Decision ‘08

Second Casualty of Pakistan Tragedy: Mike Huckabee?

There are many, many reasons I could never support the modern Democratic party - their embrace of the unions that are killing our public schools and auto industry, their protectionist nonsense, and their general warmth towards big government spending (this is not to ignore the big government spending of some modern Republicans, the present administration included).

At the presidential level, I find modern Democrats (read: post-JFK) far too concerned with domestic policy that they have little control over (Congress and the courts have a far greater impact on the home front) and sometimes dangerously complacent on the foreign side of the ledger (this is not a blanket statement covering all Democrats, but a general tendency). In foreign affairs, an unquestioning internationalism is sometimes every bit as scary as blinkered isolationism - for example, it can lead to absurdities like Jimmy Carter endorsing electoral atrocities in Venezuela.

It takes a smooth hand to handle foreign affairs, and strong leadership skills, and it helps to project a single voice. For this reason, presidents are given a wide latitude in the conduct of foreign policy. Thus, when a presidential candidate (and a Republican presidential candidate, at that) displays ignorance on basic knowledge of foreign affairs, and when said candidate is enjoying a bit of a run in the polls, I get very, very nervous.

Mike Huckabee is making a lot of people nervous, though, with statements like this (apologies for quoting in entirety, but it’s a short piece not given easily to excerpting):

In discussing the volatile situation in Pakistan, Mike Huckabee has made several erroneous or misleading statements at a time when he has been under increasing scrutiny from fellow presidential candidates for a lack of fluency in foreign policy issues.

Explaining statements he made suggesting that the instability in Pakistan should remind Americans to tighten security on the southern border of the United States, Mr. Huckabee said Friday that “we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities, except those immediately south of the border.”

Asked to justify the statement, he later cited a March 2006 article in The Denver Post reporting that from 2002 to 2005, Pakistanis were the most numerous non-Latin Americans caught entering the United States illegally. According to The Post, 660 Pakistanis were detained in that period.

A recent report from the Department of Homeland Security, however, concluded that, over all, illegal immigrants from the Philippines, India, Korea, China and Vietnam were all far more numerous than those from Pakistan.

In a separate interview on Friday on MSNBC, Mr. Huckabee, a Republican, said that the Pakistani government “does not have enough control of those eastern borders near Afghanistan to be able go after the terrorists.” Those borders are on the western side of Pakistan, not the eastern side.

Further, he offered an Orlando crowd his “apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.” His aides said later that he meant to say “sympathies.”

He also said he was worried about martial law “continuing” in Pakistan, although Mr. Musharraf lifted the state of emergency on Dec. 15. Mr. Huckabee later said that he was referring to a renewal of full martial law and said that some elements, including restrictions on judges and the news media, had continued.

Mr. Huckabee’s comments on the situation in Pakistan were not the first time he has been caught unprepared on foreign policy matters. Early this month, after the release of a National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Mr. Huckabee said that he was not familiar with the report, even though it had been widely reported in the news for more than 30 hours.

Now, we’re not talking ‘gotcha’ questions like who’s the president of Khazikstan, but rather, prominent news of the day. Managing the dual challenges of Iran and Pakistan will be very much a part of the job duties of the next President, and are fair game under any reasonable scenario.

Bob Novak reports, however, on a private poll that shows Huckabee slipping:

While public polls show Mike Huckabee leading Mitt Romney in Iowa, a new survey of an oversized sample shows Huckabee slipping and no longer ahead of Romney.

A private corporate interest commissioned a phone bank survey of 15,000 Iowans who say they will attend Republican presidential caucuses Jan. 3. It showed Romney with 30 percent and Huckabee at 26 percent. Sen. John McCain was third with 12 percent and Rudy Giuliani fourth at 9 percent. Fred Thompson had only 1 percent, with slightly fewer votes than Rep. Ron Paul (also at 1 percent).

Numbers for both Huckabee and Romney dipped sharply when Iowans were asked their second choice. In contrast, McCain was the leading second-choice candidate for both Huckabee and Romney voters.

Unexpected late intervention by Bob Dole in the Iowa Republican caucuses confirms that Mike Huckabee may have blundered by assailing President George W. Bush’s “arrogant bunker mentality” in international affairs.

“Why have you joined the ‘Bush bashers’?” Dole asked in a letter to Huckabee that he made public. Dole, until now neutral in the 2008 contest, called Huckabee’s critique of Bush policy in Foreign Affairs magazine a “perfect example of 20-20 hindsight.”

Dole, who won the 1996 Iowa caucuses en route to the presidential nomination, told Huckabee that Iowans would not approve of his attack on Bush (who still gets 80 percent approval from Republicans). He concluded the letter with typical Dole humor: “P.S. I lost the General [election] in ‘96, so what do I know?”

