Update from the Heartland
No.384
20.4.09 – 26.4.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.384
20.4.09 – 26.4.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Representative Jane Lakes Harman of California was outraged that her telephone conversations were wiretapped [210, 216, et al]. Problem is I am fairly certain (innocent) Jane was not a target; the USG has been recording an investigative target – American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) [229] and the principles, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman. She jumped into the trap. And, she should have known better. Those guys were prosecution targets, for goodness sake. And now, the Obama administration is apparently dropping charges against the AIPAC agents. I can’t imagine why! Could it be that the administration seeks to avoid exposing Harman to public wrath for interfering with a Federal investigation / prosecution?
-- The New York Times claims to have accomplished an examination of materials that shows an extraordinary consensus among cabinet members and lawmakers in 2002, embracing brutal interrogation methods [126, 133, et al], and then, goes on to suggest that none of the officials had studied the “gruesome origins of the techniques.”
-- Spain's Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido has rejected an attempt to bring a criminal case against six former U.S. officials accused of giving a legal justification for harsh interrogation techniques at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility [381]. He declared the case had “no merit.” I expect Attorney General Holder will arrive at the same conclusion. For more on this topic, see below.
-- Six months after the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health [SC CT 17716 (2008)] [357] ruling, the Connecticut General Assembly voted (Senate: 28-7; House: 100-44) to update the state's marriage laws to conform with the landmark Kerrigan ruling, allowing gay and lesbian couples to enjoy the full status of secular marriage. Governor Mary Jodi Rell (born: Mary Carolyn Reavis) signed the bill into law on Friday.
On Thursday, the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the government’s decision to allow the Plan B, so-called “morning after,” pill to available to 17-year-olds without a doctor’s prescription. While I generally favor a woman’s right to choose what is best for her body, I must say the FDA’s action is wrong. I continue my campaign to enhance parental accountability up to the age of consent. I would prefer the FDA recognize the states’ rights to define the age of consent for its residents. The FDA’s action undermines parental responsibility and accountability, and thus does NOT serve the interests of individual citizens or the common public good.
The Obama administration declared a national “public health emergency” for the outbreak of mutated swine influenza. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Ann Napolitano described the declaration as “standard operating procedure” to enable federal and state governments broader access to medical information and medicines. Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control Richard E. Besser, MD, expects wider and more severe infections. This outbreak reportedly began in Mexico City and spread by international travelers. So far, 20 cases have been identified in the U.S.
The continued disclosure by the Obama administration of Bush era sensitive memoranda has returned the United States national intelligence interrogation techniques to the forum of public debate. I suppose the first chunk of OLC (Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice) memoranda [381] did not cause quite enough stir. The President released another batch of Bush administration OLC memoranda on Thursday, 16.April.2009, and then vacillated between first not to prosecute and then maybe to prosecute . The principle memorandum sparking all these convulsions appears to be an 81-page epistle from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo to William J. Haynes II, General Counsel, Department of Defense; subject: Re: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States; dated: 14.March.2003; originally classified: SECRET/NOFORN and declassified: 31 March 2008. At the heart of U.S. law regarding harsh interrogation techniques is the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) that was signed on 18.April.1988, and ratified by the U.S. Senate on 21.October.1994. The United States enacted the treaty principles into law by the War Crimes Act of 1996 [PL 104-192; 18 U.S.C. § 2441] {WCA}. Then, we have this little disturbance I commonly refer to as the War on Islamic Fascism, and of course, traitorous citizens entrusted with protecting this Grand Republic and our national secrets, disclosing classified material to the New York Times, which in turn apparently felt no obligation toward national security. So, the Times and now the Obama administration generously gave us lemons, now let’s enjoy making lemonade. Before we get into the specifics, we should remind ourselves of the difference between combat and intelligence operations, between tactical and strategic intelligence activities. As with virtually everything legal, we boil the whole brouhaha down to words and definitions. On this topic, CAT as well as the associated WCA rests upon our interpretation of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Each of us can define what we believe is the threshold for each key word. Yet, there are other contextual factors that are not mentioned in the language of the law. Yoo spent some pages discussing the status of captive battlefield combatants in the current War on Islamic Fascism versus Geneva Convention defined prisoners-of-war. In this aspect alone, the current captives enjoy no official recognizable definition or protection. While Yoo addresses the potential for Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional protections to the captives, he does not discuss the difference or applicability between judicial prosecution and intelligence collection, with respect to special interrogation procedures. It is important to note at this point that special techniques are not appropriate for general application, to every captive; however, they are often required to obtain formation possessed by high-value captives like Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM). Another key factor missing from the public debate is the national defense aspect covered in detail by the Yoo memorandum. As Yoo accurately notes, “Because of the secret nature of al-Qaeda’s operations, obtaining advance information about the identity of al-Qaeda operatives and their plans may prove to be the only way to prevent direct attacks on the United States.” The Yoo memorandum illuminates legal jurisdictions divided into three major areas for application of U.S. law, and international law to which the U.S. subscribes:
