Aug 27
2009

Shakespeare wrote, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” As we know, that didn’t happen. Four hundred years later, they’re killing us with the smothering pillow of hyper-proceduralism. Now the lawyers are about to smother the war on terror.

This Monday, the same day that Attorney General Eric Holder named a special prosecutor to investigate persons who conducted the CIA’s interrogations in the war on terror, Scotland’s Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill stood before his parliament and gave this defense for releasing convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi:

“It was not based on political, diplomatic or economic considerations. . . . My decision was made following due process, and according to the law of Scotland. I stand by the law and values of Scotland.”

Faced with a similarly fastidious assertion of the law’s triumphal self-regard in “Oliver Twist,” Mr. Bumble replied: “If the law supposed that, the law is a ass—a idiot.” Mr. Bumble added something acutely relevant to what is happening to the war on terror: “The worst I wish the law,” said Mr. Bumble, “is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

The experience of a world beset by terror eludes the eyes of a Kenny MacAskill, Eric Holder and others in the Obama administration. The rest of us may suffer for it.

In a May speech at the National Archives, President Obama, mirroring Kenny MacAskill’s remarks, said we had to “update our institutions” to deal with terrorism but “do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process.”

That “update” is upon us. The smothering pillows have arrived.

Attorney General Holder named Connecticut prosecutor John Durham to conduct an investigation into whether interrogations by CIA employees warrant a criminal inquiry. It has been shown repeatedly the past 25 years that an office of independent counsel or special prosecutor nearly always puts in motion an Inspector Javert-like hunt for an indictable defendant.

Mr. Holder’s justification, that his own reading of the “available facts” gave him no choice, is close to a preordained conclusion that Mr. Durham will cite one of these CIA guys for criminal prosecution.
View Full Image
wl0827
David Klein
wl0827
wl0827

The day of Mr. Holder’s announcement, CIA Director Leon Panetta said his agency received “multiple written assurances its methods were lawful.” It’s now clear that even playing by the rules cannot stop erosion by legal challenge.

That day also brought the release of CIA Inspector General John Helgerson’s 2004 report on the agency’s detention and interrogation of terror suspects. Both sides to this argument say the report supports their view of the CIA. No matter. What the release of the Helgerson report mainly does is open the dams on detainee lawsuits.

This litigation nightmare, together with the chilling effect of the special prosecutor’s potential indictments, has as its goal making the price of aggressive interrogation too high under any circumstance, including a one-hour-bomb scenario.

To supervise future interrogations, the administration is creating something called a High Value Detainee Interrogation Group. Interrogation techniques will be limited to those in the Army Field Manual or that are “noncoercive,” which suggests more constrained than a big-city police department. Authority is being moved from the CIA to the FBI.

This means that the class of person who blows up skyscrapers, American embassies or the USS Cole would spend less time under a bare light bulb than a domestic robbery suspect. The Los Angeles Times reported in May that the goal of a proposed administration “global justice initiative” would be to get all terror suspects into a U.S. or foreign court.

Eric Holder cited the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Responsibility as influencing his decision to proceed with a CIA special prosecutor. This is the legal office that is expected to release its long-awaited report on whether former Bush Justice lawyers John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury should be cited for misconduct for providing the CIA with legal opinions about these interrogations. If, as expected, the OPR cites the lawyers, legal groups will try to disbar them. After that, no lawyer will go near the war on terror.

Individually, some of this may be arguable. In toto, it’s a death sentence for an effective war on terror. It makes what’s left of the war—telephone wiretaps or monitoring money transfers—vulnerable to a steady stream of congressional and legal objection. That lets the Obama administration evade political responsibility by letting others wind down the war on terror.

