Posts
Obama's decision to release the legal memos on interrogation techniques prepared by OLC lawyers during the Bush Administration was a wrong-headed move meant by Obama to, one, show his moral superiority to the world, and two, to satisfy his radical base who have been clamoring for years to prosecute Bush and his administration, ostensibly for war crimes, etc. It comes at a cost of the severely degrading of our national security and, with Obama's decision to allow persecution of the OLC lawyers, has opened a Pandora's Box that could well tear this nation apart. . . . Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, cautioned that the memos were written at a time when C.I.A. officers were frantically working to prevent a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Apparently, the respect afforded Obama by Le Monde journalists takes precendce in his mind over American national security and the safety of its citizens. That is a luxury, if not a fantasy, that Obama can revel in simply because we have been successful in interdicting terrorist attacks since 9-11. At the Central Intelligence Agency, it's known as "slow rolling." That's what agency officers sometimes do on politically sensitive assignments. They go through the motions; they pass cables back and forth; they take other jobs out of the danger zone; they cover their backsides. Read the entire article. But Ignatius speaks only of the non-legal members of the CIA. What of the lawyers who have to decide whether something proposed by the CIA is legal and give guidance to the agency. Any lawyer who would willingly even render an opinion in such an instance now would be the penultimate fool. Make no mistake, the witch hunt just unleashed by Obama will turn our intelligence agencies and their legal advisors into the most risk averse organization on this planet. Our ability to gather intelligence from here forward is now seriously compromised. No need to take my word for that, you can take the former CIA Director's, Gen. Hayden. Further, we are likely to see legal advice of the kind provided by Jamie Goerlick that, in an effort to cover her legal ass, was a direct cause of the intelligence failures of 9-11. So: We were once in danger. Now we live in "a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009." Now, in April 2009, Obama's Director of National Intelligence seems to be saying, we're safe. Read the entire article. Those questions posed by Mr. Kristol are very pertinent indeed. I suppose, that a series of fortunate coincidences has resulted in the public disclosure of only that information that will be politically helpful to the Obama administration. It is also possible that Dick Cheney has taken up synchronized swimming in his retirement. Read the entire article. An honest and thorough review of the enhanced interrogation program must also assess the likely damage done to U.S. national security by Mr. Obama's decision to release the memos over the objections of Mr. Panetta and four of his predecessors. Such a review should assess what this decision communicated to our enemies, and also whether it will discourage intelligence professionals from offering their frank opinions in sensitive counterterrorist cases for fear that they will be prosecuted by a future administration. Somehow I doubt the far left now holding the reins of power in Washington will be amenable to any of those areas of inquiry. Read Rep. Hoeksta's entire article.
___________________________________________________
On Thursday last, ostensibly in response to a lawsuit filed by one of the most destructive forces in American society, the ACLU, President Obama ordered the Justice Dept. to withdraw its state-secrets objections to the release of four memos from the Bush years. These memos were drafted by the Office of Legal Counsel in response to queries from the CIA as to whether certain interrogation techniques were lawful under U.S. law and our treaty obligations.
To be clear, the government was under no true compulsion to release these memos. The State Secrets defense would have worked in this case, even if the lower Court had ruled otherwise. Such a ruling never would have survived appeal, one, because the material's release would work harm to our national security and, two, because procedurally, the appropriate members of Congress had been briefed and given their approval to the program. Obama's claim that the lawsuit justified release of the memos was an utter canard. Further, Obama ordered the release of these memos over the strong objection of five current and former intelligence chiefs.
So why do it?
Clearly, Obama was trying to establish his moral superiority with the chattering classes throughout the world. He is and was explicit about that. The NYT reported that Obama "condemned what he called a “dark and painful chapter in our history” and said that the interrogation techniques would never be used again." There has been other similar moral preening since. The NYT Times also reported:
“Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing,” said Mr. Blair in a written statement. “But we will absolutely defend those who relied on these memos.”
I think it reasonable to speculate that Obama also took this move - releasing the memos but saying initially that no one would be prosecuted over them, either at CIA or OLC - as a bone to quiet his radical base. He grossly miscalculated. It only increased their lust for blood, but more on that later.
All of this raises a series of issues. Specifically, this will do untold harm to our nation's security by degrading the effectiveness of intelligence efforts and creating an incredibly risk averse legal class. I am speaking here of the kind of legal class in that gave us the Jamie Goerlick's infamous Chinese Wall. Further, and amazingly, it presumes that we are now safe from terrorist attack. Three, it was and is a very selective release of information. Four, it ignores the role of Congress in this process. And lastly, it has truly opened a Pandora's Box, given Obama's threat to cross the Rubicon and pursue prosecution of the OLC lawyers. That is the criminalization of political differences - something unknown in this country.
As to the effect this release of memos has had on the CIA, there was this from left wing commentator David Ignatius:
Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, "hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway." President Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution.
The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard. . . .
A second issue raised is what this means for the terrorism threat. The irony of the remarks by the Obama Administration upon release of the memos and their implication is plumbed by Bill Kristol in an excellent essay at the Weekly Standard:
Good news, if true. And it would be an amazing tribute to the preceding administration's efforts in the war on terror--efforts that Democrats have been saying for years were making us less safe. Apparently, the old policies worked. The threat from al Qaeda has gone. We now have the luxury of "reflection," as President Obama put it in his statement, the luxury of debating and deploring what we did back in the bad old days when there was a war on. After all, "we have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history."
Leave aside how dark and painful the chapter really was. The question is, Is it over? Is the chapter in which we had to focus on preventing further attacks really through? Isn't there still a war against the jihadists on?
Of course Blair and other senior Obama officials have elsewhere suggested that the terror threat remains real, and even urgent. Why else the maintenance of the Bush era surveillance program? Why else the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, and to deploy more Predator strikes into Pakistan?
But can we then afford Obama's "dark and painful chapter" attitude, exemplified by his forgoing certain interrogation techniques in the present and future, and his exposing and deploring what was done in the past? Can we afford an intelligence director who tries to excuse his boss by telling us we are now safe?
As we now know, this release of information by Obama - with some very pertinent redactions - was very selective indeed. While he released information on the interrogation tactics and decried them as of little value, he withheld information on the intelligence garnered as a result of those interrogation techniques. Other information released in the past week has been subject to similar careful editing, though the Obama administration has claimed inadvertence. Stephen Hayes, also writing at the Weekly Standard, takes note and sees therein the deliberate politicizing of intelligence:
In order to evaluate the enhanced interrogation program in the public square, it is of obvious importance that we know 1) what, if any ill effects those subject to these techniques suffered, 2) the value of information gleaned from use of these techniques, and 3) whether the information could have been extracted without use of the techniques. As to bullet one, none of the people on whom these techniques were used have complained of any lasting effect of which I am aware. As to bullets two and three, by just about every account I have read, from George Tenet to Michal Hayden and even to the current intelligence chief - an avowed opponent of the program - the information gleaned from use of these techniques saved countless innocent American lives by allowing the breakup of plans to attack in Los Angles and New York. The New York Times today claims that its impossible to say whether the information saved lives. I seriously doubt that, but will await release of unredacted documents and further information before making a final decision.
Yet another issue, in light of Obama's green lighting of prosecution of the OLC attorneys for rendering legal opinions in this matter, is the role of Congress. Representative Peter Hoeksta notes in the WSJ today that members of both parties were repeatedly briefed on the enhanced interrogation tactics employed on three select detainees and that nary an eye - including Nancy Pelosi's eye - was batted. As Rep. Hoekstra notes, regarding calls for an investigation, it must assess Congressional approval of the program, it must include a full review of the information gleaned as a result of the program, and lastly:
Perhaps we need an investigation not of the enhanced interrogation program, but of what the Obama administration may be doing to endanger the security our nation has enjoyed because of interrogations and other antiterrorism measures implemented since Sept. 12, 2001.
Lastly, when Obama announced his decision to release these memos, he likewise indicated that he did not intend for anyone to be prosecuted for them. As Hot Air notes, like virtually all Obama pronouncements of principle, this one came with an expiration date. By Monday, no doubt in response to vociferous urging from his radical far left base, Obama announced open season for prosecution of the lawyers who drafted the legal memos approving of the enhanced interrogation techniques.
I blogged on my analysis of the legal memos here. I read them in full and with an open mind. I know more than a little about the law. My conclusion regarding the OLC memos was that they present colorable legal arguments that the enhanced interrogation techniques fell short of the legal definition of "torture." I also concluded that there were some weaknesses in the analysis such that reasonable people could disagree. That said, as of yet, I have heard not a single principled argument in disagreement. I emphasize that because quite literally everyone I have seen and heard on the topic has cited no opposing precedent to support their conclusory assertions and labels that the interrogation techniques were unlawful torture. At any rate, what Obama, Soros and the far left want to do now is, as they indicated prior to the election, criminalize their disagreement. I could imagine no greater threat to the fabric of our nation. Even the attempt to do this is going to set off a maelstrom the likes of which we have never seen in this country since, well, 1861 I would have to say.
It does not end there. As I see it, if Obama and his far left base succeed in successfully prosecuting the attorneys over this, then President Obama will have abandoned his most sacred duty - to support and defend the Constitution. That is the day the far left crosses the Rubicon and we cease to be a free nation. The day any one of the OLC attorneys are marched into prison because of a political disagreement can and should be the day a true civil war - one that involves violence - starts in this country. Trust me when I say that up until three days ago, never did I think it the remotest possibility that those words would ever pass my lips.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Obama: Releasing Memos & Degrading Our National Security
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
For Every Dark Cloud . . .
. . . there is a silver lining.
On this day - when the far left holds all the reigns of power, when they are spending our country into penury, when they are putting the nails in the economic coffin with cap and trade, and when they now threaten to turn us into a third world dictatorship by criminalizing political differences . . . there is still some very good news. If I read this right, the NYT, that left wing rag which bears much responsiblity for our current situation, is closing in on economic collapse. They have debts of $1.3 billion and effective cash reserves of only $34 million. Further, "in the past year, the Times cut its dividend, mortgaged its headquarters and borrowed $225 million at a hefty interest rate from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim." Their stock is currently trading under $5 a share. This is a company that, prior to Pinch moving it hard to the left at the beginning of this decade, was trading at over $50 a share.
As far as I'm concerned, this is proof that God exists.
Return to the Council
First up, we have a vacancy on the Watcher's Council. If you would like to join, please visit the Watcher's site. You will find a link to instructions on how to apply on the right sidebar of the site.
Each week, the members of the Watcher's Council nominate one of their own posts and a second from outside the Council for consideration by other council members in a contest for best post. The Watcher publishes the results each Friday morning.
Terry Trippany plays the role of Watcher of Weasels. Do visit the Watcher's Site for his theme of the week - this week being a video recap of the origins of the sub-prime crisis, a topic made apropos by the suicide today of Freddie Mac's CEO.
This week's nominations are:
_______________________________________________________
Council Submissions
Right Truth - Witch Hunts (and you are the witch)
There are very troubling signs coming from the far left that they really do intend to criminalize political differences. Debbie at Right Truth that, coming on the heals of a DHS Memo painting virtually all conservatives and veterans as dangerous radicals with the capacity to go rogue, the Obama FBI taped the benign tea party events. Add to this the Obama administration green lighting of criminal prosecutions for Bush Administration officials involved in giving legal advice in the War On Terror and you have very ominous storm clouds starting to peak over the horizon.
The Provocateur - Dr. Andrew Agwunobi Strikes Again
Mike covers the highly checkered past of a Dr. now in charge of Providence Health Care and ponders how he can continue to be employed as a CEO in the industry.
Joshuapundit - The Real Holocaust Denial
In response to a speech by Iran's Supreme Mouth yet again intimating the destruction of Israel - a speech given on Holocaust Rememberance Day in Israel. Robert covers the complicity of the Arab World in the holocaust as well as the anti-Israel roles played by Western nations in the aftermath of World War II. Robert sees inexcusable ignorance in the leaders of the West today for deliberately ignoring the signs of an approaching attempt at a second Holocaust.
The Razor - Obama Administration Sucking Moonbats Out of Private Sector
This is a great post that actually deals more with how and why newspapers are sinking today than anything else. The starting point for the essay is the Obama hire of a true radical, Rosa Brooks, into his administration - and out of the world of newspaper journalism.
Rhymes With Right - About The Secession Thing
RWR gives us his view on the secession talk of his governor. I disagree strongly with his conclusions - as the saying goes, a house divided . . . That said, the thought of armed insurrection to free political prisoners, should the Obama Administration go forward with its plans to criminalize dissent does sound reasonable to me.
The Glittering Eye - For the Want of a Horseshoe Nail
David looks at an excellent economic barometer in his own back yard - the ability of a neighbor and contractor to get credit for a bond.
Bookworm Room - Honing our arguments
BWR looks at the bright side of trolls - arguing with them, while it can be frustrating, also improves one's own thought process and reasoning skills for deal with the simply misguided.
Soccer Dad - Preoccupied with occupation
Soccer Dad is on the same page with Seraphic Secret on this one, and I would recommend reading the two posts together. The bottom line of both posts is that "occupation" of Arab lands is not the cause of Arab - nor Iranian - violence against Israel. That is merely a pretense.
Wolf Howling - Throwing Green Fuel On An Economic Fire
I think the decision to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant will be devestating to our economy.
Non-Council Submissions
Submitted By: Right Truth - American Daughter - The Intimidation Begins
Submitted By: The Provocateur - Portfolio - Confessions of a TARP CEO’s Wife
Submitted By: Joshuapundit - Doug Ross@Journal - Let Them Eat Dirt
Submitted By: The Razor - The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute - The Coming of the Fourth American Republic
Submitted By: Rhymes With Right - Right On The Left COast - Close West Point?
Submitted By: The Glittering Eye - Rortybomb - Ban Mortgage Prepayment Penalties at the Federal Level, 1: Texas
Submitted By: Bookworm Room - Britannica Blog - Shock peace therapy for the mideast
Submitted By: Soccer Dad - Elder of Ziyon - More of those “civilians” killed in Gaza (UPDATED)
Submitted By: Wolf Howling - AIFD - Obama Administration Stacking the Deck with Islamists
Submitted By: The Watcher - Thomas Sowell at The Jewish World Review - Are You an ‘Extremist’?
Chickens, Eggs & Coerrcive Interrogation At WaPo
Its an age old conundrum - which came first, the chicken or the egg. It has no identifiable answer because both are necessary for the chicken life cycle. Nonetheless, WaPo has apparently decided it in favor of the chicken. The Wapo is expressing outrage, shock and horror that the CIA considered using coeercive interrogation before asking for a legal opinion from the OLC.
The Chicken: The lead story at the Washington Post is "Harsh Tactics Readied Before Their Approval"
Intelligence and military officials under the Bush administration began preparing to conduct harsh interrogations long before they were granted legal approval to use such methods -- and weeks before the CIA captured its first high-ranking terrorism suspect, Senate investigators have concluded.
Previously secret memos and interviews show CIA and Pentagon officials exploring ways to break Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees in early 2002, up to eight months before Justice Department lawyers approved the use of waterboarding and nine other harsh methods, investigators found.
Ummm, no kidding?
The Egg: What the WaPo fails to do is explain how the lawyers at OLC could ever have been asked to render a legal opinion on these matters if the CIA hadn't considered the coercive interrogation methods first and decided they wanted to use them.
I am reminded of the story of one politician of the last century who is reputed to have used accusatory language in speeches against his opponent to describe wholly normal, benign events with a decidedly sinister twinge. If I recall correctly, one of the lines of his speech was - At college, my opponent MARTICULATED!!!! I see little if any difference between that politician and today's WaPo coverage of the coeercive interrogation techniques.
This article, though far more articulate than that written by the NYT and slightly fisked in my post below, tracks many of the same talking points as the NYT article. The big talking point is the claim that coeercive interrogation methods do not work and are likely to lead to false information. Lacking even the modicum of intellectual honesty displayed by the NYT, WaPo raises this claim in its article but neglects to include claims that such methods were directly responsible for saving American lives.
There are a few other lines from the WaPo article that are noteworthy. One is how they conclude the article, after suggesting that, on one occasion, coeercive interrogation techniques may have been used before the OLC finalized their opinion.
Brent Mickum, one of Abu Zubaida's attorneys in a habeas corpus proceeding in U.S. District Court in Washington, said he believes the Justice Department's Aug. 1, 2002, memo retroactively approved coercive tactics that had already been used.
"If torture occurred before the memo was written, it's not worth the paper it's written on, and the writing of the memo is potentially criminal," Mickum said.
That is a non-sequiter if there ever was one. It is a collateral attack on the legal opinions in an attempt to discredit them without having to address the substance of the opinions. Further, it presupposes that 1) the OLC wrote their memos with the foreknowledge that the tactics were already in use, and 2) wrote their finding specifically to justify the use, ignoring precedents which, as I discussed in a post here, do not apparently exist. Both are spin and pure speculation. The WaPo of course raises none of those issues, merely finishing with the good soundbyte.
There are two final points raised in the article worthy of mention. The first is from Senator Carl Levin who is apparently readying a highly selective witch hunt in Congress and is attempting to somehow shoehorn the coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA into the "frat party" stunts of some out of control enlisted soldiers at Abu Ghraib:
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the committee, said the new findings show a direct link between the early policy decisions and the highly publicized abuses of detainees at prisons such as Abu Ghraib in Iraq.
"Senior officials sought out information on, were aware of training in, and authorized the use of abusive interrogation techniques," Levin said. "Those senior officials bear significant responsibility for creating the legal and operational framework for the abuses."
He is right, senior officials were aware - including Senate and House Democratic leadership who were briefed on the coeercive interrogation techniques in 2002. How he is going to get around that is something I am waiting to see.
