by TChris

Arlen Specter is irked because he wasn't a part of the "compromise" bill authorizing the military trials of detainees. He always likes to be asked before his party deprives people of their civil rights. As long as he's asked, he'll gladly work to implement his president's plans, whether they involve torture or domestic wiretapping. If he's not made to feel that he's an important part of the process, he whines about the Constitution. Thankfully, Specter is whining now.

President Bush is pushing Congress to put the agreement into law before adjourning for the midterm elections, but Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Sunday he "vigorously" disagrees with the habeas corpus provision of the bill. ... "The courts have traditionally been open to make sure that individual rights are protected, and that is fundamental," Specter said on CNN's "Late Edition. "And the Constitution says when you can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, in time of rebellion or invasion. And we don't have either. So that has to be changed, in my opinion."

If Democrats need the cover of Republicans to stand up for the Constitution, Specter is their shield, at least for the moment. But why are we reading about Arlen Specter's opposition, rather than the opposition of Democrats?

by TChris

If George "the brat" Bush has to play by the rules, he doesn't want to play at all. On Friday, the president announced that his administration would stop interrogating terrorism suspects if interrogators must follow the Geneva Conventions, prompting this editorial response from the NY Times:

To some degree, he is following a script for the elections: terrify Americans into voting Republican. But behind that seems to be a deeply seated conviction that under his leadership, America is right and does not need the discipline of rules. He does not seem to understand that the rules are what makes this nation as good as it can be.

The president's threats failed to impress the three Republican senators (McCain, Graham, and Warner) who argue that tortured confessions and trials based on secret evidence do not serve American interests. Perhaps someone in the White House noticed that the weekend headlines were about Republicans fighting Republicans, not the kind of reading that encourages GOP prospects in the upcoming elections. Suddenly the White House is making noise about a possible compromise.

by TChris

Eleven individuals who were arrested for plotting to blow up airplanes were arraigned today in a British court. Eight are charged with conspiracy to commit murder and something called "preparing acts of terrorism." They will be held in custody until they appear at the Old Bailey, London's criminal court, on Sept. 4. Two of the three who face lesser charges will return to court on August 29, while the last defendant will return to court on September 19.

The fate of the remaining arrestees is less clear.

Of the 12 detainees who have not yet been charged, one, a woman who was not identified, is to be freed, authorities said. The rest are being held under British counterterrorism laws that allow up to 28 days of detention without charges, said Susan Hemming, a lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service. ...

[Prosecutor] Hemming said the authorities had not decided whether to seek the further detention of any of the suspects still being held without charge. Under counterterrorism laws, the authorities must apply to a High Court judge by Wednesday to detain them for another seven days.

A federal judge in Miami has dismissed the most serious count of Jose Padilla's terror indictment on grounds of multiplicity. David MarKus at the Southern District of Florida Blog has all the details -- and praise for the Bush-appointed judge who issued the decision.

Judge Marcia Cooke has dismissed Count I of the indictment against Jose Padilla because it is multiplicitous. In other words, Count I represents the same offense that is also charged in Counts II and III. An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense multiple times, in separate counts.

The dismissed count charged conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim persons in a foreign county, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 956(a)(1).

The Florida federal terrorism case against Jose Padilla, the American-born so-called "dirty bomber" held for four years in a South Carolina military brig without charges or access to counsel, is floundering.

A federal judge has expressed doubts about the strength of the government's terror conspiracy case against Jose Padilla and others, ordering prosecutors to provide more evidence of alleged violent activities overseas. ....[The Judge] says the case against him appears ``very light on facts.''

Curiously, the Florida Sun Sentinel and the AP don't even mention this in their reports of yesterday's hearing.

All of the trial exhibits in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui are now online at the court's website. You can access them here. (hat tip How Appealing.)

Three defense lawyers for accused "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla got stranded in Beirut where they were taking depositions in the case and doing research to prepare for Padilla's Miami trial. Happily, they are now safe and on Cyprus.

Miami Assistant Federal Public Defender Orlando do Campo and two private lawyers, William Swor of Detroit and Andrew Patel of New York, traveled to Lebanon about three weeks ago. They were there to do research and take depositions in preparation for the scheduled federal trial in September of accused dirty bomber Jose Padilla and four other defendants before U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke.

The lawyers were stuck at a Beirut hotel, according to Swor's secretary. They had departed for Beirut on July 2 and were supposed to return on July 14. But war broke out July 12 when Israel began its campaign to recover two kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Israel bombed the airport, trapping the lawyers and thousands of other Americans and Europeans in Lebanon. The lawyers had no choice but to stay on at the hotel while the U.S. and other governments made plans to evacuate their citizens....

A Miami federal judge has denied bond for the 7 men accused in the aspirational Sears Tower bombing plan.

Each of the men faces four counts: two counts of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, and one count each of conspiracy to destroy buildings by explosives and sedition against the U.S. government. The counts carry maximum sentences of between 15 and 20 years.

Kudos to John Wesley Hall, who contributes to TalkLeft as Last Night in Little Rock. He's been silent here for a while, and here's why: He's been defending a man accused of providing material support to terrorists in Arkansas. Yesterday the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge.

Arwah Jaber, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in the West Bank town of Yamoun, was acquitted Monday of providing material support to the recognized terrorist organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but he was convicted on five lesser charges related to immigration and credit card fraud.

Jaber plans to go back home and teach when his legal problems are over. He received his doctorate in chemistry from the University of Arkansas. He said he would like to stay and teach in Arkansas if allowed but realizes that may not be possible.

The Government has moved to revoke his citizenship. But LNIR made some great arguments and the Court has taken it under advisement and allowed Jaber to remain on bond.

John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" sentenced to 20 years is doing his time at Victorville Prison under the most severe restrictions.

In the new issue of Esquire, Tom Junod pens a very long portrait of Lindh, from his conversion to Islam through his capture, court case and now, his jail sentence.

Lawyers for Jose Padilla have filed a motion to suppress evidence and statements in his federal terrorism case. He alleges that the FBI failed to advise the Court in its 2002 affidavit for his arrest as a material witness that statements taken from one of the government's witnesses was obtained through torture, and another witness provided statements while "heavily medicated."

And the hits, they just keep coming. The latest is Osama bin Laden's newest audio tape in which he says Zacarias Moussaoui was not a part of 9/11.

"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the speaker, claiming to be bin Laden, said in the tape posted on the Internet. "I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.

The al-Qaida chief said the Sept. 11 hijackers were divided into two groups, "pilots and assistants." "Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden said. "It knows this very well," he added. Bin Laden said Moussaoui's confession -- that he helped plan the attacks -- was "void," calling it the result of "pressures exercised against him during four and a half years" in U.S. prison.

Will Moussaoui's lawyers ask for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence showing he's innocent? Is it admissible, if authenticated? Would it have made any difference to the jury? Does anyone care any more about Moussaoui, or has he already become a footnote in 9/11 history now that he is languishing at Supermax?