The message of Scotland’s release and the Holder decision is that the will born in the wake of 9/11 is waning. The war on terror is being downgraded to not much more than tough talk. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Iranians, not yet converts to the West’s caricature of its own legal traditions, will take note. In time, they will be back. The second war on terror is in the future.
Write to henninger@wsj.com

Sent from my iPhone
+1(203)243-5450

Write to henninger@wsj.com

Blog Traffic Exchange Related Websites

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback Trackback  •  Posted in Uncategorized  

0 comments   Comments

 

Aug 16
2009

The battle for control of River Nile, the world’s longest river, has reached a critical stage with upstream states keen to safeguard use of its resources while two downstream states — Sudan and Egypt — want to continue riding on a lopsided agreement signed with the British colonialists some 80 years ago.

Under a framework agreed in Kinsasha in May, all countries — the others are Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania and Democratic Republic of Congo — were supposed to use the resources provided there was no significant harm to projects and access in other countries within the river basin.

Egypt and Sudan, however, have scoffed at this arrangement and want virtually all use by other states that would threaten their dependence on the river prohibited.

This would, in a nutshell, rule out all projects that would involve diversion of the river’s flow such as for irrigation, fish farming, and electricity generation in other countries.

The position taken by the two countries is to some extent understandable, given the desert conditions that prevail in most of their territory.

That it is also selfish is apparent in that the two countries want 90 per cent of the river’s waters exclusive to themselves, riding on an agreement whose legitimacy is at the very heart of the dispute.

Objectively, the agreement cannot continue in its present form and something eventually has to give.

This is exactly the concern that Kenyan legislators are raising. To their credit, they are urging for more negotiations and understanding of each party’s interests.

That contrasts sharply with the position of Egypt, which assumed chairmanship of the Nile Basin Council of Ministers last week.

Egypt’s water minister, Mohamed Nasreddin Allam, said the 1929 agreement was not negotiable and that it would not compromise the historic rights granted by that agreement.

This stubborn claim on historic rights, and the wider issue of water security which is key to Egypt’s agriculture production, have made the country come across as a recalcitrant neighbour who will readily trample down on the rights of citizens of East Africa to exploit natural resources that nature has bequeathed them.

A look through the historic rights proves that they are shameless and motivated by greed rather than any real threat on water security.

The 1929 pact signed between Egypt and Great Britain, and the 1959 Egypt, Sudan agreement which acts as a supplement to the previous accord and gives Egypt the right to 55.5 billion cubic meters of Nile water a year.

That out of about 90 billion cubic meters a year in total to which eight countries are entitled.

http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200908040716.html

Hotels St. Vital Shopping Center

Extended Long Stay Hotels Winnipeg Super 8 Portage Ave St.Vital

Fresh Winnipeg Pickerel Goldeye Fish
Strategic Intelligence

Blog Traffic Exchange Related Websites

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback Trackback  •  Posted in Uncategorized  

0 comments   Comments

 

Aug 3
2009

No turning back from Obamacare

By Mark Steyn

 

My conservative friends — and even a few media liberals — are agreed: The bloom is off the Obama rose. He’s not the Obamessiah, just another 50 percent president. He tried to do too much too fast, and his numbers are sinking. The Europeanization of health care is dead. Fuhgeddabouddit.


I wouldn’t be so sure. President Barack Obama has no choice but to move fast, in part because the image he presented during the campaign — a post-partisan, post-racial, post-anything-unpleasant-and-controversial pragmatic centrist — was a total crock. He has a vast transformative domestic agenda and, because most of its elements are not terribly popular, he has to accomplish it at speed or he won’t get it done at all.


Health care “reform”? As we’ve seen this past week in the House of Representatives, put not your trust in “Blue Dog Democrats.” And, as we’ll no doubt see in the weeks ahead in the Senate, put not your trust in “moderate Republicans” whose urge to “reach across the aisle” is so reflexive it ought to be covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.


The president needs to get something passed. Anything. The details don’t matter. Once it’s in place, health care “reform” can be re-reformed endlessly. Indeed, you’ll be surprised how little else we talk about. So, for example, public funding for abortions can be discarded now, and written in — as it surely will be by some judge — down the road. What matters is to ram it through, get it done, pass it now — in whatever form.


