ARNOLD KLING has problems with the Washington Post’s front page.

INTERESTING STUFF on the Padilla and Hamdi cases, over at Volokh. This bit is interesting: “Scalia’s dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld suggests he would be a fifth vote for the Padilla dissent’s position on the merits. He says that, unless the government suspends the writ of habeas corpus (which it has not done), the government must charge a citizen it is holding with a crime. It cannot detain a citizen without charging him.”

I agree. And this bit, also from Scalia, appears to be a bit of a slap at the Chief Justice: “Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it.”

UPDATE: I just got out of a 90+ minute faculty meeting, but Eugene Volokh has further thoughts:

I’ve only read the Hamdi case so far, but here’s a tentative thought (subject to revision as I read the other cases and rethink the matter) — two significant facts in this case are that Justice Scalia voted against the government, and Justice Breyer voted (partly) in favor of the government.

This is because these votes may well change the political dynamics within the conservative and liberal movements.

I think that’s right. There’s more on the Supreme Court at The Volokh Conspiracy, so just scroll up and down. And Marty Lederman has thoughts, too, over at SCOTUSblog. So, in a very different vein, does Mark Levin.

MIXED REPORTS on resveratrol and aging. I’m still going to keep drinking Guinness, though, just to play it safe.

A SAUDI NON-CONNECTION: Daniel Drezner has a column discussing something from the 9/11 Commission report that didn’t get a lot of attention, perhaps because it undercuts Bush critics who say he’s too cozy with Saudi Arabia:

If those who oppose the Bush administration want to excoriate the government for making it appear that the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda was stronger than it actually was, so be it. But it would be nice to see some of those critics acknowledge that their preferred target has been absolved as well — and that the administration has not been lying down on the job in making life difficult for Al Qaeda.

Of course, the force of this point depends to some degree on how much faith one has in the Commission, and I have very little. In addition, the finding that “we found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government funded al Qaeda,” strikes me as rather carefully worded. But it’s certainly true that those who treat the Commission as reliable in other contexts have to deal with this finding, too. Or at least they would, if anyone paid it any attention.

UPDATE: Drezner has more thoughts on his blog. Why don’t I think much of the Commission? Leaving aside Jamie Gorelick’s various conflicts of interest, the relentless partisan public posturing and the tendency to ignore important issues, all well-documented in the blogosphere, caused me to decide that it wasn’t a serious enterprise, and was aimed at the TV cameras more than the truth.

For a somewhat different view, read Mark Steyn’s column on How the September 11 commission blew it: “These poseurs have blown it so badly they’ve become the definitive example of what they’re meant to be investigating: a culture so stuck in its way it’s unable to change even in the most extreme circumstances.”

Okay, it’s not that different.

IN AN UPDATE to his earlier post on the new Niger developments, Greg Djerejian notes that Josh Marshall appears to be disputing the new Financial Times reports of a Niger/Iraq uranium connection, and offers some comments.

UPDATE: Reader Paul Harper thinks I’m somehow boycotting Josh Marshall. Er, he’s permalinked over to the right, you know. . . But here’s the link to Marshall’s rather cloak-and-daggerish post (which is also linked by Greg Djerejian, of course). But I don’t think you’ll be able to make much of Marshall’s post without reading Djerejian’s first.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Tom Maguire thinks he has the answer, which he says is boring, and notes a startling possible source for the forged documents — disgruntled CIA agents? “If Josh Marshall is endorsing that, and is about to confirm that, I can not imagine how it will be presented as a Bush-basher (but it will be!).” Stay tuned.

ARTHUR CHRENKOFF has posted this week’s Euro news roundup, where polls are telling some people things they don’t want to know. And Gerhard Schroeder has successfully blocked the publication of a novel. I blame John Aschroft!

And speaking of roundups, Alphecca’s weekly roundup of media gun coverage is up.

