re: "Andrew McCarthy: Gingrich Has It Right On Our 'Imperial' Courts"

GW at Wolf Howling commented on some proposed Constitutional tinkering.

Money quote(s):

"Conservatives have been shaking their fists impotently at the Courts for their judicial activism - their Poliburo like unilateral amendments to the Constitution working fundamental changes to our nation - for the past fifty years. Heretofore, the only solution to the problem was thought to be electing Presidents who will appoint judges grounded in originalism. That has been less than successful. Enter Newt Gingrich, who has completely changed the paradigm on this critical issue. He wants to make a systemic fix that will permanently restore the Constitutional balance between the three branches of our government as such balance was envisioned by the Founders."

So, what's this all about?

"Andrew McCarthy, reviews Newt Gingrich's plan to redress the balance."

GW concluded:

"Correcting this vast overreach by our Courts over the past half century, restoring the balance to that envisioned by our Founders, is crucial for the future of our nation."

12/21

re: "The Rebirth of Birthers?"

William Sullivan at American Thinker (" a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans ") considered this news from Arizona.

Money quote(s):

"Two years, three months, and seven days after his inauguration, Barack Obama finally offered evidence to prove his eligibility for the presidency. On the White House website, officials posted an electronic document purported to be a scan of Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate. It was a grand "I told you so" moment for the media and the left, which had worked feverishly to marginalize "birthers" as the radical counterpart of the zany "truther."

Of course, there was never really any parity. Truthers constructed silly conspiracy theories about George W. Bush being an international super-criminal that orchestrated impossibly complex measures to frame al-Qaeda on 9/11. Birthers, on the other hand, merely demanded that the president, who is required by the Constitution to be a natural born American citizen, show proof of his eligibility. And in reality, that is an entirely reasonable expectation, albeit unprecedented." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"Sherriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, at the behest of a petition presented by the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party organization, organized a "cold case posse" and completed a six-month examination of the released birth certificate in order to determine its authenticity. The results are in, Joe says, and they point to the document being a fake."

&

"Lord Christopher Monckton, who has experience investigating high-level fraud as a policy adviser under Margaret Thatcher, has given the claim added veracity.

According to World Net Daily, Monckton said that "it appears that the document was cobbled together in layers, pointing to evidence that three date stamps and a registrar's stamp were superimposed on it from another document." If there were a single, original document to verify the president's Hawaiian birth, why "go to all that trouble, he reasoned."

Monckton's conclusion? "My assessment is that they are right to be worried... That document is not genuine." "

CAA's expertise, however limited, in estimating the genuine-ness of vital documents such as birth certificates and travel documents (i.e., passports and visas) does not extend to digital photographs of said documents.

"Anyone calling Obama's birth certificate into question will have to entertain the notion that perhaps the forgery was made because the president does not have legal proof of his American birth. And anyone carrying that message will have the stink of "right-wing birther" on him, and he will be swiftly devoured by the attack dogs in the media and marginalized. So in a way, I don't blame conservative lawmakers and pundits for treading lightly around the issue."

&

"Reasonably, it should never have been incumbent upon Americans to prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but rather it should have always been incumbent upon Obama to prove to the American people, verifiably and indisputably, that he was born in the United States."

Anyone with actual proof of someone having committed passport or citizenship fraud should get in touch with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Criminal Investigative Division.

4/6

re: "Reducing Politically Correct Ad Hominems to Absurdity"

Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") pondered the relevance of hypocrisy.

Money quote(s):

"The modern left seems to love a particular breed of ad hominem. You cite to them the words and philosophy of Jefferson, Madison, etc. and they say “oh, those were just dead rich white men,” or better yet, “they were rich, dead, racist white slaveholders” and think that means you should dismiss what these people had to say out of hand. I particularly enjoy it when that argument is deployed in opposition to following the original constitution and in favor of the Supreme Court just making sh-t up, because then you are shifting from being ruled by rich dead white men, to being ruled by a group that is old, rich, mainly white and still mostly male. Progress!

I am not saying that background is completely irrelevant. Indeed, the fact that Jefferson was a slaveholder is sometimes relevant in determining what he meant. There are those who hold to this day that the phrase “all men are created equal” actually meant “all white men are created equal” on the theory that Jefferson clearly didn’t mean his slaves because then he would be a hypocrite. Mind you, I think the most obvious answer given the evidence is, yes, Jefferson was a hypocrite, but that doesn’t make it unfair or wrong to look at the fact he owned slaves and wonder what he really meant." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

10/24

re: "Burned Korans & Riots & Feeding the Delusions of the Delusional"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ offered a helpful suggestion.

Money quote(s):

"If someone's having a panic attack, the worst possible thing to do, as someone trying to help, is to play into it. To pay too much attention. To act very concerned.

People do that, thinking it's helpful. In fact, in exacerbates the situation.

My point is this: To what extent have we played into and exacerbated this absurd Muslim psychopathy over the Koran?

And to what extent would it be defeated if we simply stopped playing into it, and actually routinized the destruction of Korans (or other shows of disrespect, or, more accurately, "refusing to treat the Muslim religion as the officially sanctified state religion of America")?

To what extent are we encouraging these little spells by playing along with them? By treating the Koran as scared, most of the time, to what extent are we writing our own tragic ending when some stupid book gets burned?

Isn't it dangerous to feed the delusions of the deluded? Isn't the right course of action to insist on a more grounded view of reality?

Shouldn't we set the default, routine, expected mode of behavior as "we are not a Muslim nation and furthermore are forbidden by the Constitution from treating one religion as sacrosanct"?"

&

"(O)ur current policy also seems to not help, and is furthermore repellent."

