MORE PADILLA

For some useful Padilla-related commentary, see Brigid O'Neil's essay here (via Lawrence Solum), Phil Carter here, Eugene Volokh here, Nathan Newman here, TalkLeft here, Unlearned Hand here, and Eric Muller here. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has a useful (but unnecessarily -- and distractingly -- cantankerous) essay at NRO here.

As I note below, I think that the court's decision can be defended in a deliberation-enhancing sense (as Cass Sunstein argues in his recent book Designing Democracy). This is a view that harmonizes well with Jackson's analysis of concurrent war powers authority in the Steel Seizure case, which the majority in the 2nd circuit panel relied on for much of its reasoning.

It's certainly not an indisputable point, but I doubt that the best interpretation of our constitutional traditions requires giving the President unfettered authority to declare someone an enemy combatant and then to detain that person without any judicial oversight whatsoever. That said, as a predictive matter, I would bet that the willingness of other branches of government -- not to mention commentators -- to acquiesce in such a presidential assertion of authority is highly dependent on context. It's no accident that Eric Muller draws on Korematsu and the drug war for his analogies, while McCarthy evokes the language of "mass murder" and a "shooting war."

But regardless of how you stand toward that issue, the 2nd circuit's decision can also be read as a defense of judicial integrity -- an unwillingness on the part of the judiciary to be complicit in (arguably) lawless and unfettered detentions of American citizens. It's understandable that the 2nd circuit didn't cite Justice Jackson's dissent in Korematsu, but perhaps it should have: if the court finds inherent presidential authority to detain, the "principle" will "lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need." Perhaps courts shouldn't go down that road. At the very least, it seems to me (contra McCarthy) that a court that doesn't want to go down that road isn't doing something inherently unreasonable. That's not to say that courts have often taken this route; they haven't, it seems to me. But perhaps they should.

ZAOUI WINS IN NZ HIGH COURT

The New Zealand herald reports: "Court backs Zaoui's right to summary of SIS data." The opinion is available here (PDF file). For background on Zaoui, see my post here.

MOVEON AD AND POPULAR CONSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE

This "Bush in 30 Seconds Ad" expresses an idea of constitutional law that has inspired public educators throughout American history -- the idea that ordinary citizens can use constitutional principles as a guide for their electoral decisions, especially when politicians have overstepped the bounds of their authority. The roots of this idea are part religious, part early enlightenment, a combination of protestant textualism and a Spinozan belief in the power of a re-oriented civil religion that can find expression in a public political catechism.

Successive waves of attempts to reprint and distribute the Constitution have shown the periodic appeal of this idea. My two favorite historical examples of this idea are attempts by corporations and anti-FDR types during the New Deal era to provide cheap editions of the Constitution to the reading public in an effort to remind them of the dangers of "socialism," and the "Liberty Bill Act," originally dreamed up by some Virginia elementary school children and picked up by some members of Congress eager for some nice photo ops, which would put an abridged version of the bill of rights on the back of the one dollar bill.

The idea is an appealing myth, to be sure, but it has several flaws. First, the concept of interpretation involved in such a view is too simplistic -- akin to Justice Roberts's claim in U.S. v. Butler (1936) that interpretation consists in "lay[ing] the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and [. . .] decid[ing] whether the latter squares with the former." One of the reasons why such a conception is simplistic (for everyday use at least) is that most actions that would be challenged are not so blatantly unconstitutional as to allow for such an approach. One of the functions of an established Constitution is to narrow the range of permissible official action, but once those rules are accepted, most of the important contestation takes place in areas of uncertainty. Presidents don't simply try to fire Supreme Court Justices for rulings they don't like, for example.

Perhaps public knowledge as a whole helps to create the conditions under which the contestation is narrowed -- the idea of a citizen reading the Constitution and exclaiming "He can't do that!" might have a regulating function even if it is not common at all. Especially during crisis times, however, the area of uncertainty widens, so that even such actions as Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (probably a usurpation of a congressional function) can plausibly be described as constitutional even if they conflict with easily available textual meanings.

Secondly, the myth is misleading because it is too private. If you've ever yelled at the newspaper or the radio over breakfast (I have), you can understand the appeal of the ad. Nonetheless, effective, public constitutional meaning is not produced at the breakfast table; it's produced by mobilized groups. One important group is, of course, legal professionals, but their views shouldn't be mistaken for the sum total of constitutional meaning. (People like James Wilson thought that an appropriately trained profession could spread legal enlightenment throughout the public sphere, but that's another story.) Political parties, interest groups, and social movements all play their part here. Constitutional meaning is a cooperative, public product.

I still like the ad, though.

SCALIA AND BCRA

I'm mulling over some ideas on Scalia's understanding of "the citizenry" [my term, not his] as evidenced by his BCRA dissent. Any thoughts or suggestions would be welcome. I'm intrigued by statements like this:

The premise of the First Amendment is that the American people are neither sheep nor fools, and hence fully capable of considering both the substance of the speech presented to them and its proximate and ultimate source. If that premise is wrong, our democracy has a much greater problem to overcome than merely the influence of amassed wealth.

I'm wondering, in particular, if the suppressed alternative (the people are "sheep or fools") acts as a kind of hidden premise anywhere in the rest of the dissent, or on the general direction of the argument. One should ask, for example, how plausible it in fact is that the people are sheep or fools, according to Scalia. In particular, I wonder how this idea squares with his depiction of voter behavior in the face of negative "attack ads":

Perhaps voters do detest these 30-second spots–though I suspect they detest even more hour-long campaign-debate interruptions of their favorite entertainment programming. Evidently, however, these ads do persuade voters, or else they would not be so routinely used by sophisticated politicians of all parties.

Perhaps there's nothing here, but I'm interested in the cast of characters: sheep, fools, sophisticated politicians, a-political TV watchers. If you've got any thoughts, send them along!

COURTS DURING WARTIME

You should read the 2nd circuit's Padilla decision from today: it's pretty gripping stuff (links here, PDF files here and here). Skip pages 9 - 23 if you want and get to the meat of matter: "the power to detain." On the one hand, with the majority you have a claim that a statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a), specifically prohibits detentions; on the other hand, with the dissent you have a (not obviously strained) reading of the Joint Resolution from September 18, 2001 that it authorizes the use of detentions even if they are not specifically mentioned. At that level of generality (and following Cass Sunstein), I would be inclined to think that the majority is doing something that courts should do: signal to congress that it alone has the duty to authorize such detentions specifically, in the full light of day, with full awareness of the electoral risks of doing so. In other words, more deliberation is needed if such detentions are to be authorized by law.

If the ruling stands -- and perhaps it won't -- one can imagine three possible paths going forward. First, there are no new foreign attacks, the threat fades, and the sense of urgency that would have propelled congressional authorization of detentions dissipates. The fact that WMD's have actually been found in the U.S. recently and no one seems to care (see here) indicates, I think, that the threat has faded a bit (or that the media only cares if the terrorists are islamicists, which is another story). A second possibility, though, is that events intervene: there is a new attack and the administration uses the opportunity to pressure Congress to pass a statute authorizing detentions and / or suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Then it would be highly doubtful that courts could even put up the kind of fight that they have put up over the past few years. A third possibility is that the President takes detentions "to the people" next year, with or without another attack, and makes a plausible case that Congress should authorize such detentions, and pressures Congress to pass a new bill. I haven't seen any sign that detentions are part of Bush's electoral strategy, though. In a normative sense, unless they become part of that strategy and the voters respond, the President should probably drop this one, although no one but Congress (through impeachment) or voters (through the ballot) have the power to force him to drop it.

Contra Eric Muller, I don't think that there is a strong tradition of judicial assertiveness during wartime, though. My sense is that time has worked against the assertion of executive authority here. If there is another attack, I would imagine that courts would likely retreat. This assertion is not falsifiable [at present] -- and let's hope it doesn't become so anytime soon -- so I suppose we'll see how this one plays out, and I am prepared to admit that my faith in courts has been restored, slightly, if they keep up their good works here.

FISH FOOD UPDATE

Note to Jeff Nelson: "But I told him to stop cheering for the Sox and he didn't" is not a valid excuse for beating someone up, even if it was the playoffs. See the news story here, and for Nelson's more colorful exact language, according to the court papers, see here (PDF file).

