There are a myriad of crime-related political and injustice issues related to the War in Iraq. We feel we would be remiss if we didn't cover them. Towards this end, we have teamed up with Warblogs:cc , a one stop source for what we think is the best warblog news and commentary.

This means that what we post on TalkLeft about the War in Iraq, War on Terror, Civil Liberties, individual terror cases and the detainees will automatically appear on Warblogs:cc.

Warblogs:cc is the brainchild of Christopher Allbritton, George Paine, Sean-Paul Kelley and Mike Hudack. It is designed to provide you with a birds-eye, up to the minute view of the War in Iraq, the American government and civil liberties issues in the United States.

We won't be posting here less--we're not doing double duty. But Warblogs.cc provides the advantage of reading these terrific war bloggers, as well as us, all in one place:

— The Agonist

— Back to Iraq

— Warblogging

— Stand Down

— Daily Kos

— Tacitus

We'll continue to provide news and analysis of domestic criminal justice issues, including the death penalty, legislation, Supreme Court cases, wrongful convictions and more as we've always done. These posts will not appear on Warblogs:cc, only here.

TalkLeft has substantially increased in popularity the past few months. We passed 500,000 page views over the weekend and have steadily been receiving 3-5,000 visitors a day. If you appreciate our efforts and can spare a few dollars, please hit one of our donation buttons--it sure will help with the increased costs of bandwidth--and make us feel good. The Amazon (chip in) link is for anonymous donations. The Paypal (make donation) link will let us know who sent the money. Thanks to all of you.

In One Rule for Them , The Guardian's George Monbiot examines the hypocrisy of Rumsfeld's decrying Iraq's non-compliance with the Geneva Convention for American POW's while the U.S. has not afforded such protections to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Here are the violations Moniot lists with respect to the Guantanamo detainees:

The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).

They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery.

But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.

Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal".

Yes, we know the difference according to the Administration between enemy combatants and prisoners of war. The Administration argues that Al Qaeda members don't qualify because they don't have these qualifications: (1) being under a responsible command; (2) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (3) carrying arms openly; and (4) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. At times they have included the qualification of wearing a military uniform. Back last February, Bush said the Taliban and Al Qaeda were enemy combatants. After a lot of heat, he revised his position to recognize that Taliban soldiers were entitled to POW protections but not Al Qaeda. This Administration has been making up the rules as it goes along and refuses to concede that enemy combatants are entitled to judicial review of its decision.

"Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that if there is "any doubt" as to whether captured combatants should be recognized as POWs, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." In other words, if doubt exists, the status of each detainee must be determined individually, not by a blanket decision of the President."

"Even if not technically prisoners of war, al Qaeda and Taliban captives still qualify for "humane treatment" under the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1988."

We believe in treating all prisoners as human beings and with dignity. As we said here, "If we treat the citizens of other countries this way, why won't these other countries retaliate with similar or harsher treatment when they capture members of our military?" Don't we reap what we sow?

American Lawyer Media today has three articles wrapped into one package addressing legal issues of the Administration's War With Iraq.

"International law experts are questioning the Bush administration's legal justification for entering into the war and examining whether the president can really try Iraqis who destroy their country's oil wells during the fighting. And when it's all over, will the U.N. be able to satisfy the claims for compensation from businesses, governments and individuals damaged by the conflict?"

The LA Times reports that 30 captured prisoners have been flown from Afganistan to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

18 of the original detainees have been sent home. There are now 660 detainees at the Cuban naval base.

No criminal charges have been brought against any of them.

Lisl Auman was in police custody at the time of the crime, yet under the felony-murder rule she was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Last summer, she lost her bid to the Colorado Court of Appeals to reverse the conviction. Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari and agreed to hear the case.

The issue before Colorado's high court court will be whether Lisl's arrest by police precluded her liability for felony murder.

Journalist Hunter Thompson took up Lisl's cause during her first appeal, writing about it often in his ESPN column, including here.