1. Territorial, i.e., the United States of America and it territories,
2. Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction, i.e., U.S. military bases, naval ships, and diplomatic missions outside the U.S., or
3. All others, i.e., foreign countries and the high seas.
The Guantanamo detention facility falls within Category 2, while the CIA’s foreign detention sites are clearly Category 3 locations. It should be no surprise to anyone that the CIA chose foreign sites to conduct vital interrogations. Taken farther, the whole issue of legal jurisdiction in the interrogation debate is exactly the same argument involved in the piracy problem – extraterritorial jurisdiction. Also, international law, to which the United States subscribes, e.g., the Geneva Convention, addresses treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, and even spies, but it does not cover extra-national, battlefield combatants. The question of torture depends on the definition. Some citizens define torture as anything that exceeds domestic criminal interrogation techniques; while other citizens define torture as activities that cause permanent injury. Further, so much hangs upon broader central questions:
1. Is the United States at war?
2. What rights, if any, do extra-national, non-military, battlefield combatants have?
3. Is there a difference between domestic criminal and national intelligence interrogation?
4. Is there a difference between tactical military and strategic national intelligence interrogation?
Once those questions have been answered, we can then define what treatment battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism can be subjected. For the national security intelligence collection venue, there must be an inducement – encouragement – for the target captives to divulge the information they possess. Let us not forget that information derived from battlefield combatants is always treated as unreliable, by the very nature of its collection. Interrogation information is placed into context with a wide variety of other information to develop a picture – connect the dots. How then do we differentiate between “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” and necessary encouragement for high-value captives to divulge the information they possess? Clearly, to me, what we saw in those infamous images of Abu Graib activities was NOT appropriate for common captive battlefield combatants. And, while the law may allow procedures up to and including death for captives believed to possess information of high threat to the United States, I restate my definition; interrogation techniques for high-value, national security, battlefield combatants should not cause death or permanent injury (physical or mental) [133]. Given this definition, our warriors would be subjected to the same processes, if any became a prisoner of war. I note for the record, the training for American military aviators, to prepare them for the potential of capture, was far worse than the commonly accepted techniques used by police in criminal prosecutorial investigations. Using enhanced intelligence interrogation techniques in excess of civil prosecutorial interrogation procedures, limitations and guidance may well taint or otherwise compromise any judicial prosecution of individual(s) subjected to intelligence collection interrogation processes. Further, intelligence interrogation is NOT punishment; there have been no criminal charges, only the capture of a battlefield combatant, who possesses information regarding enemy personnel, operations, procedures, processes and thinking. We are not talking about the common fighter, but rather the leaders who conceive and direct operations. What captives at Abu Graib were subjected to in 2003 was wrong. What KSM was subjected to at some undisclosed CIA site was not wrong. All that stated, I must proclaim that displaying our human intelligence means & methods in court, in the Press, in any public forum is societally suicidal . . . and, I do mean that literally. The New York Times was wrong in the worst and most corrosive way when they publicized the various elements of our national defense operations from naïve accusations regarding the use of torture to the NSA electronic surveillance effort. And, I must ask: if we wish to treat our enemies with milk & cookies, then what, pray tell, is the inducement for a high-value captive to offer up the information we seek? This is what happens when citizens contemplate the rigors of war, especially those citizens who believe war is never necessary, and who believe making nice with our enemies should be sufficient for all of us to live in peace & harmony. Lastly, to suggest what John Yoo wrote in his examination of the law regarding the application of harsh interrogation techniques is somehow criminally prosecutable is wrong and highly corrosive to the proper public debate. I know this is not a pleasant topic for social discussion, yet, if we are going to pass laws restricting the use of such techniques or prosecute any of those involved from Yoo to the field operatives, then we must understand the validity and consequences of such actions.
News from the economic front:
-- The Wall Street Journal reported on their analysis of Treasury Department data, showing the banks that were the biggest recipients of TARP funds, made or refinanced 23% less in new loans in February than in October, the month the Treasury initiated the Troubled Asset Relief Program, despite government efforts to support the financial sector.
-- Bank of America’s 1st Quarter net income rose to US$4.2B, buoyed by contributions from Merrill Lynch, which the bank closed on its acquisition in January. The results include a US$1.9B pretax gain on the sale of China Construction Bank shares, and US$2.2B in gains from Merrill Lynch structured notes. Credit quality continued to deteriorate across all lines of their business as housing prices continued to fall and unemployment rose, leading to higher losses in almost all consumer areas. The company cautioned that the bank continues to face extremely difficult challenges ahead.
-- The Washington Post reported that Chrysler Financial refused a US$750M government loan because executives didn’t want to be constrained by new federal limits on compensation. Interesting, but perhaps moot.
-- David B. Kellermann, 41, acting chief financial officer of Freddie Mac, apparently committed suicide in his Northern Virginia home Wednesday morning. Kellermann had been Freddie Mac’s chief financial officer since his appointment by the government last September – apparently another casualty of the financial crisis.
-- Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Maclean Darling believes the economy will start to recover later this year, however, massive borrowing is likely in coming years, reflecting the cost of the downturn. In his annual budget statement, Darling forecast that net borrowing may reach £606B (US$890B) by the FY2013, an increase of £226B from last November’s pre-budget report projection. He also announced a series of tax increases on higher income earners to help rein in the deficit – not a positive sign.
-- Following investigatory probes by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the SEC into an alleged kickback scheme involving the state’s US$122B pension fund, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli banned the involvement of placement agents, paid intermediaries and registered lobbyists in investments by the pension fund.
-- The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that existing-home sales dropped 3.0% to a 4.57M annual rate in March from 4.71M in February, and the median price was down 12% from a year earlier. The NAR originally reported February sales rose 5.1% to 4.72M [380]. About 50% of the March sales were foreclosures and short sales.
-- Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis told New York Attorney General Cuomo that then-Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke pressured him in December not to discuss issues with its then pending purchase of Merrill Lynch. The statement touched off a “who shot John” volley of broadsides between Lewis and Bernacke. Ah yes, it is only usual for leaders to deflect or spread the blame.
-- As the results of the government’s stress test of banks becomes public, the Federal Reserve announced that any bank directed to raise new capital as a result of the exercise should not be viewed as insolvent or unviable – managing the after-shocks, it seems to me. On Friday, the Fed released the methodology used for the stress test, as bank executives huddled with Fed officials to go over their results. The Fed is sharing with the banks how much capital each company might need to raise to satisfy regulators that they can continue lending, if the economy worsens significantly next year. Banks will have several days to challenge the findings before the government makes results public, week after next.
