This sends a wonderful message to the rest of the world, doesn't it? Shows them what we stand for!
New York Times February 11, 2008
U.S. Said to Seek Execution for 6 in Sept. 11 Case By WILLIAM GLABERSON
Military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty for six Guantánamo
detainees who are to be charged with central roles in the Sept. 11
terror attacks, government officials who have been briefed on the
charges said Sunday.
The officials said the charges would be announced at the Pentagon as
soon as Monday and were likely to include numerous war-crimes charges
against the six men, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former Qaeda operations chief who has described himself as the mastermind of the attacks ...
What do, or should, we think of this? Ruth Gledhill has some sharp criticisms of the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent suggestion that aspect of shari'a law be adopted into British law, in the interest of maintaining "social cohesion." (The article has lots of links.)
the Democratic Party’s long string of counterproductive responses to
the enduring influence of the religious right has had the cumulative
effect of driving away any type of base with the word “faith” attached
to it, and opening the door to the Republicans’ shrewd, if cynical,
courting of religiously conservative white Christians. It’s been a
self-defeating failure, since there are millions of moderate and
progressive Christians ready to embrace a reasonable alternative.
Now
two savvy, genre-bending, unapologetically faith-based new books take
that failure as an object lesson. “The Party Faithful,” by the
respected political journalist and progressive Baptist Amy Sullivan, is
a kind of sophisticated self-help manual for Democrats who are looking
for a way “of leveling the praying field.” Sullivan provides a brisk
history of Democratic miscalculations, along with a running commentary.
“Souled Out,” by the respected political journalist and progressive
Catholic E. J. Dionne Jr., is a deeply personal and searchingly
intelligent reflection on the noble history, recent travails and likely
prospects of American liberalism. Dionne envisions “a radically new
role for religious groups in American politics,” an integration of
personal morality with a championing of the common good that, he says,
is “not only possible but necessary, for the sake of our public life
and for religion’s sake as well.”
Both authors blend reportage,
analysis of voting patterns, historical precedents, personal religious
testimony and unvarnished advocacy. They lament the reduction of
religion to narrow ideological concerns and its identification with one
political party. Both explore religious alternatives to the right-wing
politics of fear and exclusion, and hold up a wide array of individuals
for emulation: stereotype-busting evangelicals like Jim Wallis, Rich
Cizik and Rick Warren; influential Catholic liberals like the Rev. J.
Bryan Hehir, the architect of major documents on just war and
nuclear-era peace; and independent-minded politicians like Tim Ryan and
Rosa DeLauro, House Democrats who are attempting to break the
pro-choice/ pro-life stalemate by pushing programs to reduce the number
of abortions.
Church autonomy issues are at the forefront of contemporary debates in church/state law. Such issues arise whenever the government seeks to impose a regulatory burden on a church or any religious organization. Often the regulatory burden comes in the form of generally applicable legislation that is facially neutral with respect to religion. The regulation may also take place through developments in the common law, such as claims sounding in tort, contract, trust, or real property.
Some of the pressing topics in the area of church autonomy include ministerial exceptions to employment discrimination claims, IRS tax exempt status and political speech, unconstitutional conditions on public benefits, and bankruptcy litigation. An older and still important line of cases deals with intra-church disputes in which two factions litigate ownership of church property. Finally, there is the matter of tort claims against a church for clergy sexual abuse, a particularly difficult area that has arguably eroded the scope of church autonomy in other contexts.
To explore these issues in detail, the Federalist Society has gathered some of the leading law and religion scholars in America. Among the topics addressed at the conference will be the theological and historical roots of church autonomy in both the Catholic and Protestant traditions, the constitutional basis for the church autonomy doctrine in the First Amendment, and particular applications of church autonomy in torts, employment, and other areas of law.
