Subscribe via RSS Feed

Scalia’s Hysteria

From Dahlia Lithwick’s recap of the Boumediene decision:

Scalia points to the 30 detainees released from Guantanamo—by an order of the Bush administration, not a court, it should be noted—who have allegedly “returned to the battlefield.” One detonated a suicide bomb in Iraq in May. Scalia notes that this “return to the kill” happened even after “the military had concluded they were not enemy combatants” (italics his). So you see, even those who were deemed innocent at Guantanamo are actually guilty in Scalia’s mind. And whether or not they ever get to go home, the mere act of providing them with civilian court oversight will surely endanger yet more American lives. For this proposition, Scalia cites the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman in federal court in 1995, in which the names of 200 unindicted conspirators were leaked to Osama Bin Laden. Just to recap, then, everyone at Guantanamo is guilty, and the mere act of trying them will result in more American deaths. This raises the question of what Scalia would do with these prisoners, many of whom have been held for six years without charges. If they can’t reasonably be tried or released, it must be a great comfort to believe that they are all killers and terrorists, and no further proof is needed.

People always speak of Scalia’s superior and airtight logic, even when they disagree with him. Hopefully this will help knock that myth down, even just a little.

Share with Sociable

Clinton or a Man?

[ 28 ] June 13, 2008 |

Evaluating some arguments for and against Sebellius as a VP choice, Ezra discusses a strange argument I’ve always wondered about:

Then, on the con side, we get an argument that’s been peeking out on the corners of the debate: Sebelius is a women who is not Hillary Clinton. “With Clinton now formally gone from the race,” writes Cilizza, “her most fervent female supporters have taken up the cause of putting her on the ticket as the vice president. To snub Clinton in favor of another woman — Sebelius — would be a slight that many women might not be able to reconcile themselves to.”

A slight? This argument is popping up a lot, being reported as a pro-Clinton talking point by everyone from Chric Cilizza to Howard Fineman. These are good reporters, so I trust there’s some truth to it. But it’s loathsome. When Clinton endorsed Obama, she said that, “from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the president of the United States.” It was a powerful line, and a tremendous sentiment. And it’s being undercut by some of her supporters.

Insofar as Clinton’s campaign was a trailblazing, historic candidacy, it’s because it consciously sought to ease the way for those who would come after Clinton. By proving a woman could be commander-in-chief, by proving a woman could win primary states, by proving a women could out-campaign the guys, the idea was that the barrier would not be so high for future women who wished to run. Clinton’s example would normalize women in national politics. That is the precise opposite of preserving the idea that it’s a rare and unique thing for women to compete in national politics, and only one woman has the capability or credibility to do so.

On the merits, the idea that is would be some kind of slap in the face to women for Obama to pick any woman but Clinton is certainly ridiculous. So perhaps this is a pundit’s fallacy, but I also doubt that this would actually be a problem for a significant number of voters, especially as acceptance about Clinton’s narrow defeat sets in. And of that small subgroup, some are presumably part of the “it will really show the sexists in the media if Antonin Scalia is the median vote on the Supreme Court, the global gag rule isn’t repealed, etc. etc.” crowd, which will find some reason to be offended by any Obama pick and aren’t really worth considering.

Certainly, it seems pretty clear to me that picking Webb (or, worse, an anti-choicer, although Strickland is apparently out of the running…) has a much higher chance of alienating women…

Share with Sociable

Misogynist Wanker of the Day

[ 34 ] June 13, 2008 |

Rick Sutcliffe.

Share with Sociable

Dial 1-800-STOP-THE-BLEEDING

[ 78 ] June 12, 2008 |

Nixonland has enough writing about arson to satisfy me without having to watch the Mets’s bullpen. It’s unfortunate, but it’s hard to see Randolph surviving too many more of these.

Share with Sociable

Fortress Britain

Much rumness afoot in and around the Palace of Westminster these days. Gordon Brown, the mean, one-eyed Scotsman who took over from the Teflon-coated, happy-clapping Blair as Prime Minister has been lurching from one crisis to another, ever since failing to call an election* upon his succession to the top job. Widely disliked by the electorate, and not burdened with the charm or wit of his predecessor, Brown has spent his time in office making himself and his party more and more unpopular, and the recent local elections delivered the Labour Party what could only be described as a ‘kicking.’