Lastly, there was this interesting paragraph:
The report shows Pentagon officials reaching out to the military agency for advice on interrogations as early as December 2001 and finding some specialists eager to help. By late 2001, counterterrorism officials were becoming frustrated by the paucity of useful leads coming from interrogations -- a meager showing that was linked, according to one Army major, to interrogators' insistence on "establishing a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq," the report said.
Setting aside for a moment that it attempts to raise the tired canard that there was no link between al Qaeda and Iraq, the fact that there were a "paucity of useful leads" certainly suggests that normal interrogation methods were failing. I am sure we will see much more of this in the days to come.
Torture At The Times
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who in 2002 was the ranking Democrat on the House committee, has said in public statements that she recalls being briefed on the methods, including waterboarding. She insists, however, that the lawmakers were told only that the C.I.A. believed the methods were legal — not that they were going to be used. Of that doesn't bend you over in laughter you have no sense of humor. This is the Pelosi variant of Bill Clinton's famous "I didn't inhale." It is beyond any reasonable belief. Its the "I am really a clueless airhead" defense. Hmmmmm, that said, it might work for her. 
That most left wing of rags, the NYT, runs an utterly bizzare lead article today on waterboarding, the purpose of which is to paint waterboarding as actual "torture" beyond the bounds of legitimate debate. They are setting the stage for the show trials against the members of the Office of Legal Counsel, discussed in the post below, who first opined that waterboarding was not "torture" within the legal definition of that term.
In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Inquiry Into Their Past Use is possibly the most poorly written and poorly reasoned article I have read in a long time. In it, the NYT authors throw the kitchen sink at waterboarding in an effort to paint it as torture that should never have been approved. I won't bother to fisk this utterly bizzare piece beyond a few points.
One, the logic at the heart of this piece is more torturous that any act of waterboarding could possibly be. The main thesis of the authors is that forms of waterboarding have been used throughout history to actually torture people by evil or medieval regimes and that waterboarding would never have been approved if Bush, Tennent et. al had known of this history.
One, the authors are just incredibly sloppy in lumping all forms of this technique into a single heading. There is no comparison between many of the forms of "waterboarding" used by historic regimes that involve actual drowning or destruction of throat and lung tissue with the methods adopted by the U.S. See discussion here. Beyond that, what do the "gruesome origins" of this technique have to do with how a safe variant of it was used in the U.S.?
Two, the authors make a huge deal out of the fact that many believe that use of this technique would lead to false confessions. One, it was never used to extract confessions by our CIA, it was used to gather intelligence. Two, by all accounts, it succeeded wonderfully in that capacity. Use of the technique is explicitly credited with thwarting a 9-11 style attack in Los Angeles following information provided by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed under waterboarding. Everyone in the know, from George Tennent on down - and up - is vociferous in their indications that waterboarding KSM was a major key in stopping al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. that would have occurred otherwise. The NYT finally comes around to that fact, but only after mentioning multiple times that waterboarding is an ineffective method of coercive interrogation likely to result in false information. It is surreal.
By far my biggest chuckle from this ridiculous piece of agenda journalism came when I read of how the top Democrats and Republicans were briefed on waterboarding in 2002, with Nancy Pelosi being among that select group. That fact certainly muddles the ground for anyone to prosecute merely those who rendered a legal opinion on waterboarding. Ah but, as the NYT notes, she really was cluseless:
Oh well, all good for a chuckle as the NYT tries to set the stage for political show trials against those in the Office of Legal Council who wrote the memos providing an opinion of legality for waterboarding. I would imagine the NYT will manufacture an article every day or so on this for the next month at least in order to keep it in the public eye. They just aren't loosing stock value fast enough.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Torture, Persecution and Morality
The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles. So where do you think the moral choice lies? . . . an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody of physical control. I must admit, I had a real belly laugh reading both the hard left and some of their apologists on this issue who paint the answers to the above question as crystal clear and beyond the scope of any legitimate debate. For example, this from, surprisingly, Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse: As the Bybee memo proves beyond any reasonable doubt, the Administration was seeking a legal fig leaf in order to skirt that law as well as international treaties of which we are a signatory that clearly defines torture. This is conclusory - and completely ridiculous. I defy Rick or anyone else on the frothing left to come up with the actual precedent showing this "clear" definition of torture. More so, I defy them to show how this clear precedent - which they all seem able to identify with ease on the left - applies to bring waterboarding or, for that matter, any other technique as described in the memos under the legal definition of "torture." Section 1340 defines torture as the inf1iction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering. We will consider physical pain and mental pain seperately. See 18 U.S.C. § 2340(1). With respect to physical pain, we previously concluded that "severe pain" within the meaning of Section 2340 is pain that is difficult for the individual to endure and is of such intensity akin to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, See Section 2340A Memorandum at 6. Drawing upon the TVPA {Terror Victims Prevention Act} precedent, we have noted that examples of acts inflicting severe pain that typify torture are, among other things, severe beatings with weapons such as clubs, and the burning of prisoners. See id at 24. We conclude below that none of the proposed techniques inflicts such pain. Feel free to pick this apart - so long as you do so without simply stating unsupported conclusions.
Obama today opened the door for political show trials of those individuals in the Office of Legal Counsel who, when requested by the CIA, rendered a legal opinion that certain proposed methods of interrogation did not constitute torture and were legal under U.S. law and treaties. This is purely and simply the criminalization of political disagreement, far more reminiscent of Stalinist Russia than any period in U.S. history. It highlights the moral cowardice of the left masquerading as moral superiority. It further displays the left's utter disregard for freedom of speech and their intolerance of dissent.
____________________________________________________________
The left, and Obama in particular, have made a huge show of claiming that the coercive interrogation of al Qaeda prisoners to obtain intelligence - not confessions, mind you, but intelligence to protect thousands of innocents against these psychopaths - was immoral and illegal. According to Obama at his speech to the CIA yesterday, the interrogation methods used by the CIA on at least two suspects, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zabaydah, were in violation of the letter of the law and the spirit of American "values" - a term he did not define. And according to Obama today, the door is now open for the prosecution of those attorneys who wrote legal opinions finding that the enhance interrogation techniques were lawful. You can find the legal opinions here.
Let's take the moral issue first since this turns morality on its head. Put yourself in the shoes of the President - the person charged with the defense of our nation. Now, let's assume for a moment the following are true:
1. We have captured Prisoner X, a high ranking member of al Qaeda.
2. Prisoner X undoubtedly has knowledge of plans or people who are planning to kill innocent Americans and who will, if given the opportunity, do so on a massive scale.
3. The information Prisoner X possesses has a reasonably high likelihood of allowing the U.S. to thwart those plans.
4. Prisoner X has not provided any intelligence in response to normal methods of interrogation.
5. Prisoner X may well respond to repeated applications of coercive techniques that cause short term pain of moderate intensity, panic and emotional distress, but which a) causes no long term damage; and b) are sufficiently safe that they are used on our own military in training.
6. If you refuse to push the limits of the interrogation beyond the norm into a this moderately gray area based on your conscience, then you are, in all probability, condemning many innocent Americans to die.
Assuming all of the above are true, which is the truly moral position to take in this case?
Is drawing a bright line at the use of coercive techniques truly the most moral option? Many innocent people whom you are sworn to protect will die if you choose not go beyond normal interrogation tactics. On the other side of the balance sheet, do so and you get to go to sleep feeling morally superior. Plus you maintain popularity with the chattering classes of the far left, here and in Europe.
My question is, then, if you choose the bright line and refuse to engage in coercive interrogation, isn't that really just narcissism and utopianism masquerading as morality? Is it in fact a position of supreme moral cowardice?
Please note that every condition I have described above actually applied to Abu Zabaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Numerous CIA officials and, most recently, Dick Cheney have credited the use of those coercive techniques with saving numerous innocent lives. Indeed, there is this today from CNS News:
Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”
According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”
Having addressed the moral issue, let's take a look at the legal one's as expressed in the recent Justice Dept. memo's released by Obama. For those on the left clamoring to destroy the right by using the police powers of our nation - and to whom Obama today gave a green light - the legal opinions rendered by John Yoo, and others are beyond any question criminal. To listen to these people is to believe that there is no room for honest difference of opinion.
Putting aside the conclusory labels of the far left for a moment, and before delving into the legalese, let's apply some common sense to arrive at a working definition of "torture." Its much harder than it seems as you move away from techniques that are obviously torture.
Let's start with the obvious ones. The al Qaeda field manual for torture, liberated by U.S. troops in an April 2007 raid on an al Qaeda safe house / torture chamber, provides some examples along with helpful illustrations. Here are the first two of those illustrations.
Here is a photo of the back of one man found in the al Qaeda safe house who had been subject to a few of these methods:
I'd say that's evidence of actual torture.
There are many more methods of interrogation / punishment in the book - electrocution, breaking of limbs, beating with sticks, flogging, plucking out of eyes, burning with a blow torch or hot iron, etc. I think we can all agree that those fall under any one's definition of "torture." What makes them so?
One, all of the techniques described above are meant to cause extremes of pain. Further, each will result in serious and long lasting injury, with equally long lasting pain and suffering. Lastly, many run a real risk of being fatal to the victim.
If we take away all of those conditions, is it still possible to call something torture?
If I cause you pain by giving you a paper cut, am I torturing you? Clearly I am acting to cause you pain, but if that is not "torture," then where does torture start?
If I keep you awake beyond your bedtime when your tired, would you define that as torture? Clearly I am causing suffering, but at what point does such suffering become tantamount to "torture."
Real people's lives hang on your answers - so do be intellectually honest. Where would you draw the line? What precise conditions would you set to define the line at which permissible coercive interrogation ends and torture begins? That is the vexing question.
The actual law at issue is no more precise in establishing a bright line than the common sense analysis we just went through, though it does track with that analysis. Chapter 18, Section 2340(1) of the United States Code defines torture as:
The bottom line, the detailed legal analysis in those memos appears to me to present sound legal arguments. Like all arguments, by very definition it can also be argued the other way. But, based on those memos, the claim that Yoo and the others at OLC provided deliberately false or fatuous arguments - or, for that matter, that they reasoned backwards to justify a conclusion rather than forward to arrive at one - can only be made by people who are utterly biased at the start - ie., the entire far left - or who have wholly put aside their analytical skills on this one.
For example, to recap for those on another planet for the past few years, waterboarding involves strapping a person down on a board inclined slightly beyond 90 degrees, placing a cloth or piece of plastic over the persons nose and mouth, then pouring water on it. It gives the sensation of drowning, though there is no physical danger and no water actually enters the nose or mouth. It is sufficiently benign that it has been done thousands of times on our own soldiers as part of certain specialized training. Mostly, waterboarding induces a momentary panic that lasts for twenty to forty seconds at a time. So the question then is whether that is inflicting "severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Here is a snippet of some of the reasoning on this found in the Bybee Memo:
. . . .
As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject's body responds as the
subject were drowning even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have inrormed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm. Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. As we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, "pain and suffering" as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering." See Section 2340A Memorandum at 6 n.3. The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does
not, in our view inflict "severe pain or suffering." Even if one were to parse the statute more finely to attempt to treat "suffering" as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to "suffering."
At any rate, what the released memos show, in excruciating detail, was a very thorough legal analysis of the language of the statute and existing precedents ending in a not unreasonable conclusion that the proposed actions of the CIA, as set forth in detail, did not fall within the legal definition of torture. It is a colorable argument. So how can it possibly be criminal?
The bottom line - it can't be. And if the far left goes ahead with Obama's blessing and, for the first time in America of which I am aware, criminalizes political differences, then this really will be the start of a civil war.
Obama As Dr. Evil
In response to the growing angst with his massive spending, Obama has ordered his cabinet to cut . . . .
$100 million dollars
It was apparent during the campaign that Obama was a con man. As Krauthammer made clear in his column on Friday, nothing has changed. Obama is still playing fast and loose with the truth, exaggerating and making outright lies with amazing facility. Then there came this latest symbolic gesture made by Obama the other day that he played up as substantive. To put the substance of this $100 million gesture in perspective, there is this helpful visual from the Heritage Foundation via Q&O:
And this also from Dale Franks at Q&O:
As the AP “Spin Meter” puts it:
The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.
