Now that the alleged grounds for locking people up in Guantanamo are finally seeing, if not the light of day, at least the light of federal judges’ chambers, it looks as though the government has been bluffing all along:

With some derision for the Bush administration’s arguments, a three-judge panel said the government contended that its accusations against the detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents.

The court compared that to the absurd declaration of a character in the Lewis Carroll poem “The Hunting of the Snark”: “I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”

“This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true,” said the panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Okay, who is surprised? Show of hands?

You can read a PDF of the actual opinion. Check out page 28, where it says:

[T]he government suggests that several of the assertions in the intelligence documents are reliable because they are made in at least three different documents. We are not persuaded. Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has “said it thrice” does not make an allegation true. See LEWIS CARROLL, THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK 3 (1876) (“I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”). In fact, we have no basis for concluding that there are independent sources for the documents’ thrice-made assertions. To the contrary, as noted in Part III, many of those assertions are made in identical language, suggesting that later documents may merely be citing earlier ones, and hence that all may ultimately derive from a single source. And as we have also noted, Parhat has made a credible argument that — at least for some of the assertions — the common source is the Chinese government, which may be less than objective with respect to the Uighurs. Other assertions in the documents may ultimately rely on interview reports (not provided to the Tribunal) of Uighur detainees, who may have had no first-hand knowledge and whose speculations may have been transformed into certainties in the course of being repeated by report writers.

For years now, we’ve had propaganda coming down from on high that if we let any of those Gitmo “detainees” see blue sky, home-cooked food, or their families again, we might as well kiss our keisters goodbye—but better yet, let’s torture them! Just a couple weeks ago we had Justice Scalia freaking out—there’s really no better way to describe it—over the thought of giving these people a basic human right like habeas corpus.

And now the Bush administration has a chance to ride into court, present a smoking gun, and give the lie to its many, many detractors. So what does it do? Some kind of Jedi mind trick? “These aren’t the detainees you want to set free.” “Pay no attention to the torturers behind the curtain.” Who the hell are these people and how did they get their grubby little hands on the national steering wheel?

Oh, that’s right—a couple skyscrapers got knocked down and the American people eagerly hopped into the back seat, covered their eyes, handed the government a case of whisky, and said, “Step on it!”

It’s time to swallow the fear, climb back in the driver’s seat, and get back to the highway. Enough with with the shrill paranoia, secrecy, and fear. Security is probably impossible, but justice may be within reach.

It’s worrisome that conservative presidential candidates still think they need a seal of approval from Billy Graham—and now his son Franklin:

Franklin Graham issued a statement after the meeting praising the Arizona senator’s “personal faith and his moral clarity.”

Personal faith and moral clarity are vague, nebulous qualities that have little objective correspondence with the world. Not that I mean to fall into the cliché—and I don’t think this does—but Adolph Hitler had personal faith and moral clarity, too. He had personal faith in his own twisted ideology and he had moral clarity so sharp that it drove him to exterminate people who drew his moral disapproval.

But stepping back from the precipice of hyperbole, what exactly does it mean to have “personal faith and moral clarity”? Perhaps more importantly in these particular circumstances, why is it so important for John McCain to have Franklin Graham declare his “personal faith and moral clarity”?

If these qualities meant anything, wouldn’t they be apparent to everyone? Or are the Grahams more like palm readers, who pull heads of state behind their curtains, engage in a hushed dialogue, only to emerge with some kind of “expert” proclamation regarding the inner or spiritual qualities of their supplicants? What gives them the authority? And how exactly do “personal faith and moral clarity” translate into policy?

Better to vote for someone with personal integrity and intellectual clarity—those are the qualities of someone who makes good decisions. But good luck getting the voters excited about those qualities. It seems Americans prefer to hang their hat on things that equate, in practical terms, to “goes on hunches” and “shoots from the hip.” You’d think people might learn after eight years of that leadership style that it’s nothing but trouble. Apparently not.

If these are the kind of people that Hillary Clinton drew, then I’m glad she’s out of the running:

Police on Sunday were investigating vandals’ spray-painting of dozens of city vehicles [in Orlando, Florida], some with disparaging messages about the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Authorities think the vandalism to about 60 vehicles, estimated at $10,000 in damage, was done Saturday afternoon, police spokeswoman Sgt. Barbara Jones said.

The vehicles were parked across from City Hall and investigators said culprits tagged messages including “Obama smokes crack” and a racial epithet.

