Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

I think it is time to refer to those on the right as "stay and wallow" conservatives.
They want to stay and wallow in the quagmire of Iraq even while some in the Iraqi govt are saying they don't want us there.
They want to stay and wallow in their fantasy that things are going well in Iraq.
They want to stay and wallow in the deficit spending.
They want to stay and wallow in ignorance by failing to fund education.
They want to stay and wallow in the foul stench of corruption they have created in Washington.
They want to stay and wallow in their failed foreign policy.
They want to stay and wallow in their "stay the course" policy that has no plan and no place to go but stay, stay, stay.

Mr. Parados- It is clear that you are not keeping up with events concering Guantanamo:


NUMBER ONE
----
The Senate Votes to Curb Habeas Corpus Petitions by Guantanamo Bay Detainees: How the Bill Threatens the "Unwritten Constitution"
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----
Monday, Nov. 21, 2005

Last week, the Senate unanimously approved a defense authorization bill which, if approved by the House, will dramatically curtail the ability of prisoners held at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their detention in federal court.

In including the measure in the larger bill, the Senate compromised over an even more drastic proposal by Senator Lindsay Graham. Still, even the compromise, known as the Graham/Levin Amendment, reflects a remarkable degree of deference to the military and the Executive Branch--and arguably, an equally remarkable degree of distrust of, even contempt for, the federal courts.



As I explain below, the Graham/Levin Amendment is arguably constitutionally valid in the technical sense. But it violates what I shall call the "unwritten Constitution"--a set of understandings, developed over the years, that hold that certain technically permissible legislative efforts to interfere with judicial independence are simply beyond the pale.

Even worse, the Graham/Levin Amendment is, in this respect, part of an unfortunate recent trend.

Background: The Rasul and Eisentrager Decisions

In 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court rejected the Administration's argument that federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from persons detained at Guantanamo Bay.

In putting forth this contention, the Administration had relied on the Court's 1950 decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager, which held that German prisoners captured and held overseas pursuant to the rulings of military tribunals could not file habeas petitions in a federal district court.

The majority opinion of Justice Stevens in Rasul began by noting some distinctions between that case and Eisentrager. Chief among these was the fact that the Guantanamo Bay detainees maintained their innocence and had not been charged, much less tried or convicted of any offense before any tribunal. These distinctions, the Court perhaps suggested, might give the Guantanamo Bay detainees a constitutional entitlement to habeas corpus review.

But that was only a suggestion. The core of the Rasul decision rested, instead, on an interpretation of the habeas corpus statute. According to the Justices, cases between 1950 and 2004 made clear that a habeas corpus petitioner need not necessarily be present within the territory of the United States. Moreover, the Court said, even if the habeas statute were to be read to have no extraterritorial application, given the fact of U.S. control, the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base should be deemed, in effect, U.S. territory.



Accordingly, for the last year and a half, the law has clearly allowed habeas petitions to be filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees, and earlier this month the Supreme Court granted review in one such case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Graham/Levin Amendment, if voted into law by the House, would throw that understanding into doubt.

What the Graham/Levin Amendment Would Do

The Graham/Levin Amendment raises a host of difficult legal questions, but, here, I will only summarize its main features.

In one respect, the Graham/Levin Amendment represents a welcome and long-overdue effort by Congress to take some responsibility for the military tribunals that the Administration has established under the guise of Congressional authorization or acquiescence. Toward this end, the Amendment would require the Defense Department to report to Congress on the procedures it adopts for "combatant status review" panels to determine whether individual detainees are indeed enemy combatants. It also would require Senate confirmation of the civilian panel members and bar the use of evidence obtained by coercion. To this extent, the Amendment is a good idea.

But if Congressional oversight of the treatment of detainees is welcome, the core of the Graham/Levin Amendment is not. It curtails a different, and equally important, form of oversight: judicial review of decisions by military courts. The Amendment's key provision would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo Bay detainees--except in two circumstances.

First, a person determined to be an enemy combatant by a combatant status review panel could bring a challenge to that determination, on the grounds that the panel failed to apply the Defense Department's rules, or that the application of those rules violated the Constitution or a federal statute.

