This is the fourth in my series of week-long blog posts called Countdown to Gettysburg“. They are written from the perspective of someone who lived at that time and as if the internet existed in 1863.

The introduction to the series is here.

Previous Posts:

June 27, 1863

June 28, 1863

June 29, 1863

****************************************************
(Check back for updates during the day)

Have you heard what our infantry says every time a cavalryman passes?

“Seen any dead cavalrymen lately?”

Well, it looks like those infantrymen are going to have to stop insulting the cavalry because Stuart is in Hanover with 5000 reb horsemen. As I write this, there’s a battle going on right smack dab in the center of town. It appears that General Judson (Kill Calvary) Kilpatrick has taken his brand new 3rd Cavalry Division into action for the first time. If true (and check back later because I’ll probably have details) then that would make this engagement the largest cavalry action of the war to date.

But Stuart in Hanover! How the devil did he get there? He’s obviously trying to connect with Lee’s army – which is now hurrying toward the road junction of Gettysburg – by moving directly west, right across our front. Apparently, Stuart was raiding somewhere southeast of Baltimore which is heavy sesesch country. I imagine this is why we didn’t hear about his movements until now.

Advance elements of the reb army may already be close to Gettysburg as I write this. There was a report that a couple of brigades from Henry Heth’s Division were sweeping aside the Pennsylvania militia to make way for Richard Ewell’s Corp and were somewhere to the west of Gettysburg causing considerable alarm in the town itself.

Those fat, rich, and happy Pennsylvania farmers are in for a big surprise if the rebs occupy Gettysburg. I hear General Early demanded $100,000 from the good citizens of York or he swore he’d burn the town. There’s also word that the rebs destroyed a large cache of whiskey in Chambersburg. Serves those copperheads right. Maybe now they’ll stop bad mouthing the war and get behind our President.

As in the past when I’ve blogged battles, my sources in the War Department telegraph office, in army intelligence, and officers who are “in the know” will be updating me regularly. I expect to have some news shortly from both the town of Gettysburg and Hanover so make sure you check back later.

UPDATE

As promised, here’s the skinny on the engagement at Hanover. It comes from an account wired to me by a reporter for the local Hanover Citizen.

From what I can gather, old Kill Cavalry Kilpatrick was pretty much ambushed. While the head of his column was several miles ahead near New Baltimore at Abbottstown, the 18th Pennsylvania, which he had left as a rear guard, was bushwhacked right in the center of town by two brigades of North Carolina Tar Heels. Stuart split the 18th in half and there was wild confusion as terrified citizens mixed with union troopers in the center of town, all trying to find cover.

Meanwhile, Brigadier General Elon Farnsworth commanding the 1st Brigade heard the commotion back in town and sent two brigades to investigate. Arriving in town himself, he coolly sized up the situation and led the 5th New York in a spirited countercharge that temporarily broke the rebs advance.

Kilpatrick himself rode like a demon back into town when he heard that Stuart had occupied it. By the time he got there, the rebs had been driven from the town by dismounted union troopers and Farnsworth’s courageous attacks but were still a danger.

So Kilpatrick occupied a range of low hills to the west of town and started to bombard Stuarts exposed positions. Of course, he also bombarded a few houses in the process which likely displeased the residents mightily. It was at this point that he sent a newly minted Brigadier by the name of George Armstrong Custer (who my sources tell me is a real “comer” and to watch his career closely) and two brigades of Michigan troopers in a dismounted counterattack. While my source in intelligence won’t be specific, he tells me that Custer’s men used a brand new rifle in their attack. My guess would be it’s that 7 shot Spencer repeater I’ve heard so much about. At any rate, it was fierce enough and sustained enough that Stuart was forced to make a hasty withdrawal.

As battles go, it wasn’t much. Looks like about 300 total dead and wounded with the rebs getting the worst of it. What gladdens the heart is that our troopers stood toe to toe with Jeb Stuart and gave as good as they got. That bodes well for the future.

And Stuart will have to make a long detour, probably by way of Carlisle, in order to reach Lee’s army at Gettysburg. All in all, a pretty good days work.

Note: My fried at the War Department telegraph office tells me to expect some dispatches a little later. Check back for updates.

UPDATE II

From Gettysburg:

[P.S.] – The troops that are coming here were the same I found early this morning at Millersburg or Fairfield. General Reynolds has been advised of all that I know.

General Buford’s cavalry has run into Henry Heth’s men (Pettigrew’s Brigade) from A.P. Hill’s Army. The rebs are moving quicker than anyone here imagined although you’d think after the feats of marching pulled off by Stonewall Jackson in the Shenendoah Valley last year our brass hats would have a good idea of what the rebs were capable of.

And good for General Johnny! Reynolds has pushed his men hard and they appear to be within a few miles of Gettysburg proper. That’s great news. Buford should be able call on the Black Hats if things get sticky later today.

Here’s a little background on Gettysburg I got from the Army:

Established in 1780, Gettysburg lies among a series of gently sloping ridges generally running north to south with the town itself the center of a road net composing of eight main and two branch roads extending in all directions. Running westnorthwest towards Cashtown was the Chambersburg Pike while just to the north the Mummasburg Road also stretched out in a northwesterly direction. Continuing clockwise was the Carlisle Road branching out due north, then the Harrisburg Road to the northeast, the York Road to the east-northeast, the Hanover Road to the east-southeast, the Baltimore Pike to the southeast, the Taneytown Road due south, the Emmittsburg Road to the south-southwest and finally the Hagerstown Road to the westsouthwest

You can see why Bobby Lee chose Gettysburg to concentrate his army for the coming fight. Looks like just about every decent road in southern Pennsylvania goes through the little town. And Baltimore is just two days march from the town down the Baltimore Pike. We better not let General Lee slip by us as he’s done so many times. He could be halfway to Baltimore before we got organized.