3/2

re: "Khadafi's Box; Climate Change Experiment: anyone want to bet?"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor (" The Original Blog and Daybook. ") expressed his misgivings about the U.S., er, NATO waging of war against Libya.

Money quote(s):

"They are now displaying Khadafi laid out on a child’s mattress stuffed into a freezer in a mall. Sic semper tyrannis, and it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, but it does raise some problems of International Law.

The UN mandate to NATO and the US strike forces was to protect the civilian population of Libya from Kadaffi and his sons and his mercenaries and his tribal supporters and the Libyan fascisti who found his rule congenial. I don’t understand how shooting up his 40 vehicle convoy fleeing his home town was any larger threat to the civilian population of Libya than the 42 vehicle cavalcade in which President Obama is riding. Surely Qadafi wasn’t driving through shooting everyone he saw. Surely he was no threat to the civilians?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

The "responsibility to protect" figleaf seemed to quickly transmute into acting as the rebel militia's air force (and navy) in order to perform decapitating strikes and otherwise disrupt the dictator's command, control, and communications capabilities.

Nothing disrupts one's C3 ability like being dead, of course.

"Now of course I do not mourn Khaddaffi and his sons. But I do mourn blows to the Constitution of the United States, which clearly gives the Congress the power to declare war. We understand that the war powers are and must be ambiguous – particularly so in the thermonuclear ear. During the Cold War the President had the power to order the release of thousands of nuclear weapons in retaliation for an incoming strike to the United States. One of the problems I worked on was how to structure the chain of command – now just organizationally but physically – so that the counterstrike could happen without putting the power to begin Armageddon into the hands of a bored Captains and Lieutenants sitting in concrete bunkers in bases out near the end of nowhere; and how to train those Captains and Lieutenants to make it credible that they would, at need, launch those birds at need."

Not just captain and lieutenants, but staff sergeants and privates first class, as CAA has reason to recall.

"All those war and peace decisions in which a mistake could wipe out a significant portion of humanity — Herman Kahn asked, “Will the survivors envy the dead?” – all those decisions might have to be made in minutes. There wouldn’t be time for a Congressional debate or even to summon Congress into session. I do not believe that is true of Khadaffi, It seems to me that if we wanted to wage war on Khadaffi – and I certainly argue that shooting up his convoy, killing his sons and bodyguards, is close enough to war as to make no never mind – if we are to wage war on Qadhaffi then let the President go the Congress and explicitly say so. That is what the Constitution demands." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA doesn't believe in standing too much on ceremony when it comes to declarations of war; it's not like there's a "e-Form" that can be completed online and then sent electronically to Congress. Any format and font will suffice so long as Congress tallies the yays and nays.

"I do not mourn the tyrant, and he go not more than he deserved, and less than he meted out to others. His sons were not such rapacious monsters as the Sons of Saddam Hussein are reliably said to have been, and I know those who argue that had power passed from the Colonel to one of his sons the result would not only have been good for Libya, but better than the Libyans will now get; but I do not know that my opinion is worth much. I do know that the tyrant of Syria must be frantically casting about trying to buy at least one nuke from North Korea. If he isn’t, he hasn’t thought out the situation."

Countries with their own nukes get respect; said "respect" being defined as not-invaded-or-attacked-by-other-nuclear-powers.

10/21

re: "Afghanistan: A U.S. Soldier Who Went Lethally ‘Round the Bend’ "

Richard Falknor at Blue Ridge Forum ("Conservatives and culture in Maryland and Virginia") drew some larger themes from the war in Afghanistan.

Money quote(s):

"(W)e cannot ‘delegate’ our own moral responsibility as citizens for sending fellow Americans into harm’s way, nor our responsibility as citizens for seeing that they are properly led and supported.

This means paying a lot of public attention to the wisdom of the initial decision and how long it should be continued and insisting that the decision’s objectives be clearly stated and re-stated by whatever administration is in the White House."

By "we," the writer means us, the citizenry, holding our elected (and appointed/confirmed) officials accountable for what they do on our behalf.

"It took Lincoln whom Eliot Cohen calls “the greatest of American war presidents” some time to get his generals into line with his strategic vision — until, after watching U. S. Grant’s earlier victories, Lincoln appointed him to overall command in March 1864."

The U.S. (and her presidents) went through a similar evolution, taking a similar period of years, in the current war.

"Now is the time for conservatives to envision a military policy appropriate for our Republic in a post-Obama but even more dangerous world.

We suggest readers might find Eliot Cohen’s “Supreme Command” instructive to see how Lincoln ran perhaps the first of the modern wars.

Also instructive is the role the British Navy once played in policing the waterways of a prosperous and largely peaceful world between 1815 and 1914. The British Navy’s crucial performance in suppressing the slave trade was strongly supported by British voters but was a Herculean task often carried out with insufficient resources."

Herculean task, insufficient resources; stop me if you you've heard this before.

And why does the enemy look so familiar?

"(T)his founding document also gives great prominence to “provid[ing] for the common defense.”

Thus we caution that military affairs and how they are (and should be) managed in our Republic — as well as Anglo-American military history — are not some niche academic disciplines nor minor specialties in think tanks."

Always remember what John Adams had to say about this:

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."

3/15

re: "Libya and MI6 (again): Sir Mark Allen"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") described a thorny British problem that parallels one we have in the U.S.

Money quote(s):

"The issue here is not any claim that MI6/HMG engaged in torture. Rather it is that MI6/HMG are said to have been 'complicit' in torture in Libya of certain Libyans by certain other Libyans. Which raises the question: what does complicity mean?"

Let's see where he goes with this.

"(M)aximalists insist that even to possess information which is suspected as having come from torture amounts to 'complicity'. That position, as the House of Lords found in 2005, is incorrect as a matter of law (and common sense)" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Not that this finding carries any water in the U.S., but one hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court would reason as well as the House of Lords.

