California Libertarian Alliance

“…it almost looked like Democrats were going to put up a fight on the PATRIOT Act as it came up for reauthorization. With a majority in Congress, a clear list of reforms set out by Russ Feingold and six other Democrats in the JUSTICE Act, and a president who had presented himself as a friend to civil libertarians, it certainly seemed possible.”…

“Last week, the administration outmaneuvered most congressional efforts to strengthen civil-liberties protections in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, inserted provisions in the Homeland Security appropriations bill that would prevent the release of torture photographs that are the subject of a pending FOIA request, and is now poised to sign a defense authorization bill that contains changes to the military commissions that fall short of what the administration itself said might be overturned by the appellate courts.”

Adam Serwer at The American Prospect looks at the latest betrayal http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=democrats_take_a_pass_on_civil_liberties_reform

“The now-infamous Gates story has gone through the familiar media spin-cycle: incident, reaction, response, so on and so forth. Drowned out of this echo chamber has been an all-too-important (and legally controlling) aspect: the imbroglio between Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley has more to do with the limits (or breadth) of the First Amendment than with race and social class. ”

“The issue is not how nasty the discourse between the two might have been, but whether what Professor Gates said–assuming, for argument’s sake, the officer’s version of events as fact–could by any stretch of both law and imagination constitute a ground for arrest for “disorderly conduct” (the charge leveled) or any other crime.”

Harvey Silverglate explains Freedom of Speech @ http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/28/gates-crowley-arrest-first-amendment-free-speech-harvard-opinions-contributors-harvey-a-silverglate.html?partner=email

Full column by James Bovard @ http://www.fff.org/comment/com0907j.asp

” “Enhanced interrogation” as some prefer to call it, has been used throughout history, usually by despotic governments, to cruelly punish or to extract politically useful statements from prisoners. Governments that do these things invariably bring shame on themselves.”

“In addition, information obtained under duress is incredibly unreliable, which is why it is not admissible in a court of law. Legally valid information is freely given by someone of sound mind and body. Someone in excruciating pain, or brought close to death by some horrific procedure, is not in any state of mind to give reliable information, and certainly no actions should be taken solely based upon it.”

“For these reasons, it is illegal in the United States and illegal under Geneva Conventions. ”         Full Column by Rep. Ron Paul @ http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2009/05/25/hold-the-torturers-accountable/

Cato adjunct scholar Richard Epstein looks at the nomination of Sonia Sotomayer to the Supreme Court, and finds potential trouble for property rights @ http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/26/supreme-court-nomination-obama-opinions-columnists-sonia-sotomayor_print.html