Normally a free burrito and a lunch speaker is a good thing...

For those of you who don't know who Lynne Stewart is, you can read about her here (Orrin and others' take) or here (her own website, and the propaganda video we sat through when she came to visit today).

The skinny is she represented a convicted Islamic terrorist, intentionally broke some rules regarding her contact with him, got prosecuted and convicted for it (and, if justice prevails, will be going to jail soon) and is now being lionized by some on the left as a symbol of courage in a time of tyranny.

Here's how I would try to explain to my more liberal friends why I find Stewart (and her story) so unappealing:

Let's say I represented an anti-abortion activist who happened to primarily speak a foreign language.

And let's say he was convicted of plotting to blow up an abortion clinic and running a group that had successfully pulled off several of these mass murders.

And let's say that as a precaution against more bombings occurring at his direction the government was keeping my client in maximum-security lock up and not allowing him any contact with the outside world.

And let's say they made an exception for me as his lawyer, and told me I could bring support staff (translator, assistant) but our conversations with my client had to be limited to issues surrounding his legal defense and under no circumstances could I (or my staff) communicate on his behalf with his followers either personally or via the media.

And let's say I agreed to all of this in writing.

Now let's say I decide to patently disregard this agreement.

Let's say the "staff" I choose to bring for my client meetings are people who have ties to my client's demonstrably violent organization.

And let's say I allow my client to talk to these associates in their shared language (which I don't speak or understand) about issues wholly unrelated to his legal defense -- and I know they're talking, not translating, because the entire time they're doing it I'm making loud remarks about nothing, presumably to make it harder for the government to listen in to their conversations which it has informed me it might be doing.

And let's say a few months later another abortion clinic is bombed, killing or maiming dozens of doctors, nurses, staff, patients and bystanders...and my client's organization takes responsibility and demands his release.

And let's say even after this tragedy I continue to allow my client to meet with these conduits to his organization and speak with them as he chooses.

And let's say I issue a press release on my client's behalf wherein he urges followers to reject any peace with the "baby killers".

Again, let's say I did all this.

Would you praise me as a "zealous advocate"? Would you laud me as a "civil rights champion"?

Let's just say I wouldn't.
----

Bottom line, Lynne Stewart deserves to go to jail.

If she thought the restrictions the government was placing on her contact with her convicted-terrorist client were unconstitutional she could have challenged them. I might even have supported her in some of her objections...

Instead she made an agreement with the U.S. Government in obvious bad faith, broke it intentionally, and (at the very least) endangered innocent lives by doing so. (During the period when she was facilitating her client's communication with his organization it murdered 60 people and issued a demand for his release.)

I'll say it again, she deserves to go to jail.

Also, all the burritos were vegan.

Terrorist Abettor Lynne Stewart to Speak in Seattle

According to the announcement in The Crier (the Law School's official newsletter),

Celebrate International Women's Day with special guest Lynne Stewart speaking on “My fight for justice in Patriot Act America”

Acclaimed for defending poor people, radicals of color, and controversial figures, Stewart, a civil rights attorney, was sentenced to 28 months in prison on charges of abetting terrorism in a trial described as “a triumph of fear over reason” by Mumia Abu-Jamal. Stewart will discuss her appeal and the inspiration she draws from the legacy of female resistance to repression.

Co-sponsors: Radical Women, Seattle University Departments and Programs: Anthropology, Sociology & Social Work, Criminal Justice, Political Science, Pre-Law, Women’s Studies; the Black Panther Party Reunion Committee, National Lawyers Guild - Seattle and SU Law School Chapter.

This free event is at Seattle University, Pigott Auditorium. Enter campus on East Marion at 12th Ave. Continue straight past the visitor parking lot. The auditorium is in the Pigott Building, the first building on the right. For more information call 206-722-6057 or email RWseattle@mindspring.com.

The sponsors of the event are radical socialist groups and an otherwise respectable University down town. She's endorsed by a cop killer. But she's simply a "civil rights attorney," "acclaimed for defending the poor." There's no mention of the crime her legal defense fund is attempting to defend her against, nor of the 60 dead people she helped to kill in the name of world-wide imposition of Sharia law and the oppression of all women. That the "Radical Women" are one of the prime sponsors of this is a sick joke.

