US Politics: Why "Filibuster Reform" May Be the Big Issue of 2010 (Haddigan)

On Tuesday the Republican minority in the Senate prevented the proposed DISCLOSE Act, a campaign finance reform measure already passed by the House of Representatives, from proceeding to a floor vote. They failed to force an end to discussion of the Bill, losing a vote of cloture. (The Democrats had a majority of 57-41 but 60 votes are required to cut off debate.)

While the DISCLOSE Act is not, as yet, officially dead, Democrats will struggle to convince the lone Republican needed to force cloture before the Senate goes into recess, with implications for the near-future that extend far beyond the issue of campaign finance reform. Democrats, angry at this latest obstructionism in the Senate by Republicans, have begun discussing what changes they can make in Senate rules to prevent similar filibuster tactics. With the Democrats likely to have only a slender majority in the Senate after the mid-term elections, the future course of the Obama Presidencymay well rest on what reforms Democrats can make to Senate rules in the next few months.

The DISCLOSE (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) Act was introduced on 21 July by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. Its intention is to restrict some of the electoral influence granted to corporations in the Supreme Court’s historic ruling in January in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.

In that decision the Court ruled that corporations, like individuals, can fund electoral campaigns under the First Amendment protection of political free speech. Corporations are still prohibited from donating directly to a candidate’s campaign fund or a national party committee, a restriction placed into law by the Tillman Act of 1907, but are now permitted to use "independent spending" to explicitly support a candidate.

"Independent spending" means that corporations and advocacy groups can fund political advertisements with their internal money, as long as they are independent from, or not associated with, the official campaign operations of the candidate. Corporations were formerly banned by the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 from using their general treasury accounts to pay for television and radio advertisements that named the candidate they supported, or opposed, in the weeks before Federal elections for President or Congress.

Critics of Citizens United, largely Democrats, argue that the easing of curbs on corporations' funding of campaigns will lead to a sharp increase in the number of so-called ‘attack ads’ in the days before an election. This, opponents contend, will give a disproportionate influence on the outcome of an election to those wealthy organizations that can flood the airwaves in the critical period prior to the vote.

The DISCLOSE act attempts to weaken that political sway by requiring that all "electioneering communications" (i.e., media advertisements) include a full disclosure of who is funding the message. Democrats hope that this measure will allow the voter the chance to recognise when their vote is being "bought" by special interest groups.

The Act also wants to prevent “persons negotiating for or performing government contracts”, companies that received bail-out funds from TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), and “United States corporations controlled by foreign entities” from exerting undue influence over elections. The Act suggests, “Independent expenditures and electioneering communications that benefit particular candidates or elected officials or disfavor their opponents can lead to apparent and actual ingratiation, access, influence, and quid pro quo arrangements.”

As Citizens United mandates the principle of constitutional protection of political speech for corporations, there is little Congress can do to ban them from "independent expenditures and electioneering communications". But the DISCLOSE Act would limit the ‘apparent and actual ingratiation, access, influence, and quid pro quo arrangements’ of all corporations by limiting the number eligible to legally finance independently an electoral campaign.

I am no business expert, but I’ll warrant the guess that all corporations in America with the financial clout to potentially affect an electoral result could wbe precluded from electioneering communications because they are government contractors/TARP funded/foreign-controlled. The last restriction, regarding foreign corporations, was especially written with the widest possible latitude for the Supreme Court to narrow campaign financing regulations. The Act states that: “As recognized in many areas of the law, foreign ownership interests and influences are exerted in a perceptible way even when the entity is not majority-foreign-owned”, leading to the contention that the “Federal Government has broad constitutional power to protect American interests and sovereignty from foreign interference and intrusion6.”

Republicans oppose the DISCLOSE act. They are, in general, excited at the prospect of corporations and advocacy organizations financing the campaigns of Party candidates. Despite the efforts of Democrats to sway the vote of three wavering senators, and President Obama’s pleas from the Rose Garden on Monday to end the threat of “shadow groups (that) are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections”,  the Republicans managed to stall the Act by unanimously voting against cloture. With similar delaying tactics by Republicans on banking reform and the extension of unemployment insurance payments, Democrats are becoming increasingly frustrated at the use or threat of the silent filibuster by their political adversaries. As a result there is increasing support in Democrat ranks, especially among progressive activist groups, to end the tradition of a Senate filibuster and make redundant the necessity of votes for cloture.

The use of a cloture vote to end a filibuster is not a constitutional issue. Congress is granted by the Constitution the right to determine for itself the procedural rules that organize the operations of the House and Senate. Cloture was introduced in 1917, in Senate Rule XXII, to end the delaying tactics of a small number of isolationist senators who opposed the arming of merchant ships in World War I. These tactics traditionally take the form of a senator, or group of senators, commenting on issues relating (however incidentally) to the proposed Act for as long as possible, ending in no vote taking place as time has run out.

Traditionally there is no limit on the time a Senator may hold the floor to debate a law, unlike the House which introduced cut-off points in 1842. This has led to the splendid fictional spectacle of Jimmy Stewart’s filibuster in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and the rather less edifying real-life performance of Senator Strom Thurmond talking for more than 24 hours in a vain attempt to filibuster the 1957 Civil Rights Act (although he did succeed in watering down the Act’s provisions).

Senate Rule XXII of 1917 required a two-thirds majority to force a cloture vote. That number proved almost impossible to achieve, and in 1975 the majority number was reduced to 60. But, as the Democrats have found, obtaining a three-fifths majority to end a threatened filibuster is also a formidable obstacle to overcome. Hence, with an eye to the reduced majority they will command after November, Democrats are considering changing the rules of Senate procedure so that a simple majority (or a 50-50 tie broken by the vote of the Vice President) can bring debate on a proposed law to an end.

Democrats are mulling over the chances of using the constitutional option, or colloquially the "nuclear" option, for changing Senate procedures. This method of changing Senate rules was first given substance in 1979, when Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia was posed with the threat of filibuster on a rule change he had proposed. Invoking the example of the first Senate meeting of 1789, Senator Byrd argued that when each new Senate gathers for the first time, it is permitted to decide what rules will govern their operations for the next two years.  Just as Congress should not oppose the right of the majority of members to decide what laws are passed, Byrd maintained, the Senate cannot prevent the will of the majority of senators from becoming the operating rules for that particular congressional session. Under this procedure, on the opening of the new Senate, using tabling motions, a simple majority can change  rules to nullify the filibuster.

Immediately after the cloture vote on the DISCLOSE Act failed, Max Baucus, a Democrat senator from Montana backed by liberal advocacy group People For the American Way, announced he would present to Congress a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. There is little likelihood, despite PFAW’s claims that a June poll shows 77% support, that the amendment will get serious consideration.

More ominously for Republican supporters of Citizens United, last weekend Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, to huge applause, that he would consider filibuster reform at the opening of the next Senate session. Vice President Joe Biden, who is also President of the Senate, has also spoken out against the filibuster, and if these two influential Democrats back the rule changes, it will be a brave Democrat senator who balks the party leadership and votes to continue the three-fifths majority currently needed for a vote on cloture.

The topic of filibuster reform, even if the DISCLOSE Act is eventually passed into law, is certain to provide one of the most acrimonious subjects of debate in the mid-term elections. Any electoral reform proposal that makes the American democratic system more open and participatory is sure to meet with joyous approval from the "progressive" Left. Filibuster reform would energize a constituency who are disillusioned at the lack of real change the current administration has achieved.

Conversely, Republicans will be apoplectic --- furious does not adequately convey the sense of outrage in this instance --- at any proposed rule changes. They will object not only because the measures will seriously hamper their immediate efforts to halt Democratic policy proposals, but also because filibuster reform strikes at one of the central principles of conservative belief. Conservatives argue that the Constitution explicitly, through the system of checks and balances, adopts the idea that a simple majority is not by itself an adequate recommendation for political change.

There is a long way to go, and many scenarios that may be played out, before a new Senate gathers in January. It is more than possible that Democrats will step back from making such a radical change. But considering the current resurgence in the principles of traditional conservatism, and the progressives' need to find a ‘populist’ issue to boost the interest and commitment of the electorate in November, a bitter fight over filibuster reform looms large in the coming months.

The Latest from Iran (30 July): Stepping Up the Criticism

2135 GMT: Political Prison Experience. Reza Rafii-Forushan, an Iranian stringer for Time magazine, has written an open letter appealing against his "frame-up" by Iranian authorities and complaining about abuses in prison.

Rafii-Forushan was arrested on 27 June 2009 and held for 43 days in solitary confinement during his interrogation.

2130 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Arshama3's Blog lists the individuals, institutions, and companies subjected to new sanctions by the European Union.

1915 GMT: Going after Jannati. The reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front has joined Mehdi Karroubi's attack on Ayatollah Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council (see separate entry), demanding that Jannati “clarify how and when he has secured...documents" that allegedly show a US-Saudi $50 billion plot for regime change. They question, "How can an individual that does not refrain from committing the biggest sins, be in charge of two positions that have justice as their first criterion?"

This, however, may be the most intriguing sentence: "Has he made these revelations with the authority of the relevant officials?” EA sources indicate that, because Jannati is seen as being close to the Supreme Leader, the criticism of him is an indirect challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei's authority.

NEW Iran Music Video Special: The Award-Winning “Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone”
NEW Iran’s Persecution of Rights: The Pursuit of Lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei (Shahryar)
Iran Document: Karroubi Strongly Criticises Head of Guardian Council (29 July)
Iran Analysis: Twisting & Turning to Prove the Leader is Supreme (Verde)
Iran: How “Ahmadinejad v. Paul the Octopus” Became a Global Showdown
The Latest from Iran (29 July): 22% Support?

1910 GMT: Containing the Cleric. It is being reported that Molana Abdolhamid, the Sunni Friday Prayer leader of Zahedan, has been barred from leaving country and his passport has been confiscated.

1830 GMT: Poster of the Day. Courtesy of the Iranian Government, "A Woman without Hijab is like a Chair with Three Legs".



1800 GMT: Client and Lawyer Watch. The Guardian of London has a lengthy profile of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman sentenced to death for adultery (on the basis, the article claims, of a 3-2 decision amongst the judges), who has sent a message from inside Tabriz Prison.

Deep in the article is this sentence about Mohammad Mostafaei, Ashtiani's lawyer, who is hiding after authorities tried to detain him and arrested his wife and brother-in-law: "The Guardian has learned that Mostafaei is safe for the moment and plans to publish an open letter to Tehran's prosecutor."

1730 GMT: Larijani Watch. Today's claim of "strong Iran leader" by Ali Larijani comes in the pages of the Islamic Republic News Agency.

Stressing that Iran's motives in the Middle East, as it does not seek an empire, Larijani declared, "If the Zionist regime bullies Palestine we will stand against it, and if it decides to attack Lebanon Hezbollah will confront it."

As for uranium and sanctions, Larijani emphasised Iran's pursuit of peaceful nuclear capability: "When the US questions why Iran has nuclear and missile technology it is because [it is unhappy that] we have the ability to obtain such technologies.....Had we been producing fruit juice, mineral water, and tomato paste, it (the US) would never have raised an objection....They claim that Iran has nuclear weapons, but they never say [a word about] the Zionist regime, which is their friend [and] possesses nukes."

1645 GMT: Do Not Panic. Might be worth noting this reference from Mehr News to Ayatollah Emami Kashani's Tehran Friday Prayer: "He...called on people who have deposited their money in foreign banks to return their funds to Iran."

1620 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Back from a break to find a far-from-unexpected tweak in the sanctions tale. The Chinese Government has said that it does not approve of new sanctions imposed by the European Union while welcoming Tehran's offer to return to negotiations on uranium enrichment.

A Foreign Ministry statement declared, "China does not approve of the European Union's unilateral sanctions on Iran. We hope that all relevant parties can support a diplomatic solution and appropriately resolve the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations."

1300 GMT: Your Friday Prayer Update. Have to be honest, it's hard working up enthusiasm over Ayatollah Emami Kashani's Tehran Friday Prayer.

The cleric called for Iranian cohesion --- political, economic, and cultural --- in the face of sanctions. However, any white-hot rhetoric seemed to be cooled by the Iranian Government's indications this week that it would enter discussions, even with the "enemy", over its uranium enrichment programme. (Earlier on Friday, Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said it was "out of the question for Iran to promise never to enrich uranium" but said the move for 20% enriched uranium could be suspended if talks were held.)

That left Emami Kashani's defiance with the line that the great Iranian nation would not need "outside help" to produce the necessary uranium for civilian purposes.

1255 GMT: Mahmoud's University Push. Hmm, I get the feeling that the dispute over control of Islamic Azad University, supposedly resolved by the Supreme Leader's intervention, could flare up again....

Speaking to a student organisation, President Ahmadinejad warned that "enemies" are trying to create space for their activities within Iran's universities.

1215 GMT: Conspiracy Theory Update. First it was President Ahmadinejad with warnings of an imminent American strike on two Arab countries allied with Tehran , then it was Ayatollah Jannati, the leader of the Guardian Council with revelations of the US-Saudi $50 billion "regime change" scheme, now it's the "nuclear-pig-blood cigarette plot".

Mohammad Reza Madani from the Society for Fighting Smoking said contraband Marlboros, part of the 20 billion cigarettes smuggled into Iran each year,  have been contaminated with pig hemoglobin and unspecified nuclear material.

Madani claimed Philip Morris International, which sells Marlboro outside the US, is "led by Zionists" and deliberately exports tainted cigarettes.

1055 GMT: Mousavi's 1988 Resignation Letter. Mr Verde stops by to discuss Mir Hossein Mousavi's letter of resignation as Prime Minister, reprinted yesterday on the website of former President Abolhassan Banisadr:

The letter in general accuses Ayatollah Khamenei, who was President in 1988, of meddling in affairs which are not directly his responsibility. This is similar to the accusations about his current activity as the Supreme Leader. It also shows the internal workings of the Islamic Republic to be chaotic and haphazard.

Point 2 of the letter talks about “external operations” and lists: a plane hijacking, a shooting in a Lebanese street, and discovery of explosives on Iranian hajj pilgrims. It says that these operations are disastrous for the country and could be repeated any moment.
The tone of the letter is suggesting that all of these are carried out by the Islamic Republic's officials and that Khamenei is involved in them, although it says that the Prime Minister [Mousavi] is in the dark about it.

These accusations are not coming from regime opponents or foreign governments. They are coming from the Islamic Republic's Prime Minister.

1. Mousavi is accusing Khamenei, as President, of being involved in terrorist activity overseas. This could be used to embarrass Khamenei further, placing the activity next to the actions of the Islamic Republic after Khamenei became Supreme Leader, e.g. Chain Murders, attacks on student dormitories, street killings, prison rapes, etc.

2. The letter suggests that the Islamic Republic was regularly involved in terrorist activity overseas, an allegation which could be damaging to the current regime .

Will Mousavi confirm this, deny this, or, as he had for 22 years since the letter was first leaked, ignore this?

What will Khamenei’s side do? Will they “leak” letters and information which would counter this letter? If they play the card of Ayatollah Khomeini, then Supreme Leader, it would mean tha,t despite his best efforts, Kahmenei has again have been forced to hide behind Khomeini.

Although the current intra-regime arguments started with the dispute over the 2009 presidential elections, this episode has the potential to cause trouble well beyond that. One can't help get the feeling that events --- in this case but not only in this case --- may spiral out of control.

1040 GMT: EA's Hot Tips of Day. Based on information from sources:

1. Discussions earlier this month between Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, key member of Parliament Ahmad Tavakoli, and Secretary of Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei on action against the President --- which we covered on EA --- have been followed by several meetings between Larijani, Rezaei, and Tehran Mayor Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf.

2. The Supreme Leader's "I am the Rule of the Prophet" fatwa followed a visit to Qom, and specifically to Grand Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi, by member of Ayatollah Khamenei's office. Makarem-Shirazi said he could not support a unilateral declaration by the Supreme Leader but he could accept a declaration framed as an answer to a question from a follower. The question and answer followed two or three days later.

0945 GMT: We've posted a separate entry on the music video, "Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone!", which has just won an award in Britain, including an interview with the members of the Iranian band, Blurred Vision.

The Independent of London has also posted an interview with the band members.

0815 GMT: Talking Tough. Hojatoleslam Mojtaba Zolnour, the representative of the Supreme Leader in the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, grabs the spotlight with the warning that there should be action against Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Zolnour said Tehran would "act correspondingly" if its ships were challenged. He added, "Sanctions will backfire and have grave consequences for [these countries]."

0610 GMT: Watching Karroubi (and the Reaction to Karroubi). We're keeping eyes open for the reaction to Mehdi Karroubi's open letter to Ayatollah Jannati, head of the Guardian Council (posted in a separate entry). To call this a "criticism" is a major understatement: Karroubi is effectively accusing one of Iran's leading political and religious figures of being --- at the least --- an accomplice to election fraud and Government repression.

0600 GMT: We start today with a focus on human rights, specifically the regime's attempt to limit or even prevent the defence of them. Josh Shahryar offers a feature on the Government's pursuit of lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei, who is missing as his wife and brother-in-law sit in prison.

Mostafaei's colleague Shadi Sadr, who was forced into exile by the regime, has written to the Iranian Bar Association:

It appears that the legal-security system, while forced to stop carrying out the stoning sentence [against Mostafaei's client Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani], is hell bent on taking revenge on Mr Mostafaei by some trumped-up charges. Since they were unable to find him, they have arrested his wife and brother-in-law....

This is not the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the family of a civil activist have been taken hostage. The policy of oppression of activists by pressurising their family members by different forms, from threatening them to extracting "confessions" by torture, has been used brutally in the past few years. In one of the recent cases, the husband of Mrs Shirin Ebadi, a member of the Bar Association of Iran, human rights activist and Nobel Laureate, was forced to speak against her on camera after several days of incarceration....

As a lawyer, a member of the Central Court lawyers, also as a client and defendant, I urge you, who lead this oldest civil law society in Iran, not to remain silent on state kidnap and retaliation....If we do not act against this policy, whose victims today are Shirin Ebadi and Mohammad Mostafaie, it will attack every single one of us tomorrow.

Iran Music Video Special: The Award-Winning "Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone"

In February, just before the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, we posted a music video by an Iranian group, Blurred Vision, "Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone".

Well, this morning the BBC's flagship radio programme, Today, followed up the story. The music video, a reworking of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall", had won a special commendation at the Soho Shorts film festival. "Sepp" and "Sohl", two of the band members, offered insights into the music and the politics, including this revealing exchange:

EVAN DAVIS: [The BBC] has not been covering the post-election furour in much detail lately. What's actually going on at the moment? There's obviously a lot of discontent: is it manifesting itself in any way?

SEPP & SOHL: It hasn't stopped. It's sort of lacked a little bit of the momentum because the repression has become so much [stronger] and grows on a daily basis.

There's so much talk about nuclear advancements. Our goal is to talk about the human rights issue.

(The full four-minute interview can be found at this BBC location, just after the 1:45:00 mark.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIP38eq-ywc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

US Politics: Why Supporters of Arizona's Immigration Law Can Be Optimistic (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan, one of EA's analysts on US politics, writes:

On Wednesday, 28 July, a day before Arizona's immigration legislation, SB 1070, was due to become law, District Judge Susan R. Bolton issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily prohibited the state from applying certain provisions of the statute. Her decision has provoked widespread comment, not just within the US but also in other countries, with both the BBC and Sky in Britain featuring the story prominently.

Most discussion, national and international, has portrayed the ruling as a victory for the Obama Administration and a defeat of the intent of Arizona’s law. However, study of the 36 pages of Judge Bolton’s reasoning and an evaluation of what the law actually intends to do reveal that Arizona legislators who supported SB 1070 can still celebrate. There are those provisions that did become law on Thursday, and the judge’s review offers grounds for optimism that, with some minor alterations, the sections that did not become law could survive a challenge in the future by the Department of Justice.

Judge Bolton granted the right of Arizona, in theory, to pass legislation dealing with illegal aliens. To sum up the implied message, "This is where you went wrong, now go fix it if you can."

The review of SB 1070 began with the observation that the law was enacted against “a backdrop of rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns.” So Judge Bolton started with the recognition that Arizona does suffer from problems that need addressing. And in her conclusion, she asserted that the Court “by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime".

Often overlooked in discussion of SB 1070 is what the law is actually meant to achieve. It is not the mass detention and deportation of illegal aliens. Instead, it intends to force illegal immigrants to leave the state of their own accord, deny illegal immigrants the economic means to live in Arizona and negating the assumption that their presence is tolerated. Section 1 of SB 1070 referred to this strategy as "attrition by enforcement".

The Federal Government attempted to enjoin the whole law because this “overall statutory scheme” was an attempt to “set immigration policy at the state level and interferes and conflicts with federal immigration law". Thus, the motion argued, SB 1070 is unconstitutional because of the Supremacy Clause (see the earlier post on EA).

Judge Bolton refused the Federal Government’s argument, stating that the intent of the Act does not “create a single and unified statutory scheme incapable of provision by provision analysis”. In essence, she conceded that Arizona has the right to pursue the policy of "attrition through enforcement" when the provisions of the law do not infringe upon the federal right to regulate immigration.

Bolton allowed that the Supreme Court “has consistently ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration". But she followed this assertion of the broad powers of Congress on immigration by quoting a Supreme Court decision, De Canas v. Bica (1976), that narrowed the field where the federal government possessed exclusive authority. While the Court held that the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power”, it also concluded that not all state laws “which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se preempted by this constitutional power”.

Judge Bolton also specifically used the De Canas precedent to uphold a section of SB 1070 that the government challenged as a preemption of the federal right to regulate immigration. Part of Section 5 makes it “illegal for a person in violation of a criminal offense" to induce a person to come to Arizona, or hide them when they are in the state, if they know that the person is an unauthorized alien. The government asked for this section to be enjoined because it preempted federal laws on immigration.

De Canas, the Judge declared, defined the regulation of immigration as deciding “who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain”. A state law with illegal aliens as its subjects does not “render it a regulation of immigration”. As long as the state does not try to decide who should or should not be allowed to enter the United States, and does not stipulate the requirements for a legal entrant to remain in the country, then it can pass laws to deter illegal aliens from residing in their state.

Where Judge Bolton did prohibit sections of SB 1070 from becoming law on Thursday, she also at times indicated the grounds on which it could be amended to counter the enjoinment. She granted the Federal Government’s motion to prohibit a sentence which, she said, could only be read as making it mandatory for police to check the residency status of every person, including citizens, that they arrested.

Arizona, the Judge remarked, had explained at the hearing should be read as “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined”. This inclusion of Arizona’s explanation of the meaning of the sentence, which Judge Bolton did not have to give, was footnoted by her with the wry comment that “Arizona acknowledges that this sentence of Section 2(B) ‘might well have been more artfully worded’”. To my eyes that means "Go away and write that sentence as you explained it at the court hearing."

In another footnote, Bolton politely reminds the reader that many Arizona law enforcement officers do not need a new law to check the immigration status of a person who they have encountered in the course of a “lawful stop, detention or arrest,” as they “already have the discretion to verify immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion”.

In simple words, supporters SB 1070 argue that they are not surpassing federal law but to overcome resistance within the state to the full implementation of federal law. Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona appeared on Fox News on Wednesday night to emphasise “that police officers can do their job, they can enforce federal laws and their supervisors are not able to tell them not to enforce them”.

Those who see Wednesday’s decision by Judge Bolton as a defeat of SB 1070 are being a little premature. In fact, her ruling established the right of Arizona to legislate on its intent to force illegal aliens out of the state by "at4trition through enforcement" (an attempt that, according to some news channels, is already achieving the desired result). Where the Judge did enjoin provisions of the law, she also hinted at the means whereby Arizona could amend SB 1070 to fix the problem. And she allowed the right of the citizens of Arizona to sue recalcitrant state officials who do not enforce the federal laws on the books.

Of course, this is only the first hurdle for SB 1070 to overcome, and legal rulings on the civil rights issues in the law have yet to be heard. But for supporters of the Arizonan law, I would suggest that there is cause to be optimistic.

Iraq's Missing Billions: Scott Lucas on Al Jazeera's Inside Story

This week the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon cannot account for almost 95% of $9.1 billion allocated by the United Nations, from revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil and gas, after the Iraq War in 2003. There are still no records for $2.6 billion.

I discussed the issue on Inside Story alongside Mundher Adhami, an analyst on Iraqi affairs, and Jeremy Carver, a board member of Tranparency International.

Iraq: The Billions of Disappearing US Reconstruction Dollars