THOUGHTS ON Condi Rice and diplomacy.

HILLARY CLINTON’S “BRILLIANT” STANCE on the South Carolina flag controversy. It’s certainly a stance that I agree with.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORTS:

Iran sits on one-tenth of the world’s known oil supplies but is using so much energy these days it may start rationing gasoline as soon as next month.

Part of the reason lies with people such as 42-year-old Seyd Jessem Moosavi. No one in Mr. Moosavi’s family had an automobile when he was growing up. He was the first to buy one, followed quickly by his father. Now all five of his brothers have cars, and Mr. Moosavi just bought one for his 25-year-old son. . . .

Iran’s leaders are keenly aware of these problems. But in recent years, they’ve avoided making difficult choices as global oil prices climbed. Export revenues rose even as the amount of oil exported has remained steady or even fallen. . . . Nonetheless, the situation is already wreaking havoc with the government’s budget. Iran subsidizes most energy, including gasoline, diesel and many other refined products. Consumers and businesses alike benefit. Overall, energy subsidies cost the government as much as $40 billion, equivalent to almost a quarter of the country’s entire economic output, according to Bijan Zanganeh, a former Iranian oil minister. That spending is fanning inflation in the broader economy. “It’s unacceptable and it can’t continue,” he says.

Yet in Ahvaz, it’s clear that pushing oil and gas production higher and demand lower won’t be easy. Khuzestan province, the center of the country’s energy industry, already generates 17% of Iran’s electricity. But that’s not enough to keep electricity flowing here in the provincial capital all the time.

I’d like to believe that this will topple the mullahs, or render them more tractable, but that’s not clear.

LT SMASH THINKS that there’s been a shift in momentum. I certainly hope he’s right.

IF WE NEED THIS KIND OF REALPOLITIK IN THE WHITE HOUSE, I guess we’d better vote Democratic:

The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, “That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.”

Gore in 2008!

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg observes:

Before Gore became a hyper-partisan anti-Bush scream machine, he was actually a reasonable guy on the issue of extraordinary rendition (and, let us not forget, on Iraq). Indeed, after reading that I was more favorably inclined toward Gore than I’ve been in years, albeit for about 30 seconds.

It does not speak well of the character of so many Democrats that they can turn on a dime like this — whatever their rationalizations may be — but that doesn’t change the fact that Democrats won’t ever fully support the war on terror until they’re take some ownership of it. Again, I don’t think the let-the- babies-have-their-bottle argument is persuasive (though a real Democratic hawk would look very attractive to me). But this is a real problem and I’d love to know how else to deal with it.

Me too.

GRAND ROUNDS is up!

PAUL CAMPOS thinks I’m beyond the pale for suggesting (in this post, which he does not link) that the Bush Administration might have been better off trying to use covert action to kill Iranian nuclear scientists and radical mullahs, instead of having to look at the massive air strikes now reportedly being planned, which would surely kill more people. He hurts his credibility up front by saying that Iran is not at war with us — when, in fact, it has been since 1979, with the deaths of many Americans, soldiers and otherwise, on its hands. (Later: Some emailers say that this means that Ollie North should have gone to jail for Iran/Contra. Well, that would have been fine with me, actually. But I said Iran has been at war with us; we, however, have not been at war with Iran. This is about what to do as that seems to be changing).

But surely talking about assassination isn’t beyond the pale. Or, if it is, I’m beyond the pale with Dianne Feinstein and Joe Biden:

Senators asked FBI Director Louis Freeh Thursday to consider the legality of assassinating Osama bin Laden and other suspected terrorist leaders.

Referring to terrorist leaders, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Freeh, “What is present law with respect to their takedown?” Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said, “I would very much like a legal memorandum from the FBI, stating whether or not the prohibition against assassination of heads of state applies to organized crime units, and/or terrorist units.” . . . Feinstein said arrest of terrorists is the best option but said that other “robust” strategies should be considered.

Of course, that was in 1998, when it was okay for Democrats to sound tough.