Here's some background on Stewart I put together last year, from a side comment thread on this blog on another topic.

Euro-Civil Rights and Terrorism

The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens has an interesting piece on the European approach to civil rights in their own domestic fights against the Jihadists:

Consider the powers granted to Mr. Bruguiere and his colleagues. Warrantless wiretaps? Not a problem under French law, as long as the Interior Ministry approves. Court-issued search warrants based on probable cause? Not needed to conduct a search. Hearsay evidence? Admissible in court. Habeas corpus? Suspects can be held and questioned by authorities for up to 96 hours without judicial supervision or the notification of third parties. Profiling? French officials commonly boast of having a "spy in every mosque." A wall of separation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies? France's domestic and foreign intelligence bureaus work hand-in-glove. Bail? Authorities can detain suspects in "investigative" detentions for up to a year. Mr. Bruguiere once held 138 suspects on terrorism-related charges. The courts eventually cleared 51 of the suspects--some of whom had spent four years in preventive detention--at their 1998 trial.

I may be a powerful executive, lock-'em-all-up neo-con fascist, but I just can't get behind this at all. I can't tell if Stephens is endorsing it per se, but he clearly thinks it's worth thinking about.

I think we can fight this enemy without shredding our due process tradition like that. I think we have the tools in our own Constitution to aggressively defend ourselves here at home, especially if we remain willing to fight threats overseas. Despite the problems in Iraq, I firmly believe it has already been (and continues to be) a success for America - if for no other reason than it continues to be a sink for Jihadi money, manpower, planning, and weaponry. I am convinced that our presence in Iraq (and wider robust military approach) is directly responsible for the failure of any terror organization large or small to mount an attack in the US since 9/11 more substantial than a single gunman in Seattle, another lone attacker in Salt Lake City (brought down by a citizen with a gun), and a sidewalk-driver in San Francisco. Despite the wailings of the anti-Bush crowd and self-professed civil libertarians, we've had that success while keeping our basic rights well in tact - certainly no less so than in any past conflict our nation has been involved in.

This is one of the very real ways our military is protecting our freedoms, directly, right here and now. I hope Congress considers this before putting those freedoms at risk by thinking we can simply hide here at home behind our porous borders and our libertarian Bill of Rights.

DC Circuit: Military Commissions Act Constitutional

Here's the story.

As I've written before, this is the right decision. I hope the Supreme Court agrees.

It also gives me the opportunity to respond to something Professor Epstein said two weeks ago opposed to the MCA - that a military tribunal is unconstitutional because the ajudicator is part of the executive branch. If that were true, then every single court-martial and non-judicial punishment ever imposed by the military in the past 220 years or so has been unconstitutional. And that's just absurd.

Bump: The Return of Professor Epstein - TOPIC UPDATE

*** Update! ***

TODAY - February 6, 2007, 4:00 PM, Room 119

Room change - note it is now in 119, not 118.

Professor Epstein will be discussing his view on war powers and executive authority as it relates to the War on Terror. He has a very different take from our last speaker, but from a legally (as opposed to politically) conservative point of view. Here's a preview.

It also looks like we won't have the food, per the Academic Services rules about not befouling the classrooms outside of the lunch hour. However, several of us are planning to grab some food and perhaps a tasty mug or two at the College Inn Pub after the event, and the FedSoc will pick up the first couple of pitchers in lieu of food at the event. All are welcome!

**************

World renowned University of Chicago Professor Richard Epstein will be giving a talk next Tuesday, February 6th at 4:00 PM in room 118. The topic and possible debate adversary is TBD (check back here for updates), but we can tell you for sure that:

a) it will be from a very different point of view than the standard conservative/liberal camps,
b) it will be an extremely interesting talk, and
c) there will be free food.

See you there!

Should a Triage Mentality Apply to Civil Rights?

Last Monday, a class-action trial began in federal court alleging various civil rights violations of people who were arrested during the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999. Specifically, according to the plaintiffs, the issue is this:

[P]olice arrested about 200 demonstrators gathered in Westlake Park -- primarily for pedestrian interference and obstructing an officer -- without any individualized evidence that they had broken the law.

