We are quickly approaching the 60th day of our attack on Libya. Surprising, huh? I'm attributing most of my surprise to the complete lack of coverage. Anyway, that 60 day mark is important, as is pointed out by RedState.com. Basically, either our part ends, or Congress has to approve of the conflict. Granted, the Obama administration completely ignored Section 2, so there is no real reason to believe he'll obey the law here, either. Granted, there is a fairly useless 30 day extension rule, but that just pushes the problem back another month; the conflict in Libya will not be over then, either.
This is why blogging is important. If I had to rely on CBS News to tell me this, I would never have found out. As much as I do follow and study politics, I don't necessarily brush up on the War Powers Act every day, so this little nugget would have escaped my attention.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Daily Snark 5/10
Washington is getting geared up for the debt ceiling debate. The White House is referring to Speaker Boehner as a "hostage taker." I could be wrong, but wasn't such violent rhetoric only the province of the Right? Please, remember Gabby Giffords!
Also, our debt is $14.2 trillion. The statists in the White House have increased spending by over $700 billion per year over the last two years. Perhaps cutting some of that spending may be a good idea. What makes me think that? The Stimulus. I can't think of any better evidence to prove that those who believe government spending is the answer are off their rockers. Their predictions were so far off base that it appears, by their own predictions, we would have been better off unemployment wise not doing the stimulus. Not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars in debt we picked up paying for this extra unemployment.
But of course, cutting spending is extremist! I don't understand why anyone would seriously believe the government spending money is, in and of itself, somehow a moral obligation we all assumed by living.
Also, our debt is $14.2 trillion. The statists in the White House have increased spending by over $700 billion per year over the last two years. Perhaps cutting some of that spending may be a good idea. What makes me think that? The Stimulus. I can't think of any better evidence to prove that those who believe government spending is the answer are off their rockers. Their predictions were so far off base that it appears, by their own predictions, we would have been better off unemployment wise not doing the stimulus. Not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars in debt we picked up paying for this extra unemployment.
But of course, cutting spending is extremist! I don't understand why anyone would seriously believe the government spending money is, in and of itself, somehow a moral obligation we all assumed by living.
Monday, May 9, 2011
The Daily Snark 5/9
Greece's credit rating (they still get one?) downgraded yet again. They were paying 26% interest on loans prior to this credit cut.
It amazes me that people still believe government spending is, has been, or ever could be the answer to economic problems. I think it has a lot to do with that verb, believe, rather than a different verb, think.
Time to start thinking or to prepare for collapse. I think Ken Anderson, guest blogging at Instapundit, has it right in that a crisis will not be a smooth transition from ok to getting worse to bad. It will, rather, be a rapid implosion. By the time we see things speeding up, it will be too late. Hence why we must act now rather than later to cut government spending.
It amazes me that people still believe government spending is, has been, or ever could be the answer to economic problems. I think it has a lot to do with that verb, believe, rather than a different verb, think.
Time to start thinking or to prepare for collapse. I think Ken Anderson, guest blogging at Instapundit, has it right in that a crisis will not be a smooth transition from ok to getting worse to bad. It will, rather, be a rapid implosion. By the time we see things speeding up, it will be too late. Hence why we must act now rather than later to cut government spending.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
The Killing of Osama bin Laden and International Law
Creating a paradigm for a just domestic system of law, from picking a form of government to effectively implementing the laws it creates, is extremely difficult. Creating such laws for the international community is likely impossible. I am not a fan of the phrase "international law", largely because I do not believe such a thing really exists. That has not stopped many people from using the phrase to condemn actions they dislike. This phrase was often dragged out against former President George W. Bush's policies, in particular keeping captured combatants at Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq War. Rather than attempt to write a book on the subject of international law, I will apply the laws as put forward by proponents of international law during the Iraq War to the recent operation that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
For starters, this operation occurred in Pakistan, a nation the United States Congress and the United Nations have not sanctioned the United States military to attack. It was often pointed out that the Iraq War could not be legal without U.N. approval (former Secretary General Kofi Annan made this point, for instance). Simply put, if those who opposed the Iraq War did so on principle rather than politics, they should be just as adamant that this operation into Pakistan was equally illegal and that President Obama is also a war criminal. To their credit, a few hard core members of the American Left, such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, are indeed saying this. This argument was ridiculous in 2003 and remains so today. The majority of nations composing the United Nations are not democratic or respect human rights; a great many of them have a vested interest in hurting the United States. It is beyond insane to believe this rabble of tyrants and corrupt oligarchies can create a just and consistent international law. The repeated condemnations of Israel and the deafening silence concerning Palestinian atrocities proves this point. Furthermore, we are a sovereign nation; our government has a responsibility to its people, not to the international community, to keep us safe from harm.
Opposition to the Iraq War may be legitimate on the grounds that it did not further the goal of keeping us safe (I will not weigh on that here). Opposition based on not having a U.N. resolution was, well, stupid. Those who used that as an excuse must now explain their hypocrisy concerning the Abbottabad operation or declare the United States illegal in violating Osama bin Laden's rights; I do not envy them that position. This should serve as a lesson against using empty phrases. If you cannot clearly tell me where international law comes from, what it is, how we can uniformly tell what international law says, it may be best not to base arguments on it. The same is true for terms like "fair prices" and "social justice." Perhaps some other source of international law could or was cited against the Iraq War, but I am willing to bet it is no stronger than a U.N. resolution. At the very least, we can tell when the latter exist or do not. Other sources of international law will likely not be clear and even if such clear laws do exist, it remains to be proven that they trump the goals of governments to secure their own citizens' rights.
Secondly, it is now clear that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALS burst into his room. There are accounts (admittedly from bin Laden's wife and hence suspect) that the terrorist leader was executed. It is certain that the order to the SEALS was to kill rather than capture bin Laden. The most likely holding treaty here is the Third Geneva Convention, often used as an authority against the status of Illegal Combatant used by President Bush. Neoconservatives, President Bush's administration, and myself argued that as Al Qaeda terrorists are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions, do not meet the specifications required by Article 4, and do not follow the Conventions themselves (which, according to Article 2 would entitle them to protection), these combatants are ineligible to such legal protection.
Again, those making the case that holding prisoners at Gitmo and waterboarding a small number of them was illegal need to be in an uproar against what President Obama has ordered in Abbottabad. Osama bin Laden was unarmed and likely executed on the spot; if the Third Geneva Convention rules apply to Al Qaeda, this is a gross violation of Article 3, section 1, subsection a (banning "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture"), subsection d ( prohibiting "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"), and Article 13 in its entirety. Again, a small number of hard core Leftists are making this argument, but the vast majority of Americans who criticized waterboarding, Gitmo, and the status of Illegal Combatant celebrated the death of bin Laden. Once again, these people need to explain their hypocrisy or defend poor bin Laden; once again, I do not envy that position.
I cannot repeat this enough: using vague phrases like "international law" and "social justice" may be persuasive as a cheap sophistry trick on the unthinking, but they carry very little intellectual rigor. Furthermore, they tend to trap their users when the situation changes. A great deal of criticism against Bush's policies can now be used to criticize Obama's mission against Osama bin Laden; those scoring political points during the last decade are going to do their best to forget their past positions now, but those of us who prefer truth to partisanship have a duty to hold those people accountable.
For starters, this operation occurred in Pakistan, a nation the United States Congress and the United Nations have not sanctioned the United States military to attack. It was often pointed out that the Iraq War could not be legal without U.N. approval (former Secretary General Kofi Annan made this point, for instance). Simply put, if those who opposed the Iraq War did so on principle rather than politics, they should be just as adamant that this operation into Pakistan was equally illegal and that President Obama is also a war criminal. To their credit, a few hard core members of the American Left, such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, are indeed saying this. This argument was ridiculous in 2003 and remains so today. The majority of nations composing the United Nations are not democratic or respect human rights; a great many of them have a vested interest in hurting the United States. It is beyond insane to believe this rabble of tyrants and corrupt oligarchies can create a just and consistent international law. The repeated condemnations of Israel and the deafening silence concerning Palestinian atrocities proves this point. Furthermore, we are a sovereign nation; our government has a responsibility to its people, not to the international community, to keep us safe from harm.
Opposition to the Iraq War may be legitimate on the grounds that it did not further the goal of keeping us safe (I will not weigh on that here). Opposition based on not having a U.N. resolution was, well, stupid. Those who used that as an excuse must now explain their hypocrisy concerning the Abbottabad operation or declare the United States illegal in violating Osama bin Laden's rights; I do not envy them that position. This should serve as a lesson against using empty phrases. If you cannot clearly tell me where international law comes from, what it is, how we can uniformly tell what international law says, it may be best not to base arguments on it. The same is true for terms like "fair prices" and "social justice." Perhaps some other source of international law could or was cited against the Iraq War, but I am willing to bet it is no stronger than a U.N. resolution. At the very least, we can tell when the latter exist or do not. Other sources of international law will likely not be clear and even if such clear laws do exist, it remains to be proven that they trump the goals of governments to secure their own citizens' rights.
Secondly, it is now clear that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when Navy SEALS burst into his room. There are accounts (admittedly from bin Laden's wife and hence suspect) that the terrorist leader was executed. It is certain that the order to the SEALS was to kill rather than capture bin Laden. The most likely holding treaty here is the Third Geneva Convention, often used as an authority against the status of Illegal Combatant used by President Bush. Neoconservatives, President Bush's administration, and myself argued that as Al Qaeda terrorists are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions, do not meet the specifications required by Article 4, and do not follow the Conventions themselves (which, according to Article 2 would entitle them to protection), these combatants are ineligible to such legal protection.
