FOREIGN ENTITIES TRYING TO END-RUN THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

A federal appellate court heard arguments yesterday in the case of a New York-based counterterrorism researcher who was ordered by a British court to pay and apologize to a Saudi billionaire she accused of funding terrorism.

One judge on the three-judge panel yesterday expressed reservations about the British court order. Still the questions from the judges of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suggested that they had significant doubts that the court has jurisdiction to toss out the British court’s judgment in the libel case.

Publishers and news organizations are bound to read the American court’s forthcoming decision in the case. The case comes at a time of raised interest in “libel tourism”— the phenomenon of foreigners filing libel suits in British courts based on claims that American judges would quickly toss out on First Amendment grounds. Whether American courts can block those judgments, or at least certain of their provisions, is a question none of the judges yesterday appeared especially eager to tackle. And the court expressed little interest in the First Amendment concerns that legal observers say are present in the case.

This deserves more attention than it gets.

My advice to Saudis who don’t want to be accused of supporting terrorism: Get your country to stop being a major source of funds for terrorists. That’s better than engaging in legal terrorism against a free press of the sort that isn’t allowed in your own benighted country.

DEMOCRATS: STILL TRYING TO WIN OVER THE SOUTH!

A Democratic congressman from New York says he wasn’t trying to insult Mississippi in published remarks Thursday, but a Republican colleague from Mississippi says Rep. Charles Rangel should apologize to the state.

Rangel, D-N.Y., was quoted in a Thursday article in The New York Times, saying: “Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?”

I saw Dennis Kucinich holding forth on Cavuto today, too, about how he’s now at the political center or something like that. Hey, maybe he’ll finally be able to pass his bill banning space-based mind control weapons!

Say what you will about the elections, but I think the Democratic Congress is going to bring us a lot of comic relief.

UPDATE: I’m not the only one who sees it this way!

N.Z. BEAR ON THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP ELECTIONS: Don’t rush things!

The Grand Olde Party got its head handed to it last night. Any other interpretations are deluded, foolish, or otherwise stupid.

So, the obvious course of action is for the GOP to spend a few days — oh, a week at most — performing a perfunctory survey of the warm bodies closest to their leadership seats, and immediately anoint one of them to be the new face of the Republican Party. That’s the great thing about leadership elections, you know — no need to actually consult anyone resembling the actual rank-and-file of the Party. No need to actually consult the people who give the money, who work the campaigns, who actually, ‘ya know, cast the votes to keep a party in power. Or — who don’t.

Wrong. Very wrong. Amazingly, stupendously, staggeringly and absurdly wrong.

The reality of November 8, 2006 is that the Republican party no longer has control of the agenda in Congress. And yes, that includes the Senate — it’s over. The GOP doesn’t get to decide what bills will come to the floor. The GOP won’t control committees; it won’t control legislation. There is one, and only one, major decision that the Republicans have to make right now to influence how the next two years go — and that is who the party will choose to be their leaders.

This is a huge decision, and it is not one that should be rushed.

Hugh Hewitt agrees: “It is simply astonishing that a party in desperate need of its base’s time, talent and treasure over the next two years would hustle back to home base to consult each other on who should lead the comeback. In no other company or organization would a leadership change take place on such a schedule and with so little input from key constituencies. . . . The House doesn’t exist as an island independent from the party, but the rush to engineer a succession communicates an unwillingness to recognize the significance of the set-back yesterday.”

UPDATE: Establishing a “constituency of expectations.”

JIM TREACHER: “Does this mean Bush is still Hitler? I’m pretty sure Hitler never let his opponents win an election, did he? Unless… this is all part of Rove’s plan. “

BILL ROGGIO looks at changes in Iraq policy and wonders if they’re really changes, or if they’re things that have been in the works for a while.

I should mention, by the way, that Bill will be (self) embedding in Iraq again and could use any support you’d care to give him.

FROM TODAY’S SPEECH BY DONALD RUMSFELD: “As we look back on those critical years during the Cold War, so too our grandchildren will one day look back on this time as a defining moment in America’s history. History will judge whether we did all we could to defeat a vicious extremist enemy that threatened our security, our freedom, our very way of life. Or, if we left it to the next generations to try to fight an enemy strengthened by our weakness, and emboldened by our lack of resolve.”

Follow the link for the whole text.

UPDATE: Dean Barnett has further thoughts on Rumsfeld’s departure.

OK, I WROTE EARLIER that I liked PJM’s coverage of the elections, especially the video. Virginia Postrel thought it was too video-heavy, but breaking the tie is Michael Malone of ABC News’ Silicon Insider:

This week, in what may prove to be a landmark in the story of the blogosphere, the blog aggregator Pajamas Media handed out a pile of inexpensive digital cameras to its contributors and asked them to document their experiences on Election Day.

