The Road To Surfdom brings to our attention a rather strange offer from FOXNews:

During the Iraq War, to help families obtain video of their loved ones overseas, we will be providing footage of the "imbedded" journalists at a discounted rush price of $34.95 + S&H for rush delivery (instead of the usual $49.95 + S&H). Please use the 'IRAQ Soldier Coverage' line on the menu below.

How generous.

The Moonie Times says House Republicans want their tax cut bad:

Conservative Republicans in the House say they will flex their muscle to ensure that President Bush's tax-cut plan "or at least most of it" is retained in the 2004 federal budget.

Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and deputy majority whip, said conservatives are tired of getting beaten and will not support a budget that contains only the $350 billion in tax cuts approved last week by the Senate.

Tired of getting beaten? Yeah that's one of the hard things about proposing legislation that most Americans (and their representatives) are opposed to.

UPDATE: Along the lines of Matthew Yglesias' skepticism of Republican moderates, I should note regretfully that Rep. Pence may very well get what he wants, and that is a shame. Liberal/moderate Republicans are, to my mind, the most culpable actors in the destructiveness of the Republican agenda. It is one thing to vote for right-wing legislation because you believe in it. It is much harder to justify when the legislation is entirely at odds with your advertised political views and those of your constituents.

A tragic reminder for those who've come to idealize the U.N. umbrella as a contrast to American unilateralism:

Thousands of people have attended a mass funeral in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica for the victims of one of Europe's worst massacres.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the UN's failure to prevent the atrocity would "haunt our history forever."

There have been a thousand articles and blog posts analyzing what the United States should or should not have known about potential Iraqi resistance, about Rumsfeld's overruling of military commanders, and other various claims of shortsightedness and miscalculation.

Here's my question: even if America had good reason to be confident of a small and expedient war, where was the contingency planning? It's one thing to have a plan that includes Shiite uprisings in the south. It's another to ignore the possibility that they won't.

The claim has been made that the Iraqis are not acting as American wargaming suggested they would. Well how many wargames did we run? The point of these simulations is not just to determine the most likely enemy action, but to test our ability to react to unlikely actions. It is to avoid surprises and ensure we have a plan in place in the worst case scenario, not just the best.

I think Peter Arnett crossed the line and am glad to see his actions met with proper consequences... it'll be interesting to see where he goes next (though remembering the Marv Albert arc leads me to suspect he'll be back at NBC soon enough):

NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic on Monday said they had terminated their relationship with Peter Arnett after the journalist told state-run Iraqi TV that the U.S.-led coalition's initial war plan had failed and that reports from Baghdad about civilian casualties had helped antiwar protesters undermine the Bush administration's strategy.

Pundits can grant interviews and voice personal opinions (though doing so for Iraqi TV is questonable to me). Reporters should not. That just seems so obvious, but perhaps the line between punditry and reporting has become too blurred.

At last!

Cat Stevens back in studio

But wait, it's not quite as exciting at second glance:

The singer, who changed his name after converting to Islam, has re-recorded his 1971 song Peace Train - his first English language recording since 1978.

Isn't that a rather strange thing to do? I doubt the song will sound any better after 25 years... probably worse in fact. Unless he gets Dolly Parton to duet... that'd be something.

OK, I've got a $40 gift card to spend on Amazon.com. What should I buy?

Current favorite, picking up a leather(ette) bound edition of LOTR for $12.50.

Ezra Klein has a good insight into why the far right has more power and persuasion in the Republican party than the far left has with the Democrats:

Republicans don't mind their extremists because they help them win elections. Sure, Robertson and Buchanan can fuck around with primaries, but in the end, everyone votes republican and they win. Our extremists lose elections for us.

Our extremists came together and voted Green. Just to show how peeved we are, I did some quick calculator work and surmised that Green voters in Florida gave Nader 181 times what Gore would have needed to win the state. Greens do not come through at the end and insure that a Democrat occupies the Oval Office. If they did, we'd like them a lot more and would probably do a bit of pandering. As it is, we look on as every green and democratic ideal is trampled by this Administration and think how stupid they were to keep us from getting Gore in office.

I voted for Gore in 2000 (someone asked this before.. there's my answer) and remember thinking pretty much exactly what Ezra is pointing to. My voting has been mostly driven by environmental concerns, and I could not understand AT ALL the idea that the green (lower g) position would be improved by a Bush victory. There was much talk about how the Democrats would really have to pay attention to the left after Nader's run. Instead, as Ezra points out, it simply made the far left look like morons who can't be trusted.

I just wanted to say one more word about Scalia. I can never resist an opportunity.

What is bothering me at the moment is Scalia's contension that textualism serves as the most effective restraint on judicial activism and legislating from the bench. Yet this philosophy almost NEVER restrains Scalia. He likes textualism/originalism because his political views are conservative and tradionalist, and thus need not be restrained by a philosophy that disfavors change and gives power to the dead hand of history.

When textualism is not convenient, as in school segregation, affirmative action, or gender discrimination (as discussed in my last post), it is simply left out of the discussion, or some wishy-washy alternative like soft originalism is offered up in its place.

When Scalia needs to get around the text, he finds a way. He is the perfect example of why textualism offers no more restraint than any other jurisprudential method. Scalia likes it for exactly that reason. It conforms to and supports many of his positions, and no one can make him use it when he doesn't want to. How pretentious of him.

UPI has an editorial bashing the 9th Circuit for their decision on the Pledge of Allegiance:

God bless the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges in America's most liberal court have finally written a decision so blatantly ideological that it may well cause a popular uprising against liberal judges and their pretensions to exclusive authority over interpreting the Constitution.

Right, as if liberal judges were the only ones who pretend to have exclusive authority. Are they any judges out there who think that jurisprudential philosophies other than their own are acceptable? I haven't read any of their decisions if they exist. Reading a little further, we find the classic ill-informed 'originalist' attack on liberal judges:

The appellate judges of the 9th Circuit know perfectly well that such an equation was never the intent of framers who wrote the First Amendment. These liberal judges simply do not give a damn. Their personal modern-day ideological agenda is what matters to them, not the intent of the authors of the Constitution.

Conservative judges would never allow for that. Well let's look at a few interesting areas of law: segregation, affirmative action, and gender discrimination.

First, let's have an originalist explain Brown on its face. Mike McConnell has tried (and failed in my opinion). Considering the authors of the 14th Amendment allowed school segregation in D.C. and in most Northern states (i.e. the ones that didn't ban blacks outright), how can that decision be seen as anything other than flaunting the intent of the authors? Damn those liberals and their pretensions. Look what they did! They forced white children AND black children to attend the same schools! What would the framers have thought!?!