If this seems a perverse obsession for a nation with a weak economy, rising unemployment and a war on two fronts, it has a very sound strategic logic behind it. As I wrote in National Review a week or two back, health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. That’s its attraction for an ambitious president: It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists — to those who believe government has a legitimate right to regulate human affairs in every particular.


That’s not why it’s tanking in the polls, of course. It’s floundering because Obama sold it initially on the basis of “controlling costs,” and then the Congressional Budget Office let the cat out of the bag and pointed out that, au contraire, it would cost $1.6 trillion, and therefore either add to an unsustainable deficit, or require massive tax increases, or (more likely) both.


All of which is true. But to object to the governmentalization of health care on that basis implicitly concedes the argument that, if we could figure out a way to bring the price down, it would be fine and dandy. Right now, there are a lot of wonkish and utilitarian objections to what the Democrats want to do, and they’re gaining traction. In The American Spectator, Brandon Crocker points out that this is exactly the way things went over Hillarycare in 1993: Americans took against the plan on practical grounds but not against the underlying principle. “Since we did not win that philosophical argument in 1993,” Mr. Crocker writes, “we now have to fight the same battle today.” And, if we win on utilitarian grounds today, we’ll have to fight it again in 10 years, five years, maybe less — until something passes, and then everything changes, forever: As the IRA famously taunted Margaret Thatcher, we only have to get lucky once; you have to be lucky every day.


On the price tag: It’s often argued that, as a proportion of GDP, America spends more on health care than countries with government medical systems. But, as a point of fact, “America” doesn’t spend anything on health care: Hundreds of millions of people make hundreds of millions of individual decisions about what they’re going to spend on health care. Whereas up north a handful of bureaucrats determine what Canada will spend on health care — and that’s that: Health care is a government budget item. If Joe Hoser in Moose Jaw wants to increase Canada’s health care spending by $500 drawn from his savings account, he can’t: The law prevents it. Unless, as many Canadians do, he drives south and spends it in a U.S. hospital for treatment he can’t get in a timely manner in his own country.


You can make the “controlling costs” argument about anything: After all, it’s no surprise that millions of free people freely choosing how they spend their own money will spend it in different ways than government bureaucrats would be willing to license on their behalf. America spends more per capita on food than Zimbabwe. America spends more on vacations than North Korea. America spends more on lap-dancing than Saudi Arabia (well, officially). Canada spends more per capita on doughnuts than America, and, given comparative girths, Canucks are clearly not getting as much bang for the buck. Why doesn’t Ottawa introduce a National Doughnut Licensing Agency? You’d still see your general dispenser for simple procedures like a lightly sugared cruller but he’d refer you to a specialist if you needed, say, a maple-frosted custard, and it would only be a six-month wait, at the end of which you’d receive a stale cinnamon roll. Under government regulation, eventually every doughnut would be all hole and no doughnut, and the problem would be solved. Even if the hole costs $1.6 trillion.


How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?


That’s the argument that needs to be won. And, if you think I’m being frivolous in positing bureaucratic regulation of doughnuts and vacations, consider that under the all-purpose umbrellas of “health” and “the environment,” governments of supposedly free nations are increasingly comfortable straying into areas of diet and leisure. Last year, a British bill attempted to ban Tony the Tiger, longtime pitchman for Frosties, from children’s TV because of his malign influence on young persons. Why not just ban Frosties? Or permit it by prescription only? Or make kids stand outside on the sidewalk to eat it? It was also proposed — by the Conservative Party, alas — that, in the interests of saving the planet, each citizen should be permitted to fly a certain number of miles a year, after which he would be subject to punitive eco-surtaxes. Isn’t restricting freedom of movement kind of, you know … totalitarian?


Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks — drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high.


Government health care would be wrong even if it “controlled costs.” It’s a liberty issue. I’d rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices.

http://jewishworldreview.com/0809/steyn080309.php3

Blog Traffic Exchange Related Websites

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback Trackback  •  Posted in Uncategorized  

0 comments   Comments