The New York Times shares our concerns, expressed in the comments section to this post, over pending federal efforts to pass a bill expanding Amber Alerts:

...If used correctly, such systems seem to be useful tools for law enforcement. But given the very few cases of child abduction and the potential for vigilantism, the systems must be designed to ensure that they do more good than harm.

There is nothing wrong with coordinating information about missing children. But if done badly, there is the potential of promoting vigilantism by seeming to invite help in apprehending a suspected abductor. Also, if the wrong information is put out — an incorrect license plate or a bad physical description — posses of armed citizens could descend on innocent people, with tragic results.

The Senate passed legislation earlier this year to establish a nationwide Amber Alert network and to provide federal grants for, among other things, highway notifications. On a pure cost-benefit basis, the attention and financing do not really seem warranted. There are only about 100 abductions by strangers a year, making it a lesser threat to children than choking or bicycle accidents.

If Amber Alerts are going to become more widespread, law enforcement must be careful to screen out all but the most well-verified cases and to present the information in a way that encourages members of the public to watch for missing children without taking the law into their own hands.

In an unprecedented ruling today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that a May 6 hearing on Zacarias Moussaoui's right to interview Al Qaeda member Ramzi Binlashibh will be closed to the public.

Is such secrecy justified when the Government publicized the case at every turn prior to its determnination that national security concerns were more important?

Larry Ottinger, senior staff attorney for the liberal People for the American Way Foundation, said he found the secrecy "very troubling. An open court system and open hearings are fundamental to the American system of justice," he said.

It is widely expected that if the Government loses its bid to overturn the trial court's ruling that Moussaoui is entitled to interview Binalshibh, the Government will dismiss the federal case and try him in a military tribunal proceeding.

Moussaoui is the only person in America who has been charged with committing the 9/11 attacks. It is essential that his trial and all proceedings be open to the public. In the event of a guilty verdict, and particulary a death sentence, the American public has to be able to trust in the integrity of the process. As another Judge recently said in a case involving closure of deportation hearings, "Democracy dies behind closed doors."

For more on Moussaoui and the events in his case to date, go here.

Iraq's foreign minister has declared that "the teachings of Islam," and not the Geneva Convention, will be the nation's guidelines in the treatment of coalition POWs.

"First of all, we are committed to the teachings of Islam. We are faithful Muslims. We take care of our prisoners of war in accordance with our teachings of Islam," Foreign Minister Naji Sabri told a BBC radio program.

According to an Agence France-Presse report, the foreign minister said, "We are committed first of all to the teachings of Islam, and second we are committed to the conventions of Geneva in dealing with the prisoners of war."

In the wake of the Supreme Court refusal to examine the FISA Review Court's approval of expanded spy powers for Ashcroft, the American Civil Liberties Union is calling upon Congress and the Courts to provide greater oversight.

The ACLU also disclosed today that, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA,) it has received documents establishing that Aschroft is bypassing the courts to exercise his authority to force banks, Internet service providers, telephone companies, and credit agencies to turn over their customers’ records.

You can read about the surveillance in the Post-Patriot Act age and the ACLU's FOIA/Patriot Act lawsuit here..

As to what you can do to stop this unwarranted, ill-advised expansion of spy power without judicial oversight, go here.

The FBI reports it has interviewed 5,000 Iraqis in the U.S. since last month. The FBI says the interviews are voluntary. 30 interviewees have been arrested and detained afterwards, although none have been charged with a crime.

Although the FBI says it is not using the interviews to arrest large numbers of Iraqis, two law enforcement officials speaking on condition of anonymity said about 30 have been detained on immigration charges since the program began last week.

Late last month, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave the FBI and U.S. marshals authority to arrest people on immigration charges.

Some of those held are people the FBI had under surveillance and decided to apprehend when hostilities with Iraq began, the officials said. None had been charged with any terrorist plot, espionage or any other criminal offenses, the officials said.

Al Jazeera now has an English website. [link via Seeing the Forest]

The Washington Post has a continually updated Latest News in Iraq blog-type feed here.

As Iraq's top Olympic official, Uday Hussein is accused of the torture and murder of athletes who fail to win.

