In May, I analyzed SB1070, the controversial immigration law passed in Arizona. One of my points of contention was the "reasonable suspicion" clause in the law, as I thought it would be challenged in Federal Court. Here is the excerpt from my blog post:
"The ambiguity comes from the words “reasonable suspicion.” What constitutes “reasonable suspicion?” Will it be treated like “probably cause?” More importantly, is it ambiguous enough that it can withstand an argument of violation of XIV rights? [Court Challenge]"
AND
For this law to stand up to legal challenges, it must clearly outline the guidelines for “reasonable suspicion” and ensure that the lawful activities and civil rights of U.S. citizens are not unconstitutionally scrutinized or violated.
Here is an excerpt from a recent politics daily article that described the injunction passed that restricted some elements of the law from being enforced:
"Put on hold for now, pending further judicial review, were provisions that required a check of immigration status for anyone stopped by police under "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful status; made it a state crime to violate federal immigrant registration laws; and made it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work in the state."
Prognosticator? I think so.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Wikileaks and Afghanistan
Julian Assange, the founder of wikileaks.org, believes that courage is contagious. But, what is he referring to when he talks about "courage?" That would be the 91,000 classified intelligence documents that he leaked to major newspapers in the U.S., U.K. and Germany. These files described, amongst a slew of wartime failures, the shaky nature of the ISI, or Pakistan's intelligence agency. Assange has already threatened to release thousands of more documents, and hopes that more whistle-blowers will come out, because his "courage" will inspire others. Hence, his statement.
This sounds familiar. In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, about the secret extension of the Vietnam War into Laos and Cambodia under the Nixon administration. As Nixon was talking about Vietnamization and the return of troops, he was upping bomber missions over sovereign countries who were geographically subject to elements of the Ho Chi Minh trail. There have been some newsworthy opinions that have compared the Wikileaks documents to the Pentagon Papers and even the Tet Offensive. The Tet offensive was a series of attacks (1968) by the Vietcong which penetrated deep into South Vietnam. Although it was a military failure, it showed that the situation in Vietnam was deteriorating.
But, were Assange and whomever leaked the documents acting with courage or reckless disregard? How will the leakage of theses documents affect the war effort?
In order to even consider an answer to these loaded questions, we need to understand some of the important points of the leaked documents:
1. ISI - Claims that the ISI is in cahoots with elements of the Taliban at the same time they were purported to be helping pinpoint drone strikes on the porous A-P border. One of their main commanders, Gen. Hamid Gul, was said to have supplied motorcycles and plans for suicide bombings.
2. Pakistan/India - Claims that the ISI and elements of Pakistan military helped insurgents bomb the Indian embassy in Afghanistan because of India's plans to help build roads in the country.
3. Double Agents? - Claims that ISI was working with elements of Al Qaida.
4. Civilian Casualties - Claims that civilian casualty numbers have been purposefully reported as lower than they actually are. Wikileaks claims that there is enough evidence to bring war crimes charges against the U.S.
5. Useless Spending - Claims that former Pakistan pres. Musharraf was using counter-terrorism funds provided by the U.S. to bolster security against India.
The documents show that Pakistan has not clamped down on corruption and extremism in its own ranks. If intelligence instability occurs in Pakistan, then the entire war effort is put in jeopardy. Pakistan's unreliability and corruption have made it both a liability and a necessity in fighting the war. These claims would also explain why the situation in Afghanistan was in shambles when the new Administration created its war strategy.
This is why the documents are so volatile. Eve if Pakistan is not the perfect, terror-fighting ally we want them to be, our diplomatic relationship must remain stable in order to make any improvements. The documents showed that neglect led to continued intelligence failure, and a drastic downfall in Afghanistan. But, the documents do not cover the current strategy. Reports about civilian casualties (albeit still occurring) have been drastically reduced, and there have been significant gains in the targeting and killing of Taliban leaders, sometimes with the help of ISI or the Pakistani military.
War crimes and other hyperbolic statements aside, these documents reflect what we already know: the situation in Afghanistan is a result of negligence and corruption, but it can be improved. Because of that, it does not warrant any comparison to the damning results of the Tet Offensive and the Pentagon Papers.
This sounds familiar. In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, about the secret extension of the Vietnam War into Laos and Cambodia under the Nixon administration. As Nixon was talking about Vietnamization and the return of troops, he was upping bomber missions over sovereign countries who were geographically subject to elements of the Ho Chi Minh trail. There have been some newsworthy opinions that have compared the Wikileaks documents to the Pentagon Papers and even the Tet Offensive. The Tet offensive was a series of attacks (1968) by the Vietcong which penetrated deep into South Vietnam. Although it was a military failure, it showed that the situation in Vietnam was deteriorating.
But, were Assange and whomever leaked the documents acting with courage or reckless disregard? How will the leakage of theses documents affect the war effort?
In order to even consider an answer to these loaded questions, we need to understand some of the important points of the leaked documents:
1. ISI - Claims that the ISI is in cahoots with elements of the Taliban at the same time they were purported to be helping pinpoint drone strikes on the porous A-P border. One of their main commanders, Gen. Hamid Gul, was said to have supplied motorcycles and plans for suicide bombings.
2. Pakistan/India - Claims that the ISI and elements of Pakistan military helped insurgents bomb the Indian embassy in Afghanistan because of India's plans to help build roads in the country.
3. Double Agents? - Claims that ISI was working with elements of Al Qaida.
4. Civilian Casualties - Claims that civilian casualty numbers have been purposefully reported as lower than they actually are. Wikileaks claims that there is enough evidence to bring war crimes charges against the U.S.
5. Useless Spending - Claims that former Pakistan pres. Musharraf was using counter-terrorism funds provided by the U.S. to bolster security against India.
The documents show that Pakistan has not clamped down on corruption and extremism in its own ranks. If intelligence instability occurs in Pakistan, then the entire war effort is put in jeopardy. Pakistan's unreliability and corruption have made it both a liability and a necessity in fighting the war. These claims would also explain why the situation in Afghanistan was in shambles when the new Administration created its war strategy.
This is why the documents are so volatile. Eve if Pakistan is not the perfect, terror-fighting ally we want them to be, our diplomatic relationship must remain stable in order to make any improvements. The documents showed that neglect led to continued intelligence failure, and a drastic downfall in Afghanistan. But, the documents do not cover the current strategy. Reports about civilian casualties (albeit still occurring) have been drastically reduced, and there have been significant gains in the targeting and killing of Taliban leaders, sometimes with the help of ISI or the Pakistani military.
War crimes and other hyperbolic statements aside, these documents reflect what we already know: the situation in Afghanistan is a result of negligence and corruption, but it can be improved. Because of that, it does not warrant any comparison to the damning results of the Tet Offensive and the Pentagon Papers.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Bulls%$t on Main Street: How "Main Street" Political Rhetoric Means Nothing
Since the election, an entirely new set of words has been added to the political dictionary. When Obama and McCain were stumping for their respective campaigns, they both promised to help "Main Street" instead of "Wall Street." This made it simple for the public by providing a clear dichotomy: Wall Street was the unregulated spending and risk that put us in a recession (the Bernie Madoffs, Allen Stanfords, AIGs, Lehmans, CountryWide, etc) and Main Street was the public and the small businesses, hurt by Wall Street's risky business.
But, Main Street's definition expanded beyond financial overhaul and evolved to become the symbolic representation of all of those hurt by the recession, regardless of culpability. According to the White House, Main Street was hurting and only policies that encouraged stimulus of the spending power of Main Street would help us through the recession. In short, Main Street became the American people.
This is all true: I am very certain that most Americans were affected by the recession. Small businesses saw less of a customer base, and had to either cut costs by laying off workers, or buying up less supplies. People lost their life savings, their retirements and the 401(k)s. Philanthropy dropped (initially) and the national unemployment rate jumped above 10%. As of now, the picture is not going to get any better, with a possible double-dip and a global slow down in the EU (Greece debt, et al.)
The Obama Admin. decided to reign in on its promise to help Main Street by passing a Stimulus Package (phallic jokes aside) chock full of investment money and tax breaks for businesses and "Main Street." (Milton Friedman did a couple flips in his grave). The Republicans who voted for it do not mention it, and the Republicans who voted against it mention it too much. Then came the healthcare bill, passed through reconciliation almost a year after it was introduced. In between, some people wasted some tea and bitched about socialists, a moron with the last name Beck cried a lot in front of a huge American Flag, some guy from South Carolina questioned the "truthiness" of the President (thanks Colbert) and another guy from Texas voiced his opinions about infanticide. (its funny when you generalize).
Republicans from DeMint to Bachmann had a love fest with some TEAbaggers, calling for reform in Washington so that "Main Street" would not be enveloped in an incoming socialist/Marxist/fascist/Muslim Armageddon-Holocaust brought by an illegitimate president whose middle name was the same last name as that guy from Iraq.
I digress....
But, all that rhetoric and all that banner waving mumbo-jumbo about the end of American civilization (and the possible return of Arrested Development? We can always pray) was for nothing. Once Obama tried to extend unemployment, a retired hall-of-fame-baseball-pitcher-turned-Senator from KY with nothing to lose named Bunning blocked it because it would add to the deficit.
Ah, yes....the deficit. Conservatives on the Hill are usually deficit hawks, and don't let any useless spending get by them without giving it a piece of their mind (see McCain's pork list). With the deficit becoming a little hefty these days, Obama has decided to take on the difficult, and oxymoronic task, of looking for places to cut spending while spending more to get prop up a fledgling recovery. Republicans call this tax-and-spend, which is entire mystery to me because Obama hasn't really raised taxes (except on tanning beds, as of July 1st, 2010). But, conservatives would rather see the money spent from the stimulus instead of taken out of the deficit. Hence, Bunning.
Back to the point. So, Bunning, a Republican, stopped the extension of unemployment to Main Street because of his own, personal views on deficit spending. He put the livelihood of a whole lot of American people on the hook the make a point about the deficit. This selfish son of a....nevermind.
Then, came the financial overhaul. This was the reason why Main Street entered our political lexicon in the first place. Initially, Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and Chris Dodd, the lame duck senator from Connecticut negotiated in a bipartisan fashion to write an overhaul that protected the people from another bailout and the insurgence of "too big to fail." Again, the Republicans balked on the issue, choosing to filibuster cloture (for neophytes, a vote for cloture means that the bill will be INTRODUCED to the Senate floor, not passed). While they talk about no bailouts and protection of small businesses, they don't even want to talk about protecting taxpayers from another bailout. Status quo....gimme a second helping. Democrats lost two of their own (because they thought the Bill was too soft), but gained a couple Republicans to finally start debate. Where is the bill now? Far from passing, especially without Sen. Byrd. What did we lose? Any regulatory power in a new Consumer Protection Agency and a $50 million fund that would prevent bailouts, which was of course a victim of political hyperbole (called a "slush fund").
Next, came the bill to extend unemployment for millions of Americans. The bill, once it made it to the Senate was stripped of ALL provisions except for unemployment and home buyer tax credits. In the 11th hour, when millions of Americans were about to lose their unemployment, Republicans balked once again because of the deficit issue. The deadline came and went, and once again Congress chose to go on vacation instead of help the American people (that goes for both sides). So, when you come back to your deficit ridden states, with high unemployment, look someone in the eye and tell them that you screwed them over because of your personal feelings about deficit spending. Tell them that you decided to take a week off, while they struggle to feed their family and make ends meet. Enjoy that vacation, Senator!
My issue is this: Do not even think you represent Main Street if you consistently leave them behind because of the deficit. I get it, there is a deficit. It will cause problems in the future, of which I will have to deal with. But, there are people on Main Street suffering now, and they have no control over it. They are the same people you tout as real, hard working Americans who cannot find a job. This is not because they are lazy and dependent (message brought to you by Sharon Angle), its because there is 1 job for every 5 qualified applicants.
There is a thin line between being principled and being a hypocritical a$$hole. Congress is certainly skirting that line.
But, Main Street's definition expanded beyond financial overhaul and evolved to become the symbolic representation of all of those hurt by the recession, regardless of culpability. According to the White House, Main Street was hurting and only policies that encouraged stimulus of the spending power of Main Street would help us through the recession. In short, Main Street became the American people.
This is all true: I am very certain that most Americans were affected by the recession. Small businesses saw less of a customer base, and had to either cut costs by laying off workers, or buying up less supplies. People lost their life savings, their retirements and the 401(k)s. Philanthropy dropped (initially) and the national unemployment rate jumped above 10%. As of now, the picture is not going to get any better, with a possible double-dip and a global slow down in the EU (Greece debt, et al.)
The Obama Admin. decided to reign in on its promise to help Main Street by passing a Stimulus Package (phallic jokes aside) chock full of investment money and tax breaks for businesses and "Main Street." (Milton Friedman did a couple flips in his grave). The Republicans who voted for it do not mention it, and the Republicans who voted against it mention it too much. Then came the healthcare bill, passed through reconciliation almost a year after it was introduced. In between, some people wasted some tea and bitched about socialists, a moron with the last name Beck cried a lot in front of a huge American Flag, some guy from South Carolina questioned the "truthiness" of the President (thanks Colbert) and another guy from Texas voiced his opinions about infanticide. (its funny when you generalize).
Republicans from DeMint to Bachmann had a love fest with some TEAbaggers, calling for reform in Washington so that "Main Street" would not be enveloped in an incoming socialist/Marxist/fascist/Muslim Armageddon-Holocaust brought by an illegitimate president whose middle name was the same last name as that guy from Iraq.
I digress....
But, all that rhetoric and all that banner waving mumbo-jumbo about the end of American civilization (and the possible return of Arrested Development? We can always pray) was for nothing. Once Obama tried to extend unemployment, a retired hall-of-fame-baseball-pitcher-turned-Senator from KY with nothing to lose named Bunning blocked it because it would add to the deficit.
Ah, yes....the deficit. Conservatives on the Hill are usually deficit hawks, and don't let any useless spending get by them without giving it a piece of their mind (see McCain's pork list). With the deficit becoming a little hefty these days, Obama has decided to take on the difficult, and oxymoronic task, of looking for places to cut spending while spending more to get prop up a fledgling recovery. Republicans call this tax-and-spend, which is entire mystery to me because Obama hasn't really raised taxes (except on tanning beds, as of July 1st, 2010). But, conservatives would rather see the money spent from the stimulus instead of taken out of the deficit. Hence, Bunning.
Back to the point. So, Bunning, a Republican, stopped the extension of unemployment to Main Street because of his own, personal views on deficit spending. He put the livelihood of a whole lot of American people on the hook the make a point about the deficit. This selfish son of a....nevermind.
Then, came the financial overhaul. This was the reason why Main Street entered our political lexicon in the first place. Initially, Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and Chris Dodd, the lame duck senator from Connecticut negotiated in a bipartisan fashion to write an overhaul that protected the people from another bailout and the insurgence of "too big to fail." Again, the Republicans balked on the issue, choosing to filibuster cloture (for neophytes, a vote for cloture means that the bill will be INTRODUCED to the Senate floor, not passed). While they talk about no bailouts and protection of small businesses, they don't even want to talk about protecting taxpayers from another bailout. Status quo....gimme a second helping. Democrats lost two of their own (because they thought the Bill was too soft), but gained a couple Republicans to finally start debate. Where is the bill now? Far from passing, especially without Sen. Byrd. What did we lose? Any regulatory power in a new Consumer Protection Agency and a $50 million fund that would prevent bailouts, which was of course a victim of political hyperbole (called a "slush fund").
Next, came the bill to extend unemployment for millions of Americans. The bill, once it made it to the Senate was stripped of ALL provisions except for unemployment and home buyer tax credits. In the 11th hour, when millions of Americans were about to lose their unemployment, Republicans balked once again because of the deficit issue. The deadline came and went, and once again Congress chose to go on vacation instead of help the American people (that goes for both sides). So, when you come back to your deficit ridden states, with high unemployment, look someone in the eye and tell them that you screwed them over because of your personal feelings about deficit spending. Tell them that you decided to take a week off, while they struggle to feed their family and make ends meet. Enjoy that vacation, Senator!
My issue is this: Do not even think you represent Main Street if you consistently leave them behind because of the deficit. I get it, there is a deficit. It will cause problems in the future, of which I will have to deal with. But, there are people on Main Street suffering now, and they have no control over it. They are the same people you tout as real, hard working Americans who cannot find a job. This is not because they are lazy and dependent (message brought to you by Sharon Angle), its because there is 1 job for every 5 qualified applicants.
There is a thin line between being principled and being a hypocritical a$$hole. Congress is certainly skirting that line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)