Second, there is an exception concerning military commissions. In the Administration's view, a determination that a detainee is an enemy combatant makes him eligible for a war crime prosecution before a military commission, which can sentence a convicted detainee to imprisonment or death. Under the Graham/Levin Amendment, a detainee who has been convicted by a military commission, and sentenced to death or ten years or more in prison, can bring a challenge to the military commission proceedings on the same grounds available for challenging combatant status determinations: that the Defense Department failed to apply its own rules, or that the application of those rules violated the Constitution or a federal statute.

With respect to both these exception, habeas review of a detainee's petition can occur only after the proceedings he wishes to challenge have run their course. That feature of the Amendment may require, among other things, the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Hamdan case, because Hamdan filed his petition objecting in advance of his pending trial by a military commission, and the crux of that petition challenges the constitutionality of, and statutory authority for, the commission. (Hamdan has already received a combatant status review panel determination deeming him an enemy combatant; thus, even under the Graham Levin Amendment, he could now pose a challenge to that separate determination.)

What the Graham/Levin Amendment Does Not Allow

Perhaps the oddest feature of the Graham/Levin Amendment is that it does not provide any habeas corpus review for the one category of persons who may, under an expansive reading of Rasul, be constitutionally entitled to it: Detainees who are either not given a combatant status determination, or who are determined not to be enemy combatants but held anyway.

The Graham/Levin Amendment would, as a practical matter, allow such detainees to be held indefinitely, without any judicial oversight. Granted, the military may presently intend to afford all detainees combatant status review, and to release all prisoners found not to be enemy combatants, but if so, where is the harm in preserving habeas for someone who is not afforded such treatment?

Another effect of the Graham/Levin Amendment would be to make habeas corpus unavailable for detainees who object to the conditions of their confinement. Thus, a prisoner cannot get into federal court by claiming (or presenting evidence) that he is being subject to torture or otherwise degrading treatment.

Finally, for purposes of this brief summary, the Graham/Levin Amendment requires that any habeas petitions filed under its exceptions be brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on which it confers "exclusive" jurisdiction.

That could be read to preclude Supreme Court review of habeas corpus petitions (although in my view the better reading is that, in saying nothing about appeals, the Amendment would leave in place the power of the Supreme Court to review D.C. Circuit decisions.)

Is The Graham/Levin Amendment Constitutional?

So, is the Graham/Levin Amendment constitutional? The answer is probably yes.

To begin, Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus in wartime, and, although Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war, it has taken a number of actions that clearly authorized the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, where most of the Guantanamo Bay detainees were captured.

There is no good reason to think that Congressional power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus must be exercised all-or-nothing; if a war in some areas makes resort to courts highly impractical or dangerous, Congress should be permitted to suspend habeas corpus in the war zone but not in other places.

However, the Graham/Levin Amendment does not purport to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and with good reason. Although Senator Graham has warned of a flood of litigation from Guantanamo Bay detainees, the fact is that the federal courts could easily decide the issues at stake in these cases without creating substantial docket pressure.

Moreover, as Justice Kennedy noted in a separate concurring opinion in the Rasul case, Guantanamo Bay is not located on or near a battlefield, where court access would disrupt an active campaign. It is a secure base that was chosen as a military prison precisely because of its distance from the action.

Nonetheless, even without suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, Congress has no constitutional obligation to make federal habeas review available in all times and in all places. As noted above, persons who are simply held indefinitely, without being found to be enemy combatants, may have a constitutional right to habeas under the Rasul Court's reading of Eisentrager. But as to the bulk of detainees, determinations by the combatant status review panels and military commissions are probably adequate as a technical matter.

The Unwritten Constitution

It would seem, therefore, that most objections to the Graham/Levin Amendment must go to its wisdom, rather than its constitutionality. At a time when there are grave concerns about the Administration's conformity to international and domestic legal standards in the treatment of prisoners, as well as doubts about its honesty in matters relating to the ongoing wars, one could think it imprudent to reduce judicial oversight of military captives.

Yet, I want to suggest that the Graham/Levin Amendment is objectionable on a further ground--that it violates what I'll call the "unwritten Constitution."

Much of constitutional law is unwritten, in the sense that the Supreme Court has issued rulings authoritatively interpreting the written text to mean things that are not expressly spelled out. The rights to freedom of expressive association, to send children to private schools, and to be free of race and sex discrimination, and many other constitutional norms we take for granted, are unwritten in the sense that they are implied by what is written.