I may have one more update later today. If I get any further dispatches from Buford or Reynolds, I’ll definitely post them.

UPDATE III

Here’s the latest from Buford who has taken up a strong position on a ridge next to a Lutheran Seminary:

I have the honor to state the following facts: A.P. Hill’s corps, composed of Anderson, Heth, and Pender, is massed back of Cashtown, 9 miles from this place. His pickets, composed of infantry and artillery, are in sight of mine. There is a road from Cashtown running through Mummasburg and Hunterstown on to York pike at Oxford, which is terribly infested with roving detachments of cavalry. Rumor says Ewell is coming over the mountains from Carlisle. One of his escort was captured to-day near Heidlersburg. He says Rodes, commanding a division of Ewell’s, has already crossed the mountains from Carlisle. When will the reserve be relieved, and where are my wagons? I have no need of them, as I can find no forage. I have kept General Reynolds informed of all that has transpired.

Major Rathbone tells me that by morning, it’s likely that Buford’s 2700 dismounted cavalry will be facing upwards of 10,000 rebs. They’ll be coming at him “three skirmishers deep” says the Major, “thick as fleas and mad as hornets.” He’s got a good defensive position but General Reynolds better start moving his I Corp at first light. We don’t know how long Buford can hold the high ground.

One more note from Pinkertons: They’ve identified units of Longstreet’s Army coming fast down the Cashtown Road. And with A.P. Hill sweeping down from Carlisle, our entire left wing is in danger of being flanked before half our boys even get to the battlefield.

Looks like Buford and Reynolds have their work cut out for them in the morning.

And so…there’s no avoiding it. Tomorrow will see these two great armies engaged in what everyone knows is the most important battle of the war. I hope our boys are getting a good nights sleep. They’re going to need it.

Now that we’ve had nearly 24 hours to digest the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision, here are a few points about it that are emerging both interesting and troubling.

First, it can generally be said that when it comes to interpreting what the Supreme Court has decided, both right and left see exactly what they want to see and ignore anything that doesn’t buttress their arguments that (left) Bush is a lying weasel who acted illegally or (right) that the Supreme Court has entered into a treaty with al Qaeda and we’re doomed! Doomed, I say!

As Allah points out in this sober analysis (well…at least the analysis was sober. I don’t know about Allah.), the decision has both an upside and a downside. First, he quotes this passage from Steven’s opinion:

We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the Government’s charge against Hamdan are true. We have assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that charge—viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose beliefs, if acted upon, would cause great harm and even death to innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.

Allah tell us what this means:

If Bush dispensed with tribunals altogether and ordered the Gitmo gang held without trial for the duration of the WoT as prisoners of war, arguably that would be constitutional. As it is, if he wants tribunals, he has to go to Congress and get explicit approval. (Stevens says at the bottom of page 37 that if Congress wants to make special wartime exceptions to legal procedures, it has to be specific. The AUMF alone is too vague. Breyer’s two-paragraph concurrence on page 82 emphasizes the point.)

This is the good news. Even though they struck down the concept of tribunals, the Supremes are inviting the executive to go hat in hand to Congress and ask for that specific authority. And even if many Democrats don’t believe we’re at war, by acknowledging the right of the executive to hold the Gitmo detainees “until the end of hostilities,” the Supreme Court accepts that fact which makes lefties look pretty stupid as they praise a decision that, as they see it, establishes limits on the President authority.

I’m all for limiting the executive’s authority. But the question I have is did the Supremes use a hatchet where a scalpel was required? It seems pretty clear that, unlike many past decisions of the Court, Stevens wanted to broadly address many of the questions regarding executive power that the Bush Administration has raised with its actions. As Allah points out, this includes the NSA intercept program that apparently has had its legal underpinnings knocked off:

Think Progress notes, correctly, that the Court’s unwillingness to read implicit grants of executive power into the AUMF might mean the end of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, which Gonzales has said is based on that very statute. The issue’s likely moot, though: Arlen Specter told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that Bush was already leaning towards submitting the program to the FISA courts, and now that this has come down, his hand will probably be forced. I doubt Think Progress’s point will ever be adjudicated, and if it is, the case is likely to be decided on constitutional (read: Fourth Amendment) grounds, not the specificity of the AUMF.

Personally troubling to me is if Bush is willing to now use the FISA court to get warrants, why couldn’t he have done it before? The implied explanation was that it would have involved dozens, maybe hundreds of decisions by the FISA court which would have delayed monitoring considerably. Is there a “compromise” that Senator Specter has come up with that addresses that or has Bush simply caved on the entire warrant issue?

We don’t know the answer to this and I imagine that any compromise would lie in manipulating some of the technical details of the program – details that are still secret. But personal doubts aside, the fact that the Supreme Court has pretty much confirmed the Administration’s policies of holding detainees indefinitely, albeit as POW’s, should be seen as a huge plus. At least we won’t have to open the doors at Gitmo and let these guys walk. (I still would like to see a judicial review of many of these cases in that from what we’ve heard, not all of these men were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and some may be held without cause.)