Again, those making the case that holding prisoners at Gitmo and waterboarding a small number of them was illegal need to be in an uproar against what President Obama has ordered in Abbottabad. Osama bin Laden was unarmed and likely executed on the spot; if the Third Geneva Convention rules apply to Al Qaeda, this is a gross violation of Article 3, section 1, subsection a (banning "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture"), subsection d ( prohibiting "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"), and Article 13 in its entirety. Again, a small number of hard core Leftists are making this argument, but the vast majority of Americans who criticized waterboarding, Gitmo, and the status of Illegal Combatant celebrated the death of bin Laden. Once again, these people need to explain their hypocrisy or defend poor bin Laden; once again, I do not envy that position.
I cannot repeat this enough: using vague phrases like "international law" and "social justice" may be persuasive as a cheap sophistry trick on the unthinking, but they carry very little intellectual rigor. Furthermore, they tend to trap their users when the situation changes. A great deal of criticism against Bush's policies can now be used to criticize Obama's mission against Osama bin Laden; those scoring political points during the last decade are going to do their best to forget their past positions now, but those of us who prefer truth to partisanship have a duty to hold those people accountable.
The Daily Snark 5/7
25% of the job growth so praised by the President last month came from McDonalds. When Bush was President, the media came up with a term to describe such low paying job "recoveries": McJobs.
The Euro bailout of Greece has failed. Greece is now paying higher interest (26%) on its two year debt than I do on my credit card.
Oil speculators lost money hand over fist this last week. Oddly, that didn't make the news; it only seems to be newsworthy if they are making money, which for some unknown reason is "evil."
The Euro bailout of Greece has failed. Greece is now paying higher interest (26%) on its two year debt than I do on my credit card.
Oil speculators lost money hand over fist this last week. Oddly, that didn't make the news; it only seems to be newsworthy if they are making money, which for some unknown reason is "evil."
Friday, May 6, 2011
The Daily Snark 5/6
United Nations attempt to help Haiti kills 5,000 people. These are supposedly the same people we need to help us in places like Iraq. With "help" like this, I think we're better off without it.
Also, some second hand snark: "The Greenies have it wrong. It is not resource abundance but poverty which is unsustainable."
Also, some second hand snark: "The Greenies have it wrong. It is not resource abundance but poverty which is unsustainable."
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The Daily Snark 5/5
All of my Irish students had no idea who Bobby Sands was, but they knew it was Cinco de Mayo.
The Osama killing story seems to change every day. That doesn't build confidence in the trustworthiness of the White House's story. Get your story straight, then release it. May be a post this weekend on whether killing Osama was legal under the rubric set up by the American Left during the Bush Administration. That could be interesting.
The Osama killing story seems to change every day. That doesn't build confidence in the trustworthiness of the White House's story. Get your story straight, then release it. May be a post this weekend on whether killing Osama was legal under the rubric set up by the American Left during the Bush Administration. That could be interesting.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The Daily Snark 5/4
"To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
~President Obama's speech on why we needed to get involved with Libya.
Wrong. Not to mention the images out of Iran in 2009 disproved this idea, but what happened in Syria over the lat 48 hours takes the cake. That is most certainly an image of slaughter; I suppose that means Obama has betrayed who we are?
~President Obama's speech on why we needed to get involved with Libya.
Wrong. Not to mention the images out of Iran in 2009 disproved this idea, but what happened in Syria over the lat 48 hours takes the cake. That is most certainly an image of slaughter; I suppose that means Obama has betrayed who we are?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Daily Snark 5/3
Unsurprisingly, Obama's approval numbers went through the roof over the last 48 hours. Fact of the matter is, it will not last. I paid $4/gallon gas for the first time today since 2008; that was an election year and one in which the incumbent's party had absolutely no chance. Prices traditionally spike after Memorial Day due to a switch to a more expensive mixture of gas that is somehow more environmentally friendly for warm weather; we haven't hit that spike yet.
Osama is dead; the thrill of that will be gone by August 2011, certainly by June 2012, and that leaves many months of high gas prices, high grocery prices, and few jobs between then and election day '12. Both George Bushs had approval ratings above 80 at one point; the first lost his bid for reelection and the second won it by a few points. Obama's approval is in the mid to high 50's. It won't last.
Monday, May 2, 2011
The Daily Snark 5/2
Osama bin Laden once referring to the United States as a "paper tiger." I assume that is Arabic for "most powerful killing force in the entire universe."
Many worrying signs concerning Pakistan, though. Also, I'm fairly amused that our use of enhanced interrogation techniques and Gitmo detainees apparently helped lead to this day. For those of you who claimed those actions were not in your name, I agree, you can claim no credit in wiping out bin Laden.
Rest in Pieces.
Many worrying signs concerning Pakistan, though. Also, I'm fairly amused that our use of enhanced interrogation techniques and Gitmo detainees apparently helped lead to this day. For those of you who claimed those actions were not in your name, I agree, you can claim no credit in wiping out bin Laden.
Rest in Pieces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)