According to the Wall Street Journal, a district judge has ordered Mohamedou Slahi – a known al Qaeda recruiter who worked for Osama bin Laden – freed from Guantanamo. The Journal’s account does not explain the judge’s reasoning and the decision was not immediately available online. But the decision is inexplicable in light of Slahi’s notorious track record. There is no doubt that Mohamedou Slahi is one of the worst terrorists held at Gitmo. (See here for a previous summary of Slahi’s dossier.)

One neglected issue in the controversy over the revelation that there are at least nine (or ten, if you count Attorney General Eric Holder) Justice Department lawyers who represented, or filed briefs in support of, Guantanamo detainees is whether those lawyers are complying with applicable ethics rules--and whether those rules are being applied evenly.

The two basic ethics rules are (a) the “inward” revolving door ban found in President Obama’s executive order imposing ethics obligations on his administration’s appointees and (b) the conflict of interest rules found in codes of professional conduct defining lawyers’ duties to clients. 

A lot of folks (particularly those on the left) figure that now that health-care reform has been passed, the public will get its government health-care entitlements and like them and stop bothering to strain at the government bit. Democrats hope that'll happen before November.

They mistake the public mood on this piece of legislation. Sure, Americans like entitlements once they have them, but never before has such a large entitlement bill passed with no bipartisan support against the clear will of the people.

It took more than a year, but this ought to be interesting:

Everyone, and I mean everyone, agrees that the executive order on abortion Bart Stupak got President Obama to sign is a sham--a fig leaf not worth the paper it's printed on.

So why did Stupak sell out his pro-life principles?

In an audio recording released last Wednesday, Anwar al Awlaki, an American-born radical Islamist cleric residing in Yemen, called directly for jihad against the United States.  (For more about Awlaki, see here, here, here, here, here, and here.) In short, Awlaki has been linked to a number of recent terror attacks, including the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day attack. 

Forthcoming: "While the subsidies don't start until 2014, many of the new taxes and insurance mandates will take effect within six months. The first result will be turmoil in the insurance industry, as small insurers in particular find it impossible to make money under the new rules. A wave of consolidation is likely, and so are higher premiums as insurers absorb the cost of new benefits and the mandate to take all comers.

John McCormack writes that Rep. Bart Stupak's inexplicable an unprincipled late cave-in on taxpayer-funded abortion -- so senseless and bizarre after he held out so nobly for so long -- represents "an odd moment of agreement in a debate over health care that's been filled with factual disputes," as all sides agree that Stupak's late deal with President Obama for an executive order does nothing to change the legislation and will be essentially useless in practice.  But that's not the only point of agreement about the outcome of the vote.  In eschewing the normal legislative process of collaboration and compromise -- not to mention the notion of incremental change -- and instead insisting on a one-party comprehensive bill and a rush to the finish line at all costs, President Obama has managed to craft a bill that essentially no one likes.

The editors of National Review sensibly counsel conservatives, in the wake of last night’s victory for Obamacare: “‘Nil desperandum’--never despair.” I agree, though I’m more inclined to the mock-Latin motto of the Harvard band: “Illegitimi non carborundum”--don't let the bastards get you down.

Why not? Because we can repeal it.

Bart Stupak said at his press conference this afternoon that an executive order signed by President Obama will accomplish what his amendment would have accomplished:

"All the safeguards we were looking for, the principle we fought for all these months, will be enforced through this exeuctive order. ... It's a good agreement."

Stupak said on Fox News this afternoon that the executive order will have "the full force and effect of law."

The problem with Stupak's statements is that they're not true--and no one on the right or the left believes them to be true, except for Bart Stupak and a few of his friends.

The GOP is now offering its motion to recommit: the Stupak-Pitts amendment which passed the House 240 to 194 in November to ban abortion-funding. If it passes, the bill will have to go back to the Senate for approval, which means at least 25 Democrats will flip-flop on their previous vote on Stupak.

Stupak is now urging fellow members to vote it down.

Update: The Stupak amendment fails 199 to 232.

Sometime in the next hour, the House of Representatives of the United States of America will pass into law a health care reform that the people they represent oppose. In so doing, they will complete the decades-long project of American liberals to create an American welfare state along the lines you find in postwar Western Europe. Next comes immigration, cap-and-trade, a universal entitlement to higher education, and card-check legislation empowering unions. And after that come the tax hikes -- not just on the rich, but on everyone -- that will be required to pay for this drastic expansion of government. Never in modern congressional memory has so much been affected for so many by so few.

Do not believe anyone who tells you they understand the path American politics will take after this vote. It is truly unique. And yet a few things are clear. One, the idea of the "pro-life" Democrat should be tossed into the dust-heap along with such outmoded concepts as cold-fusion. Two, Obama will achieve a short-term bump in his political capital, and likely his poll ratings, because he will have achieved something that every Democratic president since Harry Truman has been unable to accomplish. And three, Obamacare is a testable proposition. The proponents of this legislation have made distinct claims regarding its costs and consequences that should not be forgotten -- especially when America encounters its first debt crisis some years from now.

Let's give the last word to Rep. Paul Ryan:

Liberals are right. America will never be the same.

Bart Stupak, pro-life Democrat who was the leader of a bloc of hold-outs, just held a press conference announcing a deal he made with the White House to address his abortion concerns in an Executive Order. He announced that "8 or 9" pro-life Democrats will vote for health-care reform now, which should put the bill past its hurdle of 216 votes.