THE BUTCHER'S BOY , as he is sometimes called, is reputed to be the most brutal member of Iraq's notorious ruling family. As an infant he reportedly played with disarmed grenades. By 10 he was accompanying his father to the torture chamber at Qasr-al-Nihayyah (the Palace of the End, where many political enemies, including deposed King Faisal II, were killed) to watch Saddam deal with dissidents. By 16 he bragged of committing his first murder, telling classmates he had killed a teacher who had upbraided him in front of a girlfriend.

For nearly 20 years Uday Hussein has been the most powerful force in Iraq's athletic hierarchy. In 1984, when Uday was 20, Saddam handed his son the reins of both the country's Olympic committee and its soccer federation, hoping Uday could help rebuild the spirit of the nation's youth while also proving himself a worthy successor to his father. ...Uday's penchant for violence has long been an open secret among international athletic officials. ...

"Two stories about Uday leap to mind," the State Department official told SI. "The first is the caning of the feet -- called falaka -- of the soccer team. That form of torture is well known to be used by Saddam's forces as well. They beat the soles of the feet, which breaks a lot of the smaller bones, causes massive swelling and leaves victims unable to walk for a while. There were also reports that after a loss Uday forced the volleyball team, which was made up of taller athletes, to remain in a room he had constructed with a five-foot-high ceiling. He built the room so small that not all of them could sit at the same time. The only way they could fit was by having half of them standing and leaning over while the other half were sitting with their knees in their chests. He considered this a motivational technique. There was always a psychological element to the kind of torture Uday employed.

IOC president Jacques Rogge acknowledged last week that his organization received the complaint and says it is in the hands of the ethics committee. But IOC member Richard Pound says that it is "important to remember these are just allegations, and you have to make sure this is not all tied to the Iraq-U.S. dispute, that we are not being used for propaganda. You just never know."

The Nation has collected dispatches from people around the globe reporting on reaction to the Invasion of Iraq. The reports come from cities as diverse as Hanoi, Lagos, Cairo, Paris, Beijing, London and Jerusalem.

Also check out our new "warblog" blogroll on the right. These sites are updated continuously, particularly Sean-Pauls' the Agonist. Others are by Chris Allbritton, a non-embedded freelance reporter in Bagdad and Salam Pax, a resident of Bagdad who is still there.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed Ashcroft another victory. The Court refused to allow the ACLU, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ( NACDL) and other groups to intervene and appeal the FISA Review Court decision allowing expanded secret searches of mail, email and conversations and the unprecedented sharing of the seized information between intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, so the issue likely be back before the Court at some point.

The Bush administration has argued the surveillance, and a special court that oversees sensitive domestic espionage tactics, are indispensable tools in the war on terror.

The ACLU used an unusual maneuver to get the case to the Supreme Court, filing an appeal on behalf of people who don't even know they're being monitored. The justices would have had to give special permission to allow it. They refused, without comment. The action was not a ruling on the merits of the ACLU's challenge, and the issue is expected to return to the high court later.

Our summary of the case that was decided today is here. Our detailed coverage of the case, the arguments against the ruling and the FISA and Patriot Act provisions that underlie Ashcroft's justification for the expanded surveillance, can be found here.

The Washington Post reports today on Ashcroft's significant expansion of the number of wiretaps and other searches since the ruling by the FISA Review Court.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Justice Department and FBI have dramatically increased the use of two little-known powers that allow authorities to tap telephones, seize bank and telephone records and obtain other information in counterterrorism investigations with no immediate court oversight, according to officials and newly disclosed documents.

The FBI, for example, has issued scores of "national security letters" that require businesses to turn over electronic records about finances, telephone calls, e-mail and other personal information, according to officials and documents. The letters, a type of administrative subpoena, may be issued independently by FBI field offices and are not subject to judicial review unless a case comes to court, officials said.

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft has also personally signed more than 170 "emergency foreign intelligence warrants," three times the number authorized in the preceding 23 years, according to recent congressional testimony.