-- The United Auto Workers (UAW) union announced it has reached a concession agreement with Chrysler, Fiat and the USG. The union said the deal is painful but takes advantage of the second chance the company was given (more properly, the third or fourth chance for Chrysler). The union deal means the company has cleared another major hurdle as it races toward a Thursday deadline to restructure and sign an alliance with Italy's Fiat.
The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- Judge James B. Zagel, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, refused to modify the terms of Blago’s bail to allow him to leave the United States, to participate in a reality TV dream show in the jungle of Costa Rica. If I had not seen this news item in multiple Press sources, I would have thought it some hoax. Blago needs a real healthy dose of reality – not the faux-reality of television. Blago seems to be a few cards short of the full deck. What on Earth was he thinking?
Comments and contributions from Update no.383:
“Definitely congrats to the Navy SEALs. I've heard lots of things about the training they go through, and the marksmanship needed to just get into that unit, or any other unit, let alone specialize as a sharpshooter. Hats off to those guys. I think it speaks volumes of the character of this nation that so many people put themselves at risk to save the life of a single person they don't even know. This is the sort of thing our President should hold up as an example of the goodness of America, instead of apologizing for our actions to the world's elitists and thugs. It would be nice to think Obama would have the backbone to send a couple carrier battle groups and a ton of marines to East Africa to irradiate as many pirate strongholds as we could. Unfortunately, I won't hold my breath.
“The release of those ‘torture’ memos frustrates me to no end. I find it amazing that so many on the left and in the mainstream media freak about things like sleep depravation, slapping and putting a bug in someone's room. This is torture? What about all the stuff al Qaeda and all the other terrorist groups have done? Beheadings? Burning people and hanging their bodies on a bridge. Where's the outrage from the so-called human rights groups on that? Why do so many people have problems calling these people what they are? Evil! I honestly couldn't care less if these scumsuckers experience some discomfort, which, as ex-VP Dick Cheney said, produced information that saved lives. Obama seems more concerned with making nice with people who don't like us than protecting the citizens of this country. And I just have a feeling guys like Chavez, Castro, Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa, et al are laughing behind closed doors when they think about Obama's flowery rhetoric. I really fear for our national security over these next four years.
My response:
Indeed. Thank goodness there are citizens willing to endure the rigors of special operations training and service to this Grand Republic anonymously, with only collective recognition. The lads did a magnificent job. I also think we should offer our congratulations and gratitude to all those service personnel involved in the interdiction and rescue, and especially Commander Frank Castellano, USN, Captain of the USS Bainbridge, who took a potentially career-ending risk in green-lighting the termination event. Magnificent performance, all the way around!
Releasing the OLC memos in the middle of the War on Islamic Fascism was foolishness in the extreme. My cynical side thinks this move was intended to placate the uber-Left. It certainly did not enhance national security. On the flip-side, as an enthusiastic historian and unrepentant opinion-provider, I read the memoranda with interest and curiosity. We have discussed the definition of “torture” in this forum. Let it suffice to say that I do NOT agree with the uber-Left’s notion of what torture is. I doubt we are going to enhance that definition in the next four years; we are headed toward the uber-Left’s feeling that we need a milk-n-cookies, big-screen-television treatment of battlefield combatants. I repeat my condemnation of these naïve, feel-good, concepts of warfighting. The only benefit I see beyond making some of our citizens feel better about killing our enemies appears to be encouraging our enemies. To me, discussing these warfighting processes in public is like telling the Germans of our intention to land at Normandy – just to make sure it’s a fair fight – more blood of patriots will be sacrificed to appease the uber-Left.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- Representative Jane Lakes Harman of California was outraged that her telephone conversations were wiretapped [210, 216, et al]. Problem is I am fairly certain (innocent) Jane was not a target; the USG has been recording an investigative target – American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) [229] and the principles, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman. She jumped into the trap. And, she should have known better. Those guys were prosecution targets, for goodness sake. And now, the Obama administration is apparently dropping charges against the AIPAC agents. I can’t imagine why! Could it be that the administration seeks to avoid exposing Harman to public wrath for interfering with a Federal investigation / prosecution?