However, when I say that the Graham/Levin Amendment threatens the unwritten Constitution, I use that term in a different sense, one that is much closer to the English notion of constitutionalism.

England lacks a written constitution, and thus for many years the English system of government has been said to be one of parliamentary supremacy. Nonetheless, lawyers, judges, politicians, scholars, and ordinary English subjects routinely speak of the English Constitution. By this term they mean both the actual way in which English government functions at any given time--literally how it is "constituted"--and the notion that certain sorts of government action are simply unthinkable.

Accordingly, when the American colonists protested that various parliamentary measures in the 1770s violated their rights as Englishmen, they were not simply confused; they understood that no court could hold an act of Parliament unconstitutional, but they nonetheless took for granted that Parliament was not supposed to pass laws inconsistent with fundamental principles, such as those set out in the Magna Carta and other landmark documents.

It is in this English sense in which I say that the United States has an unwritten Constitution--one that forbids Congress from taking certain sorts of measures even though the actual written Constitution, and the judicial precedents interpreting it, would allow them.

For example, Article III of the Constitution clearly grants to Congress the discretion to create, and thus to eliminate, all lower federal courts, leaving only the Supreme Court. Yet today, an act of Congress abolishing the lower federal courts would rightly be deemed an assault on the independence of the judiciary.

Likewise, the Constitution does not fix the number of Justices on the Supreme Court, which fluctuated in the Nineteenth Century. Yet when President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to increase the number of Justices as a thinly disguised method of packing the Court with jurists sympathetic to his political program, Congress rightly rejected his scheme as fundamentally inconsistent with separation of powers.

The rejection of the Court-packing scheme was, in an important sense, an affirmation that the Supreme Court is a co-equal body with Congress and the President. Thus, were Congress today to attempt what it accomplished in 1802--and cancel a session of the Supreme Court--nearly everyone would rightly understand this as an assault on the Constitution itself.

Critics of judicial review have also sometimes seized on the language in Article III that permits Congress to make "exceptions" to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. In the civil rights era, some politicians invoked this language in proposing to strip the Supreme Court and all other federal courts of jurisdiction to order busing as a remedy for racially segregated schools. More recently, some members of Congress have proposed stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance.

The proponents of jurisdiction-stripping, Court-packing and other threats to judicial independence are not wrong to point out that the written Constitution gives Congress enormous power over the jurisdiction of the federal courts. What they overlook, however, is something more fundamental: Judicial independence depends on Congress respecting the spirit of separation of powers, not merely its letter.

Unfortunately, Congress of late has shown little respect for the unwritten Constitution. Most spectacularly, earlier this year, Congress enacted legislation governing exactly one case, the end-of-life saga of Terri Schiavo. To be sure, there is a history of such "private bills," which originated at a time when the lines between legislatures and courts were much less clear, and for that reason, "Terri's Law" was probably valid as a matter of technical constitutional interpretation. But the law was very much at odds with the spirit of separation of powers--that is, the modern unwritten Constitution.

END OF QUOTE


Number Two--

The USSC will take up the status of Guantanamo soon and President Bush says he will follow its ruling-


Sunday, May 07, 2006


Bush says Guantanamo closure possible after Supreme Court rules on military trials
Jamie Sterling at 3:02 PM ET



[JURIST] US President George W. Bush said Sunday that closing the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archives] is a possibility in the future depending on the US Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], which will determine the legality of military trials for Guantanamo detainees. The Court's decision on whether military commissions [JURIST news archive] for foreign terror suspects can proceed is expected by the end of June. In an interview [transcript] with German TV station ARD [media website, in German] that will be broadcast Sunday night, Bush said that he would like to close the prison and place the detainees on trial. Many human rights groups have criticized the US for inhumane treatment of Guantanamo detainees [HRW backgrounder] and the United Nations has called for the US to close Guantanamo [JURIST report], but the US government has in the past defended the facility [JURIST report]. Reuters has more.

In the UK, meanwhile, British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith [official profile] will take a strong stand against alleged abuse at Guantanamo and join other UK officials [JURIST report] in urging the US to close Guantanamo. Goldsmith is planning on speaking on the closure of Guantanamo at a global security conference at the Royal United Services Institute this week. US officials had previously discussed [JURIST report] the closure of Guantanamo with British officials. The Observer has local coverage.