Nor were Biden and Feinstein the only ones:

Even before 11 September 2001, two members of Congress questioned the continuance of such a ban with regard to Saddam Hussein and international terrorists. In 1998, Senator Charles S. Robb stated that if Hussein continued to defy the United Nations, the United States should consider changing the executive order forbidding the assassination of foreign leaders

Then there’s George Stephanopoulos, who wrote: “A misreading of the law or misplaced moral squeamishness should not stop the president from talking about assassination. He should order up the options and see if it’s possible. If we can kill Saddam, we should.”

Campos’ claim that such actions would be illegal is misleading — assassination is illegal, as both articles above note, only by executive order, which can, of course, be rescinded by the President. (As the second item observes, Bob Barr introduced legislation in 2001 to rescind that ban by statute). Kiling by covert military action — as when things are blown up, and scientists or mullahs just “happen” to get killed — is apparently outside the ban anyway. As noted in my original post, there are plenty of arguments from reasonable people why this kind of thing might be a bad idea on practical grounds. Campos, however, thinks it ought to be illegal even to talk about the subject (if you do, you might be an “accessory to murder”). Somebody tell Dianne Feinstein, et al. Er, and send Campos a copy of the First Amendment. And no, this isn’t the first time Campos has called me names for agreeing with Democrats on the war.

UPDATE: A reader emails:

Campos does a pretty good job of beclowning himself by displaying his ignorance of how international law and international security actually work. Attached is an article I’m sure you’ve seen and I’m sure he needs to read. The author was one of my professors. Perhaps Campos should stick to the compelling and weighty analysis of America’s fatness.

I hadn’t realized the article, from the Washington Quarterly, was online, but here it is. And here’s an excerpt:

In the international community, states have always reserved the right to use force to maintain world order and safeguard their own defense. When containment fails, diplomacy is ineffective, and a full-scale war is too costly, killing a regime leader is an option a state should seriously consider. In a world in which states will amass WMD, unlawfully invade their neighbors, and threaten other’s national and international security, national security experts and policymakers may need to reexamine their choices, including killing regime leaders, as a means of ensuring security.

It’s by Catherine Lotrionte, who teaches Intelligence Law and International Law at Georgetown’s Foreign Service School. Who knew that so many of us were beyond the pale? And yes, there’s a lot of beclowning going on these days.

ANOTHER UPDATE: It’s getting crowded out here beyond the pale, as reader James Ray sends a link to this 1994 interview with that well-known international war criminal Dave Barry:

Reason: One of the planks in your presidential campaign is the Department of Two Guys Named Victor.

Barry:: This is one of those times I wasn’t kidding. At the time, we were mad at Moammar Gadhafi, which resulted in us bombing all over Libya and killing a bunch of people, but not him. Then Ronald Reagan gets up and says we’re not trying to kill him, we’re just dropping bombs. You can kill all the Libyans you want, but legally you can’t try to kill the leader.

The other one was Manuel Noriega. Here we have a problem with just one person, and we send all these troops down to deal with it. All these people get killed and hurt, but not Noriega.

So instead of messing around with armies, get a couple of guys named Victor. The president meets with them and has breakfast, or he goes to dinner with them at the restaurant of their choice, and suggests that he’s having a problem. Then the next thing you know, you read in the paper that Saddam Hussein has suffered an unfortunate shaving accident resulting in the loss of his head. We don’t involve a lot of 22-year-old kids in this dispute between George Bush and Saddam Hussein.

See, this was once a kind of anti-war position. Then it was popular with Democratic officeholders. Now, apparently, it’s shifted to “beyond the pale” category. It’s not only important to have the right opinions — it’s important to have them at the right time.

MORE: More here:

One would expect a law professor like Campos to have authority to back up such language. But in fact, his characterizations of the relevant legal principles are over-simplified, if not flat-out wrong. . . . In short, Campos’ attack on Reynolds and Hewitt betrays his ignorance of the subject matter at hand and his failure to do even the most elementary research before denouncing others as “accessor[ies] to murder.” As happens so often on the left, “murderer” and “fascist” are the common coin of a polemic that bears no relation to reality. And, needless to say, Campos offers no constructive thoughts as to how we should deal with the threat Iran poses to our troops in Iraq, or the threat a nuclear Iran will pose to us and our allies.

