Monthly Archives: April 2009
A federal judge ruled on Thursday that prisoners in the war on terror can use U.S. civilian courts to challenge their detention at a military air base in Afghanistan.
U.S. District Judge John Bates turned down the United States’ motion to deny the right to three foreign detainees at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in court. But the government had argued that it did not apply to those in Afghanistan.
Bates said the cases were essentially the same and he quoted the Supreme Court ruling repeatedly in his judgment and applied the test created by it to each detainee. It is the first time a federal judge has applied the ruling to detainees in Afghanistan.
Similarly, extending habeas corpus rights to prisoners detained on the battlefield is an exercise in futility. Of course, that ship sailed with the ruling in Boumediene v. Bush. I’m not sure what argument the government could make that any prisoners under the control of the U.S., regardless of where they are being held, are not entitled to some sort of habeas proceeding. And since the very procedures deemed constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court in Hamdi were struck down as inadequate in Boumediene, I don’t know what options are actually left to the Obama administration other than the unsavory prospect of field executions.
Barring a contrary ruling from the Supreme Court, I think this most recent case proves the point.
But, Ed Morrissey seems to think the Bates’ decision does much more. Where he (reasonably) finds that the foregoing is an unconstitutional interjection of the judiciary into matters delegated to the Executive, Ed also seems to think that Bates’ order violates the Geneva Conventions (his bolding applied):
Not only does this violate the separation of powers in the Constitution, it actually violates the Geneva Convention. Article 84 states clearly that prisoners of any stripe shall not get tried in civil courts:
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.
We do not try our military personnel in civil court for offenses committed in the service. Therefore, we do not have the right to try prisoners in our civil courts, either.
There are a few problems with that conclusion:
(1) The detainees are not being tried. They’re challenging their detention. Another way of putting it is that they’re the plaintiffs in such an action (habeas hearing) as opposed to the defendants (as in a trial).
(2) Civilian courts may be used under the GC where the crimes/offenses alleged are already illegal (i.e. no a bill attainder or ex post facto law) and the court procedures provide the minimum guarantees set forth in the GC (this is spelled out in the rest of Ed’s Article 84 excerpt starting with “unless”).
(3) The Boumediene decision pretty much made this ruling necessary since the SCOTUS designated anywhere under U.S. control as being “U.S. territory”, with a few exceptions. An active battlefield is one of them IIRC and the judge may have decided that Bagram AFB doesn’t qualify.
In fact, on that last point, Judge Bates specifically noted that:
… non-Afghan detainees captured outside the country and moved to Bagram for a lengthy detention should have access to the courts to prevent the United States from being able to “move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely.”
As Boumediene is written, I think Bates got it exactly right. I do think that the entire line of reasoning and case law is incorrect from both a policy and constitutional basis, but Judge Bates is required to follow Supreme Court precedent. That his ruling serves as a perfect example how reductio absurdum can happen in real life doesn’t make him wrong.
Furthermore, I don’t see how allowing detainees to challenge their detention could possibly violate the Geneva Conventions. Again, that does not mean detainees should be afforded such rights, just that such a grant does not in any way run counter to either the letter or spirit of those treaties.
It can be summed up in one sentence: They still don’t get it.
Tax cuts are great, but they’re not real tax cuts unless there’s a commensurate cut in spending. If there’s no cut in spending, they’re simply taxes which are being deferred. And that is precisely what the Republicans offer in their alternative. Long on tax cuts and long on spending. Their only claim to fame is they don’t spend as much as the Obama budget. Well, you’d have to be insane to spend as much as the Obama budget, but claiming that your plan is better because you spend less isn’t much of a recommendation.
Discretionary Spending. The budget gives priority to the Federal Government’s most important obligations, national defense and veterans’ benefits. All other appropriated spending is level-funded for fiscal years 2010-14, and then increased at a moderate rate through 2019. The final allocation of these and other amounts will be determined by the Committee on Appropriations.
As long as we’re running a deficit, we can’t afford “increased spending” even at a “moderate rate”. What part of that can’t these people seem to get through their heads? Of course, that means they have to bring the bad news to the people that spending for government provided goodies isn’t going to go up, and, in fact, may go down. And the people haven’t exactly been kind to those who do so. Talking about it is one thing, but unfortunately actually doing it is detrimental to a politician’s career. So their cowardice is understandable if still unacceptable (given their rhetoric)
Mandatory Spending. Total mandatory spending increases by an average of 3.9 percent per year for the next 10 years. This is slightly slower growth than projected in the Congressional Budget Office baseline and the Obama/Democratic budget. It provides for a sustainable growth rate to assure the viability of these programs in the future.
Here is the budget killer – mandatory spending. And what to the Republicans propose? Growing it at almost 4% a year. The inflation rate is what? Well, even now, it certainly isn’t 4%. And while it may rise, you can’t assume that. So this does precisely what they claim their budget does:
To Control the Nation’s Debts. It halts the borrow-and-spend philosophy that brought about today’s economic problems, and puts a stop to heaping ever-growing debts on future generations.
It does not end the “borrow-and-spend philosophy” at all. It merely slows the rate of borrow-and-spend. The claim is nonsense on a stick.
And to cap it all off, they buy into the premise of some sort of universal or nationalized health care.
To Fulfill the Mission of Health and Retirement Security. The budget reforms the health care marketplace by making quality coverage affordable and accessible for every American regardless of pre-existing health conditions. It reinforces the decision-making of patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats; and it reforms Medicare and Medicaid to make them sustainable. The budget also advances the cause of strengthening Social Security.
So instead of buttressing and supporting the concept of private health care and less government intrusion, the Republicans again commit to the concept of government involvement, but just not at the level of the Democrats. And they also want us to believe this isn’t going to cost much as well.
Disappointing is a mild word for what I see in their proposals. They’re again Democrat lite, buying into all the programs just claiming theirs doesn’t spend as much, and again proposing tax deferral as “tax cuts”, completely ignoring the need to cut spending to make those deferrals actual and permanent cuts.
No wonder they put it out on April 1st.
[My latest Examiner.com article]
A number of economists, including Paul Krugman, have panned Timothy Geithner’s plan to recapitalize banks by buying toxic assets in a complex and highly leveraged way that puts the taxpayer’s dollars at risk.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel economist, has piled on. In fact, his is probably the most damning opinion I’ve seen. Stiglitz says that first of all, Geithner has analyzed the problem incorrectly. Geithner keeps telling us it is a “liquidity” problem. Stiglitz says “poppycock”:
The main problem is not a lack of liquidity. If it were, then a far simpler program would work: just provide the funds without loan guarantees. The real issue is that the banks made bad loans in a bubble and were highly leveraged. They have lost their capital, and this capital has to be replaced.
What he means is their “capital”, or assets are in worthless loans. Yes that’s right – worthless. So, as he points out, paying “fair market value” for these assets won’t work, will it? They’re worthless.
So what does Geithner propose?
Only by overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time.
Stiglitz explains the proposed process very well, demonstrating it fairly simple and straightforward examples how the taxpayer takes the majority of the risk, and, given the nature off the “assets”, will absorb the majority of the losses.
But Americans are likely to lose even more than these calculations suggest, because of an effect called adverse selection. The banks get to choose the loans and securities that they want to sell. They will want to sell the worst assets, and especially the assets that they think the market overestimates (and thus is willing to pay too much for).
But the market is likely to recognize this, which will drive down the price that it is willing to pay. Only the government’s picking up enough of the losses overcomes this “adverse selection” effect. With the government absorbing the losses, the market doesn’t care if the banks are “cheating” them by selling their lousiest assets, because the government bears the cost.
That is a process driven problem. The Geithner process guarantees the outcome because that is the most likely outcome, banks not being stupid and with the government bearing the cost.
Bottom line – taxpayers are going to get hosed and hosed good.
Stiglitz provides an interesting alternative which gives you an idea of how poorly he regards Geithner’s plan:
Some Americans are afraid that the government might temporarily “nationalize” the banks, but that option would be preferable to the Geithner plan. After all, the F.D.I.C. has taken control of failing banks before, and done it well.
Given only those two option, I’d say Stiglitz has a point.
Of course, the argument we’ve made since day one is we ought to let them go bust, get it over with and begin the recovery. That’s the same argument we made concerning GM and Chrysler.
Instead we’ve gotten these insane plans driven by the administration which has thrown literally trillions of good dollars after bad – and to no apparent avail.
This madness has got to stop.
“For anyone who questions why the President has offered this plan, these pledges will be the answer.”
Obama’s army of cultists is very hard at work.
Like (I assume) most other news junkies who closely followed the election, I am still receiving emails from Obama’s political action people. Much of it is aimed at getting the recipients to participate in the “Organizing for America” politicking. It has always seemed a little creepy to me because the election is over. I mean, why the endless campaign unless the real purpose is to propagandize the voters? But I also figured that my biases made it seem worse than it really is. That is, until viewing this video:
Neo-neocon provides an excellent analysis of why this sort of White House driven organizing just seems wrong. For example, she notes the rather troublesome fact that the Obama administration intends for people to simply pledge blind support to his agenda:
Some of the most disturbing things about this video are its vagueness, its focus on Obama himself in what I can only call his cult of personality, and its use of the word “pledge” (at minute :56, note the words, under “The Pledge” and next to a check box, “I support President Obama’s bold plan….”)
The vagueness comes from the fact that whatever people are pledging to support is never described in any detail whatsoever. The petition, or pledge sheet, or loyalty oath, or whatever you want to call it, is very short. It appears that each policy area—energy, health care, education—has but a single sentence describing it.
Think about this for a moment: people are blindly pledging loyalty to policies about which they know virtually nothing except the fact that Obama is behind them, and he says it’s for our own good.
Moreover, reasonable dissent from Obama’s agenda is not possible according to the training video:
The trainer gives only one reason that “the establishment in Washington” would oppose this: opposition to change. Never mind principled opposition; there is no such thing where Obama is concerned. Never mind the cost of these policies in a recession.
Never mind; just sign on the dotted line. And is anyone else as perturbed as I am by this statement: For anyone who questions why the President has offered this plan, these pledges will be the answer.
I think that definitely qualifies as creepy, biases or not.
[HT: Bird Dog]
Good to know that the American press is so ready and capable of holding our elected officials accountable in these trying times:
0952 Jeff McCallister from Time magazine tells the BBC: [Obama's] a rock star, he has a gorgeous wife, he is charismatic, young and vital. It’s echoes of the Kennedys in early 1961. It’s hard for me to imagine even if he doesn’t fix the world economy in a day that this is going to go badly for him in political terms in the US or elsewhere.
Just imagine what he would have said if Time magazine were a biased publication!
China has stated it won’t be left holding the financial bag in order to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Calling itself a “poorer” nation, China wants the 7 most developed countries to spend 1% of GDP on helping them and others.
China raised the price of its co-operation in the world’s climate change talks yesterday by calling for developed countries to spend 1 per cent of their domestic product helping poorer nations cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The funding – amounting to more than $300bn (£190bn, €240bn) based on Group of Seven countries – would be spent largely on the transfer of “green” technologies, such as renewable energy, to poorer countries.
Gao Guangsheng, head of the climate change office at the National Reform and Development Commission, the Chinese government’s main planning body, said that even such large funds “might not be enough”.
China’s toughened stance comes weeks ahead of United Nations talks in Poland aimed at forging a successor to the Kyoto protocol, whose main provisions expire in 2012.
China also suggests that to this point, emissions reduction has been mostly talk:
“Climate change policies need a lot of money to be invested, however developed countries have not made any substantive promises about how much they are going to spend on,” said Mr Gao. “And they did not fulfil some of the promises they made in the past very well either.”
Of course a number of reasons relate to why those previous promises haven’t been fulfilled. Most of them relate to economics and the realization that their promises are potentially crippling to their economies. That’s effecting the G20 meeting as we speak:
Fears are mounting that environmental issues could be almost entirely sidelined at tomorrow’s G20 summit in London as leaders of the world’s largest economies resist calls to make clear green commitments as part of the meeting’s closing communiqué.
According to Guardian reports, UK officials are leading a last-ditch effort to have clear environmental commitments incorporated into the global economic recovery package that will back up politicians’ repeated calls for a ” green new deal”.
Gordon Brown has said that the inclusion of a commitment on the environment would be one of the tests of the summit’s success, but he admitted that the negotiations were likely to be tough.
The draft version of the communiqué leaked at the weekend made only a passing reference to climate change and it is thought some nations are resisting more detailed commitments to dedicate a proportion of the global stimulus package to green projects that they fear could provide an excuse for protectionist measures.
There is also reluctance to incorporate climate change commitments that could be seen to step on the toes of the UN’s climate change negotiations, which are continuing this week at a separate conference in Bonn, Germany.
This, of course, is good news. Why?
“Everybody seems to be focusing on short-term recovery and getting long-term regulation of the banks right,” he said. “I haven’t heard anything that suggests green recovery and climate change are a major part of the [G20] agenda.”
That’s because that is the priority – not that anyone should expect the G20 to get any of financial part of it right either. However, the priority does keep them from making commitments that would cripple economic growth. And they, of course, know that – which is why they’re avoiding it and spinning it as a desire not to “step on the toes of the UN’s climate change negotiations”.
But back to China – you’ll enjoy this. It is called “having your cake and eating it too”:
[China's climate ambassador Yu Qingtai]… said that China was willing to make a “due contribution” to curbing emissions, but warned that the country would not see its citizens “left in the dark” as a result of binding emission targets and was within its rights to continue to invest in coal power that allows its economy to grow.
Gotta love the Chinese – they make some of our spin merchants seem like rookies. China will decide what its “due contribution” will be while it builds thousands of coal fired plants. In the meantime, per China, it is up to the rest of the world to do what is necessary to curb emissions because, you know, the poorer nations just aren’t up to it. Su Wei, Chinese delegation chief to the UN climate change talks in Bonn:
Su said the success of the Copenhagen summit lies in whether or not the developed countries would make “substantial arrangements” for transferring climate-friendly technologies to and providing funds for developing countries.
