Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is panicked that the outrageous law she signed, AZ SB 1070, has made her state a pariah. In response, she pens an absurd column for ESPN that ignores history and insults the very "out of state interests" she is hoping will not boycott Arizona:

Urging Major League Baseball to take away next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix is the wrong play. In Arizona, both proponents and opponents of Senate Bill 1070 have stated that economic boycotts are an inappropriate and misguided response to an issue that is clearly worthy of proper public debate and discourse. Put simply, history shows that boycotts backfire and harm innocent people. Boycotts are just more politics and manipulation by out-of-state interests.

(Emphasis supplied.) Boycotts do not work? Really? Remember Rosa Parks and the Montgomery boycott of 1955? South Africa? Or, wait for it, the NFL refusing to hold a Super Bowl IN ARIZONA after it repealed MLK Day? All of those boycotts worked. More . . .

Gail Collins:

There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms. “I think you’re going too far here,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. He was speaking in opposition to a bill that would keep people on the F.B.I. terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives.

Say what? Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Graham accurately pointed out, “when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn’t consider flying.”

[. . .] “We make it so easy for dangerous people to get guns. If it’s the Second Amendment, it doesn’t matter if they’re Osama bin Laden,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

To be clear, I disagree with the SCOTUS' Heller decision (Jeralyn agrees with it), so it is easy for me to support limiting access to guns for suspected terrorists. If you think it is a fundamental right, like say, Fifth Amendment rights (see Miranda), hesitancy in restricting that right seems logical. Too bad that hesitancy is not seen regarding the restricting of all fundamental Constitutional rights (Lindsey Graham again: "I am all into national security. ... I want to stop reading these guys their Miranda rights[.]”)

Speaking for me only

Is Zen Master a euphemism for hypocrite?

I was caught off guard by [Jackson's take] take on the Phoenix Suns’ peaceful protest of Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law in the form of wearing their “Los Suns” jerseys. First Jackson, who has showed lefty leanings in the past, indicated he had no problem with the controversial state Senate Bill 1070. “Am I crazy, or am I the only one that heard [the legislature] say ‘we just took the United States immigration law and adapted it to our state,’” Jackson said. I told him they usurped the federal law. “It’s not usurping, it’s just copying it is what they said they did, and then they gave it some teeth to be able to enforce it,” Jackson said.

Then he mildly scolded the Suns. “I don’t think teams should get involved in the political stuff. And I think this one’s still kind of coming out to balance as to how it’s going to be favorably looked upon by our public. If I heard it right the American people are really for stronger immigration laws, if I’m not mistaken. Where we stand as basketball teams, we should let that kind of play out and let the political end of that go where it’s going to go.”

Jackson of course does not know what he is talking about. But the hypocrisy he knows pretty darn well. But what else to expect from a 2000 Bill Bradley supporter (my loathing of Bill Bradley is of long standing):

Colorado Rep. Jared Polis has been appointed to the House Judiciary Committee. He says he is looking forward to working on immigration reform.

What does he think of Arizona's law? He's denounced it.

[I]t is Congress that needs to act to pass comprehensive immigration reform. The people of Arizona want a solution. They have sunken to desperate and unconstitutional means and have sent a signal to us, here in the Capitol, to take action to fix this important issue. It should take no courage for members of Congress to support immigration reform. (my emphasis.)

[More...]

Cheers to Boulder, Colorado. The city council has suspended official travel to Arizona in protest of its immigration law:

The city of Boulder will immediately suspend sending any employees to Arizona on business, and may take additional action against the state, in a show of opposition to its wide-reaching new immigration law.

City Manager Jane Brautigam on Wednesday morning sent a memo to all department directors ordering them to cancel any plans to travel to Arizona for conferences or other city business, even if the tickets have been paid for.