The downside of this decision has to do with the Court arrogantly assuming powers and prerogatives reserved for the Congress and/or executive. Allah points to the Court’s citing the Geneva Convention, specifically this from Article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

Allah slams the door:

Afghanistan is a High Contracting Party, so the question for the Court was whether Al Qaeda operatives captured there are subject to the Article. Answer: yes. “But,” you say, “it says it applies only to conflicts ‘not of an international character’ and the war on terror is as international as they come.” Indeed — but the Court is reading “international” in its literal sense, i.e., “between nations.” Al Qaeda isn’t a nation. Which means no matter how global the jihad might be, so long as a jihadi is captured within the territory of a signatory to the Conventions, he’s entitled to the protections of Article 3.

Those protections include not being subjected to torture or, much more broadly, “humiliating or degrading treatment.” And even if al Qaeda could give a tinker’s damn about the Geneva Convention, the United States has been forced into complying with it by the Supreme Court:

Even if it’s not, it’s “degrading” and therefore, per subsection©, illegal. There’s no condition of reciprocity in the Article, either: unlike a contract, which dissolves for both sides if one party breaches it, we’re bound no matter how many heads AQ hacks off and irrespective of the fact that they’re not a High Contracting Party themselves. Amazing.

[snip]

But if you’re dealing with a political entity that’s explicitly transnational and that’s rejected the Conventions repeatedly by deed if not in word, why deem them included? Article 3 leaves you with the absurd paradox of affording more protection to Al Qaeda members caught inside a signatory country than to members of a hypothetical group that scrupulously follows the Conventions operating inside a nation that’s not a High Contracting Party.

In the end, as Allah rightly shows, the idea that the War on Terror is a law enforcement problem has apparently won the day – for the moment. What is truly depressing to me is that if we are ever hit with another 9/11, we will have to rehash these same arguments again, perhaps with even more controversy. As Justice Thomas states in his magnificent dissent:

We are not engaged in a traditional battle with a nation-state, but with a worldwide, hydra-headed enemy, who lurks in the shadows conspiring to reproduce the atrocities of September 11, 2001, and who has boasted of sending suicide bombers into civilian gatherings, has proudly distributed videotapes of beheadings of civilian workers, and has tortured and dismembered captured American soldiers. But according to the plurality, when our Armed Forces capture those who are plotting terrorist atrocities like the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the bombing of the U. S. S. Cole, and the attacks of September 11—even if their plots are advanced to the very brink of fulfillment—our military cannot charge those criminals with any offense against the laws of war. Instead, our troops must catch the terrorists “redhanded,” ante, at 48, in the midst of the attack itself, in order to bring them to justice. Not only is this conclusion fundamentally inconsistent with the cardinal principal of the law of war, namely protecting non-combatants, but it would sorely hamper the President’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.

Is the President, as Commander in Chief, hamstrung by this decision? Have some of his vital war powers been stripped as some on the right are saying?

I think its clear the Court wanted to make a statement about this Administration and its ever growing use of untrammelled executive power. Granted (and the President’s enemies will never do so), I believe a very good case can be made that Bush’s aggressive use of the powers of the executive may have staved off another attack during the last 5 years. But at what cost? I am not as cavalier in charging the Administration with overstepping the bounds of legality and constitutionality as most of those on the left seem to do, although I recognize and accept some of their arguments. The fact that I believe they do so to score cheap political points at the expense of our security sometimes angers me. Because this is a debate that needs to take place. If we are going to have both liberty and security, some kind of consensus must be achieved or we will get what we got yesterday from the Supreme Court; a bludgeoning of the executive at the possible expense of our ability to protect ourselves.

First and foremost, the left must acknowledge we are at war – like the Supreme Court did – and that some grant of executive authority must be vouchsafed the President in order for him to do his job. The war is not some gigantic political ploy that Karl Rove is using to win elections. The threat is real and immediate. And to date, I have yet to see even a hint from the netnuts and even many in Congress that this threat is taken seriously.

We are lectured that the war is more than a military campaign. We are also lectured that just about any effort we make in the law enforcement area is subject to so many pie-in-the-sky, impossible dream civil liberty absolutist nonsense that if the FBI looks sideways at a suspected terrorist, they scream for the President’s impeachment. In short, the left has yet to prove that it is serious about defending America. And until they can show the American people more than the simple, mindless criticism of anything and everything the President has done to prevent another 9/11, they will not win no matter how many Iraqs or deficits or Abramoffs or DeLays or Plames or earmarks the Republicans stumble and fumble with.

Whatever the long term consequences of this decision, in the short term I believe it has given heart to our enemies. Too bad I didn’t see that issue addressed by Stevens in his opinion.

As for the decision, I’ll let other more qualified writers explain it to you. These two posts at SCOTUS Blog are pretty clear.

One thing that Marty Lederman points out is that the Administration was wrong in their opinion that certain parts of the Geneva Convention did not apply to the treatment of detainees. Specifically, Article III and its strictures against physical torture as well as “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” I’m not exactly sure what this means but it seems to me that it could make Bush and Rumsfeld possible war criminals.

If the Court insists that the US government should be following the Geneva convention while all these years the Administration has been practicing interrogation techniques that are now deemed in violation of that Convention, doesn’t that leave the President and the Secretary of Defense liable for their decisions in this regard and make them vulnerable to to prosecution by the World Court?