In pretrial proceedings before U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman, the city recanted earlier testimony and admitted that the police didn't order the demonstrators to disperse before arresting them. Once they were in custody, police used a boilerplate, photocopied arrest record for everyone.

It always chaps my hide when violent protesters - or those who refuse to self-police their fellow protestors - whine about the violations of their rights. The rest of the people of the city, who actually work and contribute to the economy, could not get to work, suffered tremendous damage to their property, and in many cases, feared for their safety. I would love to see a class action suit from those folks against the professional protest groups who spearheaded the destruction.

(All of this property destruction and wasted tax dollars, I might add, in the name of restricting the ability of the Third World to join our prosperity by denying them the ability to engage in capitalism. American liberals love the myth of the Noble Savage, and will fight to preserve it - wishes and life expectancy of said "savages" not withstanding.)

But even if these particular people weren't breaking the law, should a different standard apply when a city is under siege? When large groups have broken into full scale riot, arson has been attempted and is being threatened, city and personal property is being destroyed, and the safety of innocent citizens city-wide is in question, should we be as strict with standards of probable cause as we would be with an individualized suspect at a routine traffic stop?

When a large disaster takes place which injures many people at once, acceptable standards of medical care change. Doctors in a triage situation make decisions they would never make even in an emergency room. They give up on certain patients who might otherwise be saved, they
provide the most cursory of diagnoses, and they don't bother with minor injuries that otherwise would be treated to prevent infection. We accept and understand this change of standards, because we understand the heightened danger, limited resources, and speed at which decisions must be made requires it.

The same thinking should apply to police responses when civil order has broken down, and the city faces immediate and direct threats to the safety of a city's property and citizenry. "Probable Cause" should encompass the situation - groups of protesters ignoring the police are more likely to break the law when wide-scale lawlessness brought about by their fellow protesters is already underway. We can't and shouldn't issue blank checks to riot police, but we need to be honest with the way riots and their participants work.

The price of not doing that is to allow riots to become even more violent, and indeed deadly. This is not idle conjecture, but exactly what happened in Seattle two years later when Mardi Gras revelry became violent, but the mayor and the police were afraid of "over reacting." The results were far worse riots (despite fewer people being involved), leaving one man dead. And I believe that Seattle's current rise in violent crime is directly related to a continuation of this failure to learn the right lessons from the WTO disaster.

In the meantime, the best way for hippy protesters to safeguard their rights - and ours as well - is to behave and police themselves. If civil disorder and property damage is threatened every time a rally takes place, then we'll start seeing some real encroachments on free speech and assembly. Licensing schemes will become more onerous, police will become less willing to hope for the best before they start swinging batons, city officials will face enormous incentive to lie, and an even wider swath of innocent bystanders will be impacted.

By using the circumstances of an arrest to more correctly define the law under which that arrest occurred, to include giving the police more leeway in times of emergency and large scale disorder, we will actually protect our rights. But if these protesters are successful in suckerpunching the city yet another time, this time with costly lawsuits, all of our freedoms will suffer.

Comments on "Quiet Revolution"

I was going to write tonight about the absurd Alliance for Justice film "Quiet Revolution," and judging from the jump in hits today, it looks like some people were curious as to our rebuttals. But since it took me 4 1/2 hours to get my wife and myself home tonight thanks to the weather, and I'm now enjoying a stiff drink to recover from yelling at non-South Dakota trained snow drivers, I think it best that I leave it for tomorrow.

For now, I'll merely sum it up this way:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

One of the most over the top, tabloid-esque, dishonest, and unintentionally funny things I've seen in a really long time. Watch it here and see for yourself. Details to follow.

Right wing war on the Constitution?

The ACS is sponsoring an event next Monday which promises to be both wildly amusing and mildly instructive -- a screening of a film called the "Quiet Revolution" followed by a panel discussion featuring Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice) and William Talbott (Philosophy Prof, at the UW).