YOU ARE FAR BEHIND THE TIMES, MR. PARADOS--KEEP UP TO DATE PLEASE-note the date above May 6, 2006-
Patience. Mr. Parados, Patience--the rule of law will prevail--You havebeen watching too much TV where everything is solved in forty five minutes. You are also clearly not keeping up with the news about Guantanamo!!

... and goes on to cite an article from Nov. 21, 2005


Meanwhile, Mr. Bush adressed the European Union at the EU-US summit...



source

Funny. I thought it had been the other way round all along: international pressure to send the Gitmo detainees home or give them a trial, and the US administration unwilling to do so...

However, I'm happy to learn that Mr. Bush wants to send all but the few "cold-blooded killers", who have to be tried in the US, home. Finally.

The truth is that in most cases their native countries don't want them back - this is particularly true of Saudi Arabia, and also true of some who are citizens of European countries. Hard to comprehend? Consider that several European governments have willingly participated in the so-called 'renditions' of international terror suspects, while loudly denying the fact. Nothing surprising here - it is called hypocrisy, and it is both a common ailment and an option not so readily available to the nation in the spotlight, which has no choice but to act in its own name - no skirts to hide behind..

How do you know that? I'm not aware of that fact. Seriously. On the other hand, I can see that other countries don't want to be part of the mess the US created with installing a lawless place like Gitmo. I'd bet that even the US admin is by now kind of annoyed by all the negative press and the bad PR for America Gitmo has generated, but doesn't really know how to get out of the Gitmo desaster.



Well, those countries could still try them, right. In a way America did with Moussawi. Right?



Yes, it's becoming more and more clear that European countries had their role in the whole debacle. A shame. I'd like to see it all uncovered, no matter what countries were involved. How can the world accept that people are being disappeared? How can it accept secret prisons, how can it accept "renditions" to countries were detainees are being tortured? I thought that was what we were supposedly fighting against!?



As if the US admin was not trying to hide behind all kinds of arguments, "national security" on top of the list, to redefining international contracts and agreements America is part of to outright proclaiming that, well, as the last superpower you just have to do certain things. Might makes right.

Doesn't excuse any other country or government, but it's not as if the US wouldn't do so, just because more people are paying attention.

I believe we have been a good deal more honest and candid about iour policies and a good deal less susceptable to comforting illusions than many of our critics - particularly those in Europe.

By the way when is the International Criminal Court going to solve the problem of genocide in Sudan? Perhaps they are waiting for the UN. (Poor Milosevec - he died of boredom while waiting for a judgement at the hands of the UN appointed court.) Good also to observe the steady progress Europe is making towards meeting the Kyoto obligations they so willingly took on and for which they so vociferously criticized the U.S.

Europe has the option to stand aside and assume a "moral" position - and still be protected by default. The United States doesn't have that option.

The newfound virtue of a tired old sinner who no longer has the energy to indulge in his long-standing and favored past times is usually recognized as hypocritical.

Oh, come on George. More honest about your policies? Well, I still haven't figured out the honest reason why the States are in Iraq. What would you say, what's the reason? A mistake? Or to save the people from a dictatorship? To bring them democracy? Honestly, what's the reason?

It's nice that you'd ask about Sudan. I'm glad that you would trust the European Union in being able to solve the world's problems. I forgot the EU promised to do that. A bit like your President (either with us or with the terrorists) Bush, but hey.

Oh yes, and it's the ICC's fault that Milosevic died. I forgot. Some honesty would do us good.

Making progress towards Kyoto is bad thing, too. Got me there. It's in fact much worse than being honest about it and saying "Whaddya mean by 'greenhouse gases'? Well, let's be clear about that: we're not going do deal with that."

Yes. That's at least honest.

We are in Iraq still attempting to undo the after effects of WWI and the long domination and colonialization of Moslem states, mostly by Britain and France. These countries in 1915 signed a secret treaty (Sikes-Piqot) establishing the division of the spoils of the Ottoman Empire which they had not yet conquored. The U.S. foolishly got into that war and by early 1918 we had afdded nearly a million men to the cannon fodder on the Western Front. Meanwhile Britain and France withdrew about 600,000 for their campaigns in Mesopotamia and the Mideast.