"A second of six Yemeni-American men accused of training at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks pleaded guilty today to charges he supported al Qaeda."

"Shafal Mosed, 24, entered the plea to a charge of knowingly and unlawfully providing and attempting to provide material resources to a foreign terrorist organization, namely al Qaeda.
Authorities indicated they would seek an eight-year prison term."

Phyllis Bennis, author of Understanding the U.S.-Iraq Crisis: A Primer, and John Cavanagh, director of the Institute of Policy Studies, have prepared these Talking Points on the U.S.-Iraq Crisis. From the introduction:

This preventive war (it isn't even preemptive because there is no imminent threat to preempt) is among the most dangerous and reckless actions ever taken by a U.S. president. It isn't the first time the U.S. has launched an unjustified illegal war. But it is the first time such a war has been justified through a "doctrine" of preemptive war that abandons all understandings that war, with all its horrors, can be used only as the last possible resort when a nation's security and survival are threatened.

The war at home

This war threatens Americans. We are now at greater risk. This war will increase anti-American sentiments around the world, and will serve as a recruiting poster for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations....This is an illegitimate war, and stands in violation of the UN Charter and international law. We hold the U.S. accountable for this illegal war.

The War Abroad

This war will be devastating for Iraq and Iraqis. The Pentagon's plan of "shock and awe" to open the main air attack against Baghdad will send 3,000 cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs into a crowded city of 6 million people. That is ten times the number of such bombs used in the entire Gulf War in 1991.
The humanitarian consequences will be severe.

We should demand that Congress refuse to pay for waging an illegal war. We should also be clear that the U.S. is accountable for paying the costs of rehabilitating Iraq's war-shattered infrastructure as well as the emergency costs of refugees, food aid, etc. That money should be channelled through the UN humanitarian agencies, not paid to U.S. corporations, especially those (like Halliburton - already offered a $1 billion + contract) with direct links to the Bush administration.

We should urge the General Assembly to convene in emergency session under the terms of the Uniting for Peace precedent at the UN. That allows the Assembly to take up issues ordinarily reserved for the Security Council - such as war in Iraq -- when the Council is paralyzed because of disagreements among the five veto-wielding permanent members. A General Assembly resolution (where there is not veto) could condemn the U.S. war (important for delegitimating future such wars), demand an immediate halt to the war, request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the war, or more.

The Judge in the Michigan terror trial now underway in federal court has refused to adjourn the trial because of the preducial effect on the jury of the War on Iraq. The men on trial are charged with providing material aid to terrorists --the Government alleges they were in a sleeper cell. Our most recent, detailed explanation of the case is here.

Former Senator Eugene McCarthy on the War in Iraq:

"I'm not clear as to what a pre-emptive strike means," McCarthy said. "I don't think we should call it a war. It's kind of a police action."

Update: U.S. says the speech may be an old one.

This from Reuters.... Hussein Makes Televised Speech

Monday, Mar 24, 2003; 3:21 AM

BAGHDAD, March 24 (Reuters) - Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, dressed in a military uniform, appeared on state television on Monday and hailed the Iraqi military on the fifth day of a U.S.-led invasion to overthrow him.

"We made a lot of sacrifices to avert war," Saddam said, praising the "valiant" contribution of the Iraqi military in resisting a U.S. and British war against Iraq that began on Thursday.

He said the invasion forces were "trapped" by heroic Iraqi resistance.

Reuters correspondents in Baghdad and elsewhere in the Middle East said they were confident that the man appearing on live television was Hussein. The Iraqi leader has a handful of lookalikes who sometimes stand in for him.

Speculation has abounded about Hussein's fate since the war started with air strikes on Baghdad intended to kill him. Some reports said he was dead, others that he was so badly wounded he had to receive a blood transfusion.

Within three hours of the first U.S.-led attack on Baghdad on Thursday, a tired-looking Hussein appeared on television, in a military uniform, urging his people to fight. But the CIA says it could have been pre-recorded -- even though he referred in the address to the start of the raid at dawn.

Update: Here is the text of Michael Moore's acceptance speech:

Michael Moore: Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.

