"So Called Quote Habeas Corpus Suits"

by publius

Marc Ambinder has been spending a lot of time lately defending John McCain. But this post on habeas was too much. Ambinder claims that “on the question of what should be done to the Gitmo detainees, the candidates' rhetorical differences are greater than their policy differences.” That’s wrong. Really really wrong.

First, and before I get to policy differences, the larger problem is that Ambinder is ignoring the fact that political rhetoric matters. McCain has adopted the worst sort of demagoguery on the habeas case. He claimed the decision was one of the worst in history. He also referred to writs of habeas corpus — one of the oldest civil liberty protections in Anglo-American law — as “so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits.”

In doing so, McCain is providing support for the political movement to deny the detainees all legal rights. It doesn’t matter what he privately thinks or what he said years ago. Today, when it matters, he’s siding with the “no rights” crowd — and his actions have consequences. (And for the record, the point of protecting those rights is not to release terrorists but — say it with me people — to determine if these people are terrorists in the first place).

But that aside, Ambinder’s also off on the policy. It’s frustrating to even have to say this, but McCain and Obama have major policy differences on the Gitmo detainees.

First, Ambinder claims the McCain’s gripe is procedural rather than constitutional. That distinction, however, doesn’t make much sense. He writes:

[McCain’s] concern now [] is procedural, rather than constitutional: the detainees' having access to habeas in our federal courts would create a tangled web of lawsuits, would expose intelligence secrets, and would needlessly draw out these legal proceedings.

Ugh, where to start. It’s true that there’s a difference between rights and remedies. It’s also true that habeas is a procedural remedy to vindicate a pre-existing right (e.g., due process). The problem, though, with Ambinder’s statement is that this particular procedural remedy (habeas) also happens to be a guaranteed constitutional right. Indeed, its purpose is to prevent precisely what Bush is doing. Thus, McCain’s problem with “procedure” is necessarily a constitutional problem. And the fact that constitutional rights are messy is, you know, the point. I mean, I guess the Fourth Amendment would be ok and all if didn’t make police do messy things like get warrants. It just really drags out the process needlessly.

Things get worse in the next part though:

McCain believes that it’s OK for foreign-national detainees to have habeas corpus rights, even if they are somewhat restricted[.]

No he doesn’t. I mean, he may say that. He may even think that. But he’s acted in a completely different way.

Rights don’t exist if you eliminate all procedures to vindicate those rights. Otherwise, the rights become only words on paper, rather than living breathing liberties that must necessarily be enforced.

In short, actions speak louder than words. And in the world of action, McCain has been a consistent opponent of habeas. In fact, he’s consistently voted to completely strip ALL habeas protections from the Gitmo detainees. For instance, he has (1) supported the DTA; (2) supported the MCA; and (3) filibustered a bill to restore the habeas rights eliminated by the prior two laws. Collectively, these votes completely eliminated habeas remedies and replaced them with kangaroo courts. Maybe Ambinder could take a stab at squaring these actions with McCain’s words and press releases.

To repeat, it’s impossible to support a right if you oppose all remedies to vindicate that right. A right without a remedy isn’t a right at all. And on that very note, Ambinder writes:

[T]he [Bush] administration favors indefinite detention and opposed the granting of any habeas corpus rights; McCain clearly took another approach.

“Clearly” different approach, eh? Again, it doesn’t matter what McCain says about indefinite detention or limited habeas. Actions are what matter. And McCain’s actions (and Bush’s and the GOP’s and several spineless Dems’) have led to indefinite detention and the complete elimination of habeas rights. Further, McCain’s Hannity-esque rant politically strengthens the more extreme anti-habeas positions and gives them credibility.

Finally, Ambinder argues the candidates simply differ on who will oversee the combatant review process. He writes:

For McCain, the military would oversee those hearings; for Obama, federal judges would.

That's extremely misleading. First, I don’t like the framing here — it’s essentially saying “military versus liberal meddling judges.” In any event, it’s also factually incorrect. The DTA and the MCA incorporate a federal court (the DC Circuit) into the review process. To be sure, the laws provide for only a narrow and excessively limited review of a kangeroo court process, but those meddlin’ federal courts are in fact involved.

But even assuming that no federal court is involved, there’s a larger problem with Ambinder’s characterization — it’s not as simple as “military” versus “federal judges”. A better way to describe the choice is (1) “an extremely limited review process run by the military with no habeas protections” versus (2) “an extremely limited review process run by the military with habeas protections to ensure there is actually evidence for the detention.”

It’s not like the federal courts are going to take over everything, as Ambinder implies. Further, once the government faces the prospect of habeas, it will (ironically enough) lessen the need for habeas litigation. That’s because the government will respond by actually producing evidence and, even better, making the initial trials and review processes less kangaroo-ish.

In any event, these are major differences about vitally important rights. It’s not just angry rhetoric masking a broad consensus about some trifling procedural point.

Comments

[Sopchoppy]

Thank you for writing this post, I generally like armbinder, but his post on this subject made dropped my jaw. Thanks for breaking in down.

[Nell]

For instance, he has (1) supported the DTA; (2) supported the MCA; and (3) filibustered a bill to restore the habeas rights eliminated by the prior two laws.

And voted to keep the habeas-stripping provisions of the MCA in the bill.

[Anarch]

Italiacto!

[Nell]

Desitalico!

I promise to preview from here on.

[Nell]

Thanks, Anarch. Faster and more powerful magic than my crappy dial-up mojo...

[CharleyCarp]

the detainees' having access to habeas in our federal courts would create a tangled web of lawsuits, would expose intelligence secrets, and would needlessly draw out these legal proceedings.

What legal procedings?

[EarBucket]

Thanks for this. Ambinder's been a mainstay of my blogroll, but his tone on McCain and Obama's been pretty grating. I don't know if it's because he's overcompensating for what he fears would be a liberal bias, or if he's mad at Obama for beating Clinton in the primary, but between this post and today's ridiculous poll (When did Obama stop beating his wife? A) Yesterday B) Last week C) Last year D) Not yet) it's just not worth slogging through the nonsense anymore. I won't be adding to his pageviews in the future.

[Mike]

One thing I've never been clear on is how the constitution's take is usually interpreted. It has some caveat about times of rebellion or invasion or something, and I was never sure if that's what Bush is relying on.

[evie]

Thank you very much for this post. Ambinder is treated with an almost reverence by liberal bloggers that I do not understand. ("Reverence" is too much, but to say he's given extraordinary space and repeated benefit of the doubt is not.)

This is one example of where I just shake my head and think, Is Down now Up? He bends over backwards to explain the "context" of McCain statements, yet rarely does the same for Obama. The MSM picks up his posts with increasing frequency -- I'm glad you're not just letting posts like this slide.

[J. Michael Neal]

Clearly, McCain is engaged in pre-1215 thinking.

[kovarsky]

mike,

the bush admin is not relying on "rebellion and invasion." the way it works is like this - congress cannot "suspend" the writ, except during rebellion and invasion.

the first questino, which the first part of kennedy's opinion deals with, is whether the habeas remedy "applies" at gitmo. the fight was basically between an interpretation that said the habeas remedy applies only where the U.S. exercises de jure sovereignty (i.e. in the states and puerto rico), or where the U.S. exercise de facto sovereigny (i.e. gitmo, where the U.S. has leased the land with full rights to do whatever they want with it forever). as far as the cases are concerned, and as kennedy concedes, this was actually a pretty close question in this term's case.

the second question the court asks is, "if the habeas remedy is constitutionally applicable, has congress suspended the writ." if yes, then you have to ask whether the suspension is constitutional because it is a rebellion or invasion. in this case (and consistent with precedent), the court said that congress has not suspended the writ - the court really requires a clear statement by congress along the lines of "we suspend the writ" to pursue this line of inquiry. and a suspension of the writ - clearly stated as such - would never get the votes in congress.

the third question - and where the fight between kennedy and roberts happens - is whether, if the writ applies and congress has not formally suspended it, the procedure congress has replaced the writ with must be an adequate substitute (remember, not every constriction of the writ's availability is a suspension). kennedy basically says "no, the subsitute procedures are not adequate." roberts says that kennedy should have let the d.c. circuit rule on the question of adequacy first (they had not done so because they found that habeas did not apply at gitmo). as an editorial note, roberts opinion really misrepresents the procedural protections in the substitute procedures. that made a lot of people (including me) really mad, which probably obscured the greater strength of his argument that the supreme court should not have decided adequacy before the dc circuit at all. i think i saw katherine detonating about this in a post earlier this week (basically, she was arguing that the dc circuit had, in fact, decided the adequacy of the substitute procedures), but i don't think that's the "mainstream" take, nor do i agree with that account of what the appellate court did personally.

[kovarsky]

o, yeah, and on the topic of the post, with respect to habeas, mccain is obviously now part of the grand order of the douche, along with rumsfeld, cheney, bush, and yoo.

[Brick Oven Bill]

What nobody wants to admit is that Al Qaeda’s actions are religiously sanctioned in very open terms. From what I can tell, ‘Moderate Muslims’ are supposed to be those people who are expected to read only those portions of the Qur’an that say ‘be nice to Believers’ and to totally ignore the ‘kill, subjugate, or convert non-Believers’ parts of their religion. If there are really ‘Moderate Muslims’, they don’t seem to want to admit it, which is understandable, because they could be marked for death.

Because Al Qaeda’s actions are religiously sanctioned, and because Mohammadans are still allowed in the jury pool, our civil justice system is incompatible with the threat. Jihadis are simply acting to spread their faith, as is mandated by Allah. They are guilty of nothing in the eyes of Believers. A Believer would find Osama bin Laden not-guilty.

The Supreme Court’s decision was wrong and threatens the rule of law in the United States of America for all of us. The best way to preserve our rule of law is to declare Islam to be a corrupt organization under the RICO Statutes. It would make the whole Habeas Corpus issue cut and dry.

[kovarsky]

civil RICO claims certainly will scare the bejesus out al qaeda.

[dr ngo]

DNFTT.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Shorter BOB:

I am aware of all Islamic traditions.

[Mike]

Kovarsky,

Thanks!

[Lurker]

Brick Oven Bill,

Do you honestly believe that
a) a Muslim believing in armed jihad could actually make it through the jury vetting in a terrorism trial?
b) that this hypothetical single Muslim could turn the heads of the rest of the jury? (It is utterly improbable that two Muslims would be selected by lot to the same jury.)
If your answer to these two questions is yes, I think you have missed the point in 12 angry men. In that movie, the protagonist was arguing for justice, turning the other jurors on his side. In your vision, a Muslim juror would be arguing for the righteousness of jihad, converting 11 other Americans into radical Muslims. Such would be possible only with magical mind-control.

So, you seem to believe that either
a) Muslims have an ability to control the minds of other people or
b) the righteousness of radical is so clear that any person will see it after a few hours of discussion.
In both cases, you are attributing radical Islam with divine justification. My God, the God of Abraham and Jacob, the One, Holy and Triune, does not support terrorism. Yours seems to.

[Tony P.]

Habeas corpus is not just about the rights of prisoners held by the government. It is also about the rights of us, the citizens in whose behalf the government acts.

If my nation's executive branch decides to lock somebody up, I am entitled to know the reason why. Being busy and all, I am willing to delegate the inquiry to the judicial branch. And I am NOT willing to let the legislative branch take away the courts' power to conduct the inquiry because that limits MY right to supervise the hired hand (and a temp, at that) in charge of the administration.

It's time to call opponents of habeas corpus what they are: servile cowards. Servile, because they have forgotten that in the US sovereignty lies in the citizenry, not the presidency. Cowards, because they are scared enough of "the terrorists" to cede their sovereignty to officials who purport to protect them.

I don't know what fraction of Americans consists of servile cowards. For all I know, it's more than 28%. But I bet that many of those 28% will stop being servile the day Obama gets sworn in. I doubt they will stop being cowards, but they will suddenly see wisdom in the SCOTUS decision. For the court did not restrict the power of "this president", it restricted the power of THE president.

-- TP

[Jesurgislac]

Nombrilisme Vide: Shorter BOB: I am aware of all Islamic traditions.

PWNED.

(First time I've seen this meme out of its original context...)

[Brick Oven Bill]

Lurker;

Thank you for that military conscription information a while back. I read it all and it seems like your Country is a lot more grown up than mine at this point in history. Maybe a draft would be good for the US.

Islam’s goal is not armed Jihad. Islam’s goal is to spread the belief system. Armed Jihad, and more importantly the threat of violence, is one tactic in the larger struggle to spread the belief system.

Violence at this point of Islam’s conflict with the West would be stupid on their part. Far better to grow the numbers and use the money weapon to buy influence in academia and politics. But, correct me if I’m wrong (which I may be) but I’m under the impression that one Believer on a jury would have the power to hang that jury.

The death threats to the jurors, their family members, and the judges, that would inevitably either come or be felt:

5:33-5:33-5:33-5:33-5:33-5:33-5:33-5:33-5:33-5:33

are a clear form of jury tampering (RICO predicate) and one more reason why the recent Supreme Court decision was flawed.

[rea]

BOB raises an interesting question--could a Palestinian get justice from a jury of Bible-believing Christians?

Numbers 31:17-18 requires (after all adulot males have been killed, and everyone else enslaved):

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

But some people are more interested in pointing out the mote in Muslim eyes, rather than in addressing the beam in their own . . .

[Nombrilisme Vide]

BOB, since you are not *aware* of my meme-fu, I shall have to (gaak) address you directly. First, your second post. I believe it is best addressed as follows:

5:32-5:32-5:32-5:32-5:32-5:32-5:32-5:32-5:32-5:32

And don't even TRY to portray evading temporal punishment as sufficient cause to absolve them of the guilt assigned therein. Also, to address 5:33 directly, we've been over this.

What nobody wants to admit is that Al Qaeda’s actions are religiously sanctioned in very open terms. [...] If there are really ‘Moderate Muslims’, they don’t seem to want to admit it, which is understandable, because they could be marked for death.

Not according to mainstream imams who've roundly denounce terrorism as being un-Islamic. In fact, they denounced it by reference to... hmm... let me think... why, yes, surrah 5:32!

To the degree that the creed of al-Queada is painted as theologically correct, it's painted as such by the more radical of the Wahhabists, who are an subsect of the non-orthodox Salafi movement.

But all of this is a pointlessly drawn out explanation, regardless of it being excessively short. Everything that really needed said I said in my 2:43 comment.

[Phil]

Guys, DNFTMFT. It is not educatable.

This "editorial cartoon" by right-wing nutbag Glenn McCoy pretty much sums up the right's entire reaction to this. It amazes me that these people breathe the same air I do, because there's clearly something crazy-making in theirs.

[Brick Oven Bill]

Rea;

Your comment does not make sense. Number 31:17 refers to one battle that happened a few millennia ago. It has no bearing on the modern world. Nowhere does the Bible infer that Christians or Jews should do to non-Believers what Moses did to the Midianites. The reality of the Biblical texts is quite the opposite. Hitler considered Christianity to be ‘flabby’ and wished Islam upon Germany. It is ironic that Type 3 Democrats coddle Islam.

Your reference has no relevance to Islam’s directive to kill, convert, or subjugate all non-Believers. Christianity does not mandate this. Christianity leaves to Caesar what is Caesar’s. 5:33 is one of hundreds of reasons why Islam should be classified as a corrupt organization under the RICO Statutes and why the Supreme Court’s decision was wrong.

[Brick Oven Bill]

Nombrilisme Vide;

The reason that ‘mainstream’ Imam’s do not support armed Jihad is because they are smart enough to recognize that it is counterproductive to their cause at this point in world history.

You seem to infer that Wahhabists are ‘bad’ Muslims. You probably consider the Iranian Mullahs to be ‘bad’ Muslims. Hezbollah is probably ‘bad’. As is Al Qaeda. And probably Hamas. And those Pashtuns hanging out in the mountains. Or the MILFs in the Philippines.

Newsflash. Their behavior is religiously sanctioned and has something in common.

I’m all for any Islamic group who would be willing to step forward and edit the violent supremacist parts of the Qur’an for use in the United States. There were multiple death threats in previous Jihadi trials based on these texts.

All we hear is crickets. Gotta go.

[J.B.]

Thank you very much for this post. Ambinder is treated with an almost reverence by liberal bloggers that I do not understand. ("Reverence" is too much, but to say he's given extraordinary space and repeated benefit of the doubt is not.)

At this point I have to conclude Ambinder has some sense of personal animosity towards Obama. In the primary he was practically an extension of Clinton campaign's PR wing. Now he seems to be cozying up with McCain. I don't know what his deal is, but I'm not impressed by Ambinder's writing, his analysis, or his "reporting". I agree, liberal bloggers and readers give him way too credence.

[J.B.]

Clearly, McCain is engaged in pre-1215 thinking.

This made me LOL. Well played, sir.

[Katherine]

Very good post. That one drove me crazy. I think Ambinder just plain doesn't know what he's talking about on this one--but you know, if you're going to write about an unfamiliar issue, pick up the phone and call a law professor who follows this stuff, or a habeas lawyer, or an NGO, or a reporter who covers GTMO regularly. How hard is that, Mr. "reported blog about politics"?

[Frank]

Eric- You seem to be being obtuse here. "mbinder claims that “on the question of what should be done to the Gitmo detainees, the candidates' rhetorical differences are greater than their policy differences.” That’s wrong. Really really wrong."

No it is really really broderian. the press has been at this game a long time. I lost count of the number of times they implied there was no real difference between the policies of Bush and Gore. Pretty much everyone in the blog reading world recognizes this as a standard play by now.

So Marc Ambinder is bucking for a raise. So what?

You don't have to make the whole post about underlying causes, but pretending to be surprised just erodes my respect for you.

[gwangung]

I’m all for any Islamic group who would be willing to step forward and edit the violent supremacist parts of the Qur’an for use in the United States. There were multiple death threats in previous Jihadi trials based on these texts.

And what would you think would happen to these editing Islamists? For once...think about it.

The crickets you hear are the ones who've camped out in the cavity of your skull.

[debra]

Ambinder always falls out the same way. He is critical of Obama's choices, decisions and policies and defensive of McCain's. It is the same for everything. Everything.

I was on to his b.s. a long time ago during the primaries and stopped reading him a long time ago.

I prefer people that reveal their biases rather than try to claim some sort of fake mantle of objectivity. Ambinder on this scale is no different than Halperin and the rest of those twits.

[debrazza]

At this point I have to conclude Ambinder has some sense of personal animosity towards Obama. In the primary he was practically an extension of Clinton campaign's PR wing. Now he seems to be cozying up with McCain. I don't know what his deal is, but I'm not impressed by Ambinder's writing, his analysis, or his "reporting". I agree, liberal bloggers and readers give him way too credence.

I concur completely. Actually, if you want a sense of Ambinder's psyche, just look at this video of him and Andrew Sullivan chatting in his office. What do you see behind Sullivan on Ambinder's bookshelf? It is two biographies of McCain prominently displayed so that he can turn and gaze and revere McCain and his mug. And then on that same shelf, he has a card of Obama that mocks him and displays the exact opposite of reverence. I'd say that says it all about this clown.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/how-smart-is-mc.html

[debrazza]

He bends over backwards to explain the "context" of McCain statements, yet rarely does the same for Obama.

Actually, make that never. He went apesh*t all over "bittergate". I think he made like 10 posts within a two hour period on that Friday. Just go back and look at his "reporting" on that for some evidence his "contextualizing" Obama. He doesn't do it. He also believes that Michelle is fair game. I wonder how he would feel if Democrats were going after Cindy McCain? I am sure it would be another his hand-wringing, finger wagging posts warning Obama and Democrats to be careful or some other such crap.

Ambinder is useless. Fat and useless. Check his bookshelf, he is also another media McCain fan boy.

[Shenda]

“...the point of protecting those rights is not to release terrorists but — say it with me people — to determine if these people are terrorists in the first place).”

Actually, that is not the case. Habeas Corpus is not used to determine guilt or innocence; it used to determine if a person’s detention is lawful. Opponents of granting Habeas Corpus to certain detainees are implicitly admitting that their detention is unlawful.

[rts]

Ambinder has a fundamental flaw -- he accepts what the various campaigns tell him without critical thought. As he has better contacts inside the McCain campaign he writes what is reported to him. Since he lacks "insiderness" with the Obama campaign he doesn't report anything other than what is already known to the rest of the reporting world. In essence, he is a sophisticated stenographer. A good case in point was Ambinder's post yesterday in which he stated that the actions by Obama's staff to remove two ethnic looking Muslim women from a rally was worse than McCain's speech in front of the lime green jello background. How he could make such an equivalence is astounding to me. My explanation is that this is the line fed to him by the McCain spin machine and he simply regurgitated for the world to see. Ambinder remains a somewhat important read, if only to learn the latest positioning of the McCain campaign but any analysis he makes should be viewed with suspicion.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

I know, I know, DNFTT. Last time here.

You seem to infer that Wahhabists are ‘bad’ Muslims. You probably consider the Iranian Mullahs to be ‘bad’ Muslims. Hezbollah is probably ‘bad’. As is Al Qaeda. And probably Hamas. And those Pashtuns hanging out in the mountains. Or the MILFs in the Philippines.

First off. Surrah 5:32. Please explain how this fits into your conception of Islam as teh evil unspeakable.

Second off, thanks for calling me a naive, soft-headed leftist.I wouldn't have thought your telepathy worked over TCP/IP, but shows what I know, eh?

From my understanding, the Wahhabi movement is on exceedingly shaky theological ground. Much more so than the larger Salafi trend, who themselves have some theologically dubious stances. The Iranians are the image itself of Shiite orthodoxy, so I'd be hard-pressed to deem them heretics unless I want to conclude that only Sunni or Sufi Muslims are "real" Muslims. Hezbollah, being a political party first and foremost, does not make strong religious claims, and while noting this isn't going to make me any friends, they may not be saints but they have legitimate political objectives. The same thing can be said of Hamas. The Taliban and their peers (as I presume you mean by "those Pashtun") are on very shaky doctrinal ground indeed. As is al Quaeda. MILF? Political.

So let's see: 3 small regionally-focused politically oriented and motivated violent groups who identify as Muslims; the pointedly unorthodox Wahabists of various stripe; and the Iranians, who I can't deem to be "'bad' Muslims", but who you can't be bothered to explain how they're bad aside from "the US doesn't like them". I'll be generous and assume it's because they adhere to a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, legislate adherence to their (reasonably strict) interpretation of Sharia, align themselves politically against the US (oops, how did this get in there?!?), and issue unreasonable fatwas like declaring nuclear weapons to be un-Islamic.

Lemme ask you this: given the strength of your above "argument" and how much weight you given to unorthodox, marginal sects, give me one reason not to declare Christianity to be a danger to the West and incompatible with pluralist democracy based one the existence and doctrines of the likes of the Lord's Resistance Army and the Phineas Priesthood. Hmm, let's throw in FLDS to round out the analogy. I mean, I don't remember the last time I heard these groups' doctrines questioned by "mainstream" Christians, and never you mind that I'm not listening to them so as to hear it.

[eglantine]

Thank you, Publius, for this splendid post.

[Prodigal]

Or the MILFs in the Philippines.

I got an email about MILFs in the Philippines once...

[Katherine]

Just one MILF in the Phillipines. "Moro Islamic Liberation Front," not fronts. But it is a memorable acronym, no doubt.

[Jeff]

What nobody wants to admit is that Al Qaeda’s actions are religiously sanctioned in very open terms.

Even allowing your patently false assumption, so are abortion clinic bombers. Are you saying they should be denied habeas?

====================

(First time I've seen this meme out of its original context...)

Check out the threads on Ballon juice. You can tell just how bad of an Internet Nerd you are by how many you understand. (I rated waaaaaay too high.)

============

This "editorial cartoon" by right-wing nutbag Glenn McCoy pretty much sums up the right's entire reaction to this.

"As God as my witness, I thought turkeys judges could fly!"

[EoH]

I think the McCain campaign is trying to have it both ways. On one hand, I think the Gooper base ignores the whole gambit. It will either vote for McCain because he's the lesser of two evils, and he's not an uppity northern boy who might "slap Mr. Endicott back" again. Or they'll just stay away from the polls, expecting McCain to crash his aircraft for the sixth time.

On the other hand, the meme suggests to "independents", other "mavericks", that McCain and Obama aren't really that far off on major issues.

Except, that is, all the important ones. Obama has far greater intelligence, confidence and nuance; and he has considerably greater learned skills, such as the ability to negotiate with his opponents rather than tell them to go Cheney themselves. His policy priorities are somewhat different, too. Many are aimed at the interests of 95% of Americans rather than the top one or one-tenth of one percent.

Apart from that, there isn't much separating McCain and Obama, other than thirty years, sound mental health and a lot less hypocrisy. We'll see if the latter holds up through this FISA capitulation.

President Johnson used to quip that he wanted so and so's "pecker in his pocket", to get what he wanted in pushing through hard-fought legislation. Sensitive to their history, and anxious to be even more efficient and accommodating, today's Democrats have gelded themselves and served up mountain oysters to Shrub and Cheney, without their ever having to go Denver. If the FISA debacle is any indication, perhaps the Dems shouldn't bother with that either.

[dr ngo]

Just one MILF in the Phillipines. "Moro Islamic Liberation Front," not fronts. But it is a memorable acronym, no doubt.

Ironically the Philippine [NB: one "L," two "P"s] MILF was founded in 1984, and thus probably predates the now far more familiar acronym.

Sad for them, in a way. Not unlike the rather plain looking girl I knew in HS in California back in the 1950s who had been named, before the name had any wider significance, Marilyn Monroe. (True.) (Sad.)

This is all trivial, but still far more significant than BOB's lunatic ravings.

[nepat]

Gave up on Ambinder ages ago. Never understood the interest in him in the first place. Marginal writer. Limited thinker. Reactionary and knee-jerk responder to campaign soundbites. Got a little tough remembering why I was even bothering. Now I don't.