Now let's ask Scalia why the Constitution bans all racial classifications (thus disallowing affirmative action). Do you see that in the text? I sure don't. He can say that it's the most natural reading of the text, but that doesn't make it true. The fact that the authors of the 14th Amendment were in no way committed to color blindness (see segregation above) and passed the Amendment in large part to give Congress power to make race-specific remedies, makes Scalia's claim more dubious. It certainly suggests that maybe, just maybe, his personal views on affirmative action might be informing his 'natural' reading of the text.

Finally, let's hear Robert Bork waffle some more on whether women are protected by the 14th Amendment. It doesn't take a history degree to realize that the authors of that amendment didn't believe in gender equality. Yet the amendment has been so applied, apparently another result of liberals wresting control of the country away from the intent of the framers.

Let's not even touch Bush v. Gore. It's just too much evidence, and wouldn't make it a fair fight.

I will say that I'd sincerely like to hear more of Bush's "common-sense nominees" argue against Brown or gender equality on a constitutional basis. It would ensure their defeat in the Senate and popular opinion.

The point? Of course the liberal 9th Circuit has made questionably principled and decidely liberal decisions. Just as the conservative 4th Circuit has made questionably principled and decidely conservative decisions. Just as the Supreme Court has made questionably principled and both liberal and conservative decisions in its time. It's not a problem of politics, it's a problem of principles, pragmatism, and jurisprudence. And it affects all our judges, NOT just the liberal ones.

NY Times has a really long article on military demographics:

Today's servicemen and women may not be Ivy Leaguers, but in fact they are better educated than the population at large: reading scores are a full grade higher for enlisted personnel than for their civilian counterparts of the same age. While whites account for three of five soldiers, the military has become a powerful magnet for blacks, and black women in particular, who now outnumber white women in the Army.

But if the military has become the most successfully integrated institution in society, there is also a kind of voluntary segregation: while whites and blacks seek out careers in communications, intelligence, the medical corps and other specialties in roughly equal numbers, blacks are two and a half times as likely to fill support or administrative roles, while whites are 50 percent more likely to serve in the infantry, gun crews or their naval equivalent.

This part hit close to home, and was the subject of many dorm room and classroom discussions for me (and an impetus for my joining ROTC):

The disparity created by the Vietnam draft can be seen on the walls of Memorial Hall and Memorial Church at Harvard University, where the names of Harvard students and alumni who died for their country are inscribed. There were 200 Harvard students killed in the Civil War and 697 in World War II, but only 22 in Vietnam.

I was always a little skeptical about race being the most significant disparity between the military and the civilian world, and I think this article bears that out (particularly as it relates to the myths about the 'racist' Vietnam War). Instead, the article makes quite clear that the great statistical disparities are class and geography. Not surprisingly, the military is disproportionately lower and middle class and Southern.

Is it an indictment of this administration (or the one before) to say that the people who are making the wars don't understand the people who are fighting them? I don't really know. My instincts tell me that someone who has never served in the military, never fought with, led, nor cared for soldiers or sailors or marines, is not in the ideal position to make military decisions. I don't think that means non-veterans are incapable of being great leaders or that veterans are incapable of being bad ones. It's just an instinctual feeling that a politician has to have been there to really understand the consequences of his decisions.

Saturday is my day away from the Internet, but I like to leave a little dose of spirituality. Though never a Christian, I find much beauty in the New Testament. This is John 2:9-11.

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

CalPundit has this analysis of American narrowness on the idea of Iraqi liberation:

Americans in general - and pro-war conservatives especially - are simply unable to understand that the entire world doesn't automatically accept that our "motives were right" or that our intentions have always been benign. And there's no reason they should. They should judge us based on our actions, just as we would judge them. It's this kind of blindness that leads to overoptimistic ideas about Iraqis greeting us as liberators simply because they don't like Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, they don't like us either. Why is it so hard for people to understand that no one likes to have their country taken over by an invading army, no matter how righteous that invading army thinks its cause is?

Agreed. A lot of it is probably historical ignorance as well. I'm sure there are plenty of Americans (probably many of those who think Saddam is responsible for 9/11) who can't really differentiate between the liberation of France and the 'liberation' of Iraq. Saddam may be a dictator, but he's their dictator.

This has to be the most unappealing pop-up ad I've ever seen. I couldn't be less tempted.

I'm trying to pick which novel to read next (I have a grotesquely large pile of unread books on my shelf), and thought I'd see if anyone had opinions on any of these:

White Noise - Dom DeLillo
A Frolic of His Own - William Gaddis
Quarantine - Jim Crace

If anybody has an opinion, voice it.

I've been reading a companion to political philosophy for the past few weeks, trying to brush up before I begin my planned summer adventure into legal philosophy. The book I'm using has three main sections: methodologies, ideologies, and special topics. I'm nearly finished with the second section, and just read the chapter on feminism. What struck me most about the movement is how little effort has been made to help men understand feminism, since we lack the experiential knowledge that seems so integral to feminist thought.

It seems to me that men such as myself, naturally drawn to most popular 'feminist' political movements (pro-choice, reform of rape law, etc.) can only describe themselves as a 'feminist' in name. The movement itself was understandably born in the absence of men (though as one professor pointed out, John Stuart Mill is often looked to for great early feminist thought). Yet today it seems many men could play active and strong roles in feminist philosophy if only the door was opened and they were welcomed in. There seems to be little or no outreach, and I think that is unfortunate.

AP reports:

Former Pentagon official Richard Perle resigned Thursday as chairman of a group that advises Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on policy issues, saying he did not want a controversy over his business dealings to distract from Rumsfeld's management of the war in Iraq.

I often look for truth somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of what I hear (not always a good idea), so I've always thought Perle was probably neither a devil nor a genius, just a very hawkish defense guy who really knew how to work the system. If he really is a devil, good riddance. If he's a genius, I'm sure he'll find another way to contribute.

Another clear instance where situational awareness and training could have saved lives:

Two Marines drowned in southern Iraq after attempting to cross a canal without a safety line while wearing heavy gear and rifles.

It is always a shame to lose troops in avoidable accidents, but even moreso when these brave men are putting themselves at risk of enemy attack. Dying in a mishap like this does not befit the training these men and their commander should have.

This is one upset man:

The angry North Carolina tobacco farmer who threatened from his tractor to detonate explosives on the National Mall in Washington last week erupted in a federal courtroom Wednesday, forcing a federal magistrate judge to flee as marshals struggled to haul the defendant away.