As Michael S. just noted, Professor Bill Stuntz has a characteristically thoughtful essay, "The Inconvenient Truths of 2008," over at The Weekly Standard. Professor Stuntz writes -- and I agree -- that conservatives need to understand the "inconvenient truth" that "[m]ost of today's illegal immigrant population is here to stay (along with their descendants) and will pay no significant price for getting here outside the legal channels." (I would note that not all conservatives share the talk-radio obsession with "the illegals", and also that -- although the press, conveniently, does not remark on the fact much -- there is plenty of anti-immigrant sentiment among the Democrats' "base", too.) And, he seems right-on-target in reminding Democrats that for "the foreseeable future, domestic policymaking will have more to do with arranging incentives than with dispensing largesse[.]"
He also contends, though -- echoing the argument he has made in other contexts -- "that the political phase of the culture war is over", that "the crusade to end abortion and reform the culture by means of electoral politics was lost several election cycles ago", and that "[i]f pro-life evangelicals--of whom I'm one--wish to persuade our fellow citizens to protect unborn life, we must persuade them, not prosecute the ones who disagree."
Now, we have discussed Prof. Stuntz's thesis about the legalization of abortion, abortion rates, and legal moralism here at MOJ before (for example, here, here, and here). And, he is right to remind us that "cultures are powerful and mysterious things; the idea that laws and politicians can direct their paths is, to say the least, lacking in empirical support."
That said, a few thoughts: First, no one has ever suggested that those who "disagree" with the pro-life position should be "prosecute[d]." It is sometimes suggested that the law should permit the prosecution of those who perform certain abortions, on the theory that abortion involves an act that, usually, we think is eminently prosecution-worthy, i.e., the direct and intentional killing of a human being. Prof. Stuntz is entirely right that those who are pro-life should not focus entirely on politics, to the neglect of witness. (And, pro-lifers should conduct themselves in politics in a way that does not undermine efforts to be effective witnesses.)
Second, although I fear Prof. Stuntz is right that it is not now the case, and perhaps never will be (again), that the public would support a full-scale criminalization of abortion. It does not follow from this, though, that the "political phase" of the pro-life movement is over. It is still the case that a great many issues (federal funding, mandates to hospitals, development-aid, regulation of abortion facilities, ultrasound machines, partial-birth abortion, etc.) that pro-lifers do (or should) care about are very much "political", and very much "in play." I know it is popular, in some circles, to say that President Bush's anti-abortion views have not made a difference on the issue, but this mistaken claim (which, to be clear, is not Prof. Stuntz's) gets no truer with repetition.
Finally, there are the judges. The "political phase" of the "culture war" -- I should say that I'm not entirely comfortable with this way of thinking about the struggle to protect religious freedom and the dignity of human life -- is not over, because it has not really been permitted to begin. It is a live, and entirely political, question who will be (and who will pick) our federal judges, and it is a live question whether our federal judges will decide to let the political process decide whether, and to what extent, to regulate abortion. If Roe is reversed, would abortion disappear? Of course not. But, pro-lifers do and should care that they be permitted to take a shot at the "political phase" of the pro-life struggle. This is why judges matter, and this is why politics (still) matters. For some, it might be an "inconvenient truth", but it is a truth nontheless -- it matters, for the pro-life cause, what happens in politics (as well as in conversation).
In this article in The Weekly Standard, Bill Stuntz argues as he has elsewhere that the political battle to overturn Roe has been fought and won by the pro-choice side. Any comments?
I received earlier today an e-mail response on the Parker case on which Richard M. and I recently commented after the First Circuit issued its opinion on January 31. The author of the e-mail is Professor Scott FitzGibbon of Boston College Law School. Scott is a reader and friend of the Mirror of Justice. Here is what Scott has to say about Parker:
Your posting on Parker v Hurley provokes my wish to draw readers’ attention to the following sentence from that First Circuit decision: “Given that Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.” (text at note 5). This leads the court to justify school materials which of course go far beyond discussing the legalities. This reasoning should be brought to the attention of anyone who might still believe that if same-sex marriage comes to their state it will affect only those same-sex couples who take advantage of it. No: it can affect everyone’s children.