Needless to say, indeed.

Dan Riehl adds that Campos is trying a different kind of assassination. If he hadn’t let his intellectual guns go off half-cocked, he might have done better at that. . . .

MICKEY KAUS:

It’s not too early to say that Hillary’s performance in the opening weeks has been impressively unimpressive. It’s pretty clear in retrospect, that the war with Iraq, however it comes out, was a bad gamble. A mistake, in other words. But now that we’ve made the mistaken gamble, it also seems clear–to Mohammed at least–that the surge might do some good. The correct position, by these lights, was War No, Surge Yes. It would be selfishly callous, in a stereotypically American way, for us to invade Iraq, make a mess, and then not be willing to pay any extra price to help fix the mess we’ve made. (Murtha’s demand that the troops be given “a year at home”–and the heck with what happens to Iraqis like Mohammed–only emphasizes this self-interested perspective.)

Yet through a conscientiously applied mixture of high-minded comity, Machiavellian calculation, stubbornness and bad expert advice, Hillary has managed to arrive at a position that’s precisely wrong on both counts: War Yes, Surge No.

Read the whole thing.

I CAN’T SAY I’M SURPRISED TO HEAR that Hilary Rosen donated to Harold Ford, Jr. And though she’s getting some flak from gay-rights folks now, if he’d won I don’t think people would mind as much. Especially if — as might very well have happened — he had been the one to give the Democrats their majority.

REDUCE CRIME BY talking about it less?

THE FUTURES MARKETS HAVE SPOKEN: “Despite wishful thinking by some conservative pundits, the odds that Libby will be convicted, as reflected by the Intrade betting market, have been creeping up and are now around 70%. The bigger question at this point is whether President Bush will have the balls to pardon him.”

I HAVEN’T PAID MUCH ATTENTION TO THE MARIA BARTIROMO STORIES, but Daniel Harrison has thoughts.

EMBATTLED EGYPTIAN BLOGER ABDEL KAREEM has been disowned by his father, and the Egyptian trial looks likely to be even more of a circus than previously.

More on Kareem’s situation, and what you can do to help, here.

FLU SEASON IS HERE, and Chuck Simmins offers recommendations from the CDC on what to do.

I’ve already prepared with the essentials. (Not for me Wesley Clark’s sad fate.) He adds this advice by email: “And, if you are sick, stay home from work. Blog instead.” Absolutely.

TRAFFIC CAMERAS — FINE FOR THE POLICE, BUT NOT FOR YOU:

Lee and Teresa Sipple spent $1,200 mounting three video cameras and a radar speed unit outside their home, which is at the bottom of a hill. They have said they did so in hopes of convincing neighbors to slow down to create a safe environment for their son.

The Sipples allegedly caught Kennesaw police officer Richard Perrone speeding up to 17 mph over the speed limit. Perrone alerted Bartow authorities, who in turn visited the Sipples’ home to tell them Perrone intended to press charges against them for stalking.

Perrone should be ashamed here. And I think that citizens should have the same right to photograph police that police have to photograph citizens. In fact, I think that citizens do have that right. And so, I guess, does Perrone, who later withdrew his complaint. (Via Slashdot).

IRAQPUNDIT: “Here’s a quick snapshot of the Baghdad security crackdown, from my own family’s point of view. My story involves only a single household, but – so far – it has a happy ending. I don’t pretend that this one household’s story is a counterweight to all the misery and murder that the crackdown is intended to address, but it’s my profound hope that this story is – or soon will be –representative of many other such individual tales that will be told by many other Iraqi families.” Let’s hope that there are many happy tales.

MEGAN MCARDLE ON GOVERNMENT:

1) People are often stupid
2) Bureaucrats are the same stupid people, with bad incentives.