-- The New York Times claims to have accomplished an examination of materials that shows an extraordinary consensus among cabinet members and lawmakers in 2002, embracing brutal interrogation methods [126, 133, et al], and then, goes on to suggest that none of the officials had studied the “gruesome origins of the techniques.”
-- Spain's Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido has rejected an attempt to bring a criminal case against six former U.S. officials accused of giving a legal justification for harsh interrogation techniques at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility [381]. He declared the case had “no merit.” I expect Attorney General Holder will arrive at the same conclusion. For more on this topic, see below.
-- Six months after the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health [SC CT 17716 (2008)] [357] ruling, the Connecticut General Assembly voted (Senate: 28-7; House: 100-44) to update the state's marriage laws to conform with the landmark Kerrigan ruling, allowing gay and lesbian couples to enjoy the full status of secular marriage. Governor Mary Jodi Rell (born: Mary Carolyn Reavis) signed the bill into law on Friday.
On Thursday, the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the government’s decision to allow the Plan B, so-called “morning after,” pill to available to 17-year-olds without a doctor’s prescription. While I generally favor a woman’s right to choose what is best for her body, I must say the FDA’s action is wrong. I continue my campaign to enhance parental accountability up to the age of consent. I would prefer the FDA recognize the states’ rights to define the age of consent for its residents. The FDA’s action undermines parental responsibility and accountability, and thus does NOT serve the interests of individual citizens or the common public good.
The Obama administration declared a national “public health emergency” for the outbreak of mutated swine influenza. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Ann Napolitano described the declaration as “standard operating procedure” to enable federal and state governments broader access to medical information and medicines. Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control Richard E. Besser, MD, expects wider and more severe infections. This outbreak reportedly began in Mexico City and spread by international travelers. So far, 20 cases have been identified in the U.S.
The continued disclosure by the Obama administration of Bush era sensitive memoranda has returned the United States national intelligence interrogation techniques to the forum of public debate. I suppose the first chunk of OLC (Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice) memoranda [381] did not cause quite enough stir. The President released another batch of Bush administration OLC memoranda on Thursday, 16.April.2009, and then vacillated between first not to prosecute and then maybe to prosecute . The principle memorandum sparking all these convulsions appears to be an 81-page epistle from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo to William J. Haynes II, General Counsel, Department of Defense; subject: Re: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States; dated: 14.March.2003; originally classified: SECRET/NOFORN and declassified: 31 March 2008. At the heart of U.S. law regarding harsh interrogation techniques is the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) that was signed on 18.April.1988, and ratified by the U.S. Senate on 21.October.1994. The United States enacted the treaty principles into law by the War Crimes Act of 1996 [PL 104-192; 18 U.S.C. § 2441] {WCA}. Then, we have this little disturbance I commonly refer to as the War on Islamic Fascism, and of course, traitorous citizens entrusted with protecting this Grand Republic and our national secrets, disclosing classified material to the New York Times, which in turn apparently felt no obligation toward national security. So, the Times and now the Obama administration generously gave us lemons, now let’s enjoy making lemonade. Before we get into the specifics, we should remind ourselves of the difference between combat and intelligence operations, between tactical and strategic intelligence activities. As with virtually everything legal, we boil the whole brouhaha down to words and definitions. On this topic, CAT as well as the associated WCA rests upon our interpretation of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Each of us can define what we believe is the threshold for each key word. Yet, there are other contextual factors that are not mentioned in the language of the law. Yoo spent some pages discussing the status of captive battlefield combatants in the current War on Islamic Fascism versus Geneva Convention defined prisoners-of-war. In this aspect alone, the current captives enjoy no official recognizable definition or protection. While Yoo addresses the potential for Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional protections to the captives, he does not discuss the difference or applicability between judicial prosecution and intelligence collection, with respect to special interrogation procedures. It is important to note at this point that special techniques are not appropriate for general application, to every captive; however, they are often required to obtain formation possessed by high-value captives like Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM). Another key factor missing from the public debate is the national defense aspect covered in detail by the Yoo memorandum. As Yoo accurately notes, “Because of the secret nature of al-Qaeda’s operations, obtaining advance information about the identity of al-Qaeda operatives and their plans may prove to be the only way to prevent direct attacks on the United States.” The Yoo memorandum illuminates legal jurisdictions divided into three major areas for application of U.S. law, and international law to which the U.S. subscribes:
1. Territorial, i.e., the United States of America and it territories,
2. Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction, i.e., U.S. military bases, naval ships, and diplomatic missions outside the U.S., or
