Politics

Here’s the text of the resolution Bush is sending to Congress regarding Iraq. It looks pretty fair at first glance, although I think bringing up the 1993 assassination attempt on Bush smacks of revenge. I care that Iraq tried to kill Bush Sr., but I do not care more about that than I care about any single attempt to kill a US soldier. I also have not yet seen proof that Iraq is being harbored by al Qaida. However, this is in essence the bill that Congress needs to pass before we invade Iraq. I’m glad he’s acknowledging that Congress gets to decide.

Remember that 33 pounds of weapons-grade uranium? Well, turns out it was really only five ounces (original). The 33 pound figure counted the weight of the container. Except it wasn’t really uranium at all. And of course, we don’t actually have any evidence it was going to Iraq anyhow.

There is much talk over here in the States of Tony Blair; of how well he gets along with Bush (original), and of course of his recent speech presenting the case against Iraq. No stauncher ally than the Brits. Yeah. Well, or at least, none stauncher than Tony Blair. Andrew Sullivan’s article on the friendship between the two men says more than he realizes, I think. “Blair’s second intuition was that with George W. Bush, the most important element is always personal rapport and trust. He sensed almost intuitively that an intimate bond with Bush would give the British prime minister more influence than any other world leader in the post 9/11 world.” Yes, indeed. How much is that influence worth? Is it worth the trust of Blair’s own Labour Party? ...

South Dakota is about to vote on a constitutional amendment permitting jury nullification. This means that juries could vote not guilty on the grounds that the relevant law was unfair or otherwise misguided. The supporters have a site (original), and the South Dakota State Bar has this (original) to say. The actual amendment would rewrite Article VI, Section 7 of the South Dakota Constitution as follows. The changes are marked in italics. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to defend in person and by counsel; to demand the nature and the cause of the accusation against him; to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses against him face to face; to have compulsory process served for obtaining witnesses in his behalf; and to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the county and district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed; and to argue the merits, validity, and applicability of the law, including the sentencing laws. ...

I haven’t picked on Andrew Sullivan for a while, have I? (And why do I do it? Because he keeps getting held up as an example of modern conservative thought, that’s why.) Let’s start with this condemnation of Dianne Feinstein (scroll down a bit). I can swing to that rhythm. Feinstein is one of my least favorite Senators. So, she said something dumb… which Andrew inflates into a commentary on all Democrats everywhere. Sure, OK. Dianne’s a prominent Democrat. ...

Hm. You know, I guess it is illegal to visit the moon without permission. From the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (original): Article 14 1. States Parties to this Agreement shall bear international responsibility for national activities on the moon, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non- governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in this Agreement. States Parties shall ensure that non-governmental entities under their jurisdiction shall engage in activities on the moon only under the authority and continuing supervision of the appropriate State Party. ...

49% of Americans think the First Amendment goes too far. (original) No, there’s not really anything I can add to that.

Jeff Cooper is an actual law professor, and so much more qualified than I to discuss the legalities (original) of declaring war on Iraq sans Congressional approval. He read the Security Council resolutions I referenced earlier and reports that their goals have been achieved. So there you go. Parenthetically, and I mention this because it’s been brought up from time to time, Clinton also used (original) the 1991 Security Council resolutions as justification for military action against Iraq. So it’s not as if Bush doesn’t have some precedent. Clinton’s stance was that enforcing the no-fly zones was a means of preventing further Iraqi aggression against neighboring states, which was in fact mandated by the UN. Although the UN didn’t approve the no-fly zones. Muddy waters.

Target demonstrated a remarkably clueless attitude recently by selling various white-supremacy branded clothing (original). Fortunately, they’ve since pulled the clothing from shelves (original). Good for them. I’d like to know who designed the stuff; apparently it was Target’s house brand.

I don’t really have any objection to Bush announcing that his lawyers believe he has the authority to attack Iraq without a Congressional vote. I don’t know about the de jure, but I’d bet he has authority de facto. The legal argument rests primarily on this Congressional resolution, passed last year, which authorizes the use of armed forces against those responsible for 9/11. They’re also citing H.J. Res. 77, a Congressional resolution passed in January 1991 which authorized the invasion of Iraq. ...