Democratic contender Joe Lieberman says Florida Governor Jeb Bush did the right thing in signing legislation to reinsert feeding tubes into Terri Schiavo.

Democrat Joe Lieberman sided Wednesday with Republican Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida for ordering a feeding tube reinserted into a brain-damaged woman, saying government must "honor life."

In a wide-ranging interview with Associated Press editors and reporters, the presidential candidate waded into another medical debate, breaking with President Bush's policy to limit scientific research involving human embryonic cells.

"The day I walk into the Oval Office, the first thing I'm going to do is rescind the Bush administration restrictions on stem-cell research," the Connecticut senator said. "They're not compassionate. They block work that will save lives and extend lives."

The New York Times excoriates Bush for the Florida ruling, calling the law the work of the conservative religious right.

Almost all the legal scholars we've read on the topic agree that the law violates the separation of powers doctrine and that the law is poorly drafted.

Our prior post on this case is here--it has generated a lot of comments, including a recent one of our own.

The Senate voted today 97-0 to restrict E-Mail spam:

It targets the most unsavory senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail by prohibiting messages that peddle financial scams, fraudulent body-enhancement products and pornography. The legislation also draws on amendments from Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) that would criminalize the techniques used by spammers to thwart detection -- disguising identities, masking the locations of computers used to send junk e-mail and automating spam attacks.

The bill has its critics:

...several anti-spam and consumer groups have argued that the bill has too many loopholes that could enable so-called legitimate marketers to bombard consumers with unwanted e-mail.

The bill would preempt all state anti-spam laws, some of which are tougher than the Burns-Wyden bill. And it would prohibit private lawsuits against spammers, allowing suits only by providers of e-mail accounts, such as Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp., EarthLink Inc. and America Online Inc., all of which also market to their own members.

The Senate voted today 97-0 to restrict E-Mail spam:

It targets the most unsavory senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail by prohibiting messages that peddle financial scams, fraudulent body-enhancement products and pornography. The legislation also draws on amendments from Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) that would criminalize the techniques used by spammers to thwart detection -- disguising identities, masking the locations of computers used to send junk e-mail and automating spam attacks.

The bill has its critics:

...several anti-spam and consumer groups have argued that the bill has too many loopholes that could enable so-called legitimate marketers to bombard consumers with unwanted e-mail.

The bill would preempt all state anti-spam laws, some of which are tougher than the Burns-Wyden bill. And it would prohibit private lawsuits against spammers, allowing suits only by providers of e-mail accounts, such as Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp., EarthLink Inc. and America Online Inc., all of which also market to their own members.

We had given up hope. But today, the Federal Prison Policy Project informs us that Rep. Bobby Scott (D-) will introduce LERA, the Literacy, Education, and Rehabilitation Act of 2003. The bill will allow up to 180 days a year good time, a big increase from the paltry 54 days a year now allowed.

To amend title 18, United States Code §3624 to require the Federal Bureau of Prisons to calculate good time earnings per the amended schedule to demonstrate to taxpayers that money spent by the federal government on incarceration is rehabilitating the federal prisoners in its custody by providing remedial and vocational opportunities and other rehabilitative opportunities to better prepare prisoners for a successful return to society and for other purposes.

The stated purpose of the bill is:

Purpose:

The purpose of the proposed bill is to promote public safety by offering constructive incentives for exemplary institutional adjustment while at the same time increasing educational standards and decreasing the overall cost of corrections.

The "SAFE Act" has been introduced in Congress. From today's Washington Times:

A bipartisan group of lawmakers and advocacy groups have formed a "Coalition of Conscience" to roll back sections of the Patriot Act they say encroach on civil liberties. [link via Patriot Watch].

"This is an amazing coalition. Very seldom do these groups and these senators come together," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat. Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican, and Mr. Durbin — joined by representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union and American Conservative Union, among others — yesterday introduced the Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act.

This bill needs your support. A sign-on letter urging support for S. 1709, the Security and Freedom Enhanced (SAFE) Act of 2003 can be found here.

