Carefully Chosen Words

This practice of catch and release has been the government's policy for decades. It is an unwise policy and we're going to end it. (Applause.) To help end catch and release, we need to increase the capacity in our detention facilities.

It wasn't an ad-lib, inadvertantly revealing the contempt il Ducetto feels for those not blessed by God, as he was, with a birth on third base. It's in the White House text of his comments. It's a deliberate appeal to their racists base. In a previous century politicians employed such dehumanizing rhetoric. The reasons why people talk like this are clear. We know the consequences of such speech. We do not wait for the Republicans to denounce this language with bated breath.

The Biblical Life

Abuse included use of lions, iraqis allege - Ex-detainees say troops also used mock executions - Two Iraqi men who were arrested in iraq in 2003 but never charged with crimes say that U.S. troops put them in a cage with lions, pretended to execute them in a firing line and humiliated them during interrogations at multiple detention facilities.

If this is true, it sounds to us like someone in the Pentagon skipped a crucial week in Vaction Bible School. Not to get all historical precedent or anything, but the last time imperial soldiers were putting folks in cages with lions, the imperial forces were Roman and the victims were Christians. The stories of the bravery of Christian martyers turned out to be good PR for the members of the annoying jesus cult (as the Romans saw them), so good that eventually the Christians won. We don’t believe this war is a clash of civilizations – but, if you’re a Christian, Americans don’t come out so well in this analogy. What’s more, some jihadi do think of this war as a clash of civilizations, and from their point of view, the Dark Lord (who is the father of a lesbian)'s torture tactis are helping the cause.

Invidious Comparisons

Rich Lowry subbed for David, "the Babbler" Brooks on the NewsHour last night. We thought perhaps the substitution might reflect some concern on the part of PBS or perhaps Karl Rove that the Babbler is losing it. In his last appearance on the NewsHour, the Babbler suggested that those who suggest that the White House lied about and manipulated wmd intelligence in the run up to war were engaging in McCarthyite tactics.

While we love the new neo-con fall back position, "ok, we've totally screwed everything in Iraq up, but YOU CAN'T SAY WE LIED TO GET THERE!," we did think calling administration critics McCarthyites was a tad extreme. However, after reading il Ducetto's Veteran's Day speech, it appears that this is the party line and Rich, while more delicate than the Babbler, stuck to it like glue.

An amusing moment came when Lehrer asked Mark Shields, a marine vet, whether the right's claim that criticizing il Ducetto's case for war undermined troop morale. Shields laughed and noted that he couldn't say on a family show what a marine would think of that charge. Then he pointed out that soldiers fight for their buddies, for their unit, and that they basically don't have the luxury of caring about the terms of political debate back home.

Rich, "White Feather," Lowry, undeterred by the lack of his own military experience, did not blush to contradict Mr. Shields. Typical Friday night pap on PBS we thought, until they did their Veterans Day segment - an interview with Nathanial Fick, a marine vet of the war in Iraq who's written a book about his experience.

Mr. Fick is 28. Born in Baltimore, Maryland, he attended Dartmouth College, where he studied Classics and Government. Mr. Lowry is 37. He studied English and History at the University of Virginia. Mr. Fick's study of classical history (his college thesis treated the implications of Thucydides for American policy) led him to join the Marines upon his graduation from college. Mr. Lowry worked as Charles Krauthamer's research assistance after he left college.

While in the Marines, Mr. Fick served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Lowry's career path led him to a job as a reporter for a Virginia paper and editorship of the National Review. Mr. Fick, having finished his tours as a Captain in the Marine Corps, resigned his commission and is presently pursuing graduate work at Harvard University. Mr. Lowry appears on Fox a lot, and on the NewsHour whenever the Babbler needs to get his meds adjusted. We have not one clue about Mr. Fick's partisan identity. Mr. Lowry considers himself a conservative.

During his interview on the NewsHour, Mr. Fick responded to a question about the affect of claims that the war in Iraq is based on a lie on troop morale. Like Mr. Shields, he laughed. He described how his men had a shortwave radio on which they listened to the BBC World Service. They knew about the political debate about the wmd claims. They, themselves, had a range of opinions about the legitimacy of the war. They did not deem their political opinions relevant to their duty to perform their mission. Really, what they cared about was protecting the guys in their unit. Marines 1: Lowry 0.

Mr. Fick also observed that he was concerned that the opinion-making class in the U.S. has no experience of war, and that soldiers have no knowledge of politics. There's no use in having cowards for leaders and fools for soldiers, he opined. Marines 2: Lowry 0.

Finally, when asked about the ethical ground rules that guided his own decision making in the fog of war, he answered simply, that he wanted his guys to be able to look at themselves in the mirror 30 years from now and believe that they had never been asked to do anything dishonorable in Iraq. He also wanted, if necessary, to be able to explain honestly to the parent of any of his marines, why they died. Based on what we've read, we do not believe that such straightforward ethical principles guide the decisions of the National Review editorial staff. Marines 3: Lowry 0. To be fair, we should note, that as far as we know it has been some decades since any employee of the National Review has ever risked his life (or money or time) for his country - so Mr. Fisk's second ethical principal probably doesn't apply to the crowd at NR.

Mr. Lowry should avoid appearances on news shows with Mr. Fick - unless the National Review plans to swiftboat Mr. Fick. We wouldn't be surprised if they did.

Snowe Job

The NYT reports:

Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Ms. Snowe, characterized her boss's concerns this way: "Do we need all those lawyers going down there to hear their complaints? It seems a little extreme to her. After all, we're talking about enemy combatants."

If approved in its current form by both the Senate and the House, which has not yet considered it but where approval is considered likely, the measure would nullify a June 2004 Supreme Court opinion that detainees had a right to challenge their detentions in court. Nearly 200 such petitions have been filed so far and are working their way through the federal court system.

A group of legal scholars, including Judith Resnick of Yale Law School, David Shapiro and Frank Michelman of Harvard Law School, and Burt Neuborne of New York University Law School, were circulating a letter on Friday urging senators to reject Mr. Graham's measure.

"The Graham amendment embodies an effort to alter fundamental precepts of our constitutional order," the letter said. "It consigns the protection of fundamental human liberties to unilateral executive determination

Maybe you can be against torture, but there's no way il Ducetto's minions can be against torturing prisoners and for permitting them legal representation, so that a court, could, you know, stop il Ducetto and the Dark Lord (who is the father of a lesbian) from torturing.

The human right to be free from torture with no legal remedy to challenge the executive when it violates that right is meaningless. Snowe's for torture. There is no such thing as a "moderate" Republican.

In His Own Words

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682

Facts / Issue:

Five abortion clinics and one physician (the "clinics") raise a facial constitutional challenge to certain 1988 and 1989 amendments to the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 (the "Act"). See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 3201-3220 (1983 & Supp. 1991). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that §§ 3205 (informed consent), 3206 (parental consent), 3209 (spousal notice), 3214(a) (reporting requirements), and 3207(b) and 3214(f) (public disclosure of clinics' reports) violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Commonwealth defendants (the "Commonwealth") appeal. Because we find unconstitutional only § 3209, which requires notice to a spouse of a planned abortion, we will affirm in part and reverse in part.

Alito's Comments in Dissent:

In this case, the plaintiffs, who made a facial attack n1 on Section 3209, did not [*722] prove that this provision would impose an undue burden. Section 3209 does not create an "absolute obstacle" or give a husband "veto power." Rather, this provision merely requires a married woman desiring an abortion to certify that she has notified her husband or to claim one of the statutory exceptions. [snip]

The [**116] plaintiffs failed to show even roughly how many of the women in this small group would actually be adversely affected by Section 3209. As previously noted, Section 3209 contains four significant exceptions. These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes n4 that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her. If Section 3209 were allowed to take effect, it seems safe to assume that some percentage of the married women seeking abortions without notifying their husbands would qualify for and invoke these exceptions. The record, however, is devoid of evidence showing how many women could or could not invoke an exception.

Pudentilla Notes:

That Judge Alito's argument rests on a case which rejected the right of a state to require a minor to get the permission of two parents before getting an abortion. Inherent in this argument is the equation of adult women with minor children. A tad disingenuous and more than a little offensive to adult women, you ask, Gentle Reader. Well, remember, this is exactly what the Reds have been fighting for, for 30 years.

Doe v. Groody, 361 F.3d 232

Facts:

On March 6, 1998, as the result of a long-term investigation of John Doe for suspected narcotics dealing, officers of the Schuylkill County Drug Task Force ("Task Force") sought a search warrant for Doe and his residence. n1 The typed affidavit in support of the warrant application stated, in pertinent part, that a reliable confidential informant had purchased methamphetamine on several occasions from John Doe, at Doe's "residence/office," or from a Volkswagen automobile parked in front. In addition, the affidavit noted that individuals with histories of prior narcotics use or with drug gang affiliations had been observed by Task Force members entering or leaving John Doe's residence. Finally, the affidavit indicated [**3] that the most recent methamphetamine purchase by the informant had occurred within the preceding 48 hours. [snip]

Armed with the warrant, Task Force police went to the John Doe house to carry out the search. Evidently, they anticipated [**6] encountering females because they enlisted a female traffic meter patrol officer to be available if necessary to assist in the search. As the officers approached the house, they met John Doe, and brought him into the house. Once inside, however, the officers found no visitors, but only John Doe's wife, Jane, and their ten year old daughter, Mary.

The officers decided to search Jane and Mary Doe for contraband, and sent for the meter patrol officer. When she arrived, [*237] the female officer removed both Jane and Mary Doe to an upstairs bathroom. They were instructed to empty their pockets and lift their shirts. The female officer patted their pockets. She then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their pants and turn around. No contraband was found. With the search completed, both Jane and Mary Doe were returned to the ground floor to await the end of the search.

Issue:

Do police officers have a qualified immunity against lawsuits claiming that their decision to strip search persons (including minor children) not named in a valid search warrant?

Alito's Dissent:

[*249] In sum, the District Court erred in denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment. I share the majority's visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe's young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out [**43] their business and to avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face. Because the warrant in this case authorized the searches that are challenged - and because a reasonable officer, in any event, certainly could have thought that the warrant conferred such authority - I would reverse.

Pudentilla's Comment:

Even if Alito's argument that drug dealers exploit their kids to hide drugs, should cops re-exploit those kids? Would it be such a bad thing in this world if cops felt compelled to get a specific warrant before strip-searching 10 year olds unexpectedly found on the premises when they were executing search warrants? If cops know that drug dealers so exploit kids, can't they identify these kids in the warrant in advance, or if they don't realize the kids exist until they get to the scene - would a phone call to the magistrate's chambers be such a burden.

In some cultures, apparently not Alito's, the prospect of strangers in the costume and cloak of authority having control over minor and naked children is a cause for great concern.