"The problem here is that any secret 'rendition' by us or even a contribution to secret rendition by others is likely to have been endorsed by Ministers, either specifically or as a general rule. So to single out one civil servant for litigation is mischievous if not malevolent.

Second, the whole case turns on the idea that 'complicity' can be stretched far beyond any immediate link to maltreatment. Any abuse or torture was not committed by HMG or its officials. Is it really fair to make us legally responsible for horrors committed by others far away?

Even if you think that it is reasonable to do so on the moral level, you need to draw a line somewhere and say that the actions alleged were too 'remote' to amount to complicity. Under what principle should the line be drawn in specific cases? What balancing factors should be taken into account?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

British civil (or foreign) servants are as unlikely as our own to go "rogue" and try to "Lone Ranger" this sort of thing. They like a policy, preferably written, that delimits what their authority, and liability, is.

"This nasty, bleak, lonely policy and moral frontier was where Mark Allen and his colleagues were operating. If the way is opened to sue them for outcomes which were far from ideal if not awful, who is going to be ready to do this sort of fundamentally important work?

The issue here is simple. Not what the 'right' choice is when you are dealing with a regime like Gaddafi's. There isn't one.

Rather it is 'who decides?'.

We seem to be ending up in the absurd position that sanctimonious lawyers and unelected judges far from the operational and policy realities of such questions are seen as more 'responsible' than elected politicians and civil servants who are elected to do our dirty work while operating to arguably the highest standards of public probity in human history.

Yes, judges have the benefit of detachment. And yes, Ministers and officials can get so wrapped up in what they are doing that serious errors get made. But this is one where the best people to judge are voters, not lawyers."

Our own courts, operating under our unitary written Constitution, have taken some pains over the years to differentiate between the political and judicial spheres of authority, ceding that some things are not for courts to decide, but are the province of executives and legislators.

1/31

re: "For Rick Perry"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ had some commentary on the Republican primary candidacies.

Money quote(s):

"There are two main sorts of primary voters: Those who know too little, and those who know too much. As for the former -- there's not much I can do about them. They don't read this site, or probably too much of any political source.

Maybe they read Time. Bless their hearts." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

CAA is often asked, by persons preparing to take the Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT; the computer-based exam that replaced the FSWE), for advice on how to prepare for it. Now, in olden times, when dinosaurs walked the Earth and the essay portion of the FSWE involved a "blue book" style handwritten essay, CAA took a fairly standard approach to get his brain right before test day.

A lot of the approach involved developing and maintaining a good situational awareness of current events, both domestic and international, and not just about politics. One of the specific suggestions for doing that is to read a weekly news magazine, such as TIME, Newsweek, or U.S. News & World Report.

Not so much anymore, at least as regards TIME. And I say that with sadness.

CAA grew up in a household where we got the Washington Post delivered in the morning, the Evening Star delivered in the afternoon, and every week the mailman would bring a TIME magazine, and I'd read it cover-to-cover.

It's just not the same magazine, although perhaps it never was.

"The online community consists mainly of the latter -- we know a lot about the candidates, and are each making complicated decisions about trade-offs between electability and agenda (and likelihood of advancing that agenda).

My belief is that we know so much that the secondary and tertiary level things we know are crowding out the primary things we know. That is, that we know a bunch of second- and third- order things and knowing so much is crowding out consideration of the top-level, major bullet-point, controlling facts."

Ace makes an interesting point here. People who are wonks and geeks about politics and elections tend to get fairly far down in the weeds about candidates, their positions, and their histories. To the point where we'll drop references in normal conversation that garner puzzled looks from those around us, since it may not have been covered in the broadcasts of American Idol, Dancing With The Hasbeens, Real Housewives, or other trash TV like the Daily Show or the current latenight successors to Johnny Carson.

While I may not be enthusiastic about the relative treatment of dogs by either the Republican front-runner versus the Democratic incumbent, in neither case will they be dispositive regarding my vote come election day.

"(B)iographical and character details. Much of the More Informed cohort of the party seems to be giving these factors short shrift. I would suggest to such folks that a certain type of candidate tends to prevail in elections, and that type of candidate tends to have a positive narrative in biographical and characterological traits."

I like the point Ace makes here. Consider Reagan in light of this, likewise Clinton (to a degree). Optimism sells.

"I can only say so often that the swing voters in the center of the country are among the least-informed voters on the planet. Every survey demonstrates that, despite their claims to be all about "the substance" and "the issues," they know less about the substance and the issues than partisans on either side of the aisle.

Being apolitical, they're not very interested in politics. Stands to reason. This means, then, that they don't read much about politics.

Their decision-making is very superficial."

See how Ace builds an argument here. Crafty.

"I would suggest that we should not get too hung up on fighting the last war, because the media will simply change the rules of engagement."

Well, duh.

"Barack Obama did not serve in the military. That is perhaps the most understated sentence in the history of communications, but since people are interested in drawing contrasts, consider that one."

This passage followed one contrasting the various service (and non-service) records of the various Republican candidates at the time in was written. It wasn't a stand-alone potshot at the president, although it certainly would serve as one.

"I cannot and will not say that brainpower is unimportant. I would however say that character matters too."

Yes.

None of the candidates, no matter what one may be influenced to think by the media, are particularly dumb. They may have worldviews and political perspectives far to the left or right of what you consider to be smart, but that doesn't mean they're dumb.

Presidential debates, public speeches, and the like are hard to do. Which is why most people don't do them. Most people don't like to do them. Some people make them look easier than others. This only means they're better at making speeches (or reading teleprompters, but I digress). I would submit that the particular set of talents and personality traits that help make a good public speaker or debater may or may not make a good president. Still, practice will help. Minor slip-ups in public speaking shouldn't be made too much of though.

"America, and especially the Republican party, has long favored elevating governors to the presidency. Governors are, after all, the presidents of single states. They have nearly the exact same duties and functions (including even maintaining and controlling the state national guards). They have similar executive powers and set the agendas for their respective legislatures. In the case of border states such as Texas, they even require some foreign policy making duties.No job in the world really prepares someone for the Presidency. But one job, more than any other, comes fairly close to doings so."

While the U.S. Senate is famous for housing one hundred politicians who earnestly believe they should be president, the fifty governor's mansions house the people who are most likely to be better chief executives. Or if not better, at least better tested, so the voters can examine a record of leadership in office rather than that of a legislator. Being the "chief legislator" is only a part of the president's job, and it's a part of every state governor's job as well.

"The stakes in this election are enormous. The next president may well appoint five justices the Supreme Court, essentially choosing our basic jurisprudence for the next 30 years. This will be the presidency in which we make fundamental decisions about debt, and spending, and entitlements. Decisions on those may decide our fiscal policy for the next 20 or 30 years, too.

But while those are the stakes of this election, the election will actually turn on... Jobs.

Unemployment is at 8.6%, with real unemployment around 16%. For the sake of comparison, unemployment during the Great Depression hit 25% at its high. We are not there yet, but we've consistently been at around 9% for years (with real unemployment higher).

Primary voters tend to be strongly ideological. We have very strongly held beliefs about abstract notions of government and "The Good." But general election voters -- especially those swing voters -- do not have strong opinions about such matters. Otherwise they would be partisans for one camp or another. They tend to be pragmatic, rather than abstract, thinkers. They do not have any prevailing theory of governance, which is what gives them the flexibility to vote for George W. Bush in 2004 and then an all-but-declared socialist four years later.

They care almost entirely about results, because they have no underlying theory that might explain away failures"

CAA is torn between deciding whether this should be considered a bug or a feature. I suppose it'll have to simply be accepted as something that simply is.

"If you think the unaffiliated, mostly apolitical voters in the center are going to be swayed by full-throated announcements of steadfast ideological commitment, you're guilty of universalizing from your own experience.

If they thought that way, they would not be independents. They would, like you, be declared partisans and ideologically-motivated voters.

Speeches are nice but facts are what change minds." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA)

Ace is describing a sort of cognitive bias, the version of "mirror-imaging" to which political geeks may fall prey.

"I will say this without fear of contradiction: A president can only really push 3-4 major initiatives in his first term, and 1-2 in his second. By the last half of his second term, he's a lame duck, and is chiefly clocking time and fighting off efforts to undo whatever he's done in the first six years."

&

"(T)hat impulse -- the idea that the first questions should always be "Wait, does the federal government need to do this? Is it even constitutional that they do this?" -- is the right impulse."

1/3

re: "This Is A Parody--Right?"

MikeM at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") shared a good appreciation of our Iranian adversaries.

Money quote(s):

"One might be tempted to think that this situation—whatever it is and whoever it involves—is a very serious matter and that our government will respond with the kind of righteous rage demonstrated after 9-11. It is a very serious matter indeed, but that's where reality breaks down.

As reported at Fox News, we've intercepted an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to America, with explosives, on American soil. Iranian members of the Quds Force," a paramilitary spy/internal security force pursued a hit on the Ambassador by trying to hire what they thought was a Mexican drug cartel to make the attack. Two Iranian agents were captured and others remain at large."

Shocked? Nah, me neither. Neither was Mr. McDaniel, who shared a nice 11 point list to justify his non-surprise.

"What must the Iranians think of our response thus far? We're imposing sanctions on individual Iranian spies? American firms won't be able to do business with them? Just how many Americans firms, pray tell, do a considerable portion of their business with Iranian operatives such that these sanctions will have any effect—other than provoking uproarious Iranian laughter—on Iran? Will the threat of treating their spies as common criminals accorded the full protections of the Constitution the Iranians not only refuse to recognize but see as a sign of weakness strike fear into the hearts of the hardened terrorist murderers running that despotic nation? Will it cause them to abandon their nuclear designs? Beg for mercy and forgiveness from Israel?"

&

"America—and the world—will be very fortunate indeed if our many enemies do not take advantage of what they must surely believe to be a historic opportunity between now and November of 2012. On the other hand, with leadership that bows to despots, reflexively supports Marxist and Islamist despots and which actually delivers arms to our deadly enemies as a cynical and incredibly stupid means of imposing anti-freedom domestic policies, do we really need enemies?"

10/11

re: "Hope, Change, and 99% View 685 20110728"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook.") examined issues of assimilation vs. diversity and of budget crises.

Money quote(s):

"Sowing the wind.

We don’t do breaking news, but it isn’t so much news as settling “when”: there has been another plot by a Muslim soldier to kill his comrades in protest against being “forced” to participate in the unjust wars in the Middle East.

U.S. officials told ABC News an AWOL serviceman, identified by the FBI as a Private First Class Naser Jason Abdo, was arrested Wednesday after making a purchase at Guns Galore in Killeen, Texas, the same ammunition store where Maj. Nidal Hasan purchased the weapons he allegedly used to gun down 13 people and wound 32 others on Nov. 5, 2009.

As to why it isn’t news:

Abdo told ABC News in 2010 he was Muslim and should not have to participate in what he called an "unjust war" in the Middle East.

"Any Muslim who knows his religion or maybe takes into account what his religion says can find out very clearly why he should not participate in the U.S. military," Abdo said then.

Welcome to the joys of diversity and entitlement. America was not built as a society of entitlement and diversity. There was a founding culture. It was a culture of tolerance, but tolerance is not the same as the celebration of “diversity.” Immigrants were always encouraged to assimilate. They were not forced to do so, but the public system tolerated diversity; it didn’t force it. There were crèches in the public square at Christmas. Later we added the menorah. Almost all public ceremonies were opened by an invocation by a Protestant minister. Over time we added a Catholic priest (and of course some communities always had included Catholics, although most had not). Later we added a rabbi. All of this was to show some deference to the American culture. We would tolerate diversity as a monument to our liberty but we did not set the public hangman the task of destroying the crèche in the public square. We did not use the courts as an engine of destruction of our culture.

Then we began to sow the wind. All cultures are equal. There is no American culture as such.

We have coupled diversity with egality and added entitlements. We have sown the wind.

And we reap the whirlwind. Nidal Hasan and Naser Abdo are not the last of the pale riders."

Dr. Pournelle, as the original blogger, has been around long enough to see certain long-lead-time trends take shape over the period of decades. That perspective is important to those of us who've come after.

"National unity is not a given. Patriotism is not free. For an example relevant to today’s story: imagine an Amish soldier who insists on his right to be part of the Army, but that the Courts prevent the Army from using motorized vehicles anywhere near him since the sight of them offends him; now imagine a court granting that, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding that decision.

We can endure regional diversity. The abortion issue is an example. There is no national consensus. Shall we send armed agents to enforce whatever happens to be the opinion of a majority at the time? Shall the Army insist that Mother Superior perform abortions in St. Joseph’s, or jail abortionists who perform them? Left to the states the issue is endurable.

The goal is a society that holds together, not one of some ideal perfection."

This was written last July. Now we have nearly the exact absurdity, insisting that Mother Superior and St. Joseph's pay for abortions, becoming a matter of federal law.

"It is important to understand that no Congress has the power to bind a future Congress. If this Congress cannot get us out of the automatic increases in entitlements, another can. It may require replacing every single Senator, Member of Congress, the President and Vice President, and every senior civil servant in Washington, but it is possible simply not to fund “non-discretionary entitlements” . The Constitution is very clear: tax and revenue bills have to originate in the House, and “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Words and phrases such as entitlements, discretionary vs. non-discretionary funding, and the like, obscure the truth Dr. Pournelle reminds us of: that no Congress can bind a future one.

7/28

re: "In Lieu of Rough Handling"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") posed some questions of lawfulness and Constitutionality.

Money quote(s):

"(S)econd thoughts on the killing of an American citizen abroad by agents of the US government"

Naturally, as a consular officer the notion of killing an Amcit is so far outside the pale that it mega-boggles the mind.

From a more soldierly, laws of land warfare-minded, perspective it's certainly possible to envision such as thing in terms of inadvertently killing an Amcit in the course of combat operations, either as an adversarial combatant (i.e., the enemy) or as a collateral (unintended) casualty.

After all, stopping to examine one's opponents passports or citizenship status prior to engaging by fire and maneuver just doesn't come up in any standard format for an operations order that CAA has ever encountered.

Nonetheless, when standoff weapons (such as drone-launched missiles) are so accurate as to constitute sharpshooting and to (finally) give some semantic substance to the term "surgical strike," we must take a pause and consideration in cases where the U.S. citizenship status of an enemy belligerent is known (and, indeed, is a substantial component of the danger he presents to us).

"From a constitutional perspective, we’ve definitely crossed a line here. We sidestepped up to it over the years, little by little. And then vaulted over it in the dark, while no one was looking. It’d be nice if one of the aforementioned, named gentlemen explained to us where the new line has been drawn, if it has been. And if it has not, it would also be useful for a people of laws, governed by express consent, to know who will have a hand in drawing it."

10/11

re: "The Closers Part VI: Dealing with the U.S. Military"

Colonel Gary Anderson at the Small Wars Journal ("contributed work from across the spectrum of stakeholders in small wars") identified a real problem and offered some help at solving it.

Money quote(s):

"Many of the civilians who gravitate to counterinsurgency (COIN) work for the Departments of State and Justice have some knowledge of the military or have served in uniform. But many people from other agencies will not have such a background. Suddenly living among the military on a daily basis, and often depending on them totally for security can come as a culture shock that is almost as great as that experienced by stepping into a host nation's culture. It helps to come somewhat prepared. The Provincial Reconstruction Team classes given by the State Department's Foreign Service Institute are good but short, and they give out excellent advice, but it would help if you do homework on your own. This piece will attempt to give some background and perspective."

Read the entire, helpful, article.

Bonus quote(s):

"If they come to trust you, your military counterparts will ask you to share information gained in your interactions with the population. I have known civilian representatives from some agencies that had come to view themselves as quasi NGOs, and were reluctant to share information with their military counterparts, apparently seeing themselves in a neutral NGO-like status. Make no mistake about it, when you swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States as a government official or sign a contract with the government as a consultant, you have already taken sides. The insurgents will view you as the enemy, and the population will see you as a representative of our government. You need to accept that responsibility."

"Soldiers, in combat zones (and out of them) use a lot of profanity; it helps them to relieve the stress. If you are offended, I’d suggest keeping it to yourself. "

&

"Conclusion

If you do not have military experience, it is best to treat the military as you would any foreign culture by respecting its mores and customs, and learn as much as you can." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


7/22

re: "Not the Change They Were Looking For"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") delineated his comfort, and discomfort, zones regarding the "Triple-A" killing.

