Is Michael Mukasey as nutty as Alberto Gonzalez is dishonest?

Congress should explicitly declare war against al Qaeda to make clear the United States can detain suspected members as long as the conflict lasts, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said on Monday.

Mukasey urged Congress to make the declaration in a package of legislative proposals to establish a legal process for terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo, in response to a Supreme Court ruling last month that detainees had a constitutional right to challenge their detention.

“Any legislation should acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us,” Mukasey said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.

“Congress should reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations,” he said.

I don’t recall recall Francis Biddle telling Congress that December 7th was a date which will live in infamy and asking it to declare war on Japan. Presumably, if President Bush actually wanted a declaration of war against a non-state actor, he could have asked for such a declaration at any point in the last 7 years. A declaration of war is obviously a serious matter, and not one which should be taken to make an attorney general’s task of defending unwise and unconstitutional detention schemes any easier.

Who knows, maybe they’re thinking of issuing some Executive Orders and repopulating Manzanar? I do know that asking Congress to give the Bush administration even more executive powers after his systematic abuse and usurpation of power aided by a largely supine Congress is a non-starter.

I’ve been largely steering clear of the blogwar between Clintonistas and Obamaites, but this post cries for quick comment. Lambert, in a post ironically titled Stupid Roe argument opines:

I keep hearing the OFB (”Obama Fan Base,” a derogation for those who support Obama) talking point that a key reason to vote for Obama in the general is to safeguard Roe. [ed: through Supreme Court appointments.]

If McCain won — if Satan himself won — Democrats would still have control of the SJC. If Dems really want to safeguard Roe, then make Roe a litmus test for the nominees. Then bork whoever gets sent up ’til McCain — or Satan — gets it and does the right thing.

Of course, that would require the Senate Dems to acquire stones, but that would be bad why?

There are plenty of other reasons to vote for the Democrat in the general, but this is not one.

This is incredibly shortsighted. First of all, if McCain wins the general election, he will be in office for 4, or perhaps 8, years. One-third of the Senate is up for reelection every 2 years. Thus it is within the realm of theoretical possibility that the entire Senate could turn over within McCain’s presidency. While this is extremely unlikely, it is not possible to discount the possibility that within that time frame the Democrats may not control the SJC (Senate Judicial Committee) or the Senate, and may not have veto power over a Supreme Court nominee.

Right now, the Democrats have a narrow majority in the Senate, and though that may be substantially enlarged in the general election, we won’t really know exactly what the numbers will be until after the voting is down. If the supposition is wrong, then it is too late to ask for a do-over and decide that voting for a pro-choice presidential candidate does matter, just as it would be too late if the GOP somehow wrested control of the Senate back during McCain’s presidency.

It goes without saying that relying on the Senate to “bork” any candidate who refuses to pleadge to reaffirm Roe v. Wade is equally myopic. The fact that the Senate has been 100% unsuccessful in controlling judicial appointments in the past ought to be a hint that it may be impossible for it to do so in the future.

Realistically, a more likely scenario if McCain is in office is an appointee who refuses to directly state how he would vote on abortion, who plays lip service to the value of precedent in general and Roe in particular. In other words, you get another Roberts.

There have been only 2 Supreme Court appointments by Democratic Presidents in the last 40 years. Apart from the issue of abortion and the continuing viability of Roe v. Wade, there are many other important issues impacted by the current rightward twist of the Court - like voting rights, for instance.

I’ve met Lambert a few times, and have found him intelligent and earnest. But pretending that the power to make Supreme Court appointments doesn’t matter, when Justice Stevens is 88, Ginsberg is 75 and Breyer is 70 is willful blindness. Villify Obama (and his “fan base”) all you want, but you have to be smarter than this. The consequences of an aging Supreme Court and another 4-8 years of GOP judicial appointments would have a substantial and lasting impact on this country.

May 4, 1970

Saudi Arabia is prime source of terror funds, U.S. says

Saudi Arabia remains the world’s leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration’s top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.

Stuart A. Levey, a Treasury undersecretary, told a Senate committee that the Saudi government had not taken important steps to go after those who finance terrorist organizations or to prevent wealthy donors from bankrolling extremism through charitable contributions, sometimes unwittingly.

“Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world,” Levey said under questioning.

President Bush, in words:

“Protecting your country [from terrorism] is the number-one priority as far as I’m concerned”

“My number one priority is to protect you. . . after 9/11″

In pictures: President Bush (whose number one priority is supposedly fighting terror) holding hands with the ruler of the world’s number one source of funding for Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks:

Fighting terror is Bush’s number one priority, right as long as it doesn’t upset his family’s Saudi financial backers.

You might remember that one of the rationales (and one of the few with any basis in fact) for invading Iraq was Saddam’s financial backing given to the families of suicide bombers, financing on a scale which can only be described as miniscule compared with Saudi financing of al Qaeda.