We are trying to establish a non-authoritatian secular state in the one large Moslem country most likely to develop a modern state, and thereby create a new model for a broad culture stuck in failed religious and secular authoritaruian models. Significantly this state is situated between Iran, a country of 50 million with a young population chafing under a theocratic gerontocracy and Saudi Arabia, a monarchy that will likely fall in the next decades.

I agree that our rationalization to the UN, based on WMD - the only argument they would entertain - was a mistake. We should have simply declared our intent based on the bilateral agreement ending the Gulf War and told the UK to make a choice between us and Europe.

I don't trust the EU to do much besides keep Tuurkey out. My reference in the ICC matter was quite clearly to the utterly hypocritical rhetoric spewed out by the European powers to persuade us to submit to this empty facade, which promised little but the surrender of a slice of our sovereignty. Surely you are not suggesting that either the ICC or the UN has been effective in resolving any serious or major disputes. Milosevec would still be in power in Serbia if it were up to the European powers. It is useful in this context to recall the events surrounding the slaughters in Bosnia and the European paralysis that accompanyied tese events which occurred in Europe itself.

I for one do not buy the pseudo science and hysteria about climactic tipping points and all the rest of the hysteria that has so gripped Europeans, eager to avoid the serious issues of demographic decline, economic sclerosis, and an inability to cope with global compretition and immigration, and anxious for a less threatening diversion.

I am afraid that you don't know how to read, Old Europe. If you had read my entire post you would have found that I gave information from 2005 for context and then gave the following:

Sunday, May 07, 2006


Bush says Guantanamo closure possible after Supreme Court rules on military trials
Jamie Sterling at 3:02 PM ET



[JURIST] US President George W. Bush said Sunday that closing the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archives] is a possibility in the future depending on the US Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], which will determine the legality of military trials for Guantanamo detainees. The Court's decision on whether military commissions [JURIST news archive] for foreign terror suspects can proceed is expected by the end of June. In an interview [transcript] with German TV station ARD [media website, in German] that will be broadcast Sunday night, Bush said that he would like to close the prison and place the detainees on trial. Many human rights groups have criticized the US for inhumane treatment of Guantanamo detainees [HRW backgrounder] and the United Nations has called for the US to close Guantanamo [JURIST report], but the US government has in the past defended the facility [JURIST report]. Reuters has more.

In the UK, meanwhile, British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith [official profile] will take a strong stand against alleged abuse at Guantanamo and join other UK officials [JURIST report] in urging the US to close Guantanamo. Goldsmith is planning on speaking on the closure of Guantanamo at a global security conference at the Royal United Services Institute this week. US officials had previously discussed [JURIST report] the closure of Guantanamo with British officials. The Observer has local coverage.


YOU MISSED THE DATE- MAY 7, 2006, Old Europe.

In the USA we follow the rule of law--Not like Europe who has had dictator after dictator, ruinous Socialistic policies leading to massive unemployment.

If you are able to read my post, you notice that it said that the President indicated that it might be possible to close Gitmo depending on the decision made by the USSC. It's called "checks and balances' Old Europe, something the Europeans appear to know little about!


It is also clear that you don't know a damn thing about the alleged "global warming" Old Europe. I defy you to give what you think are truths about Global Warming--based on science, of course.

Most Euopeans do not know that the most of the EU countries that have signed Kyoto are not meeting their goals--Hypocrites all---

Again, I challenge you, Old Europe, to show the alleged truth about Global Warming.

If you can't, go back into your cave!!!!!

George Ob1- May I respectfully suggest that you read a very fine essay by Norman Podhoretz called Who is Lying In Iraq? If you do, I am sure you will not surrender the position about WMD's.

You can find it on line. Merely type in Who is Lying In Iraq- Norman Podhoretz

I had the discussion about Global Warming with one of your alter egos a while ago. Maybe you forgot. Maybe the dozens of usernames are not just for fun or whatever, but due to a Multiple Personality Disorder. In that case I'd like to inform you that you, BernardR, are just in control of that body for this very moment.

I don't live in a cave. Terrorist masterminds that the mightiest nation on Earth declared national enemy number one and then failed to catch are allegedly living in caves. Trolls are said to be living in caves, too. I suppose a diploma would look nice on a cave wall, though.

