Unconventional monetary policy—characterized by “zero interest rate policy” (ZIRP) and “quantitative easing” (QE), along with macro-prudential regulation—has increased the power of central banks in the United States, Japan, and Europe. In the new issue of Cato Journal, contributors revisit the thinking behind unconventional monetary policy and the “new monetary framework,” make the case for transparent monetary rules versus foggy discretion, and point to the distortions generated by ultra-low interest rates and preferential credit allocation.
When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in 2005, Denmark found itself at the center of a global battle about the freedom of speech. The paper’s culture editor, Flemming Rose, defended the decision to print the 12 drawings, and he quickly came to play a central part in the debate about the limitations to freedom of speech in the 21st century. In The Tyranny of Silence, Flemming Rose provides a personal account of an event that has shaped the debate about what it means to be a citizen in a democracy and how to coexist in a world that is increasingly multicultural, multireligious, and multiethnic.
The Cato Institute has released its 2015 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. The thousands of individuals who contribute to Cato are passionate about freedom and committed to ensuring that future generations enjoy the blessings of liberty, unencumbered by an overreaching state that seeks to control their lives. This is Cato’s optimistic vision for the future, and it would be unimaginable without the Institute’s longstanding partnership with its Sponsors. We will continue our diligence and dedication to seeing this vision realized.
Boumediene v. Bush and the Rights of Enemy Combatants in Wartime
Featuring Timothy Lynch, Cato Institute; and Jeremy Rabkin, George Mason University Law School; moderated by Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute.
The war on terror has presented U.S. courts with many thorny legal issues relating to civil liberties and national security. On December 5 the Supreme Court takes up the case of Boumediene v. Bush, which centers on the right of “enemy combatants” being held in Guantanamo Bay to have their detention reviewed by American civilian courts. On one hand, what right does the president have to hold people indefinitely without recourse to judicial review? On the other, does the Constitution really require that everyone picked up by our military in wartime have access to our courts? Fundamentally, how do you balance liberty and security during a war without end where the enemy doesn’t play by the traditional laws of war? Please join us for a spirited debate of these and related issues.