President Obama's passivity before the threatened foreign prosecution of Bush administration officials achieves by inaction what he fears doing directly. This may be smart politics within the Democratic Party, but it risks grave long-term damage to the United States. Ironically, it could also come back to bite future Obama administration alumni, including the president, for their current policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Obama has taken ambiguous, and flatly contradictory, positions on whether to prosecute Bush administration advisers and decision makers involved in "harsh interrogation techniques." Although he immunized intelligence operatives who conducted the interrogations, morale at the CIA is at record lows. The president has played to the crowd politically, but the principles underlying his policies are opaque and continually subject to change. This hardly constitutes leadership.
Despite uncertainties here, developments overseas proceed apace. Spanish Magistrate Baltasar Garzón opened a formal investigation last week of six Bush administration lawyers for their roles in advising on interrogation techniques. Garzón did so over the objections of Spain's attorney general, as he did in 1998 in proceeding against former Chilean president Augusto Pinochet. Under Spain's inquisitorial judicial system, Garzón is essentially unaccountable, whatever the views of Spain's elected government.
Asked repeatedly about Garzón's investigation, the State Department has said only that it is a matter for the Spanish judicial system. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder went further, implying that the Obama administration could cooperate. "Obviously, we would look at any request that would come from a court in any country and see how and whether we should comply with it," Holder said. This is deeply troubling. Obama appears to be following the John Ehrlichman approach, letting the U.S. lawyers "twist slowly, slowly in the wind." Garzón's is far from a run-of-the-mill police investigation in which an American tourist abroad runs afoul of some local ordinance. Indeed, from what appears publicly, U.S. consular officials would do more for the tourist than Obama is doing for the former Bush officials. If Obama is attempting to end the Garzón investigation, it is one of our best-kept secrets in decades.
Although the six lawyers are in a precarious position, they are only intermediate targets. The real targets are President Bush and his most senior advisers, and the real aim is to intimidate U.S. officials into refraining from making hard but necessary decisions to protect our national security. There is never a shortage of second-guessers about U.S. foreign policy. For example, former U.N. high commissioner for human rights Mary Robinson said during the NATO-Serbia war over Kosovo that "civilian casualties are human rights victims." She asked, "If it is not possible to ascertain whether civilian buses are on bridges, should those bridges be blown?"
The question here is not whether one agrees or disagrees with the advice the lawyers gave, or with their superiors' operative decisions concerning interrogation techniques. Nor is it even whether one believes our Justice Department should launch criminal investigations into their actions. (I believe strongly that criminalizing policy disagreements is both inappropriate and destructive.)
Instead, the critical question is who judges the official actions that U.S. personnel took while holding government office. Is it our own executive and judicial branches, within our constitutional structures and protections, or some unaccountable foreign or international magistrate in some unaccountable distant court? The proper U.S. position is to insist that our Constitution alone governs any review of our officials' conduct.
This issue is not abstract. For the six lawyers, it has immediate effects on their lives, careers and families. Moreover, whether or not Obama has decided against prosecuting CIA agents, his decision in no way binds the creative mind of Señor Garzón, a man who has never shied from spotlights. Indeed, U.N. Special Rapporteur Manfred Nowak has already said that the other 145 states party to the Convention Against Torture must launch their own criminal investigations if the United States does not.
Behind-the-scenes diplomacy is often the best, and sometimes the only, way to accomplish important policy objectives, and one hopes that such efforts are underway. But in this case, firm and public statements are necessary to stop the pending Spanish inquisition and to dissuade others from proceeding. The president must abandon his Ehrlichman-like policy and pronounce unequivocally that Spain should take whatever steps are necessary to stop Garzón.
Otherwise, in four or eight years, like Mary Robinson before them, future second-guessers will decide, say, that U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan constitute war crimes, and that former commander in chief Obama must be hauled before the bar of some mini-state to stand trial. After all, his decisions involve risking civilian deaths, not just shoving terrorists into a wall (and no protective neck braces, either).
Will President Obama's successor vigorously dispute the legitimacy of foreign prosecutions, or will she follow the current Obama policy and let the foreign investigation proceed, perhaps even to trial? Obama and his advisers should think carefully about that second scenario -- now.
The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).
Posted by: john frum ||
05/06/2009 10:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"This may be smart politics within the Democratic Party, but it risks grave long-term damage to the United States."
For far too many Democrats that's a feature, not a bug.
Hat tip Instapundit
Has Barack Obama made an enemy who can sabotage his presidency?
The presidency of George W. Bush began to unravel when some in high positions at the Central Intelligence Agency began waging a covert campaign against him.
