The White House has unambiguously stated that it does not support the “extraordinary rendition” provisions.
The president did not propose and does not support this provision. He has made clear that the United States stands against and will not tolerate torture and that the United States remains committed to complying with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Consistent with that treaty, the United States does not expel, return or extradite individuals to countries where the United States believes it is likely that they will be tortured.ALBERTO R. GONZALES
Counsel to the President
Washington
I’m probably naive- we’ll find out soon enough. But that’s a clear, praiseworthy denunciation of the provisions in question. This leaves Hastert, Hostettler, and other supporters of these provisions without a fig leaf, doesn’t it? The 9/11 commission doesn’t want it, the Justice Department doesn’t want it, and President Bush doesn’t want it. It violates common decency, conservative principle, and 200 years of history. How can they stand up for them?
(I’m really not interested in nailing the White House for a flip-flop. If it’s true that they caved because of political pressure, good for them. Maybe they caved because of principle. Maybe it was a miscommunication. Either way, it’s a blessing, and they deserve praise for it.)
It also gives pro-Bush bloggers a hook to promote this story. President Bush denounces torture! But the provision still needs to be defeated. Pile on, guys!
All I can say is that if this could somehow, possibly, potentially, pretty please with sugar on top, lead to the resignation-in-disgrace of Denny Hastert, then that would be just dandy.
Wait — when did the Justice Dept. pull out? I think they still support it…
I hope you’re right about the White House’s sincerity. I would be genuinely shocked, but I hope you’re right.
Did you see the Newsweek article?
I call bullshit, since the WaPo’s own reporting has said that the DOJ luuuuvvvvs extraordinary rendition. Not only that, but, uh, the Bush administration has already been practicing it.
Praktile: No, you don’t understand. The White House is deeply committed to abiding by the Torture Convention. They ALWAYS make sure to get Syria to Egypt to say “Oh, no, we give you our solemn (wink) promise (nudge) never to torture this suspect” before we fly them to him in our Gulfstream jet with the list of questions to ask.
fly him to them, that is.
Oh, cool. No problem then. Did you see this, Katherine?
I would really like to believe in the sincerity of this statement, as this is an incredibly frightening issue. And yet my radar started buzzing when I saw the name signed on the letter. Alberto Gonzales is the Counsel to the President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html), and if I recall correctly he has been the buzz for the next opening on the Supreme Court. This buzz has in recent months been buzzing less as I think his name is all over the legal justification for torture documents that have been coming out re: Abu Ghraib. I’ll have to check on this to be sure, but I think NPR was talking about Judge Gonzales just this morning.
I just checked- it is. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4062511
Which, being that he has attempted to find legal justification for the use of torture for prisoners being held seems, at the very least, sadly ironic.
Yes. It was excellent, and I used to help convince one person on the fence that this bill was not a good idea. If I regain the ability to write coherently about this I will link to it. (I only learned recently that you had a weblog at all; it’s great. Please come convince Moe that Pakistan is a bigger threat than Iraq.)
But we’re probably screwing up Ted’s attempt to get right-of-center blogs to cover the issue, so ix-nay on the “ush-bay ends-day eople-pay o-tay yrian-say orturers-tay”.
or even ends-say.
>>
…United States remains committed to complying with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
>>
There’s a, shall we say, Clintonesque structure to that clause — the whole point of the Justice Dept torture memos was to come up with ways of inflicting pain on people while technically complying with the conventions. So as long as the Syrians or wherever stop short of “organ failure” stuff, it would be OK.
I hope that katherine’s pressure helped bring about this result, and that the result is enduring. It is a victory, but the kind of victory that puts us back to no further than we were before.
So much to worry about, I’m glad I don’t currently have to put this issue on my list of long-term worries.
I don’t know why people don’t understand that torturing people (like capital punishment) morally implicates those DOING the torturing, not those being tortured (as evil as they may be). I wish the freepers would get that through their thick skulls once and for all.
<(I’m really not interested in nailing the White House for a flip-flop. If it’s true that they caved because of political pressure, good for them. Maybe they caved because of principle. Maybe it was a miscommunication. Either way, it’s a blessing, and they deserve praise for it.)/i>
I think that is not stated strongly enough. I’m willing to use or do just about anything at this point to get rid of Bush and his cronies, (at this point, I’ve been at this point for a looooong time). But I think it should be quite clear that any attempt to use this to score partisan points on behalf of Kerry and the Dems is utterly despicable and reprehensible and makes the one who engages in it a more contemptible person than Karl Rove.
