Army plans no Iraq troop cuts before 2010

Just in case.

Not a good sign, but also just standard operating procedure: it's the military's job to be prepared for any contingency, and as Schoomaker says it's easier to cancel a planned deployment than to quickly dispatch extra troops.

That should, however, put the kabosh on any happy talk of looming troop withdrawals. It should also refocus attention on the strain the military is under to maintain the current troop levels -- including efforts by the Pentagon to cut the Army's budget. Responding to howls from the Army, Rumsfeld has essentially abdicated responsibility -- giving the Army permission to plead their case directly to the White House, but not weighing in himself. He granted similar permission to the Air Force and Navy, thus absenting himself from one of his main jobs.

What a way to run a war.

Iraq, Pentagon, budget, military, politics, midtopia

Republicans spin conspiracy theories

Remember how much conservatives and Republicans jeered when Hillary Clinton said she and Bill were victims of a "vast right-wing conspiracy"?

Well, now the shoe's on the other foot.

Leading Republicans, with the support of conservative media outlets, are charging that the Mark Foley scandal was a plot orchestrated by Democrats to damage the G.O.P.'s electoral prospects this November. According to the Washington Post, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert appeared on Rush Limbaugh's radio show and "agreed when the host said the Foley story was driven by Democrats 'in some sort of cooperation with some in the media' to suppress turnout of conservative voters" before the midterm elections.

Conservative talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt has said that Hastert had become the "target right now of the left-wing media machine," and House Majority Leader John Boehner has charged that the release of the Foley documents so close to the elections "is concerning, at a minimum."

The rest of the article is one journalist's explanation of how the Foley e-mails came to light, which shoots down many of the theories outlined above.

But the theories were junk to begin with. Was it plausible that the Democrats might pull something like this? Sure. Was there any evidence that they had? No. And the "suspicious timing" argument was silly, too. The e-mails and IMs are three years old; why wouldn't the Dems have released them in 2004 instead of waiting for the 2006 by-election? And if they were going to wait, why release them five weeks before the election? Why not two weeks, or one?

It was all just speculation -- pure, partisan speculation masquerading as fact. And a sad spectacle, too, because let's just say that it turned out to be true -- that Democrats released the e-mails. So what? Does that change their substance? Does that let GOP leaders off the hook?

The only way this could tar the Democrats is if they had the far-more-lurid IMs and sat on them, waiting for a moment of maximum political advantage. But again, there's no evidence that this happened.

What we do have, however, is clear evidence of right-wing hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to crying "conspiracy", and intellectual dishonesty when it comes to separating fact from fantasy.

Foley, politics, midtopia

North Korea may have miscalculated

Looks like everyone is mad at North Korea -- including, significantly, China:

North Korea must face "some punitive actions" for testing a nuclear device, China's U.N. ambassador said Monday, suggesting that Beijing may be willing to impose some form of Security Council sanctions against Pyongyang.

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters that the council must give a "firm, constructive, appropriate but prudent response" to North Korea.

Okay, there are a lot of weasel words in there. But it does show that there limits to what China is willing to put up with from its oddball neighbor.

Meanwhile, a former military intelligence analyst weighs in with some additional options for dealing with North Korea. The include a naval quarantine, restrictions on air travel, aiding defectors, selling anti-missile technology to South Korea, Japan and Taiwan and cracking down on North Korea's criminal financing network.

Several of those would probably be considered acts of war by North Korea, and several would probably upset China, most notably selling advanced weaponry to Taiwan. But they do represent options short of war that could be used to pressure the regime.

nuclear, China, North Korea, politics, midtopia

What can we do about NK?

Okay, so I'm not sure why we're suddenly all atwitter about North Korea demonstrating it has nukes, since we've credited them with nukes for years.

And there's a possibility they don't actually have them.

But assuming they do, it would be churlish not to try to lay out some ideas for a solution.

The blogosphere is abuzz with the usual solutions -- bomb them, nuke them, invade them, bribe them, send them flowers, blame Clinton -- but let's disregard those. This is reality, not a video game. And reality, in this case, is messy.

