Where Cheney is Wrong

I like Dick Cheney. I think he's an asset to our nation, and a man to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.

Generally speaking, I agree with his stances on various issues.

And on gay marriage, he has a reasonably consistent position: people should be free to marry whom they choose, and the several States should decide for themselves what they will allow.

But the trouble is this: marriage is not about freedom or liberty, it's about a government sanction of a binding relationship. It's a special contract, with centuries of legal precedent governing it. I say that not to make an appeal to tradition, but rather to say we should tread lightly in these matters, until all of the ramifications are clear.

Extending marriage, or even civil unions, to same-sex couples means giving a societal stamp of approval on their relationship.

And I don't think that's a good idea. I have a variety of reasons for thinking it's not a good idea, about which others may disagree.

So while I agree with Mr. Cheney that people should be allowed to do what they will, they should not demand that I approve their decision.

Is my position consistent? Sure. Do what you will, but don't ask my blessing.

Sphere: Related Content

Tax Loopholes

Tax loopholes are measures enacted by Congress to achieve some policy goal, like encouraging oil production or getting people to move back to central urban areas from the suburbs.

Tax loopholes are evil economic manipulation, I think.

But closing a loophole doesn't help the economy, generally. All it does is remove the incentive it was put in place to provide, so discouraging the activity it was designed to foster. Generally there isn't a lot of money for the government to gain.

Another effect of closing tax loopholes is to raise the general level of economic uncertainty. What is a good business activity? Companies and individuals don't know what the rules are if they keep changing.

Similarly, the more loopholes that are created and subsequently removed, the less effective tax policy will be.

But I guess in the end, any business which bases its activity on the presence of a tax loophole for it deserves what they get when the loophole goes away.

Sphere: Related Content

Kudos to Senator Burris -- And to Rod Blagojevich

I'm not a supporter of Governor Rod Blagojevich. In fact, his politics are about as far away from mine as I can imagine for a fellow American.

But I have to give the guy credit when due. In the instance of the selection of Roland Burris as Senator to replace Barack Obama, Blagojevich, having been publicly tarred with arrest by Federal authorities, continued on in the performance of his duties. And he made a very good choice in Roland Burris.

I'm not a supporter of Burris, either. It's just that of the pool of established Chicago Democrats who are well-known in Illinois politics, Burris is the best available.

Burris showed his ability by going to Washington and telling Harry Reid that he would sue to claim his rightful seat in the Senate. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said to seat Burris not because of any great statesmanlike respect for the rule of law but because she saw no way around his eventually being seated. Illinois law says the Governor appoints replacement Senators, whether the Secretary of State wants to certify them or not. So Burris is a Senator, whether Reid likes it or not. And the State Legislature can't unseat a Senator to have a special election.

At this point Reid's only option is to impeach Burris or let him serve his term. Burris can promise not to run in 2010, but he's not legally bound by that.

So well done, Governor and Senator.

By the way, I would have liked a special election in this one instance, but how often will these circumstances recur? The current law worked well enough.

Sphere: Related Content

Governor Blagojevice Has No Reason To Resign

What will resigning now get him?

If he's not found guilty of Federal corruption charges, he can still have a career in politics, on some level.

If he's found guilty, he can resign in protest, or simply wait to be impeached.

If he's impeached and tried, he can resign at any time during the process.

As Dave at Political Machine puts it:

It's quite apparent that no one has anything on Blago or is willing to offer him anything to resign. Quite the reverse. Blago probably knows where enough bodies are buried to make taking him out a risky project, and he has nothing to lose by staying where he is until he gets the right offer. The most valuable thing he now owns is the ability to resign. He's not going to give that away for bleeping nothing right?

I disagree with Dave on one thing: Blago has more leverage than just the ability to resign. If he's impeached and goes on trial, he can take a whole bunch of people down with him, probably to include a former Senator or two.

Sphere: Related Content

Why is the Bailout Unconstitutional?

The Paulson Bailout fiasco is unconstitutional not merely because there is nowhere listed in the Constitutional a Federal authority to bail out commercial enterprises.

The Bailout is an ex post facto bill of attainder, both of which are of course forbidden by the Constitution.

An Ex Post Facto law is one which is written after the fact to address some problem.

A Bill of Attainder is trial by legislation.