IN THE MAIL: A copy of Frank Newport’s forthcoming book, Polling Matters: Why Leaders Must Listen to the Wisdom of the People. Newport, the Editor-in-Chief of Gallup, is out to make the case for the importance of polling in a democracy, and he’s obviously concerned that polls are losing credibility. That’s because — as Eugene Volokh regularly notes — polls that are unscientific, or that are misrepresented by media coverage, are so common. Newport’s most interesting point is that polls can uncover collective wisdom (he sounds almost like Howard Smart Mobs Rheingold in places) that other mechanisms miss.

That may be true, but sloppiness and dishonesty in polling — and, to a much greater extent, in media reporting of polls, something Newport devotes a chapter to — are doing considerable damage to the institution, and those who care about it should be paying more attention to that issue.

And if all this stuff interests you, you may be interested in Daniel Drummond’s link-rich post on polling over at The Fourth Rail.

NANOTECHNOLOGY UPDATE: More on scare tactics in the nano-wars:

We’ve seen this before, in the politicization of biotechnology through junk science. The European Parliament, which did so much to undermine genetically modified food, is set to join the nanowar. It commissioned a report that said nanoparticles should not be released into the environment. The message: Humanity must be saved from the technology that could save humanity.

Color me unsurprised.

OVERSTOCK.COM is now the biggest private employer in Afghanistan. (Via Virginia Postrel, who has several new and interesting posts up.)

AN EARLY TURNOVER OF SOVEREIGNTY in Iraq — a clever way to forestall terrorist attacks planned for June 30. And a self-governing, democratic Iraq is what the terrorists dread.

Now will we see early elections for the same reason? I hope so.

UPDATE: Roger Simon has thoughts. So does Joe Gandelman, who predicts that the new Iraqi government will crack down in ways the United States has not.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Robert Alt comments from Baghdad, and Michael Rubin has comments too. Meanwhile, for the press, it’s all about — the press! “As someone who was in the Press Room in Baghdad when the announcement was made to the Press via a phone call, I can tell you that there were flacks who visibly angry at being ‘duped.'” I don’t blame them for being mad. What’s more important — the future of the Middle East and America, or the care and feeding of media egos?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Interesting list of CPA accomplishments here. As someone who’s been critical of the CPA, I should note that it has actually done a lot.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Michael Greenspan emails:

On CBS Radio’s 1:00 EDT news roundup, the Iraq handover was the second story, behind the Supreme Court decisions. I was amazed at that editorial choice, and perhaps this is the explanation:

One thing I am absolutely sure about. The press is vexed, mightily vexed. They won’t say it, they can’t. But a zillion muckety-mucks have gone to Iraq to be there for the handover and they got scooped. Plans have been trashed, egos bruised. It will be interesting to see how or if this gets translated into coverage.

Indeed.

A READER EMAILS FROM IRAQ: “My Arabic isn’t too good, but the local radio in Iraq is stating that Zarqawi has been captured by Iraqi intelligence. All our laborers are chattering about it and seem extremely pleased (most are Kurdish).” However, the U.S. military is denying it.

ROBERT TAGORDA compares Al Gore’s statements with those of Bill Clinton and concludes: “I think that Gore is simply more radical than Clinton. It would benefit the public to see the divergence clearly in the news.”

FISH: It really is a brain food.

IT’S NOT JUST THE LETTER I MENTIONED YESTERDAY: Ralph Nader is publicly calling for an intervention regarding Michael Moore’s weight:

“I’ve been at him for years, saying ‘you’ve got to lose weight,’ ” Nader said in the phone interview. “Now, he’s doubled. Private exhortations aren’t working. It’s extremely serious. He’s over 300 pounds. He’s like a giant beach ball.”

He’s unhappy with his politics, too.

BALDILOCKS NOTES some non-digital brownshirt action.

JEWS IN BAGHDAD: H. D. Miller says the Times is burying the lede in this story.

BOOKS FOR IRAQ: This sounds worthy, and — especially if you’re any sort of a professor — you should check it out.

INTERESTING THOUGHTS on security and the Iraqi transition, from Daniel Drezner and some of his commenters. I agree that the Sunnis will likely have cause to regret not coming to an accommodation with the United States before the transition.

URANIUM AND NIGER: Greg Djerejian notices some potentially embarrassing developments. Er, embarrassing for Joe Wilson, that is.