We should reinforce the warbloggers saying that see Bush is against torture. The more we push that and do so even with our political enemies the greater the insurance we’ll have that this sticks and is never again brought up for reconsideration. And should it be brought up again, we’ll be able to use their words against them easily.
I’ll repeat: Use this to score political points and should Bush win, and this policy or it’s like become enacted in his second term than the that blood, that human suffering pain and misery is on your head just as much as if you had voted for a Republican rep or senator who supported the measure.
Let me warn you furthermore that I will involve myself personally should you do so. I’ve got a very long wet noodle in my hand right now and I’ll hunt you down and slap you silly with it.
-I’m so shrill only the cynics can hear me.
Who wants to engage in a discussion of what torture is or isn’t.
bob mcmanus’ posts?
The obvious next step:
“Will the President veto the bill if the provision remains?”
If the WH is sincere, it is easily demonstrated. It is very important to get this said now, while the bill is in the process, rather than when it is on his desk, and he can say:”Well, darn.”
“I’ll repeat: Use this to score political points and should Bush win, and this policy or it’s like become enacted in his second term than the that blood”
Bull. This is Katherine’s fight and I admire her for it, but I do view it as quixotic. These guys gonna torture, and the law has not stopped them before, and Markey isn’t gonna stop them either. They are simply caught, embarrassed and vulnerable in an election season. All the publicity about Abu Gharaib achieved was to quickly outsource the torture of Iraqis to other Iraqis.
To quote Mark Kleiman: “Torture is a partisan issue.”
Ted is right and most of the psoters here are wrong: The bottom line here is that because of publicity surrounding this provision, the Bush administrationn has backed off from it, making it much less likely to become law. To say that the passage of this bill doesn’t matter, because the Bush administration will do it anyway, or they’ll do something almost as bad, or that they’re being hypocritical or politically self-interested, is to totally miss this point. Even worse: it suggests that our outrage over this provision was just cynical posturing, since in retorspect we don’t really think it mattered.
One of the less attractive traits of many on the left is our inability to acknowledge our successes.
many of us, I meant…
Hmmm. But if I score political points for saying “torture is bad and Republican House members support it on behalf of the DOJ/DHS,” and then the Bush administration is forced to say, no, we don’t support it, doesn’t that mean that punishing bad political behavior by exposing it as such is an effective approach? Or was it the nonpartisan nature of the appeal that did the trick?
Slothrop: I think the Post may have been mistaken about the Justice Dept’s position. The WSJ reported the exact opposite on that first day.
Hmmm. But if I score political points for saying “torture is bad and Republican House members support it on behalf of the DOJ/DHS,” and then the Bush administration is forced to say, no, we don’t support it, doesn’t that mean that punishing bad political behavior by exposing it as such is an effective approach? Or was it the nonpartisan nature of the appeal that did the trick?
I would happily celebrate a victory. The thing is: I honestly think these provisions are only somewhat less likely to become law because of this statement.
Bush has decided not to publicly support this bill, and I’m glad of it. But we don’t know whether the administration has decided not to privately support it, or to actively oppose it. And their history of practicing extraordinary rendition is an important piece of evidence in figuring that out.
Hastert and DeLay are fighting for this provision agressively, and may not allow a vote on Markey’s amendment. They have a long history of controlling the conference committees. I don’t think this provision is a dealbreaker such that the Senate will vote against the bill, or the President will veto it.
In the short run, we have to convince the Bush administration that it is in their best interest to prevent the torture outsourcing legalization language from being signed into law. We haven’t done this yet, and won’t do it by dropping all criticism of the administration. You have to talk about the Arar case and the other examples of rendition to show people why this is dangerous and important.
And the fight to keep this bill from passing is part of a larger fight to stop extraordinary rendition. It is necessary and important but not sufficient. Again, you cannot do that without talking about what extraordinary rendition is.
Criticizing Bush for “flip flopping” doesn’t help at all. But saying, “okay, prove it” does.
Katherine: Of course you’re right. But there’s a big difference between saying we haven’t won yet and saying “these guys gonna torture, and the law has not stopped them before.”
Criticizing Bush for “flip flopping” doesn’t help at all. But saying, “okay, prove it” does.
Exactly.
It is very hard for me to believe that this provision will get very far if the WH sincerely opposes it.
It’s good that Bush has been pressured to make this statement, I suppose, but it may be little more than an effort to establish deniability.
Let’s see what happens from here.