They even left business cards on the vehicles that disparage both the Illinois senator and his rival, Republican John McCain. The cards voice support for Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former opponent.

It’s bad enough that Clinton supporters keep whining and refuse to move on. But committing property crimes? What is wrong with these people?

John McCain says: “Senator Obama’s word cannot be trusted. . . . But the fact is that I’ll keep my word to the American people and you can trust me.”

Okay, now that you’re done chuckling at how childish and transparently “political“ that sounds, read ”McCain’s Flourishing Flip-Flop List.”

And watch this video: “John McCain vs. John McCain.”

This is how politicians waste time, insult the American public, and perpetuate stupidity and ignorance. We all know that politicians change their minds about things. We should expect them to change their minds. Like the rest of us, they constantly encounter new information that may lead to a change in their views. Even if they’re acting from wholly pure motives, why should we expect them never to change their minds?

I would never vote for someone who appears never to have changed his or her mind, who seems to be flying on an ideological autopilot, without responding to circumstances, which are always changing. Those are absolutely the most dangerous people in the world.

Whether a politician has changed his or her position is and always should be a non-issue. Politicians have always changed their minds and they always will. Get over it. That John McCain is out there making this non-issue into an issue demonstrates either how far removed from reality he is or how stupid he thinks the American public is.

Worse, McCain’s cynicism shows through when he uses the stupid phrase, “keep my word.” Keeping your word is adhering to a promise to act a certain way. If your friend says, “I’ll help you move on Saturday,” but then doesn’t show up, your friend did not keep her word. If you say, “Don’t worry how much it costs, I’ll make sure it’s paid for,” then most people would say you are morally obligated to keep your word. Elected representatives are in a situation that is not remotely similar to a typical “keep your word” situation. We do not elect representatives to go to Washington and act like contractually-bound drones. That’s what proxies do. We don’t elect proxies. We elect people who will go to Washington, participate in the debate, listen to arguments—both from constituents and from other representatives—then use their informed judgment to make a decision.

There’s no “keeping your word” in elective office. But there is doing your job. And one of the jobs of elected representatives, like Senators, like both Barack Obama and John McCain, is to exercise discretion. Since they are humans, they are bound to contradict themselves. If you’ve ever met someone who didn’t contradict himself or herself, then you weren’t paying attention.

And if you are suckered in by John McCain’s talk about “keeping his word,” then you need to take another look. His statement is factually untrue (i.e., a lie) regarding whether he has changed positions, because he has in fact changed his mind on many occasions, and substantially irrelevant because it’s not his job to “keep his word.”

Since when do captains of industry make videos like this?

Even though the Supreme Court said it’s okay, there are plenty of good reasons not to keep a loaded handgun in your home. And these guys appear to agree.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist or anything, but it sure seems pretty weird that John McCain has an advisor who thinks (probably correctly) that a terrorist attack would drive paranoid voters to take shelter under his hawkish, Republican wings in November and now he is claiming that he’ll not leap ahead of Barack Obama until 48 hours before election day. Recall that John Kerry thought Osama bin Laden’s video release days before the 2004 election cost him the presidency. He was probably right. This is all just a specific application of the old “October surprise” concept, but far more insidious. What exactly does John McCain know?

Now that we’re embroiled in this “war on terror,” vast swaths of the American public have transformed into paranoia-addled, gullible sheep who believe that trading their rights for “security” is an act of patriotism. But look, if you want “security,” then you should start looking for unicorns, bigfoot, and mermaids, too. Do you want to live in a safer world? Then stop voting for people who will perpetuate failed wars, failed energy policies, and failed ideologies. There is no such thing as security, but you can avoid promoting insecurity. And I’ll tell you what, John McCain is not your man for that job:

• His idea of intelligent energy policy is to keep on chugging oil— just domestic instead of foreign—which is like a smoker talking about “cutting back.” Right.
• He seems to think the war in Iraq is a good idea, even though it has failed to achieve its alleged goal of reducing terrorism. The idea that Americans fighting in Iraq will make us safer is sort of like the idea that driving a huge SUV will make you safer—yeah, you’ll be safer at the expense of everybody else being less safe.
• Either he is extremely cynical or he doesn’t understand how the law works. One minute he says “that the rules we have agreed to live by are those made by the people themselves, not a small elite that claims to be wiser than everybody else,” so “the role of judges is not to impose their own view as to the best policy choices for society.” But the next minute he says “that shaping the judiciary through the appointment power is one of the most important and solemn responsibilities a President has.” Wait, huh? So the President isn’t a “small elite,” but the federal judiciary is?