Is there the will and capability to attack NK? Limited amounts of both, as long as China is willing to shelter its lunatic neighbor. But even if that weren't a problem, we'd have to choose a method:

Assassination? Beyond the moral and practical implications -- do we really want to send the message that trying to kill heads of state is okay? -- killing a paranoid recluse is technically very difficult, especially if you're not willing to kill massive numbers of innocent civilians in the process.

Bombing? Destroying underground nuclear facilities -- assuming we actually know where they are -- is also difficult. And North Korea's geography would lessen the impact of a bombing campaign.

Invading? Interestingly, the UN resolution that authorized the Korean War remains in force -- NK and SK are still technically observing an armistice (text here). But North Korea is home to some of the most rugged and most heavily militarized terrain on earth. It would take a serious application of force, and would be potentially very costly. Further, an invasion could trigger a nuclear explosion -- if Kim Jong-Il were crazy and desperate enough. More importantly, though, invading NK would almost inevitably lead to a confrontation with China. No sane person on either side wants that.

Sanctions? Sure. Except that NK is already one of the most isolated nations on earth. It will be difficult to harm them more than we are harming them now.

So what can we do?

If it came down to it, I would support targeted strikes to reduce NK's nuclear capability -- hitting the reactors, testing facilities, factories and mines that support their nuclear complex. We wouldn't get it all, but we could set them back a good ways, as well as sending a message to other would be nuclear powers.

But given the risks involved, that would be in extremis. Military force really needs to be a last, desperate alternative.

Our best and, really, only hope is to press China to do something about its client. China may feel an obligation to NK, and they may find NK useful as a buffer and a thorn in the side of the West -- a distraction from China's growing economic and military power. But China will never put NK's interest ahead of its own. And unlike Iran, NK doesn't have economic significance for China. Make the price attractive enough, and China will do what it considers necessary regarding NK -- either reining them in or deposing the Great Leader.

But China does not respond well to direct pressure. They will do things because they want to, not because we want them to. Any attempt to strongarm them will fail, as will any attempt to get them to act against their own best interests.

Luckily, there appears to be a relatively simple way to make China's interests coincide with our own.

With North Korea increasing its saber-rattling to nuclear proportions, it's only natural that South Korea and Japan would feel the urge to improve their defensive capabilities. And, since they're our allies, it's only natural that we would want to help them. Further, a more self-reliant SK and Japan would help reduce the military burden we bear in defending them. It's about time both countries assumed more responsibility for their own defense, and North Korea provides a convenient pretext for doing so.

But the last thing China wants is a spiraling arms race in the region. And it especially does not want a remilitarized Japan -- the memories of World War II are still too fresh and formative for that. It wants to become a regional hegemon, and it can't do that if two of its closest neighbors join Taiwan in becoming armed to the teeth, their weapons all pointed in China's general direction.

So without threatening China directly, we should start a program to help SK and Japan increase their military capabilities to deal with North Korean threats. Faced with the prospect of an arms race , I think China would instead choose to rein in NK or even depose Kim Jong-Il.

It would cost a fair chunk of cash -- but not anywhere near as much as another Iraq. And there's no guarantee it would work. But if it doesn't, then at least we have given SK and Japan the means to defend themselves, which is our fallback position anyway. And it carries much less risk, and a much higher likelihood of success, than the alternatives.

nuclear, North Korea, politics, midtopia

Iraq alternatives.... after the election

I've written before about the Iraq Study Group, a commission headed by James Baker that is looking at alternative strategies regarding Iraq.

But now it seems that one of the goals listed in the earlier post -- preventing a GOP train wreck in November -- won't be achieved.

Why? Because it won't issue its report until after the November elections.

There are a lot of ways to interpret that, but none of them particularly favor Bush. By the simple fact that it exists, a Republican-led commission of experts who think the current course is misguided undermines the administration position. The fact that they won't release the report until after the elections also suggests that what they're coming up with wouldn't prove helpful at the polls. For certain, sparking an internal GOP debate over Iraq right before the elections might hurt more than it helped, no matter how good his recommendations are.