Money quote(s):

"I am, in the main, comfortable with the extrajudicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni-born American citizen who coached Nidal Hasan through his killing spree in Fort Hood, amongst other crimes and misdemeanors. In an ideal world, he would have been isolated, seized, arrested, Mirandized and brought to justice. In the end, the result would very likely have been the same, apart from the vastly greater sums being expended in security, trial, appeals, not to mention care and feeding while on death row. (All of it spent for the opportunity to congratulate ourselves for our moral superiority and more refined social consciousness as contrasted to the terrorists we grapple with, if not the societies which gave them birth. Because that would require the ability to make distinctions between one thing and another, which many of us have lost the ability to do, sing kumbaya.)

But we don’t live in an ideal world." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

You lie down with with terrorists at war with the U.S., and you get up with a Hellfire missile. Or don't get up, as the case may be.

"All that said, I do find myself a little queasy with the process by which candidates are nominated for death by lethal explosion"

Yeah. I can see that. It's one thing to targeteer a bombing raid on an enemy military headquarters, and if there's an American traitor on the premises that just his bad luck.

It's a bit of another thing when the target itself is in fact a himself.

This is a logical consequence of our surgical strike capability achieving such fine granularity that it's now micro-surgery.

"So a “secret panel” of “senior government officials” using no process defined by law “informs the president of its decisions”. That president’s role in approving those decisions is “fuzzy”, but at the output end people – American citizens – get got.

I don’t want to go all slippery slope here, but that just doesn’t quite seem to be in concert with the Constitution that I swore an oath to support and defend."

I wouldn't describe this targeteering scheme as being unConstitutional so much as being perhaps extra-Constitutional, and even that may be a stretch. Presumably the JAG folks have been over this backwards and forwards; it'd be a good deed of some of their advice could be released to the public.

"Now unidentified “government officials” are not just spying on people, but morting them, with no controlling law, no judicial review and “fuzzy” oversight.

I just don’t know."

It seems to me that the president, as commander-in-chief has delegated this targeteering function to certain of his lawfully appointed subordinates. All well and good. After all, most warfighting and commanding is (or should be) delegated by the CinC.

They make a recommendation, and then president, this time in his role as "chief magistrate," gets a chance to over-rule it, or not. Makes a certain amount of sense, but my theoretizing is just CAA spitballing here; what did the in-house JAGs have to say about this? What's the process and who designed it?

10/6

re: "Obama's Absolutely Unbelievable Press Conference"

DrewM. at Ace of Spades HQ had a laundry list of observations.

They included:

"First...who is defending Gadaffi? No one.

Second...Remember when Obama demanded that Democrats like himself stop criticizing Bush over Iraq lest it send something other than "a unified message" to Saddam or al Qaeda in Iraq?

And finally...standing up for the constitutional role of Congress in matters of war and peace is a "cause célèbre". This is how the President of the United States views the constitutional responsibilities of a co-equal branch of government."

Old news in terms of NATO's Libyan intervention, but the war-powers issue isn't going to go away. It transcends the current administration and the roots of the current Constitutional dilemna reach back beyond the Gulf of Tonkin all the way to the Korean War.

6/29

re: "Congress’s Constitutional Power to Establish National War Policy in Violation of International Law – A (Belated) Response to Professors.... "

John Dehn at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") summarized the play-by-play on some international law back-and-forth.

Money quote(s):

"Opinio Juris hosted an excellent discussion of an important new book, International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court, a well-edited collection of essays about the Supreme Court’s approach to international law. Professor David Golove’s contribution asserting that post-9/11 Supreme Court “War on Terror” decisions are consistent with what he called our “Just War constitutional tradition” drew significant attention. In Professor Golove’s view, both the President and Congress are constitutionally required to comply with at least some international laws of war. Professor Andrew Kent critiqued the essay here, arguing that Golove’s claims, particularly those involving Congress, are inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent recognizing Congress’s power to set national policy in violation of international law.
I agree with Golove’s assertion that the executive branch must generally comply with any applicable international laws of war. Like Professor Kent, I am quite circumspect of the claim that Congress must as well. Harlan Cohen responded to Professor Kent’s post, suggesting that Professor Golove and Professor William Dodge (one of the book’s editors) may believe that all nations, including ours, are “absolutely bound” by certain rules of international law, those that the well-known (to the Framers and to academics) and influential Eighteenth Century international law commentator Emmerich de Vattel categorized “voluntary law.” " (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

There's actually no such thing as "international law."

Don't get me wrong; there is a body of customary, traditional, and treaty-based law (for values of "law") comprising a body of specialized knowledge which is generally termed "international law." But that "law" doesn't even come close to passing the common sense tests that would make it equivalent to other forms of actual law.

"After reading Professor Golove’s contribution to the book, Professor Ramsey’s response, and Professor Dodge’s related essay, I think there may be confusion regarding the obligatory nature of what Vattel denominated “voluntary law” and its relationship to both the contemporary laws of war and the war powers of Congress.

I believe Congress possesses the constitutional power (in conjunction with the executive, when necessary) to establish national war policy contrary to relevant international law so long as it does not violate the text of the Constitution. To the extent that Professor Golove’s unpublished research may have uncovered “longstanding understandings in Congress” that it must follow certain international laws of war, I suspect those understandings to be based in morality or wise policy, not necessarily constitutional law. Golove has to date given only scant evidence of what seems an elegant argument in favor of granting constitutional status to any such congressional understandings.

I agree that there are (and were) rules of international law that nations were believed “absolutely bound” to observe. They included what Vattel denominated the “perfect rights” of nations. Perfect rights were those “accompanied by the right of compelling those who refuse to fulfill the correspondent obligation” through armed force. However, the absolute “bindingness” of these rules existed only in international law." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

There are some issues (more than some, but bear with me) with this perspective on the "bindingness" of international law.

For one thing, the perspective is astonishingly narrow in scope.

What we in the West call "international law" is a body of artifacts whose only relevance is within the larger context of the post-Westphalian international system. It is the height of civilizational and cultural chauvanism to suppose that it is truly global in application.

"(A) national policy, even one properly established under domestic law, may permit a violation of international law. But it cannot excuse that violation from the perspective of international law. In such cases, the policy is lawful in the domestic (municipal) legal system, but remains a violation of international law.

In my view, the key question is not whether the U.S. has ‘the power but not the right’ (to paraphrase Louis Henkin) to violate international law; it does. The key question is: which branch(es) of the U.S. government may constitutionally establish national policy contrary to international law? My research leads me to believe that in most contexts, including war, Congress does. In some very narrow circumstances it has been (and may still be) the executive alone." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The thing about violations of international law which are legal within a domestic legal system is the limited scope for enforcement. Who or what gets to enforce "international law" within another sovereign state and using what means or mechanisms?

"(T)he bulk of the contemporary international law of war (both jus ad bellum and jus in bello or international humanitarian law (IHL)) consists of customary and conventional constraints on conduct the natural law-based law of nations permitted. Therefore, contemporary IHL is not properly equated with Vattel’s “voluntary” law, which is law evidenced in or derived from natural law principles, generally observed for its utility, and obligatory on civilized states through their presumed (rather than express or implied) consent.

Vattel identifies three other categories of international law, (1) necessary, (2) customary and (3) conventional. Only necessary law, which consisted of the direct application of natural law to nations, was immutable or absolute. Vattel classified the other three types, including voluntary law, as composing the “positive law of nations” because “they proceed from the will of nations.” It defies logic to say that any species positive law cannot be altered at the will of the same nations that establish it." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

"(T)o the extent that any rules in the contemporary law of war might be properly categorized “voluntary” law, the Constitution expressly assigns Congress the power to derogate from or abrogate such law. Importantly, this includes the power to infringe the “perfect rights” of other nations. Nothing in the constitutional text expressly requires Congress to exercise its powers to declare war or grant letters of marque (or reprisal, see below) in a manner consistent with relevant international law. This is why the Court did not, in its early decisions, review a congressionally established general or partial war for compliance with the law of nations."

The OJ article included a nice quote from Chief Justice Marshall (Talbot v. Seeman) to back up that last claim:

“The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United
States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this enquiry [into whether France was properly deemed an enemy].” (emphasis added)

"Of course, none of these observations directly addresses Golove’s claim: that Congress believed itself to be limited by the law of nations when exercising its powers, and that this sense of obligation had a constitutional dimension or basis. There are, quite obviously, many reasons why members of Congress or Congress as a body might have boisterously made such claims. Chief among them would be to claim the legitimacy of law for proposed or adopted legislation infringing the perfect rights of other nations. Given the widely accepted origins of the natural law, some might also have felt morally obligated to observe it in spite of having constitutional discretion not to do so."

(9/6)

re: "National Security Part 3: The Role Of Economics"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road reviewed the economic basis for military strength.

Money quote(s):

"The last thing any commander wants to do is take his men into an unwinnable war, especially a war unwinnable by reason of inadequate material resources"

Unfortunately, wars aren't always fought by two sides which chose to go to war against each other. It only takes on side to start a war. The enemy gets a vote.

"If a commander dislikes to go to war inadequately provisioned, a national command authority -- in the case of the United States, the president -- should dislike to send him there. Yet it's in the nature of nation-states that, as John Jay said most memorably, they'll go to war whenever there's a good chance of profiting thereby."

This pre-supposes that a commander-in-chief is sufficiently knowledgable, or sufficiently well-advised, that he (or she) knows the difference. Or cares.

(Yes, I'm still pissed about the whole "the army you have" crack.)

"Economic strength is both the precondition for military readiness and the requirement for military endurance. To be considered well defended, a nation must have both.

Analysts disagree on the extent to which a nation can endure various degrees of economic militarization. In the early years of the RAND Corporation, studies were submitted to the Pentagon that proposed that the United States could divert as much as 50% of its GDP to military expenditures, if that were necessary to meet some contingency. Needless to say, there was a wide spread of opinion on whether that was true, and if so, on how long the nation could remain in being under so large a military burden."

Full mobilization is something that the U.S. has never, not really, experienced. Nothing like what various European states, such as Britain, Russia, or Germany, experienced during World War II.

"(A)nnual military expenditures come to about $700 billion: 5% of GDP. Given that the armed forces are one of the seventeen enumerated powers of Congress, that doesn't seem disproportionate, especially considering the broadening of the military's missions and responsibilities in recent years."

Ah, but what about the penumbras!

"It must be said that we spend as much as we do on our military because our "allies" spend so little on theirs. Not only are we committed to their defense; we are all too frequently called in to handle crises they have disdained to address.

Yet despite all that spending and the large, capable military it supports, we are not secure."

There's no such thing as being completley secure, at least this side of the Pearly Gates. The writer discusses some of the ways in which he believes Americans perceive themselves to be insecure, which are worth reading, particularly with regards to the problems causing, and resulting from, illegal immigration.

"(N)ational security is affected by our willingness and ability to maintain mobilization bases: facilities from which we could rapidly develop new or previously rejected military capabilities, or greatly expand the ones we have.

Mobilization bases are important because few major wars begin as "bolts from the blue." There are normally clear indications that conflict is brewing well before the first exchange of fire. That would be so even in our present age, in which the interval between a firm decision and the ballistic nuclear bombardment of any point on the globe is no more than thirty minutes."

A firm decision should be made upon a basis of firm information. More than likely somewhat longer than 30 minutes would be required to assemble, to say nothing of developing, actionable intelligence.

"(S)uch mobilization bases cost money. Worse, it's money spent to remain flexibly poised against notional threats: possibilities that might never materialize. They're the first targets of budget-cutters in a time of austerity. Thus, we cannot be sanguine about building and maintaining such bases without maintaining our economic health and vitality. Even then, it would be necessary to keep unpleasant but yet unrealized possibilities in mind when the budget-cutters come to call."

Good advice for the strategic-minded, but the strategic-minded won't be calling the shots when the knives come out for budget cutting.

"America was not altogether ready for World War II. We had reduced our World War I Army to pre-war levels, and had retreated from most aspects of military production. Fortunately, the psychological response of Americans to the attack on Pearl Harbor left us ready and willing to endure a considerable degree of privation for the sake of the forces and materiel the war would require. Above all, America was rich enough, and free enough, to convert half of its productive sector to the making of weapons of war. It is unclear that we could do that today."

I'm a bit more optimistic about our ability to convert great swaths of our productive sector to war production, but I'm less sanguine about what of our productive sector actually remains within our own borders.

re: "We should stand up for what we believe"

Lemuel Calhoon at Hillbilly White Trash ("Commenting about politics, religion, firearms, food, Celtic music, beer, science fiction and the Asheville Vortex. Home of the Hillbilly Ecosystem.") joins others in proposing to ignore Art. VI, Sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution.

Money quote(s):

"I think that answering those questions from a conservative perspective would help rather than hurt a candidate."

Maybe. Perhaps CAA is still hearing echoes of R.A. Heinlein's warnings against theocratic tendencies in America, a la Nehemiah Scudder. Still, the American (and Western) blindspot about religions is being exploited as a vulnerability by our enemies, both within and without. Like other Constitutional freedoms, there must be limitations (i.e., no sacrificing virgins to the volcano god, &tc.); it's can't be absolute.

"The left is attempting not so much to drive God from the public square (they don't believe in God so as far as they are concerned He isn't there to begin with) but to drive people of faith from participation in the public life of the nation. It is time that religious people fought back by openly and unapologetically acknowledging their faith."

Governmental acquiescence of kind of institutional atheism is not turning out to be any sort of improvement, since it leaves the door open for those who are willing, able, and adept at manipulating that vacuity with a stunningly ingenuous duplicity.

"Leftist elites who show their contempt for America's religious heritage are also showing their contempt for ordinary Americans. A candidate who calls the elites on that contempt will find themselves backed by a substantial majority of the American people."

Fair enough. Elitist contempt, and the counter-reacting Tea and Pirate parties here and in Europe, will contest (and settle) this divide politically.

re: "Take Your Bulbs and Stick 'Em"

Emperor Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VRWC.") was making good points right up until the talk about wading knee-deep in blood.

(Not cool.)

Money quote(s):

"(G)overnor Perry has, once again, told the fascist regime in DC to quit meddling"

What is it about Texas that her governors seem more presidential than those of other states?

"The point is that there is no Constitutional authority for the retards in the DC swamp to tell us which kind of bulb we want to purchase and, Constitutional issues aside, nobody has any fucking business interfering with consumer choice. If one choice is superior to the other, it will win out in the market place without any interference needed.

If it isn’t, then nobody has the right to force you to choose the inferior product."

The interstate commerce clause has been emanated and penumbra-ed unto death. At this point, you could probably get a majority of people in the country to vote in favor of deleting it from the Constitution (not that our system allows for such referenda, nor should it). It apparently takes the decades of legal training and judicial experience of our nine Supreme Court justices, not to mention that of generations of congressmen and such, to enable one to believe the expansive abuse of this clause is Constitutionally justified.

Because an ordinary U.S. citizen, relying solely upon their knowledge of the English language, middle school civics classes, and their own native common sense would never manage such a feat unassisted.

re: "Fareed Zakaria knows the problem with the United States"

Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom ("Because not just anybody can summarize the news.") is clearly losing patience with Mr. Zakaria.

Money quote(s):

"It’s the Constitution. Which is old and hasn’t been usefully updated for the 21st century — something we should be doing through social media, starting with archaic and useless institutions like the electoral college, or Senate representation (because clearly it’s unfair that California have 2 senators and Wisconsin have 2 senators when California is bigger).

When Ezra Klein floated this idea a month or so back I suggested that the left was working on its messaging for just such a push to destroy the republic and replace it with a pure democracy, where the mob, which the left will run through large urban centers, will vote themselves your money and the Democrats their power. Less populated states will have to bend to the will of more populated states — and politicians could save themselves time and effort by having to pander only to the large urban centers, ignoring in some cases entire areas of the country."

This would require a Constitutional amendment; and the amendment process is rigged, deliberately so, to make this development unlikely at best.

Not impossible, mind you, just unlikely. The less populated states, and their representative, would have to vote themselves into irrelevence.

"The founders and framers saw what would happen. The only direct elections they advocated were for those in the House. They did this to protect against populism and, ultimately, majority tyranny — while keeping power vested in the separate states."

re: "The Media Turns On Obama, And My Head Is Spinning"

Thanks to TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") for the link and the mention:

"I've been following Consul-at-Arms and cheering as he defends the Constitutional powers of Congress against the administration's interpretation dismissal of the War Powers Act."

I'd quibble about my defending Congress, exactly. I feel like I've been as critical of Congress (for not defending its Constitutional perogatives) as I've been of the executive branch for continuing to push the envelope of its own Constitutional perogatives.

Money quote(s):

"President Obama started the Libyan action with a March 21 letter to Congress that cited the requirements of the War Powers Act ("I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action") but, when the May 20 deadline for withdrawal approached, he changed his mind about those requirements.This morning, as I caught up on my reading, I saw that both the New York Times and the Washington Post have attacked the administration's position that the War Powers Act no longer applies to its military action in Libya. The Mainstream Media in a united front with CAA? I must be dreaming." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

He had to take a lie down until the dizziness passed.