...The CIA's war against President Bush was motivated by ass covering, or by political partisanship. But with President Obama, it's personal.
...Other Western intelligence services regard the Obama administration with contempt and rising concern, an officer of the DGSE, France's military intelligence agency, told my friend Jack Wheeler (the real life Indiana Jones) last week.
"All of us in our little community are worried -- us, our friends in Berlin, London, Tel Aviv," the DGSE officer told Jack. "It is not like the barbarians at the gates. It is every barbarian horde in the world being told there are no gates."
#4
It no looks like the Obama administration may persue disbar-ment for some of the Attorneys who gave opinions. Officials conducting the internal Justice Department inquiry into the lawyers who wrote those memos have recommended referring two of the three lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action, according to a person familiar with the inquiry. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was not authorized to discuss the inquiry.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
05/06/2009 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
How's that hope and change workin' for ya, Langley? (I'm certain they were solidly for the O man back in November.....)
#8
Scary that Bammo is willing to make so many enemies among folks he needed to win the presidency. Why doesn't he think he'll be needing those friends anymore?
In 2008, exit polls showed the percentage of voters earning more than $100,000 had jumped to a historic high of 26 percent, compared with just 9 percent in 1996. Obamas strong showing among this bloc reversed a decades-old pattern in which the more money someone made, the more likely he or she was to vote Republican.
But these voters are not being repaid for their support more like the other way around.
Beyond the obviously wealthy voters, people who in many places are no more than upper middle class find themselves targeted to pay for a wide range of Obama policies aimed at leveling the economic playing field.
The notion that people who are in those income brackets are Republican isnt true anymore, said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. In part, he added, thats because of the way they made their money in high-tech, legal or service professions that skew liberal, rather than through traditional Main Street businesses that skew conservative.
Obamas gamble that he can ask affluent progressives to pay more without complaint has been made riskier by the collapse of home prices and stock portfolios. Many well-to-do voters who may have been in a magnanimous frame of mind when they cast their ballots last November are not nearly so rich now.
If Obama comes down more heavily on them, how will they react? Will their support fade? We dont know the answers, said Mark Penn, a Democratic strategist who conducted polling for the Clinton White House and advised Hillary Clinton in the presidential campaign.
Obamas mild rhetoric about asking, in some cases, those who are more fortunate ... to pay a little bit more hardly constitutes class warfare to most middle-earning Americans. Whats more, he has delayed by a year his proposal to raise top rates back to their Clinton-era levels.
But within Obamas policies there is a notable degree of class-consciousness and a consistent strategy to target the costs and limit the benefits of Obamas program for upper earners.
#5
and i kept warning my brother (who's in that bracket and voted for Obama) to watch where he swung that populism around, 'cause next to my paycheck, bro, you ARE "The Man" you want to stick it to...
#6
"If Obama comes down more heavily on them, how will they react? Will their support fade? We don't really give a shit know the answers," said Mark Penn"
Executive Summary -- The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY.
The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana. The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal -- confiscation of privately owned firearms.
Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obamas face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.
Important Points -- If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.
#2
If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then...
...then what happens if you want to move out of Montana? Must you transfer them back to a citizen of Montana?
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
05/06/2009 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The feds will have to challenge this law, not because of any major change to firearms law, but because it opens the door to a vast array of other 10th Amendment challenges that would diminish the size of the federal government by as much as 50%.
#4
I read the bill a few months ago and even suggested some alternative wording. It's very clever in that it tracks exactly what SCOTUS has said are the contours of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. This bill was designed to be challenged and to win.
And yes, you will need to leave your Montana guns in Montana if you leave the state (permanently or temporarily).
Katzenbach v McClung 379 US 294 (1964)is exactly on point. There the S.Ct. unanimously upheld enforcement of federal civil rights legislation against a diner under the auspices of the Commerce Clause because roughly half the diner's supplies, while purchased from a local supplier, had originated out of state.
Relevant questions for Montana's challenge: Were all finished parts for the Montana guns actually produced in Montana? If so, did Montana-based businesses produce all of the raw materials present in the finished parts? If so, were all of the tools & machines used to work the raw materials produced entirely in Montana? If so, do those tools and machines contain parts or raw materials sourced outside Montana? That's a good bit farther than Katzenbach went and, to the best of my knowledge, is a good bit farther than any S.Ct. precedent has gone. However it's the path of least resistance to protecting federal civil rights legislation and all of the other federal regulatory schemes that are based on the Commerce Clause. Thus Montana may inadvertently wind up strengthening and extending federal Commerce Clause regulation rather than avoiding it.
More interesting to me would be the impact of an interstate compact identical to the Montana law. If a number of states sufficient to call a Constitutional Convention were to sign on the compact itself would become a third rail that perhaps even the S.Ct. would simply decline to touch. Too bad there are no clever lawyers in pro-gun state legislatures. :(
#6
Canadian police do NOT enter a crime scene without conducting an address/suspect/informant check of the Firearms Registry database. Police unions all advocate general confiscation, and are invoking "officer safety" to withhold effective protective service. Currently, Canadian cops take over twice as long as their US counterparts to answer a major crime complaint. Once they engineered the Registry, they commenced their pre-confiscation plan. If you think the NRA is full of paranoids, go to Canada and you will come back think that they are prophets.
#7
If a number of states sufficient to call a Constitutional Convention were to sign on , the results might be even less desirable than our present lamentable condition. Remember how many votes Obama got? What sort of Constitution would his supporters go for?
#8
Thus Montana may inadvertently wind up strengthening and extending federal Commerce Clause regulation rather than avoiding it.
As a practical matter, this is impossible. Current interpretations of the Commerce Power are essentially limitless (Lopez notwithstanding). A rare example where things really couldn't get any worse.
#10
... the results might be even less desirable than our present lamentable condition.
Agree 100% but I'm not suggesting a Constitutional Convention, I'm suggesting an interstate compact with the participation of at least as many states as would be required to call a Constitutional Convention. The purpose of said compact could be anything but relevant to this discussion it would be the understanding of the several states' as to the rights, obligations & limitations of the 2nd Amendment.
Such a compact would, of course, not be binding authority on any federal court but it would be the strongest message that could possibly be sent to our federal government as to the positions of the people vis a vis the 2nd Amendment.
It would be very difficult for federal courts to run roughshod over the unified stance of, say, 40 states whereas it's very easy for the federal courts to simply ignore the present maze of conflicting state laws while crafting their own.
Similarly it would be difficult for a national political party to stand strongly against the will of that many state legislatures. Not that they wouldn't but I'd think their would be a higher liklihood of a real imposed cost to them for doing so. In effect this might supplant the skewed public opinion polling lefties so love to cite on this issue.
At any rate it's just a thought. I do belive individual state laws are doomed to failure and that only by acting in concert would the states have any hope at all of imposing their will on the federal government.
#11
As a practical matter, this is impossible. Current interpretations of the Commerce Power are essentially limitless (Lopez notwithstanding). A rare example where things really couldn't get any worse.
Trust me, things can always get worse. ;)
As a practical matter I've believed for some time that we need an absolute cap on the size & cost of government. E.g. (off-the-cuff suggestion here): an Amendment limiting the spending & regulatory cost of federal government as a percentage of GDP. They could keep their unlimited sandbox but would be automatically restricted as they overreach; I like the incentives inherent in that sort of thing tough I doubt I'll live long enough to even see it seriously discussed.
#12
This action, as well as push back by other states such as Oklahoma and Texas, stike me as the opening moves in a second civil war. Reading the other headlines on rantburg and other sites today, I think it is highly questionable that Obama has enough support to deal with this type of State push back. What is he going to do about States that refuse to acknowledge powers the Federal Government does not have? Send in troops? It is highly unlikely that he could muster enough support among the US military or the National Guards to maintain they type of control he needs to continue his agenda of stripping American citizens of their wealth and their freedoms. Our founding fathers were very wise indeed.
#13
It'll make the European Union Constitution look like a pamphlet.
While our 'Constitution' may be a few pages compared to the EU model, its backed up literally with a law library of interpretations, numerations, and precedents. Most of a revised Constitution will end up similar to the EU model in size just trying to constrain the lawyer and judicial class who think they should be the ruling caste of America, unless you put provision for direct accountability and term limits.
#14
federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines.
The Courts have in the past upheld federal jurisdiction on the grounds that activity entirely within a given state DISPLACED interstate commerce and was therefor subject to federal regulation.
#15
The Courts have in the past upheld federal jurisdiction.
But as more states and citizens challenge the federal governments authority, the real question becomes what does the Federal Government intend to do if multiple States refuse to accept it
Considering how serious this game has recently become, it is unlikely that this is going to end well, unless the Obama administration just decides to back off their intentions to steal our wealth and strip us of our rights. This is no longer a political parlor game, it is a fight to prevent the creation of a tyranny that will control us. I'm not advocating for civil war by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just noting that multiple states are beginning to question and reject the authority of the Federal Government. That's a formula for civil war. I hope it never happens.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
