Let's pretend that a proper defenition of a state of war would include a declaration of the same from Congress. I know that in this day and age it seems quaint but it would help clarify the discussion. It would also put the definition and determination of "enemy combatant" squarely back where the Founders intended.

Distilled into short concepts, the world cannot countenance the existence of either of two logical constructs:

• permanent war (a state of war that has no method for ending) or

• amorphous war (a war against an entity that cannot be defined).

Either or both are logical bridges between what we wish to be true and what we wish to be false, and therefore constitute inconsistencies. Logical inconsistencies allow, eventually, everything to be proven both true and false. So the solution is that these are not wars. That's why believing they are is so destructive.

Glenn,

I've clicked all over the Southern California ACLU site. It tells us when the Monday event is, but not where. Do you have that information? I'm interested in attending.

Thanks,

Deborah

Isn't it rugby? I seem to remember that from her explanation a couple of years ago.

A declaration of war! It's such a quaint notion! Sort of like the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg Trials!

I had that same question, but I believe this is more of a virtual deal and we just join in by phone.

Oops, yep. It's rugby. Guess I'll have to be a bench-warmer for not even getting the name of the sport right.

The link Glenn provided has rsvp details. The conference call will be at 4-5pm Pacific and Glenn will be available to answer questions.

rsvp@ourconstitution(dot)net

subject: Glenn Greenwald conference call

Habeas restoration is on the way and although it is making a snails pace progress, it is alive and kicking in the house. I believe a call to send cards, e-mails, and phone calls to your respective reps would be a good idea about now.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2826:

...demonstrates why you are THE best political columnist in the United States - in any medium. Your intellectual honesty is a beacon in the darkness.

That being said, I hope Dr. Krugman doesn't see this comment.

-- but as Acting AG, not AG, so as not to have to be confirmed -- then floating Mukasey's name is just chum, isn't it?

Mukasey is marginally less bad (at least to appearances) than Olsen or some of the other hacks bruited about, but he hasn't been nominated, and there's no telling whether he will be. If Clement satisfies the needs of the White House, though -- and apparently he does -- then the White House has no incentive to nominate anyone, do they? Or maybe they will nominate someone like Mukasey, and then withdraw the nomination when something inconvenient arises in the press about him. There's always something, isn't there?

Of course the Senate should refuse on principle (the principle of Once Bitten Twice Shy -- You Can't Get Fooled Again) to consider any nominee this president puts forward. But they won't do that. Of course not. Democratic Senates must defer to Republican Presidents. It's in the Constitution, or if it isn't, it should be. The opposite does not apply.

But the irony of it is, according to Glenn, if the Senate does refuse to consider Bush's nominee, then the White House gets what it wants anyway, and that's Clement as permanent Acting AG (at least until there is a new presidency.) But if that's what they want, really, they're going to do what they need to (which is...nothing) to get it, aren't they?

Under the circumstances, we might want to consider what's so special about Clement and why the White House wants him and raise a ruckus about that...

I have a hard time believing Bush will appoint him to AG if he actually stood up to him in the past. Bush only hires yes men.

Maybe in most administrations, a belief that the President can detain even US citizens as enemy combatants on his unchallenged designation, would be seen as troubling merely for the light it shines on mindset, since you wouldn't think that such a scenario might occur anywhere but in theory. But with this administration I don't believe that I'm being paranoid in being concerned that they should at least have the temptation to, say, order mass arrests the morning after the 2008 elections go against them, put as far off as possible. Since the Attorney General would be the official who would carry out such mass arrests, pardon me for insisting on an AG who doesn't come down on the fascist side of the question of mass arrests of whoever the Leader thinks is a threat to his security.

Not that such extreme scenarios should be the main concern. But the more general question of the extent of Presidential powers, especially as these are imagined to not be checked by the other branches, is very likely to take center stage sometime between now and when Bush, hopefully, leaves office in January 2009. They seem determined to play Constitutional hardball, and I don't think we have to settle, nor should we settle, for anyone at all likely, in a Constitutional crisis of the President's making, to be a good German, salute smartly, and pass on orders to the FBI and the US Attys that those of us who don't believe in the Unitary Executive would think illegal. It's great that this Mukasey has shown some willingness to defy the administration from the bench, but has he shown any independence from the ideology of the Federalist Society?

I really don't care, nor should those who hold the majority in the Senate, about the ideological spectrum of candidates for AG that the President would prefer to choose from. Our Senate majority can and should let the President know that he will never get a nominee confirmed who is to the right of Souter. I wouldn't go quite so far as to insist on a particular nominee, such as, say, Janet Reno. But the gorund principle is that the AG is not the AG of the President, he is the AG of the United States. The Senate speaks for the United States in confirming or rejecting the President's nominees, and a good team player, much less a good German, is not what the United States wants in DoJ right now. Maybe if we had a President who has not freqently, by his own admission, acted outside the laws he is sworn to faithfully execute, maybe we should consider his views on who would make a good AG. But he's basically a pre-indicted felon, and you wouldn't let Al Capone have much input into who the next DA of Chicago should be.

Yes, the President might respond to such firmness by making no serious effort to get an AG confirmed, and just letting the presumably good German who is now acting AG continue to hold that post until his term in office ends in January 2009. The President needs to be given a time limit to prevent this maneuver. If he makes no move to offer an acceptable nominee within the limit, the next DoJ appropriation should defund the positions of every one of his political appointees in that department, including the current acting AG. This bill would also, needless to say, set the rules for determining the acting AG so that the President could not dredge up some good German from within the career professionals in DoJ to be acting AG. The rules for determining which civil servant would fill the spot until the President sends up an acceptable nominee for AG would be set to insure that the job goes to someone apolitical.