Baker is spinning the change as best he can, of course, saying he wants to "take this thing out of politics". Maybe he really is, or maybe he's doing it at the behest of Democratic commission members. But I doubt it.

And it's telling that the administration is so insulated from new thinking that an outside commission is needed to come up with new ideas. By setting up the ISG, Bush has essentially outsourced the policy-making work of two Cabinet posts -- Defense and State -- as well as the National Security Advisor. Arguably he's also abdicated much of his own responsibility to lead in this matter. After all, blue-ribbon commissions are where difficult political questions are usually sent to die. And while the commission has pursued its work over the months, U.S. policy has remained relatively unchanged. Either Bush really believes the current course is the right one -- in which case the commission is irrelevant -- or he's waiting for someone to tell him what to do. Neither choice inspires much confidence.

Baker, Iraq, politics, midtopia

So North Korea has the bomb....

.... Or does it?

They're claiming they do, we've long assumed they do, and yesterday's supposed test would seem to support that.

But the estimated yield is small enough (as little as half a kiloton, maybe as big as a kiloton), that two alternate possibilities suggest themselves:

1. It's a fake. I suggested this last week, when NK first started saying it would test a nuke. Could NK simply have blown off a thousand tons of TNT? It was an underground explosion, after all, so the amount of direct evidence will be limited. There might not even be any release of radioactive particles, which would be the best evidence that the bomb was, in fact, a nuke -- although even that might be spoofable.

And there is precedent for it, although the earlier case involved an open-air explosion easily proven to be nonnuclear. (h/t: Adventures of Chester)

2. It was a dud. Note the comments thread, too, where other people raise the "pile of TNT" theory.

Here's a guy who discusses why the test could have been a success even at 1 kiloton.

So it appears that we don't yet know enough about what actually happened to decide what to do. I bet NK is gathering all sorts of useful data on the world's reaction, though.

nuclear, North Korea, politics, midtopia

Ah, campaign season....

.... that time to reflect on how low human beings can go.

From 10 Zen Monkeys:

1. “My opponent parties with lingerie-clad Playboy bunnies! And then goes to church!” That's the National Republican Senatorial Committee, going after Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford.

2. “It was unbelievably demoralizing to be painted as a pampered slut!” The NRSC again, this time targeting Jim Webb in Virginia.

3. "(everything she says) depends on your area code.... she just tells you what you want to hear." NRSC ad against Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

ZM lists two others, but for my money they don't compare with these:

Brad Miller even spent your tax dollars to pay teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia.” An ad by Republican challenger Vernon Robinson in North Carolina.

For simple loopiness, there's this one, also by Robinson.

And then there'sthis one from Nebraska, which takes aim at Sen. Ben Nelson.

I cannot wait until Nov. 7, simply to make it stop.

politics, midtopia

Hastert to take responsibility for Foley scandal

As the House Ethics Committee meets behind closed doors to discuss the Foley scandal, House Speaker Dennis Hastert is planning to take responsibility for the mess -- though not resign.

At a news conference in his home district in Illinois, Hastert will also ask the Ethics Committee to consider new rules so that anyone making inappropriate contact with pages be disciplined. In the case of staff, they would be fired; lawmakers would be subject to expulsion, the official said.

Hastert also was ready to appoint an outside expert to investigate the scandal and recommend changes to the page program, virtually as old as Congress itself.

Hastert's right about one thing: outside demands for resignation are premature. If it turns out he knew about more than the relatively tame e-mails (rather than the lurid IMs), he should go. But we don't know that yet. So sharp questioning should continue, but it's too early to kick him out of his leadership position.

On the other hand, GOP legislators may toss him out simply for letting this scandal pop up five weeks before a crucial election. A sacrificial lamb may be needed, and he might be it.

Regarding what Hastert knew when, a former GOP aide says he warned Hastert three years ago about Foley (though it's not clear that such a warning included details of the explicit IMs that are really driving this controversy). In any case, Hastert's office flatly denies the claim.

Addressing where the leaks came from, the e-mails appear to have been midwifed by a gay activist named Michael Rogers, who claims to have helped provide the e-mails to ABC, and gave Democrats a heads-up that something was coming.

The original leak, however, may have been a longtime GOP aide. This article from The Hill relies on anonymous sources, but I'd wager that the "source" is in fact Rogers, and at least The Hill goes into detail about the supporting documentation. The article also notes that the IMs surfaced in response to the leak of the e-mails, suggesting that perhaps nobody was sitting on anything.

So efforts to link the scandal to Democrats are so far not bearing much fruit. They jumped on the bandwagon, of course (with Minnesota candidate Patty Wetterling even going so far as to rush out a misleading ad about it), but what we appear to have is the Dems getting nothing more than a heads up from Rogers a few days before Foleygate broke -- a heads up regarding the e-mails, not the IMs. And the DCCC didn't even return Rogers' call until just before the scandal broke.

For now, we have a lot of questions. But not enough yet to firmly tar either the GOP leadership or allegedly conniving Democrats.

Update: It's not Foley related, but in the vein of Republican sex scandals, we have the odd spectacle of Rep. Don Sherwood running a TV ad in which he apologizes for having an affair but denies trying to strangle his mistress. I'm sure that'll win a lot of votes.

Hastert, Rogers, Foley, politics, midtopia

Crying "discrimination" too many times

This NAACP chapter has its collective head in an untenable spot.

SPRING VALLEY, N.Y. — The village chapter of the NAACP has filed a complaint accusing the Ben Gilman Medical and Dental Clinic of religious discrimination for closing on Saturdays.

The complaint, filed Sept. 6 with the state's Division of Human Rights, alleges that the clinic's practice of remaining closed Saturdays in observance of operators' Jewish Sabbath, unlawfully imposes their religious beliefs on others.

Complainants say the practice is an unlawful violation of people's civil rights, particularly since the clinic's operator, Monsey-based Community Medical and Dental Care Inc., has received millions of dollars in federal funding.

In addition to the Gilman clinic, Community Medical and Dental Care operates Monsey Medical and Dental Center.

If you read to the bottom of the link, you'll see that this appears to be an outgrowth of an ongoing battle between the clinic and the NAACP. But let's ignore that and focus on the case at hand.

The NAACP has this exactly backward. Religious discrimination would be forcing a Jewish-run clinic to close on Sunday because all the Christian-run clinics are closed that day. Someone deciding to shut their business to observe their personal holy day is an example of religious freedom, not discrimination.

The federal funding makes the argument a little more interesting, but not compellingly so. For one thing, does the NAACP think their constituents would be better off if the clinic simply shut down rather than accept federal funding with such strings attached? And I'll bet federal funds are used by plenty of Christian-run clinics that aren't open on Sunday.

Each clinic has the right to limit its business by limiting the hours it is open. In response, another clinic is free to set up shop to cater to those who wish to have Saturday hours.

There is a legitimate practical concern here in the context of public health: if these clinics constitute the only practical health-care option for the region, then being closed on Saturday represents a gap in coverage. But I doubt this is the case. Spring Valley isn't in the middle of nowhere; there are undoubtedly hospitals and other care providers within a reasonable distance. And even if it were the case, trying to legally compel a business owner to violate their religious beliefs is not the way to go.

health care, discrimination, civil liberties, NAACP, religious freedom, politics, midtopia

Free speech and national security

I've written before about the book "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime". It's a fascinating and comprehensive history of the development of free-speech law, with a sweeping historical view of how free-speech has been treated in times of crisis. It outlines some of the limitations of free speech as well as documented government abuse of security powers.

The author, Geoffrey Stone, was on Minnesota Public Radio yesterday for a discussion of the issue; you can find the audio at the above link. He was in town to give a talk at the University of Minnesota.

If you're interested in a historical perspective on the current free-speech/security debate, it's well worth a listen.

civil liberties, free speech, Geoffrey Stone, politics, midtopia

Blogging lawsuit

A Minnesota-based blogger is suing another blogger in a case that could have larger implications for bloggers as a whole.

It all started with a phone call to Aaron Clarey, informing him that he'd been branded a racist.

Clarey, a Minneapolis economist, blogger and radio host, traced the accusation to a physics laboratory in California. There, a graduate student named Sanjay Krishnaswamy had created a blog on which he posed as Clarey -- photograph and all -- and posted comments about "miserable brown wetbacks" and why "blacks are more likely to commit crimes than whites."

Krishnaswamy's lawyer says the fake blog was clearly a parody, an over-the-top production meant to draw attention to the real Clarey's "outrageous" viewpoints.

But when word of the phony blog reached Clarey's employers in Minnesota, he says he found himself facing the potential loss of his community-education gigs teaching finance courses and salsa dance classes, not to mention his reputation.

That's why Clarey, a libertarian who blogs under the name "Captain Capitalism," is suing Krishnaswamy.

I can't find a link to the fake blog -- perhaps it's been taken down due to the lawsuit -- but Clarey's blog is here.

As a brief aside, since we're on the subject of lawsuits, is Clarey infringing on a copyright with his alter ego?

Back on topic: It's sleazy to create a blog posing as someone else unless the intent is clearly parody. The question, then, is what is meant by "clearly." Since I can't find the fake blog, the strength of its "parody" argument is impossible to judge.

Anonymity isn't really the problem here. People who post under pseudonyms -- like me -- may be shielded from real life personal consequences of what we write, but our words are still our own, and our credibility rises and falls based on those words. And if it came down to criminal activity, I'm sure that Blogger would roll over for a subpoena demanding my true identity, which I imagine could be tracked down through IP numbers.

So the problem is impersonation. And not just any impersonation, but impersonation with the intent to harm the reputation of the target by posting lies about him.

But there are other considerations. Is Clarey a public figure? Most likely, thanks to his prominence as an economist and radio host. But let's look past him. Is blogging alone enough to make someone a public figure?

The question is important, because public figures have a much harder time winning suits like this one. I can call President Bush a Nazi without fear; I could conceivably be sued if I wrote that my neighbor is a Nazi. I could create a fake blog purportedly written by Bush without fear; can I do the same with Aaron Clarey? Or some random blogger I happen to dislike?

Which is why this case bears watching. It could define the legal status of bloggers, as well as the limits of parody in the blog world.

Captain Capitalism, Aaron Clarey, parody, blogging, politics, midtopia

You wouldn't hit a guy surrounded by kids, would you?

This made me laugh.

In the fine tradition of George W. Bush standing under the "Mission Accomplished" sign, or any one of the Katrina backdrops (where no expense was spared to bring power to an area for a photo op, and then just as quickly cut off), we now have the head of the NRCC, Tom Reynolds, using small prop children as set decoration in a press conference devoted to the topic of…yes, predatory online sexual solicitation of minors.

Ironically (but predictably), the kids became something of a problem:

Reporter: Congressman, do you mind asking the children to leave the room so we can have a frank discussion of this, because it's an adult topic. It just doesn't seem appropriate to me.

Reynolds: I'll take your questions, but I'm not going to ask any of my supporters to leave.

Why yes, let's discuss a Congressman having sex with teenage boys in the presence of 30 small children. I wonder what sort of family values that'll teach....

Idiot.

scandal, Foley, Reynolds, politics, midtopia

Bring it on, NK!

And I don't mean that in a bellicose way.

North Korea is claiming it will test a nuke. Sometime.

North Korea triggered global alarm on Tuesday by saying it will conduct a nuclear test, a key step in the manufacture of atomic bombs that it views as a deterrent against any U.S. attack. But the North also said it was committed to nuclear disarmament, suggesting a willingness to negotiate.

I'm not sure why this should alarm anyone, considering we've assumed they have nukes for years. We should welcome it as a sort of "put up or shut up" test. If they do it, it confirms they have nukes. Sure it will give them data that will be helpful in building better bombs, but all in all I'd prefer to know exactly what we're dealing with -- although I wouldn't put it past them to simply fill a hole in the ground with 13,000 tons of TNT and detonate it to simulate a small nuclear blast.