There is no doubt that Huckabee is now a serious contender, but my gut feel is that he is going to suffer a three-pronged backlash from people (1) scared of his foreign affair snafus, (2) concerned about his conservative credentials on economic affairs, and (3) put off by his overt insertions of religion into the campaign…

56 Responses to “Second Casualty of Pakistan Tragedy: Mike Huckabee?”

1 Andy Says:
December 29th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
(4) add the fact that he isn’t considered a conservative/fundamentalist Southern Baptist, per Judge Paul Pressler & co. Methinks that regardless of his primary gains in Yankeeland, Huck’s going to hit a brick wall in the Biblebelt.
2 Ryan Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 2:08 am
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*deep breath*

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Best. Post introduction. Ever. The best thing about contemporary “conservatives” is their utter lack of irony. Thanks Mark, I needed that.
3 Fargus Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 3:17 am
As a former teacher, Mark, I’m intensely interested in why you think the teachers’ unions are killing the educational system of this country.
4 Mark Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Hmmm, let’s see - how about ironclad opposition to any ‘merit’-type pay in favor of seniority?…
5 Mark Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Ryan, glad I can amuse you. I’m quite serious about my beliefs, and I assure you, your ridicule rates about 0.3 on a scale of 1 to 10 on things that concern me. Happy New Year!…
6 Mark Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Fargus, if you want specifics, do a Google search on the NEA and No Child Left Behind - the teacher’s union has tried to gut the legislation from the beginning, particularly any aspects dealing with ‘accountability’ for poor schools and/or teachers…
7 mikebdot Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Mark: Who should be the arbiter of “accountability”? If you answer that question suitably well I think you should approach the unions about it. It is not anywhere near as simple as you think. Who watches the watchers, Mark?
8 mikebdot Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Mark: Also, if you think test scores should dictate who is doing “well”, you’re very very naive. Teachers will begin to cheat, i.e. give their kids more time for certain sections, walk around the room to give students “help” here and there to make sure they are on the right pages, etc. (some already do so because of NCLB). Those that don’t will thus be punished. Just like steroid use, Mark. And don’t even get me started on the statistics of it all and how poorly the media reports testing “improvements” at certain schools without mentioning the entire state “improved” over the same time, which ought to lead one to wonder if the tests have gotten easier from one year to the next or harder, whichever the case may be.

Furthermore, there are review systems in place at all schools. If they actually used them and got rid of teachers who were not doing their job (and wouldn’t announce when they were going to be in the classroom to watch) they might have a better shot of weeding out the crappy teachers. In my opinion the problem isn’t the unions, it’s bad leadership at the superintendent level that makes a school district run well or not.
9 Mark Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Mike, yes, there are problems with NCLB, including some of the concerns you raise, but at least it is a good faith effort at measuring progress and rewarding it (and punishing the lack thereof). The NEA, however, has not attempted to improve it, but to gut it, and they have consistently fought any effort at accountability, no matter who defines it. In the NEA’s eye, the only measure that is acceptable to track is who pays the union dues - if the dues are paid, the teacher is wonderful.

There are a million problems with our public schools, and no easy solutions, but I defy you to name one - even one - worthwhile innovation that has come from the NEA…
10 Mark Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Indeed, this is the problem with all unions. Unions exist to protect the right of workers - ANY workers who pay the dues, good or bad. Well, here’s a dirty little secret. Bad workers in any industry SHOULD lose their jobs. America is full of good, decent people who are more than willing to do a good job. Protecting the dregs is not the way to move forward.

Now, I realize there was a time when sweatshop conditions, etc., ruled the day, and the unions played a “noble” role in lifting up the working man (always at great profit to the unions themselves, of course). But the sweatshop no longer is the rule of the day, and the unions are notable primarily for their downward drag on productivity, as the current state of Detroit so eloquently attests to…
11 Fargus Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
See, here’s my thing. Teachers are criminally underpaid. They work long hours, go through a lot of crap, and don’t make almost anything for it. An organization that tries to get these critical people a little more money, or a little better benefits, is absolutely necessary in my view. That said, of course there should be a review process. But judging a teacher on the test scores of his or her class is absolutely daft. It makes little to no sense. There are some kids who are not going to be able to improve, and there are some kids who are simply not going to improve, whether out of stubbornness or laziness or whatever. This is particularly true in underfunded and run-down troubled urban districts. To attempt to judge the teachers who have enough commitment to take that job in the first place just by the test scores of their students is beyond absurd, and I’m surprised somebody could take an honest look at the issue and propose it with a straight face. There may be a case to be made for merit pay, but the connection between merit and student performance is tenuous at best. You say that NCLB is good because at least it’s an idea. But bad ideas shouldn’t be praised just because they’re ideas. I mean, Jesus, you could make the same argument to support Ron Paul, which I know you don’t do. But at least the guy’s got some ideas!
12 Mark Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Well, I think NCLB is a collection of ideas, some good, some bad…but the overriding premise behind it, that high-performing schools and teachers should be rewarded, and poor performers punished, is sound. I realize that it is impossible to reach some kids, and in urban districts in particular, even getting the students to attend is a chore. Nevertheless, the question is, is the NEA a help or a hindrance to educating our children? Overwhelmingly, the evidence suggests a hindrance…
13 Mark Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I also believe that, while no one can argue that teaching is a crucial profession, and that SOME teachers are underpaid, the mantra that teachers are ‘criminally underpaid’, as you put it, is no longer as true as it once was. Here’s some data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Median annual earnings of kindergarten, elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers ranged from $43,580 to $48,690 in May 2006; the lowest 10 percent earned $28,590 to $33,070; the top 10 percent earned $67,490 to $76,100. Median earnings for preschool teachers were $22,680.

According to the American Federation of Teachers, beginning teachers with a bachelor’s degree earned an average of $31,753 in the 2004–05 school year. The estimated average salary of all public elementary and secondary school teachers in the 2004–05 school year was $47,602.

Underpaid? Maybe…criminally so? That’s a stretch…
14 too many steves Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
It is easy to become a teacher, easy to remain a teacher, and an abundance of people enter the profession. So we end up with more teachers than are needed. If the union wanted to maximize the salary and benefits teachers enjoy they would act more like a guild than a union by having strict, internally created grading and certification processes that limit the total number of teachers available. They might even consider taking on a greater role in the creation of teachers. The resulting shortage would drive demand, and salaries/benefits higher. Fewer, higher-caliber teachers would also benefit the students.

Of course, this is just one aspect of the problem of education. How you get good and smart teachers to go into the disaster that is inner-city schools is beyond me.
15 Fargus Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Beginning teachers earned an average of $31,753. That’s from your own source. How are people supposed to be attracted to the job at such a rate?

Of course, just talking about averages and medians obscures the fact that while $31,753 might be a comfortable wage somewhere in rural country, it’d leave me just about destitute here in northern New Jersey. I think that a more meaningful statistic would be what percentage of the average income of their area teachers made, on average, around the country. Or what percentage of the median income. Or the median income for college graduates, which would probably be a more meaningful statistic. You see what I mean, though, Mark? Even the salary of $47,602, in an area like mine, is not terribly good. It’s a living income, sure, but that’d be for me, a single guy. If you’re talking about a family, with car payments and a mortgage, etc., then it’s a bit different story.

All I’m saying, I guess, is that I don’t distrust your figures. Only that I don’t think they even come close to telling the whole story.
16 Ryan Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Mark, aren’t you a “conservative”? Aren’t you supposed to oppose NCLB and “socialized education”?

Also:

Ryan, glad I can amuse you. I’m quite serious about my beliefs, and I assure you, your ridicule rates about 0.3 on a scale of 1 to 10 on things that concern me. Happy New Year!…

When did you become such a humorless schmuck? You’re turning into Jonah Goldberg.
17 Mark Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Ryan, you call me a ‘conservative’ with scare quotes, and then a humorless schmuck, and then expect ME to apologize? Whatever, dude…I’m just wondering when you started deciding it was incumbent upon you to respond to every post with ad hominem attacks…

What do you care what I am supposed to support or oppose? I’m just some clown you don’t even know. Why not respond to the substance of the post?

But whatever…believe me, I’m not angry, just not going to play the role of passive punching bag, either…if it makes you feel good to respond the way you do, glad I can be there for you…
18 Mark Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Fargus, the Manhattan Institute (admittedly, an organization with a viewpoint) dug deeper into the BLS data and found that the average pay in the areas with a higher standard of living are correspondingly higher, as you might suspect. Their findings from the executive summary of their study in bullet point form follow:

This report compiles information on the hourly pay of public school teachers nationally and in 66 metropolitan areas, as collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in its annual National Compensation Survey. We also compare the reported hourly income of public school teachers with that of workers in similar professions, as defined by the BLS. This report goes on to use the BLS data to analyze whether there is a relationship between higher relative pay for public school teachers and higher student achievement as measured by high school graduation rates.

Among the key findings of this report:

* According to the BLS, the average public school teacher in the United States earned $34.06 per hour in 2005.

* The average public school teacher was paid 36% more per hour than the average non-sales white-collar worker and 11% more than the average professional specialty and technical worker.

* Full-time public school teachers work on average 36.5 hours per week during weeks that they are working. By comparison, white-collar workers (excluding sales) work 39.4 hours, and professional specialty and technical workers work 39.0 hours per week. Private school teachers work 38.3 hours per week.

* Compared with public school teachers, editors and reporters earn 24% less; architects, 11% less; psychologists, 9% less; chemists, 5% less; mechanical engineers, 6% less; and economists, 1% less.

* Compared with public school teachers, airplane pilots earn 186% more; physicians, 80% more; lawyers, 49% more; nuclear engineers, 17% more; actuaries, 9% more; and physicists, 3% more.

* Public school teachers are paid 61% more per hour than private school teachers, on average nationwide.

* The Detroit metropolitan area has the highest average public school teacher pay among metropolitan areas for which data are available, at $47.28 per hour, followed by the San Francisco metropolitan area at $46.70 per hour, and the New York metropolitan area at $45.79 per hour.

* We find no evidence that average teacher pay relative to that of other white-collar or professional specialty workers is related to high school graduation rates in the metropolitan area.

But my point is not to slam teachers, whom I have a great deal of respect for, but just to say that compared to many other professions, they appear to be compensated fairly, though not, of course, without exception…
19 Bob from Ohio Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
31,000 for a 22 year old in her first job. With 3 full months off and two weeks at Christmas and 1 week in the spring.

“Teachers are criminally underpaid.” Sure.
20 Fargus Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Mark, my guess is that there’s some serious hanky-panky going onwith those numbers, and it’s likely to do with splitting up the income only over the 9 months of the school year. If pay is reckoned that way, of course teachers’ wages are going to appear to be artificially inflated. I say that because the $34.06/hr. figure doesn’t seem to jibe with your BLS figure above that said the average teacher made something around $48K a year, unless it’s adjusted for a 9-month long year. That’s the first obvious objection, since architects and doctors and lawyers and reporters work year round.

The other bit of hanky-panky there has to do with the hours. Either they’re splitting up the hours over the whole year, or they’re only counting time that teachers spend actually in school, forgetting the time spent making lesson plans, correcting papers and tests, etc.

Bob, have you heard the reports from the Bay Area about teachers who are literally unable to find affordable rentals in the city in which they teach? I don’t know where in Ohio you live, but here in Jersey, $31,000 would barely be a living wage.
21 Mark Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Fargus, I admit to not reading the report, but only the executive summary linked to. It may very well be that they are only counting the 9 months of the school year…as I said, I certainly am not advocating against teachers, nor am I suggesting they are overpaid. My only point originally is that there was a time when your statement that teachers were ‘criminally underpaid’ was probably true, but I think it has become one of those truisms that sticks in the mind even when the reality behind it is changing…and too many steves has a point. Market supply and demand has something to do with the wage level - if the pay was really all THAT bad, you’d see a lot less teachers, and a corresponding rise in salaries…
22 Ryan Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Mark, the “substance” of your post (the part in question, anyway) is itself just a series of ad hominems (unions KILLING our public schools, protectionist NONSENSE). Why should anyone bother to respond to phrases like that with actual arguments? What’s more, you and I don’t even disagree about teachers’ unions and protectionism; you’re just so infuriatingly glib that it gets my hackles up. And the complete lack of perspective - whatever may be true of unions, George Bush, Congressional Republicans, and their policies are literally killing, torturing, and otherwise violating the rights of people - can only be met with laughter because it’s too terrifying to contemplate that the large majority of “conservatives” honestly think that torture and war are making the world a better place.

As for feeling good, I will feel good when the Republican Party renounces barbarism and thuggery. Until then, laughter is all I have.
23 Bob from Ohio Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
From the NEA website:

The New Jersey Education Association’s “50K the First Day” campaign has created a bumper crop of decent settlements in the Garden State. At least 521 of New Jersey’s 593 school districts will offer starting salaries of $40,000 or more by 2008-09, and 17 districts will reach $50,000 or more by 2009-10.

One of the latest local affiliates to hit the $40k mark is tiny Chesterfield Township Education Association. As CTEA’s 35 teacher members entered contract bargaining, the one-building school district enjoyed neither “extra” cash nor an exemption from tight state budget restrictions. Yet members ulimately signed a contract offering a starting teacher salary of $44,809, which will progress to $48,011 in 2009-10.

Remember these are mostly 22 year olds. Most have no kids and no large expenses. And are fairly useless for 2-3 years until they get experience.

Not to mention not staying at the starting level very long.

Meanwhile from the VA web site:

Beginning salaries for State correctional officers ranged from $14,600 in California to $34,100 in New Jersey.

So, teachers make 1/3 to 1/2 more than prison guards. Which job is “criminally underpaid”?
24 Mark Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 12:11 am
Ryan, I don’t want to argue with you, but you are getting a martyr complex, my friend, and it’s not a pretty sight. I’m truly serious when I say you have got a bad, bad case of BDS. You’ll think I’m being glib here, but I’m not. I’m reading not one, but two books about Stalin right now. Might I suggest you do the same? Might give you a little perspective. If that doesn’t work, try this Mark Bowden piece:

No one should be prosecuted for waterboarding Abu Zubaydah.

Several investigations are under way to find out who ordered the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, apparently an effort to cover up evidence of torture. Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom of destroying the tapes, I’d like to take a look at what was allegedly done to Zubaydah, and why.

When captured in Pakistan in 2002, Zubaydah was one of the world’s most notorious terrorists. The 31-year-old Saudi had compiled in his young life 37 different aliases and was under a sentence of death in Jordan for a failed plot to blow up two hotels jammed with American and Israeli tourists. The evidence was not hearsay: Zubaydah was overheard on the phone planning the attacks, which were then thwarted. He was a key planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, was thought to be field commander of the attack that killed 17 U.S. sailors on the USS Cole, and was involved in planning a score of other terror attacks, successful and unsuccessful. He was considered to be a primary recruiter and manager of al-Qaeda training camps.