We weren't offended by his remarks. But we think he wasted a good opportunity and instead accomplished just what we were afraid of: turning millions of people off. Not by his beliefs, but in the way he chose to express them. It's his right of course, but he certainly didn't help the anti-war movement, in our opinion.

After Moore, host Steve Martin came back and got a laugh with his line, "As you might expect, things are going great backstage. The Teamsters just loaded Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo."

Update: Contrast Moore with Adrian Brody who got cheers and a standing ovation for his heartfelt plea that the war end soon.

Smythe's World: "For all the reaction that [it] caused, I have yet to hear anyone say that a single word of what Michael Moore said last night was false. Sometimes it's tacky to tell the truth. "

Lisa English of Ruminate This is really angry at Bush at the fate of the detainees:

If one follicle is touched on the head of any American service personnel in captivity, we can blame the new war policies of our terrorist president, George Bush. It's really not a hard one to figure out, and so one begins to wonder about the collective sanity of this administration. Is it mental illness or just another case of stunning neoconservative hubris? You decide. Since when is this Administration so damn concerned about adhering to the tenets of the Geneva Convention?

Yes, we know the difference according to the Administration between enemy combatants and prisoners of war. The Administration argues that Al Qaeda members don't qualify because they don't have these qualifications: (1) being under a responsible command; (2) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (3) carrying arms openly; and (4) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. At times they have included the qualification of wearing a military uniform. Back last February, Bush said the Taliban and Al Qaeda were enemy combatants. After a lot of heat, he revised his position to recognize that Taliban soldiers were entitled to POW protections but not Al Qaeda. This Administration has been making up the rules as it goes along and refuses to concede that enemy combatants are entitled to judicial review of its decision.

"Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that if there is "any doubt" as to whether captured combatants should be recognized as POWs, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." In other words, if doubt exists, the status of each detainee must be determined individually, not by a blanket decision of the President."

"Even if not technically prisoners of war, al Qaeda and Taliban captives still qualify for "humane treatment" under the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1988."

We believe in treating all prisoners as human beings and with dignity. As we said here, "If we treat the citizens of other countries this way, why won't these other countries retaliate with similar or harsher treatment when they capture members of our military?" Don't we reap what we sow?

The Iraq Ambassador said today that POWs won't be mistreated and that Iraq will follow the Geneva Convention.

UPI is reporting that Saddam Hussein chaired an emergency meeting with senior military officers and government officials.

Matthew at Untelevised.Org has some thoughtful and harsh words for the media and its capitulation to the Bush Administration in its war coverage.

There is an excellent article by Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker on terrorism and torture. A quote:

...just as the victims of torture are utterly helpless, the perpetrators of it are utterly debased. Like capital punishment, torture is abhorrent not only for what it does to the tortured but for what it makes of the torturer. It is the perfect opposite of what we like to think our country has stood for. It is surely not what we wish to become.

Sean Paul at the The Agonist has put up the link to the still pictures of the five captured Amercian soldiers shown on Al Jazeera television. Viewers beware, we looked and we are somewhat sorry we did.

We're just appalled that we put our youth in such harm's way. But, we're mentioning it because after viewing the photos, our resolve to protest this unjustified, preemptive war was strengthened --as was our desire to oust the Bush/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft regime in 2004. We hope viewing them will do the same for others with anti-war leanings, and even convert a few who don't. We're not reposting the link to the photos themselves, just the link to Sean Paul and Hesiod at Counterspin who also has it up. Oliver Willis has exceptionally clear photos up. Again, viewers beware.

"President Bush plans to tell congressional leaders on Monday that the war in Iraq will cost about $80 billion, administration officials said, three days after both chambers of Congress passed budget plans and authorized tax cuts without three days after both chambers of Congress passed budget plans and authorized tax cuts without a war-cost estimate from the administration."

