An interesting/disturbing report from Winds of Change:

Today’s New York Times provides intimate detail on the charter flights used by the CIA to ferry prisoners across the globe. The names of the charter companies are disclosed. The types of aircraft flown are revealed. The points of departure and destinations of these flights are stated. There is even a picture of one of the charter craft, with the identification number of the aircraft in full display.

While the value of the detailed information for al Qaeda is obvious, the news value of the information is not at all obvious. Knowing these specifics is of no value to the average NY Times reader, so what was their reason for publishing it? Putting lives in danger in order to sell a few more papers is nothing but irresponsible.

Asked about the moral idiocy released by Amnesty International last week, President Bush called the report “absurd” today at his press conference.

“It’s absurd. It’s an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world,” Bush said of the Amnesty International report that compared Guantanamo to a Soviet-era gulag.

Update: Michelle Malkin thinks the President should have said much more.

Trey Jackson has the video here.

Instapundit links to a post by Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice about federal funding of embryonic stem cell research:

There were powder keg issues such as Terri Schiavo, the nuclear option, environmental policies and yet, with some erosion, the White House and Karl Rove have been riding high. Yet, is all this about to change “” perhaps swiftly?

The reason: the stem cell issue is simmering and on the verge of the boiling point. Even if you don’t factor in the recent House or Representatives vote, the stem cell issue is potentially devastating not only because it directly impacts so many Americans “” but because it’s going to sharply bring into focus for many Americans how theology may be starting to trump science in government policy. Our bet is that most Americans won’t like that.

Throughout American history government opted on the side of promoting and encouraging science and research. In this controversy, the country may see a President veto a bill basically in the interest of theology, pleasing a key constituency but angering others “” including many Republicans. What will THAT do to the White House’s clout?

When Gandelman says “theology may be starting to trump science in government policy” what he’s implying is that moral/values questions should not limit scientific inquiry. But where does Mr. Gandelman’s “leave moral questions out of science” thinking end? What if we could find a cure for cancer or other diseases by doing a few experiments on, say, prison inmates or the mentally retarded? Moral limits must be a part of scientific inquiry.

Science doesn’t tell us anything about morality, one way or the other. Science is a tool, like a hammer. It’s a moral judgment whether a particular use of a tool is good or bad – hitting someone on the head versus driving a nail, for example. There must be moral limits on what we do with the tool of science. It’s naive and dangerous to assume that anything technology can do is a good thing to do.

But of course Gandelman and those of like mind aren’t really arguing that moral questions should be left out of the equation. They’re really arguing that their moral views should triumph. This is usually the case when liberals (i.e. “moderates”) say things like “conservatives want to impose their morality on others.” All sides want their values imposed.

After all, if morality is completely out of the issue, then why fund medical research at all? That the government should take money from taxpayers and spend it to cure diseases is entirely a value judgment. Other Americans might think the best moral use of their own earnings is to feed and educate their own children, to care for their elderly parents, to invest in some biotechnology stocks, or any number of other uses. These are questions of competing values.

Note that we haven’t argued for any particular outcome in the embryonic stem cell research debate here, only against the “leave morality out of science” fallacy.

Update: The Evangelical Outpost responds to some more liberal “leave your morality (but not ours) out of the stem cell debate” arguments.

And Professor Bainbridge passes along another thought about “legislating morality.”

And Eugene Volokh has similar thoughts.

In a recent post on his Capital Games blog at The Nation website, leftist writer David Corn accuses a Pentagon spokesman of lying:

Waitaminute. Last week Di Rita said there were no credible allegations [of Koran desecration] and, thus, nothing to investigate. Yet today Hood disclosed there were 13 “incidents of alleged mishandling of the Koran,” and five were confirmed. It turns out that not only were there credible allegations, there were actual “incidents.” Would Di Rita care to explain this? Would he care to retract his briefing, apologize, and promise to do better? Anyone in the White House care to express outrage over Di Rita’s untruthful assertion?

The answer is as simple as it can be – “mishandling” and “desecration” are not the same thing, David. Intentionally flushing a Koran down a toilet and “accidentally touching” a Koran are not the same thing, David. One may disagree with that distinction, but this liberal trope of calling anything they disagree with a “lie” is dishonest demagogy.

The only question remaining is whether Corn’s problem is dishonesty or stupidity. He seems to be a reasonably intelligent guy, and given the rampant disingenuousness of his last book, “The Lies of George W. Bush”, and the generally bad faith zeitgeist on the left today, we must suspect he’s simply being dishonest to support his anti-liberation agenda. Would Mr. Corn care to apologize and promise to do better? We seriously doubt it.

Update: Washington Monthly is spreading the same manure as Corn is.

Uh oh, it looks like some of those folks all over America who helped John Thune defeat Tom Daschle may be writing him for a refund.

Michelle Malkin reports Senator John Thune, who defeated Tom Daschle in South Dakota in 2004, has flip-flopped on his support for John Bolton.

Thune on April 19th:

But I think, again, if you look at his record, he has been confirmed previously. And he is a guy who shakes things up. And I think the U.N. needs that.