“But there’s a big difference between saying we haven’t won yet and saying “these guys gonna torture, and the law has not stopped them before.” “
You find my language offensive? I thought Dostum’s trailers offensive, I found the CIA activity in the Afghani prisons outrageous, and I thought Guantanamo was literally incredible. I still do. And all that was before Iraq.
I have to defend my outrage? I have to carefully choose my targets, so as not to paint with too broad a brush or offend somebody or alienate the redeemable?
Jesus, I wish I had died rather than have these arguments, see these times, endure the moderates and calm bipartisans in this era of America’s shame.
The Gonzlaes statement is full of invisible asterisks. This administration doesn’t support toprture, it says, but it has a curiously narrow view iof what amounts to “torture”—things like “waterboarding” are evidently still okay. And of course, this administrtion is every bit as prepared to be shocked and surprised at torture being practiced by Syria or Egypt as Capt. Renault was shocked and surprised to find gambling going on in Rick’s Cafe . . .
Did it occur to anyone that we’ve actually reached the point that the President’s mouthpiece has to go on the record with, “The President disapproves of torture”?
Isn’t this kind of pathetic?
What bob macmanus said.
We’ve heard this “disapprove of torture” before. After the White House itself had been getting legal advice for months on how to circumvent the laws against it. White house man speaks with forked tongue.
Besides, what if the law is approved anyway? Then they’ll have got what they wanted, and found a way to not be held accountable for it, yet again. Iraqi WMD screwup - blame the intelligence. Abu Ghraib - blame a few rotten apples. Etc etc.
And the crime is to be partisan about it?
We aren’t criticizing Bush for being a “flip-flopper;” we’re using this as an example of the absurdity of the meme in the first place.
Besides which, this really was a symbolic victory. Since it is better for the US to be covertly torturing people than overtly, we’ve won that battle, but there is no reason whatsoever to think that we will significantly decrease the number of people tortured because of it. Bush likes hurting people, and he’ll find a way to do so as long as he’s in office.
I posted this over at ObWi, but I think it might be useful to think about here as well.
When thinking about the problem with asylum in the United States, it is useful to keep in mind the problems with the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, and asylum seekers associated with terrorist groups.
Check out this article that presciently mentions bin Ladin’s 1998 fatwa:
PUT BRITAIN ON THE LIST OF STATES SPONSORING TERRORISM
From EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE REVIEW
January 21, 2000.
http://www.mathaba.net/data/sis/mi6-terrorism.html
I have excerpted some of the points below, sorry for the length of the post. (By the way I love ObWi and Katherine, thanks for the open forum)
=================Islamic Group / Islamic Jihad leaders Adel Abdul Majid and Adel Tawfiq al Sirri :
Abdel Majid was implicated in the October 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and he subsequently masterminded the escape of two prisoners jailed for the assassination. In 1991, he fled to Britain and immediately was granted political asylum. He has coordinated the Islamic Group’s overseas operations ever since. In fact, he was sentenced to death in absentia for the bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan in November 1995, in which 15 diplomats were killed.
Abdel Tawfiq al Sirri, the co-director of the movement, has also been granted political asylum in Britain, despite the fact that he was also sentenced to death in absentia for his part in the 1993 attempted assassination of Egyptian Prime Minister Atif Sidqi.
***
Supporters of Sharia, headed by Abu Hamza Al-Misri, an Egyptian who was convicted of a capital offense in Egypt, but who enjoys political asylum in London, issued one of the most virulent “endorsements” of the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. Abu Hamza al-Masri presides over the Finsbury Mosque. Abu Hamza al-Masri, asylum-seeker and British citizen, was also protected by British law from extradition to Yemen.
***
Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) leader, Abou Farres was granted asylum in Britain in 1992, after he was condemned to death in Algeria for acknowledging responsibility for a bombing at Algiers airport, which killed nine people and wounded 125. Farres was believed responsible, from his base in London, for the July-September 1995 string of blind terrorist acts in France, including bombings of three Paris train and subway stations and an open-air market.
***
7 of 14 men, linked to the Luxor massacre and other earlier incidents of terrorism resided in London:
Yasser al Sirri: “Sentenced to death in the assassination attempt on the life of former Prime Minister Dr. Atef Sidqi; founded the Media Observatory in London as mouthpiece for the New Vanguards of Conquest.”
Adel Abdel Bari: “At present, heads Egyptian Human Rights Defense Office, affiliated to Media Observatory in London, the mouthpiece for the outlawed Jihad Organization.”
Mustafa Hamzah: “Commander of the military branch of the outlawed `Islamic Group.’ “
Tharwat Shehata: “Sentenced to death in the assassination attempt on Dr. Atef Sidqi, former Prime Minister; associated with, and in charge of financing extremist elements abroad; involved in reactivating the outlawed `Jihad Organization’ abroad.”