An inspiring speech by a British commander on the eve of battle. If only I could feel confident that this is truly the intent and aim of this conflict:

We go to liberate, not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.

There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others, I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle, remember to be magnanimous in victory.

I can't even imagine how people made it through any of our country's more lengthy wars (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea)... every day I'm on edge, the news constantly frustrates me, I can't concentrate on the things that are supposed to be important.

How did people do it? Did they just get used to it? Did they have better coping mechanisms?

Matthew Yglesias makes an excellent point:

[I]t seems to me that except for a handful of bloggers and newspaper columnists, everyone feels about the same way about this war - uneasy, but hopeful that something good may come of it. Indeed, this feeling is, in my experience, so universal that I sort of wonder why everyone feels surrounded by extremists. My advice: Read less and talk to your friends more.

Agreed. A good friend and fellow 1L who I knew at Harvard is trying to get together a small, private discussion group of law students who have experience with the military or the Middle East, but have differing perspectives on the conflict. It's a great idea and I highly recommend it to everyone. Find a few people whom you respect, make sure there is some diversity of opinion, and educate each other.

CNN has a story on warblogs, citing Blogs of War, Team Stryker (w/ screenshot!), and LT Smash:

"Blogs of War" and other sites sometimes beat traditional sources with the latest war news.

No kidding! And here's another link to The Agonist. I've been very impressed and proud of the performance of the blogosphere thus far, particularly when compared to the mainstream media.

This has to be the worst naming scheme since the FBI's Carnivore. The names of our temporary fueling facilities in Iraq:

Camp Shell and Camp Exxon.

Stupid stupid stupid.

The Guardian has a feature keeping track of "claims and counter claims made during the media war in Iraq." Well worth reading.

Reuters notes this in their oddly enough section:

Drug dealers in Copenhagen's Christiania hippie colony took novel action on Wednesday by going on strike to protest against proposals to bulldoze the alternative "free city."

Damned organized actions. Tourists are not going to be happy. Imagine travelling all the way to Denmark to have some funny brownies and arrive in the midst of a massive hash strike.

I subscribed to the Nation a few months ago, and have really regretted it the past few weeks. Though my liberal social views would probably generally fit with the Nation's coverage, their editorials on the war this week are too much for me to accept. Why does Jonathan Schnell, doubtlessly speaking for countless liberals (and certainly for Michael Moore) insists on drawing a direct connection between the war in Iraq and the contested election in 2000:

"Unilateralism" was born in Florida.

I find this line of reasoning inapt and unnecessary. It excludes all those, like myself, who have doubts about the war but either don't agree or no longer care that Bush 'stole' the election. Arguing against the war by trying to undermine the legitimacy of the President is going too far, and crosses the delicate line between democratic dissent and disloyalty.

I just got an email from the Nation offering me the chance to renew my subscription. Needless to say, it has already been deleted.

UPDATE: A friend emailed to suggest that "If you speak out against the liberals

abuse of logic as you did here, you must also speak out against the

conservative equivalent." I disagree. I don't subscribe to any conservative magazines and don't look to conservative commentators for my news or editorials. The motivation for this attack on the Nation is a growing self-criticism of myself as someone with decidely liberal views on many issues and my growing distate for my 'representatives' in the media.

The Paper Chase has a couple human rights groups arguing that our treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay makes it hypocritical for us to criticize Iraq for Geneva Convention violations.

I'm not going to touch that assertion, but I do want to point out something that seems lost in the shuffle. The best reason for abiding by the Geneva Convention is NOT the prevention of reciprocal violations. Even if the Iraqis begin torturing our POWs, there is a very good strategic (and probably a moral) reason for treating their POWs properly: We want them to surrender.

If an Iraqi soldier or general thinks he is going to be mistreated by the coalition, or shipped off without rights to a Caribbean island for indefinite detainment, he is much less likely to surrender.

The best historical example is the final assault on Germany. German POWs were treated well by American and British forces, and our forces received relatively good treatment in return. Even more importantly, as the German regime began to crumble, Germans were willing to surrender to American and British forces. By the end of the war we had over 400,000 POWs in America (German and Italian), not to mention thousands of prisoners still in Europe.

Not so on the Eastern front. Years of brutality and summary execution of prisoners on both sides convinced Germans (probably correctly) that they would be mistreated or killed if they surrendered to the Russians. Thus they fought to the last man, inflicting significant Russian casualties in the process.

So I think the real question is, not whether our treatment of the Guantanamo detainees makes America hypocritical, but whether fear of that fate is keeping Iraqis soldiers and their leaders from surrendering.

FOXNews.com has this headline blaring at 11:25pm EST:

BREAKING NEWS - Officials: Chemical Attack Feared Near Baghdad

Technically this is correct. There is fear that the Iraqis might use chemical weapons. But that headline can be read much more severely and is thus terribly misleading. I clicked on the story expecting to hear that our troops have been gassed. Thankfully that has not occurred, but the headline is still unnecessarily misleading and provocative.

UPDATE: It's still there an hour later. Are they trying to give people heart attacks?

The Christian Science Monitor has a good summary of the issues at stake in Lawrence v. Texas, the SC's new sodomy case being heard this week. My conlaw professor and I are in agreement that the ruling will almost certainly overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, but even then the question remains how far the court will go. As the story points out, the court really has three options:

They can uphold the Texas law, stating that it is up to elected lawmakers to grapple with such difficult social issues.

Second, they could declare that the law violates equal-protection principles by treating gays differently. Such a ruling would invalidate homosexual-conduct laws in four states, but might leave intact similar, but broader, laws in the nine other states.

Finally, the court could issue a much broader ruling that American bedrooms are off limits to state scrutiny because they are protected by fundamental concepts of liberty and privacy that earlier courts have identified in the Constitution. Such a ruling would invalidate all 13 homosexual-conduct laws nationwide, and would overturn a 1986 court precedent upholding Georgia's sodomy law.

Should be a very interesting decision.

The Christian Science Monitor has a good summary of the issues at stake in Lawrence v. Texas, the SC's new sodomy case being heard this week. My conlaw professor and I are in agreement that the ruling will almost certainly overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, but even then the question remains how far the court will go. As the story points out, the court really has three options:

They can uphold the Texas law, stating that it is up to elected lawmakers to grapple with such difficult social issues.

Second, they could declare that the law violates equal-protection principles by treating gays differently. Such a ruling would invalidate homosexual-conduct laws in four states, but might leave intact similar, but broader, laws in the nine other states.