3. All others, i.e., foreign countries and the high seas.
The Guantanamo detention facility falls within Category 2, while the CIA’s foreign detention sites are clearly Category 3 locations. It should be no surprise to anyone that the CIA chose foreign sites to conduct vital interrogations. Taken farther, the whole issue of legal jurisdiction in the interrogation debate is exactly the same argument involved in the piracy problem – extraterritorial jurisdiction. Also, international law, to which the United States subscribes, e.g., the Geneva Convention, addresses treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, and even spies, but it does not cover extra-national, battlefield combatants. The question of torture depends on the definition. Some citizens define torture as anything that exceeds domestic criminal interrogation techniques; while other citizens define torture as activities that cause permanent injury. Further, so much hangs upon broader central questions:
1. Is the United States at war?
2. What rights, if any, do extra-national, non-military, battlefield combatants have?
3. Is there a difference between domestic criminal and national intelligence interrogation?
4. Is there a difference between tactical military and strategic national intelligence interrogation?
Once those questions have been answered, we can then define what treatment battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism can be subjected. For the national security intelligence collection venue, there must be an inducement – encouragement – for the target captives to divulge the information they possess. Let us not forget that information derived from battlefield combatants is always treated as unreliable, by the very nature of its collection. Interrogation information is placed into context with a wide variety of other information to develop a picture – connect the dots. How then do we differentiate between “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” and necessary encouragement for high-value captives to divulge the information they possess? Clearly, to me, what we saw in those infamous images of Abu Graib activities was NOT appropriate for common captive battlefield combatants. And, while the law may allow procedures up to and including death for captives believed to possess information of high threat to the United States, I restate my definition; interrogation techniques for high-value, national security, battlefield combatants should not cause death or permanent injury (physical or mental) [133]. Given this definition, our warriors would be subjected to the same processes, if any became a prisoner of war. I note for the record, the training for American military aviators, to prepare them for the potential of capture, was far worse than the commonly accepted techniques used by police in criminal prosecutorial investigations. Using enhanced intelligence interrogation techniques in excess of civil prosecutorial interrogation procedures, limitations and guidance may well taint or otherwise compromise any judicial prosecution of individual(s) subjected to intelligence collection interrogation processes. Further, intelligence interrogation is NOT punishment; there have been no criminal charges, only the capture of a battlefield combatant, who possesses information regarding enemy personnel, operations, procedures, processes and thinking. We are not talking about the common fighter, but rather the leaders who conceive and direct operations. What captives at Abu Graib were subjected to in 2003 was wrong. What KSM was subjected to at some undisclosed CIA site was not wrong. All that stated, I must proclaim that displaying our human intelligence means & methods in court, in the Press, in any public forum is societally suicidal . . . and, I do mean that literally. The New York Times was wrong in the worst and most corrosive way when they publicized the various elements of our national defense operations from naïve accusations regarding the use of torture to the NSA electronic surveillance effort. And, I must ask: if we wish to treat our enemies with milk & cookies, then what, pray tell, is the inducement for a high-value captive to offer up the information we seek? This is what happens when citizens contemplate the rigors of war, especially those citizens who believe war is never necessary, and who believe making nice with our enemies should be sufficient for all of us to live in peace & harmony. Lastly, to suggest what John Yoo wrote in his examination of the law regarding the application of harsh interrogation techniques is somehow criminally prosecutable is wrong and highly corrosive to the proper public debate. I know this is not a pleasant topic for social discussion, yet, if we are going to pass laws restricting the use of such techniques or prosecute any of those involved from Yoo to the field operatives, then we must understand the validity and consequences of such actions.