The amount "includes about $60 billion for combat and the first months of reconstruction, with the rest going to foreign aid, homeland security and humanitarian relief. "

Twelve U.S. soldiers are believed to have been captured in an ambush on a convoy today near the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriya, in what U.S. military officials called the toughest day of resistance in the war so far. ABC reports that

...the group, made up of maintenance workers, was part of a supply convoy that is believed to have taken a wrong turn outside Nasiriya while on a mission to carry out repair work.

They were traveling in a column of six vehicles that encountered a roadblock and came under heavy fire. A number of others were wounded in the attack and evacuated by helicopter, military officials said....

Shortly after news of the capture came, video footage of what was said to be dead and captured American soldiers was aired on the Arab al Jazeera network and Iraqi state television.

At least five American soldiers appeared in the video footage — four men and one woman, some of whom appeared to be wounded. They were asked to give their names, home states, and state whether they were Americans.

A U.S. Black Hawk helicopter crashed in Afghanistan on Sunday, killing all six military personnel on board, U.S. Central Command said.

"The crash was not the result of enemy action," Central Command said in a statement. The helicopter was conducting a "medical evacuation mission," it said. The HH-60 Black Hawk helicopter crashed 18 miles north of Ghazni, Afghanistan, at about 11:20 a.m. EST, Central Command said. The cause was under investigation. The names of those who died were being withheld pending notification of their families.

A big thanks to ReachM High Cowboy Network Noose for his salute to women bloggers Saturday, as part of women's history month. Go on over and read what these impressive women have to say. (Thanks to Jeanne at Body and Soul for tipping us off to it. We do read the Cowboy every day but missed that one somehow.)

Let us know in the comments if you have some more links to women bloggers covering politics and current events--but please, put them in html format so the site doesn't get skewed.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has acknowledged American soldiers are missing in Iraq.

The Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera aired footage from Iraqi television of interviews with what the station identified as captured American prisoners, and also showed bodies in uniform in an Iraqi morgue that it said were Americans.

A senior defense official said Pentagon officials did not know precisely how many Americans had been captured. The official declined to identify the unit involved so as not to cause panic among soldiers' families.

On the Al Jazeera tape,

On the tape, one prisoner said he was from Kansas and another said he was from Texas. Asked why he was fighting Iraqis, the soldier who said he was from Kansas replied: "They don't bother me; I don't bother them."

"On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on just how far Michigan can go in restricting visits to prison inmates. The court will weigh a state's ability to control its prisons against the rights of inmates, a balancing act that in the past has tilted in favor of government. For Bueno and the more than a million other inmates in the United States, its decision could mean greater access to visitors -- or more restrictions. "

SCOTUSBlog reports on Wiggins v. Smith, a Supreme Court case to be taken up this week involving ineffective assistance of counsel in a death case.

We posted our in-depth view of the case here. Thanks to SCOTUSBlog for mentioning and linking to it.

The issue is whether counsel has a duty to investigate or present mitigating evidence that could lead a sentencing jury to vote for life instead of death. The Fourth Circuit ruled against Wiggins, saying strategic choices by counsel are not ineffective--particularly when the evidence could have hurt as well as helped the defendant.

The National Associaton of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) filed this amicus brief in the case, arguing that

A. A Strong Defense Does Not Excuse Failure to Investigate Mitigating Information

B. The Mitigating Evidence of Petitioner’s Background Was Not Incompatible With a Challenge to Death Eligibility as a Principal, and

C. The Decision to Forego Mitigating Evidence to Retry Guilt Was Unreasonable

We're going to use this space to post some of the overseas war news we read for a day or so. We want to see if it's the same or different than the reporting we're getting from the embedded journalists. All descriptions are direct quotes from the articles. This is an experiment--we really don't know the outcome, and if we're wrong, we'll say so.

Marines in Firefight: US Marines and Iraqi soldiers have been involved in a fierce firefight in Umm Qasr - a day after the Allies claimed the town had been taken. The Marines were ambushed at a temporary camp set up in the strategically important port town in southern Iraq.

British TV Crew Missing: Missing British TV reporter Terry Lloyd and two of his news crew may have been hit in crossfire from coalition forces in Iraq, it has been reported. More here.