Finally, the court could issue a much broader ruling that American bedrooms are off limits to state scrutiny because they are protected by fundamental concepts of liberty and privacy that earlier courts have identified in the Constitution. Such a ruling would invalidate all 13 homosexual-conduct laws nationwide, and would overturn a 1986 court precedent upholding Georgia's sodomy law.

Should be a very interesting decision.

Compare and contrast the coverage on CNN with that of the Agonist.

Is it just me, or does the mainstream media coverage of this war seem downright pitiful?

Phil Carter has a stellar and sobering explanation of how the American POWs were captured and what it reveals about our weaknesses:

Frankly, most logistics units have very poor training when it comes to basic soldiering skills and force-protection skills. My platoon tried and tried to train logistics units on the fundamentals of convoy defense, base defense, route reconnaissance, etc. For every soldier we trained, there were three more who didn not attend the training because they were busy doing "real world" maintenance. Bottom line: combat training gets neglected in support units because they're too busy turning wrenches to practice fieldcraft. That may have cost these soldiers their lives.

Agreed. We need to learn this lesson, and fast.

Interesting article about Chinese police efforts to combat all those advertisement fliers we see stuck all over phone poles and traffic signs:

Authorities in China are turning to technology to nab vandals--they use a computer program that spams the wrongdoers' mobile phones until they turn themselves in.

Officials in Hangzhou, the capital of China's Zhejiang province, have developed a system which bombards mobile phones with pre-recorded voice messages, according to the official newspaper, the People's Daily.

Businessmen who put up illegal advertisements which contain mobile numbers have become the target of the computerized phone-spammer.

The message (received at 20-second intervals) tells the target how to turn themselves in for punishment.

William Saletan has this surreal image:

The [UN Security] council was meeting to discuss the latest update from weapons inspector Hans Blix. Blix was downcast because, having been forced to leave Iraq a few days ago so that the United States could start bombing it, his inspection report now seems a bit pointless. Not so, said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. They praised Blix's work and assured him that the war was only an unpleasant interlude in the inspection process.

Yet I've still not heard anything from the French or Germans on post-war administration of Iraq, other than to reject all proposals thus far put forth by the coalition. That's an effective way of guaranteeing the continued irrelevance of the UN and the French/German/Russian axis.

Why is this the headline at the Drudge report??

OSCAR AUDIENCE OFF 23% FROM LAST YEAR; LOWEST-RATED IN HISTORY

I mean, who the hell cares? I never did like award shows (always seemed like artists just getting together to celebrate each other), but could anything be less relevant right now?

A sad ending to a sad story:

An Army Special Forces soldier charged with killing his wife after returning from Afghanistan nine months ago hanged himself in a jail cell Sunday, officials said.

The Moonie Times puts the capture of a female POW in perspective with the discarding of the Risk Rule, which prevented women from serving in particularly dangerous or vulnerable positions during combat. In particular, the thought seems to be that the risk of sexual assault upon female POWs might give weight to the arguments against allowing women into combat.

My current sources for following the war:

The Agonist
The Command Post
Team Stryker

I'm getting a lot of hits for people searching for my original post on the shock and awe bombing campaign from last week. Here it is.

MSNBC is reporting on the identity of the first combat casualty:

One of the slain was from the U.S. 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Lt. Col. Neal Peckham, a British military spokesman, said Friday.

I have to admit a bit of shock at the death of an O-5 in combat, particularly as a lone casualty. I have tremendous respect for leading from the front, as this Marine almost certainly was. Still, it seems strange that such a high-ranking officer was the only loss in the battle. Hopefully that casualties will stay low as long as possible.

UPDATE: Wow, looks like I really misread the sentence. Apparently LTC Peckham IS the military spokesman.

That makes much more sense, though the death is no less saddening.

I did think this was rather strange:

The White House is vowing a strong retaliatory response after the BBC aired live video of President Bush getting his hair coiffed in the Oval Office as he squirmed in his chair and practiced on the teleprompter minutes before Wednesday night's speech announcing the launch of military operations against Saddam Hussein.

Also, if you have the bandwidth I recommend the live feed from the BBC .

I have neither the time nor resourcefulness to be a real-time warblogger, so I recommend visiting The Agonist for up to the minute updates.

Funny story (via Team Stryker, helping to add some humor to a rough day).

Thomas Jefferson gets no respect at Taco Bell. Fittingly, at Monticello they have piles of $2 bills to use when making change. It's a nice touch.

UPDATE: More stories about strange currency transactions.

Matthew Yglesias posed a question about the rules regarding soldiers talking to the press. This is particularly salient now with the embedding of journalists, and Matthew points to a NY Times story in which young soldiers are questioning the various motives for war.

I feel pretty comfortable suggesting that for the most part the rules will vary from unit to unit and conflict to conflict. One of the risks the Pentagon knew they were running with the embedded journalist program was exactly this sort of thing.

There is a legal restriction titled Contempt Toward Officials (UCMJ Art. 88), which forbids the use of "contemptuous words" against the president, vice president, members of Congress and other officials. This restriction only explicitly applies to commissioned officers though, and hasn't actually been used for prosecution since Vietnam (though several high-ranking officers have been forced out for ill-chosen remarks about sitting presidents).

Beyond that, individual unit commanders can try to set certain rules and procedures for their own troops and offer tips on how to deal with journalists. PAO (public affair officers) are also probably keeping an eye on the journalists.

On a non-legal basis, I agree that this sort of discussion ought to be done away from the microphone.

I'm also reminded of DOD Directive 1344.10, which might cover this. It's primarily about political activity, but it does extend Article 88 to enlisted soldiers.

Here's a good summary of the rules.

The other relevant provision may be that active duty soldiers can:

Register, vote and express his or her personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

I'm not entirely sure this particular situation falls under the 1344.10 rubric, but if so they are probably ok.

WP has this round-up of early world leaders' reactions, and includes an interesting tid-bit:

China had no immediate comment on the start of the U.S. war on Iraq, but state television broadcast President George W. Bush's address live in a rare move.

China Central Television broadcast the address with simultaneous translation in Chinese.

I wonder how it played to that audience.

The Agonist has good up-to-the-minute updates.

As the war begins and I crave minute-to-minute updates, I find myself thankful for the Internet (I don't have cable television). I also notice that I'm spending almost no time with major new sources, instead sticking to blogs to see what they've found.

To our troops: Godspeed.

IHT reports:

In the end, beyond the maneuvering, the rhetoric, the professed convictions, there are questions now in Paris and Berlin about whether their opposition to an American-led war on Iraq has gotten a bit out of hand.