Brown’s latest triumph, if such a term could be used, has been the passage of a Counter-Terrorism bill through the House of Commons, although by a mere nine votes, obtained from the Northern Irish DUP party, allegedly thanks to a number of promises (you can call them bribes) regarding financial aid for the province.

Quite a few Labour MPs revolted and voted with the opposition, appalled by some of the authoritarian measures in the bill, notably one that gives the government the right to detain a suspect for 42 days without before having to charge them. Brown, and his odious acolyte Tony McNulty (Home Office minister and the man responsible for shepherding the bill) have claimed that the police and security services have requested these powers in order to deal with terrorist emergencies. Oddly, the head of the Security Service (MI5) actually came out and stated just the opposite, and it’s hard to see a good reason why this power is even needed, since previous legislation grants the police these powers in the event of such an emergency.

Thankfully for the UK, our unelected chamber, the House of Lords, will tear the bill to shreds once it’s submitted to them, at which point it will return to the House of Commons and the process will start again.

The passage of the bill has even seen the shadow Home Secretary, Conservative MP David Davis resign his seat in protest. For a rather right-wing politician to make such a move ought to underline just how egregious most people consider this legislation.
Should Brown manage to get a revised bill through the House of Lords, odds are that the European Court of Human Rights will strike it down, and all in all it’s hard to see why Brown is willing to squander the tiny remaining bit of political capitol over this. But, it’s a funny old world.

*For those unfamiliar with the UK and its electoral schedule, the sitting government chooses when it wants to go to the polls any time up until 5 years from the last election, usually allowing them to pick the time that would be most advantageous to their chances.

Share with Sociable

And Another Thing

[ 0 ] June 12, 2008 |

It’s hard to find a rational basis for this spastic response to Rob’s uncontroversial observation that Evangelical Protestant affection for Israel is not incompatible with — indeed, often rests adjacent to — coded language about domestic American politics that reeks of barely-laundered anti-Semitism. Premillennial dispensationalist theology — of the sort John Hagee administers to his flock — famously values Jews only to the degree that they’re willing to return to the Holy Land, fulfilling Biblical prophecy and paving the way for the second coming. Anyone who has spent more than ten minutes reading about the history of Christian Zionism understands this (see here and here for starters), just as they would also understand that Christian Zionists have frequently retained a stable of classical, hostile stereotypes of secular American Jews, whom they regard as theologically unhelpful and (in what amounts to the same thing) politically dangerous. These attitudes spring from the same historical place — also occupied by right wing populists — that depicted Jews at various points as “communists,” “capitalist money-changers,” or (yes) “intellectuals.” Terms like these are part of the basic conceptual grammar of anti-Jewish racism, and it doesn’t “smear” or “hamstring” anyone by pointing out that they survive even among people who believe themselves to be philo-Semites.

Silly me, though, I hadn’t realized that Agnewian phrases like “latte-sipping elitist intellectuals” had become such valuable additions to “the Left Populist” rhetorical canon. But since I am — like Rob — a disgusting avatar of privilege — my pointy-headedness is unsurprising.

Share with Sociable

What He Said

[ 0 ] June 12, 2008 |

Souter, concurring in Boumediene:

It is in fact the very lapse of four years from the time Rasul put everyone on notice that habeas process was available to Guantanamo prisoners, and the lapse of six years since some of these prisoners were captured and incarcerated, that stand at odds with the repeated suggestions of the dissenters that these cases should be seen as a judicial victory in a contest for power between the Court and the political branches. The several answers to the charge of triumphalism might start with a basic fact of Anglo-American constitutional history: that the power, first of the Crown and now of the Executive Branch of the United States, is necessarily limited by habeas corpus jurisdiction to enquire into the legality of executive detention. And one could explain that in this Court’s exercise of responsibility to preserve habeas corpus something much more significant is involved than pulling and hauling between the judicial and political branches. Instead, though, it is enough to repeat that some of these petitioners have spent six years behind bars. After six years of sustained executive detentions in Guantanamo, subject to habeas jurisdiction but without any actual habeas scrutiny,today’s decision is no judicial victory, but an act of perseverance in trying to make habeas review, and the obligation of the courts to provide it, mean something of value both to prisoners and to the Nation.