Thune on May 26th:

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Thursday that he would vote against the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, hinting his vote is a protest against the Pentagon’s recommendation to close Ellsworth Air Force Base.

Now, a big part of a senator’s job is to look out for and represent the interests of his home state. But a senator also has an obligation to the national interest. John Thune is not carrying out that obligation by playing petty games over unrelated issues. The Bolton nomination has nothing to do with the base closing recommendations.

Yahoo News reports:

Amnesty Takes Aim at ‘Gulag’ in Guantanamo

LONDON – Amnesty International branded the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay a human rights failure Wednesday, calling it “the gulag of our time” as it released a report that offers stinging criticism of the United States and its detention centers around the world.

This sort of nonsense is the same kind of moral idiocy we hear from the “Bush equals Hitler” left every day. Those on the left tend to think of themselves as being more intellectual, complex, “nuanced,” than all those toothless rustics on the right. But here’s a quick tip: it doesn’t show any nuance to simply compare anything or anyone you dislike to Hitler or the gulag. (It is a pleasant surprise to learn that some on the left now think of the gulag as a bad thing.) It’s just mindless hyperbole to compare whatever it is you’re against to the worst thing you can think of. However they’re not trying to promote thought, but emotional reaction.

The Soviets imprisoned and murdered millions and of their own citizens who were guilty of nothing more than peaceful political disagreement. That is the legacy of the gulag. There’s just no comparison between that systematic oppression and the detainment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. Just ask yourself – would Lynndie England have been prosecuted for her actions if they had been committed in a Soviet gulag? Of course not.

All Amnesty International accomplishes with these silly comparisons is to trivialize the real oppression and systematic abuse that occurred in the gulags. They’ve lost credibility because they have a long history of making these kinds of statements of gross moral equivalence. One can find instances of individuals breaking the rules in any organization; human institutions are all imperfect. In totalitarian regimes such as the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, (was Amnesty International in favor of liberating Iraq? Just asking) on the other hand, torture, murder, and oppression are the rules. That the leaders of Amnesty International can’t make this simple but important distinction is not to their credit, to put it mildly.

Chrenkoff has more.

Update – Austin Bay provides a good quote on the subject here:

An organization with genuine moral principles and genuine respect for human rights must be able to distinguish between scattered crime and focused genocide, between criminal actions at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo (on the one hand) and 9/11, the Taliban, Bali, Saddam, suicide bombers (etc) on the other. Koran flushing? Does anyone remember the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddas of Bubiyan? Does Amnesty? Amnesty has cheapened the language of suffering, and for an organization espousing Amnesty’s principles, this is a grievous error.

This morning on Good Morning America, host Charles Gibson quoted some negative blogger reactions to the “no nuclear option” deal to guest Senator John McCain (R D – Arizona) McCain replied that “extremists” on the “far right” would be unhappy with his actions just like extremists on the far left would be.

This is the exact same sort of pathetic “if you disagree with us you’re an ‘extremist’, ‘nazi’, ‘radical’, ‘theocrat’ etc.” mantra that we hear from the left (and yes, unfortunately, occasionally from the right too) every day. Of course there are real extremists, radicals, etc., on the fringes of American politics, (people like George Soros, Michael Moore, and Ted Kennedy) but extremism is not defined as “disagreement with John McCain.” McCain didn’t offer any reason whatsoever to think the people he referred to were extremists, other than they disagreed with John McCain. There’s absolutely no thinking behind what he said, it’s just mindless name-calling.

As Hugh Hewitt said when Harry Reid said the same sort of thing a few weeks ago:

“Far-right” means militias and camouflage and the Klan. This absurd rhetoric is hateful, and along with Senator Schumer’s assault on “deeply held convictions,” is sending a signal to 70% of America to the right of Dick Durbin that they are nuts in Harry Reid’s book. The message being sent to “values voters” is pretty simple: The Democratic Party doesn’t value you.

McCain received cheers at the Republican national Convention last year when he dressed down Michael Moore. Now McCain is stooping to using the same type of Moore-onic rhetoric as Moore and his fellow travelers. Senator McCain’s words are a disgrace, whatever one may think of the deal struck in the Senate yesterday

So the “moderate” Republicans – remember their names, McCain, DeWine, Snowe, Warner, Graham, Collins, and Chafee – have made a deal that achieves an up-or-down vote for three out of President Bush’s ten filibustered nominees. Thirty percent, a stunning victory!

The Confirm Them blog has the text of the agreement:

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

The deal looks like a win for the Democrats and a capitulation by the ever weak-kneed Republicans. The only way for Republicans to turn it into a victory will be if the above “moderates” grow the backbones that they didn’t have before making this deal. You can bet the Democrats’ invocation of “extraordinary circumstances” will be on a hair trigger.

More on the deal here, here, here, here, and here.

Update: Professor Bainbridge thinks conservatives need to stop whining about the deal.

Rick at Stones Cry Out thinks the Republicans made a brilliant political move. So let’s say there’s a range of opinion out there.

