I like Diane, but this is just a silly question. The short answer to her question, how could any lawyer represent one of the 9/11 defendants, as I repeatedly stated during my representation of Timothy McVeigh, is simple: "With pride and dedication." Even the TL kid, a high school senior at the time, worked on the McVeigh defense team for its leader Stephen Jones.

It was a great introduction to the criminal defense lawyer way of thinking, and I'm sure contributed in large part (along with his having interned at Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld's Innocent Project) to the development of his passion for helping the underdog, the person accused of a serious federal crime, and led him to become a criminal defense attorney in his own right last year.

One of my biggest accomplishments as a parent was to teach this lesson and others like them to my child, who now has them embedded within him. It's not an act. They have become his values too.

I feel the same way today. Were I called upon to represent one of the 9/11 detainees (unlikely since I'm in Denver and they will be in Illinois or New York), I'd jump at the opportunity.

I knew it was coming. Knew it. Ben Nelson names his price:

Earlier Thursday, in an interview with a Nebraska radio station, Nelson said even if the abortion issue were resolved, he still could not support the $848 billion package, complaining that the plan to cover more than 30 million additional Americans calls for dramatically expanding Medicaid, which is partially funded by the states. The Medicaid expansion would "create an underfunded federal mandate for the state of Nebraska," Nelson said, arguing that states should be permitted to "opt out" of that idea and find other ways to offer coverage to their poorest residents.

(Emphasis supplied.) Now what Villagers?

Speaking for me only

So says Ezra Klein about the health bill.

Should it be passed? Ezra says yes. I need to see the final product before I can make such a judgment.

This is an Open Thread.

DemfromCt discusses how the Massachusetts mandate works:

[U]sing MA as an example to compare to the Senate version of health care reform (HCR) is tricky. MA uses Medicaid/SCHIP as a "public option" of sorts, the Senate does not.

(Emphasis supplied.) Again, offering a Medicaid buy in to all mandated person is the solution to a lot of problems here. Not incidentally, it can solve the Nelson/Stupak problem.

Jed Lewison asks an interesting question:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said on Thursday won't vote for the Senate's healthcare bill unless further changes are made. Nelson said that modifications to the bill, including provisions to curtail federal support for plans covering abortion, are needed to win his vote.[. . ."]I will not vote for cloture on the motion to end debate," Nelson said in an interview on KLIN radio in Nebraska.

So here's a question: Will the White House come down as hard on Ben Nelson as they have on Howard Dean?

(Emphasis supplied.) "As hard." Heh. Anyway, I think it is really time to consider scrapping the exchanges in order to solve this problem. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the crappy.

Speaking for me only

Of course this has nothing to do with the actual merits of the current health proposal in the Senate, but I see that some blogs think it is relevant that Howard Dean's position on the regulatory aspects of the Senate bill may have changed. In the spirit of comity, I would ask then that the President of the United States' change of position on the individual mandate from his stated position in his campaign for the Presidency be considered:

The argument about the evil of the individual mandate is all wrong. It was wrong during the primaries, when Obama unfortunately used it to demagogue his rivals [. . .]

Now that is from Paul Krugman arguing for passage of the Senate bill. Krugman does not consider Obama's flip flop on the issue relevant. Neither do I. (d-day does. He's wrong imo.) Some people apparently see Howard Dean's alleged change of position as relevant to the substance of the bill. I do not.

Speaking for me only

The New York Inspector General's Office has released its report (available here) on the trace evidence section of the New York State Crime lab and it's chilling.

The New York State Police’s supervision of a crime laboratory was so poor that it overlooked evidence of pervasively shoddy forensics work, allowing an analyst to go undetected for 15 years as he falsified test results and compromised nearly one-third of his 322 cases, an investigation by the state’s inspector general has found.

The examiners in the trace evidence section examine fibers, arson residue, footwear impressions, glass, hair, and other evidence. It finds that State Police Forensic Scientist Garry Veeder, who committed suicide in 2008 while under investigation, "failed to conduct required tests while examining fiber evidence and falsified records to conceal his misconduct." [More...]

Bump and Update: Bain was freed from prison today and officially cleared of the crime.

James Bain has been imprisoned for a rape and murder he did not commit for 35 years. Of the 245 inmates cleared and freed by DNA testing, he has been in jail the longest. He is 54 years old, and has been imprisoned since age 19.

Today, he should be going home.

At the hearing Thursday in Bartow, Florida, the state is expected to agree to Bain's release while the final aspects of its investigation are completed. After the initial DNA test, state investigators collected more DNA from Bain and from the victim in the case for further testing. Another hearing will be held, probably after the new year, which would formally vacate his conviction.

..."It's an indication that while all the 'i's' have not been dotted yet, there appears to be a sufficient likelihood of where this is going," said the spokesman, Chip Thullbery. "We don't think it's appropriate for Mr. Bain to spend any more time in prison."

Mr. Bain's family is ready for his return. They have a house, car, and even pajamas waiting for him. And now he will start to rebuild his life. [More...]

This time from David Axelrod:

“To defeat a bill that will bend the curve on this inexorable rise in health-care costs is insane,” Axelrod said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” "I don’t think that you want this moment to pass. It will not come back."

Leaving aside the new fighting spirit out of the White House (apparently even the docile Obama likes punching DFHs), Axelrod's comment makes no sense. This bill's selling point to progressives is its cost cutting features? Really? Forget for a moment that Axelrod is FOS on the "cost cutting," I thought the more effective pitch was the provision of health insurance to the less well off. Moreover, if this is THE moment, as Axelrod states, this argues for fighting for more now, not accepting the lousy bill you have. The once vaunted No Drama Obama Team is really off its feed these days.

Speaking for me only

Last night, I mentioned this excellent post by Ed Kilgore. I want to delve into it a bit more and I will use Matt Yglesias's post on it as an entry point. Matt writes:

Kilgore writes that “sorting out these differences in ideology and perspective is, in my opinion, essential to the progressive political project.” I’m persuaded that acknowledging the existence and principled nature of this difference of opinion may be crucial. But I think the solution is less to sort them out, than to simply problematize the distinction. At the end of the day, no matter what people think they think, nobody remotely sensible actually holds a pure strain of either of these views.

This is absolutely true. Take health care for instance. No one who is for the public insurance program approach opposes the "regulatory reform model" because their ideology leads them there. They are skeptical that it will work. They believe that the government insurance model is the reform that will work for the U.S. Not the regulatory model (and certainly not the regulatory model proposed by the current bill.) More . ..

Ezra Klein cites Paul Starr arguing for some last minute bargaining on health care:

[T]here should be one last effort to incorporate some of the stronger provisions from the House in the final Senate bill.

Ha! You can not simultaneously scream at the top of your lungs that it would be crazy to not vote for the bill and then say we should go back and negotiate some more. I'm pretty sure the folks on the other side of the table have figured out that you are going to capitulate on the point by now.

Speaking for me only.

Ed Kilgore, who I am friendly with, writes a very good post that I want to riff off of in a post tomorrow (about the different conceptions of effective reform for health care). But I want to highlight now a key point he makes:

[I]deology, however muddled, is part of what makes most politically active people tick. And if we don't talk about it--and about differences in strategic thinking as well, which should be the subject of future discussions--then all we are left with to explain our differences on this issue or that is questions of character. And anyone paying attention must recognize there's far too much of that going on.

Ed's right. And I am as guilty as anyone. For now, I will stop it and will instead stick to the policy and the politics. More . .