I hope I’m reading that wrong and if someone could enlighten me, I would appreciate it. Because in the case of charges brought by the World Court (not the World Criminal Court that we are not a party to), I believe Congress would be required to turn any defendants living in this country over for trial. Again, I hope I’m wrong on this but as I see it, this could be a possibility.

All of this could have been avoided if the Administration had been able to get together with Congress and come up with a regime that would have granted detainees certain constitutional rights. Senator Specter held hearings almost exactly a year ago about the hodge-podge nature of detainee rights and how it was hampering justice. At that time, Specter offered to work with the President on the rights of prisoners and procedures for the military reviews that determined whether or not a detainee would face a tribunal. For a variety of reasons (some of them bureaucratic), the Administration refused.

Now the Supremes have forced them to go to Congress anyway. It may be that many of those detainees will now be “repatriated” back to prisons in their own lands and Guantanamo will be closed. No matter how we may think it necessary to hold many of these men, Guantanamo had become an icon over the last few years, a source of friction with our allies and a visible symbol to the Arab press of American “oppression.”

We would do well to rid ourselves of it.

UPDATE: 7/1

Andrew Sullivan asks the exact same question about Bush’s “war crimes” that I did. Maybe I’m not as crazy as I thought.

The fact is, I can see some Euro-lefties pressing the case before the World Court, preventing Bush from leaving the country after his term of office is over. And I wouldn’t put it past some in this country to agitate for handing him over.

But in the end, I suspect that nothing much will happen. There are so many genuine thugs that the Euro-left coddles and strokes that even they couldn’t act so shamelessly.

This is the third in my series of week-long blog posts called Countdown to Gettysburg“. They are written from the perspective of someone who lived at that time and as if the internet existed in 1863.

The introduction to the series is here.

Previous Posts:

June 27, 1863

June 28, 1863

****************************************************

The situation along the Maryland-Pennsylvania border is very confused. I sat down with Major Rathbone this morning to try and make sense of things but it’s very difficult to sort out what’s true, what’s rumor, and what’s just plain false. I guess this is what they call the “fog of war.” At any rate, I’ll start with what we know.

What is absolutely certain is that there’s been a dramatic change in reb army dispositions over the last 24 hours. Where yesterday Bobby Lee’s forces were strung out from Chambersburg to Carlisle (with General Early at York) today they’re all on the move. Early has abandoned York and A.P. Hill is busting hell for leather tearing down the Chambersburg Pike. There’s a reliable report that the rest of Ewell’s Army is hurrying down the Carlisle Road.

(CLICK TO ENLARGE)

What does it mean?

Just yesterday, Lee seemed pretty unconcerned that his force was so spread out and our boys just hours away. “Marse Robert” must have finally figured out the fix he was in and realized he had to do something. Strange that we apparently surprised him like that. Jeb Stuart usually keeps the rebs pretty well informed. I heard this Cavalry officer named Custer say that our boys couldn’t blow their noses without Jeb Stuart knowing about it.

So Rathbone and I both agree that Bobby Lee is concentrating his army and is turning to fight. But where? Cashtown is a possibility but that’s a long way for most of Ewell’s army to march. Meade is being very cautious. We know he’s now got three Corps (I, III, and XI) making a forced march from Emmittsburg up the Emmitsburg Pike. This would seem to force Lee to fight further west. So it looks like it will be Gettysburg – if John Reynolds and his “Black Hats” can get a move on. Otherwise Bobby Lee is just as likely to make a dash for Baltimore straight down the Baltimore Pike – not a good turn of events that.

Howard’s XI Corp is also double timing it up the Pike with III Corp bringing up the rear. The problem as I see it is a question of numbers; can enough of our boys arrive on the battlefield before they’re overwhelmed by Bobby Lee’s forces? And what’s the ground like around Gettysburg? On a map, it looks pretty flat with some low hills to the north. If Lee gets the high ground like he had at Fredericksburg, there will be many a brave boy whose future will be cut short.

The other 4 Corps of our boys are about a day behind Reynolds but moving fast. Those poor fellows are marching 30 or 40 miles a day in 90 degree plus heat. I wonder what shape they’ll be in when they finally “see the elephant?”

Rathbone has a theory that Lee came north originally not to fight but to raid. He pointed out that the northern part of Virginia had been ravaged by more than two years of war what with both eastern armies fighting from just outside Washington D.C. all the way to the gates of Richmond. He thinks that supplies in Virginia are getting scarce so Bobby Lee decided to come north to feed his army and take back as much as he can carry. And if he can take a state capitol like Harrisburg, maybe the Copperhead Democrats will carry the country next year and give our railsplitting President the boot.

It sounds logical except for one thing; Lee is a fighter. I can’t believe he came all this way just for a few wagon loads of food. Lee means to destroy our eastern army and force Grant to lift the siege at Vicksburg and come back to defend Washington. So my thinking is that Lee was planning for a fight and was just waiting for the right moment on the right ground.

And speaking of Vicksburg, ever since General Grant’s brilliant maneuvering below that Gibraltar, it’s been clear that the fortress was doomed. You’ll recall that Grant tried several stratagems last winter, none of them getting him any closer to victory. The reason, of course, was that he was on the wrong side of the river. In order to take Vicksburg, Sam had to find a way to cross the river and come up on the town from the rear. His crossing at Grand Gulf 50 miles below Vicksburg looked suicidal at the time. Boy, were we wrong! When the Rebs slashed around in Grant’s rear looking to cut his supply lines from New Orleans, Grant fooled them by simply living off the land. There were no supply lines to cut!

