COSTUMED VIGILANTES: OK. I fully admit that I have not been plugged-in enough this past week to have a robust opinion on the McCain/Bush interrogation compromise. But it’s troubling that no one else seems really to know what happened either. And this,

The Administration has been suggesting that it would somehow be inappropriate for the legislation, or the Senators, to say specifically which techniques the law would prohibit, i.e., that the law must remain so opaque that the Congress and the public don’t have any idea what it does and does not prohibit. …Senators McCain, et al., do not need to, and they probably should not, publicly reveal the extent to which, or circumstances under which, the CIA makes use of lawful techniques. But of course the Congress can and should specify which techniques are unlawful, if for no other reason than that it would be irresponsible for legislators to vote on a bill without having a clue what it does and does not prohibit.

from Marty Lederman, reminded me forcefully of the most powerful arguments for judicial restraint. What on earth is the point of voting if you have no idea what you’re voting for? What’s the point of laws if you can’t have any idea what the laws mean?