He was, in short, a highly successful, fully engaged, career mass murderer. Think back to those pictures of workers crouched in windows high up in the burning World Trade Center towers, choosing whether to jump to their death or be burned alive. This was in part Abu Zubaydah’s handiwork.

At the time of his capture in 2002, just six months after the Sept. 11 attacks, there was strong reason to believe Zubaydah knew virtually the entire organizational structure and agenda of al-Qaeda around the world. He was supervising ongoing plots to kill hundreds if not thousands of people. He was, for obvious reasons, disinclined to share this knowledge. Subjected briefly to waterboarding - less than a minute, according to published reports - he became cooperative and provided information that, according to the government, resulted in preventing planned attacks and capturing other key al-Qaeda leaders.

In the six years that have passed since the Manhattan towers collapsed, we have gained (partly through the interrogation of men like Zubaydah) a much clearer understanding of al-Qaeda and the threat it poses. While the chance of further murderous attacks is always with us, it is fair to say few of us feel the same measure of alarm we did then. The diminishment of this threat is at least in part due to the heroic efforts of the CIA, the military, and allies around the world in targeting terrorist cells.

…Waterboarding is a process by which a detainee is strapped down and forced to ingest and inhale water until he experiences the terror of drowning. It is not torture in the traditional sense of inflicting pain; it inflicts fear, intense, visceral fear, without doing physical harm. It is a method calculated to straddle the definitions of coercion and torture, and as such merely proves that both methods inhabit the same slippery continuum. There is a difference between gouging out a man’s eyes and keeping him awake, and waterboarding falls somewhere in between.

In the unlikely event that Zubaydah knew nothing of value and that every bit of information he divulged was false, it was still reasonable to assume in 2002 that this was not the case. If his interrogators were able to stop one terror attack by waterboarding him, even if they violated international agreements and our national conscience, it was justified. All nations have laws against killing, but all recognize self-defense as a legitimate excuse. I think the waterboarding in this case is directly analogous, except that Zubaydah himself, although he richly deserves it, was neither killed nor permanently harmed.

…The goal of an intelligence operation in wartime, on the other hand, is to elicit accurate, timely information to thwart attacks. In this setting, interrogation is a process, one in which a prisoner is rewarded for the truth, and punished for lying. It is designed to save lives and ensure the success of a military operation. Coercive methods are rarely necessary. Most often, prisoners can be induced to cooperate by being nice to them. There are many other interrogation methods proven to be useful that do not require so much as raising one’s voice. But there will always be hard cases like Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, another mastermind of Sept. 11. With prisoners like these, defiant and dangerous, the only right question to ask is, What works?

What does work? Opponents of torture argue that it never works, that it always produces false information. If that were so, then this would be a simple issue, and the whole logic of incentive/disincentive is false, which defies common sense. In one of the cases I have cited previously, a German police captain was able to crack the defiance of a kidnapper who had buried a child alive simply by threatening torture (the police chief was fired, a price any moral individual would gladly pay). The chief acted on the only moral justification for starting down this road, which is to prevent something worse from happening. If published reports can be believed, this is precisely what happened with Zubaydah.

People can be coerced into revealing important, truthful information. The German kidnapper did, Zubaydah did, and prisoners have throughout recorded time. What works varies for every individual, but in most cases, what works is fear, fear of imprisonment, fear of discomfort, fear of pain, fear of bad things happening to you, fear of bad things happening to those close to you. Some years ago in Israel, in the course of investigating this subject exhaustively, I interviewed Michael Koubi, a master interrogator who has questioned literally thousands of prisoners in a long career with Shin Bet. He said that the prisoner who resisted noncoercive methods was rare, but in those hard cases, fear usually produced results. Fear works better than pain.

It is an ugly business, and it is rightly banned. The interrogators who waterboarded Zubaydah were breaking the law. They knew they were risking their careers and freedom. But if the result of the act itself was a healthy terrorist with a bad memory vs. a terror attack that might kill hundreds or even thousands of people, it is a good outcome. The decision to punish those responsible for producing it is an executive one. Prosecutors and judges are permitted to weigh the circumstances and consider intent.

Which is why I say that waterboarding Zubaydah may have been illegal, but it wasn’t wrong.

You don’t have to agree with Bowden, but he does add a little perspective, does he not?…
25 Dingo Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 12:14 am
It’s interesting that a post about Pakistan has become a discussion about education and teachers. I think many of the problems with education would evaporate if we paid teachers more. Not necessarily the current crop of teachers, but paid more to entice a better teacher. Now, where will the money come from to pay the teacher more? Private schools don’t have the kinds of problems we are talking about, because they have the best teachers that money can buy. Two private high schools in the city where I live have teachers who are phd’s and the kids who graduate at the bottom of the class go on to contribute greatly to the community. Over the past 10 years, private schools have, in the city, increased 20 fold. People would rather send their children to private school, pay the additional cost to do so and also pay the property tax that funds public schools.