MORE POTA NEWS

See the Hindustan Times here, The Hindu here, and The Telegraph, here. In short, (1) opposition parties have failed to hinder an amendment to the sweeping terrorism legislation that provides central review over state government use of the act and (2) the Indian Supreme Court held that states can invoke POTA in prosecutions but cannot then withdraw charges without permission from the central government. See also this page at rediff.com (links to news stories on the law), and for the text of the bill itself, go here. It would be worthwhile to try to compare POTA with its analogues in US law. Probably the most important broad difference is that POTA sets up so-called "Special Courts" to review terrorism claims, while the same broad subject matter in the U.S. could land you in either the civilian courts or in a military brig if you are deemed an "enemy combatant" (at least for now).

ADEED DAWISHA ON IRAQ

Jack sent along a link to a forthcoming article in the Journal of Democracy by Miami University political science professor Adeed Dawisha, called "Iraq: Setbacks, Advances, Prospects." PDF file here. Dawisha argues that the flourishing of such institutions as local citizens' councils and independent newspapers provide reasons for optimism. Here's a taste:

[T]he most encouraging sign for the long haul is the sheer frequency with which Iraqis are using such key democratic terms as elections, parliament, human rights, press freedom, minority rights, and the like as debates over the country’s future proceed. In the wide-ranging discourse now being heard both publicly and privately in Iraq, the need for an elected legislature and government has become almost a foregone conclusion. When it comes to the electoral process, there may be debates over timing as well as the exact methods and institutions to be adopted, but a clear majority harbors no doubt that elections are the necessary path to governance.

Dawisha is optimistic about the prospects for functioning democracy in Iraq and argues for the establishment of territorially-based federalism, a parliamentary system, and a mixed electoral system similar to Germany's -- half district elections to encourage local contact, half proportional representation to encourage the development of national parties. The piece is worth reading. I hope that Dawisha is right! See also Dan Drezner here, who posts a passage from the article on the price of hand grenades in postwar Iraq that I found pretty telling: 5 for a dollar right after Saddam's fall, up to three bucks a piece in August.

UGLY

Gripe: I've just called two physicians' groups here in Oswego, and one isn't accepting new patients at all, while the other couldn't give me an appointment (as a "new patient") before the weekend.

Another thing I've learned this week: when you blow your nose so much that your left eye feels like it's leaking air, it might be time to go to the doctor and get some real meds.

MORE: Brett Bellmore writes to tell me that I'm not broken; everybody's sinuses do have a pathway around the eyes that can leak air. . .

MORE ON POTA

Read also the Times of India on the Prevention of Terrorism Act, here. ToI highlights Section 14 of POTA, which was challenged partly because it could be used by state authorities to compel lawyers to give testimony about their clients and reporters to give testimony about their sources. Here is the Court's response:

The constitutional validity of Section 14 is challenged by advancing the argument that it gives unbridled powers to the investigating officer to compel any person to furnish information if the investigating officer has reason to believe that such information will be useful or relevant to the purpose of the Act. It is pointed out that the provision is without any checks and is amenable to misuse by the investigating officers. It is also argued that it does not exclude lawyers or journalists who are bound by their professional ethics to keep the information rendered by their clients as privileged communication. Therefore, the Petitioners submitted that Section 14 is violative of Articles 14, 19, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. Learned Attorney General maintained that the Act does not confer any arbitrary or unguided powers; that such power is restricted to furnish information in one's possession in relation to terrorist offence 'on points or matters where the investigating officer has reason to believe (not suspect) that such information would be useful for or relevant to the purposes of the Act'; that this provision is essential for the detection and prosecution of terrorist offences; and that the underlying rationale of the obligation to furnish information is the salutary duty of every citizen.

Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 casts a duty upon every person to furnish information regarding offences. Criminal justice system cannot function without the cooperation of people. Rather it is the duty of every body to assist the State in detection of the crime and bringing criminal to justice. Withholding such information cannot be traced to right to privacy, which itself is not an absolute right (See : Sharda V. Dharmpal, 2003 (4) SCC 493). Right to privacy is subservient to that of security of State. Highlighting the necessity of people's assistance in detection of crime this Court observed in State of Gujarat V. Anirudhsing, 1997 (6) SCC 514, that:

"...It is the salutary duty of every witness who has the knowledge of the commission of the crime, to assist the State in giving evidence..."

Section 14 confers power to the investigating officer to ask for furnishing information that will be useful for or relevant to the purpose of the Act. Further more such information could be asked only after obtaining a written approval from an officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. Such power to the investigating officers is quite necessary in the detection of terrorist activities or terrorists.

It is settled position of law that a journalist or lawyer does not have a sacrosanct right to withhold information regarding crime under the guise of professional ethics. A lawyer cannot claim a right over professional communication beyond what is permitted under Section 126 of the Evidence Act. There is also no law that permits a newspaper or journalist to withhold relevant information from Courts though they have been given such power by virtue of Section 15(2) of the Press Council Act, 1978 as against Press Council. (See also : Pandit M.S.M Sharma V. Shri Sri Krishan Sinha, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 806, and Sewakram Sobhani V. R.K Karanjia, 1981 (3) SCC 208, which quoted Arnold V. King Emperor 1913-14 (41) IA 149, with approval and also B.S.C V. Granada Television, 1981 (1) All E.R 417 (HL) and Branzburg V. Hayes, 1972 (408) US 665). Of course the investigating officers will be circumspect and cautious in requiring them to disclose information. In the process of obtaining information, if any right of citizen is violated, nothing prevents him from resorting to other legal remedies.

In as much as the main purpose of Section14 of POTA is only to allow the investigating officers to procure certain information that is necessary to proceed with the further investigation we find there is no merit in the argument of the petitioners and we uphold the validity of Section 14.

INDIAN SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TERRORISM LAW

In a decision issued today, the Supreme Court of India rejected several challenges to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. For American observers, perhaps the most interesting challenge was that the central government had exceeded its constitutional authority by intruding on matters of state competence. Read the Hindu here, and read the case from JUDIS, here.

THANK GOD

I'm so glad that rural TX police are on the case! I feel safer already. Or something.

MORE: See also The Curmudgeonly Clerk, here.

HAVE A 'MANICHEAN' CHRISTMAS

If you're looking for some outlets for your charitable urges this year, consider donating some money to these folks. Jack will call me Manichean for some of my choices, but I can live with that.

• Ballot.org


• Southern Poverty Law Center


• Cornell's LII


• Community Rights Counsel

BLAST FROM THE (NOT SO DISTANT) PAST

The capture of Saddam Hussein and some reading I've been doing on the Balkans converged for me yesterday in a desultory search for late 1990s statements on Milosevic. Instead of anything interesting on that score (the search was desultory, after all), I found this page from NRO, where people posted their thoughts on what kinds of things President Clinton might do in October, 2000, in order to influence the election. It's clear that the tone here is tongue-in-cheek. Still, it's worth recalling, on occasion, what some people were saying (and posting) in 2000. Here are some of my favorites. I've edited out the names, but you can find them pretty easily if you'd like:

posted: 8/08/00 3:15 p.m.
He's done the "Wag the Dog" thing too many times before. Klintoon needs something really big. How about Algore hosts a complete tour of Area 51? "See folks? There really are aliens and UFO's! And see? The aliens talk just like I do... The Republicans don't want you to know about Our Friends From Outer Space. But President Klintoon and I want to celebrate our interplanetary diversity and share it with you..." Maybe Hillary and Chelsea can host a tea for some of them!

posted: 8/08/00 3:15 p.m.
Slick Willie will attempt another "Wag the Dog" international incident. The main stream press will give him plenty of free air time, and Little Al will be show cased during the crisis to appear "Presidential". The leftist talking heads will respond to any comments by GWB as petty, and mean spirited. They act with incredulous rancor and put GWB down for not supporting the administration during this time of national crisis.

posted: 8/03/00 7:05 p.m.
I think Bill Clinton will sabotage Al Gore's election if it appears Hillary is going to lose. The worst thing for the Clintons would be for Hillary to lose and Gore to win. If that were to happen, the Clinton's political power would be greatly diminished and Hillary's political future would be bleak. Therefore, Bill Clinton cannot allow Gore to win if Hillary continues to trail in the polls.

posted: 8/02/00 10:00 a.m.
The Clintonistas are now busy scouring Bush's background for evidence of wrongdoing. They will find something, and even if they don't, they can find someone to fabricate story for pay. (drugs, women, etc.) The newspapers will then plaster the headlines with this "breaking story" in October, and the smear, even if unfounded, will be enough to throw the election to Gore.

posted: 8/02/00 10:00 a.m.
Cuba--it will have something to do with Cuba. Castro will make some sort of small public concession that the press will make much of. The reason I have chosen Cuba is that I have never quite trusted the pronouncements from the Clinton administration regarding the Elian affair. There was another agenda moving in the background. We may see that revealed in October.

posted: 8/02/00 10:00 a.m.
Great suggestions so far but you all sound too nice to meet Clinton's evil standards. The question is what surprizes do we think is up his sleeve but I propose that knowing full well he will try something--we pray. Pray and ask God to thwart any of his evil plans to succeed. What good does it do to guess--we already know he will! But we can do something about it rather than sit back and say we were right all along. Pray and pray a lot. Pray that the enemy would not have his way and all plans to do evil will fail.

posted: 8/01/00 3:20 p.m.
If Clinton will bomb Saddam Hussein or Milosevic to avoid impeachment and alter the news cycle, expect an air raid or two in October, knowing that the media and GOP alike will talk about "supporting the president".

posted: 8/01/00 3:20 p.m.
Assuming that somehow the American people remain untouched by the legendary Gore Charisma; we can expect 1) massive vote fraud of the type practiced in the Southwest and perfected in Orange County, Ca. [millions of illegal aliens voting absentee],and/or 2) military action in the Balkans, Middle East, or Iraq to rally people around the Administration,and/or 3) some sort of Federally sponsored "terrorist" activity that would "justify" invoking Executive Order 12919. This Administration does not dare risk ever having a Justice Department not under its control. Further prediction: after November and before January 20, China will attack Taiwan. With Congress out of session and Clinton still in power, the United States will gleefully watch from the sidelines as 25 million free Chinese become slaves or die. If the political heat becomes too much, see EO #12919 cited above. The Constitution has become an inconvenience to too many people of both parties and the maj! ority of the political class would gladly go along if allowed to keep the outward trappings of power. submit=Submit

posted: 8/01/00 10:15 a.m.
Bill Clinton will more than likely start a war somewhere - most likely the middle east i.e. against Saddam Husein. During the Gulf War Bush's ratings just soared in the polls. Another incident might be something with Israel. He wil probably put our embassy in Jerusalem and cause Arafat and co. to get irrate in start a war. This move will also really help Hillary with her senate bid. The final scenario will be a terrorist attack pulled off by the FBI much like Oklahoma, or TWA 800. Something like this always seems to work well. God Bless

posted: 7/31/00 1:00 p.m.
Just find a big, windowless building of uncertain use, preferably in a little-understood third world nation with a sullied past, and cook up an inconclusive report from the NSA, or perhaps Naval Intelligence, suggesting that it may be producing something bad, nerve gas or gyroscopes, perhaps, and might just give them to North Korea, or maybe Laos, and bomb it, hoping no solid facts escape before mid-November.

posted: 7/31/00 1:00 p.m.
Bombing of the Hizbollah home in Lebanon and bombing of Iraq would be popular, especially if Bill lets Al get some of the soundbites on national TV. Bill will build more of his "legacy" and Al may benefit from a touch of the "rally around the flag" tendency of voters in wartime.

posted: 7/31/00 1:00 p.m.
It would not surprise anyone if Clinton started bombing an innocent country in October. It seems to be his modus operendi. Then he could rally the voters in a national emergency. His only other hope would be to fake an illness so that Gore could take over in October. But rest assured, he would even run for a third term by rewriting the constitution if he thinks there is no hope for Gore.

Thank God NRO still has all this silly stuff on its web site, as a marker of how ridiculous people were in 2000. Rational ignorance reaps its revenge when citizens give in to "dark urges," as Schumpeter warned. True on the left and right since the beginning of modern politics, I'd imagine.