UPDATE: Djerejian has updated his post in response to a second Financial Times story, and suggests that it’s not just Wilson who may wind up being embarrassed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More thoughts here, and here.

JAMES RUBIN confronts his past.

SOME INTERESTING, AND DISTURBING, news about SpaceShipOne’s flight.

IS NATO A FRAUDULENT COALITION? Patrick Belton’s roundup of what to expect at the Istanbul summit is interesting throughout, but this is what struck me:

Of 1.4 million soldiers under Nato arms in October 2003, allies other than the US contributed all of 55,000. Nearly all allies lack forces which can be projected away from the European theatre. SACEUR General James Jones testified before Congress in March 2004 that only 3-4% of European forces were deployable for expeditions. Then there are the problems of interoperability: there is a recurring problem of coalition-wide secure communications which can be drawn on in operations. Allies other than the U.S. have next to no precision strike capabilities, although these are slowly improving. The US is generally the sole provider of electronic warfare (jamming and electronic intelligence) aircraft, as well as aircraft for surveillance and C3 (command, control, and communications). The US is also capable of much greater sortie rates than its allies.

Militarily, then, NATO just doesn’t bring a lot to the table nowadays. Then, as Belton notes, “The other problem is political will, which is most in evidence on the issue of terrorism. ” Indeed. Both problems call into question both criticisms of Bush for not getting the NATO allies more involved, and proposals for moving U.S. strategy in a more multilateral direction. Read the whole thing, though, for some criticisms of the Bush Administration that are more cogent, if less campaign-oriented, than that one.

UPDATE: Reader Eric Bainter says this is nothing new:

When I was assigned to NATO in the late 80’s/early 90’s, the standard joke was (and probably had been since NATO’s inception) that “NATO” stands for “Needs Americans To Operate.” (The alternate was “Needs Alcohol To Operate,” which wasn’t too far off the mark either). It was pretty clear that for any major event, you were gonna need a lot of Yankees doing all those things mentioned in the article — command & control, comm, especially airlift, and of course, actual fighting troops of any significant size.

One example of this came about during the first Gulf War – NATO’s response as a non-belligerent was called Anchor Guard, and was to protect Turkey from being attacked by Iraq. The NATO owned & operated E-3A Component sent AWACS planes, the Dutch sent some Patriot batteries, and the Germans sent Alpha jets. Chem warfare suits were cobbled together from American masks and German suits, because most NATO countries did not have NBC ensembles that were worth a damn (e.g. the Turks didn’t have any).

However, we needed more secure housing for the AWACS crews and ground support – they were living in hotels in Turkish cities — Turkey’s bases were no where near big enough to support a surge of troops (which seems to be another problem with most of our allies’ bases). The Germans offered up portable shelters that had recently come into their inventory when they took over the East German forces. However, there was no way to transport them within NATO – the US Air Force airlifters were completely booked up with Desert Shield/Storm. The Belgians had some C-130s, but had already refused to fly ammo for the Brits to use in Desert Storm (typical). NATO had three 707s, but they were maxed out rotating AWACS crews to Turkey, and didn’t have a lot of cargo space. The German Transall airlifters were probably too small. The solution – Aeroflot (yes, the former Soviet now Russian airline) was contracted to move them to Turkey! I thought it was both amazing and hilarious that the Russky’s were supporting NATO. Aeroflot moved the shelters to Turkey, but their airplane broke down on one of the missions and was stuck for 3 weeks while a part was located and flown in from way the heck off in the former Soviet Union somewhere.

The Russky’s also gave unofficial morale support – a Russion “exotic dance troupe” was on tour in one of the Turkish cities when well over a hundred NATO AWACS personnel came rolling in…the dancers immediately cancelled the rest of their tour and stayed for the duration of the war.

Interesting.

LUNCH WITH THE SOLDIERS: An interesting report.

NOT QUITE worldwide, really.

WAR AND PUBLICITY: The Belmont Club has some reflections that unfortunately resonate with Richard Aubrey’s comments on Darfur, below.