In 2005, Syria's Ba'athist dictatorship was accused of supporting the assainination of Rafik Hariri, who was then the prime minister of Lebanon. Hariri's death sparked an internal anti-Syrian uprising in Lebanon--the Cedar revolution--which was both supported vocally by the Bush administration and tangibly when the State Department yanked its ambassador from Damascus.

Last year President Barack Obama filled out his NCAA tournament bracket and predicted (as many did) that North Carolina would take the whole thing. He was right. And he was very popular at the time, too, I might add. This year the president's approval numbers have tanked—he's somewhere around 46 percent at the moment. And this year he picked Kansas to win the NCAA tournament—the Jayhawks entered the tourney as the overall number one seed. And earlier today in the second round they were eliminated by number nine seed Northern Iowa, 69-67. What else will he get wrong in 2010?

Coming, as it does, after Obama's pep rally today, this announcement from an important swing Democrat is very interesting. Zack Space is afraid of taxes squeezing the middle class in the Senate versions of the bill:

Obama arrived in the visitors' center under the U.S. Capitol for a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus this afternoon that had the definite feel of a pep rally before a big game.

I just got back from a Tea Party protest and an anti-war protest (And, they think the righties are the unreasonable ones???), so I'm catching up on healthcare news.

The latest is that the House will push ahead with two real votes— one on reconciliation and one on the Senate bill. They're likely to vote on the reconciliation bill first, and there is reportedly a letter from more than 50 senators promising to vote for the House reconciliation bill. Steny Hoyer said the Senate bill, once voted on by the House will go directly to the president for his signature.

From the office of Senator Mitch McConnell: 

Administration Actuary Can’t Analyze Health Bill Before Final Vote

Even the Administration’s Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide cost analysis of latest Democrat health spending bill before the vote

Chief Actuary: ‘I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.’

There are reports that Bart Stupak and other pro-life Democrats are meeting with Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi has said that they are discussing a compromise that would use an executive order to allay the concerns of pro-life Democrats. The National Right to Life Committee just put out a release explaining that an executive order cannot fix the abortion related problems in the health care bill: 

NRLC's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, summarizing the seven major pro-abortion components in H.R. 3590, is posted here.

It should be noted that all of the problems listed in the NRLC letter -- with the possible exception of no. 5 (pro-abortion administrative mandates) -- would be created by and controlled by the proposed statutory language of H.R. 3590. If the bill is signed into law, these statutory requirements and defects are not subject to correction or nullification by the chief executive or his appointees, whether by Executive Order, regulation, or otherwise.  Lawmakers will be responsible for the law that they vote for, and cannot hide behind hollow assurances from the President.

Prof. Robert Destro, a professor of law and former dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, and an expert on abortion-related litigation, today sent Congressman Stupak an illuminating letter regarding whether the $7 billion in funds directly appropriated for Community Health Centers, in the Senate health bill (H.R. 3590), could be or would be spent for abortions. We have posted the letter here.

During today's House Rules Committee meeting on the health care, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter diverted discussion of the health care bill into an attack on Paul Ryan's roadmap.

Slaughter repeatedly interrupted Ryan and said his plan would end Medicare. Ryan told Slaughter it was obvious why "you want to talk about someone else's bill than your own." After Ryan explained that individuals now under 55, when they become Medicare-eligible, would be able to purchase their own Medicare with a check from the government, Slaughter replied, "I think that verges on cruelty."

Watch it here:

"I can tell you don't understand it accurately," Ryan said of his plan at one point during the tense exchange. Democrats Henry Waxman, Xavier Becerra, and Sander Levin all piled on Ryan too.

The boss has a new post up at Washington Post's Post Partisan blog.

By all accounts Bart Stupak has been pushing for an ironclad guarantee that the bill would only pass on the condition that his amendment is included. Kathryn Lopez hears what I hear:

Prospects for a Stupak deal may be collapsing. (Which, yes, could mean prospects for a vote tomorrow are collapsing. Or it could mean the White House/Pelosi twisted enough arms.)

The Hill reports that Nancy Pelosi is working on a deal with pro-life Democrats to add Bart Stupak's amendment to the health care bill with an "enrollment corrections bill." That means she doesn't have the votes without Stupak and his band of brothers (and sisters).

“There's a proposal out there, and we want to see it in writing and massage it,” Stupak told The Hill. “We have nothing yet.”

We're getting deep, deep into the weeds of parliamentary procedure, but I believe this is how an enrollment corrections bill could work. There would be a separate vote in the House, and it would then go to the Senate (if it passes the House). What is crucial for Stupak is that he needs to get an ironclad procedural guarantee that the health care bill would be passed only on the condition that the Senate passed his correction. Stupak would need the rule to deem the Senate bill passed, but make its passage conditional upon the Senate's passage the Stupak enrollment correction. 

Small groups, gathered in meeting rooms scattered around the world and focused on a single issue, can affect the way we live, at least now and perhaps for a long time. Consider only this week’s conclaves.

Here in Washington, the Federal Reserve Board’s monetary policy gurus met and decided to keep interest rates low until unemployment drops, even though they agreed that the economy is already improving. Meanwhile, meeting in committee rooms and in the corridors of power, Congress agreed to give the White House what its economists and the president, meeting in the Oval Office, demanded: more stimulus spending. It is true that there is considerable excess capacity in the economy, as the deflation-worriers continually point out. But anyone who believes that the meetings at the Fed, in congress, and in the White House are not laying the ground for future inflation carries a heavy burden of proof.