The blurb for the event is beyond risible, accusing the "far right" of waging a sustained war on "the Constitution as we know it." Apparently ultra-conservative politicians, professors (all three of them) and judges are on the prowl, attempting to "shred the fabric of popular laws" protecting workers and expanding exective power while trampling on civil liberties. And Nan Aaron is going to instruct the UW student body on how to identify and slay the beast: "Learn more about this movement - its goals, its supporters, its tactics - and what you can do to take action."

I would n't miss this event for the world. I yearn to learn more about the "Constitution as we know it," and how it differs from the regular old Constitution; I'm especially keen on hearing more about the identifying characteristics and habits of this sinister sodality of "far right" vivisectionists, and the tactics for its extermination ...

Hope to see you'll there : Mon, Nov 27, Room 138 at 12:30.

Executive War Powers - What Did You Think?

Was Professor Turner correct about the intended scope of the Executive near-monopoly on war powers? Even if he was, should a "living constitution" limit those powers now? Can we trust Congress to act decisively or with necessary secrecy in the arena of foreign affairs? Tell us what you thought.

For my part, I want to note that anyone who had Professor Allen for 1L Constitutional Law did, in fact, discuss the power of the Constitution's command that "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and that this command came with extraordinary and nearly exclusive power over international affairs. I think it's fortunate at this difficult time in our history that President Bush has fought to maintain and reclaim this Executive duty.

War Powers and the Constitution Event - TODAY

Think this administration has gone too far in asserting the power of the executive? Not far enough? Join us today at 12:30 in room 117 for a talk on "The Separation of Constitutional Powers over War, Diplomacy and Intelligence: What would the Founding Fathers have thought" by Professor Bob Turner, founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia Law School.

Lunch will be served.

The Life and "Death" of Habeas Corpus

I just read Juvenal's post below, and my comment took on a life of its own. We've talked about this before, but it's worth doing again. And as a preview, remember that we'll be hosting an event on this very issue this November.

First of all, Kieth Olbermann's vile little piece of journalism propaganda to which Juvenal was referring was bad. Profoundly bad. It wasn’t even good from a purely rhetorical standpoint, not to mention the factual inaccuracies. Fortunately, more people watch O'Reilly's third re-run than Olbermann's prime-time show. His impact is limited, as it should be. I still have faith in the American people’s ability to know when they’re being BSed, and I think Olbermann’s ratings attest to that. But to the merits:

Here’s one particularly good rebuttal.

Habeas Corpus is disallowed only as to alien UECs, who ARE subject to the military commissions. Before that, all detainees are processed through an initial administrative fact finding to determine why they're there (to separate out the grudge cases from the terrorists). It’s called a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, and includes with it a right to an appeal. It’s not a habeas writ, but it does provide an avenue for alien detainees to challenge their detention (with an appeal), which is what everyone is hyperventilating over. And it's not even new with the new bill - that provision was passed by Congress last December. And as I understand it, the CSRTs weren't new, either, but merely codifications (important, I think) of pre-existing policies already in place in our detention facilities.

Citizens can be UECs, but they may still bring the writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention. Anyone who says or implies differently either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or is lying to your face. The people can decide for themselves which one Olbermann is guilty of.

Interestingly, we only keep the worst of the worst - we let the Iraqi and Afghani government keep the run-of-the-mill baddies. Any guess as to where the detainees would RATHER go?

Congress has the clear Constitutional authority to suspend HC in times of “invasion [when] the public safety may require it.” And that goes for citizens, too. I’m not surprised that neither John Kerry, Arlen Specter, nor Patrick Leahy understand we’re at war, or that foreigners are attempting to enter our country to do us harm, but that’s why none of those guys could get elected President, or should be listened to now.

Suspending habeas for alien combatants in a time of war seems to me not only fully constitutional, but clearly the right thing to do. When have POWs ever been granted trials? And why should we grant trials to murderous scum who wouldn't even qualify as POWs for their penchant to bomb children and not wear uniforms? Besides, since this is not only not an across-the-board suspension, but a carefully considered limitation far less onerous than in virtually every other military engagement this nation has fought in, something tells me Olbermann’s unencumbered-by-fact “obituary” is a bit premature.

To me, there’s an even larger policy consideration that seems to be missed in the larger debate. If we determined that only enemy combatants that played by the rules, wore uniforms, didn’t target civilians, etc. could be held without trial, in their case as POWs, then as a matter of policy we would be encouraging our enemies to “fight dirty.” “The Americans are coming! Quick – strip off your uniform! You get a lawyer and a trial that way, with the ACLU’s finest lawyers who will believe all your lies! It beats summary and indefinite detention, and you might even get a signed picture from Susan Sarandon before you're let go to kill more Americans...”

Here are some actual Constitutional scholars talking about the issue, with many of their far better reasoned (and real) legal concerns. Thank God Congress ignored the Constitutional Chicken Littles and did the right thing to keep the country safe.

---

UPDATE: I just got called a "legal scholar" on the Olbermann Watch blog. I'm a little embarassed to be sandwiched between Andrew McCarthy and Mark Levin, but I'm honored anyway. Thanks for the link, and thanks for reading, everyone.

Keith Olbermann, constitutional scholar

Media dishonesty taken to a new level : Keith Olbermann (video clip) discusses the recent detainee treatment act that passed Congress. No attempt to inform here, just rank misrepresentation. There are plenty of valid reasons (constitutional and prudential) to dislike the recent act, but this hatchet job by Olbermann does a disservice to those who have serious and principled objections to the act.

NSA Wiretap - What Did You Think?

Thank you, everyone, for coming out to our NSA Wiretap discussion, and making it a huge success. It's unfortunate that we only had a short time to really explore these issues. We would love to know what you think - of the topic, of the speaker, of the venue, of the pizza... Feel free to comment below!

We've discussed this topic before - here are some of our past blogs on the topic. One goes deeper into the 4th Amendment implications, which is very interesting and worthy of its own.

• Federalist Society Monograph
• Orin Kerr's Analysis

If this talk interested you, please note that we have a tenatively scheduled event later this quarter on the Constitutional framework which makes legal (or not) our detention of various detainees at Gitmo.

We hope you enjoyed our event, and hope to see you at more! For more information on the Federalist Society or our events, please subscribe to our mailing list.

NSA Wiretap Discussion This Tuesday

What Process is Due for a Non-Citizen Suspected Terrorist?

Congress finally passed the terror suspect detainee bill, setting up military commissions to determine the status of detainees. Is it enough? Are we being too nice? Are they POWs? Join the discussion already in progress...

The Anti-Federalist Society and "Fair Trials"

Lately I've seen a couple of pieces in various press sources about our erstwhile rivals and student office mates, the American Constitution Society, and thought they were worth commenting on.

The first is this amusing piece in the Weekly Standard about how imitation of the Federalist Society is the sincerest form of flattery, along with some tongue-in-cheek suggestions on how to further capitalize on more of FedSoc's good ideas.

But second and far less amusing is their participation in an event advertised in Eat the State, an angry socialist rage-against-the-MAN,-man! rag of little note and picked up for its laughter value. But the events they advertise are wider and more main stream in scope. The one I'm talking about in particular is The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld, also sponsored by such self-styled non-partisan, Islamo-fascist apologist luminaries as the ACLU and Amnesty International.

Here's the description of the event:

The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld is an educational event that will feature nationally recognized speakers and dramatized trial testimony. Speakers include Jennifer Harbury, author of Truth, Torture and the American Way; Ron Slye, Professor in International Comparative Law, Seattle University School of Law; and Pramila Jayapal, Founder and Executive Director of Hate Free Zone Washington. Trial vignettes will include stories by detainees and the cross-examination of Donald Rumsfeld. Please join us for this historic event and help us hold senior U.S. officials accountable for facilitating torture. Through this event, we will call on the U.S. Government to:

(1) close all torture camps,

(2) provide due process rights to all detainees, and

(3) prosecute war crimes.

It's ironic to me that they're calling for (what I can only assume are) full US Constitutional due process rights for non-citizen terrorists captured on the field of battle while denying the Secretary of Defense his own. Look again. The "trial" they're putting on only has prosecution witnesses and a prosecution cross examination. There is no defense direct examination, witnesses, context, re-direct, cross examination of the "victims" of "torture" who are the accusers, jury of peers, etc.