You get what you pay for.
26 Mark Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 12:17 am
Dingo, are you sure about the private schools? From the Manhattan Institute study I quoted above:

* Public school teachers are paid 61% more per hour than private school teachers, on average nationwide.

True? I don’t know, I haven’t read the study, just the summary…
27 Ryan Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 1:52 am
Mark, the problem is that there is no one at risk of being prosecuted. We’re all Americans here and we all understand civil disobedience. If the people who waterboarded Zubaydah thought that it was the right thing to do but we’re willing to lose their jobs over it, then let’s have a jury decide the question. Laws are never absolute - but we have to be willing to break them only when we think it’s absolutely necessary. If the president is going to block prosecution of people who break the laws (including himself, I guess) then the rule of law is nonexistent. This isn’t BDS, man; it’s being a person. The president flagrantly flaunts the law, orders other people to flaunt it, and then thumbs his nose in the direction of accountability.

I will repeat this for the 9 billionth time: I am not calling the president Stalin. But I do think the ideology of his administration is not fundamentally different from the tyrant’s. George Bush is a bad guy. Evil exists in the world and he has created his fair share of it.
28 Aaron Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 1:52 am
. . . but paid more to entice a better teacher.

That’s what The Economist normally suggests in terms of improving education quality in the US — comparing US public schools not to US private schools but to schools in countries with high-quality education in general. Other countries entice the smartest graduates to become teachers.

As for the public-private school comparison, I can only offer anecdotal evidence from personal experience. My mother, a public school teacher, considered seeking employment at the private high school I attended. She stated that the pay would be virtually nothing (even in comparison to what she was paid by the city school system), but the advantage (aside from free tuition for me) was that she wouldn’t have had to put up with as much crap from the students and the administration.
29 Andy Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:35 am
I recall the German cop incident. Another concept for Ryan to wrap his arms around — in Germany, in the process of arresting people, the Polizei have no qualms about bashing heads, unlike here. Ask Joschka Fischer who lost a few teeth back in the 70s. Ask any American GI unfortunate to get caught in a barfight before the MPs arrive these days. Even then, when they have someone in custody, their good cop - bad cop routine often makes their good cop worse than our bad cop.

I just love the irony of saps holding ourselves up to ephemeral international standards that absolutely no one else even holds, let alone pay lip service. BTW, did’ya notice that Petraeus got Man of the Year, with Sarkozi a close runner-up in the UK? Putin wasn’t even close. Yet another example of the fabled international standards.

Oh, yeah, teachers here make out pretty well compared to the rest of the world. Too bad that as much as we pour into public ed, the black hole of admin sucks up a good 2/3 of it.

As for accountability, here’s a radical thot, how about the parents of the local school. If they don’t like how Teacher X is teaching or not teaching their kids, why can’t they run Teacher X out of the district? And if 1/2 the admin was eliminated, there’d be more $$ for the teachers, as well as Joe public keeping more of their $$ in lowered taxes.

Personally, I’d like to see all school sports ejected from campus, why should the public ante up for multi-million $$ sport complexes at the HS level, let alone get a lion’s share of the budget? It’s crazy…
30 Clint Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 3:45 am
Dingo: “You get what you pay for.”

You’ve stumbled onto one of my pet peeves.

It is true that you usually get no more than you pay for (or end up paying for in the long run), but it is quite common to get quite a bit less than you have paid for.

If we start by demanding excellence from our teachers, we will certainly discover that we have too few, and will need to raise salaries to attract the excellent teachers we demand. If instead, we simply raise teachers’ salaries across the board, and then sit back and wait for the quality of teaching to magically improve of its own accord, because, after all, we’ve paid for it, we will be sorely disappointed.

Mark, Dingo — re: private school teaching salaries… two potential complicating factors (with zero research or citations to back them up):
1) The “average” salary for private school teachers should include the pay for the nuns who teach in private catholic schools, and have taken vows of poverty. This could be misleading.
2) Apart from salary, other “intangibles” could be quite different between the two jobs, making direct comparisons difficult, depending on the private school in question.
31 Fargus Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 10:30 am
Indeed, Clint. I taught private school in Connecticut for a year, and I made $20,000 a year. I regularly had to work between 60 and 80 hours a week while I was working. But my room and board and utilities were also taken care of. I think it probably wound up being the equivalent of about $35,000 a year or so, though it’s awfully hard to quantify.
32 Bob from Ohio Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 10:44 am
But I do think the ideology of his administration is not fundamentally different from the tyrant’s. George Bush is a bad guy. Evil exists in the world and he has created his fair share of it.

