Forrester's right to equal protection infringed!
Joshua Micah Marshall makes the case for the Republican New Jersey Senate candidate:

Giving it some thought, and considering the Supreme Court's decisions in Bush v. Gore, it even seems possible that this might be the basis of an equal protection claim for Forrester. Forrester entered the race with the reasonable expectation that he would only face a candidate either equally lame or more lame than him, but not less lame. It's almost an implied contract he has with the state's electorate, right? Putting a new candidate on the ballot now violates this insufferable chump's right to coast into office without facing an actual opponent. But I digress ...

Plenty more good stuff in Talking Points. Like the Washington Post editorial says, Republicans in New Jersey have the perfect remedy to the Lautenberg "outrage": they can vote for Forrester and try to actually amass more votes than Lautenberg, instead of running crying to the Supreme Court. Winning the popular vote: what a concept. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:11:00 PM -- |    

 

Five-murder shooting spree in Montgomery County
Fellow Montgomery County citizen Jim Henley noticed the same thing I did: no white males among the 5 victims, at least according to WTOP:

Race also did not appear to be a motive, noting the victims included a black male, a Hispanic male, a Hispanic female and a white female, Demme said.

Huh? Looks like race could easily have been a motive with that list of victims. Plus, as Henley notes, the 5th victim was of Indian origin. On the other hand, the Baltimore Sun has a different breakdown of victims:

Race did not appear to be a motive, police said, noting that the victims were two white men, a man from India, a Hispanic woman and a white woman.

-----
UPDATE, 10/4, 10am: The Washington Post published a breakdown matching the Sun's list, not WTOP's, although the particular story ("I'm just so devastated...") with the table is not on-line at this time. So the following part of last night's post is likely to be irrelevant.
-----

A possibly relevant additional bit of data, more so if the WTOP account proves accurate: today is "Day of German Unity," the day officially commemorating the reunification of Germany in 1990. The date has unfortunately also been abused by neo-Nazi types in Germany as "their day."* However, I've found no evidence yet of similar neo-Nazi goings-on in the US on October 3. Still, in case it helps, I phoned in the idea.

=====
* Google search for "antifaschisten and "tag der deutschen einheit" (antifascists and "day of german unity"): yields numerous accounts of confrontations with neo-Nazis on October 3 in Germany. So it's clearly a big day for them over there -- but not necessarily over here. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:11:00 PM -- |    

 

When in doubt
I posted a great number of Iraq-war-skeptic pieces in the months after 9/11.* I advanced a number of arguments; in retrospect, I see that I was not sure where I'd "touch bottom" with them, that is, which of them was paramount to me, and how they interconnected. In fact, I'm still not sure.

I'll list the arguments against seeking a shooting war to disarm and unseat Hussein, and give the best counterargument I've run across, or the best one that I can think of. Usually, I do my best to attribute or link arguments to their authors right away. This time, I'll be making those edits later, and compiling them in a comment.**

Anti-war	Pro-war
Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11; let's finish off Al Qaeda first. Iraq is a distraction from our real enemy.	We can't wait that long: Hussein will have nuclear weapons soon -- ones he could share with that "real" enemy.
Hussein is a secular leader with next to nothing in common with Al Qaeda. He'd never cooperate with them.	"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." If Al Qaeda uses a nuclear weapon on an American city, we'll never know for sure how they got it, so deterrence won't work. Hussein would benefit by having a weaker and likely demoralized enemy.
It's a bad precedent: other countries could do the same kind of "pre-emptive self defense", where does it all end?	This is not being justified as pre-emptive self-defense, it's simply strengthening and enforcing UN resolutions imposed on one particular, dangerous, recalcitrant regime. We can have a debate about Bush's new pre-emption doctrine some other time.
The United States is undermining multilateral institutions.	Multilateralism is not a "good" in and of itself. Moreover, if Hussein acquires nuclear weapons "despite" the UN Security Council, you'd have to question whether the UN was worth anything at all. Let's not let France and Russia destroy the best world institution we've ever had!
Unless you want a kind of super 1990s Afghanistan, you're in for major nationbuilding even if you win.	OK, we're in for major nationbuilding if we win; the costs can be paid at least in part with Iraqi oil, since sanctions will be over. We may draw down forces in areas where they are not needed or are not as critical to our national security: Kosovo, Germany.
Hussein owning WMD, especially nuclear ones, is no threat: he's deterrable and rational, the 90s prove it.	Hussein isn't flat-out crazy; but the evidence suggests he *is* reckless: he's invaded two neighbors, costing his country hundreds of thousands dead. Also, Iraq has no institutions that check Hussein's whims and gambles; the Soviet Union had well developed command and control of their nuclear weapons, and competing sources of political power (KGB, Army, Politburo, oligarchs).
Hussein owning WMD, especially nuclear ones, is no threat to the United States per se. We would destroy him and his country. We won't extend our deterrence of an Iraqi nuclear strike to more plausible regional targets, though.	Which regional targets are you willing to write off once he has a nuclear weapon? Kuwait? Israel?
Saddam will use any WMD he's got, on our troops, our country, or on Israel, if he's got nothing to lose at the end of a war.	Right! So strike hard and soon; the longer you wait, the more WMD he'll have -- including nuclear (within 3 years, the German intelligence agency estimates)
The Arab street will rise up in anger, and overthrow supportive regimes.	Didn't happen about the Gulf War or about Afghanistan last year.
Get ready for urban warfare: Stalingrad II -- covered by Al Jasira. Even if/when the US wins, the occupation/reconstruction will be plagued by guerilla resistance.	Answer A) Who knows. Alternative plausible script: Soon after the bombing escalates or by the time the 2d US soldier is on the ground, Hussein will be shot by his own people, who will compete to surrender. Then dancing in the streets, with holdout die-hard Baathists and "Tikriti clique" people swinging from lampposts. Answer B): Come what may. We don't want a future where Hussein could hold an American city hostage.
"Don't just do something. Stand there." Hussein is not immortal, and he's not the only person in Iraq. Let's let sanctions, no-fly zone pressure, and covert operations, and time work for us.	Hussein's son is more vicious than he is, by all accounts. They and their Baath party are in the saddle for good, barring direct outside intervention. And they will have nuclear weapons sooner or later.
Whatever you say, this is a pre-emptive war. I don't want my country starting a war, it's not what I believe the United States is about. We're treaty bound (via agreeing to the UN charter) to only engage in war in self-defense.	Answer A) We're not starting a war, we're finishing one where the cease-fire has been violated. Answer B) No one is happy about it. But the points you raise are debatable, and no Supreme Court is going to rule that treaty obligations should be read to supersede "providing for the common defense" in a case as plausible as this one.
Between Al Qaeda and this, we're going to be on a war footing for the foreseeable future, at least the next 5 years, likely decades. In one year alone, civil rights have been pummeled badly. It will only get worse.	The republic has survived worse: the Civil War, World War II. Many pro-war advocates will stand with you against infringements of your constitutional rights.
This conflict is just about oil.	Answer A) How many times do you need to hear the words "nuclear weapons"? Answer B) Right: France and Russia just oppose this because they have oil contracts with Iraq.
There are too many arguments being made for this war; which one is Bush's true argument, and why doesn't he tell us that single most important reason?	That argument applies to opponents as well: which of their objections is the most serious?
When in doubt, opt for peace.	When in doubt, kill the guy threatening your daughter.

I lean towards "when in doubt, opt for peace." But obviously only barely. So sue me. It seems to me that this comes down to your core beliefs more than particular facts or arguments. I won't impugn yours if you won't impugn mine.

I've supported most prior U.S military actions in the past decade. The difference is that those wars combatted tangible, visible, actual crimes, not potential ones. I guess I won't be out on the streets demonstrating against this, but I'll feel plenty of uncertainty and doubt, and to be honest a twinge of fear.

I especially don't like how many supporters of this policy (e.g., Andrew Sullivan, Bill Quick) have proceeded, painting those who dare disagree as knaves, or worse. There is nothing disloyal about even flying to Baghdad and saying you don't believe everything Bush says. As citizens, our allegiance is to our country, not to our president, no matter how aggrandized he becomes. And I remain concerned about the modus operandi of the Bush administration: a kind of permanent "Florida whatever-works campaign," featuring hard-knuckled accusations of disloyalty or worse, disrespect for Congressional oversight ...whatever works. And no, Chris Hitchens, I don't think Ashcroft is worse than Bin Laden -- he doesn't need to be to still be pretty damned bad. I really hate the no-fly blacklist story I mentioned on Monday; and I blame Ashcroft, Bush, and whatever twink they've put in charge of the TSA.

=======
* Those interested can check some of the "selected posts" in the archive section.
** Among the sources for some of the above arguments are bloggers Kinen, Yglesias, Barlow, Den Beste, Henley, Jeanne D'Arc (all but Kinen are currently featured links on the left margin), and media bigfoots (bigfeet?) Kinsley, Weisberg, and Saletan of Slate. If you feel left out, let me know by e-mail.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:09:00 AM -- |    

 

German ambassador backpedals
From an online chat with the German ambassador:

San Diego, Calif.: Ambassador Ischinger: What would you see as your mission if President Bush makes the decision to begin war with Iraq (and assuming a green light from the U.N.)?

Wolfgang Ischinger: Assuming there was a green light from the UN to take military action against Iraq, every country would need to see how it could cooperate with others to help implement the objectives of the UN. My own government has already made clear that it would in this case not be in a position to deploy troops because we have been over-extended already in this area with 10,000 German soldiers serving abroad as part of international peace missions. There may be other ways in which my own country could work with the UN in such a situation, but I think it is too early to speculate what precise shape and form such German cooperation could have.

That seems a little different to me than "no participation at all." On the other hand this item from the German embassy web site ("Germany, U.S. seek to resolve tensions, strengthen ties") still says:

German-U.S. relations have been strained since Chancellor Gerhard Schröder announced Germany would not participate in a U.S. military campaign against Iraq, even if such an operation were to receive a mandate from the United Nations.

It may be that Schröder believes that contributing to the inspection teams would suffice; given the continued Iraqi refusal to allow inspections of the "palace sites", I'm guessing that's not going to be an issue anyway. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:04:00 AM -- |    

 

Just in case this is true
...it's outrageous: No-fly blacklist snares political activists (San Francisco Chronicle). Given the speed with which apparently serious news proves to be wrong, I'm holding out hope this is arguably some kind of special case, such as the Nancy Oden incident last year, where her own behavior may have been most of what got her "profiled."

Unfortunately, these incidents don't seem to fit that description. Rather, a federal process developed under last year's Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Section h, item 3A) to coordinate terrorist watch lists*, appears to have morphed into a laundry list of people somebody or other has decided to blackball, with Kafkaesque consequences for those involved:

"The problem is that this list has no public accountability: People don't know why their names are put on or how to get their names off," said Jayashri Srikantiah, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. "We have heard complaints from people who triggered the list a first time and then were cleared by security to fly. But when they fly again, their name is triggered again."

It's not un-American (rather the opposite) to wonder if a system intended to fight terrorism is instead being used to fight dissent. Forgive the reference, but I'm so disappointed and angry if this is true: that statue to the left does not stand for this. We should not stand for it.

(noted via Oliver Willis, Tom Tomorrow).

=====
*"...the Under Secretary shall ... establish policies and procedures requiring air carriers-- to use information from government agencies to identify individuals on passenger lists who may be a threat to civil aviation or national security."

Edit, 10/1: "this incident doesn't" changed to "these incidents don't." posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:18:00 PM -- |