He’s all about the sacrifice.
"A Backdoor To Nationalization"
The WSJ piles on today, also calling the latest moves by Treasury to convert TARP assets into equity in our largest banks a foray into socialism in America. . . . The latest Beltway blunder -- and it would be a big one -- is the Obama Administration's weekend news leak that it may insist on converting its preferred shares in some of the nation's largest banks into common equity. Read the entire article. This really is a huge deal.
This today from the WSJ:
The stock market promptly tumbled by more than 3.5% yesterday, with J.P. Morgan falling 10% and financial stocks as a group off 9%, as measured by the NYSE Financials index. Note to White House: Sneaky nationalizations aren't any more popular with investors than the straightforward kind.
The occasion for this latest nationalization trial balloon is the looming result of the Treasury's bank strip-tease -- a.k.a. "stress tests." Treasury is worried, with cause, that some of the largest banks lack the capital to ride out future credit losses. Yet Secretary Timothy Geithner and the White House have concluded that they can't risk asking Congress for more bailout cash.
Voila, they propose a preferred-for-common swap, which can conjure up an extra $100 billion in bank tangible common equity, a core measure of bank capital. Not that this really adds any new capital; it merely shifts the deck chairs on bank balance sheets. Why Treasury thinks anyone would find this reassuring is a mystery. The opposite is the more likely result, since it signals that Treasury no longer believes it can tap more public capital to support the financial system if the losses keep building.
Worse, wholesale equity conversion would mean the government owns a larger share of more banks and is more entangled than ever in their operations. Giving Barney Frank more voting power is more likely to induce panic than restore confidence. Simply look at the reluctance of some banks -- notably J.P. Morgan Chase -- to participate in Mr. Geithner's private-public toxic asset sale plan. The plan is rigged so taxpayers assume nearly all the downside risk, but the banks still don't want to play lest Congress they become even more subject to political whim. . . .
Monday, April 20, 2009
Obama Moves Towards Nationalization Of The Banking Industry
With the announcement that the Obama administration is refusing to accept repayment of TARP funds and instead intends to convert those funds to an equity position, giving the government ownership stakes in the banks, socialism - and I am talking full blown socialism of the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, name your favorite third world tin pot dictator variety - is now an actual risk in America.
The federal government, through market interference directed at social engineering, beginning with Clinton and protected at every turn by Democrats during the Bush Administration, gave us the subprime crisis. The fix we are in today never occurs without that, and that is irrespective of Wall St. What this crisis led to in October, 2008 was a massive credit crunch and liquidity problem. The government stepped in with TARP loans to provide government assistance, attaching a slew of strings to the money. At the time, the stated goal was to inject liquidity into the system with the onerous strings attached on such things as executive compensation in order to provide a motivation for banks to repay the funds as soon as possible.
The details of how the TARP money was used in each case is sketchy at best. Some was used as loans, some apparently to purchase preferred stock with no voting rights, etc. What was not done with the money, at least beyond AIG, was to buy a true ownership position in the banks that would have provided voting rights in the management of the company. The latter would be a major step towards nationalization of our financial industry. And indeed, that now seems to be what is on the cusp of happening.
Within the past week, we have seen some of the major banks publicly state that they wish to repay the TARP funds. The Obama government has said "no," we think you should keep the money - with all the strings attached - and perhaps we might take ownership of your company by forcing you to convert the loan to common stock. Read it here and here. In other words, not only would all of the onerous strings attached to TARP funds become permanent - to the detriment of our financial sector - but the U.S. government would effectively take ownership of our major banking institutuions.
That is really breathtaking - as is the fact that this is being reported off the front pages in our MSM. Under no circumsatances should the U.S. government be allowed a voting interest in our major banks nor should the TARP strings extend another day beyond an institutions stated desire and ability to repay those funds in full. Further, if the government wishes, they can easilly change how TARP funds are carried on the books of banks with a simple change to the regulations. The suggestion that only by converting loans to common stock can liquidity be increased is so transparent as to be laughable.
This gets worse and worse.
Some Things Should Never Be Forgotten
It was two years ago yesterday that we approached a turning point in the Iraq War. The counterinsurgency plan, the initial phase of which had begun in February, was just coming to full implementation in April 2007. As we pushed into al Qaeda safe havens, al Qaeda pushed back with all the brutality they could muster.
In the days leading up to April 19, 2007, four members of al Qaeda did suicide bombing runs in Baghdad leading to tremendous loss of innocent civilian life. This was not an attack on our soldiers - it was directed at our political class, many of whom wanted nothing more than an American defeat in Iraq for their own purposes, irrespective of the tremendous damage such a loss would work on America's future, nor the galvanizing effect such a surrender would have had on al Qaeda and radical Islam.
It almost worked.
It was two years ago yesterday that Senator Harry Reid seized on these of acts of terrorism to proclaim the Iraq War lost and our military defeated.
As I noted at the time, this was a defining moment for the far left and "Give 'Em Surrender Harry". It was the moment all pretenses dropped to reveal in stark relief the far left's naked grab for political power at whatever cost to our nation. It is obscene that they have as yet paid no price for their craven and traitorous acts. To the contrary, they now hold all of the political power they desired.
That said, for all intents and purposes, we have won the Iraq war. Though V-I Day will await the pronouncement of historians, it clearly arrived some months ago - likely with the Iraqi Army's breaking of Sadr's strongholds in Basra. Iraq now has a nascent and functioning democracy. Normalcy has returned to much of the country as security continues to improve. There are still the major hurdles that Iraq must overcome - Kurdish seperatism and Iranian meddling top the lengthy list. But for today, those issues are not tearing the country apart.
History, if written with honesty, will note this hard won victory. History will note that we won because of the brilliance of our commanders, the quality of our soldiers, and the moral courage of President Bush to hold fast in the face of a massive push by the far left to declare the Iraq War a defeat for America. You'll never hear that from Obama, Reid or the radical left. They today are holding an eraser to the history books. But please don't forget it. History, if it is to teach us anything, must be honestly recorded. And there really must be a reckoning. For both of those reasons, please never forget.
