I've been thinking (like Bill Bennett)

What would happen if the girls were all transported far beyond the northern sea?

Pros:

• No more abortions.


• Reduction in the crime-of-passion rate.


• Chick flix


Cons:

• Gay marriage the only option.


• Possible further deterioration of family values.

That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime abortion rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

President calls...

...for less driving.

Story here.

Liberal flip-floppers

Spectacular car accidents aren't that unusual in a city the size of Chicago. As I sit here, the radio news just announced an accident site where a car is lodged in a building, somewhere. So I wasn't that awestruck, last night, when I left a gathering with some of my colleagues and saw a late-model four door compact automobile sitting on its side in the middle of the intersection of 58th Street and Woodlawn Avenue.

This was around 9:30 pm, and there were no ambulances, so I knew the driver had already been taken from the wreck. The scene was mostly amusing. Police cars with flashing lights were blocking access to a two-block stretch of Woodlawn, but 58th street (which is usually less busy) was wide-open right up to the accident site. While I was passing, a cab drove up from 58th, and the cops began shouting "Back up." They were shouting, but it's unlikely the cabby heard them, which seemed to infuriate the cops. Natural enough, given that cops believe they should be obeyed at all times, even when their orders are unclear or inaudible (or, in the case of the 1999 WTO protests, retrospectively fabricated). And this was a strange sight, too. Flipping an SUV on its side is no problem. Accomplishing this with a small car on a quiet, neighborhood street takes some doing.

Anyway, the driver turned out to be my very own representative to the Illinois Legislature and House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie. Chicago Tribune story here. She wasn't seriously hurt. Apparently, she hit a parked car, and flipped. No word from toxicology just yet, but I have to say: I doubt she was driving defensively.

My Summer vacation

I hope to post something substantial here in the not-too-distant future, but for now, some anecdotes.

First, on the always amusing topic of my hair, it has developed the extraordinary ability, of late, to find virtually every spider living in the vicinity of Harper Avenue in Chicago.

Second, and related, is my year-long and decidedly unfriendly relationship with urban wildlife. My cat has caught two mice in my apartment. And when I say "caught," I mean that she picked them up with her mouth. Her habit is to then release them and have further playtime. Since my cat is decidedly tame and, sorry to say, a total dumbass, she loses them. This, as you probably imagine, doesn't cause me any anxiety at all. The first one lost the Great Hunter by hiding in my shoe, bleeding to death. The second one got more humane treatment: I caught it with tongs and put it outside.

There's more. A couple weeks ago, one of Hyde Park's snooty European squirrels (there's a story here that says the local squirrels were imported from England--I don't know if it's true) walked right up to my back window and put its nose in my cat's face. I can only conclude that the damn mouse I released is spreading stories.

And, lastly in the urban wildlife category, I haven't found many cockroaches in my apartment. I've only seen three, in a year and a half, so haven't felt the need to set out poison. But: those three were all, in my opinion, escaped zoo cockroaches. The final one, in fact, was so large that I actually had to buzz it in. I know, in retrospect, that I ought to have been suspicious when it claimed to be a traveling salesman (first of all, that's no longer really a profession; second, it's just a bad idea to let people--or bugs claiming to be people--you don't know into your building). But I learned my lesson. It took me well into the night and several quickly drained beers to work up the courage to come close enough to catch it. In all seriousness, this thing's body was nearly two inches long. Moreover, roaches have long legs and even longer antenna, making their presence much larger than their actual size. I'm not one to be altruistic: I would wish this on my worst enemy.

Third. The Federal District Court jury summons I mentioned earlier turned out to be for the trial of former Governor George Ryan. (Read all about it.) I was given a deferral upon request, so didn't have to show up for the selection process, but seriously doubt I would have been considered a suitable juror for this trial. While my knowledge of Gov. Ryan's "position on the death penalty" would not "affect my ability to be impartial at the trial," I do admire the actions he took to save innocent lives. If I were the prosecution, I wouldn't want me on the jury. Or on the prosecution, for that matter.

Finally, I was recently told that the "named storm" following Katrina was called Hurricane Lee. It never threatened any land mass and--okay--was never actually a hurricane (it was barely a tropical storm). I just think "Hurricane Lee" has a nice ring to it.

Padilla v. Hanft

First of all, a thank you to Jett for pointing me to the opinion written by Judge Michael Luttig for the 4th District Court of Appeals. The court overturned an earlier decision made by the Federal District Court of South Carolina, which held that the United States executive branch lacked the authority to detain Padilla indefinitely without charge.

Jett goes on to point out--and I agree--that the language of the opinion itself seems sound. Of course, neither Jett nor I have any actual legal expertise. I am, nonetheless, completely willing to retained as your attorney, providing you offer fair compensation. But I think he's right to say that the issue here seems to hinge entirely on whether or not we consider ourselves to be "at war" with Al Qaeda and whether or not this "war" has the same legal status as other, more conventional wars.

Jett then pointed out that, in this case, Congress never actually declared "war" on Al Qaeda per se, and that it's moreover a different matter to wage war on a loose organization of radicals than to wage war on a national entity.

This, of course, is precisely the issue, and plenty of editorials and blog entries have already been written about this. My basic position is that the detention of enemy combatants during a conventional war is necessary. As "enemies," they are not necessarily engaged in criminal activity. At the same time, they want to kill you. You can't prosecute them for merely being on the other side of the war, but you certainly can't release them while the fighting is still going on.

Padilla, as Jett points out, can be charged with a crime: multiple counts of attempted murder, property destruction, aiding and abetting the enemy, terrorism, and probably racketeering and conspiracy. Furthermore, he is a U.S. citizen. The suspension of his right to due process, in this case, doesn't seem to offer any tangible strategic advantage in the "war" against Al Qaeda. The idea that he's going to have much to tell the authorities about Al Qaeda's plans at this point--after 3-1/2 years in detention--seems far fetched. Moreover, the conditions for declaring an end to this "war" (and thereby requiring that Padilla be charged or released) have never been laid out. Nothing new about any of this, I know.

The sticky point here, though, is that while Congress did not declare "war" against Al Qaeda, it did give the President the power to do so. The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution," passed shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and quoted in Luttig's opinion, says:

[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

This, from what I can tell, is the primary basis of the 4th Circuit court's opinion.

That said, I'm not convinced it's a good opinion. The court seems to see the Congressional resolution as a valid basis for declaring Padilla's detention to be legal, but I would argue that the court has the responsibility to limit the power of legislative resolutions to accord with the rights supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Earlier I said that things aren't looking good for due process. Let me add, now, that things aren't looking good for the separation of powers. This decision, if upheld, essentially grants judicial powers to the executive branch of the federal government. By interpreting the Joint Resolution as allowing the President to "determine" that U.S. citizens can be subjected to "all necessary and appropriate force," this court essentially undermines its own ability and responsibility to check the authority of the executive and legislative branches.