Here’s a map of the rest of his campaign where he quick marched his 50,000 men to take care of the Reb army at Jackson to clear his rear of interference and then marched steadily to Vicksburg, finally investing the town in the middle of May:

Can’t imagine those Rebs under General Pemberton being able to hold out much longer.

If I’m right and its a fight Bobby Lee is looking for, it’s a fight he’s going to get. By my estimate, close to 70,000 of our boys are wearing out shoe leather heading for the road junction of Gettysburg. Estimates of Lee’s army vary. My source at Pinkerton thinks Lee has more than 90,000 men but that’s surely too high. Reb strength is probably a little less than our own.

Washington is very quiet, very expectant. Something big is about to happen and everyone knows it. My source in the War Department telegraph office tells me that Lincoln spends a lot of time there, pacing nervously back and forth with a haunted look on his face. Who can blame him. Bobby Lee’s boys have never tasted defeat. We have a brand new, untested commander facing what even some of our military people are saying is the best army in the history of the United States. Time is moving very slowly. Soon…very soon now, we’ll know.

As the Israeli military moves decisively against their terrorist tormentors, some pundits are worried that the IDF incursions in to Gaza could precipitate a Middle Eastern war. Specifically, they point out that Syria may take advantage of the deployment of Israel’s defense forces and attack.

This is not in the cards – unless Baby Assad has totally gone off the deep end. Any attack begun by Assad’s admittedly larger but inferior forces will be finished by a qualitatively superior IDF in a matter of days. The only threat Syria poses is a surprise attack where they would have the initiative. But since the Israelis are on high alert and ready for him, Assad can do nothing but sit in his summer house and cower as Israeli jets buzz overhead. And the weak resistance of the Palestinians to the IDF thrust so far only shows that for all of their rhetoric and bluster, Hamas is an empty shell militarily.

The Jordanians? The Egyptians? Not a chance. Both those nations are too dependent on largess from the west to risk alienating Europe and America by initiating hostilities. The Lebanese are extremely angry but can’t muster much in the way of a military response given their domestic political situation. Hizbollah may end up tweaking the Israelis by firing a few rockets into the Jewish state but since they do this all the time, it won’t amount to much.

In short, the coalition of Arab states that went to war with Israel in 1967 and 1973 has changed dramatically. Only Syria remains as a real military threat to Israel. And Assad realizes that it would be a huge gamble going it alone against the IDF. A humiliating loss coupled with his retreat from Lebanon last year would convince the political and military elites in Syria that perhaps it was time for a change of leadership.

It appears that Hamas is discovering how stupid it is to pull on the lion’s tail and not expect a response:

An Israeli military official said a total of 64 Hamas officials were arrested in the early morning roundup. Of those, Palestinian officials said seven are ministers in Hamas’ 23-member Cabinet and 20 others are lawmakers in the 72-seat parliament.

Palestinian parliament speaker Abdel Aziz Duaik and Religious Affairs Minister Nayef Rajoub, brother of former West Bank strongman Jibril Rajoub of the rival Fatah party, were among those rounded up. There were conflicting reports about whether Deputy Prime Minister Nasser Shaer, who has called for the release of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit, was arrested.

Officials will be questioned and eventually indicted, the Israeli army and government officials said.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the ministers and lawmakers were not taken as bargaining chips for Shalit’s release, but because Israel holds Hamas responsible for attacks against it.

“The arrests of these Hamas officials … is part of a campaign against a terrorist organization that has escalated its war of terror against Israeli civilians,” Regev said.

There is some intelligent speculation that Hamas has engineered this crisis deliberately, that it seeks to discredit “moderate” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. There may be something to this speculation in that the incursion by the Israelis as a result of the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier (as well as the firing of about 800 rockets by terrorist groups associated with Hamas into Israel’s settlements over the last month) has discredited Abbas’ calls for dialogue with Prime Minister Ohlmert while strengthening the hand of the radicals:

Earlier, Israeli Public Security Minister Avi Dichter issued a direct threat to kill Hamas chiefs in Syria, the base of the movement’s political leader, Khaled Meshaal. He said Israel had issued warnings to Syria about the presence of Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders in Damascus but that they were disregarded.

“This therefore gives Israel full permission to attack these assassins,” he argued.

An aide to Mahmoud Abbas said the Palestinian president called Assad to ask him to persuade Meshaal to help free the soldier. Assad promised to do so, but there have been no results, the aide said.

It is ironic that the Palestinians calling on their Arab neighbors for help in getting a “negotiated release” of captives in Israel in exchange for the young Israeli soldier followed so close on the heels of the IDF’s incursion. They were unwilling to release the young man prior to Israel’s military thrust which proves that the Jewish state knows exactly where to hit their enemies and make them howl. And the arrest of so many Hamas officials will serve to put the terrorists on notice that no one is immune when it comes to Israel’s determination to protect its citizens from the constant threat of attack from terrorists.

Once again, the Palestinians are proving that when it comes to trying to play hardball with the Israelis, they are simply out of their league.

The Senate resolution sponsored by John Kerry two weeks ago would have required American forces to leave Iraq within one year of its passage.

I wonder what he thinks now that 11 insurgent groups have indicated they want to give our forces twice as long to quit the country?

Eleven Sunni insurgent groups have offered an immediate halt to all attacks — including those on American troops — if the United States agrees to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq in two years, insurgent and government officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Withdrawal is the centerpiece of a set of demands from the groups, which operate north of Baghdad in the heavily Sunni Arab provinces of Salahuddin and Diyala. Although much of the fighting has been to the west, those provinces are increasingly violent and attacks there have crippled oil and commerce routes.

The groups who’ve made contact have largely shunned attacks on Iraqi civilians, focusing instead on the U.S.-led coalition forces. Their offer coincides with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s decision to reach out to the Sunni insurgency with a reconciliation plan that includes an amnesty for fighters.

When groups that are killing American soldiers recognize that a precipitous withdrawal of American troops would be bad for their country given the tenuous security situation, one has to wonder if the 13 Senate Democrats who voted for Kerry’s cut and run resolution are more eager to hand a victory to the insurgency – a large chunk of which now wants to negotiate – than they are to achieve even a modicum of peace and stability in Iraq.

In short, the enemy is willing to give our troops more time to succeed than John Kerry.

And this guy still wants to be President?

There’s a smile on the face of Tom DeLay this morning and much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left as the Supreme Court ruled that most of the DeLay-inspired gerrymander of Texas congressional districts is constitutional:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Republican-boosting Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents from office.

Indeed, DeLay’s handiwork was a piece of political art. As I mentioned in this post, it brought to mind a similar piece of legerdemain by California Democratic Congressman Phil Burton back in the redistricting scrums of 1980:

The result of Burton’s machinations became clear in 1982. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, there were 22 Democratic and 21 Republican Congressmen. In 1982, following Burton’s manipulation of the system, there were 28 Democrats and 17 Republicans in Congress. In 1984, Republicans won a majority of votes in Congressional districts but failed to gain a single seat thanks to Burton’s gerrymandering.

The map drawn up by Burton looked like he had given a monkey a crayon and allowed him to scribble on a map of the state. Burton’s own district featured so many twists and turns that the lines actually ended up splitting apartment buildings in two. There were lines drawn down the middle of streets so that one side was in Burton’s district and the other side given over to the Republicans. All of this legerdemain was necessitated by the changing nature of Burton’s district which had become gentrified and thus full of Republican voters. But it was made possible – like DeLay’s efforts in Texas – by the magic of computers and the science of demography.

To answer the argument that it’s perfectly alright to game the system in order to maximize one party or another’s political representation I would agree. This is exactly what DeLay was doing with his map by removing reliable Democratic voting blocs made up of blacks and Hispanics from Republican enclaves. The Supremes ruled that DeLay went too far but that his basic idea is perfectly legal and constitutional.

As a practical matter, this will mean jiggling a few district lines in order to more fully reflect minority concentrations of voters so that a candidate can potentially be elected based solely and exclusively on their ethnic background or race. Why this isn’t considered demeaning by minorities has always escaped me, especially since black and Hispanic representation would soar in Congress if, instead of concentrating a clear majority in one or two districts, minority candidates were recruited to run in races where there was a strong plurality of black or Hispanic voters. I think that the idea that whites won’t support a black or Hispanic candidate is almost dead. This won’t change the voting rights law or any SCOTUS decisions impacting redistricting. But it should be a reality taken into account by both parties so that more minority candidates can be elected.

Also of note is a part of the decision that may have huge ramifications down the road: The Court ruled that states may redraw district boundaries any time they wish rather than waiting for the Census report that comes out once a decade.

On a different matter, the court ruled 7-2 that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like _ not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.

The Constitution says states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts. In Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court, then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay after Republicans took control.

That was acceptable, the justices said.

“We reject the statewide challenge to Texas redistricting as an unconstitutional political gerrymander,” Kennedy wrote.

This could be very troubling for our democracy. As it stands now, most people do not know who their Congressman is. What would happen if people were shuttled all over the map every couple of years as one party or another took control of the statehouse? I am willing to bet that number would decline even further.

Beyond that, this aspect of the decision presents some interesting possibilities. It would make getting and keeping a Congressional majority on not just winning national elections, but also predicated on doing well at the state level. Will this give more power to national political parties who have the money and resources to push for statehouse majorities in order to maximize their clout in Congress?

The declining power of political parties over the last quarter century has been well documented. It will be interesting to see if this stops that slide and indeed, turns it around somewhat. More powerful parties means more party discipline, something both parties could do with a little more of.

And what really must be killing the lefties today is that DeLay is getting the last laugh – at least until his trial. Regardless of how his legal troubles fall out, DeLay’s legacy to Republicans in Texas seems secure.

UPDATE

I guess I forgot to mention that this puts a monumental crimp in the Democrat’s plans to take over the House in November. Since most observers believe that even with the court ordered re-drawing of districts it is unlikely that the Republicans will lose any seats in Texas, the mountain that the Democrats must climb to take control of Congress just got that much steeper.

And given some curious poll numbers in key states that have come out recently, the much ballyhood momentum the Democrats were touting just a few short weeks ago, may be slowing to a crawl. The GOP is not out of the woods yet, not by a long shot. But they may have stopped the bleeding and even begun to reverse some very troubling trends.

This is the second in my series of week-long blog posts called Countdown to Gettysburg“. They are written from the perspective of someone who lived at that time and as if the internet existed in 1863.

The introduction to the series is here.

Previous Posts:

June 27, 1863

****************************************

(See Update Below)

As I posted here, George Meade was indeed named Commander of the Army of the Potomac. Pity the poor soul! My source at the War Department telegraph office said Meade was none too happy with the assignment saying he “was in ignorance of the exact condition of the troops”—his own—or “the position of the enemy.”

No matter. General Halleck was able to tell him plenty. And I’m sure “Old Brains” was burning up the wires between Washington and Meade’s headquarters just outside of Frederick, Maryland with all sorts of useless advice that, if he’s smart, Old Hawknose will ignore.

Halleck is a goose. This is the man who almost cashiered General Grant, a man proving to be the best field general in the Union Army, for what he called “insubordination.” Actually, Grant couldn’t stomach the man any more than the rest of us. Why Abe finds Old Brains useful is beyond me. He’s a good administrator, true. But I was able to get a look at some of the messages he sent to McClellan when Little Mac was on the Peninsula last year and let me tell you, the gentleman is a buffoon. His orders were vague and contradictory simultaneously telling Little Mac to advance quickly but to be careful.

Sometimes I wonder whose side these West Pointers are on.

Meanwhile, it seems the Johnny Rebs are infesting the state of Pennsylvania. The Harrisburg papers say that Reb General Early is in York! That’s just a hop, skip, and a jump from Harrisburg. “Old Jube” for the moment is just sitting in York waiting. But waiting for what? Will General Rodes, whose division has been in Chambersburg for more than 48 hours swoop down on Harrisburg from the west while Early hits the city from the south? There’s also word that Reb General Edward Johnson (how many “General Johnson’s” do the Rebs have!) who commands Stonewall Jackson’s old outfit is headed toward Carlysle. Here’s a map showing how spread out the Rebs are.

(CLICK TO ENLARGE)

Early’s division is pretty isolated way over in York. I wonder why? By now all our boys are on the east side of South Mountain. Lee must not know this, otherwise he wouldn’t be so danged spread out. He’s got his divisions wandering all over most of southern Pennsylvania and if Meade can get a move on, he can catch the Rebs before they can concentrate somewhere.

It appears to me that our boys are in pretty good shape. We’re pretty bunched together what with 5 Corps double timing it down the dusty Maryland roads on the eastern foothills of South Mountain while the Rebs are spread out from the Susquehanna river in the east to South Mountain in the west. The rest of Lee’s army must be between Chambersburg and Carlisle. But what about Stuart and his murdering cavalry? The last we heard from him he was actually spotted in the Shenandoah Valley at Front Royale. But that was two days ago. He could be halfway to Washington and we’d never know it.

Are our boys racing into a trap? Bobby Lee must have some stratagem up his sleeve otherwise I can’t for the life of me figure why he doesn’t realize the danger he’s in. Meade is 48 hours away from defeating his army in detail and there Early sits with 20,000 men in York, more than 25 miles from his closest relief.

Has Lee blundered?

Keep pushing boys…keep pushing.

UPDATE

My source at Pinkerton’s says that A.P. Hill and Longstreet are east of Chambersburg enroute to Gettysburg and General Meade has ordered Sickles’ III Corps to join Reynolds’ I Corps and Howard’s XI Corps outside of Emmitsburg. I’m not sure where our cavalry is at the moment which is nothing new. Both Generals Buford and Kilpatrick are out there somewhere. Maybe if we get lucky they’ll blunder into Jeb Stuart and then we’ll see what our boys are made of.

Looks like Bobby Lee has finally discovered that Meade is close on his heels and is now turning to fight. And all the roads – north, south, east, and west – converge on some town called Gettysburg.

Never heard of it. All I got when I googled “Gettysburg” was some Lutheran Theological Seminary.

Like a serial bloodletter in a teen slasher movie, the immigration bill, pronounced dead last week by House Republicans, has risen from the grave and is once again stalking the halls of Congress.

This version appears to be more like Ted Bundy than Michael Meyers. Instead of a bloody hatchet, amnesty supporters are going to try getting “comprehensive” immigration reform by smiling and being agreeable with the House – up to a point.

Key Senators have actually agreed that enforcement should be the #1 priority in any immigration bill, at least for the present:

Key backers of the Senate immigration bill said yesterday they are willing to consider a compromise that would delay the guest-worker program and “amnesty” portions until the borders have been secured.

The proposal was floated by Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter in an interview Monday with editors and reporters at The Washington Times.

“I think it’s worth discussing,” said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican. “Many of us have said we could work on border enforcement and, at the same time, work on other aspects that would take more time.”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, said a delay will occur anyway because it will take a few years to set up the guest-worker program and the structure to process millions of illegal aliens onto a pathway to citizenship.

“We’ve always understood that,” he said, adding that the final bill must be “comprehensive” and include all provisions.

“That’s the key,” he said, after he, Mr. McCain and others hosted a broad coalition of outside groups demanding a comprehensive bill

Will the House play the part of the stupid teenager who walks into the dark room and whispers, “Who’s there?” right before being chopped into little pieces?

Reaction at the other end of the Capitol was more muted, with at least one key House leader continuing yesterday to point out flaws in the Senate bill.

The House and Senate approved very different immigration bills, with the House focusing on building 700 miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border, boosting enforcement and requiring employers to verify that their workers are here legally. The Senate bill boosts enforcement, too, but also creates a program for future immigrant workers and a path to citizenship for many current illegal aliens.