From John Cole’s mea culpa about his early support for the war; If I had been wrong about the war, this would be a Thing I Wish I’d Written:

I mean, I could go down the list and continue on, but you get the point. I was wrong about EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. THING. It is amazing I could tie my shoes in 2001-2004. If you took all the wrongness I generated, put it together and compacted it and processed it, there would be enough concentrated stupid to fuel three hundred years of Weekly Standard journals.

h/t to John.

NESS CITY, Kan. - A man whose girlfriend authorities say spent nearly two years in a bathroom in their house, sitting on the toilet so long that the seat adhered to her body, has been charged with mistreatment of a dependent adult.

Sgt Whipple … “dependent” … I’m just sayin’ …

Sheriff Bryan Whipple has said that he used a pry bar to remove the seat from the toilet, and that the woman was taken to the hospital with the seat still attached.

“She would have to be sleeping on the toilet,” Whipple said.

Source

“They took the bar, the whole fucking bar.”

In what can only be described as a crime against nature, hundreds of bottles of Jack Daniels — some of it a century old — might be poured down the drain.

Channel 4 News in Nashville has the story:

Here’s a sobering thought: Hundreds of bottles of Jack Daniel’s whiskey, some of it almost 100 years old, may be unceremoniously poured down a drain because authorities suspect it was being sold by someone without a license.

Officials seized 2,400 bottles late last month during warehouse raids in Nashville and Lynchburg, the southern Tennessee town where the whiskey is distilled.

“Punish the person, not the whiskey,” said an outraged Kyle MacDonald, 28, a Jack Daniel’s drinker from British Columbia who promotes the whiskey on his blog. “Jack never did anything wrong, and the whiskey itself is innocent.”

Indeed, Mr. MacDonald, the whiskey is innocent.

The whiskey never hurt anyone.

In fact, it may be argued that the whiskey has life-sustaining powers more powerful than any herb, vitamin or elixir.

Issues of health aside, the disposing of century-old Jack Daniels that never hurt anyone and exists only to bring a little light into our otherwise bleak lives is a sin. I liken it to burning perfectly good weed, just because someone was selling it illegally.

Think of the good work that could be done with the whiskey. Think of the money that could be raised by auctioning it off. Think of the spirits that could be lifted simply by letting bloggers in L.A. drink it.

I’ve got a friend with Kansas City connections. And every time he returns from the Midwest, he brings me a bottle of Jack, from a vintage not available easily in Los Angeles. How I look forward to that first, smooth sip … it’s mother’s milk.

Tonight, I’ll go home and pour myself a few fingers of the amber liquid. And I’ll lift the glass to my lips and drink, slowly to savor the smooth taste. And as I roll my friend Jack around my mouth before swallowing, I’ll say a little prayer for innocent whiskey wasted.

“sorry about the door.”

In the nearby hard-hit city of Poway, Don and Susan Buckley, both 49, sneaked into their exclusive Highlands Ranch neighborhood and trekked up a long hill past a locked gate to see whether their Mediterranean-style house had survived.

When she caught sight of its roof, Susan, a sales executive at an advertising firm, let out a deep sigh and exclaimed: “It’s there! Oh my God, we are so lucky.”

Walking hesitantly through their smashed-in wooden door, they saw that the flames had come within 10 yards of the house and had decimated four large homes up the hill.

On their kitchen counter were empty Gatorade bottles and energy-bar wrappers, and a note from the crew of San Diego Fire Engine 12, Lincoln Park.

“House saved,” it read. “Sorry about the door!”

Oh NO!

Porter Wagoner ailing, hospitalized

2 hours, 51 minutes ago

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Porter Wagoner has been hospitalized with an undisclosed ailment and is in serious condition, his publicist says. Darlene Bieber said the 80-year-old Grand Ole Opry star, known for his trademark rhinestone stage outfits, “is asking for prayers from his friends and fans.”

She had no other information, Bieber said Thursday. WSMV-TV reported that Wagoner was admitted to the hospital earlier this week for observation. He was hospitalized for two weeks in July 2006 after suffering a stomach aneurism. In May, he celebrated his 50th year on the Grand Ole Opry, the long-running live country music show. He helped launch Dolly Parton’s career by hiring her as his duet partner in 1967.

Wagoner’s career took an upturn this year when he signed with ANTI-records, an eclectic Los Angeles label best known for alt-rock acts such as Tom Waits, Nick Cave and Neko Case. He released the album “Wagonmaster,” earning Wagoner some of the best reviews of his career.

Wagoner was the opening act for the White Stripes at a sold-out show at Madison Square Garden in Manhattan this summer.

___

Glenn Greenwald’s blog today on the Bush administration’s contempt for civil liberties and the rule of law — a high official hoping for another terrorist attack so they can extend warrantless searches.