Osama Khalifa: “Accused no. 1 in the case involving domestic and foreign activities of the outlawed Islamic Group.”
Refa Mousa.
Mohamed el Islambouli: “One of the principal leaders of the Islamic Group; sentenced to death in the case of the outlawed organization of `Returnees from Afghanistan.’ “
***
Sheikh Abu Bakri Mohammad, the Syrian asylum-seeker who founded al Muhajiroun, a radical Islamic youth movement that recruits for terrorist groups.
I’m not sure what examples about British asylum laws prove. Terrorist activities are a reason for denial of asylum here.
Here is my understanding of what you are saying:
No person who makes it to the US should be deported or extradited to a country that uses torture. (or in the case of European countries they cannot be sent
to a country that has capital punishment). This person can then automatically claim to be an asylum seeker, if he comes from most Arab and third world countries. In particular, this applies to persons who have been convicted in absentia for crimes and have been sentenced to death.
I disagree with this point of view because this provides protection to the worst kind of criminals and terrorists. This is an example of what extreme right-wing warmongers and fascists refer to as a September 10th mindset.
Here is a short list of asylum seekers in the US:
* Ramzi Yousef: one of the attackers from the first assault on the World Trade Center
* Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman: devised plot to destroy New York City tunnels and landmarks.
* Hesham Mohamed Hadayet: the July 4th El AL assassin at LAX
* Abdel Hakim Tizegha: 1999 Millennium Plot to blow up LAX and/or Seattle’s landmark Space Needle
* Mir Aimal Kansi: murdered two CIA employees in 1993.
* Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer: tried to bomb the Brooklyn borough subway in 1997
www.cis.org/articles/2002/Paper21/terrorism.html
=======
Canada also has problems with the asylum process
(No names for some reason, but these people are still in country):
* since 1986, a convicted terrorist and murderer from the PFLP.
* since mid 90’s a fundraiser for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
* since 1991, Iranian assassin employed by the Iranian Security Service
* since 1990’s, 6 asylum seekersknown to be either convicted or alleged terrorists with al Qaeda connections, from Algeria, Egypt, and Syria
These Canadian asylum seekers were arrested in the US:
* Abdel Hakim Tizegha, noted above, after losing asylum in the US moved to Canada before participating in the Millennium Plot
* Ahmed Ressam, from Algeria in December 1999 attempted to enter the US with a trunk load of explosives in his car as part of the Millennium Plot
Ressam was a member of a Montreal cell of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group that has strong ties to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network
www.cis.org/articles/2002/back402.html
www.mathaba.net/data/sis/mi6-terrorism.html
============
I understand the importance of asylum because I work with people who came the the US seeking asylum (long ago) from Cuba, Poland and Hungary. My problem is that there are actual terrorists and criminals that would be able
to stay in this country in order to avoid the threat of torture.
Just checking. I tried to sent another comment.
bob mcmanus:
Torture is a moral issue
It just happens to also be a partisan issue, as Mark Kleiman is quoted, because of the way the votes on it have broken down according to party affiliation and because of what has become of the Republican party of late (for details see Dave Neiwert’s fine blog).
It appears I have been misunderstood, I think a great stink should be raised about this. We need much more political agitation on this issue both partisan and non-partisan.
What I was criticizing, and what I take was Ted’s point in his parenthetical comment, was using this to score partisan points against the Bush administration after they have definitively backed off this provision and instead come out against it. Though there seems to still be lingering doubt about this. After that fact to criticize them for “flip-flopping” is the worst sort of partisan opportunism. It does put the one who says that in the same moral league with those who are it’s supporters. How would you feel making that point only have the administration reverse course once again due to the political pressure?
Capisce?
If not I hope you like your pasta al dente
Always interesting to see lefties fall over themselves ignoring meaningful points to paint Bush in the worst possible light.
Does it not seem incredibly pertinent to any accusation of Bush endorsing torture that the Pentagon was doing a CRIMINAL investigation into the proceedings at Abu Ghraib and was expediting prisoner releases at the same time, all of this BEFORE the pictures leaked to the press?
Would it not seem highly implausible that Bush, the Pentagon, and the CIA was both endorsing torture and forwarding a grand jury investigation into those perpetuating the torture? One of those points can’t be true, yet we know that the pictures were released by subjects of the investigation, so we know the investigation existed. And by looking at validated prisoner release dates, we know that long before the pictures were released, prisoner releases were being increased by orders of magnitude.
