Category: Government

Better than being an irrational hermit

I’d planned to examine yesterday’s Best of the Web Today yesterday, but the Phillies are in town and the game didn’t get rained out as expected. That’s okay, because the absurdity of Mr. Taranto’s logic hasn’t faded. In the section titled “Rational Fools,” he discusses libertarians who believe we must keep an absolute protection on civil liberties while trying to prevent terrorism. The entirety is ridiculous, with Mr. Taranto reaching a conclusion that is nowhere on the map of his initial argument, but a few bits stand out.

Mr. Taranto begins by focusing on this passage from a recent editorial:

Richardson R. Lynn, dean of Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, had an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the other day in which he argued against any limitations on civil liberties in the name of preventing terrorism. This passage is especially revealing of the mindset of civil-liberties absolutists:

Even if a totally preventive legal system did work, should we adopt it? The horror of losing friends and loved ones in the inexplicable violence of terrorism is surely one of our deepest fears. But someone has to say: There are worse things.

Naturally Mr. Taranto can’t think of what might be “worse things,” although he acknowledges what I perceive to be the proper context for “worse things”. Seemingly, no “worse things” for individuals justifies eroding civil liberties for all. Mr. Taranto accuses Mr. Lynn of thinking only of the abstract notion of what is good for society, yet somehow fails to see that he’s doing the same in believing that erasing civil liberties for all is acceptable if it protects the good for one. Reverence for civil liberties can be absolute, but is the belief that any measure against the whole is reasonable as long as it protects any less absolute? In preventing terrorism there can remain no element of the risk of living. We must live in a safe world. Nonsense.

It is entirely rational to accept some level of terrorism, crime or disorder rather than live in a police state that claims to guarantee perfect safety.

That is from Mr. Lynn. Mr. Taranto responds with this:

Like Dukakis’s arguments against the death penalty, the truth of this assertion is debatable (and never mind that no one is seriously proposing a police state). But also like Dukakis’s answer to Shaw’s question, it misses the point in a profound way. Human beings are not “entirely rational.” If we were, we wouldn’t worry about losing loved ones in terrorist attacks, because we wouldn’t love anyone.

If you believe in all of the civil liberties protected by the Constitution, you also believe that human beings shouldn’t love anyone. Emotionally safe, sanitized, and encased in bubble wrap, so there is no interference in pursuing the libertarian dream of drugs, hookers, and firearms. Mr. Taranto may believe that libertarians live in a dream world that doesn’t exist, but I’d rather strive for a dream world than live in fear.

Or a police state. The defense against our march to police state is laughable. Of course no one is seriously proposing a police state. That’s what makes the erosion of our civil liberties so awful. For more than two centuries, our liberties were the goal of conservatives, but now they must be sacrificed for safety. Yet, no one wants to claim credit for the damage done. Blame the terrorists, for they are the ones who hate our freedom. Passing blame doesn’t change the reality of what’s being done to us, by us. Saying we want a police state is not necessary to enact a police state, or at least policies indicative of a police state. Implementing police state policies in secret speaks loudly enough for me.

Mr. Taranto concludes:

Wisdom entails not only rationality but also due regard for human feeling. In this regard, civil-liberties absolutists seem totally oblivious. Fear is the enemy of civil liberties. If America suffers another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, Americans will become more fearful–a reaction that is not entirely irrational–and civil liberties will become more vulnerable. Civil libertarians’ lack of concern with preventing terrorism may be “entirely rational,” but it sure is foolish.

Americans will become more fearful. I don’t doubt that, as the initial reaction to any attack will not be rational. But we’re nearly five years beyond September 11, 2001. Shouldn’t there be room for some rational discourse, with respect for our principles? I understand that the answer in practice is no. However, why do we accept our leadership selling fear? That may be due regard for human feeling, but by Mr. Taranto’s logic, it also makes our leadership the enemy of civil liberties.

Will a computer guard the prisoners beyond hour 48?

Richard A. Posner may be on to something regarding an American need for an MI5 equivalent, in light of the recent foiled attacks. In his essay, he concludes:

We cannot afford to assume that we are safe. Perhaps we will now abandon that comfortable assumption.

I’m fine with that, and don’t believe I’ve argued for anything to the contrary in my words here. But this is not a strong foundation for convincing me of his specific plan:

But to the extent that our laws do handicap us in fighting terrorism, it is one more sign that we do not take the threat of terrorism seriously enough to be willing to reexamine a commitment to a rather extravagant conception of civil liberties that was formed in a different and safer era.

I read that portion of Judge Posner’s essay as referring specifically to the period in which suspects can be held without a hearing. Let’s debate that, and take appropriate action if 48 hours doesn’t make sense. But the solution does not involve removing an extravagant conception of civil liberties. The government already believes any constraints are extravagant. They do not need fewer constraints. Seek a solution that protects oversight of civil liberties protection, not a solution that tramples our ideals with a guilty until the government decides otherwise conception of national security.

Jesus Saves while Uncle Sam spends

I suspect there’s a better solution to this local religious quandary than having the federal government purchase land it does not need.

A gigantic cross in San Diego that has been the focus of a 17-year court battle became the property of the federal government yesterday with President Bush’s signature.

Supporters hope the legislation enabling the federal government to purchase the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial — featuring a 29-foot cross — from the city of San Diego will protect it permanently. A series of court decisions have deemed the cross unconstitutional because it stands on public property.

“Just because something may have a religious connotation doesn’t mean you destroy it and tear it down,” said Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-Calif.), after an Oval Office signing ceremony attended by other cross supporters and Republican House members who sponsored the bill.

If the cross is so important to religious Americans, those individuals and/or groups are free to band together to purchase the property themselves. With private ownership, the establishment clause impact would be gone. That should be obvious. Instead, we’re left with Rep. Bilbray’s strange notion that the property’s religious connotation only offered two choices, government protection or destruction. How strong is faith in this country that its symbols must be protected by government, lest it perish from the Earth? To Rep. Bilbray I say this: just because something may have a religious connotation to a few (or even many) doesn’t mean we all must pay for its protection. If you like the cross so much, use your own money.

Active skepticism is not defeatism

I don’t understand how today’s conservatives can complain about judicial reliance on foreign law while using successful policies (i.e., conform to preferred neocon outcomes) as a rationale for changing U.S. policy. It’s hypocritical, at best, but it’s also flawed. Consider this from today’s Opinion Journal:

Britain’s successful pre-emption of an Islamicist plot to destroy up to 10 civilian airliners over the Atlantic Ocean proves that surveillance and other forms of information-gathering remain an essential weapon in prosecuting the war on terror. There was never any real doubt of this, of course. Al Qaeda’s preferred targets are civilians, and civilians have a right to be protected from such deliberate and calculated attacks. Denying the terrorists funding, striking at their bases and training camps, holding accountable governments that promote terror and harbor terrorists, and building democracy around the world are all necessary measures in winning the war. None of these, however, can substitute for anticipating and thwarting terror operations as the British have done. This requires the development and exploitation of intelligence.
…

In addition, the British police have certain extraordinary tools designed specifically to fight terrorism. …
…

  • Secrecy. Similarly, there is a substantial body of opinion in the U.S. that seems to consider any governmental effort to act secretly, or to punish the disclosure of sensitive information, to be illegitimate. Thus, for example, Bush critics persistently attacked the president’s decision to intercept al Qaeda’s international electronic communications without a warrant in part because of its secrecy, even though the relevant members of Congress had been informed of the NSA’s program from the start. By contrast, there appears to be much less hostility in Britain toward government secrecy in general, and little or no tradition of “leaking” highly sensitive information as a regular part of bureaucratic infighting–perhaps because the perpetrators could far more easily be punished with criminal sanctions under the Official Secrets Act in the U.K. than under current U.S. law.

Anyone who believes that we can bury our head and pretend like no threat of terrorism exists does not deserve to be included in the debate. So, why are op-eds such as this arguing only against those people? It would be wiser, and more effective, to debate the merits of how best to achieve our safety within the context of our Constitution. Instead, the conservative discussion is “with us or against us”, where believing in checks on the abuse of power amounts to “against us”. This is stupid.

Consider the notion of secrecy, as presented in the excerpt. The primary objection of libertarians is not that the government must engage in intelligence gathering. As far as it is necessary to protect national security, it is a legitimate function of the government. However, the degree to which it is carried out, and under what exposure to public scrutiny, cannot be ignored. Intercepting electronic communications is an important, and potentially fruitful, endeavor. Assuming that without a warrant is fine since relevant members of Congress were informed is erroneous and anti-Constitution. We grant the power of warrants to the judiciary, not the legislature. Critics of the administration do not quibble for an elimination of power. Critics understand that unchecked power will result in abuse, assurances to the contrary notwithstanding.

We have tools in place already. If they’re insufficient, the administration should make that case to the Congress. It has not done that, ignoring existing rules out of convenience. Given its inability to follow existing requirements, the administration should not be granted the freedom to enact its policies without oversight. That is the chewy center of opposition to the administration’s (indefinite, undefined) war prosecution.

More thoughts on this at A Stitch in Haste, where Kip batted down last week’s silliness from the Wall Street Journal.

I lost the government’s birth lottery

From Cato @ Liberty:

Social Security turns 71 today. One can argue about whether or not the program was a good idea in 1935, but there should be no question about its inadequacies today. And its flaws just get worse with each passing year.

Social Security will begin running a deficit in just 11 years. Of course, in theory, the Social Security Trust Fund will pay benefits until 2040. That’s not much comfort to today’s 33-year-olds, who will face an automatic 26 percent cut in benefits unless the program is reformed before they retire. …

Let me ponder for a moment that I’m 33, and will reach my (government-accepted) retirement age of 67 in July 2040. Yay, me. Is this the part where I state that leadership is preparing today for what tomorrow will bring, while politics is preparing tomorrow for what yesterday brought? I thought so.

Congress should stamp Return to Sender upon receipt

Couldn’t the Bush administration achieve this through a presidential signing statement? Why go through the established process if executive power is plenary?

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.

Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.

The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.

Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as “outrages upon [the] personal dignity” of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts — such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women’s underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — that fall short of torture.

I’d like to believe that this is a cowardly admission that some of our government’s policies are dishonorable (and illegal), but that’s too optimistic. Instead, I suspect the spin will involve thwarting a plot by activist judges, prosecutors, and politicians (traitorous Democrats, no doubt) to eliminate useful interrogation techniques because those nefarious individuals want our enemies to win. Or something. The president, he knows best. The only consolation is that the administration didn’t let this slide and then offer pardons for anyone convicted before January 2009. (I’m assuming the next president could pardon future patriots convicted of outrages upon personal dignity, since we’re at a permanent conservative majority.) Either way, this is shameful and should be rejected by the Congress.

Just because I like this quote:

Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy’s top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is “don’t trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.”

This administration has obfuscated enough.

Popular and expensive doesn’t equate public good

I’m more intrigued by the background of how this case made it to court than I am in the specific ruling:

The park district described the dispute as “a far-reaching issue of great public importance,” while the Bears argued that the real heart of the disagreement was money.

The [Chicago] Bears claimed that the park district, which owns Soldier Field, simply didn’t want to pay the additional cost of having police pat down thousands of fans arriving for games.

The park district refused to conduct the searches last season, and the team hired a private security firm to do it. Fans were searched before the final home game and a playoff game.

I’m a tad confused as to why the park district would sue, so the judge’s ruling that the it lacks standing seems correct. Yet, I’m amazed at how the issue arose. Presumably the Bears have a lease for Soldier Field, and presumably that lease indicates if game security is provided (or not, by omission). Since that isn’t indicated in the story, I’m working under the impression that it’s not stated. If I’m correct, can the Bears possibly be so arrogant as to expect the park district will provide it security services as the team deems appropriate? The public handout of a cheap stadium isn’t enough?

The better scenario is for the team to operate its own stadium, and provide the security it deems appropriate. If the fans deem the search requirement onerous and unfair, they won’t attend. The team can’t search a fan on his couch. If this results in harm to the team, it’s worthwhile to remember that the team is not entitled to any guarantee of revenue or continued existence. That’s a bit like the burden every other business in America faces.

——-

Previous thoughts here, although my opinion has changed since I wrote that entry. I must’ve still been upset by that loss by the Redskins to express the proper skepticism for the searches.

Like making Al Capone your spokesman

I’d like to think that Antigua’s complaint with the World Trade Organization against the United States could encourage the federal government to drop our nonsensical policies surrounding internet gambling (and gambling, in general). It would be great if a quick stroke of the pen could fix our stupidity, but to believe it will is a fantasy. So I put no expectation in the complaint’s prospects. But assuming for a moment that it could change minds in Congress, and acknowledging that normal sanctions by Antigua against the U.S. would be laughable, how does this make any sense?

So the Antiguans plan to ask the WTO for the right to impose sanctions that would hurt — namely, permission to copy and export U.S.-made DVDs, CDs and similar material. Hollywood is not amused.

What kind of connection is that? The U.S. government has an irrational, anti-liberty policy, which it pursues outside the United States, so that entitles Antigua to steal intellectual property from private businesses that have nothing to do with the source of the complaint, other than being (mostly) American? It’s impossible to take their complaint seriously, and I’m on their side. I don’t imagine the fair-minded souls in Congress will care for that recommendation, either. Thanks for standing up for the cause, though.

On a side note, this is amusing:

“Gambling in general, and remote supply of gambling in particular, raises grave law-enforcement and consumer-protection concerns,” the U.S. trade representative’s office said in a legal filing. Attorneys for the trade representative declined to make additional public comments.

Legalizing “local supply” of gambling via the Internets would do a lot to eliminate the “remote supply” concern. I do enjoy that gambling raises grave concerns for law-enforcement before it raises them for the protection of consumers. That’s a good priority list for the government to take. Only the most pro-liberty solution will arise.

Let’s live in huts and wear animal skins

Ummm, the definition of capitalism is not this:

The deteriorating relationship between the German government and business was underscored on Wednesday when a senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union called on the party to shed its “capitalist” image.

“The CDU is not a capitalist party,” Jürgen Rüttgers, state premier of North Rhine-Westphalia and one of the party’s four deputy chairmen, told Stern weekly. “It is a community of values that is not just rooted in materialism.”

Mr. Rüttgers should get his reasoning correct, since capitalism is not as he describes it. I believe the term he’s searching for is consumerism.

Consumerism is a term used to describe the effects of equating personal happiness with purchasing material possessions and consumption.

Compare that to capitalism:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services, for profit. These include factors of production such as land and other natural resources, labor and capital goods. Capitalism is also usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as “legal persons” (or corporations) to trade in a free market.

Capitalism, as Mr. Rüttgers should realize, means that individual Germans can decide how much or how little materialism is appropriate in their lives. The CDU’s responsibility is to get out of the way. I’m sure Christian social awareness will survive the purchase of a new iPod or twenty.

Lust for power isn’t a virtue

Inept responses to emergencies are unacceptable but understandable because humans are involved. Mistakes happen. But covering up an inept response is unforgivable. The threat of new attacks means that an honest accounting of our past responses and how we can improve them must take precedence over any concern for public shame or bureaucratic humiliation. As such, this is infuriating if true:

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
…

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

Tell me why we should grant ever-expanding powers to government over more areas of our lives when government can’t be honest about not accomplishing one of its few legitimate tasks.