And there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the outcome will be.

What is an event where a person's guilt is pre-determined, where he has no lawyer, where he cannot confront his accusers, where he cannot appeal to his peers, and where he cannot call witnesses in his defense?

This is not a trial, but a show trial - a well-worn method used for centuries by despots who wish to claim legal and moral legitimacy in extra-legal and profoundly immoral systems. I have my own concerns about lacks of any kind of fact findings in US detention facilities in some limited circumstances, but feel far better about the protection of my rights under the Bush Administration than if the ACLU, ACS, or a law professor at Seattle University were in charge. For mainstream organizations supposedly worried about "America Fascism," it's a disappointing - but unfortunately not surprising - turn of events.

---

UPDATE: A good discussion about what trial rights detainees SHOULD have grew out of the comments on this post, but it just wasn't that relevant to what I wanted to discuss here. As such, I saved the comments under its own post above.

Also, I forgot to mention that the Eat the State rag was also lionizing Hugo Chavez, a guy who knows a little something about show trials and lack of separation of powers.

Hamdan - interfering With National Security?

Here is the opinion (pdf). I haven't had a chance to read it yet (stupid having to work...), but from what I can tell so far, it seems like the wrong call. The news coverage is all over the map, and I can't get a good sense about what the actual implications are.

If it's merely a separation of powers issue, then OK - have Congress give the president the authorization he needs to give these people a fair hearing to determine their status. And do it today. They clearly have plenty of time and patriotic fervor to toss around, if they can be bothered with such inanity as a flag burning amendment.

But if indeed Justice Stevens has extended Geneva Convention rights to these people, then the Court will have gotten it profoundly, deeply, and (literally) fatally wrong. The Convention protects those who also agree to respect its provisions. When you don't wear a uniform or represent a nation state, and then target civilians besides, you don't get to enjoy the niceties of a world civilization you're trying to bring down. That's the only incentive we have to get people to follow such conventions in the first place!

More when I've actually read it. I'm not going to rely on news reports on this one.

No More Knock & Announce

The Supreme Court ruled today in the case of Hudson v. Michigan that if police officers have a warrant, they no longer have to knock and announce themselves as police before entering a home. This is a shift made possible by the retirement of Justice O'Connor.

I don't really understand why this is controversial. The sanctity of the home must be protected, but that's why there's a warrant process. But in case I had any doubt, Justice Breyer reminded us why we need more Alitos and Robertses on the court:

It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection.

The Constitution has a "knock-and-announce protection?" That must be in the Eleventeenth Amendment.

The only "practical value" I can see in the old rule is the value to the criminal who has extra time to hide or destroy evidence, or even escape. Once the warrant is issued, due process has been upheld. The ONLY benefit to requiring an announcement is to the criminal flushing drugs down the toilet.

---

UPDATE: Here's the opinion itself (PDF). And I was wrong initially, as I should have suspected I would be when relying on the Seattle Times for legal analysis. The knock-and-announce rule is still in effect, but the exclusionary rule is not applicable to it under these circumstances.

Check out the facts behind the arrest in particular. The door was unlocked, not broken down. There were large quantities of drugs and firearms, including a loaded gun hidden in the cushions of the chair in which the suspect was sitting. I just can't see how this is unreasonable.

Haditha, Due Process, and the Disgusting Smugness of the Anti-War Press

Daniel Shorr has always been one of the more insidious voices in the press rooting for American defeat, at least since I've been aware of him, and he embodies the argument for why NPR shouldn't receive a dime of tax money. The last time I heard him on the radio, he was calling Hamas a humanitarian organization and lamenting that those big mean neo-con Bushies designated them as terrorists and wouldn't give them any money just because they wouldn't march lock step with the villainous land thieves in Israel. But his latest slander piece on the Haditha investigation really got my blood boiling. First, Mr. Shorr, who I know is not privy to the as-yet-to-be-completed investigation report, and who CERTAINLY wasn't there, somehow knows with clarity what happened:

It seems clear now that in Haditha, northeast of Baghdad, a Marine lance corporal was killed by a roadside bomb. And his enraged buddies swept through three nearby houses shooting point-blank at residents, men, women, children, old, young. It didn't seem to matter.