And think how satisfying the diplomatic exchange would be:

NK: "We're going to test a nuke!!"

U.S. NEGOTIATOR: "Okay. Say, did you happen to see the lunch menu? I'm really hoping they have some of those little cucumber sandwiches. I love those."

Such a collective yawn might get them to cease such attention-getting tantrums. Probably not -- it doesn't work that well on my 3-year-old, either -- but it's better than rewarding the behavior. Ignore it and concentrate on adult negotiations.

nuclear, North Korea, politics, midtopia

3-1, baby!

A crucial game this week. Division rivalry, yes. But also my brother. And he's a Packers fan to boot. I didn't want to win; I had to win.

He had Larry Johnson and the Falcons defense, which helped hammer me in the early going. Heading into the Monday night game, I was up by six points -- but I had only one player left, and he had three.

Luckily, my one player was Donovan McNabb. He faced down Brett Favre, Greg Jennings and David Akers and let me pull out the victory.

fantasy football, midtopia

Republican corruption, continued

In a follow up of sorts to yesterday's post, Republican Rep. Mark Foley, R.-Fla., resigned abruptly today after questions were raised about e-mails he sent to a former page.

The resignation leaves no Republican on the ballot just six weeks before the election, meaning a seat that was considered safe for the GOP may now end up Democratic by default.

Tempting as that might be for Democrats, in the interest of giving voters a choice the Republicans should be allowed to choose and field a candidate.

corruption, Foley, politics, midtopia

This is freedom?

The Iraqis are free to pass any laws they want, of course. But is this what we envisioned when we invaded?

Under a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein’s penal code, roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged with offending public officials in the past year.

Currently, three journalists for a small newspaper in southeastern Iraq are being tried here for articles last year that accused a provincial governor, local judges and police officials of corruption. The journalists are accused of violating Paragraph 226 of the penal code, which makes anyone who “publicly insults” the government or public officials subject to up to seven years in prison.

Okay, let's cut the Iraqi government some slack for being weak and under siege. But besides being ineffective, it's also corrupt, riddled with militias and death squads and increasingly autocratic.

Not a good omen for the future of the country.

civil liberties, terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia

U.S. becoming a rogue state?

I've got my own takes on the detainee bill and the warrantless wiretapping bill. But Matthew Yglesias at the American Prospect asks an interesting question: Has the U.S. become a rogue state?

A sample:

Other countries, of course, practice torture in violation of international law. As has now been clear for a while, we have been in their company for some years. The latest twist, however, is that we now won't show any shame about it. Rather than simply violating the laws to which we have agreed to adhere, we're repudiating them, simply denying that the standard by which civilized nations operate apply to us....

Consequently, the United States now presents itself as what amounts to the globe's largest and most powerful rogue state — a nuclear-armed superpower capable of projecting military force to the furthest corners of the earth, acting utterly without legal or moral constraint whenever the president proclaims it necessary. The idea that striking such a posture on the world stage will serve our long-term interests is daft. American power has, for decades, rested crucially on the sense that the United States can be trusted and relied upon, on the belief that we use our power primarily to defend the community of liberal states and the liberal rules by which they conduct themselves rather than to undermine them.

Agree or not, it's a thought-provoking read.

civil liberties, torture, terrorism, politics, midtopia

Republican corruption

I don't think Democrats are inherently more virtuous than Republicans. But it's clear the Republicans shouldn't be trying to claim the moral values high ground anytime soon.

First, a just-released House report documents 485 contacts between the lobbying firm of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the White House, including 82 meetings in the office of Karl Rove -- with Rove himself present at 10 of those.

All in all, that would seem to belie White House claims that they did not have a close relationship with Abramoff.

Meanwhile, an internal HUD investigation found that Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson told his aides to steer contracts to Bush supporters, and avoid awarding them to Democratic donors.

And let's not forget Bob Ney and the near-criminal incompetence and cronyism that went into awarding contracts in Iraq.

Quite a record, really, when you put it all together. But it doesn't appear to be one that Republicans want to run on.

Update:Another Republican Congressman, Mark Foley, has abruptly resigned.

Alphonso Jackson, Iraq, corruption, politics, midtopia

Rights? What rights?

In one of its final moves before recessing tomorrow, the House passed a bill essentially legalizing President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

The vote was 232-191. The text of the bill is here.

It's little more than a rewrite of the FISA law to make the NSA program explicitly legal.

Under the measure, the president would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he:

• Notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders.

• Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.

• Renews his certification every 90 days.

The Senate could vote on a similar bill tomorrow.

The good news is that this bill at least requires Bush to say an attack is imminent.

The even better news is that it's unlikely the House and Senate could work out their differences before the elections, probably rendering the bills moot for the time being.

But there's still no excuse for not requiring a warrant within a few days. It's just not that hard a rule to follow.

Republicans accused Democrats of coddling terrorists, which just shows what a brain-dead bunch they are. The Democrats have the balance right on this one:

Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.

Exactly.

NSA, civil liberties, terrorism, politics, midtopia

Congress approves detainee bill

It took 10 hours of debate, but the Senate finally joined the House in passing the detainee-treatment bill, by a vote of 65-34. Olympia Snowe didn't vote.

Yesterday's House vote was 253-168.

Here's the text of the Senate version, while this is the text of the House version.

The bill is a compromise of sorts, rather than a simple rubber-stamping of Bush's plans, but Congress gave the most ground. It still has plenty of odious provisions, notably the denial of habeus corpus rights to detainees -- a provision that could cause serious trouble down the road.

Senator Carl M. Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, argued that the habeas corpus provision “is as legally abusive of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and secret prisons were physically abusive of detainees.”

And even some Republicans who voted for the bill said they expected the Supreme Court to strike down the legislation because of the habeas corpus provision, ultimately sending the legislation right back to Congress.

“We should have done it right, because we’re going to have to do it again,” said Senator Gordon Smith, a Republican from Oregon, who had voted to strike the habeas corpus provision, yet supported the bill.

Another problematic piece is that while the Senate version pretty carefully defines everything in the bill as only applying to noncitizens, the House version makes no such distinction when defining unlawful combatants. Thus the House version appears to legalize an "enemy combatant" designation for citizens, with criteria to be defined by the administration. If the government designates you an enemy combatant, you have no more legal rights than an alien sent before the military tribunals.

That sound you hear is the Constitution being smudged in some of its more inconvenient places.

The bill dispenses entirely with the need for a search warrant, and allows hearsay evidence. The latter is indefensible, and the former, while making sense under limited circumstances (seizure during combat, for instance), is unnecessarily broad and sweeping.

It bars evidence obtained from "cruel and inhumane treatment", although rather hypocritically it allows such evidence if it was obtained in 2005 or earlier, at the discretion of the tribunal judge.

It has what sounds like a reasonable method for dealing with classified evidence, including providing an unclassified summary of such evidence, or simply admitting facts that would tend to be proved by such evidence. We'll see how that plays out in reality, but at least it addresses the problem.

The only real limit on detainee treatment in the bill is a section defining "grave breaches" of the Geneva Convention, including rape, torture and murder. But the definition of torture and other mistreatment is vague, referring only to "serious" physical or mental pain or suffering. That's better than the administration's preferred wording -- "severe" -- but we'll see how it plays out in practice. Given the administration's history, they will probably define "serious" using the same definition they would have given "severe."

On the plus side, the bill requires the administration to publish its interpretations of such things, so we'll be able to see where they land. And it gives Congress and the judiciary the right to review those interpretations, a clear limiting of Bush's claims of "inherent authority."

And since detainees don't have access to the regular courts, it's unclear how they would seek redress for any violation.

The bill isn't a total disaster. Most of it deals with the structure and conduct of the tribunals, and they're largely based on the UCMJ. And we can hope the "enemy combatant" detail dies in the process of reconciling the House and Senate versions. If that happens, we'll be left with no habeus corpus, no search warrants and hearsay evidence. Plus a "wait and see" on the torture provisions.

That's bad enough, but it could have been worse.

civil liberties, tribunals, detainees, terrorism, politics, midtopia