Exodus in Northern Iraq:Up to 500,000 people in northern Iraq have fled their homes ahead of the US-led invasion - and the movement is continuing, a UN aid agency has said.

Seven Die in MidAir Collision: Seven military personnel have died in a midair helicopter collision over water in the northern Gulf region. (Six Britons, One American)

Desert Rats in Fierce Fighting: Coalition forces faced fiercer opposition than expected throughout southern Iraq and their commander, the American general Tommy Franks, warned: “There may well be tough days ahead.”

You are welcome to use the comments to add more articles, but please, don't just post the urls, use the html format--otherwise the whole site gets skewed. Instructions are in the comment box.

Are we the only ones uncomfortable by the Pentagon's "embedding" of reporters to cover the war? It's censorship.

Yes, we realize that it's dangerous out there and news organizations might not get their reporters as close to the action without help from the Administration. But we're getting only what the Government allows the reporters to tell, so how is this journalism? We're getting a slanted view.

We find ourselves constantly going over the BBC, SkyNews and other international websites to read their coverage.

All night long, on every news station tonight, U.S. reporters covering the Camp Pennsylvania grenade attack were hemming and hawing--"I can't talk about that"..."I've seen more than I can say, I have to be really careful here". This Reuters article advising that one of the 13 injured soldiers is dead, nails it for us.

Time magazine correspondent Jim Lacey told CNN by telephone from Camp Pennsylvania, the Kuwait base for the 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, that the soldier had died of his injuries. "We're allowed to talk about it," he said.(emphasis supplied)

It's worked. The first night of bombing, the reporters were awestruck. They were positively gleeful about finally experiencing "shock and awe" and that it more than met their expectations.

We'd rather have free news and honest news than more of it. And we have some questions. Who's paying the freight for the "embedded" journalists? Is the Pentagon throwing it in free to the news organizations as a means of sweetening the pot and getting them to go along with their restrictions on reporting? If the Government isn't footing the bill, how much cheaper is it for the media giants to warehouse their reporters with the military than to pay their way independently? We would think that by traveling and bunking with the military, the news organizations are saving big bucks.

It looks to us like we're getting a marketing campaign, not true news. Censorship is antithetical to a free democracy.

An American G.I. has been arrested in connection with the grenade attack inside a tent at Camp Pennsylvania, where the 101st Airborne is presently headquartered, in Northern Kuwait. 13 soldiers were injured, some seriously enough to require airlifting out by helicopters.

The soldier has not been identified because he was also injured in the attack and rules provide that family of injured soldiers must be notified first. CBS, Fox and SkyNews reported the soldier is an African American Muslim.

NBC had a reporter on who said the soldier had been acting strange the past few days and he was being watched. A decision had been made to leave him behind. CNN said the attack was directed at the tent commander.

The embedded reporters saw and know a lot more but are being prohibited from talking about it freely. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon on CNN said there's a name for this, "fragging." It's a well-know technique but one that hasn't been used much with a volunteer military.

As of now, the Oscars are on. We think they will stay on. Thousands of anti-war protesters are expected. Protest organizers say they need the air-time and coverage because the networks aren't giving them enough.

We support anti-war protests but we think this will backfire on the anti-war movement, particularly in the U.S. We doubt those who tune in to watch the Oscars, ourselves included, are going to look at the protesters and say, "Gee, I should be with them tonight," or even, "I'd like to hear what they have to say." We think protesting during the Oscars will weaken the message and hurt the cause.

There's a time and a place for everything. These actors worked hard all year to create movies to entertain us and make us think. They have earned their night. For three hours of a Sunday evening, we should give them their due and leave the war out of it. Except, of course, for those of them that choose to use their 45 seconds of acceptance time to oppose the war. We think that's fine. It's their time and they can do what they want with it.

The winners are being allowed to say whatever they want on any topic, including the war. Presenters, such as noted anti-war activist Susan Sarandon, however, have to stick to the script.

Again, we are all for the participants in the Oscars expressing their opposition to the war during their speeches. But we think the protestors should pick another night--or limit their protests to the afternoon before the ceremonies begin.