[H/T Gateway Pundit]
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Heh
From Mere Rhetoric, this Israeli ad for a GPS system recounts how the Israelites found the Promised Land.
It seems just a bit in conflict with the biblical narrative, but hey, its got a great trumpet solo . . . .
A Question For Readers
I have heard from others that:
1. This blog takes too long to load, likely due to the proliferation of pictures I have embedded on the blog; and
2. From author and blogger Dafydd ab Hugh of Big Lizards, this in a recent e-mail:
It always takes me a very long time to load up WH; and when I do, I only get the first paragraph of each post on the main page! That means I have to load the blog again and again and again to read the entries.
If you could start putting all (or at least a more substantial portion) of each post on the main page, it would be a lot easier for me and likely many others as well. I would recommend the entire post, unless it's monumentally long -- even if a post is lengthy, scrolling past it to get to some earlier post is a lot quicker than loading a new page.
My questions are:
1. Is blog loading time sufficiently slow that I should remove the photos on the sides of the page as well as compress the display of links?
2. Does anyone else have the same problem Dafydd describes in opening up the blog pages. My original thought process in splitting the posts was to make it easier for someone opening the blog to quickly scan the topics. I found myself that, on blogs with multiple posts in a day, I would often only look at the top one or two rather than go on a major hunt for other posts by scrolling far down. Also, this is the first I have heard of a problem such as Dafyyd is having with my split post format. On my blog and similarly formed blogs that I took the format from, clicking on the "Read More" button simply and instantaneously expands the post - it doesn't open a new window. At least that is the case on the system I am using. Is the problem Dafydd describes a common problem for readers and would you prefer to see entire posts without having to click the "Read More" button?
I look forward. . . . . . to your input, in comments or by e-mail. Thanks much.
Legacy Of A Tea Party
On this day in history, at Concord Mass., the legacy of the first tea party:
At dawn on April 19th, fifty militiamen faced the British Army on Lexington Green. The youngest was 18. The oldest was 63. They were fathers, sons and grandfathers. It was reported that the British commanding officer rode up and shouted, "Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, or you are all dead men. Fire!"
Read it all at Brits At Their Best.
A Shaky Foundation Indeed
Obama offered his New Foundation speech as the complete, contextual, canonical text for the domestic revolution he aims to enact. It had everything we have come to expect from Obama: To interject here, our fiscal crisis resulted from the sub-prime market, government's social engineering in bank lending practices, a bond rating market that completely failed to accurately assess risk, all compounded by Wall Street's development of a new product that failed catastrophically when the market for subprime mortgages came to a grinding halt. Not a single thing Obama has done or proposes to do - beyond new draconian regulation of Wall St. - addresses these fundamental causes of our problems. And indeed, Barney Frank, one of the major architect's of our current disaster, has proposed mandating that municipal bonds be given top ratings for investment despite the real risks associated with those bonds. This is swindle and fantasy writ large. The Swindle: The Obama administration is spending money like none other in peacetime history. Obama is smart. He knows this is fiscally unsustainable. He has let it be known privately and publicly that he intends to cure the imbalance with entitlement reform. . . . I was going to write a pithy conclusion to all of this, but cannot do better than Krauthammer himself:
Charles Krauthammer had an exceptional article on Friday picking apart the "New Foundation" speech that our Dear Leader in Chief gave at Georgetown. Obama used the speech to outline his plan to take our country on a radical turn to the left - and he did so with mind numbing dissembling.This from the pen of Dr. Krauthammer:
The Whopper: The boast that he had "identified $2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade." It takes audacity to repeat this after it had been so widely exposed as transparently phony. Most of this $2 trillion is conjured up by refraining from spending $180 billion a year for 10 more years of surges in Iraq. . . .
The Puzzler: He further boasted of his frugality by saying that his budget would reduce domestic discretionary spending as a share of GDP to the lowest level ever recorded. Amazing. Squeezing discretionary domestic spending at a time of hugely expanding budgets is merely the baleful residue of out-of-control entitlements and debt service, which will increase astronomically under Obama. To claim these as achievements in fiscal responsibility is testament not to Obama's frugality but to his brazenness.
The Non Sequitur: "To make sure such a crisis [as we have today] never happens again," Obama proposes his radical health-care, energy and education reforms, the central pillars of his social democratic agenda. But Obama's own words contradict this assertion. Notes The Post: "But as his admirable summation of recent history made clear, these pursuits have little to do with the economic crisis, and they are not the key to economic recovery." Obama rarely fails to repeat this false connection. A crisis -- and the public's resulting pliability to liberal social engineering -- is a terrible thing to waste.
Now back to Mr. Krauthammer's analysis of Obama's "New Foundation."
In the New Foundation speech, Obama correctly (again) identifies the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid as the key fiscal problem. But then he claims that Medicaid and Medicare reform is the same as his health-care reform, fatuously citing as his authority a one-day meeting of handpicked interested parties at his "Fiscal Responsibility Summit."
Here's the problem. The heart of Obama's health-care reform is universality. Covering more people costs more money. That is why Obama's budget sets aside an extra $634 billion in health-care spending, a down payment on an estimated additional spending of $1 trillion. How does the administration curtail the Medicare and Medicaid entitlement by adding yet another (now universal) health-care entitlement that its own estimate acknowledges increases costs by about $1 trillionThis is the sand on which the new foundation is constructed. Obama has the magic to make words mean almost anything. Numbers are more resistant to his charms.