On a related note, the ACLU has documented the Administration's efforts to pass the provisions of Patriot Act II piecemeal. Patriot Act II is formally known as the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. While a draft circulated in Congress, it was never officially introduced.

We keep hearing television pundits mischaracterize Colorado's rape shield law. Here it is, in it's entirety:

18-3-407. Victim's and witness' prior history - evidentiary hearing

(1) Evidence of specific instances of the victim's or a witness' prior or subsequent sexual conduct, opinion evidence of the victim's or a witness' sexual conduct, and reputation evidence of the victim's or a witness' sexual conduct shall be presumed to be irrelevant except:

(a) Evidence of the victim's or witness' prior or subsequent sexual conduct with the actor;

(b) Evidence of specific instances of sexual activity showing the source or origin of semen, pregnancy, disease, or any similar evidence of sexual intercourse offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were or were not committed by the defendant.

This just in via email :

The House Judiciary Committee voted 28-1 to report favorably H.R. 3214, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, a comprehensive package of programs that provides over $1 billion over the next five years to assist Federal and State authorities in solving crimes and protecting the innocent.

H.R. 3214 includes the Innocence Protection Act of 2003, which would help ensure eligible inmates access to DNA testing to establish their innocence and would authorize grants to the States to improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases.

The bill currently has 147 cosponsors, and we anticipate that it will shortly come before the full House. An identical bill has been introduced in the Senate (S. 1700) with 18 cosponsors.

Major credit is due Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-MA) and his counsel and Legislative Director Mark Agrast.

For our newer readers who may not be aware of TalkLeft's political and legislative agenda, and older readers who may not remember, here is a sample of what we support and advocate for on this site:

A moratorium on the death penalty now, abolition in the future.

Passage of the Innocence Protection Act.

Eliminating mandatory minimum sentences and racial disparity in sentencing.

Greater protections for non-citizens and restoration of discretionary relief from deportation.

Fair treatment of juvenile offenders - and commitment to the juvenile justice system where they are charged as juveniles rather than adults.

Adequate funding for indigent defense

Increased scrutiny of law enforcement requests for greater powers and resources

Blocking passage of the Victims Rights Amendment and other attempts to treat the Constitution as a “rough draft.”

Preventing more anti-terrorism laws passed in haste, without adequate opportunity for review.

Ensuring our laws reflect a balance between our need for security and the cherished individual freedoms that distinguish our nation and make it the beacon of liberty.

Protecting our civil liberties. We oppose increased wiretapping, surveillance and intrusion into the privacy rights of ordinary citizens.

Legal recognition of same-sex unions and protecting the legal rights of surviving partners.

Legalizing the use and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes to ease the suffering of so many afflicted Americans.

An end to the Drug War.

Abolishing felony disenfranchisement to allow ex-offenders to participate in our democracy.

Opposing right-wing judicial activists and maintaining the independence of our judiciary.

We believe in an individual's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and generally oppose gun control measures.

This is by no means an exclusive list, but it should provide readers with an idea of what TalkLeft is about and why it is called TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime. For more about our purpose here, please visit our about page.

Additional positions we support can be found here.

The Guardian has a special report today on the Patriot Act, focusing on the growing criticism of the Act, particularly with respect to the Justice Department's application of its provisions in non-terror cases, and the threat such use represents to all of our civil liberties. Written by Guardian reporter Christopher Reed, it is a thorough analysis and we recommend reading the whole thing. We spoke with Mr. Reed for almost an hour on the phone as he was writing the article, and can attest to his determination to make sure his conclusions were supported by facts.

Reed quotes from Congressman Sensenbrenner's (R-WI) statement to Congress when introducing the bill:

The Wisconsin Republican assured his colleagues: "This bill does not do anything to take away the freedoms of innocent citizens. Of course we all recognise that the fourth amendment to the constitution prevents the government from conducting unrea sonable searches and seizures. That is why this legislation does not change the constitution from the rights guaranteed to citizens of this country under the Bill of Rights."

