A major victory for constitutional rights.

"'As this court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al-Qaida poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation,' the court said.

"'But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress,' it added."

This is important because it says to the Bush administration that they can't use terrorism as an excuse to create a special system for suspects, one in which an American citizen can be nabbed in the U.S., then held for months in a brig without recourse to a lawyer (in fact, it's unlikely Padilla had any idea any of this was going on on his behalf), even without being charged.

It will be interesting how this plays out in the Supreme Court.

Of course, Padilla wasn't carrying a dirty bomb when he was arrested. And Hussein wasn't carrying WMD either, apparently. But that no longer matters to Bush. "Imminent threat" or "pursuing a program." What's the difference?

As David Kay throws in the towel.

For the Bush administration, the past sure is tense. So why not cleanse it?

The Post's Dana Milbank writes on the lingering bad aftertaste from Bush's Baghdad flyby.

"[Stars and Stripes], quoting two officials with the Army's 1st Armored Division in an article last week, reported that 'for security reasons, only those preselected got into the facility during Bush's visit. . . . The soldiers who dined while the president visited were selected by their chain of command, and were notified a short time before the visit.'

"The paper also published a letter to the editor from Sgt. Loren Russell, who wrote of the heroism of his soldiers and then added: '[I]magine their dismay when they walked 15 minutes to the Bob Hope Dining Facility, only to find that they were turned away from their evening meal because they were in the wrong unit. . . . They understand that President Bush ate there and that upgraded security was required. But why were only certain units turned away?'

"Russell added that his soldiers 'chose to complain amongst themselves and eat MREs, even after the chow hall was reopened for 'usual business' at 9 p.m. As a leader myself, I'd guess that other measures could have been taken to allow for proper security and still let the soldiers have their meal.'"

The L.A. Times has a remarkable expose on the Senate's venerable Master of Pork, Ted Stevens. Federal spending in Alaska, known as Stevens dollars in the state, runs as much as 70% higher than the national average on a per capita basis, making even Robert Byrd look cheap.

Lately, according to the Times (registration required, but it's free) it seems he's been doing pretty well for himself as well.

At the state level, Arnold declares he's got a fiscal crisis on his hands. Wasn't that evident to anyone, even the last governor, the one who was recalled because...he had a fiscal crisis on his hands?

But here in my state, the gem of gloomy New England, we are envying Californians these days -- we have a governor ripe for recall. Not only is he corrupt, he's a lunatic as well!

And is wife should be in a rubber room.

*****

Ouch. This is a major blow to the Sox and Rangers. They have to make this work, otherwise, they have A-Rod back playing for a team he has publicly said he doesn't want to play for, and the Sox are stuck with two players they have very publicly tried to either put on unrestricted waivers or trade or both.

Warms my heart.