And that is what we have in the Paulson Bailout.

-------- Update --------
I ran this past a lawyer friend, who said that actually, Congress can and does single out individuals for special benefit all the time. It can even name them, but the reason it doesn't usually do so is political, rather than legal.

It seems illogical, to me, because how does one draw the line between a punishment and a benefit? If Congress singles out Acme, Inc. for special benefits coupled with special labor rules, for instance, that may be on balance a positive or a negative thing for Acme. It seems to me that there is a spectrum or range from outlawing a company's existence to giving them too-big-to-fail money.

Sphere: Related Content

Texas Prosecutor and Judge Seem Not To Be In Complete Harmony

The Texas judge assigned the corruption case against Vice President Dick Cheney signalled that he may wish to try the case before agreeing with District Attorney Juan Guerra on the Vice President's guilt. The judge's position follows State of Texas tradition that no one, not even those in power outside of the State's jurisdiction, should be presumed guilty before their case is argued.

The judge actually went so far as to entertain motions from the defense, a decision about which Guerra hinted a certain lack of enthusiasm. Guerra also appeared to dissent over being removed as prosecutor from the indictments in the case for which he is also a victim, even though Texas allows pro se legal represention:

And now all of a sudden, there is urgency. 18 months we kept this indictment, past my election. And I asked this court [to say if it would be] dismissed on a technicality. You already decided! You refused.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Forced to Resign From Senate Amid Lawsuits

Despite all of the fanfare surrounding his election as President, Barack Obama (D-IL) has announced he will step down from his U.S. Senate seat effective today. The embattled politician, who has never been convicted of any criminal activity, claims that his resignation was due to conflicts with his duties as President, a job he will not start for months.

Constitutionally forbidden from holding both offices at once and under a cloud of lawsuits and corruption allegations, Obama has left the task of choosing his replacement to the nation's least popular governor, Rod Blagojevich (D-Chicago), who is also the target of a federal corruption investigation.

Lawsuits challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to become President have popped up all across the country.

At issue is whether Obama was born in the United States. Naturalized citizens are not elibible for the Presidency.

And it's not just former Pennsylvania Attorney General Philip J. Berg filing suit. Plaintiffs ranging from ordinary citizens to former Obama opponent Alan Keyes have sued seeking release of basic documentation such as the former Senator's birth certificate.

Many legal experts believe the seriousness of these charges warrants a hearing by the Supreme Court, so that all Americans can be confident that our President is actually eligible to hold the office for which he was chosen.

Sphere: Related Content

Would Jesus Want Rape Legalized?

Over at Classical Values, Simon asks:

A Question For Christian Social Conservatives

Did Jesus promote government solutions to moral problems?

The answer I gave there doesn't stress enough the obvious point that He did promote the Commandments, and not just the Big Ten. He just wanted us not to lean on the Law for approval.

Sphere: Related Content

Jury Duty is Patriotic

I sat on a jury once. I'd always been curious about what went on in the jury room, and so when called, I didn't take any of the several opportunities they give you to drop out. If you really don't want to serve on a jury, for whatever reason, just say "I heard about this case, and can't be objective."

But the people on my jury made me proud to be an American. Each one of us sat in the jury box, taking notes or simply watching, as the prosecution and defense walked us through the intricacies of forms and procedures used by the Illinois Department of Public Health. A local administrator was accused of fraud in allegedly cheating the State out of $10,000 or so (for the County's benefit).

The prosecution presented all kinds of evidence about how this lady put dubiously official meals on the county credit card, operated the soda machine petty cash fund in some way that was supposed to be inappropriate, and wasn't liked by the people in her office. They succeeded in making me, and I think the rest of the jury, dislike the defendant.

But, in the end, they had to show that she deliberately tried to claim money for the County that belonged to the State.

We poured over the records. It turned out that there was over $10,000 in mistaken charges, in various categories of mistakes (which we had to learn to recognize as if we were Medicaid auditors). But in every case, comparing the dates of when we were told she was informed of some class of errors to the records, that class of errors would virtually disappear.

We asked the judge if we could count the credit card junk and soda machine "slush fund" in with the Medicaid fund, and he said to read the charges: they were about Medicaid, not credit card abuse.

Having worked for State government, I know how ugly the paperwork is. I'd hate to be charged with fraud, lose my job, and be sent to jail just because I incorrectly filled out the paperwork.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Ayers Matters

Now that I no longer care who wins the upcoming presidential election between John McCain and Barack Obama, there are only a few reasons for me to blog on it.

One of those reasons is bad logic.

There are many who will see the McCain campaign highlighting the Obama-Ayers connection as mere guilt-by-association. We know that, logically speaking, associating with evil doesn't make one evil. Even if Ayers were evil, merely associating with him doesn't in and of itself make Barack Obama evil.

However, there is much more to the relationship than that. The two have known each other for years, perhaps since Obama was an undergraduate student. Ayers hired Obama to distribute between $50 and $150 million for selling anti-capitalism in the Chicago public schools. You don't hire someone to give away that kind of money unless the two of you are in sync and believe in the same goals. There is clear evidence that Obama and Ayers are cut of the same political cloth.

But when Hillary Clinton brought the subject up at a debate during the Democratic primaries, Obama said that Ayers was "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood." He lied about the relationship.

But here's the thing: Ayers was a terrorist as a young man, setting bombs in the Pentagon, at police stations, and in the home of a judge in the attempt to influence a trial. He has never repented of these actions, saying he wishes he'd done more. Obama should not have worked for him, but he did. And now he wants out of that decision.

So he says that Ayers was fire-bombing judges' homes with their children asleep in bed while he, Obama, was only eight years old, so it doesn't matter.

It's an exercise in non sequitur. The issue is not how old Obama was when Ayers did his evil; the issue is that Obama shares this guy's views and helped him spend money to promote those views. And then he lied about it.

Sphere: Related Content

Supreme Court Flunks Civics Test

This post is for those who are glad that the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are going to be allowed habeas corpus hearings in U.S. Federal Court. Boumedine vs Bush (pdf) was an awful decision. And even if you believe that on the merits that this particular case was decided correctly, none of us should be happy at all about the way it came to be decided. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds on emotional grounds, and it is doubtful that either of the other branches have the will to tell them so.

The government of the Unitied States is built on a system of checks and balances. One of the balances is that while Congress passes laws, the Courts get to decide how those laws are applied. Since early in the history of the republic, the courts have decided if laws are in accord with the Constitution.

Another of the checks and balance is that Congress gets to decide the makeup of the Judiciary, within limits. In particular, Congress, as set forth in Article III section 2, gets to decide jurisdiction (emphasis mine):

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This is not a matter for the courts to judge. If Congress passes a bill and the President signs into law a measure exempting some class of cases from Supreme Court jurisdiction, then by the plain text of the Constitution the Court cannot exert authority over that class of cases. Professor Bainbridge agrees.

Although the law here is not well developed, I have always assumed that Congress could strip the courts of jurisidiction to hear even claims that constitutional rights were being violated. Not that that’s a good idea. But it does seem to be what the framers intended.

And yet Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority(pdf), says:

Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply.

But as noted, Congress does have the power to limit the Court's jurisdiction, and with the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Tribunals Act, Congress did exactly that.

To illustrate some of the arguments in this matter, and to show why those who side with the Court got it wrong, we take a little side trip to Geneva. A story in the Jun 23, 2008 issue of Newsweek makes some fundamental errors in its analysis, I think primarily because of its full-throttle Bush Derangement. The story says the Bush team "overplayed a winning hand" by, among other things, not giving enough rights to detainees.

Historically, prisoners of war have no rights in U.S. courts. But even so, they are released when the war ends. The War on Terror has no foreseeable end. What's more, since the terrorists don't wear uniforms, it can be hard to discern who the real enemies are. Under the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war have some rights. But after 9/11, hard-liners in the administration decided that terror suspects brought to Guantánamo and various secret prisons around the world lacked any of the protections of the Geneva accords because they were "unlawful combatants."

The Geneva Conventions are supposed to reflect how we treat prisoners we capture in war. At least, we should not be in violation of the Conventions.

The Conventions are multinational treaties adopted among nations desiring to retain a modicum of civilization, even in time of war. To that end, the signatory nations have agreed to treat four classes of people differently when captured during war:

1. Noncombatants - individuals neither wearing a uniform nor engaging in hostilities
   
2. Lawful Combatants - individuals in uniform and subject to chain of command, whether engaging in hostilities or not
   
3. Unlawful Combatants - individuals engaging in hostilities but either not wearing a mark or uniform or not subject to command, and in any case, disguising their combatant status
   
4. War criminals - those who attack noncombatants or use banned weapons or tactics

Noncombatants are not to be harmed or detained, except as unavoidable in the prosecution of war.

Lawful combatants may be detained to prevent them from engaging in hostilities, but must be provided with food, clothing, medical care, and be permitted to abide by their rank structure. They may not forced to answer questions other than to identify themselves.

Unlawful combatants are 'not to be afforded the same protection as lawful ones, so as to encourage the wearing of uniforms. As Toni Pfanner, Editor-in-Chief of the International Review of the Red Cross, said in his 2004 Military Uniforms and the Law of War:

The legal history of Article 4 (A) of the Third Geneva Convention shows clearly that only irregular forces must fulfil the four criteria in order to qualify as prisoners of war, and that the two categories were separated deliberately. Early on, the Rapporteur of the Special Committee dealing with the question of definition of prisoners of war specified that only militias and volunteers not forming part of the regular armed forces should be subject to thefour criteria [...]

"A fundamental premise of the Geneva Conventions has been that to earn the right to protection as military fighters, soldiers must distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and carrying their weapons openly (…). Fighters, who attempt to take advantage of civilians by hiding among them in civilian dress, with their weapons out of view, lose their claim to be treated as soldiers. The law thus attempts to encourage fighters to avoid placing civilians in unconscionable jeopardy."

Two years ago, the Bush Administration responded to criticism from Congress and Court decisions by granting Geneva rights to all prisoners, no matter if they were captured in or out of uniform. This fundamental error, disregarding the very purpose of the Geneva Conventions, led directly to the current situation.

The implications of the Court's decision in Boumedine are ominous. The Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the right to decide its own jurisdiction, contrary to the Constitution. The Court inserted itself into the conduct of our national defense, clearly the prerogative of the Commander-in-Chief. It did it in such a way as to extend the rights reserved for citizens not only to prisoners of war, but to those who by the Geneva Conventions are not even supposed to have the rights accorded POWs. And they did it in disregard of their own precedent.

But my guess is that no one will call them to account.

Sphere: Related Content

Fisking the Obama Rezko Response

I’m saddened by today’s verdict. This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform. I encourage the General Assembly to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future.

I’m saddened by today’s verdict.

Why? As Ace says, a jury of his peers has found him guilty. The Obama should be happy that a criminal is out of Illinois politics.

This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew,

Oh, no? Not the one whose office the Obama would drop by just as -- by sheer coincidence -- Middle Eastern money men would be visiting ol' Tony? The Obama helped Rezko rake in donor cash, for which the Obama's campaign was handsomely rewarded. And that help buying his house -- in the real world, people don't do that without some ulterior motive. This is exactly the same guy the Obama knew. Liar.

but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform.

"Reform" -- I don't think that word means what the Obama thinks it means. This spotlights the need to clean house in Illinois government, starting with the Cook County Board, proceeding through the State Senate and its corrupt President Emil Jones, and on through its U.S. Senators and Governor.

I encourage the General Assembly to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future.

The first step they could take is to impeach the malfeasant Blagojevich. The second step they could take is to refuse to give Tony Rezko's associates the Electoral College votes from Illinois.

And how about Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fizgerald? Are there any steps he could take "to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future", such as prosecuting those who benefited from Rezko's crimes?

But then, convicting more criminals would make the Obama sad. Especially if it were the Obama himself frog-marching off to Joliet.

Sphere: Related Content

Marine Acquitted of Haditha Charges

[Updated: w/t Gateway Pundit, via Ace]
Lt. Andrew Grayson, accused of ordering evidence destroyed in the Haditha case, has been acquitted. It turns out that the Marine Corps has a policy of not allowing images of corpses to be kept on personal cameras. Grayson was following the book by ordering them deleted.

The Court Martial must also have decided that Grayson did not believe a war crime to have been committed, because evidence of a war crime would have trumped the rules against carrying "trophy" images.

Congressman Jack Murther (D-PA) could not be reached for comment.

Sphere: Related Content

Rezco Guilty.

CBS:

A federal jury has found a prominent political fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich guilty of 16 of 24 counts in his Illinois corruption trial.

Illinois Republicans say:

Now that the trial has come to an end, it's time Rod Blagojevich came clean with the people of Illinois and answered the numerous questions surrounding his involvement with Tony Rezko.

[Update: ABC 7 Chicago has the breakdown:

• Guilty on 6 of 6 counts wire fraud
• Guilty on 6 of 9 counts mail/wire fraud
• Not Guilty on 1 count attempted extortion
• Guilty on 2 of 6 counts corrupt solicitation
• Guilty on 2 counts money laundering

The media are already spinning this as not related to Obama, pointing out that neither Obama (D-Chicago) nor Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Chicago) "have been accused of wrongdoing". Officially accused of a crime by the police or prosecutors, that is. But their close association with Rezko make the chances pretty good they were involved in crooked stuff, too.]

Sphere: Related Content

House Votes Greater Dependence on OPEC

oh no, i am not making this stuff up

According to shortnews.com (which links to a Reuters story at yahoo):

The U.S. House of Representatives passed in a landslide legislation that would allow the Justice Department to sue OPEC for cooperating to set high oil prices and limiting supply, but President Bush said he will veto the bill.

The bill would attempt to subject OPEC to U.S. antitrust laws and would include Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela. The vote margin, 324-84, is large enough to override a presidential veto, which was threatened in fear of retaliation by OPEC.

This attempt by Congress to extend our antitrust laws to cover an organization made up of other sovereign nations is wrong-headed for several reasons, some obvious and some not.

OPEC, as known to everyone not a member of the House of Representatives, stands for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. These countries, not being part of the United States, are not required to recognize our laws or courts.

However, the bill would leverage regulation of foreign-owned oil refinery and transport properties in the U.S to get cooperation from the individual OPEC nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela.

The entire stated purpose of OPEC is to cooperate to set high oil prices and limit supply. Congress may as well say that the United States has authority over the treaties other nations may make with one another, or over the legal systems of any country doing business in the United States.

And their price-fixing scheme is not totally effective. The price of oil is set by the international oil market: sellers try to find the buyer willing to pay the highest price, and buyers try to find the cheapest source. OPEC is simply one group of sellers in the international oil market. The way to get them to lower their price is to buy from a less expensive source.

Another group of sellers is U.S. domestic oil producers. If Congress wishes to increase supply, it can allow domestic producers to drill for oil in places which are already known to have oil, such as the continental shelf off our own coasts and in Alaska.

But rather than stand up to the environmental lobby, Congressional Democrats would encourage OPEC to increase its supply, thereby increasing our dependence on foreign oil.

There is no rule or law that says an OPEC country must produce a single drop of oil. The only thing keeping them producing oil is the international market price. You can't sue someone into selling you something at your price.

What's next: legislating that pi henceforth will be equal to 3.0? Perhaps instead the Congress would like to ensure that the oil fields in Saudia Arabia meet OSHA requirements, or those in Kenya aren't harming the sensitive East African environment.

And if OPEC decides to retaliate against Congressional arrogance, they can turn off the spigot, or merely lower their output even further. That would be a minor inconvenience for them, and the consequences for us would be disastrous.

But perhaps the Democrats in Congress know that already, and believe they can blame President Bush for the economic depression that would follow their attempt to extend our laws to the whole world.

Sphere: Related Content

Illegal War in Iraq

In a dull repetition of melodramatic echo, never quite dying out but never fully explained, we hear the phrase "illegal war" applied to the conflict in Iraq.

"Illegal war" means that by the very existence of the war a law has been broken. But whose law has been broken? Is it a law of the United States, or some other law, say perhaps of France or Sweden, or more likely, of the United Nations?

The United Nations doesn't have laws, despite what some power-grabbing third worlder might think. It's an organization, not a nation or sovereign entity. At most, its leadership can say that a member country is in violation of its treaty obligations, which is a different thing from being "illegal".

But even so, the United Nations authorized the use of force against Iraq (not just against the government of Saddam Hussein, but of Iraq), though such authorization is not necessary for the United States, sovereign nation that it is, to go to war against some other sovereign nation. We are subject to United Nations edicts only by our own consent. And yet, in this instance and every other of which I'm aware, we have complied with U.N. dictates.

If a law of the United States, then which United States law is it that has been broken? It can only be that the very Constitution has been "shredded" by the use of the armed forces without a formal declaration of war, And yet the Constitution gives the President the authority as Commander in Chief, and to the Congress to declare war and to establish funding and regulations for the armed forces.

Of course in the United States our laws come to be laws when the Congress passes bills and the President signs them, or when a Court decides something (which is then subject to review by higher courts). Congress can change a law made either by itself or by judicial decision at any time, with or without the President's approval.

Now, Congress has issued several bills authorizing the use of force against Iraq (not only against the government of Sadaam Hussein, but of Iraq) which the President duly signed into law, both six months before and several times after the President followed through on that authorization. Congress can, at any time, rescind its authorization. Congress can defund the war at any time also, without the President's approval.

According to WhatReallyHappened.com, the war is illegal because there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) found, but of course, the authorization says no such thing, and there were WMD found. They also claim that the authorization is only valid against the people involved in 9/11. But here is the text they claim says this:

... acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

But that says terrorist organizations including those responsible for 9/11, not only those responsible for it. That authorization included Saddam Hussein as a supporter of international terrorism, whether he was directly involved in 9/11 or not, and it includes our current enemies in Iraq, many of whom do belong to the Al Qaeda organization responsible for 9/11. It also includes Iran, when they operate in Iraq.

It therefore must be that the war is illegal despite Congress having authorized it, and having voted several times to continue its authorization; and despite the fact that the President has certainly given his authority for the work in Iraq; and that the Supreme Court has allowed these actions to continue in the numerous attempts which have been made to bring suit to stop it.

There must then be some other branch of the government which is violating the law.

My money's on Haliburton.

Sphere: Related Content

Torture, again? Yawn.

The Washington Post is aghast that the President should assert the power, in time of war, not to allow the use of torture to defend us against foreign enemies. They point to a declassied memo, the text of which they may or may not have in full, justifying such methods as do not "shock the conscience".

There's a problem with that, of course, in that consciences differ.

But neither was the author of the memo writing a tutorial.

No sane person likes torture. No patriot wants to see his country defeated. So if we can avoid techniques which "shock the conscience", as the memo insists we must, we can avoid both torture and defeat.

And that is everyone's goal.

Sphere: Related Content

Senator McCain on Foreign Policy

John McCain gave a foreign policy speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, and now that I've read it, I still don't know whether to be elated or dismayed. I don't know whether Senator McCain believes everything he says, or merely couches things in language he knows will please his opponents. But I do know that people govern how they campaign, generally if not in the specifics.

The biggest problem I have with Senator McCain is that in using his opponent's language, he implicitly accepts their positions. What to do about captured terrorist suspects:

America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model. How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad. We must fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundation of our society. We can’t torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.

We can't turn lead into gold, grind up children to feed to cats, or yell fire in a crowded theater, either.

Lacking legality is among the many reasons we don't do those things.

By saying that it's wrong, McCain implies that we do it. He gives cover to our foes, and encourages the conspiracy-loving, coverup-seeking, America-hating moonbats at home.

I was very pleased to read this, however:

For decades in the greater Middle East, we had a strategy of relying on autocrats to provide order and stability. We relied on the Shah of Iran, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family, and even, for a time, on Saddam Hussein. In the late 1970s that strategy began to unravel. The Shah was overthrown by the radical Islamic revolution that now rules in Tehran. The ensuing ferment in the Muslim world produced increasing instability. The autocrats clamped down with ever greater repression, while also surreptitiously aiding Islamic radicalism abroad in the hopes that they would not become its victims. It was a toxic and explosive mixture. The oppression of the autocrats blended with the radical Islamists’ dogmatic theology to produce a perfect storm of intolerance and hatred.

We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these out-dated autocracies is the safest bet. They no longer provide lasting stability, only the illusion of it. We must not act rashly or demand change overnight. But neither can we pretend the status quo is sustainable, stable, or in our interests. Change is occurring whether we want it or not. The only question for us is whether we shape this change in ways that benefit humanity or let our enemies seize it for their hateful purposes. We must help expand the power and reach of freedom, using all our many strengths as a free people. This is not just idealism. It is the truest kind of realism. It is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.

One of the central failings of our Cold War era policy was its reliance on stable autocrats like the Shah of Iran and Pinochet of Chile. This blind acceptance of stability over ideals was wrong then, demonstrating a lack of confidence in the rightness and power of liberty, and it's wrong now. While we can accept the allegiance of autocrats, we must not curry their favor over that of thei oppressed peoples.

Senator McCain indicated that he's a Global Warming Believer, and that depresses me.

He stopped just short of calling for an American Union, but on the positive side he fully endorsed free trade, at least in this hemisphere. At no time did he call for tariffs, which give me hope that he's a free trader on some level.

As I said, I feel better about it now that I've read it, except for the Gitmo and Global Warming stuff. Unfortunately, I suspect he really believes his own rhetoric there.

Sphere: Related Content

President Remains Commander in Chief

President Bush wielded the power of the veto pen over the bill that would have limited the CIA to using the same interrogation techniques used by Army interrogators.

This was a courageous and correct veto on the part of President Bush, but not just for the reasons he gave.

(Redstate.com reader rbdwiggins gives the text, linked above for the President's veto of H.R. 2082, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008." This is cross-posted there.)

Those interested can follow here for the text of the bill itself, thomas.gov being notorious for URL-shifting.]

The future adults at the Talking Points Memo (w/t) are apopleptic, crying "Impeach! Impeach!" -- or perhaps it was just once, as it's hard to tell in that echo chamber.

The President was clear in his reasons for the veto:

The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror -- the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives. This program has produced critical intelligence that has helped us prevent a number of attacks. The program helped us stop a plot to strike a U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi, a plot to hijack a passenger plane and fly it into Library Tower in Los Angeles, and a plot to crash passenger planes into Heathrow Airport or buildings in downtown London. And it has helped us understand al Qaida's structure and financing and communications and logistics. Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland.

The main reason this program has been effective is that it allows the CIA to use specialized interrogation procedures to question a small number of the most dangerous terrorists under careful supervision. The bill Congress sent me would deprive the CIA of the authority to use these safe and lawful techniques. Instead, it would restrict the CIA's range of acceptable interrogation methods to those provided in the Army Field Manual. The procedures in this manual were designed for use by soldiers questioning lawful combatants captured on the battlefield. They were not intended for intelligence professionals trained to question hardened terrorists.

On has to wonder: if the CIA is limited to the same techniques as the Army, would there be any need for the CIA to interrogate? And once the front-line soldiers and officers interrogate an enemy combatant, having published our interrogation techniques in the Army Field Manual the enemy combatant would know what to expect and be ready for it, even if the CIA's questioners were more hightly skilled.

From a pure political calculation, some on the right who oppose non-standard interrogation (NSI) will be disheartened by this news. But they are missing a key point: this veto gives John McCain distance from President Bush, which he can exploit with independent voters, on an issue which is probably not as important to the war on terror as it's made out to be.

Because whether or not we use NSI or even full-on torture on detainees is not as important in the overall fight against them as is keeping our playbook hidden from the enemy. This bill would have exposed our methods to our foes, and if only for that reason deserved a veto.

But in the event that some madman was ready to explode a nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city, would we want to keep that information a secret? Or would we rather use every technique known to man to stop it?

Obviously we don't use non-standard interrogation on every detainee; that's why it's non-standard. But like our own nuclear arsenal, these techniques should be available to us, in all their horror.

Congressional Democrats know these things, but are shamefully demagoguing them just to score partisan political points.

Sphere: Related Content

Health care is not a right

Rights are things you already have which the government cannot take.

The government cannot take away your life, liberty, or property without due process*.

They can't shut you up, keep you from writing about it, or keep you from getting together with others of like mind.

You are free to print or blog all day long, but the government doesn't owe you a printing press, computer, or even a pencil.

You are free to own a firearm, but the government doesn't owe you one.

They cannot force you through their legal system without the advice of someone competent in its workings. Note that you only get the lawyer when the government has a case against you, not the other way around.

You are free to travel, but you don't get a free car.

All of these things are rights.

Health care is not a right. A fortioi, health insurance certainly is not.

But you do not have the right to the free use of someone else's labor. And lest you object that you are willing to compensate the health industry for its labor, whence cometh this compensation? From my labor. And that, you can be assured, is not yours to give away.

-----
* Unless you carelessly live in the only location where a vital strip mall can be built

Sphere: Related Content