To call George Bush a “tyrant” is changing the meaning to “anyone I don’t like”. Senseless even for you.
33 mikebdot Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 10:53 am
Mechanical engineers make way more than teachers. Therefore the study in question is at least suspect, and at most completely stupid. As Fargus has suggested the disparity is most likely due to how the hours were counted. However, I will not claim teachers are criminally underpaid. I believe that was a bit of hyperbole. Sure, some teachers are criminally underpaid, just as some mechanical engineers are, but it’s a product of the school system, nothing more. In Evansville, IN they’re paid rather well, with very good benefits and nice pension plan. Those, too, were probably taken into account when calculating the wage differences as well.

The reason this turned into a discussion on teaching was because of Mark’s seemingly throwaway comment about unions destroying education. I have more of an issue with the notion that the education system in this country is busted or subpar. Certainly it’s never going to be as good as it could, but nothing will. There is always room for improvement. But this country’s education system is very good, it’s why we continue to be the dominant economy in the world. That is undeniable, and certainly the education system has been part of the reason. The people that fall through the cracks usually do so because of the parents, not the teachers. This is why I could not care less about NCLB or the NEA. If they want more money, I see no reason they shouldn’t be allowed to ask for it, especially because “accountability” is damn near impossible to dish out in a logical manner.

“Demanding excellence”. Do you demand excellence of police or fire fighters? How are they measured? Hmmm. We already have avenues at the local level to address any concern you all have. Fire marshalls, sheriffs, superintendents are all very much political positions, and they are usually the ones most responsible for colossal screw-ups.

When all else fails, speak in empty platitudes: “demand excellence”. Actionable ideas are far more interesting to ponder.

As for making parents in charge of what teachers stick around, screw that. Parents are a much larger part of the problem. How about have the teachers decide which parents actually keep their children? It’s just as absurd.
34 peter Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 11:54 am
Bob: “Tyrant” is a loaded word and I’m not sure I would apply it to George Bush. However, I would ask you (or anyone else) to read today’s lead editorial in the New York Times and answer these questions:

1) is there anything in the editorial which is factually incorrect?
2) is there anything in the editorial which is factually correct but which you disagree with?
3) if you agree with its thesis, what is the distinction between the Bush administration’s policies and tyranny?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
35 Andy Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
mikebot:

As for making parents in charge of what teachers stick around, screw that. Parents are a much larger part of the problem.

Hmmm, I see. That’s why homeschooling, and private schools that demand excellence, are subpar to unionized teachers. Why don’t we put this meme to res, once and for all by opening pub education to free market competition?
36 Andy Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Peter, that opinion editorial is wrong and/or misleading on so many levels.

Let’s just compare a few things:
Under Bush:

The C.I.A. contracted out its inhumanity to nations with no respect for life or law, sending prisoners — some of them innocents kidnapped on street corners and in airports — to be tortured into making false confessions, or until it was clear they had nothing to say and so were let go without any apology or hope of redress.

Rendition was initiated under Clinton in mid-90s

Under Bush:

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account.

1) the accountable have all been punished up the logical chain. The NYT is miffed that the chain did not extend to Rummey
2) the military was already on each case before the media got wind of it. Seems like they are capable of self-policing.
3) the same happened in Bosnia etc, under Clinton, with the addition of the sex slave marketing. Nothing new about rogue parties acting outside of ROEs

Under Bush:

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

Under Clinton, the same could be said about lobbing missiles at an aspirin factory, taking out the Chinese, killing a camel. Or playing tiddlewinks while Sierre Leone, Rwanda & Liberia raged. If we alienated the World, why did France & Germany turn our way and greater cooperation from others follow in recent years? Just whose relations are the Donks proposing to repair? Iran? Syria? NoKo? Venezuela? Mexico? Cuba? Russia? And how would the Donks do it? By throwing Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan under the bus? And this straight-faced nonsense about fighting against Dafur oppressors being different from Saddam’s Iraq.

Under Bush:

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

Under Clinton, we got Echelon, Ruby Ridge, Elias, Waco to name a few.

Under Bush:

Hundreds of men, swept up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, were thrown into a prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, so that the White House could claim they were beyond the reach of American laws.

The scope of the WOT is so unprecedented, the existing Geneva Convention and International agreements are unable to cope with the finer details. Regardless of who was POTUS, precedent & unique decisions would have to be made. This does not make Bush a tyrant for denying the rights of citizens to stateless & uniform-less terrorists. Remember, for all history, saboteurs had the right to a summary execution. Personally, I’d say exploit them for intel then hang them all, which is what every country has a right to do under the GC for those operating within sovereign territory. For those on the battlefield, heck, take no prisoners would be expeditious.

Bottomline, there’s no point in continuing the fisking with so much garbage on just the 1st page.
37 Bob from Ohio Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
1. What facts? It use some factual words but mixes them with hyperbole and misleading terms so that it is impossible to say true or false about any “fact” it alleges. Some portions of each “fact” is accurate but are intentionally lumped with inaccurate portions.