I think Scott is right; moreover, that is why I indicated that there is confusion in the First Circuit’s opinion (and as I previously posted regarding the District Court’s opinion last year) regarding the applicability of international law that is designed to protect parents and their children from the very concern on which Scott has commented.RJA sj
WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney
on Thursday vigorously defended the use of harsh interrogation
techniques on a few suspected terrorists, saying that the methods made
up “a tougher program, for tougher customers” and might have averted
another attack on the United States.
“A small number of terrorists, high-value targets, held overseas have gone through an interrogation program run by the C.I.A.,”
Mr. Cheney said in an address to the Conservative Political Action
Conference in Washington, around the same time that the head of the
Central Intelligence Agency said one of the most controversial
interrogation methods, “waterboarding,” may be illegal under current law.
The “high-value targets” included Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,
the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Mr. Cheney
recalled. “He and others were questioned at a time when another attack
on this country was believed to be imminent. It’s a good thing we had
them in custody, and it’s a good thing we found out what they knew,”
the vice president said, drawing applause.
Mr. Cheney did not use
the term “waterboarding,” which simulates the feeling of drowning in
the subject. But the C.I.A. director, Michael V. Hayden, acknowledged recently that Mr. Mohammed was one of three suspects on whom the harsh technique was used several years ago.
The
vice president asserted that the techniques used by the C.I.A. were
safe and professional, and that the interrogation program had unearthed
information that had “foiled attack against the United States,
information that has saved thousands of lives.”
And, in a
rebuttal to critics of the Bush administration critics, Mr. Cheney
said, “The United States is a country that takes human rights
seriously. We do not torture — it’s against our laws and against our
values.”
[To read the rest of this inspiring story, click here.]
Confession: I attended the Dems' caucus on Tuesday night with the intention of voting for Obama, but the crush of humanity (the vast majority of whom did vote for him) made me give up and return home. Against that background, consider this op-ed forwarded to me by a student about the virtue of contemplation on Super Tuesday:
As soon as politics, for the sake of politics, becomes a society’s principle passion — its object of hope, its pearl of great price — that society has already subjected itself to a type of totalitarianism. Unwittingly, it has relinquished a citizen’s and a people’s privilege and responsibility of self-determination. It has bet the outcome of the common pursuit of happiness on the eventual good actions of chosen elite.
And consider this post from the ABC News blog about the cult of Obama. Here's the opening:
Inspiration is nice. But some folks seem to be getting out of hand. It's as if Tom Daschle descended from on high saying, "Be not afraid; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of Chicago a Savior, who is Barack the Democrat."
UPDATE: A reader forwarded me this related op-ed on Obama (titled "Barack Obama is not Jesus"), and he (the reader) makes a broader point:
isn't it true that at the very heart of progressivism lays the desire to subject all (or most) or human life to politics? That seems to lie at the base of Historicism which is the philosophical expression of progressivism: as the State becomes more and more "rational," experts are more and more able to govern the minutiae of human life in the name of the common good. There is less room for "little platoons" of civil society as their functions are swallowed up in the all-encompassing State. This in turn leads to greater "democracy" because the whole people are able to govern the whole of everyone else's lives through the State.
This is not to say that all modern-day progressives wish this to occur, but at the very least it needs to be addressed and explained by those who seek to take up the mantle of progressivism today.
Now is the time to register for the Religiously Affiliated Law Schools conference, hosted this year by Boston College from April 6th to the 8th. Details and registration forms are available here. The lineup of speakers includes MoJ-ers Susan Stabile and Amy Uelmen, plus a host of other legal luminaries, including David Skeel, Sam Levine, Vince Rougeau, Lucia Silecchia, Jerry Organ, Michael Broyde, Mark Osler, Chaim Saiman, and Ken Starr.