To think that permitting access to basic habeas rights to prisoners who have been arbitrarily detained by the American government in American-controlled territory for six years is some kind of massive judicial power grab is silly. More later.

UPDATE from bean: Marty Lederman has initial reactions to the decision.

UPDATE the second (SL): Matt beat me to my hobbyhorse, but I note initially that reasonable, moderate, thinking person’s conservatives Alito and Roberts not only dissented (the latter writing) but joined Scalia’s dissent — which begins with a some paragraphs of talk-radio demagoguery about how because of the Court Islamofascists will be come to kill your children — in full. Again, it seems worth noting that there is effectively no substantive difference between Bush’s appointments and Scalia and Thomas.

Share with Sociable

Shockingly, Good News from SCOTUS

The Supreme Court today held 5-4 that Guantanamo detainees have a right to habeas corpus and that the procedures that Congress put into place with the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) in 2005 are not an adequate substitute for habeas.

More to come post-BarBri (or from other LGMers).

Share with Sociable

Well Heeled Professor Takes Short Break from Sipping Mojitos on the Beach…

[ 227 ] June 12, 2008 |

Jesus, Retardo is one dumb motherfuckerone misguided dude. If he had bothered to ask, I would have told him that I made my way to Florida and Israel on business, rather than pleasure, that I have rather first-hand experience with white working class poverty, and that my yearly salary does not, as of yet, match my student loan debt. The worst part is that I got to ruminate over this while wasting most of the money I had set aside for the trip on replacing the clothing that Delta Airlines has apparently lost with ridiculously overpriced Israeli equivalents. But then, I suppose this is to be expected from someone who believes that “latte sipping elitist intellectuals” is an actual class of people rather than a boogeyman invented by the Republican Party…

Share with Sociable

Future Presidential Statement of the Day

[ 7 ] June 12, 2008 |

[Nixon would] top just short of calling the President a liar on Vietnam, then add that he would not be speaking of the war during Johnson’s “sensitive negotiations with Hanoi” before extending his sympathy to the President for all the “well-intentioned but mistaken Democrats who have taken the soft line, the appeasement line.” For we could only lose in Vietnam “if President Johnson fails to take a strong line that will preserve the peace by refusing to reward the aggressors.”

It’s a line of reasoning exactly as convincing now as it was then!

Bonus Nixon’s Piano edition:

In his press conference the next day, some Eastern establishment reporter asked Nixon if he found it embarrassing to share a party with “ol’ States’ Right’s Strom.” Nixon responded, “Strom is no racist. Strom is a man of courage and integrity.”

Both quotes from Rick Perlstein’s masterpiece Nixonland, available at the local independent and/or soulless corporate bookstore near you.

Share with Sociable

That didn’t take long

The Obama monkey doll is out.

Really.

(via)

Share with Sociable

Imagine

[ 23 ] June 11, 2008 |

Via SN!, here’s John Miller at The Corner, showing once again that wingnuts are the most incurious people on the planet.

Lennonism [John J. Miller]

K Lo: I’m with you on “Imagine” — love the piano, hate the lyrics. A band called A Perfect Circle has a great cover version. The music is bleak and the vocals are subdued. It’s a much-needed deconstruction of the song. It’s like the anti-”Imagine.” I’m not sure the musicians intended it that way, but that’s the result, by my lights. Definitely worth a 99-cent download.

So much for conservatives being philosophically opposed to deconstruction. But seriously. How could someone listen to a cover of “Imagine” — from 2004, no less — and not inquire into the intention behind it? For that matter, if you’re capable of downloading a song from iTunes, you’d presumably be able to find the video as well.

Share with Sociable