Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration's military tribunals violated the law. On the news today, I heard someone say that the White House must now consider "Plan B."
Ahem — we passed Plan B some time ago.
Here's a recap of what has transpired over the past four years:
PLAN A: Issue "military tribunals" order. (The resistance may be negligible.)
On November 13, 2001, President Bush quietly and matter-of-factly issued a "military order" to establish military tribunals for prisoners in the "war on terror." The order stated that any prisoner designated by the president to be an "enemy combatant" would be imprisoned by the military. The order boldly declared that such prisoners could be tried before tribunals and that the prisoners "shall not be privileged to seek any remedy in any court of the United States."
This Sunday, when Mexicans will vote for a new president, Bolivians will also be going to the polls — selecting a new constituent assembly that will rewrite their constitution.
Bolivian president Evo Morales is using Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez's example as a model to concentrate power. Chavez introduced a new constitution that centralized political control and he has used popular referendums to eliminate checks and balances on his power. Morales will have a somewhat harder time at gaining and maintaining similar control, since he doesn't have the vast oil resources or military background to support him that Chavez has.
If Mexican populist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is elected this weekend, will he too follow the Chavez path? Many observers, including the market, don't seem overly concerned. Mexico is not Bolivia; it is a much larger, more diverse, open economy with a free trade agreement with the United States. Democratization and economic reforms — especially openness to international capital markets — will temper Lopez Obrador's populist sentiments. At least, so the argument goes.
To quote the old Mercedes Benz airbag commercial: “Some things in life are too important not to share.”
The National Education Association’s national convention begins today at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, FL. Outside, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (a Washington State think tank) is parking a truck with a billboard highlighting some of the expenditures the NEA listed on its 2004 federal financial disclosure forms.
The billboard is too important (and good) not to share:
From The Onion:
Citing a longstanding need to "restore honor and dignity to the American food-service industry," Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced the public debut of their joint business venture Monday, a chain of integrity-themed restaurants which opened in 12 locations nationwide.Read the rest of this post »
The new Russ & John's chain, which the two senators funded privately via small financial donations of no more than $2,000 per investor, was founded on the idea that "today's customers want quality food without all the lies and exaggerations that all too often accompany it," according to McCain.
In an effort to avoid the "thinly veiled bribery" found in the majority of restaurants, Russ & John's prohibit tips, disparaging them as "the worst kind of soft money," according to the "Message From The Founders" on the restaurant's menu. Instead, management will distribute company-issued "server grants," intended to prevent undue influence on the waitstaff's performance and ensure that every customer receives the same quality service.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the recent Supreme Court case concerning the use of special military commissions to try Guantanamo prisoners, is a bear to boil down, accurately, in a single blog post. It touches on a perfect storm of arcane questions: customary international law, treaty interpretation, the common law of war, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and jurisdiction-stripping.
The Court's basic argument, as I understand it, is this: Congress can set the rules governing military commissions in most cases, including this one. Those rules, spelled out in the U.S. Code of Military Justice and corresponding treaties, specify as follows:
- The commissions must conform as much as practical to the procedures that govern standing courts-martial (the standing tribunals in which U.S. serviceman can be tried) and ordinary civil criminal trials.
- The Geneva Convention sets additional, overlapping requirements that trial of prisoners must occur in “regularly constituted” courts.
Those requirements have been violated. While the commissions depart from the standard procedures of courts-martial, the president hasn’t made a sufficient showing that consistency with the procedures of ordinary courts-martial isn’t a “practical” option, as U.S. law (specifically, Article 36 of the U.S. Code of Military Justice) requires. Because the president hasn’t made that showing, the Gitmo commissions also aren’t “regularly constituted” courts — and therefore trying persons before the commissions violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
Got that? Good, because there are some more wrinkles:
Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona is on a crusade against wasteful pork barrel spending. During the consideration of Congress’s annual spending bills, he introduced dozens of amendments that would defund ridiculous pork projects such as swimming pools, retail markets, and aquariums. He even brazenly targeted a pet project in Speaker Denny Hastert’s Illinois district.
You'd think Flake's efforts would attract the support of the many self-proclaimed budget hawks in both major political parties. But you'd be wrong; his efforts have failed miserably, sometimes barely garnering support from a tenth of the House.
His amendments haven’t even consistently drawn the vote of his colleagues in the Republican Study Committee — a group of more than 100 supposed fiscal conservatives. For instance, only about a third of RSC members supported Flake’s recent amendment to cut funding for the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association.
In a previous post, I suggested that my brother and his family could save thousands on their health insurance if they moved in with his former college roommate's family in Pennsylvania, rather than settle and buy coverage in New Jersey.
I thought that former roommate's wife (Kristin, another college friend) would shoot me virtual daggers. Instead, she wrote:
Wow — guess we're pretty lucky! Although, we can't seem to keep our doctors here in PA due to high malpractice insurance costs. So maybe the best deal for everyone would be to buy their insurance in PA, then drive to NJ for their doctor's appointments.
That's one way to get around unwanted costs imposed by a state's medical malpractice laws. In our book Healthy Competition, Mike Tanner and I suggest another: Let patients, doctors, hospitals, and insurers agree up front on the level of malpractice protection that patients receive.
Read the rest of this post »