Putting off amnesty in order to placate the enforcement crowd in the House just won’t cut it. Unfortunately, there may be enough Republicans willing to take such a deal if the White House starts turning the screws on lawmakers in tough re-election fights.

It’s no secret not too many Republicans want President Bush to appear with them on the same campaign platform in the run-up to the election. But that doesn’t take into account the fact that the President has his hand on the money spigot for the Republican party, able to turn the juice on or off and reward his friends while punishing those who may not toe the line on immigration. And the party at the moment is flush with cash and will be able to pour money into districts at the President’s discretion.

Clearly, Bush can’t be too aggressive in denying cash to Republicans who won’t back him on immigration, given the narrow Republican majority in the House he must protect. But to believe he won’t or can’t use his power as party leader in this way would be a dangerous gamble for any Republican to undertake. Hence, immigration has become the bill that won’t be killed.

House Republicans are starting to squirm which is not a good sign. Mike Pence of Indiana has endorsed a comprehensive immigration solution that we could perhaps refer to as “Amnesty Lite:”

Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican, said it’s a “very big deal” that Mr. Specter is willing to put border security first in the final bill. He also said he has a bill that may bridge the “amnesty” divide between the two chambers because he thinks many House Republicans could accept a guest-worker program that requires illegal aliens to return to their home country before they can apply for it.

He has a proposal that would set up a privately run system to do this, and he thinks this “no-amnesty guest-worker” program could work.

“I think the majority of House conservatives would be open to a no-amnesty guest-worker program,” he said.

His bill also would set up a time frame, dedicating two years exclusively to border security before progressing to the rest of the bill.

If that “no amnesty guest worker program” sounds familiar, it should. That’s pretty much what we have now.

Can House Republicans resist pressure from the Senate and the President to come to terms on “comprehensive” immigration reform? Hopefully, this is will be one sequel where the bloodthirsty maniac really, really dies.

I understand that many of my conservative friends – and even Arlen Specter, the hypocritical bastard – are in favor of the proposed amendment that the Senate will start debating today on criminalizing the burning of the American flag.

But in a nation born of dissent, it seems to me that passing an amendment that would contradict one of the main things the flag represents is not only wrong but does an injustice to those who fought and died to protect it.

I know I’ll get a lot of flack for that last statement. But how meaningful can a heroes’ death be if we place a limit on what he died for? Must we also pass an amendment saying that this religion or that religion is outlawed? Should we amend the Constitution to prevent the New York Times from publishing all secrets? Perhaps we should have an amendment that outlaws lobbying? Or that limits demonstrations against the government?

We’d never think of amending the Constitution for any of those things. Even the New York Times, arrogant and self righteous though they may be, must be allowed to decide whether or not to publish information that may harm national security. We don’t like it. We believe they did it because, at bottom, they disagree with the government’s contention that we are at war and that publishing secrets gives aid and comfort to the enemy. But in the end, they must not be prevented from making their own judgments in such matters because to limit their decision making also puts prior restraint on their ability to publish. That is de facto censorship and cannot be allowed in a free society.

Living in America ain’t easy. This is a country that re-invents itself every few years, putting enormous strain on people to adapt. But there must be some things in America that should never change. And one of those things is the right to dissent in any way that does not harm another person or their property. Putting restraints on how someone dissents is the same as limiting their ability to disagree. Yes there are better ways to dissent than burning the flag. But who are you or I to tell anyone else that?

Burning the flag is hurtful, stupid, and reveals the dissenter to be more interested in provoking people than in making a statement against the government. But there’s no law against being an idiot. If that were the case, most politicians would be thrown in the slammer. Here’s Arlen Specter supporting the flag burning amendment:

Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, compared the measure to Supreme Court decisions banning so-called “fighting words,” slander, libel, obscenity and pornography involving children. As such, he said, it has no “social value.”

“Flag burning is a form of expression that is spiteful or vengeful,” the five-term Pennsylvania Republican said during the debate. “It is designed to hurt. It is not designed to persuade.”

This from a man who has been on the Administration’s case over the NSA intercept program because of his own extraordinarily narrow interpretation of privacy rights. All of a sudden, he wants to radically broaden the definition of “fighting words?”

If we outlawed all political speech that wasn’t meant to persuade, we’d have to tape the mouths shut of every politician in the country, starting with Specter. And how in God’s name did child pornography get into the debate over flag burning? And who said that child porn had any connection whatsoever to the “fighting words” doctrine?

Specter and the Republicans in the Senate are pandering, pure and simple. I don’t mind it so much when they push something like the so called Marriage Amendment that hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of passing. That kind of pandering is constitutionally harmless just because it will never pass. (Whether or not the issue is hurtful to gays is another issue entirely). But political posturing in support of this amendment that would limit the way people dissent is a different story. Mucking around with the Constitution for political gain is wrong. I felt the same way about ERA, the balanced budget, and the abortion amendments. Fooling around with the Constitution is deadly serious business which is why it has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights became law.

I think this is the third post I’ve done on this issue and each time received varying rebukes from my readers for believing both flag burning and amending the constitution to criminalize it is wrong.

Hopefully, I won’t have to write another for a long, long time.

UPDATE

The amendment, needing two thirds to pass, fell short of passage by one vote 66-34. Here are the gory details.

Would it have passed 37 state legislatures and made part of the Constitution? That’s something I hope we never have to find out.