Worthy article. Good to see the foreign press posing tough questions to their leaders. I'd like to have seen the same from ours.

Scalia is a brilliant man, but sometimes he just makes me laugh:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia banned broadcast media from an appearance today where he will receive an award for supporting free speech.

The City Club usually tapes speakers for later broadcast on public television, but Scalia insisted on banning television and radio coverage, the club said. Scalia is being given the organization's Citadel of Free Speech Award.

Can you taste the sweet sweet irony?

Star Spangled Ice Cream:

AT LAST - A CONSERVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TO BEN & JERRY'S

Like millions of your fellow Americans, you enjoy ice cream but do NOT enjoy seeing your money funneled to wacko left-wing causes. We are not ashamed of America. We think it's the best country ever, and so we have set out to make the best ice cream ever!

Their four flavors? I Hate the French Vanilla, Nutty Environmentalist, Iraqi Road, and Smaller Governmint.

No comment necessary.

UPI (quick becoming my news service of choice) has a good analysis of Blair's victory in Parliament last night. Particularly interesting is the role that France may be playing in swinging British opinion closer to Blair:

[B]oth public and politicians have been impressed by Blair's unwavering dedication to the "rightness" of his cause, and by France's perceived determination to scupper Blair's huge efforts to get a second U.N. resolution. Significantly, 68 percent of the British public in the Telegraph's poll now says President Jacques Chirac was wrong to say France would veto the second U.N. resolution, with only 21 percent saying he was right.

CNN reports:

An anti-abortion extremist who claimed he only meant to wound an abortion provider was convicted Tuesday of second-degree murder for the doctor's 1998 sniper slaying.

Interesting case, in that the defendant, extradited from France with a promise he wouldn't face the death penalty, waived his right to a jury trial and did not contest the prosecution's case.

UPI reports on more trouble with British cattle:

Plans for a dramatic new role for Britain's Royal Air Force on Day One of the war against Iraq are in question because a Welsh farmer worried about his cows has forced cancellation of a test of the new Storm Shadow bunker-busting cruise missile.

I've been searching the blogosphere for something to comment on, but the impending war casts a dark shadow over all other topics of thought. It seems like all we can do is wait.

CNN reports:

Despite French opposition to a war in Iraq, the French military could assist any U.S.-led coalition should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces, the French ambassador to the United States said Tuesday.

"If Saddam Hussein were to use chemical and biological weapons, this would change the situation completely and immediately for the French government," Jean-David Levitte said.

We'll remember he said that.

Another thing that gets me is Rehnquist's skepticism that men ought to be able to sue for gender discrimination (dissenting in Craig v. Boren):

The Court's disposition of this case is objectionable on two grounds. First is its conclusion that men challenging a gender-based statute which treats them less favorably than women may invoke a more stringent standard of judicial review than pertains to most other types of classifications...

There is no suggestion in the Court's opinion that males in this age group are in any way peculiarly disadvantaged, subject to systematic discriminatory treatment, or otherwise in need of special solicitude from the courts

Fair enough. But couldn't this exact line of reasoning be used to distinguish racial discrimination against blacks from affirmative action for them?

Why should whites challenging a race-based statute which treats them less favorably than blacks be able to invoke a more stringent standard of judicial review than pertains to most other types of classifications? After all, there is no suggestion that whites are in any way peculiarly disadvantaged, subject to systematic discriminatory treatment, or otherwise in need of special solicitude from the courts.

Phil Carter has a post regarding the annual National Defense Authorization Act, and in particular a provision removing the requirement that the U.S. Defense Attache in France be a flag officer.

As I read this, we want to downgrade the position to a full colonel or possibly even a lieutenant colonel. This position carries enormous diplomatic prestige, so this is a big deal. The American defense attache to Paris is the senior American military representative to the French government, responsible for all kinds of diplomatic and military contacts. I find it interesting that we'd want to downgrade this to anything but a general or admiral, particularly given the rank sensitivity of most European militaries. This could be a bit of legal housecleaning -- France is the only country to have its own special provision in Title 10 mandating a flag-rank attache. But the timing is pretty interesting, wouldn't you say?

It seems unlikely that we'd actually go through with such a move, but I agree the timing is interesting.

A law librarian at the University of Arizona (former AF JAG too!) left a comment below pointing us to a great resource she has set up regarding the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). This is the law that protects our military personnel from losing their jobs, benefits, or seniority as a result of their military service. If you or anyone you know has had problems in this area, check out this resource and then contact a JAG officer.

Having finished the readings on racial discrimination (from Dred Scott to Adarand), covering slavery, separate but equal, school segregation, and affirmative action, I was left totally convinced that the Supreme Court (reflecting popular opinion) lacked any real coherence in the entirety of its rulings. Now I've just done the reading on gender classifications, and am amazed to find the Court making even less sense in that realm.

How is it that affirmative action for blacks, the group for whom the 14th Amendment was enacted in the first place, is subject to strict scrutiny, but affirmative action for women is not? And if affirmative action for women were to be subjected to strict scrutiny, how could it be that the standard would be higher when the gender classification helps women (affirmative action) than when it hurts them (where intermediate scrutiny is still the rule)?

Ick.

Jason Rylander has an excellent post on the consequences of America's diplomatic failures:

Tonight President Bush issues his ultimatum, but it comes not as we might have expected from a position of strength. Rather it seems the last desperate measure of a nation that has one by one eliminated its options. We act not "at a time of our choosing," as Bush eloquently put it in September 2001, but because having failed at all diplomatic efforts, having alienated potential partners, we either invade or lose face. Though our military may be strong, our standing in the world is weaker today than at any time in recent memory. That is inexcusable and unacceptable.

IHT has a story on the potential dangers of first use of microwave weapons:

[C]ritics say rolling out the weapon for the first time could trigger an arms race not seen since the dawn of the nuclear age. By showing other nations that this highly secretive program has produced a viable and effective weapon, politicians from other countries could be convinced to beef up their own development of such devices.

The article also notes that, ironically, these weapons pose the greatest danger to countries that rely most heavily on electronics like computer chips, e.g. the United States.

Matthew Yglesias has a good round-up on today's preparations for war.

Check out his first update in particular, a shot at Glenn Reynolds (who I actually like a lot more than Matthew seems to). No one in the blogosphere should ever be so self-righteous as to forget that we are a bunch of Internet geeks and news junkies with sufficient free time and bandwidth to experience war purely through hyperlinks and blockquotes.