George Orwell had lots to say on this type of blindness to facts, and he wasn’t kind.
I’m not aware of any grand jury investigation the torture scandal. And I’m not aware of any kind of investigation whatsoever into the CIA’s use of torture. Perhaps you can provide some informative links to some reputable news organizations reporting same?
True, there have been several investigations of one sort or another (but as I wrote, none seem to include grand juries or the CIA) but don’t be so naive as to think that the mere existence of an investigation is synonymous with serious condemnation of torture. The investigations to date have all been whitewashs to one or another extent, whether to protect MI, like Taguba’s report, or to protect the civilian political appointees at DOD who bear ultimate responsibility (along with the President, of course) such as the report of the ex-SecDefs. The Pentagon’s own criminal investigation has only indicted low-ranking enlisted soldiers. I’ll take it a little more serious if I see some brass, preferably with stars, get indicted. That would be to take the notion of personal responsibility seriously. But I doubt that’s going to happen. Not with this Bush administration.
Barry, the New Yorker has a good history of the events. The army started the criminal investigation after photos were leaked to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. And a widely ignored, but highly persuasive reason for the Army keeping it quiet is, like in a grand jury investigation, the Army’s equavalent keeps everything sealed until it is showtime.
And how did Taguba’s report protect anyone? It was published before the photo leaks occured. It just didn’t go public until after the leaks. Was Taguba trying to keep secret from the brass what they were already “endorsing”? Is that what you are argueing?
And the closest you can come to actual, cold hard evidence, that anyone higher up was invovled, is the words of the uncredible, sexually depraved nuts who have a high motivation to lie and reduce their sentences.
I think there is more evidence that Johnson had Kennedy killed than Bush and CO endorsed Abu Ghraib.
And Barry, I think this is very dangerous thinking “naive as to think that the mere existence of an investigation is synonymous with serious condemnation of torture”. Yet you have no proof otherwise. So from what little facts we have about the case, you are drawing a conclusion contrary to what we know for sure. Looks like you are the one making naive assumptions, unless you are privy to information the rest of us aren’t. By your same line of reasoning we should be able to convict a wife beater for the murder of his wife even if the only evidence we have is his propensity for violence.
And call me jingo-istic or whatever, but the impugning of the Army’s name over Abu Ghraib ticks me off. The unsupported slander that the Army had full knowledge of the goings on and allowed them to occur flies in the face of the Army’s honorable history. Don’t ever forget that while the crazed and frustrated men of Charlie Company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division were massacring villagers in Mai Lai, Hugh Thompson, pilot of a helicopter gun ship, trained his weapons on the Americans, and over loud speakers said he would kill them all if they didn’t stop, at which point the killing stopped and he reported the incident to his commander.
Sorry, the army impugned it’s own name by it’s actions at Abu Ghraib and many other places and by it’s subsequent failure to seriously prosecute those responsible up the chain of command. My opinion in this matter though is small beans. The fact is that the rest of the world, and not just the Arab and Muslim world, believes this to be the case, and rightfully so I might add.
I would recommend that you read Mark Danner’s excellent series of essays on the topic that have been published in the NY Review of Books. I think you have to pay for the on-line edition but they are also archived on his website:
http://www.markdanner.com/writing.htm
Abu Ghraib: The Hidden Story
The Logic of Torture
Torture and Truth
Sorry, the army impugned it’s own name by it’s actions at Abu Ghraib and many other places and by it’s subsequent failure to seriously prosecute those responsible up the chain of command. My opinion in this matter though is small beans. The fact is that the rest of the world, and not just the Arab and Muslim world, believes this to be the case, and rightfully so I might add.
I would recommend that you read Mark Danner’s excellent series of essays on the topic that have been published in the NY Review of Books. I think you have to pay for the on-line edition but they are also archived on his website:
http://www.markdanner.com/writing.htm
Abu Ghraib: The Hidden Story
The Logic of Torture
Torture and Truth
Barry, I fear we will never agree on this subject. I found your website an attempt at twisting what little we do know. Near the beginning he gives a quote from a security officer describing policy for those protected by the Geneva convetion and those not. I guess he was trying to paint it as a violation, but none of the listed procedures appeared to violate the Geneva conventions. The only one even remotely questionable was the exploitation of the fear of dogs (and no I don’t mean letting the dogs maul them). Now granted you probably disagree with those policies, but that isn’t the question. The question is whether they violated law, and besides the dog, the quote absolutely doesn’t.
But it is always interesting to read things from a different perspective, thanks for the link.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review