday's Legal Times in which he discusses what it has been like for him to represent Mr. Moussaoui.

The Rave Act was introduced in the Senate on June 18th and has already passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. Simply put, it is lunacy. See our July 10 Action Alert: New Federal Ecstasy Act which we received from the Marijuana Policy Project.

How can we complain so loudly when Democrats as well as Republicans are behind it? Just goes to show being stupid about the drug war can be a bi-partisan affair.

The bill is S. 2633, the Reducing American's Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act.

An outgrowth of the 1980's crack house laws, the law will punish innocent business owners for the acts of its customers. While the bill purports to be aimed at ecstasy and other club drugs, it gives the federal government enormous power to fine and imprison supporters of marijuana legalization, even if they've never smoked marijuana.

The bill will give federal prosecutors new powers to shut down hemp festivals, marijuana rallies and other events and punish business owners and activists for hosting or promoting them.

The bill will effectively make it a federal crime to rent property to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. It also will potentially subject people to enormous federal sentences if some of their guests smoked marijuana at their party or barbecue.

The bill's sponsors are Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Let them know how you feel about this ill-conceived bill. Don't let your elected congressional officials pass this legislation without serious debate.

For some great commentary on the bill, read University of Tenessee Law Professor Glenn H. Reynolds' Straight Talk column today on the FoxNews website.

Professor Reynolds says (and this is just a quote, we recommend you read the whole thing):

"The real story is that federal law enforcement efforts against ecstasy have proved impotent. Frustrated by this failure, they’ve targeted electronic music concerts ("raves") not because they’re especially important targets (they’re not) but because they’re easy, and public, targets.

Unable to endure the continuing evidence of drug-war failure, the drug warriors are lashing out, hoping that the ignorant will be convinced that they’re earning their pay. Congress is playing along because, basically, Congress isn’t up to the job of riding heard on the massive drug-war bureaucracy.

The Drug War has been a massive failure: a waste of money, of lives and of time. It’s also been accompanied by extensive inroads on traditional American freedoms: property forfeitures, "no-knock" searches, expanded wiretap authority and the destruction of financial privacy, to name just a few. "

If you want to learn more about Ecstasy check out these Drug War Facts.

Yesterday we criticized the Administration's opposition to an amendment (called a protocol) to the International Convention Against Torture.

The objective of the protocol is "to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment."

The protocol to the treaty passed late Wednesday by a vote of 35-8 with 10 abstentions in the U.N. Economic and Social Council. The United States abstained.

Allies of the U.S. such as Denmark and Costa Rica took us to task for seeking to reopen ten years of negotiations and further stall passage of the measure. Some said reopening the negotiations would kill the measure.

Was the protocol really necessary? It's a necessary start, for sure. Here's a stat: "People were tortured or ill-treated by authorities in 111 countries last year, according to an Amnesty International report."

Who else joined in our position? Nigeria and Iran (both accused of torture themselves) Japan, China, Cuba, Cyprus, India, Pakistan and Egypt.

This makes us sick.

A 19-year-old man was repeatedly raped at the Jefferson County Jail after deputies placed him in a cell with a sex offender who had attacked another inmate hours earlier.

What was the 19 year old in for? He was arrested for failing to complete alcohol classes ordered as part of his driving under the influence plea. It was his first time in jail. He wasn't there serving a sentence or for having committed a crime.

How about the inmate who allegedly raped him?
He was convicted of sexually assaulting another inmate at Mount View Detention Center when he was 13. He has a long record of arrests for theft, robbery, fraud and drug charges, and was sentenced to five years in prison for attempted aggravated robbery in a 2000 Denver case. He had just been convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery the day of the assaults on this kid.

The negligent guards, what's happened to them? "Two deputies were disciplined as a result and documentation procedures put in place to prevent similar problems in the future. "

We hope this kid wins a zillion dollars in his lawsuit. But still, so what, do you think he'll ever get over it as long as he lives?

There was a press conference on Capitol Hill today featuring medical patients, care givers, advocates and most importantly, Congresspeople in favor of changing medical marijuana laws.

We hear from NORML that the press conference was well attended by the national media.

NORML's director/founder Keith Stroup will debate the DEA's Asa
Hutchinson on CNN's 'Crossfire' tonight (7/24), 7:40 PM (eastern).

Also, Common Sense Drug Policy's President Kevin Zeese is scheduled to debate the medical marijuana issue tonight (show begins @ 5:00 PM, eastern) on CNN's 'Wolf Blitzer Reports'.

Instapundit has a long, very cerebral post on the 9th Amendment, of which he says he is a big supporter. That got us thinking about our position.

For those of you who haven't focused on this Amendment in a while, it's the one near the end of the Bill of Rights that says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

One of the early and central issues raised by the Amendment was does the 9th Amendment actually grant rights or does it only protect us from having them taken away by the Government?

Using the 9th Amendment, the Supreme Court found its way to declaring a constitutional right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut. That didn't sit well with those on the right.