News from the economic front:
-- The Wall Street Journal reported on their analysis of Treasury Department data, showing the banks that were the biggest recipients of TARP funds, made or refinanced 23% less in new loans in February than in October, the month the Treasury initiated the Troubled Asset Relief Program, despite government efforts to support the financial sector.
-- Bank of America’s 1st Quarter net income rose to US$4.2B, buoyed by contributions from Merrill Lynch, which the bank closed on its acquisition in January. The results include a US$1.9B pretax gain on the sale of China Construction Bank shares, and US$2.2B in gains from Merrill Lynch structured notes. Credit quality continued to deteriorate across all lines of their business as housing prices continued to fall and unemployment rose, leading to higher losses in almost all consumer areas. The company cautioned that the bank continues to face extremely difficult challenges ahead.
-- The Washington Post reported that Chrysler Financial refused a US$750M government loan because executives didn’t want to be constrained by new federal limits on compensation. Interesting, but perhaps moot.
-- David B. Kellermann, 41, acting chief financial officer of Freddie Mac, apparently committed suicide in his Northern Virginia home Wednesday morning. Kellermann had been Freddie Mac’s chief financial officer since his appointment by the government last September – apparently another casualty of the financial crisis.
-- Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Maclean Darling believes the economy will start to recover later this year, however, massive borrowing is likely in coming years, reflecting the cost of the downturn. In his annual budget statement, Darling forecast that net borrowing may reach £606B (US$890B) by the FY2013, an increase of £226B from last November’s pre-budget report projection. He also announced a series of tax increases on higher income earners to help rein in the deficit – not a positive sign.
-- Following investigatory probes by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the SEC into an alleged kickback scheme involving the state’s US$122B pension fund, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli banned the involvement of placement agents, paid intermediaries and registered lobbyists in investments by the pension fund.
-- The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that existing-home sales dropped 3.0% to a 4.57M annual rate in March from 4.71M in February, and the median price was down 12% from a year earlier. The NAR originally reported February sales rose 5.1% to 4.72M [380]. About 50% of the March sales were foreclosures and short sales.
-- Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis told New York Attorney General Cuomo that then-Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke pressured him in December not to discuss issues with its then pending purchase of Merrill Lynch. The statement touched off a “who shot John” volley of broadsides between Lewis and Bernacke. Ah yes, it is only usual for leaders to deflect or spread the blame.
-- As the results of the government’s stress test of banks becomes public, the Federal Reserve announced that any bank directed to raise new capital as a result of the exercise should not be viewed as insolvent or unviable – managing the after-shocks, it seems to me. On Friday, the Fed released the methodology used for the stress test, as bank executives huddled with Fed officials to go over their results. The Fed is sharing with the banks how much capital each company might need to raise to satisfy regulators that they can continue lending, if the economy worsens significantly next year. Banks will have several days to challenge the findings before the government makes results public, week after next.
-- The United Auto Workers (UAW) union announced it has reached a concession agreement with Chrysler, Fiat and the USG. The union said the deal is painful but takes advantage of the second chance the company was given (more properly, the third or fourth chance for Chrysler). The union deal means the company has cleared another major hurdle as it races toward a Thursday deadline to restructure and sign an alliance with Italy's Fiat.
The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- Judge James B. Zagel, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, refused to modify the terms of Blago’s bail to allow him to leave the United States, to participate in a reality TV dream show in the jungle of Costa Rica. If I had not seen this news item in multiple Press sources, I would have thought it some hoax. Blago needs a real healthy dose of reality – not the faux-reality of television. Blago seems to be a few cards short of the full deck. What on Earth was he thinking?
Comments and contributions from Update no.383:
“Definitely congrats to the Navy SEALs. I've heard lots of things about the training they go through, and the marksmanship needed to just get into that unit, or any other unit, let alone specialize as a sharpshooter. Hats off to those guys. I think it speaks volumes of the character of this nation that so many people put themselves at risk to save the life of a single person they don't even know. This is the sort of thing our President should hold up as an example of the goodness of America, instead of apologizing for our actions to the world's elitists and thugs. It would be nice to think Obama would have the backbone to send a couple carrier battle groups and a ton of marines to East Africa to irradiate as many pirate strongholds as we could. Unfortunately, I won't hold my breath.
“The release of those ‘torture’ memos frustrates me to no end. I find it amazing that so many on the left and in the mainstream media freak about things like sleep depravation, slapping and putting a bug in someone's room. This is torture? What about all the stuff al Qaeda and all the other terrorist groups have done? Beheadings? Burning people and hanging their bodies on a bridge. Where's the outrage from the so-called human rights groups on that? Why do so many people have problems calling these people what they are? Evil! I honestly couldn't care less if these scumsuckers experience some discomfort, which, as ex-VP Dick Cheney said, produced information that saved lives. Obama seems more concerned with making nice with people who don't like us than protecting the citizens of this country. And I just have a feeling guys like Chavez, Castro, Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa, et al are laughing behind closed doors when they think about Obama's flowery rhetoric. I really fear for our national security over these next four years.
My response:
Indeed. Thank goodness there are citizens willing to endure the rigors of special operations training and service to this Grand Republic anonymously, with only collective recognition. The lads did a magnificent job. I also think we should offer our congratulations and gratitude to all those service personnel involved in the interdiction and rescue, and especially Commander Frank Castellano, USN, Captain of the USS Bainbridge, who took a potentially career-ending risk in green-lighting the termination event. Magnificent performance, all the way around!
Releasing the OLC memos in the middle of the War on Islamic Fascism was foolishness in the extreme. My cynical side thinks this move was intended to placate the uber-Left. It certainly did not enhance national security. On the flip-side, as an enthusiastic historian and unrepentant opinion-provider, I read the memoranda with interest and curiosity. We have discussed the definition of “torture” in this forum. Let it suffice to say that I do NOT agree with the uber-Left’s notion of what torture is. I doubt we are going to enhance that definition in the next four years; we are headed toward the uber-Left’s feeling that we need a milk-n-cookies, big-screen-television treatment of battlefield combatants. I repeat my condemnation of these naïve, feel-good, concepts of warfighting. The only benefit I see beyond making some of our citizens feel better about killing our enemies appears to be encouraging our enemies. To me, discussing these warfighting processes in public is like telling the Germans of our intention to land at Normandy – just to make sure it’s a fair fight – more blood of patriots will be sacrificed to appease the uber-Left.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
When pandering to his UAW union base, President Obama has revealed the morally corrupt level to which he is willing to stoop. A morally corrupt President panders to the UAW at the expense of everyone else
Bluegrass Pundit,
Just as there were citizens levying the same epithet at President Bush, now the other end of the spectrum is doing the same at President Obama. I did not agree with many of the things President Bush did, and I do not agree with many of the things President Obama is doing. However, I shall still give the President the benefit of the doubt, just as I did with his predecessor. He is doing what he thinks is best for the Nation. I do not believe Barack is “morally corrupt” any more than we might accuse George of being morally corrupt. Let us debate specific issues rather than spew generalized labels that accomplish nothing. One of many beautiful elements of this Grand Republic . . . we can agree to disagree. Thank you for your comment. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment