July 01, 2004

San Francisco rolls out the red carpet for the Clintons

[...]
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend
[It's the party of the people, doncha know?--Jen] -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
[Notice she doesn't even mention the White House and she's dreaming about the Congress...--J.T.]

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Whoopsie!
Her Marxist principles slipped through her "patriotic American" mask!
You know, in true Stalinist fashion, Hill's had her Marxist Master's thesis, in which she allegedly praises the implementation of Marxist/Communist principles, "disappeared" just like the Rose Law firm billing records and the details of her $100,000 cattle futures trade, but I guess when she gets excited, she channels Karl Marx and reveals that her true colors are Red only!

June 30, 2004

There are these harrowing stories of foreboding that have been reported from Iran in just the past week or so:
Defiant Iran vows to resume building nuclear equipment

Iran nuclear spill cover-up feared

Western intelligence officials believe Iran's Revolutionary Guards tried to cover up a nuclear accident triggered when weapons-grade uranium was being shipped from North Korea.

The accident allegedly caused Tehran's new international airport to be sealed off by Revolutionary Guard commanders within hours of its official opening on May 9.

Iranian government out of the loop on nuclear policy

The official spokesman for Iran’s reformist government admitted Monday that the cabinet was effectively out of the loop on nuclear policy-making, a domain now in the hands of rising conservative forces.

But then, a lot closer to home (as in right here at home!), we've got real Iranian problems:
U.S. expels Iranians seen filming N.Y. sites / 2 guards at U.N. mission accused of taking video images of landmark buildings, subway
Most ominous of all, is this story in yesterday's WSJ with the same question I had, "What's Iran up to?:"

For a dismaying answer, consider the statement made two weeks ago in Tehran by one Hassan Abassi, head of the Revolutionary Guards' Center for Doctrinaire Affairs of National Security Outside Iran's Borders. (Quite the job description.) "We will map 29 sensitive sites in the United States and give the information to all international terror organizations," the New York Sun quotes Mr. Abassi as saying.

In a June 17 report, Memri -- the Middle East Media Research Institute -- reports a nearly identical statement by Mr. Abassi about compiling a target list of "29 sensitive sites." And also: "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."

That strategy would certainly explain its all-out sprint to develop nuclear weapons, which Iran could possess in about a year unless the West acts to stop it. Also relevant is Tehran's recent announcement that it has allocated $1 billion to resume developing long-range missile systems that can reach targets in Europe and the U.S. Then there's the 9/11 Commission's disclosure last month of Iran-al Qaeda links.

All of which suggests that maybe it's time for U.S. policy to more forcefully and directly support democrats in Iran who want to liberate their country from this terror-sponsoring regime.

It's clear that Iran is preparing a nasty surprise for us or I hope our intell's good enough for it not to be a surprise.
There are still 2 rogue regimes to deal with in the Axis of Evil (and the worse news is that they often seem to be plotting together to get the U.S.).
The more cynical among us (with their core being the Dimocrat Left) opine that President Bush is waiting until after his re-election to really deal with these terror regimes, but I'm not sure we have the luxury of waiting too long and the President Bush I know, love and support will do what he has to do to protect America and Americans, so that if either regime perform an act of war giving us a causus belli, well...you know the rest!
Let's just hope that we don't go the U.N. route again as we did in the case of Saddam's Iraq with the sanctions "process" and all that implies--the obstructionism of perfidious France, the screaming meme-ies of the Left who protect tyranny all over the globe, the spectacle of "made men" like Kofi Annan telling us to restrain ourselves when we try to stop mass murder--Noooooooo!
Iran has committed at least 2 acts of war already (snatching the British sailors and Marines last month, and last summer, they came across the Iraqi border);
can we count on them for a third?
I'm thinking we can.
What's clear is that this war isn't over yet by a long shot... (Gulp!)

Britain thinks Saddam will be executed
Blimey, Brits!
What was your first clue?
I'll be suprised if they don't lynch him on the way to Iraq custody, which will happen today, or if he isn't Geoffrey Dahmer-ed before he gets to trial.
And who could blame the Iraqis if they did?
In the happy eventuality that he does make it to trial, it's going to be on TV--now that's entertainment!
Isn't it ironic and pitiful, to see the Brits, who for a long time in their history perfected the "art" of criminal executions for crimes like stealing, go so squishy and weak-stomached over the death penalty now, even when it's for crimes against an entire country, complete with thousands buried in mass graves?
Nice to see that Saddam's been joined by his pals Tariq Aziz and Chemical Ali, as well as 9 other key dirtbags who perpetrated his regime of death and torture.

The Supreme Court Goes to War

From the initial returns, one might believe that the Bush administration suffered a legal defeat this week in the war against terrorism. In Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts -- for the first time -- will review the grounds for detaining alien enemy combatants held outside the U.S. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the justices required that American citizens detained in the war have access to a lawyer and a fair hearing before a neutral judge.

But despite the pleas of legal and media elites, the justices did not turn the clock back to Sept. 10, 2001. While the Court has unwisely injected itself into military matters, closer examination reveals that it has affirmed the administration's fundamental legal approach to the war on terrorism, and left it with sufficient flexibility to effectively prevail in the future.

To wit, the Court agreed that the U.S. is at war against the al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban militia that supports them. It agreed that Congress has authorized that war.
[One of the recent whines of the Left--used before, I might add--is that this is an "undeclared war."
In point of fact, Congress has declared war twice--once on AQ terrorism and a second time on Iraq.--Jen]
Moreover, the justices implicitly recognized that the U.S. may use all of the tools of war to fight a new kind of enemy that has no territory, no population and no desire to spare innocent civilian life.

Taken as a whole, the Court's message is unmistakable: The days when terrorism was merely considered a law enforcement problem and our only forces were limited to the FBI, federal prosecutors and the criminal justice system will not be returning.
[Hallelujah! Dare we hope that the "Gorelick wall" is gone?--J.T.]

Following judicial precedent and common sense, a plurality of four justices in Hamdi agreed that waging war must include the power to detain enemy combatants. Justice O'Connor's opinion made clear that detention in wartime is not a punishment, and so does not deserve the trappings and procedures of the domestic criminal-justice system. As she observed, "the purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again." Enemy combatants can even include American citizens who join al Qaeda or the Taliban. Brushing aside the argument that Yaser Hamdi's detention was illegal because it was indefinite, the Court affirmed that an enemy combatant may be detained for as long as active hostilities continue, as they do in Afghanistan.

Upholding the detention of citizens who join the enemy is perhaps the most significant aspect of this week's opinions. As the José Padilla example shows, al Qaeda has been recruiting American citizens who can better escape detection. While fighting there continues, Afghanistan will not be the frontline of the future; O'Hare airport, New York Harbor and the Mexican and Canadian borders will be. Preventing the government from detaining citizens who have decided to become terrorists would have seriously handicapped the nation's ability to stop attacks and to gain better intelligence on our enemy's plans.

Although Justice O'Connor's opinion was joined only by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Kennedy and Breyer, her conclusions on these points were shared by Justice Thomas. They parted ways, however, in deciding what happens once the enemy combatant challenges his detention. All agree (including the government) that the federal courts should review detentions through habeas corpus; the disagreements occurred over how much proof the government has to show, whether and when the detainee would receive a lawyer, and the type of hearing required. Justice Thomas, who properly found that courts "lack the expertise and capacity to second-guess" the battlefield decisions made by the military and ultimately the president, would have asked the government to show some evidence why a detainee qualifies as an enemy combatant.

In what can be seen as naiveté, or as "constitutional improvisation" designed "to increase the power of the Court," (Justice Scalia's words), the plurality went further and imposed vague guidelines for reviewing detentions. Rejecting the positions of both Hamdi and the government, it struck the compromise that an enemy combatant must receive a lawyer and "a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker." Even then, it found that the government should receive a presumption in favor of its evidence, one that put the burden of proof on the detainee to disprove.

While we can expect the 600 detainees to each file a habeas petition, possibly in each of the 94 district courts, Rasul gives no guidance on how soon those hearings must be held, where they will be held, who can participate and how classified intelligence will remain protected. Despite an extended discussion of the peculiarities of the Guantanamo lease, Rasul leaves unclear whether judicial review would apply beyond Guantanamo to Iraq (and Saddam Hussein) or Afghanistan (and Osama bin Laden, should he be captured).

Nonetheless, rather than view these cases as a defeat, the administration should see them as an opportunity. While it has unwisely extended its reach to wartime detentions outside the U.S., the Court has left the executive branch with substantial room to maneuver on the nature and scope of review: Hamdi approves of a detainee's access to counsel, but does not explain when they can meet, whether their communications can be monitored for clandestine messages, or whether the lawyers can be military officers; Rasul studiously avoided any discussion of the substantive rights, if any, that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees have; and neither overturned the administration's policy that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. (And yesterday, in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, the Court expressed great skepticism about the ability of federal courts to enforce international law norms without the permission of Congress.)

Nevertheless, the Justices left the hard questions up to the lower courts and the administration, or even Congress, to resolve. This is especially important in light of the decision in Rasul, a clear defeat for the government, in which the Court found that Guantanamo Bay (and perhaps military operations world-wide) lay within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Rasul essentially overruled the 1950 Supreme Court case upon which the government had relied in locating its detention facility there, and it threatens to inject the federal courts into the micromanagement of the military.

Because of the judiciary's unprecedented expansion into what had always been considered the ultimate preserve of the political branches, the executive will have to do a better job of reviewing its detention cases and explaining its reasons. Now is the time for Congress and the president, vested by the Constitution with all of the war power and directly elected by the American people, to establish these procedures with a broader view of the costs and benefits for the war on terrorism. They should not wait for district judges to make these choices ad hoc simply because they happen to hear the early cases.
[Judge Brinkema and the handling of Zacharias Moussaui come to mind...--Jen]

So far, the president and Congress still have the opportunity to make these fundamentally military choices in a way that may not interfere with important battlefield decisions. Whatever the policies chosen, however, they will require the devotion of more resources toward lawyers and judges and less to direct military operations or intelligence-gathering. That, alas, is the price of satisfying an imperial judiciary.

Well, my briefly rekindled love affair with the Supremes didn't last long!
This was a disaster.
Curiously, the Supreme Court is the one American institution that both the Left and the Right have reason to despise, but all Americans should be outraged at this decision that accords so many legal rights to (mostly alien) terrorist defendants, killers who have given their victims NO such rights.
I dearly hope that President Bush and the Pentagon are proposing legal safeguards (for we potential victims) for the Congress to pass.
Failing that, let's let our Congresspersons and Senators and the White House know that the loopholes created by these decisions must be closed by new anti-terrorist legislation on the legal treatment of enemy combatants.
Nice to see the Pentagon is going "full speed ahead" anyway in the wake of the ruling; they scheduled the first military tribunal the day after the Supremes made their decision.
In that the Supremes were so vague about all the particulars, all I can see is that they guaranteed that they'll be hearing cases for decades and thus, made sure that their jobs are safe forever.
Perhaps our best hope is that this will tie up terrorist killer cases in our courts well into the next millenium, by which time we'll all be dead, hopefully from old age.
No matter how you look at it, this lenient pro-IslamoNazi ruling, plus the slapdown our Pentagon and military got over the overblown Abu Ghraib "abuse," will do nothing but give our Enemy more courage and much less to fear from the apparent "paper tiger" that is the United States of America, a nation of trial lawyers.