Throwing Green Fuel On An Economic Fire
. . . issued a proposed finding ... that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. This finiding comes as ever more evidence mounts that antrhopogenic global warming is a canard. Objective evidence - as opposed to computer models - shows quite plainly that we are getting cooler. [Update: See this from Big Lizards, discussing the current global cooling trend in the context of continuing denial by the greenies] Indeed, the EPA's decision came on the same day that the British Antarctic Survey released word that actual testing of sea ice in Antarctica, home to 80% of the world's ice, shows that it has significantly expanded over the past thirty years. Indeed, as author Dr. Richard North points out in his blog EU Referendum today: . . . [W]e are no longer seeing a warming trend and, over the last seven years there has in fact been a distinct cooling trend. With the climate models sharply diverging from reality and an ominous quiet sun, there is now real, observable evidence to suggests that we are going to have severe global stress on crop production. And to add a real bit of irony to that thought, any student of 7th grade science can tell you, carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas necessary for life. We breathe and exhale the stuff. Plants have to have it for photosynthesis. Not surprisingly, recent tests confirm that plants, including agricultural crops, thrive in environments with higher carbon dioxide concentrations, showing significant expansion in crop yields. This would all be comical if the the stakes in getting this issue right were not near existential. American Electric Power, a utility giant with 5.2 million customers in states from Texas to Michigan to Virginia, is already considering what coal plants would have to be shuttered and how high rates would have to go to comply with either a regulatory or legislative mandates to curb carbon dioxide. AEP spokesman Pat Hemlepp said rate increases stretch from 25% to 50% and beyond, depending on the climate change strategy that finally emerges from Washington. [Update: According to this post at Hot Air, estimates now are that the cap and trade policies of Obama are estimated to cost each family in America nearly $4,000 annually. If that is correct, it will work untold mischief on our economy and be an absolute disaster for the lower class and lower middle class] . . . Barack Obama . . . recently defended a vast package of subsidies for renewable energy on the grounds that it would “create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries”. And that payment portends to be severe if the left has their way. The odious Henry Waxman (D-Cal.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, plans to mandate a massive twenty percent reduction in carbon emissions and, at least equally if not more ominously, to give a true skeleton key to the courthouse to the radical left. Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill. Coming on top of the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, all of this really does have the potential to bring our economy to its knees. In fact, is widely believed that the Great Depression of the 1930's was made far worse when our government actually raised taxes in the face of declining revenues and engaged in protectionism, setting off a trade war. That seems precisely what this portends. This will add a massive hidden tax within our economy, it will surely drive more production overseas, and it will hurt our remaining domestic production by making it less competitive with goods from the giants of Asia, India and China, both of whom refuse to join us in this madness. With that in mind, there is this: Obama’s energy secretary, Steven Chu, had some soothing words for US manufacturing companies that complained that the new policy will make them even less competitive with Chinese exporters . . . [Chu] suggested that America might have to introduce some sort of “carbon-intensive” tariff on Chinese goods. One of China’s envoys, Li Gao, immediately retorted that such a carbon tariff would be a “disaster”, since it could lead to global trade war. If our economy rebounds in full before massive inflation kicks in, then we can eventually pay off the mountain of debt Obama has just saddled us with - though it may be in the lifetime of our grandchildren. Up until Thursday last, we could maintain a realistic hope of that outcome. The chance of that outcome is fast diminishing. What we are looking at is something that will make us pine for the days of the Jimmy Carter economy. Perhaps summing up the likely future best is Dr. Richard North: In the end, there are going to be two groups of people in this world: the greenies and the people who shoot greenies. It's kill or be killed, and the greenies will be the death of us all if this madness continues. Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration. This just gets worse and worse.
With the decision of the Obama EPA to declare carbon dioxide a green house gas that threatens public health, Obama has set us squarely on the road to economic chaos.
A sea change, in the long run of far more import than the mountain of debt Obama has placed us under, occurred on Friday. On that day, Obama's EPA:
"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President (Barack) Obama's call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
"This pollution problem has a solution -- one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country's dependence on foreign oil.
"As the proposed endangerment finding states, 'In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act,'" she added.
At any rate, in another bit of irony, on the same day the Obama EPA announced its new finding, Rasmussen released a poll showing that belief in man made global warming, as opposed to natural planetary trends, is down to 34% among Americans.
Regardless, we now face with absolute certainty the reality that the left is going to use the canard of saving the planet through reducing carbon emissions as the lever to vastly expand intrusion into our lives and drive upwards the costs of energy exponentially. Those costs, both direct and indirect, will be paid to the penny by individual Americans. For example, this from the WSJ:
This is all part of the Obama / radical left plan to take our economy off coal and oil and into green energy that, at the moment, does not exist in the real world. Yet according to the left's dogma, not only will we enter this brave new world of green energy, but it will create "millions of new green jobs." This from Dominic Lawson today, writing in the London Times:
. . .
There is a . . . serious misconception behind the idea that ploughing subsidies into the “green economy” is a sure-fire way of boosting domestic employment. At best it will move people from one economic activity to another. . . .
The key to a successful, wealth-generating economy is productivity. Saving energy is what businesses have done already, because it lowers their production costs. The problem with any form of subsidy is that it makes the consumer (through hidden taxes) pay to keep inherently uneconomic businesses “profitable”.
The left long ago discovered its most effective blueprint - resorting to courts to get what it could not through the ballot box. (And as an aside, it is the activist wing of the Supreme Court that in essence paved the way for this EPA ruling in a decision two years ago.) This has already cost us untold billions, if not trillions, over the past near four decades since the Clean Air Act and other environmental legislation was passed, most of which gave standing to individuals to bring law suits to enforce the provisions of the acts. This is not to suggest that the Clean Air Act was unnecessary or that it has not done some good. That said, its abuse by the left has been wide ranging, making the cure itself more insidious than the harm it was designed to overcome. Now with carbon listed as a dangerous gas, the potential for lawsuits to vastly slow down and increase costs to every aspect of our economy has grown exponentially. And yet Waxman would grow it even more to unprecedented / economy busting / insane levels. This from the Washington Times:
Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.
"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
. . . The measure sets grounds for anyone "who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part," to government inaction to file a "citizen suit." The term "harm" is broadly defined as "any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring."
It would allow citizens to seek up to $75,000 in damages from the government each year, but would cap the total amount paid out each year at $1.5 million, committee staff said. It is unclear whether the provision would actually cap damages at $75,000 per person, because the U.S. law referenced does not establish payouts by the government.
Update: Thanks to Vinny, author of the blog Vinny's Rants, for pointing out this from a CNS News article excerpted at Michelle Malkin's site on the green jobs canard:
President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama’s economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.
But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:
“Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
