The ACLU scored a big win today in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is al-Kidd v. Ashcroft. The upshot is that the court again rejected personal immunity for former Attorney General John Ashcroft over his post 9/11 policy of arresting and detaining people as material witnesses when there was no evidence those arrested were either involved in criminal activity or a flight risk. Today's decision, denying an en banc rehearing of the court's September decision, is here (pdf.)

In September, the 9th Circuit ruled that the federal material witness law cannot be used to detain or investigate suspects where no probable cause exists for criminal charges. The ruling also held that Ashcroft does not have immunity in this case and can be held personally liable for the wrongful detention of al-Kidd. [More...]

David Coleman Headley, aka Daood Gilani, pleaded guilty today in a Chicago federal court to all 12 counts of the Indictment against him. He admitted conducting surveillance for the 2008 Mumbai attacks and plotting to attack a Danish newspaper, and providing material assistance to a terror organization, Lashkar e Tayyiba. Six Americans were killed in the Mumbai attacks.

Headley's benefit? The death penalty is off the table. He now faces up to life imprisonment, but could get less. According to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's press release, Headley won't be sentenced until his cooperation is complete, and the Government expects to seek a reduction from the guidelines for his cooperation.

Headley pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bomb public places in India; conspiracy to murder and maim persons in India; six counts of aiding and abetting the murder of U.S. citizens in India; conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in India; conspiracy to murder and maim persons in Denmark; conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in Denmark; and conspiracy to provide material support to Lashkar.

[More...]

(See also Norman Solomon.) And when I say progressives, I do not mean Ezra Klein. Here is an example of progressive post-loss rationalization from Daily Kos:

True, we did not get a public option, but we are going to get a health insurance reform bill that covers virtually every American citizen and puts in place a patients bill of rights on steroids. It's not perfect: outside of Medicare, the middle-class will be entirely dependent on a system of for-profit medicine [. . .] But even though the bill is not perfect, for the first time in our nation's history we will have enshrined into law the notion that everybody ought to have health insurance -- and that's a major accomplishment.

When Lewison says universal health insurance coverage, he is referring to the individual mandate that requires all citizens to have insurance, but does not offer all citizens a public insurance option. That, we are to believe, is the great progressive accomplishment. I respectfully demur. There was a reasoned basis for believing a public insurance program was essential to real health reform. There was a real difference of opinion about that point in Democratic circles. Last December, Ed Kilgore articulately described this divergence of view:

Nobody likes to acknowledge their own powerlessness, but no good can come from shutting one's eyes and pretending it's not true. It's a genuine problem that the threats and demands of progressives (for lack of a better term) aren't taken seriously at all, and will be taken even less seriously now. Facing that problem is a prerequisite to finding a way to solve it. -Glenn Greenwald

Progressive failure in political bargaining is not a new phenomenon. Just in the past 4 years, progressive bargaining on FISA, Iraq, the stimulus and many other issues demonstrates that time after time progressives have abjectly failed in their political bargaining, both under Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. After political defeat and after political triumph. Obviously something is wrong in the way they are going about it. I first started writing about this issue in the health bills context when I wrote my Madman Theory of Political Bargaining series last year. I strongly believe some introspection from progressives - pols and activists - is in order. More . . .

It starts today a little after 12 EST.

12:20 games - Florida v. BYU (Go Gators!), Old Dominion v. Notre Dame, Robert Morris v. Villanova.

2:30 games - Murray State v. Vandy, North Texas v. Kansas State, Sam Houston St. v. Baylor, St. Mary's v. Richmond.

My picks in bold. This is an Open Thread.

Ezra:

If you want to see how Nancy Pelosi gets the votes, Kucinich offers a hint. She unites her left flank, as these folks may not like the bill, but they love what the bill is trying to do and they don't want to destroy Barack Obama's presidency. And then she goes to however many Blue Dogs and strays as she needs and says, basically, that this bill is more to your liking than the original. The cost controls are stronger, the public option is gone and there's even an entitlement reform component. You won! This argument, incidentally, has the virtue of being true.

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course, Ezra won too. He wanted those exchanges and did not care for the public insurance reform. I wonder what he would be writing today if he had lost?

Speaking for me only

Natasha Chart:

Under the Senate [health bill,] which makes abortion part of the initial purchasing decision, a woman's employer, male partner or parents can all potentially prevent her getting insurance coverage for it, whereas now, it usually doesn't come up because most private plans just cover it. Now, of the one in three women likely to need an abortion in her life, millions of women never have to have that conversation. Under the current wording of the health bill, that second check is the federal spousal and parental notification law that never managed to pass.

[. . .] If you still want to pass this health insurance reform bill, and I understand why so many people do, understand the cost. Somewhere, right now, he's taking her lunch money, and this bill will let him force her into motherhood, too.

This is the price of the exchanges. There was another way.

Speaking for me only

Via FDL, in this segment on Countdown, Markos recognizes that progressives failed in the health bill negotiations. In a short segment, it is too much to ask that he explain how he thinks the failure occurred, but an important first step is recognizing you have a problem.

Speaking for me only

The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports on a 33 page IRS training manual instructing agents on how to infiltrate social networking sites like Facebook to get information. The Department of Justice recently published its own presentation.

Wired has more. My thoughts are here.

Sandra Bullock's perfect marriage may not be so perfect. (I'm always skeptical of those award speeches where the winner goes on and on about how great their spouse is.) It was just in January, at the Screen Actor Guild Awards, she said:

“And to my husband, Jesse, who works so hard all day, and you get dressed up in monkey suits, and you sit at a table with people you don’t know. And I leave you there and then you come back with, like, Morgan Freeman’s email. I don’t know how you do it. I love you so much, and you’re really hot. And I want you so much.”

Who's going home tonight on American Idol? (No spoilers please till it's aired on the West Coast.) I texted my vote last night to keep Crystal Bowersox and Casey James. They all pretty much butchered the Rolling Stones. They should have re-watched Adam Lambert last year performing Satisfaction.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

The Senate today passed a bill reducing but not eliminating the disparate 100:1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine penalties. The bill also includes enhanced penalties for some drug offenders -- such as for those who distribute to a person over 64 years of age.

This sucks. It takes 500 grams of powder to trigger a 5 year mandatory minimum penalty. Under current law, it takes 5 grams of crack. Now, 28 grams of crack will do the trick. So an ounce of crack will carry the same penalty as almost a pound of powder (500 grams is 1/2 kilo, a kilo is 2.2 pounds.) And 280 grams of crack (10 ounces) will trigger the 10 year mandatory minimum penalty while 5 kilos of powder are required.

Worst of all, the bill is not retroactive and the reduction won't help anyone who has already been sentenced.[More...]

Starts tomorrow. On the flip are my picks. This is an Open Thread.