Guantanamo Bay - a quick point
Another quick point regarding the
Supreme Court's ruling concering bin Laden's bodyguard today. Notice the following quote from Justice Kennedy:
"Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the
highest order," Kennedy wrote in his separate opinion. "Concentration of power
(in the executive branch) puts personal liberty in peril of arbitrary action by
officials, an incursion the Constitution's three-part system is designed to
avoid."
Since when were the Guantanamo Bay detainees governed by the laws of the US Constitution? I missed the part where they were citizens of our country. The executive branch's authority over non-US citizens in the context of international affairs (i.e. war) which affect our national security is in no way relevant to liberties enjoyed by US citizens under the US Consitution. Kennedy's argument is bogus. It would only make sense if bin Laden's bodyguard was a bona fide American citizen, which he is not.
Focus on the Language
Note the language in the first few paragraphs of the AP report covering the Supreme Court's recent
ruling on military tribunals (with my emphasis added):
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The ruling, a strong rebuke to the administration and its aggressive
anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the
proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva
conventions.
The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard
and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S.
prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from
1996 to November 2001.
The ruling raises major questions about the legal status of about 450
men still being held at Guantanamo and exactly how, when and where the
administration might pursue the charges against them.
A more even-handed approach might go as follows:
A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a military war crimes trial for Osama bin Laden's former bodyguard would be unlawful.
The ruling , a setback to the administration and its anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were not consistent with U.S. law and the Geneva Convention.
The ruling raises questions about the legal status of about 450 men still being held at Guantanamo and exactly how, when and where the administration might pursue the charges against them.
Open post: The buck stops.... where?
One of the interesting questions of the new century is this: how much blame does a chief executive of a company or a nation deserve when things go wrong on his/her watch? Of course, the easiest answer is that the buck has to stop somewhere, and it should stop with the most powerful individual in the organization. However, I don't believe this should always be the case. Two cases in particular highlight the complexity:
- Ken Lay and Enron - from my previous posts, you already know that Lay was not involved in the scandal. He was simply very naive. Even though he was CEO for almost all of the time the troubles were occurring, he was very hands-off - Skilling was handling the day to day operations long before he actually assumed the CEO title. As the top guy at Enron, how much blame does Lay deserve? How responsible is he for the actions of his underlings which he was unaware of? If held to the ultimate standard (i.e. conviction in court, jail time), how are CEO's in the future supposed to delegate work? How much should he have known so that he could have smelled something fishy when the special purpose entities were discussed in board meetings, for example?
- Bush and Iraqi WMD's - if the director of the CIA tells you that WMD's in Iraq are a "slam dunk" (that is a direct quote from Bob Woodward's book covering the run-up to the Iraq War), how much blame should a president absorb if that claim turns out to not be true? It's not like Bush did the interrogations himself, or analyzed the satellite photos himself - his knowledge was limited to what the intelligence services told him, and they failed miserably. Is it his fault that they failed? Does the buck ultimately stop with him? How much blame should go the CIA? The left will tell you that it is all Bush's fault, and that he politicized the intelligence process to get the conclusion that he wanted so he could go to war, but this notion has been thoroughly investigated and discredited by bipartisan government commissions.
I suppose these two cases bring the more focused question to light: if your underlings fail spectacularly and you are effectively blindsided by it, how much blame do you bear simply because you are their boss?
Again, this is an open post. I don't pretend to know the answer to this question. I welcome your comments (as always).
An Exercise in Futility
As one observes the lack of resolve shown by the UN Security Council with regards to Iran and the genocide in Darfur, its failure may be most readily explained by a brief comparison with the US Congress.
The legislative process in America is diluted into two bodies, each of which must pass their own bills and then negotiate with each other on the final product (which must also be passed). The final bill is then sent on to the executive branch for approval or veto. A presidential veto is very difficult to overcome through Congress. In addition, the judicial branch can strike down laws that survive this process if they are deemed to be unconstitutional. In other words, making new laws for our country was purposefully designed as a difficult, compromise-driven process. However, when it comes to issues of war and peace, life and death, and international relations (to name a few), our government is designed to defer to the executive branch. At an international level, no one truly speaks for America except for the president and his surrogates.
In contrast, the UN's security council is made up of five veto-wielding states. The security council attempts to handle the most profound issues of the day, very much including war and peace, life and death, and international relations. The veto gives America, England, France, Russia, and China immense power, which is derived from the post - WW2 realities of the late 1940's, when the UN was established. This would be like an executive branch in America composed of five individuals, all of which had equal weight and veto power, and all of which were always from the five states that were the most populous and important in 1945.
The result is a body which is ineffective, and cannot even agree to issue
statements calling the slaughter of hundreds of thousands genocide (Darfur). Security council resolutions typically appeal to the lowest common denominator which all parties can agree on, which in practice results in empty rhetoric, self-congratulatory speeches, and little else. Meanwhile, the profound issues fester, innocents are slaughtered, and the world buries its collective head in the sand. When troubles become too large to ignore (i.e. on September 12th, 2001), the US generally cleans them up and is severely criticized for it.
World Cup
As I view the World Cup, I am struck most by what is missing.
Where are the TV timeouts, the relentless play stoppages, the throngs of scantily clad cheerleaders, the beer commercials, and the tattoos?
Where is the individualism? Why do they play like a team? Why is the field so big and why are there so many players? After all, a smaller field and fewer people = more scoring.
Where are the micromanaging celebrity coaches?
Most importantly, why do they seem to care so much? Aren't they just playing to get paid anyway?
Seriously, what a boring sport.
Nationalization Update
Recently Bolivia
forcibly occupied its natural gas fields, forcing foreign energy companies to agree to new contracts within 6 months or lose the fields altogether. The proposed contracts would give the Bolivian government majority control. Thus we see nationalization in slow motion, a large step backwards for the region and the world.
Interestingly, one of the biggest players in Bolivia is Petrobras, which is the state-run energy company of Brazil. Brazil's president, Luis Inacia Lula de Silva, was elected in 2002 on a leftist platform similar to Evo Morales (new president of Bolivia). This poses a dilemma: what to do when one leftist government nationalizes natural gas fields owned by another leftist government? It's kind of a Catch-22, because the "greedy foreign oil companies" in this case are owned by your ideological comrades. Hmmmm... For answers, we will have to wait and see - as de Silva, hoping to avoid further trouble, has made conciliatory statements after initially expressing alarm at the measure.
One thing is certain:
prices will rise:
Firms have 180 days to renegotiate energy contracts with the Bolivian state,
which experts say will likely lead to price increases. During that time, the
companies which own the two largest oil fields will absorb a 32 percent hike
(82 percent total) in royalties and taxes.
Meanwhile, the Three Amigos strike again:
Just before the May 1 decree, Morales met with Chávez and Castro in Havana to
sign a socialist trade agreement that made Morales a member of the Bolivarian
Alternative for the Americas. The three are now calling it the "Axis of Good," a
pact originally signed by Chávez and Castro last year. Morales and Chávez
threatened to pull out of the Andean Community if
Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador sign free trade agreements with the United States.
Castro and Chávez also said they would become Bolivia's primary soybean
importers. This plan may affect Brazil, because Morales has set a May 31
deadline for land redistribution in the Santa Cruz region, where Brazilian
farmers grow more than a third of Bolivia's soybeans and have invested heavily
in land and agriculture.
It is sad to see Latin America giving up on market capitalism, even as its thug leaders profit to an unprecedented degree. As a for instance, Castro is
purported to be worth approximately $900 million dollars. He has starved and brutalized his own people for 40-odd years now, but at least he's comfortable. Who will stand up to him?