Reed then quotes from an ACLU letter that was introduced into the Congressional record before the bill was passed:

"Sadly, most Americans do not seem to realise that Congress is about to pass a law that drastically expands government power to invade our privacy, to imprison people without due process, and to punish dissent. More disturbing is that this power grab of our freedoms and civil liberties is in fact not necessary to fight terrorism."

Reed also mentions that not only was the bill passed without committee hearings in the Senate, but many members of Congress hadn't even had time to read the 342 page bill before voting on it. The vote was 97 to 1 in the Senate (Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) was the lone dissenter) and 309-118 in the House of Representatives.

Fast forwarding to the present, the article lays out the specific concerns of civil libertarians over the bill's application in non-terror cases and to ordinary citizens. Reed notes:

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) has a webpage up here with all the information about the newly introduced Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which contains a modified version of the Innocence Protection Act.

NACDL has just issued a press release praising the legislation (we will link to it when it's available on the web)--but also expressing these concerns:

We regret that the Act does not go further to redress the gross imbalance that exists between resources available to prosecutors as compared to resources available to defense counsel. Although Congress already gives hundreds of millions of dollars to state and local prosecutors, the Act requires that the newly authorized funds be allocated equally between capital defense and capital prosecution improvement purposes. Additionally, while competent counsel is the principle bulwark against wrongful convictions, there are many other steps that must be taken to reduce the risk of imprisoning or executing an innocent person. The eyewitness identification procedures used in most jurisdictions are prone to error and, despite many troubling cases of false confessions, most jurisdictions do not require that police interrogations be videotaped. NACDL urges policy-makers to more fully address the systemic problems that underlie wrongful convictions.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have agreed upon a compromise version of the Innocence Protection Act. It will be introduced today, along with a "Debbie Smith Act", in a bill called the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act. While $1 billion has been earmarked for the bill, it's important to note that $745 million goes to the Debbie Smith Act for DNA testing of old rape kits. There's a big backlog of those and Bush wants to get them entered into the Central DNA database. The remaining $245 million will be split among other things like free DNA testing to inmates with innocence claims, provided they meet certain criteria, grants to states to use for training lawyers in capital cases, increasing compensation limits for federal death row inmates who have been wrongfully imprisoned, and perhaps some others. A portion of the $245 will also go to states to help them pay for the added DNA testing.

The bills introduced in 2000 and 2001 had stronger protections for the innocent and for those facing capital trials. If you would like to compare them, here is S. 2073, the Innocence Protection Act introduced in Feb. 2000, and here is S. 486, the 2001 version of the Bill.

The final bill will be out sometime Wednesday, and we'll link to it when we come across it.

The current bill will lack some of the important features of its predecessors, but it is still a bill worth pushing for. While not a solution, it's a welcome step in the right direction.

Also, credit where credit is due: Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) and Sen. Patrick Lehay (D-VT) worked tirelessly to get this legislation passed for five years. With over 265 sponsors in the last Congress, some Republicans wouldn't budge and stymied the whole deal. After lengthy negotiations with Sensenbrenner and Hatch, some of the more vocal opponents of the bill, a deal was hammered out. It's as good as it's gonna get right now, and its worthy of support. It's also just a beginning. We have nothing but praise for those who worked so hard on behalf of the innocent imprisoned to get this through.

This just in via email from the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP):

Tomorrow, Tuesday, September 30, the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill authorizes the drug czar to spend more than $1 billion dollars over the next five years for the continued funding of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. If you do not call your U.S. representative immediately, this bill -- along with the media campaign funding --will almost certainly be approved.

Please call your U.S. representative toll-free by using the Capitol Switchboard at 800-839-5276. This switchboard operates 24 hours a day. So if you are inspired to call after normal business hours in D.C., the operator will transfer you to your representative's office and you can leave a voice mail message. Of course, calling during business hours would be preferable, if possible.

We've written about this before, here and here.

MPP provides this sample script for you to use when you call: