A nice day to go to town to give blood. The charm of the city when the weather is warm is well known by guys in particular. I passed a sign for "wearable art" (okay ...), "conservative foot care" (sheesh! biased), and "Butler Motor" transport (servants need transportation too). The blood center was nicely renovated from the last time I went and apparently has a resident preacher from the nature of a monologue in the snack area. I also mentioned a question on the form about same sex intercourse among men (once since 1977 is enough -- even if we were drunk?), which basically nullifies the ability of most gay men from giving blood. The person I asked turned out to be a gay male -- my "gaydar" is somewhat weak, I guess. No problems -- give blood, it's important, and a fairly easy way to donate to your community.

Memory Hole: The importance of the release of the photos of coffins coming home is clear -- we must be aware about the losses of war. Also, the photos do not violate privacy -- personal information was removed. Anyway, as some note, the flags and everything have a rather patriotic air to them. Next, why didn't a member of the mainstream media make such a FOIA (a law guess who opposed) request? Finally, what is the business of confusion on some of the photos with some actually of victims of the space shuttle tragedy? Sheesh. [Update: Memory Hole explains the mix up here. It's the government's fault, apparently.]

A Question Of Trust: As Legal Fiction says [4/21, a nod also to his emphasis on the importance of the executive as a whole (especially, in November), not just its leader, 4/23], the enemy combatant cases basically falls on how much you trust the executive -- he doesn't, Professor Eugene Volokh and others do. Though it just isn't a matter of personnel, I don't understand Prof. Volokh's trust (Congress' role gets second shrift), his concerns about judicial administration of such cases aside, these days especially. The Volokh Conspiracy has their libertarian impulses, so know the dangers of executive power.

Also, the Professor's reasoning on other issues is IMHO patently false. (1) He spends time justifying the label, which is partly besides the point given even "enemy combatants" have some sort of rights. In fact, he notes POWs have rights and some of these defendants might be POWs. (Or innocent, I would add.) If so, I guess they are SOL. (2) The emphasis on "civilian courts" is misleading, since the basic hearing the Guantánamo Bay detainees desire could easily be done via military courts. (3) Using the example of civilians harmed by bad bombing campaigns as another case where there's no judicial discretion is a bit nutty. It's not quite the same thing, and in fact their leaders would have some sanction if the rules of war were violated. Various individuals here are stateless. Overall, I thought the reasoning built on sand, and had trouble not being annoyed, given the stakes.

[Update: POW comment added; also I listened to some of the oral argument on C-SPAN. A couple justices were rather adamant that the 1950 decision that seems to be on point actually was probably overruled. Interesting underreported wrinkle. Justice Stevens at one point was rather passionate on the point. Justice Souter was passionate on the sovereignty point, which the government ultimately relied on -- we protect the Cuban iguana! Are you saying Gitmo is comparable to the battlefield and postwar Germany! The detainees clearly have three, probably four votes, and pretty good shot at have five (I forsee multiple opinions). In fact, and this should be underlined, Solicitor General Olson had a rough time of it with only Chief Justice Rehnquist and Scalia (patently so) clearly supportive. Weird moment -- Justice Breyer calling him "Ted."]

One More Thing: Legal Fiction notes that his hesitancy to trust the executive in the enemy combatant cases is not just based on the personnel now in place. Separation of powers and checks and balances are basic to our system. Well said - as I note here, there is a tendency to make everything a partisan issue, when the principle of the thing often is more important. When things are made partisan, both sides often lose perspective and it just becomes a matter of name calling.