And we are not in Iraq attempting to undo the effects of Wilhelm II. ill-advised policy from 1871 onward of trying to obtain a "place in the sun", trying to modell his country into the world's superpower, making foreign policy completely incalculably, reverting Bismarck's "Kissinger Diktat", trying to colonialize foreign countries and failing to continue signed non-aggression pacts with important European powers. This policy which eventually lead to WWI and, by extension, to WWII seems to be bad enough as to not try it again more than a century later.



While you seem to believe in a dusted-off version of the domino doctrine - that once Iraq is a modern, western-style democracy, all the theocracies and dictatorships in other Middle-Eastern countries will just crumble and fall - I'd venture that stopping pandering to those theocracies and dictatorships like Saudi Arabia might help. In fact, it might help more than invading Iraq. ("We invaded Iraq because we don't like the Saudis. But don't tell them, or they'll stop selling us oil.")



Yes, that would have been honest.



You might want to ask Charles Taylor, ex-president of Liberia or the Special Court for Sierra Leone what they think of this "empty facade". Just an idea, though.



As far as I can remember, both the United Nations and the ICC were founded not only based on Kant's Völkerbund idea, but on the experiences of WWI and the proposal of President Woodrow Wilson in 1918 and the Nuremberg Trials following the end of WWII in 1945. The United States have been a key player in establishing these institutions. It's a shame that modern American seems to have nothing left but contempt for what a generation ago was deemed a concept for a better future.



While there is no way of knowing what "would have been", we can indeed say that thanks to the United States and President Clinton, Milosevic was removed from power.



Quite true.



I don't know why you would think that climate change and demographic decline would be linked somehow. However, the scope of the American trade deficit with these economically "sclerotic countries" who are "failing to be globally competitive" is quite astonishing. And when it comes to immigration, it's not as if the United States wouldn't be facing any problems. Right?

old europe,

Interesting post.

I'm not sure where you are going with the reference to Wilhelm II & his ill-advised policies that did their part in the prelude to WWI (particularly letting the reinsurance treaty with Russia lapse). I agree, it was folly, but Germany was far from alone in this - consider France, Russia, & Britain. I've always thought the Habsburgs get treated too harshly by most historians. They were dealing with more modern and progressive issues than were the empire builders around them -- social reform; the balancing of nationalistic aspirations with collective economic and trade development; etc.

I don't share your views of the altruism and supposed wisdom of Woodrow Wilson and American leaders of his ilk. As Georges Clemenceau said "God had only ten commandments: Wilson has fourteen". Certainly the sappy and self-serving notion that we were fighting a "War to end wars" and to fulfill the nationalistic and tribal interests of people everywhere was both stimulating and pleasing for those in search of lofty illusions about their motives and presumed virtue. The truth is there was little basis on which to prefer one side to the other in that sad conflict. Our intervention merely gave Britain and France the ability to complete their long-standing desire to bring down the Ottoman Empire, betraying all their allies in the process (from Zionists to Hashemites) and unleashing whirlwinds we are still struggling with today. Moreover, Wilson's vanity made him the dupe of Lloyd George and Clemenceau in turning the Armistice with Germany into a surrender and a treaty process that set the stage for the conflicts to follow.

I believe your points about the Saudis are more rhetorical fluorishes (good ones though) than serious observations or analysis. Ibn Saud did (in alliance with the Wahabbis)seize control of Mecca & most of the country that was to bear his name during the 1930s, and did so mostly on his own(but with some help from the Brtitish, whose agent interestingly was Kim Philby's father) . Our connection with them did not begin until WWII and it was based on oil. WWII was fought by the allies with American oil. We lavishly depleted huge reserves providing the fuel for nearly the entire Allied effort in that war. There was no other path.

If the beginning of legal proceedings against Charles Taylor of Liberia, years after the end of the slaughter & destruction he brought on Liberia is the measure of the value of the ICC (is it the ICC that will try him????) , then that is a fairly small payoff for an institution that promises much mischief on other matters.

For a long time the American economy has been the best long-term bet for investors around the world. That, and our fairly consistent support for free trade have combined to put us in the position of a large net importer. I believe that, overall, this is far better than the alternatives, in that it has facilitated the peaceful development of third world economies, a process that, in the long run, will benefit everyone.