At “Bench Memos,” National Review Online’s blog dedicated to the judicial confirmation issue, Ed Whelan gives a summary of the views of Justice Ruth Bader Ginburg, presented as a hypothetical to illustrate a point about how Republicans would handle the nomination of a judge on the extreme left:

Imagine, if you will, that a Democrat President nominated a judge whose constitutional and policy views were, by any measure, on the extreme left fringes of American society.

Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.

Let’s say, further, that he had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that he had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day.

And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.

Let’s further posit that this nominee had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, let’s say it was discovered that while operating his own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among his more than 50 hires.

Imagine, in sum, a nominee whose record is indisputably extreme and who could be expected to use his judicial role to impose those views on mainstream America. Surely such a person would never be nominated to an appellate court. Surely no Senate Democrat would support someone with such extreme views. And surely Senate Republicans, rather than deferring to the nominating power of the Democrat President, would pull out all stops””filibuster and everything””to stop such a nominee.

Well, not quite. The hypothetical nominee I have just described is, in every particular except his sex, Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the time she was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993.

President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg on June 22, 1993. A mere six weeks later, on August 3, 1993, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a 96-3 vote.

The word “extremist” is being thrown around with little care these days by the Democrats in reference to President Bush’s nominees, but the word fits Ginsburg.

The question arises, why did all but three Senators vote for such a radical nominee? It seems to us that it is much more important to consider the judicial philosophy of a nominee than her professional qualifications. Of course the Constitution doesn’t even contain any professional requirements for judges. One need not have a law degree or any experience practicing law. We’re not suggesting that non-lawyers be nominated, just that other criteria are important.

Any nominee who shows the disregard for the written words of the Constitution that Ginsburg does deserves – no, demands – a “no” vote from any Senator that values those written words.

The task that remains then is to convince a majority of the American people that “the rule of law” requires the conservative view of adhering to the written laws, including the written Constitution, not the liberal view of a “living breathing document” that means whatever people want it to mean at any given moment.

It appears the Republicans have in the past shown far too much deference to Democratic nominees, or too much weight to a nominee’s resumé and too little to her extremist views.

In some narrow sense we agree with Senator Schumer here. He has argued that the ideology of judicial nominees should be considered, and with that we agree. Senator Schumer is just wrong on the merits of the ideology he supports. The Constitution exists to limit and define the role of the federal government. It is precisely those limits that those, like Schumer and Ginsburg, who espouse a “living breathing” Constitution oppose.

People often argue that we need to maintain “balance” on the court. Certainly people with differing views about particular issues can be good judges. For example, Justices Scalia and Thomas sometimes disagree on particular cases. But we don’t need a balance between judges who want to follow the written law and those who want to ignore or evade it.

Perhaps some law professors or constitutional scholars will weigh in on the proper scope of the Senate’s “advice and consent” role. Or anyone else, for that matter. Like the Constitution, we don’t require a law degree here.

Update: Ed Whelan has an earlier post that addressed the use of judicial philosophy in Senators’ evaluation of judicial nominees here.

On his appearance today on Meet the Press, Howard Dean flagrantly lied about President Bush’s new mercury regulations. Dean said:

The president ignored–excuse me, the–his people ignored a report that said that mercury was much more toxic than they suspected and that the rules that the president was putting out were going to a allow more mercury into the air and make things worse.

In fact, the new regulations are designed to reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 70 percent in the next 15 years.

When the federal budget increases, but not as much as liberals want, they call it a “cut.” Now, when mercury emissions are cut, but not as much as environmentalists would like, they call that an increase in emissions. We call it a lie.

Michelle Malkin points out another lie from Dean’s MTP appearance here.

Tim Russert asked Howard Dean this morning on Meet the Press about his mean-spirited and judgmental comments about Rush Limbaugh, the president, Tom Delay, and Republicans generally. Dean said (to paraphrase) that since Limbaugh is a mean hypocrite, it’s OK to judge him. Hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear this silly “Republicans are hypocrites” meme.

This is the typical ‘thought’ on the left – Judging is wrong, hypocrisy is wrong, except it’s OK for us to judge people who are hypocrites, and that doesn’t make our judging hypocritical, because the people we’re judging are meanies, and judging is wrong, except when you’re judging meanness, and we’re good, so judging us is bad, but Republicans are bad, so judging them is good, so our judging is by definition good, and they’re judging is by definition bad…

Somebody call a doctor, we’ve got a headache.

Update: Jackson’s Junction has the video.

During his appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press this morning, Tim Russert asked Howard Dean about Dean’s support for self-described socialist Bernie Sanders’ senate run.

Dean argued with Russert about whether Sanders is really a socialist. Russert pointed out that Sanders describes himself as a socialist. Dean said, “He’s basically a liberal Demcorat.”

So there you have it – socialists and liberal Democrats are indistinguishable. That’s what we thought, but now we have confirmation straight from the mouth of the DNC chairman himself.

Captain’s Quarters has more on Dean’s appearance on MTP.

Update: Jackson’s Junction has the video