When I read about Bush dissing Schwarzenegger, I can’t help but think of Dana Carvey’s voice. And I know that’s wrong of me. “It is the biggest political story in the country? That’s interesting. That says a lot. That speaks volumes. Oh, I think there’s maybe other political stories. Isn’t there, like a presidential race coming up? Maybe that says something.” He can’t possibly have said that as snippily as I’m imagining, right? ...
Daily Kos asks how best to protest the 2004 GOP convention (original). Gee, I dunno — how do you best protest a legitimate, legal gathering that’s part of the normal flow of American politics when you yourself rest firmly within the political mainstream? It’s not the protesting itself that strikes me as wrong. I’m all for protesting at political events. But Kos is someone who participates quite actively in the two party system; he really doesn’t have any business arguing that the Republican side of the process shouldn’t happen. If he just wants to protest the timing of the convention, he ought to be a touch more explicit in his wording. “What do you guys think would be the best way to protest the timing of the convention,” perhaps. ...
Time for a risky comparison. In the year 2003, we’ve had three high-profile examples of a minority body using their legal ability to either effect or prevent change. The first is the Democratic filibusters used in the Senate to prevent three (out of many) of Bush’s judicial nominees from reaching the federal bench. The second is the Killer Ds — the Texas Democrats who fled the state to block redistricting. The third is the California recall election. ...
Not getting so very much press, but there’s a little war brewing between Ashcroft’s Justice Department and the American jucidiary. The proximate trigger was a recent Ashcroft’s directive to federal prosecutors: he wanted ‘em to research judges who give light sentences (original). Ashcroft has kind of been under the radar recently, what with the war and all. Seems as good a time as any to link once again to his interview (original) with the neo-confederate magazine Southern Partisan. (They called him “a jealous defender of national sovereignty against the New World Order.”) ...
As we all know, many suspected terrorists in the United States are enemy combatants (original). This designation is used for those whose detention is a matter of national security. They don’t get the same rights as you and I, because giving them an open trial — or even access to their lawyer — is a risk. Can’t take risks with American lives. Meanwhile, in that bastion of civil rights that is Indonesia, the Indonesian government somehow managed to give Bali bomber Amrozi bin Nurhasyim a relatively normal trial. This, despite the active network of terrorists inside Indonesia. You’d think that if the United States is at risk when letting suspects talk to lawyers, Indonesia would be more so.
Randy Barnett gives Den Beste much stroke over at the Volokh Conspiracy. While I think Den Beste is skimming over some issues, I must credit him with linking to someone who refutes him nicely. So no picking on Den Beste today. Nah. Let’s quote Barnett instead. The emphasis is his. Funny, how you have to read blogs or websites like NRO to learn ANYTHING about what is or may be really going on. The news media is hopeless. Bias to one side, you simply cannot be informed by reading or listening to the mainstream press. ...
Not so big on free speech in Iraq. During a patrol in Tikrit early Wednesday, U.S. forces came across a black flag strung up in front of a local government building. The writing mourned the passing of Odai and Qusai. After asking his translator to read the gold and white lettering to him, U.S. Lt. Col. Steve Russell, whose 4th Infantry Division, 1st Battalion is leading the raids in Tikrit, took out his pocket knife and cut it down, crumpling it in his hands before taking it away. ...
Daily Kos speculates on Iowa caucus maneuvering (original), which might make one wonder why anyone cares about the Iowa caucuses at all. He’s outlined a scenario under which Kerry supporters might throw their votes to Gephardt in order to derail a Dean victory. And yep, that’s about the kind of thing that happens in caucuses. I don’t think it really requires cell phones to happen, though; Kerry’s campaign can make that decision the night before and pre-arrange the votes instead of waiting till the last moment. They’d sacrifice up to the moment decision making, but they’d gain reliability. ...
Adam Tinworth points out this and this regarding the Kelly case. The latter is in particular full of pertinent details. Also, the Hutton Inquiry has a web site. It includes full transcripts of the entire hearing to date. This sort of transparency impresses me. Between Adam and Lord Hutton, one suspects one might get all the necessary coverage and pointers.
The Boston Globe reports that we may put out a kill order on Saddam rather than attempt to capture him. The reports come from the infamous anonymous officials, of course. This is pretty much a conspiracy theorist’s wet dream, but interesting nonetheless. Just bear in mind it could be bad reporting, it could be Bush floating a trial balloon, it could be the CIA honing their knives in the backs of Bush, or it could be absolutely true.