Far worse than a misguided zealot

* balkin:

"If the Democrats do not stand up to the President on this bill, if they refuse to filibuster it or even threaten to filibuster it, they do not deserve to win any additional seats in the House or in the Senate. They will have delivered a grievous blow to our system of checks and balances, stained America's reputation around the world, and allowed an obscenity to disfigure the American system of law and justice. Far worse than a misguided zealot is the moral coward who says nothing and allows that zealotry to do real harm."

* cannon has a great post about Ohio 04 being stolen.

* cannon also points to this article: "Former ISI chief disappears" - although that headline might be a little misleading:

"ISI chief General Mehmood Ahmad Mehmood... has since settled in Lahore and was not available for comment, The News reported."

* cannon is also pointing to Mike Mejia's Turkish DeepState article

* Ron:

"Dan Rather got an awful lot of criticism from the right for "sucking up" to Saddam Hussein, but I'm sure that I'll be of the minority opinion in slamming Jon Stewart for accepting everything that Musharraf said or wrote in his book as fact.

All in all, it was a shrewd appearance for Musharraf. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez could learn a thing or two from Musharraf on how best to woo the American left, that's for sure."

Ron got lots of comments for that one, and apparently a link from Slate. nice goin' kiddo! video here.

* harry shearer:

"So, here's the question nobody seems to ask: why did Pakistan, 3 for 3 on the "we'll get you" list, become a friend and not an actionable threat? Do the supporters of the Iraq war really think Iraq was a greater menace to peace and stability in 2001 than Pakistan--which needed to be threatened with bombing back to the Stone Age to become an ally in the post-9/11 war on the Taliban? If so, I'd like to see the reasons why.

* marty lederman:

"Yesterday I explained that the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" (UEC) in the latest draft of the detainee bill was so ridiculously broad and open-ended that it could not possibly be intended to establish the authority of the Executive to militarily detain all persons so defined.

But it appears I underestimated the gall and recklessness of the Administration and Congress, because there seems to be a fairly widespread understanding that the definition would do just that. Even Human Rights First seems to agree that "unlawful enemy combatants" would be subject to indefinite detention.
[]
Choosing the most indefensible provision in this bill is a tall order -- there are many worthy candidates. But a provision that would grant DoD virtually unlimited discretion to detain "unlawful enemy combatants," as defined by Donald Rumsfeld himself, would be an awfully formidable candidate for that dubious honor."