It was a glimpse of the future. And if I was Sony or Canon or Nikon, I’d be looking at that 57 million number and planning a whole marketing campaign around my new Budget Blog camera line.

I do think that this is the future. I spoke today (one reason blogging has been so light) at a conference of journalism and PR folks at UT, and demonstrated some of the digital-camera web video. They were very impressed at what cheap cameras could do, and they should have been.

“DEAN DEMANDS RECOUNT, as Dems capture Senate.”

HEH: “Two days after the mid-terms, the New York Times discovers that Democrats can be corrupt, too. Who knew?”

POST-RUMSFELD: A look at four policy battles that could shape the military.

THE DEMOCRATS MAY HAVE RUN THE TABLE, but look who’s topping the charts! Apparently, it’s still hip to be square.

DONALD RUMSFELD TELLS ALL: Heh.

THE DEMOCRATS WIN, AND THE SUN STARTS TO SHINE! “Poll: Afghans express confidence in country’s direction, security.”

Who knows what else will suddenly get better this week?

BILL QUICK:

Remember: what happened last Tuesday wasn’t a disaster. It was Democracy. It was a disaster only for those who believe that there should be one permanent ruling party, no matter how decadent, treacherous, and sleazy that party is.

Be of good cheer. The Republicans will be back in 2008, and much better for what happened to them in 2006.

Bill’s not usually the optimist in the room, but I think he’s right.

QUESTIONS ABOUT ROBERT GATES AND IRAN: The full Gates/Brzezinski paper is here.

DANIEL GLOVER SAYS IT WAS A BLOODBATH FOR THE “FIGHTING DEMS:”

After Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, a Democrat, nearly scored a special-election upset in Ohio’s strongly Republican 2nd District last summer, bloggers and other Democrats began touting war veterans as candidates for 2006. They touted dozens of such candidates as the antidote for the Democratic Party’s long-running electoral ailments on the defense and security fronts.

But if Democrats have the same low tolerance for political casualties as they have shown for battlefield casualties in Iraq, their push to recruit and elect to Congress military veterans who run as Democrats will be short-lived.

Two words: John Kerry.

BUT THEN WHERE WILL THEY PUT THE RED-LIGHT CAMERAS? “Most traffic lights should be torn up as they make roads less safe, one of Europe’s leading road engineers said yesterday.” But read the whole thing, which is really interesting.

Meanwhile, in Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected red-light cameras. They generally do, if allowed to vote on the subject, which is why cities do their best not to give them the opportunity. . . .

HEH: “Me, if I were in med school I’d be going into piercing-hole-reconstructive-surgery, along with tattoo removal. There’s going to be a lot of work in the future.”

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON writes on Rumsfeld, James Webb, and being careful what you wish for.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse: “What do I think about the Democrats taking over both houses of Congress? I don’t have much feeling one way or the other. I mistrust both parties. I’m hopeful that the kinds of candidates the Democrats relied on to win — people like Webb — will transform the party and make it into something I can support.”

COULDN’T IT HAVE WAITED A DAY OR TWO LONGER? “Campaigning for 2008 begins —now.”

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey makes the case for waiting a bit.

I think he’s right. As Russell Friedman says in a different context, I think that Republicans — and Democrats — might want to spend some time processing past events before jumping into the next stage.

VIRGINIA POSTREL: "How about a loophole-closing, rate-flattening 1986-style tax reform from the new Congress? It would be a lobbyist nightmare, and a repudiation of the Clinton administration’s zillions of tax credits for good behavior (extended by the Bushies). But if I squint really hard I can see it happening. Charles Schumer is talking the right way." Another interesting test of whether the Democrats have learned anything during their years in the wilderness.

INTELLIGENCE FAILURE: A look at Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, and Alcee Hastings.

If, instead of the respectable Jane Harman, the Democrats put a man who was impeached for corruption in charge of the Intelligence Committee, I think that it will prove that they’ve learned nothing in the past few years.

A LOOK AT Robert Gates and the “new approach” in Iraq, from The Mudville Gazette.

BILL WHITTLE EMAILS:

Over in Tim Blair’s comment section, a guy named Dave S. said this:

“The Republicans lost and the Democrats won for the same reason — they distanced themselves from their base. ”

That’s the sentence of the year, in my opinion.

Heh. Indeed.

UPDATE: George Will: “At least Republicans now know where the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ leads: to the political wilderness. “

JIM WEBB is claiming victory in Virginia. Looks like he’s got it, too.

Meanwhile, Allah has comments on the Pelosi ascension: “‘Fess up, righty bloggers: as bummed as you are about last night’s washout, you’re kind of enjoying the thought of how much easier your job’s about to get. I know. I am too.”

Hmm. Sounds kind of like a Robert Ludlum novel: The Pelosi Ascension. Thrills and chills await!