These are not the kind of ideas that will make our society happier, healthier, safer, or wealthier. These are the kind of ideas that will just dig us deeper into our economic hole, our foreign relations failure, and our needless social infighting. These ideas, translated into policy, will not move us forward as a nation.

Conservative evangelical James Dobson is not very good at making a point.

Barack Obama said:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons . . . but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I can’t simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

James Dobson replied:

What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that I can’t seek to pass legislation . . . that bans partial-birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don’t see that as a moral issue. And if I can’t get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. Now, that is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution. This is why we have elections—to support what we believe to be wise and moral. We don’t have to go to the lowest common denominator or morality, which is what he is suggesting.

First, where exactly is Obama interpreting the Constitution? He’s setting forth a principle that ought to be obvious, which is that public discourse is best served by arguments and proposals that are grounded on reasons and arguments that are accessible to everyone, without regard to their religious beliefs. That has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Second, the first two sentences of Dobson’s response reproduced above are not really responsive to what Obama said because they critically misrepresent it. If you want to respond to something effectively, you need to make sure that you’re responding to something your opponent actually said.

Obama did not say that people like Dobson “can’t seek to pass legislation” because they are motivated by their own religious beliefs. They can seek to pass it all the want. But if they want to live in a society that is not fractured by the impassable rift that people like Dobson work so hard to maintain, then, regardless of their religious motivations, they need to present their arguments and reasons in such a way that people who do not share their religious convictions can at least evaluate those arguments and reasons on grounds other than simply rejecting them out of hand because they come from right-wing religious people like Dobson.

In other words, Obama was telling people like Dobson how to succeed: talk to the rest of us in terms we can understand without first swallowing all of your beliefs. If you can’t do that, then you can’t expect us to listen to you without just rejecting you out of hand because we think your beliefs are wacky.

If you find something “offensive to the Scripture,” that’s fine. But don’t just waltz into the halls of the legislature, waive your scripture around, and expect everyone else to go along with you. Then, when they don’t go along with you, don’t just pull back and start expressing your disdain for “the culture” and blaming everything you don’t like on the vague and nebulous forces of immorality.

Why can’t you do what Obama—and lots of the rest of us—would understand and respect? Why can’t you present your arguments in universal terms that are amenable to reason, without recourse to your scriptures?

When you either cannot or will not present arguments amenable to reason—or especially if you are just offended that someone even expects you to—then the lurking implication is that your position really is not amenable to reason. Of course, if your position is based on what is “offensive to the Scripture” and it’s not amenable to reason, that sort of also implies that your scripture, or your reading of it, is not amenable to reason, either. So I suppose there are sufficient grounds at least for Dobson’s motivation, if not the substance of his remarks.

This is disappointing, if you are hoping the United States will not slip into fascism:

Three years ago, Congress gave Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff an unusual power to “waive all legal requirements” that could stand in the way of building the fence. These requirements included the nation’s environmental protection laws. The same congressional action took away the authority of judges to review Chertoff’s decisions.

Last year, after Chertoff waived at least 20 laws and regulations to complete a section of the fence in Arizona, two environmental groups sued. They said it was unconstitutional to give a Cabinet secretary such sweeping power.

But a federal judge rejected that claim. And on Monday the Supreme Court without comment declined to hear a petition submitted by Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club.

(Yes, I mentioned this once before.) When the Supreme Court denies certiorari, it doesn’t usually say why. At least a denial carries no precedential power, so if a more attractive version of the issue came before the Court, they might be interested in addressing it and telling Americans whether Congress has the power to give people like Michael Chertoff the power to break any laws he feels like.

Who would have thought that Americans would use the specter of “terrorism” to keep Mexicans out?

After five weeks of studying for the bar exam, I have:

• Attended 19 video lectures, which comes to just under 60 hours of talking professors.
• Watched another 6 hours of MBE “workshop” lectures.
• Made 135 flash cards.
• Created about 145 pages of all new outlines in seven different subjects.
• Written 15 practice essays and outlined at least fifteen more.
• Done just over 1,500 multiple-choice MBE questions.

And there are still five more weeks until the bar exam.