glasses off.

The election to watch. According to a Pakistani colleague at International Crisis Group, if you care about terrorism, rule of law in the Middle East, or the evolution of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, this is the election to watch.

The real question is what Nawaz Sharif or Bhutto’s relationship with the military or intelligence communities in Pakistan would be. Neither has been above using it for political gain in the past, and the military in Pakistan holds the reigns of power with regard to human rights in Pakistan, not least of which are the most restrictive blasphemy laws in the world (death for defiling Islam or its prophets, life for defiling, damaging, or desecrating the Qur’an, 10 years’ imprisonment for insulting another’s religious feelings).

In the meantime, Bhutto will face corruption charges on her return to Pakistan, Sharif challenges his deportation to Saudi Arabia, and Musharraf faces a legal challenge to his simultaneously-held positions as President and army chief.

Legal review of the administration’s anti-terror policies. Jack Goldsmith, former head of the Office of the Legal Advisor and a conservative Harvard Law professor, has released The Terror Presidency.  Read the NYT book review, or the back story from the NYTMagazine:

In [Goldsmith’s] view, American presidents for the foreseeable future will, like George W. Bush, face enormous pressure to be aggressive and pre-emptive in taking measures to prevent another terrorist attack in the United States. At the same time, Goldsmith notes, everywhere the president looks, critics — as well as his own lawyers — are telling him that pre-emptive actions may violate international law as well as U.S. criminal law. What, exactly, are the legal limits of executive power in the post-9/11 world? How should administration lawyers negotiate the conflict between the fear of attacks and the fear of lawsuits?

In the meantime, an Oregon lawyer falsely accused in the Madrid bombings challenges the Patriot Act.

A major shift in Beijing-Vatican relations?

Out of sight of the media, rumors have been circulating for weeks that Fr. Paul Xiao Zejiang, the elected (in October 2006) and government-approved candidate for adjutor bishop (an assistant with automatic right of succession) had received the Pope’s blessing in advance of his ordination. According to a great piece of reporting by AsiaNews [t]he ordination occurred on September 8 in Guiyang’s Cathedral.

Even without the presence of the underground bishop, this event is significant as the first ordination since the Pope’s letter. That the ordination took place with both government and Vatican support is critical in its own right. But, combined with the fact that there is a large backlog of dioceses (roughly forty, I am told) in need of bishops, and several approved candidates (by Beijing, at least) in the pipeline, the Guiyang ordination can and probably should be taken as a major shift in relations between the Vatican and Beijing.

Read on from Adam Minter at Shanghai Scrap.

Update: It’s official.

“Only blood” or “parts of a baby?” New Jersey high court rejects medical duty to say embryo is an “existing human being” in 5-0 ruling:

Rose Acuna sued Dr. Sheldon C. Turkish for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and emotional distress after consenting to an abortion that Turkish allegedly said would remove an embryo that was “only blood.” After complications arose from an incomplete abortion, a nurse told Acuna that “parts of the baby” remained inside her; Acuna said she suffered emotional distress because she was not informed that the embryo was a “complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being.” The court said that there is a clear lack of consensus among the medical community and the public whether the plaintiff’s assertions are medical fact or moral beliefs. The US Supreme Court will decide later this month whether to hear a separate issue in the case concerning an equal protection challenge to the New Jersey wrongful death statute.

Read on at The Jurist.