Update on Oscar participants:

A small number of celebrities, including Will Smith and Angelina Jolie - both due to present awards - and Cate Blanchett and Tom Hanks, have pulled out of the ceremony, voicing disgust that America's annual parade of self-congratulation is going ahead despite the war. Designers Giorgio Armani and Collette Dinnigan have cancelled trips to Hollywood to dress the stars and left it to their US-based associates to do the pampering instead.

Donning an anti-war totem is also popular. Among the actors who have said that they will wear anti-war badges are nominees Day-Lewis, Adrien Brody, Pedro Almodóvar Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore as well as veteran star Dustin Hoffman.

Ben Affleck is among those who has apparently not yet made up his mind. Instead he has announced that the final decision will rest with his stylist.

The 500 photographers, TV cameramen and reporters who normally work the carpet have been told that this year the stars do not want to talk and have undergone FBI background checks before they were issued with their credentials.

The owner of the internet domain name "Felons.Com" is auctioning it off on Ebay. Details here. We hope it's bought by someone with a progressive agenda who wants to use it for something like helping former inmates get jobs or regain the right to vote, rather than by some right-wing group that wants to make money off it by using it as some kind of offender registry. If you know of someone who might be interested, please forward them the ebay link.

Lisa English of Ruminate This asks a key question:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've been led to understand that Iraq presented such a clear and present danger to American interests an ocean away, that George Bush felt compelled to attack without UN authorization. We needed to rid Iraq of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

That is why we are leveling Baghdad, isn't it? It's why we are destroying families and turning formerly parented children into orphans. It's why we've thumbed our nose at the international community and walked away from diplomacy. It's why we continue, as I type, to chance fear in the hearts of all sensible people, the world over....

All because we know there are weapons of mass destruction that sit ...silently...waiting to do us harm.

Right? Well, if that be the case, then please explain why it is that Iraq has yet to use these weapons. They've yet to meet devastating American force in kind.

Why not? What are they waiting for? Could it be that George Bush was wrong?

Technorati bring us the news bloggers have written about in the last two hours. It's a new feature called Current Events .

Here's how its creator describes it:

It is a list of the top links to "professional" news sites by bloggers in the last two hours, along with comments and analysis. I created it because, like most people, I've been following the progress of the war, watching and reading the mass media, and I wanted to know what people out there were saying about the news. What are the most important stories? What is real, and what is propaganda? What is not being reported, or is being underreported? These were the questions on my mind when I created Technorati's Current Events.

Know Your Rights from the National Lawyers' Guild--Now Available in Seven Languages

Here's an update on today's worldwide anti-war protests. Here's more.

New York: More than 100,000 anti-war demonstrators marched down Broadway this afternoon in what is estimated to be the largest anti-war rally the city has seen since the situation with Iraq first escalated. Live video is here. More coverage here .

If you have DirectTV satilite you can find some un-censored US news on channel 375. If you know someone who's been arrested, here is the NY Civil Liberties Union's summary of New York protester rights.

London: The march through the capital, culminating in an afternoon of speeches in Hyde Park, attracted a crowd of about 200,000 people, according to a police estimate.

Los Angeles: Skippy is on it, he's there right now, check his site frequently for updates. Hard news here.

The Australian Broadcasting Corp has confirmed that one of its freelance cameramen has been killed . Reporters Without Borders said the as yet unidentified cameraman was killed

... in an attack Kurdish officials blamed on a militant Islamic group, Ansar al-Islam, which Washington has linked with the al-Qaeda network.

"He was a freelancer, an Australian cameraman on assignment for the ABC. He was killed in a suicide bombing, the attack is apparently being blamed on an Islamic militant group," a spokeswoman told Reuters.

....The Paris media body said a photographer who witnessed the attack had said it appeared to be aimed at the many journalists present at the time.

CNN has made journalist Kevin Sites shut down his warblog. That's a shame. We hope they reconsider. His photo-blogging was terrific. It's still up --go on over if you haven't already visited.