Su noted the establishment of three international “mechanisms” is very important among the “substantial arrangements.”
“The first is to set up an international mechanism on climate-friendly technology development and transfer, to eliminate barriers hindering technology transfer, so that developing countries can get access to such technologies,” he said.
“Secondly, we should set up an effective financing mechanism to ensure the developed countries provide adequate funds for developing countries in their bid to cut emissions and fight climate change,” he added.
Thirdly, Su said an “effective supervision mechanism” should beset up to monitor the above-mentioned technology transfer and funding.
Nice. Known as the “you pay, we take” program, this pretty much excuses China (and the rest of the poorer BRIC nations) from doing much of anything. As long as China is convinced that a) enough technology hasn’t been transfered, or b) there hasn’t been enough “effective financing” of the effort, it can c) exempt itself from any cuts while insisting the rest of the developed world stick by its commitments.
Now that is how a master loots your wallet.
It gives you great confidence in someone when they can’t even tell you how much is left in a fund which they control. Apparently Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner thinks he has about $132 billion left in TARP funds.
But the Government Accountability Office, a non-partisan federal agency, reports that figure is closer to $32 billion, which is what ABC News and other independent analysts thought.
The Treasury Department continues to insist GAO and others are double-counting commitments and underestimating potential paybacks.
So everyone but Treasury is wrong. I’m willing, at this point, to wait until a final determination is forthcoming, but I have to tell you, if I were a betting person, I wouldn’t be backing Geithner’s position. And don’t forget how cooperative his department has been with the oversight folks.
Working off the budget post here, a commentary in my latest Examiner column about the impact of the Obama budget and how we’re eventually all going to have to pay for the profligacy inherent in his plan. I think you can pretty well imagine my answer to the question above.
Senator Tom Coburn’s office provides a few facts about the budget the Obama administration has submitted to Congress. Budget buster would most likely be a better description:
Total spending under this budget is $3.9 trillion in 2009, or 28% of GDP, the highest level as a share of GDP since World War II.
This budget provides $1.2 trillion in discretionary budget authority for FY 2010 and increases discretionary spending by $490 billion over 5 years. Total spending in 2009 is 28 percent of GDP.
The Democrat budget includes $2.2 trillion in mandatory spending for FY 2010, which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending.
So there are the basics. And remember the pledge that by 2012 the deficit will be cut in half. Well, with this budget, that doesn’t mean a whole bunch in terms of what’s left in the deficit. It will still most certainly be higher than any deficit prior to this one.
Deficit is one thing, debt is another. Politicians like to use smoke and mirrors with deficit and debt, preferring to ignore debt and talk about how they’re dealing with debt. Well let’s get serious about this – the debt is what we owe, the deficit is just how much more we’re piling up.
Total National Debt Today:
Under the Democrat Budget:
FY 2010: $12.2 trillion
FY 2011: $14.3 trillion
FY 2012: $15.3 trillion
FY 2013: $16.1 trillion
FY 2014: $17.0 trillion
So now we see the bottom line. In FY 2011, we will have more debt than GDP (the US GDP is 13.84 Trillion). And, in all honesty, we don’t have to be – unless we pass this budget. You cannot spend yourself out of debt. And you cannot cure a credit problem by extending more credit.
This budget adds $4.96 trillion to the public debt by 2014. Debt will be about two-thirds of GDP for the entire budget window, and deficits will be at least $500 billion in each year of the budget window.
The Democrat Budget sets total outlays in FY 2010 at $3.53 trillion and total revenues at $2.29 trillion, for a deficit of $1.24 trillion.
This is truly the beginning of the end. And without cap and trade involved, without universal health care is factored in, just to pay for this mess, taxes are going to go up. The question is how high. And as you’ll see, it’ll be higher than the spin is spinning:
Against a baseline that assumes current law tax policy is extended, S. Con. Res. 13 raises taxes by $361 billion and allows for $1.3 trillion in additional tax increases. In addition their budget paves the way for additional tax increases from a proposed cap-and-trade tax in reconciliation.
If you’re wondering where the additional $1.3 trillion in taxation might (will?) come from, Coburn provides a little behind the scenes look at how the Democrats procedurally set up phantom funds that they can initiate through a majority vote anytime they wish to fund favored initiatives:
Deficit Neutral Reserve Funds:
The Democrat budget includes 15 “reserve funds,” which essentially “phantom spending” policy statements that allow the majority to say that they would like to fund a certain initiative. The deficit neutral requirement associated with the reserve funds typically require that taxes be raised in order to pay for the new policy initiative. If all reserve funds were to be fully enacted, total spending would increase by $1.3 trillion, financed by tax increases or spending decreases.
Welcome to “hope and change”. More debt, more spending, bigger deficit, and no end in sight.
Someone will end up paying for all of this mess, and my guess is it will be all of us – for generations.