If the definition of war is that the enemy must be a nation state, how did our Civil War qualify?

This vote for the AG is another chance. A chance to ask a simple question: "is this an acceptable nominee or not". To me, it's a simple decision, based on Glen's piece today. He's not, IF he claims that executive power trumps habeas. It is that simple.

Yes, that leaves Paul Clement as acting AG. But personally, I will willingly accept the punishment of a dead-ender acting-AG of a dead-ender president--IF--I gain a senate that has begun making principled, solid decisions. For the most solid of reasons I add--for not wanting to destroy 800 years of habeas tradition.

I agree with all of this. I typically argue against these sorts of pramgatic considerations when they undermine vital principles. But if there were a chance to have an AG who really would prosecute lawbreaking where he saw it, and restore the central integrity to the DOJ, those are principles worth embracing.

More importantly to your point, it's a bit hard for me to imagine this Congress taking the kind of principled stance over habeas that you suggest. Let's remember that while the Bush administration first denied habeas, the Congress last October formally endorsed that position when it passed the MCA.

It's been 8 months since the Democrats have taken over Congress. Not only have they not restored habeas, they haven't even voted on it. It's an extremely priority for them, if it's a priority at all. They have no interest in it. Accordingly, it would be a bit odd - and hypocritical -- for them to reject some proposed AG on the grounds of insufficient commitment to habeas when they themselves are so plainly guilty of exactly the same thing.

If the Democrats wanted to restore habeas, they could do it. They wouldn't need the theatrics of an AG confirmation process to achieve that.

What Is It (Good For)

If the definition of war is that the enemy must be a nation state, how did our Civil War qualify?

-- SusanMc

What do you mean? The South succeeded from the Union and became the Confederacy. Basically, they became a Nation State. They were all in one block and their army had uniforms. They had their own flag that they flew in battle and over their Capitols. I don't see any comparison between that and the 'all over the world' no uniform terrorist organizations of many stripes.

An interesting thread. Thanks to all, especially to Glenn, who's busier than most of us, for contributing beyond the original post.

SusanMc: I think the folks down south who still fly the stars and bars would be miffed that you don't seem to consider the CSA a nation.

Glenn: For what it's worth, and despite my general distaste for all things Bush, your criticism of the Democrats, and their on-again, off-again defense of the rule of law, is spot on -- much to my shame as a Democrat.

Ondelette: good points all. Clearly the endlessness of GWB's declared war, and his diffuse attributions of responsibility for it, are a major problem in redefining war for the 21st century to include powerful, but non-state actors.

But if there were a chance to have an AG who really would prosecute lawbreaking where he saw it, and restore the central integrity to the DOJ, those are principles worth embracing.

Glenn’s comment brings me to some questions I have about Looseheadprop’s post over at FDL (that Glenn linked to). S/he seems to be saying that the White House is putting one over on us again with this nomination. I’m not sure I get this, so maybe someone else can explain it.

How would going along with this appointment “buy” the White House out of future investigations about the firing of US attorneys?

How would confirming this nomination (for the Democrats) “give away” the Senate’s oversight powers?

What would they be bargaining away? (Sorry if these are dumb questions, but I’m obviously missing something here.)

Looseheadprop is convinced that Mukasey is going to be “punked” just like Ashcroft was, and they’ll hide what they’re really doing from him.

That’s certainly possible, but that’s true of anyone isn’t it?

...used in a murder and covered by this judge's fingerprints in his man-size safe.

More importantly to your point, it's a bit hard for me to imagine this Congress taking the kind of principled stance over habeas that you suggest. Let's remember that while the Bush administration first denied habeas, the Congress last October formally endorsed that position when it passed the MCA.

My aspirations are not "reality-based". I acknowlege. Even dislike that term, by the way. Reality-based. Rosa Parks wasn't "reality based". Almost as bad as "The Homeland". How the hell did our country become the "homeland". Its an abomination.

And who the hell was it who decided that "blue" meant democratic, and "red" meant republican. What the hell is going on, I ask you.

Looseheadprop of FDL is a woman. A really smart one. Also, looseheadprop is a position in hockey. Which is the origin of her FDL handle.

And who the hell was it who decided that "blue" meant democratic, and "red" meant republican. What the hell is going on, I ask you.

-- casual_observer

Actually, there is an innocent explanation for that but I've forgotten what it was. Besides, it doesn't matter anymore because whatever the explanation was it has been bastardized beyond recognition. That much I do remember. That's how powerful 'framing' and repeating a lie until the truth finally gives up on getting it's boots on is in politics.

Kitt, during my whole long (and increasingly senile) life, hues of red were the undisputed property of the left. It was the color of heat, passion, etc.

The conservatives were blue. Cold. Passionless. Heartless.

One day, somebody changed all that, and apparently I missed the memo. It was a mistake, imo.

Forgot to talk about whether or not they need to be nation-states. No, they need to be entities capable of ending conflict by treaty. That was the only thing implied by my comment on the stuff about endless war.

There also needs to be enough coherence to the entity that one can decide who is or is not part of that entity. The other problem (which I hadn't discussed in my comments above) is the idea that everyone in the world is potentially an enemy combatant until proven otherwise. That also flies in the face of any conception of what humanity means by war. It's the other fallacy that's tearing our law apart -- by surveillance. There can't really be a space made to declare and prosecute a war on an enemy that will be judged to be enemy after detention and before taking up arms.

I can think of an example of an entity that is not a nation state that fits all the criteria -- has the ability to sign and implement a treaty ending conflict, and isn't a group that has completely indistinct membership. A lawful corporation. There's even an example: Blackwater. Perhaps we should make them sign the Geneva Conventions as a precondition to their lawful incorporation. Or take the radical step of banning such a corporate entity.