Wow. Really? I seems clear? A squad of Marines is a town teeming with terrorists, terrorists who think nothing of hiding in and among innocents, terrorists who aren't exclusively male or adult, terrorists who wear no uniforms and are perfectly willing to sacrifice innocent Iraqi lives for their fascist cause. A bomb had gone off just minutes before, killing one of them. They are trying to catch who set the explosive, because there may be more. They must act quickly, before the trigger man who set off the IED can escape. Clarity, it seems, is not something that we can count on in such a situation, even from the men who were there. Shorr, an Army intelligence officer in WWII, ought to know better about the fog of war.

How about a little benefit of the doubt here, for people who deserve it the most and are in a situation we can understand the least? No one has even been charged yet. We don't know what happened. To do otherwise, especially when it's a government official (equally sans investigation report) recklessly throwing out the accusations of "murder in cold blood," represents a deep and unforgivable betrayal. The only thing worse is when that official had also once been a Marine, and knows better. (He's now that rarest of animals, an Ex-Marine.) Semper fi, indeed.

But as bad as all of this is, Mr. Shorr takes it to the next, unpardonable level:

Although on a much smaller scale, Haditha brings back My Lai, 1968, the massacre of hundreds of Vietnamese villagers, which came to symbolize American disregard for innocent human life.

(Emphasis mine.) "American disregard for innocent human life." Wow. He doesn't qualify this statement. He simply states it as a given. And just in case you think he meant only that it left people with the incorrect symbolism, he ends his piece with a backhanded assertion that we've been the bad guy all along:

And, undoubtedly, Haditha will add to the pressures for withdrawal from Iraq among Americans, many of whom are already dubious about the assertion that the American mission is liberation.

The only people who are dubious that our mission is liberation are the unhinged lefties who can only see the worst in America and her defenders. He doesn't remind people that the vast majority of soldiers, however fatigued, would never think of doing such a thing. He doesn't note that My Lai was a gross anomaly (despite what John Kerry said), still remembered today because what it represents is so rare and shameful to Americans. He doesn't mention how hard OIF Marines and soldiers work to prevent civilian casualties at great risk to themselves, despite the fact the enemy hides behind them. And he ignores that it is our enemies who target innocent civilians as a matter of policy, sawing off heads in the name of Allah. If our soldiers commit an atrocity, they are court martialed. When theirs do it, they're promised virgins in heaven and lauded as martyrs. And that includes Shorr's "humanitarians," Hamas.

In other words, this knee jerk reaction is a revealing look at how the far left REALLY views our folks in uniform. A quick perusal through the left side of the blogosphere contains barely contained glee at the revelations.

If we lose this war and run home with our tail between our legs because we were not at all times perfect, the innocents Shorr and his fellow travelers have such empathy for will find themselves subject to a fascist failed state, where terror is official policy, political dissent is answered with wood chippers, and purple fingers are cut off. And that's before the innocent Americans start dying here at home because the terrorists have regained a training ground. Spare us your moral cluck-clucking, Mr. Shorr.

Let me be clear. No one will hate these Marines more than me if the investigation reveals "cold blooded murder." Such an act, like that at Abu Ghraib, is not only deeply immoral for its own sake, but it's a sin against history and humanity as it stalls the progress of freedom and security, and helps the fascists in their evil cause. But in our zeal to stay on the high road, sometimes innocent warriors are accused of war crimes, only to be acquited at trial. So until the court martial, how about we let the system work, ignore the Dan Shorrs of the world who root for our defeat and wantonly slime our troops for the sake of "I told you so," and not hope for or see the worst in the best of our citizens.

Legal Debate on Terrorism Surveillance

The National Federalist Society has just put out a monograph on domestic surveillance and counter-terrorism, with both the ABA's take on what it (shockingly) considers the illegalities of these programs, and an alternate point of view. I've only had the chance to skim it, but it's very interesting stuff. Most of the other things I've seen so far, like Ranjit's nod to Orin Kerr, has focused on statutory concerns, but this looks like it addresses broader inherent power concerns.