Indeed.

K.C. JOHNSON rips Nancy Grace for unfairness, sensationalism, and cowardice: “Grace, who regularly mocked principles of due process, allowed guests (such as the ubiquitous Wendy Murphy) to say virtually anything denouncing the players, while challenging even the mildest assertion suggesting the players’ innocence. And, when the case imploded, this television bully, who takes such joy in shouting down guests who challenge her views, was silent.”

I AGREE: “Quite frankly, it should not really matter how far off the mainstream any group is when dealing with state government. Whether it is a blogger in their pajamas, a special interest group or just Joe Citizen, state government should crack open like a piñata when asked for otherwise public information.”

TRYING TO BAN “OBSCENE MUDFLAPS:”

Democratic Rep. Theresa Ulmer of Yuma supported the amendment and said it fit with lawmakers’ other efforts to crack down on pornography and sexual predators.

“I personally am tired of explaining to my 11-year-old son why they (women) are depicted on mudflaps , but not all women are 36Ds. He’s very confused by that,” Ulmer said. “But seriously, this is about family values — what are we going to send out as a message to our children.”

The real message is that the Arizona legislature has run out of important things to do, and might as well go home and save the taxpayers some money. (Via Don Surber).

MARK STEYN RESPONDS to bogus charges that he favors genocide:

My book isn’t about what I want to happen but what I think will happen. Given Fascism, Communism and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, it’s not hard to foresee that the neo-nationalist resurgence already under way in parts of Europe will at some point take a violent form. That’s pretty much a given.

That Steyn was warning of a future, not advocating one, has always been obvious to me. And it’s a serious warning, especially given that the current civil authorities in most European countries are ineffectually waffling in full Weimar mode. To blame Steyn for foreseeing the likely consequences of current fecklessness seems an absurd stretch. The reason, to answer Mark Kleiman’s question, why the anti-holocaust groups have been silent about Steyn is that only the most tendentious and purblind misreading could possibly lead to Kleiman’s conclusion. (But then, Kleiman has been doing that a bit often, lately).

Back in the Vietnam days we heard a lot of accusations of genocide hurled at war supporters — but it was when the war opponents got their wish that the mass murder began, and they were very quiet (or, in some cases, actually defensive of the Khmer Rouge) once it happened. (Read this history of those years by James Webb.) We see a similar irresponsibility today, and I can’t help but feel that these bogus charges are an effort to deflect attention from it.

UPDATE: Reader Rich Daisley emails: “Glenn, reading that Jim Webb piece made me laugh and then it made me cry. I wonder if he ever goes back to read his old writings. Line after line, you could replace a Vietnam reference and add an Iraq reference.” Yes, it felt that way to me, too.

Meanwhile, Kleiman is sliding toward an unhealthy obsession, with a seemingly endless series of posts designed to demonstrate my perfidy, and expressing his hopes that Jim Webb will break my teeth. Let me be clear — though clarity is never clear enough, with Kleiman — I supported the invasion of Iraq, and the rest of the terror war, because I think the alternative would have been something much, much worse down the line, resulting in far more deaths for all concerned. And fearing something worse is the opposite of advocating it. But I fear Kleiman is beyond reason on this point. He just wants to call war supporters names, and at this he excels, in intensity if not in skill.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More on Kleiman’s piece from Dave Price: “An amusing exercise in deliberately missing the point over at the inaptly named ‘Reality Based Community’ blog.”

XM AND SIRIUS plan to merge.

ORIN KERR looks at peer-to-peer networks and the Fourth Amendment, over at The Volokh Conspiracy. And read this post by Susan Brenner, too. Of course, one question on “open” computer systems is whether you can prove that material there was put there by the owner, and not by third parties — or, for that matter, planted by law enforcement officials as they snoop.

JULIAN KU AND JIDE NZELIBE: Do International Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacerbate Humanitarian Atrocities? More the latter, it seems.

IGNORANT BLISS in hiring legal academics.