“This action is being taken to demonstrate our opposition to Arizona's new public policy, embodied in recent legislation, to require documentation for all persons who may be suspected of being in that state without official status or approval,” Brautigam wrote. “Such a policy is contrary to our organization's commitment to diversity and is a violation of our core values.”

And, that's not all: [More...]

Should it be Las Espuelas? Yes. And Phoenix should be spelled Fenix.

Preview of the game here.

Open Thread.

Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon emails me to say that Schumer was blindsided by a reporter's question and doesn't support the measure at all:

The senator was approached abruptly in the hall of the Capitol by a reporter before he had even heard about the legislation or what it did. Having learned about the proposal, he believes it would be found unconstitutional in this context and would also be ineffective. There are much better ways of obtaining information from terrorists.

Neither constitutional nor effective. In other words, a typical NeoCon proposal.

Speaking for me only

Lindsey Graham:

“Miranda warnings are counterproductive in my view,” Graham said at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday. “We need a law that would allow you to go to a judge…and hold a guy like this and work with the intelligence officials of this country. Even if you’re an American citizen helping the enemy, you should be treated as a military threat,” Graham said. “Devise a law that recognizes we’re at war.”

If Lindsey Graham has the courage of his rhetoric, the solution is simple - repeal all federal laws criminalizing terrorism. After that, Miranda becomes irrelevant.

If you want to treat terrorism solely as a question of war, then do that. So long as people like Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham insist that suspected terrorism be treated as a criminal question, then Miranda and terror trials in federal court will remain "counterproductive" in their view. They need to put their money where their mouths are.

Speaking for me only

Greg Sargent:

Lieberman's office has clarified to me how the law would work: It would empower the State Department to conclude -- on its own -- that Americans are conspiring with terror groups and should be stripped of their citizenship.

Lieberman's law would amend an earlier statute that details other things that can cost you citizenship [. . .] In those cases the State Department decides whether your disloyalty merits loss of citizen status. Lieberman's law would add involvement with a foreign terror organization -- as opposed to a foreign state -- to this list.

Why is this pointless? Because unless Lieberman is planning on repealing the part of the law that provides due process prior to revocation of citizenship, then all Lieberman has done is create a new federal proceeding where suspected terrorists can "propagandize." As noted earlier, the only way for Lieberman to get terror trials out of federal courts is to repeal federal law criminalizing terrorism. Will Lieberman propose that?

Speaking for me only

Open Thread.

Orin Kerr on the Times Square "Bomber":

Shahzad is a U.S. citizen who has been living in the United States and was caught in the United States for a crime committed in the United States: Surely this is a case for federal court.

(Emphasis supplied.) Surely. What could make it not a case for federal court? Repealing all federal laws that criminalize the alleged actions. Will Lieberman propose that?

The Hill reports:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is planning to introduce a bill that would allow the government to take away citizenship from Americans who join foreign terrorist organizations. [. . .] "I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship [. . .] when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act," Lieberman, who helms the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on Fox News.

If the legislation is made law, it would allow [citizens accused of being terrorists] to be tried before military tribunals. Lieberman, who is one of the most hawkish members of the Democratic caucus, believes military courts should be used to try terror suspects, not civilian courts.

(Emphasis supplied.) Clearly then, Lieberman's goal is not mainly about depriving citizens of their Miranda rights, but to deprive citizens of their Sixth Amendment rights:

Not surprising:

In a personally-narrated radio spot, Obama paints Lincoln as a populist crusader who is "leading the fight to hold Wall Street accountable and make sure that Arkansas taxpayers are never again asked to bail out Wall Street bankers."

"On health care," Obama adds, "Blanche took on big insurance companies by voting to end discrimination against Arkansans with preexisting conditions and fought for tax credits that will help thousands of local small businesses provide insurance to their employees."

Heh. Anyway, this goes to my argument that fealty to President Obama from progressives is a bad bargain. Obama is not the progressive champion we have been waiting for. He is a pol. And they do what they do.

Speaking for me only