Homeland Security has begun its review of 300,000 cases of undocumented residents eligible for removal (deportation) and giving reprieves to a limited few.

Under the policy, immigration authorities will use powers of prosecutorial discretion in existing law to suspend the deportations of most immigrants who, although they have committed immigration violations (which generally are civil offenses), have not been convicted of crimes.

In particular, officials will look to halt deportations of longtime residents with clean police records who came here illegally when they were children, or are close family of military service members, or are parents or spouses of American citizens.

The cases will be examined individually, with removals being canceled for those who fit the guidelines: [More..]

Busy day ahead.

Open Thread.

The Manhattan District Attorney's office has filed a 25 page motion asking the court to dismiss all charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. You can read it here.

“The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant,” the papers state. “If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so.”

DSK's lawyers issued this statement: [More...]

Scott Lemieux, with assists from Jon Chait and the 2008 Ezra Klein. Yes, the usual suspects.

Here's what's weird to me about this - the continued argument against a straw man - the nonexistent argument that the President can do whatever he wants - ignores the fact that the President is the least relevant person in the country on domestic policy - except for everyone else.

Can a President do it by himself? Of course not. But a President can lead the conversation where he wants the policy discussion to go. Like say, deficit reduction. And he has been known to have some political power as well.

At this point, the discussion is just plain ridiculous. In any event, since I do think that who is the President matters, I'll continue to try and explain why I think you should vote for the reelection of President Obama, despite his shortcomings, ESPECIALLY on domestic policy and the economy. The usual suspects will in due course, I imagine, drop their defensive crouch on Obama's behalf and start arguing what Obama might be able to do on domestic policy in a second term. I hope so at least.

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias writes about this shilling piece by Harold Ford and John Sununu for the telecom "grassroots organization" Broadband for America. Matt points out that the "op-ed" piece makes no sense.

I'm more interested in what the telecoms think they get out of subsidizing Ford and Sununu. It's one thing to use them as conduits to pay make contributions to Congress folk. But to "shift public opinion?" Harold Ford? John Sununu? You gotta be kidding me.

An efficient market would have ended this gravy train for the likes of Ford and Sununu, who can't persuade anyone of anything. Here's my suggestion to the telecoms to help their bottom line - stop throwing your money away on the likes of Harold Ford and John Sununu.

Speaking for me only

It's about time. Adam Liptak of the New York Times reports the Supreme Court will revisit eyewitness identifications for the first time in 34 years. Mistaken eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions:

Of the first 250 DNA exonerations, 190 involved eyewitnesses who were wrong, as documented in “Convicting the Innocent,” a recent book by Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia.

Many of those witnesses were as certain as they were wrong. “There is absolutely no question in my mind,” said one. Another was “120 percent” sure. A third said, “That is one face I will never forget.” A fourth allowed for a glimmer of doubt: “This is the man, or it is his twin brother.”

[More....]

As Dominique Strauss-Kahn's supporters plan his return to France and French politics, and Reuters' reports that officials in France believe Tristane Bannon's charges are unlikely to result in a criminal case, Nafassitou Diallo's lawyers are expected to make a last-ditch effort today or tomorrow for a special prosecutor to take over the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case. It has no chance of succeeding.

Mr. Thompson’s motion will almost certainly fail, legal experts said, because under the law his client has no authority to ask for Mr. Vance’s office to be replaced by a special prosecutor. “It’s what we call an A.O.D.: an act of desperation,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School. “She may benefit from a successful prosecution, but she has no legal interest in the prosecution.”

[More...]

What Glenn Said.

Open Thread.

As the Wall St. Journal says, the feds' ramped up use of forfeitures is snaring the property of the innocent as well as the guilty.

It's an issue both the right and the left agree on:

The expansion of forfeiture powers is part of a broader growth in recent decades of the federal justice system that has seen hundreds of new criminal laws passed. Some critics have dubbed the pattern as the overcriminalization of American life. The forfeiture system has opponents across the political spectrum, including representatives of groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union on the left and the Heritage Foundation on the right. They argue it represents a widening threat to innocent people.

As David Smith, author of the leading text book on forfeiture law, says:

"We are paying assistant U.S. attorneys to carry out the theft of property from often the most defenseless citizens," given that people sometimes have limited resources to fight a seizure after their assets are taken, says David Smith, a former Justice Department forfeiture official and now a forfeiture lawyer in Alexandria, Va.

This needs a lot more attention. The money does not just go to crime victims. In drug cases, for example, there are no financial victims. Very rarely do you see a restitution order in a drug case. The Government just gets to keep the funds -- or share them with local law enforcement. It's such a racket.

Mother Jones has partnered with the University of California-Berkeley's Investigative Reporting Program and compiled a fascinating report on the FBI's use of informants in the war on terror. The crucial question:

The FBI has built a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack. But are they busting terrorist plots—or leading them?

The number of informants has dramatically increased since 9/11:

The bureau now maintains a roster of 15,000 spies, some paid as much as $100,000 per case, many of them tasked with infiltrating Muslim communities in the United States.

They aren't just ratting out their partners in crime, they are setting them up.

The bureau's answer has been a strategy known variously as "preemption," "prevention," and "disruption"—identifying and neutralizing potential lone wolves before they move toward action. To that end, FBI agents and informants target not just active jihadists, but tens of thousands of law-abiding people, seeking to identify those disgruntled few who might participate in a plot given the means and the opportunity. And then, in case after case, the government provides the plot, the means, and the opportunity.

Really a good series and well worth reading.

Statues are being pulled down in Tripoli:

Rebels surged into the Libyan capital Sunday night, meeting little resistance from troops loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and setting off raucous street celebrations by residents hailing the end of his 42 years in power.

Congratulations to the Libyan people. Good luck with the future of your country.

There is a strain of defense of President Obama that truly baffles me -- I call it the "Presidents don't matter" defense. Matt Yglesias trots out perhaps the weirdest version of it yet:

Why Is Abortion Legal?

For the endless presidential power debate, I wonder how it is people think that abortion is still legal in the United States of America. Is its availability severely curtailed? Sure. Has the core holding of Roe v. Wade been substantially eroded? Obviously. Has illegal terrorist violence reduced the practical availability of abortions beyond what’s been done through the political process? Clearly. But still, we have over 800,000 abortions per year in the United States and we have over 200 abortions per 1,000 live births, each and every one of them legal. That’s despite Ronald Reagan and the big GOP gains in the 1980 election. It’s despite twelve years of Republican control of the White House. [. . .] My working hypothesis is that we have hundreds of thousands of legal abortions every year in the United States because major policy shifts are difficult to undertake.