But they got their due with the Senate's rejection of Robert Bork as a Supreme Court Justice. Bork, once a supporter of 9th Amendment rights, switched horses at his confirmation hearing and claimed the 9th Amendment was unimportant and Griswold was wrongly decided. He said there was no right to privacy in the Constitution.

Moderate New York Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan explained his decision to vote against Bork by saying that "it is his restricted vision of privacy which troubles me most. I cannot vote for a jurist who simply cannot find in the Constitution a general right of privacy.... Its importance is such that I cannot support anyone for a Supreme Court appointment who would not recognize it" (Congressional Record, 1987:14011-12).

Things quieted down for the 9th Amendment for a while, or perhaps it just seems that way since we haven't been following it. In any event, its getting play now.

The 9th Amendment is being used as a litmus test at new judge confirmation hearings--and even at the candidate selection stage. Current chief Jeb Bush legal counsel (and Former Florida Rep) Charles Canady flat out asked candidates about their views on the Ninth Amendment during state judicial selection interviews in Florida a few months back. (Broward Daily Business Review February 7, 2002 )

We have no problem with this at the confirmation hearings. We want to know whether a judicial nominee is likely to become an activist and improperly assert their private beliefs in their judicial decisions. We want Judge Prisiclla Owens to be questioned on her anti-abortion views.

The 9th Amendment is also used in other arguments---to argue for (and against) gay rights legislation; to argue for the right to use drugs and the right to be free from intrusion into one's personal computer files and email at work; and as a basis to recover for civil rights violations in racial-profiling cases. It's also been relied on heavily by Second Amendment supporters. We can't cite any great judicial wins based on it though. (If you can, feel free to note them in the comments section.)

So while we don't think the 9th Amendment is likely to result in any critical criminal rulings in the near future, we're going to keep an eye on it anyway.

This really has us angry today.

The Bush administration is fighting an amendment to the International Convention Against Torture that would send out inspectors to ensure that countries are not torturing prisoners.

A vote is scheduled today in the UN Economic and Social Council, the UN's governing body for human rights, on a proposal that has been ten years in the making and is supported by dozens of countries. If approved, it moves to the full U.N. General Assembly for a vote in September.

Now, at the last minute, the U.S. is making a counter-proposal, which is likely either to kill the measure or postpone it for several years.

What reason does the Administration give? Prison visits by an international body would be "too instrusive."

Who else is opposed to the treaty amendment? No suprise here... Iran, Cuba, India and China, all of which have been singled out for prisoner abuse.

Excuse us, but what exactly are we hiding down in Guantanamo Bay?

Robert A. Levy, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute explains in Bearing Arms in D.C. why the gun laws in the District of Columbia are likely to present the first test case before the U.S. Supreme Court on the Second Amendment and the individual's right to bear arms since 1939.

We found the article, which is described as commentary, very informative, easy to follow and thorough.

According to the July 19 San Antonio Business Journal, the DEA is importing heroin and other controlled substances from overseas to use in reverse stings and other undercover operations here. They are actually transporting the stuff on commercial airliners.

The practice has been brought to light by Yale Law School professor, Steven B. Duke, who is attempting to prove the innocence of a client convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin.

Duke alleges that the DEA engages in the practice to ensnare distributors for major drug syndicates and also as a cover for their own illegal drug operations.

The DEA doesn't necessarily tell the commerical airliners of the drug shipment on board. This raises security concerns, and according to Duke, a "controlled delivery" gone awry may have played a role in the destruction of at least one commercial airliner (Pan Am 103) which was blown up in mid-air, resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives.

The article says that the DEA confirms that such a practice, called "controlled delivery," is not uncommon and that the commercial airlines being used to transport the drugs are not necessarily informed that the shipments are occurring.

Thanks to NORML for bringing this to our attention.

Our pal Instapundit, who we read religiously every day, posits today that maybe Ashcroft isn't so dumb after all-- the Justice Department's shift in position on the Second Amendment just might turn liberal criminal defense attorneys and public defenders into a new constituency for him.

Many criminal defense attorneys are supporters of the Second Amendment, particularly in the West. They have joined forces many times with Second Amendment groups in recent years to lobby on privacy, forfeiture and civil liberties issues.

Being for the Second Amendment doesn't mean defense lawyers are not liberals. It means they won't give up any constitutional right, even ones they may not exercise personally. Give 'em an inch and.....besides, the Second Amendment is only one away from the Fourth.

As to supporting Ashcroft, we'd say, not in this lifetime. Well, okay, maybe if he pushed to end mandatory minimums, provide counsel and hearings to the detainees, argue against military tribunals, oppose the Victim's Rights Amendment, sponsor grand jury reform, endorse the Innocence Protection Act, restore discretionary relief to aggravated felons facing deportation, end the war on drugs, and last but most importantly, agree to a moratorium on the federal death penalty.

If Mr. Ashcroft were to do all that, we'd bet criminal defense attorneys and public defenders would become the biggest constituency he's ever had.