You are correct, there is no objective connection between global warming and demographic decline in Europe. My point was that the two are connected only in the mass psychology of Europeans focused on preserving their comfortable illusions in a still very competitive and dangerous world.

The U.S. has always taken in very large numbers of immigrants, and assimilated them rather well. Despite this, the hand-wringing from some quarters about the flood of unwashed and "different" people coming in has also been a steady, but mostly ineffectual noise that accompanied an overall very successful process. The same things were said a century ago when the immigrants were coming from Ireland, Italy, and Central Europe. Most of the debate here is about the failure of our border and residency controls, and not about the numbers of immigrants themselves. Moreover, we freely accept immigrants into our economy and society without the legal and institutional barriers that so obsess Europe. I believe we are far better adapted than Europe to the competitive challenges of the coming century.

Bernie,
I win again.. You just posted articles without links. As we both know I don't have to refute anything in an article that doesn't have a link.

GOSH! Who would have guessed? Another republican rule that applies only to republicans of course.

rabel -- Thank you for your kind words.

Old Europe_ Prove that you are more than a big bag of wind with regard to Global Warming. I will begin by giving you an irrefutable fact about the so called Global Warming. What will you do to rebut it--give me a bon mot? Prove that you are more than a big bag of wind with regard to Global Warming---

"The observed tropospheric temperature essentially shows no trend. Whereas the model( given by the IPCC and based totally on SURFACE temperature readings) expects a warming of about 0.224 Centigrade per decade, the Satellite Data show a warming of only 0.034 Centigrade per data, almost all of which is attributable to the 1997-El Nino- A warming less than a SIXTH of the expected amount. Little or no temperature increase in the troposphere means much less water feedback and a much smaller warming estimate-

Source--INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE--2001:A: 12: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.


Now, Rebut that, Old Europe or admit you know very little about the alleged Global Warming!!!

An intergovernmental panel on climate change?!?!

Well at least your on topic (Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance).

BernardR, prove that you are more than a little a2k attention whore by refraining from starting each of your posts with an insult in the feeble attempt to draw posters who are engaged in topic-relevant discussions into a discussion about global warming. Everybody knows that that's your pet topic. It's not relevant to this thread. If you're so keen on talking about it, consider starting a thread called "BernardR explains why Global Warming is nothing but a lie".

Yesterday, pedestrians walking down 78th street might have noted a little pile of dogpoop in the gutter. Those who happened to see it had the option of ignoring this biological incidental or picking it up, rolling it around in their fingers, giving it a bit of a sniff or engaging the stuff in some way. Massagato/Bernard's posts present a similar option.


We note the weekend's concerted and choreographed administration attack on the NY Times and LA Times coverage of the banking records matter. The strategy is in no way unusual. There's an operational rule in place as a standard operating procedure for this administration and its supporters which can be explicated as "Never defend or apologize or admit errors/mistakes. Always attack immediately any criticism particularly where that criticism might effect popularity or those myths you need the electorate to believe. Always suggest explicitly or implicitly that such criticism is treasonous and threatens security. Continue to forward the notion that an 'independent press' which says or does or reveals anything you don't want them to say or do or reveal constitutes further evidence that they (perhaps as unwitting agents of evil-doer propaganda or merely from weakness of character) really hate America."

Advantage one: attention is taken off the matter revealed/discussed.

Advantage two: future revelations are less likely to be counted as factual or unbiased or rational.

Advantage three: simplistic (and false) narratives which forward a binary frame of reference (good guys/bad guys) are promoted in the civil discourse and this faciliates the notion that the press (or whistleblowers) are only partisan agents because that is all they can be, that is all which can be possible, in a binary frame of reference.

Advantage four: rational criteria for establishing 'facts' or 'evidence' or 'authoritative sources' are purposefully bypassed and replaced by a criterion which awards merit or rationality dependent upon which "side" is either lauded or criticized. Thus an international consensus, or a science panel report, or a press revelation of administration behavior, or a poll, or any such can be immediately discounted REGARDLESS OF ALL ELSE if the position taken seems to counter the administration's words, claims or desires.

Advantage five: the advantage that can accrue from any instance of bullying behavior...even if the target of the bullying continues to speak, investigate, etc, it may well now do so less often or less agressively. (This strategy has been explicitly acknowledged by Pat Buchanan and Bill Kristol who refer to it as "working the refs".)