Winds of Change has a daily roundup of war-related posts called "Winds of War" that is worth checking out every day... it has been a great resource in the past weeks and will almost certainly be even moreso once the shooting begins.

The Drudge Report has a story about "Marines Outraged After Placed Under British Command."

I think this is a silly and childish attitude. The story quotes a marine as saying:

"This is bogus, if I die, it's for the United States... not the freakin' world," said the marine, whose identity, location and mode of communication was assured anonymity. "I did not come here to take orders from the British. [We] already feel a big let down by this."

With all due respect to those serving overseas under stressful conditions, this is horribly short-sighted and narrow. The British are the only true allies we have (where are the Spanish troops?) and they will be dying side by side with us. Should we expect the British to serve under us and not return the trust? I'd be honored to serve under a British commander, fighting a war truly unpopular in his homeland. It is a sign of the special friendship of our two nations that the British (or at least their leaders) have stood by us, and the attitude espoused by the marines in this story is disrespectful and misguided.

CNN reports that the President will address the nation tonight.

I'm not excited at the prospect of war, no one should be. Soldiers and civilians will die, and that is always sad and unfortunate.

I will say, I am glad that this charade is finally coming to an end. Let's just hope it gets done right.

After hearing about all the employers who have been so supportive of their military reservists, it's shame to read a headline like this: Tucson reservist loses job when Navy calls. Looks like Pep Boys might not be familiar with federal law, let alone the ethics of supporting those who serve the country. The story quotes the federal law:

A person who is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has performed, applies to perform or has an obligation to perform in a uniformed service shall not be denied initial employment, re-employment, retention in employment, promotion or any benefit of employment by an employer on the basis of that membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service or obligation.

Militarycity.com has an in-depth map of the American troop deployment in the Middle East, updated regularly.

Global Security Newswire has good coverage of the basic possibilites re: WMD in the war in Iraq:

A fairly small release of Iraqi anthrax over Kuwait City or Baghdad could infect hundreds of thousands of people under certain conditions, according to computer models by a nonprofit research organization and described in a press briefing here yesterday.

Use of a nuclear weapon in Iraq by the United States, for retaliation or other purposes, could be just as devastating to the civilian population, depending on the size of the weapon and whether the detonation were near a major city, the analysis suggested.

The calculations were performed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which used special software - developed for the Pentagon - to model a number of potential WMD scenarios in a U.S.-led war on Iraq. The scenarios also included various Iraqi chemical weapons attacks against Tel Aviv and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and U.S. nuclear retaliatory attacks on Baghdad and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's home city of Tikrit.

It's Saturday so I'm staying away from the Internet... I'll just share one of my favorite poems, Shel Silverstein's "Where the Sidewalk Ends":

There is a place where the sidewalk ends
And before the street begins,
And there the grass grows soft and white,
And there the sun burns crimson bright,
And there the moon-bird rests from his flight
To cool in the peppermint wind.
Let us leave this place where the smoke blows black
And the dark street winds and bends
Past the pits where the asphalt flowers grow
We shall walk with a walk that is measured and slow,
And watch where the chalk-white arrows go
To the place where the sidewalk ends.

Yes we'll walk with a walk that is measured and slow,
And we'll go where the chalk-white arrows go,
For the children, they mark, and the children, they know
The place where the sidewalk ends

For those who don't know, UVA Law is terribly obsessed with softball. We play fall and spring, many students are on multiple teams, and we host a tournament which draws teams from dozens of law schools.

I just walked by the bulletin board which lists teams and standings and saw this post:

After careful consideration, the North Grounds Softball League has decided to ban the use of ephedra and all products containing ephedra for Spring 2003 play.

Could there be a less enforceable rule? Last time I checked, there were no drug tests in law school softball. I can see the efficacy of banning the drug from the playing fields, where the umpire and opposing team can monitor compliance. But to attempt to ban its use without any enforcement/compliance mechanism just seems amusing.

Reuters is reporting that NJ has outlawed racial profiling by its public officers, including police.

This is a very tough issue, both because the courts have been reluctant to involve themselves in analyzing the pretexts of police procedure and because at some level there are emprical correlations between race, poverty, and crime rates. The latter was raised heavily after 9/11 in criticism over the reluctance to focus on Arabs in airport searches (instead searching elderly women, etc.).

As a strong skeptic of police procedure, I'm sensitive to the arguments against racial profiling. Unfortunately it is hard to present a coherent strategy for eliminating it without overburdening our police or preventing them from using effective strategies for eliminating and preventing crime.

I'd hate to have seen a police officer choose not to investigate an Arab-American (or any other race) whom he had probable cause is committing a crime (say planning to hijack a plane) because he's afraid of running afoul of this new law.

Strangest thing about the gun club: how nice and gentle all of the members seem to be, and also how old. Most of the board members are retired senior citizens who have a lot of time on their hands and like being involved in various projects (clean-up, construction, charity events). Not the stereotypical image of paranoid gun-nuts.

UPI reports that:

French and Russian oil and gas contracts signed with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq "will not be honored," Kurdish Prime Minister Barhim Salih said in Washington Friday, just before a series of high-level meetings with Bush administration officials.

Obviously the doctrine of 'to the victor go the spoils' is properly buried, but the idea that France and Russia would benefit economically from the sacrifices of America doesn't sit well with me.

Miracle. Elizabeth Smart was found. I went to high school with one of her cousins (the one on the right in the Reuters photo)... amazing to finally hear a happy ending to one of these horror stories.

We had a guest speaker in my International Human Rights Class today, a professor from the Army JAG school (which is next door) addressing the laws of war, and how JAG officers are trained. Obviously this presents great interest to me (just a few years until I'm over at the JAG school). Very professional and well-spoken officer, utilizing Powerpoint of course.

First video he showed us was the guiding of a precision-guided munition targeted at an SA-6 anti-aircraft launcher during the Kosovo conflict. As the bomb approached it's target, the person guiding the bomb saw a nearby church, and guided the bomb far away from its target into a field to avoid damaging the church.

The second video showed an airborne visual of a truck carrying Al-Qaeda members near a mosque. Those viewing the scene waited until the truck was well-clear of the mosque (which was audibly the primary concern of the targeting officers) before authorizing firing.

Both were examples of the care that the United States takes in its efforts to avoid collateral damage. I've seen videos showing when our bombs and missiles go astray, so this was a welcome perspective.

In training JAGs, he said there are four principles that are raised when deciding the legality of particular targets:

Four principles: military necessity, distinction (between military and civilian objects), proportionality (relation between civilian loss and military advantage), and unnecessary suffering.

On the last principle he made a good point about full metal jacket bullets, which do not splinter like bullets before them, thus lowering the chance of a slow death by lead poisioning.

He also talked about the trade-off between easy targets with higher civilian deaths and harder targets with lower civilian deaths but more danger to our troops (esp. pilots). Apparently there is no clear legal answer under the rules of war, but the American public is so risk-averse to our own casualties that we now tend to do more high-altitude bombing to limit the loss of pilots.

I'm not sure that anyone who listened to this man's class could honestly claim that there has ever been a major power so concerned with the means and methods it employed in warfare. We make mistakes and we make questionable decisions. But ethics and law are always at the forefront of the decision-making process, and that says a lot.

the talking dog gave a nice link to my site, with this description:

Despite this commitment to serve in our military (or perhaps BECAUSE of this background, UH is a commissioned Second Lieutenant), we get sort of a "war skeptical" approach, or do we? The political discussion is "well-reasoned" (high praise for a law student!). The blogroll is distinctly left leaning (though he has a couple of the big righties), though the commentary is NOT AS distinctly left-leaning, maybe it is...or is it?

Many thanks to the talking dog for the link and the kind words. The blogroll is left-leaning, though I'm working to make it more well-rounded.

As far as my commentary? Well I'm extremely pro-military, though as the talking dog said, I'm very skeptical of any effort to put American troops into danger (but by no means am I an isolationist). That necessarily makes me a skeptic of whichever party controls the White House, Republican or Democrat. I'm a handgun owner. I'm skeptical of affirmative action (both its ethics and efficacy). I dislike big spending generally, though that puts me in opposition to both many Democrats AND the current administration. I'm particularly put off by reckless big spending (i.e. cutting taxes without cutting spending).

More leftist (at least as far as our political parties go), I'm very pro-environment and pro-choice, the former being probably my biggest current concern. I'm rather disgusted with the current status of the 4th Amendment and its eroding constraints on police procedure. I'm pro-gay rights, anti-censorship, and very keen on the strict separation between church and state.

I have mixed feelings on the death penalty, though I tend to be very opposed to the way I see it used in the United States today.

I tend to mostly be distasteful of the mass media, not because of their politics, but because of the lack of perspective and context. The media seems to only have two approachs to the subjects of their journalism: pandering and disgust. When pandering, they toss softball questions, ignore inconsistency and hypocrisy, and only give the facts that support the object of their reporting. When disgusted, they fight straw men, resort to ad hominem attacks, ignore gray areas, and only give facts that undermine the object of their reporting.

I like the blogosphere because we specialize in calling bullshit on each other, something the media has apparently forgotten how to do.

So there's a quick and dirty manifesto.

Via Talkleft, I see Instapundit took his Constitutional Law class on a field trip to a shooting range (great idea!):

The students got a chance to shoot a variety of guns, from a .45 automatic to a .357 magnum revolver to an HK MP5 submachinegun, which last was especially popular with a couple of the women. Indeed, the bellicose-women trend was pretty visible in the class. All the students had been shooting before, something you probably wouldn't find in a law school in the Northeast or in California, but the women were notably enthusiastic. (One even knew from experience that Tuesday is "ladies' day" -- free range time -- at Guncraft.)

I suppose that in some ways the teaching value would have been higher if some of the students hadn't had any experience with guns. On the other hand, perhaps the legal parts of the lesson would have been eclipsed by the sheer novelty of the experience. And I'm just happy to have had a successful field trip in a class that doesn't lend itself to field trips very well.

I have long felt that taking those unfamiliar with weapons would do well to take a trip to the shooting range with a gun-owning friend or family member. It may not effect your views on gun laws, gun ownership, or gun owners (I am a relatively liberal gun-owner), but it might. It certainly might add a bit more substance to whatever views you hold. Every assumption about the gun owner as gun nut or right-winger is inadequate to explain me, and I know I'm not the only one who doesn't fit the profile.

NathanNewman scuttles the Republican whining about the undemocratic nature of filibusters:

So yes, the filibuster is archaic, but then so is the Senate. And so is the electoral college that put George Bush into office despite getting fewer votes than Al Gore. It's strange that when Bush was becoming President, the GOP didn't go on about majority rule so much, but now that it's their ox getting Gored, they have become born-again small d democrats.

Phil Carter has an article up on Findlaw arguing that the rise of Al Qaeda shows why "material support" prosecutions are key in the war on terrorism:

Some have argued that these prosecutions are a diversion and distraction from the real task of prosecuting terrorists. They could not be more wrong. Assuming the government's allegations against them are accurate, men like Ujaama, Arnaout and Al-Arian are as important to terror networks as the men who actually carry out terror attacks - perhaps even more so. Without such individuals raising money, arranging immigration, and providing other forms of support, the terrorists in Al Qaeda could not conduct the kind of operation we saw on September 11.

America faces a dangerously amorphous adversary in Al Qaeda. Defeating this enemy will require more than a head-on military strategy, or a crime-busting legal strategy. Instead, it requires a subtle combination of both - and it requires prosecutions not only of terrorists, but of those who fund them. We must analyze Al Qaeda to find its most vulnerable parts, and then attack those parts relentlessly using every tool at America's disposal - cutting each of the heads off the Hydra, and making sure it never re-grows.

An issue that has been floating around in my head is just how the 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council got the positions they have. I understood vaguely that the 10 slots are for two-year terms (5 elected each in alternate years) divvied up among pre-set regions of the world. Global Policy Forum has some excellent resources on the general nature of the Security Council, as well as links to stories surrounding the annual election cycle over the past several years.

What really interests me is whether the current fight at the U.N. will have an impact on what states are chosen come the next elections. It seems possibile that the more the United States angers the world's diplomatic corps, the more likely it becomes that nations hostile to our foreign policy will be elected to the UNSC.

The question is, does Rumsfeld want us to have any allies?

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has sparked diplomatic confusion by suggesting that America would be prepared to take military action against Iraq without Britain.

TalkLeft has the story: San Francisco DA Drops Charge Against Police Chief.

I think this speaks very well of the DA. Too often prosecutors become too enraptured with the idea of victory at all costs, and forget that they are important decisionmakers in the justice system. At this point, with the discretion of judges being reduced by legislatively-mandated sentencing provisions, the prosecutor has as much discretionary power as anyone in the system. This discretion ought to be exercised in answer not only to the question of "Can I get a conviction?", but also "What is the proper charge?" Sometimes the answer is that no charge is appropriate, and it is good to see the DA in this case exercising that choice.

Daily Kos has an excellent summary of the true meaning of multilateralism, as demonstrated in the first Persian Gulf War.

Those who have been following the current conflict closely will probably be astonished at just how comprehensive and REAL the support from other countries was.

My favorite stat:

Afghanistan: 300 troops

Very strange ad for Craftsman tools on page 19 of this month's Popular Science. The slogan reads:

Made in America.
Because you need something to fix the things that aren't.

Sound like the foreign policy of someone you know?

The Washington Post has great coverage of why, even in the best case scenario (in which we win the war and Iraq doesn't completely disintegrate as a nation-state), post-war occupation is going to put quite a strain on the Army.

It seems more and more likely that I may get my chance to serve in the desert (2005, here I come!)

The Christian Science Monitor gives a brief look at non-lethal weapons and the ethics of their use:

A war with Iraq, in fact, may prove the biggest test to date of the effectiveness of many of the US military's fancy new weapons. For the first time since the Panama invasion in 1989, the US may be fighting a largely urban war. Thus the tactics and technology it uses will be crucial in determining the level of casualties and perhaps the length of the war itself.

One possible genre of weapons that could be used, for instance, is riot-control agents - nonlethal chemicals such as tear gas and pepper spray - to flush out enemy fighters or put down POW revolts.

Yet some argue that these nonlethal are banned:

The international Chemical Weapons Convention allows police forces, but not military units, to use such weapons. But military use in situations more akin to law enforcement is a gray area under international law, US officials say, and tear gas was used against hostile Serb crowds in Bosnia. Marine Corps units in the Gulf area reportedly have tear gas and pepper spray in their arsenal.

"The question is whether we stick to the ban and kill people, or use them as a method to save lives," says Army Col. John Alexander (USA, ret.), former head of nonlethal defense programs at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This is essentially the argument made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in recent congressional testimony.

Great story about the role JAG officers will play in the coming conflict:

In a war with Iraq, U.S. commanders could often have an agonizing choice: strike a target and run the risk of killing civilians, and being accused by the rest of the world of committing a war crime, or hold fire and run the risk that Saddam Hussein will still have deadly weapons he can use against American and British troops or neighboring countries.

To help weigh those issues, the Pentagon has dispatched dozens of attorneys to command posts in the region. Their job: help keep America legal if President Bush unleashes its fury against Saddam’s forces.

Military commanders have long had legal advisers. But more than ever, attorneys are in the teams that choose the strategies, the targets and even the weapons to be used. Lawyers from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines will be working around-the-clock to be on hand when targets appear and fast decisions are needed.

This is the kind of work I hope to be doing in a few years. Don't let anyone say the United States is not very careful in targeting (see General Clark's book on Kosovo for more on this). This is exactly the sort of diligent work that separates the United States from our enemies, both present and historical. Many who are adamantly opposed to the war go the extreme lengths of accusing the United States of indiscriminate bombing and willful killing of civilians (see my post on 'shock and awe' below.)

This is a position disconnected from reality, and does a real disservice to the men and women in uniform who devote considerable effort to limiting collateral damage and often do so in ways that make things more dangerous for American troops (refusing to allow bombing of certain targets or with sufficient firepower to ensure the target is destroyed).

The story also addresses a most interesting question:

One of the hottest legal topics that would be decided only at the highest levels is whether to target Saddam himself. Legally, it could depend on timing:

• Lawyers say that before a war, he would not be considered a valid military target. U.S. policy also prohibits assassinations of leaders.

• If there was a war and Saddam was commanding the Iraqi army, he would be considered a combatant and could be targeted.

• If he no longer had that role and allied forces caught him fleeing, the target status might be revoked. Instead, he might be given exile or arrested and charged with war crimes.

I'll be an Army JAG officer, but this Air Force page has a good summary of the overall duties of JAG lawyers, for those who are curious.

Thanks to James' comment, I found this article in the London Review of Books that suggests Rumsfeld may be interested in undoing much of the progress made since WWII.

Once again the U.K. is floating a compromise. This may be the last, best hope of a U.N. resolution garnering majority support.

Portugal's Foreign Minister let the world know where Portugal stands:

Let us suppose Portugal, proper or its archipelagos, faced a threat, who would come to our rescue? The European Commission, France, Germany?

I think it would be NATO who would come to our rescue, in other words, it would be the U.S., no one else would defend us. For instance, during the 1996 mission in Bosnia, operations took place with the support of 20 satellites, of which only one was European.

If we were attacked, is that what they would offer to defend us? How curious is this: in Bosnia, when we were called to send soldiers urgently to that region, the U.S. had C-17 and C-130 planes, and France leased ferry boats, which during the summer are employed in tourist services to Corsica.

The Agonist, one of my favorite bloggers, has issued a plea:

I hate to do this. Moreover, I hate to beg. But, as many of you know, late last week I learned that my grant from the University for the Silk Road project had been cancelled. It has been a hard blow to take. I have pinched every extra penny I possibly could over the last several months. My fiancee even agreed to push our honeymoon back for this trip. Now 50% of my funding has been revoked because of 'Federal and State funding problems.' Two people here in town have agreed to give me some money but I am still short.

If only 100 people were to donate $25 each it would allow me to go on the trip, do the research and write the book.

It's a really neat project, click here for more info. Now Sean-Paul, about your blogroll... ;-)

AP is reporting that the SC has taken a strange case involving Miranda rights:

Fellers provides an unlikely test case. He wrote his appeal without the help of an attorney, filing as a "pauper" without having to pay court costs. The Supreme Court receives thousands of such appeals a year, but only rarely agrees to hear one. The justices will likely appoint an attorney to argue Fellers' case next fall.

Fellers was barefoot and sipping a mug of what appeared to be tea when he sat on his couch talking to officers who came to his door in Lincoln, Neb. One officer was familiar to Fellers because they both worked as hospital volunteers. Fellers talked freely about getting into drugs after the breakup of his marriage and business problems.

He had been indicted on drug charges before officers went to his house, but they did not specifically tell him they were there to arrest him.

Apparently the police/prosecution are arguing that since he was not yet "in custody," his Miranda rights were not yet triggered. Guess we'll have to wait and see whether this SC wants to keep any substantial restraints on police procedure.

StrategyPage reports:

"The Beast" has arrived in Kuwait. Nine of the 62 ton, armored D9 bulldozers have landed in Kuwait. The D9s have long been used by the Israeli army for urban warfare, and is a major reason why they keep their casualties down. The D9 can plow right through small buildings, and knock down larger ones. The dozer can clear just about any obstacles from a street and it's dozer blade will set off landmines without harming the vehicle.