MORE: Ted at Crooked Timber might say that I'm "dumpster diving" here, and I'll admit that I found this site liberating, in a way. NRO has gotten a lot of mileage out of the "Bush hatred" argument of late; it's worth resurrecting examples of the more insidious forms of Clinton-hatred as an antidote, I think. And Ted narrows his range too quickly: it's not just the web. The world is full of people who say stupid things about politics, partly because they don't have any direct experience with politics (see Schumpeter for why), partly because the conditions of modern life encourage conspiracy-mongering (see, perhaps, Noam Chomsky for an example, or just listen again to "Puzzling Evidence"), partly because they want to marshall all the forces of the universe, including God and nature, to make sure that their side wins, for reasons often wholly unrelated to the actual content of the programs advanced by their side. Still, Ted is right on the whole: none of this is "political argument," meaning an attempt to advance a serious account of the world in contrast to other serious accounts. It sure feels good sometimes, though.

". . .THIS ENTRANCE WAS INTENDED FOR YOU ALONE. I WILL NOW GO AND CLOSE THE DOOR."

The quote is from Kafka's allegory "Before the Law," which will be ringing in your ears once you read this case from the 11th circuit. The case of Nyaga v. Ashcroft (pdf file here) is a painful illustration of the helplessness of individuals in the face of government indifference and inaction -- and of the judicial system's subtle complicity in the situation. The short version of the story: Nyaga did everything that he was asked to do and still is only a few steps from deportation, because (a) the INS never acted on his visa application, and (b) one judge on the appeals court refused to read the relevant statute to require INS action (Nyaga lost on appeal, 2-1). From this story by Jonathan Ringel on law.com:

Last month, Nyaga, 45, ran out of legal options when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal of a ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

By a 2-1 vote, the 11th Circuit said Nyaga's application expired on Sept. 30, 1998, regardless of whether immigration authorities had tried to process it.

The 11th Circuit reversed a decision by Chief Judge Orinda D. Evans of the U.S. District Court in Atlanta. Evans, saying she would not reward "gross inaction" by the government, had ordered immigration authorities to process Nyaga's application.

Now a deportation hearing -- the only outcome of which would be Nyaga's removal from the country -- is expected to occur within months, according to Wirt and immigration lawyer Charles H. Kuck.

. . .

Nyaga's saga started in 1996, when he and his wife, Doin Kainyu Kibaara, immigrated here from Kenya with their son and daughter.

After graduating from technical college, Nyaga began working in guest services at a Marietta hotel and for a commercial cleaning service. Kibaara is a cashier at a Wal-Mart. In 1997, Nyaga won a State Department lottery that awards 100,000 applications for "diversity visas," which are granted to citizens of countries that are underrepresented on America's immigration rolls.

Nyaga, whose immigration status directly affects his wife's, filed his diversity visa application in February 1998. But according to court decisions, the Immigration and Naturalization Service did nothing to process the application beyond sending Nyaga's fingerprints to be checked by the FBI.

The INS responded in court briefs that it was "simply overburdened" and that Nyaga was not entitled to have his application processed within a specific period of time -- in this case by the Sept. 30, 1998, end of the federal fiscal year.

Ringel notes that Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) has put out some feelers on the possibility of providing relief for Nyaga and others who are in a similar situation. Good for him. Perhaps Senator Chambliss might like to hear from you on this one, especially if you're from Georgia. 202-224-3521.

MORE FROM THE SUEDDEUTSCHE

From this article looking back at Saddam Hussein's allies and enemies, the text of an open telegram from Vladimir Zhirinovsky to Hussein after his sons were killed earlier this year:

"Dear Friend! Your sons both died as true warriors. . . Their heroic death shows the greatness of soul of the Iraqi people."

Zhirinovksy hasn't said much about Hussein's capture, though. One of the brilliant aspects of the capture as engineered by the U.S. troops is that it has rendered Hussein ridiculous (see, for example, here). Fascism in all of its guises requires a cult of fear and death created by a carefully crafted illusion of heroism and power. No matter what happens from here on out, "bad Santa" Hussein will probably find it difficult to recreate such an illusion. That's very good news.

SUEDDEUTSCHE ON SADDAM'S CAPTURE

Good editorial in the Sueddeutsche on Saddam Hussein's capture, here. As you might expect (or fear), taz's article today is rather sour: "The Guerrilla War Continues".