2. See #1

3. I do not accept the thesis but the fact that the editorial was written at all should tell you that President Bush is no tyrant.

Do tyrants tolerate a free press? The leading newspaper in the country publishes classified information time and time again. It’s “news” articles slant always against the “tyrant” and its editorials and op-ed columnists spend 100% of their time calling the “tyrant” the worst things imaginable.

Yet, no one is shot or arrested or abused at the New York Times.

Not to mention the fact that in January, 2009, the “tyrant” will retire peacefully and without making any effort whatsoever to rig the election.
38 peter Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Andy: thanks for your post — I would respond as follows:

1) There is no comparison between the Bush and Clinton policies on extraordinary rendition. It is true that extraordinary rendition started under the Clinton administration following the attacks on the embassy bombings, which is a stain on that administration. However, the brief bit of googling I did implies that it was very limited in scope and the Clinton administration “pressed allied intelligence services to respect lawful boundaries in interrogations.” It was hugely expanded during the Bush administration. Also, there is no known case of a completely innocent person – such as the Canadian guy who was sent to Syria and tortured for months – being abused without redress or apology. Even Condi Rice said that he was an innocent who should never have been arrested, much less deported, but she refused to apologize.

2) Abu Ghraib was a whitewash. The highest ranking officer to be punished was the commanding officer at the prison (Karpinski), who was only demoted. She has claimed that the abuses were sanctioned by her superiors, none of whom have been held accountable. The fact that it was a subject of military investigation before it was public and the fact that there have been abuses in other wars are both irrelevant.

3) Re “America’s position of moral and political leadership:” what “could be said” is unimportant. What was actually said is important. Our position of leadership and moral stature was far, far greater under the Clinton administration than under Bush. Do you dispute that?

4) You may disagree with what happened at “Echelon, Ruby Ridge, Elias, (and) Waco,” but each of these actions were perfectly lawful and not an abuse of executive power. Maybe you think that there could have been a better result at Waco – nobody knows – but you cannot make the case that storming the facility was an abuse of government power, or comparable in any way to (for example) ignoring the FISA laws, issuing 800 signing statements, etc., etc.

5) “The scope of the WOT is so unprecedented, the existing Geneva Convention and International agreements are unable to cope with the finer details.” Absolutely wrong. We respected the Geneva Conventions when we faced enemies far more dangerous than Al Qaeda – such as Soviet Russia and China – and its principles are universal. And you wonder why America lost its position of moral and political leadership?
39 peter Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Bob: thanks to you as well.

1) “Some portions of each “fact” is accurate but are intentionally lumped with inaccurate portions.” What is inaccurate?

2) The fact that Bush has not jailed Bill Keller does not excuse the other things he has done. As noted above, I do not think that Bush is a tyrant, and I do not make the claim that we live in a totalitarian state. However, there are a number of actions the administration has taken which verge on the tyrannical, and (in addition to making us far less safe) which are an ineradicable stain. We no longer have any moral credibility to lecture others on freedom or the rule of law.
40 Bob from Ohio Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Peter

I do not have the time or the energy to “Fisk” the NYT opinion piece.

Andy did it already.

I don’t see how you or the New York Times have any particular credibility when you magnify the alleged sins of Bush but minimalize the alleged sins of Clinton.

For instance, you say:

you cannot make the case that storming the facility was an abuse of government power, or comparable in any way to (for example) ignoring the FISA laws

Yes, no children died because of “ignoring” FISA.

As for your statement:

We no longer have any moral credibility to lecture others on freedom or the rule of law.

I will stack our freedom and the rule of law, even after the “horrors” of the Bush Administration against anyone.

How many countries are even within sight of our freedom and commitment to the rule of law. None of Africa, little of South America, India, Israel and Japan in Asia.

Western Europe and Canada certainly but they have their own issues. The “Official Secrets Act” in the UK and their vast use of cameras for instance. The use of “hate crimes” to censor conservative speach in Canada as another example.

Anyways, who cares if we can lecture other countries. Just useless words.
41 Andy Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Peter,

1) So you hope. We already know that Bush is not one to air the dirty laundry of his predecessor. The fact we haven’t heard gory details ad nauseum and embellishments galore does not prove anything. Occam would point at Janet Reno’s admin and say where there’s smoke, there’s fire. To whit, again, Ruby Ridge, Elian, Waco, OKC….

2) that Abu Grhaib was a “whitewash” is complete bunk. Karpinski was a freaking GENERAL!!! In absence of a memo from her superiors that mock rapings and all the shenanigans at the prison were authorized. The. Buck. Stopped. With. Her!!

Everything that went on there was in direct violation of standing ROE, UCMJ and everything else that gets pounded into privates from day 1 in boot camp. If you had experienced armed services, you should know that.

Those soldiers were a disgrace to the uniform. It is also telling that the ringleader was a correctional guard in his civilian life. Wanna know where he got his deviant ideas? From his other job! And from crap like jailhouse flicks. Not from some secret set of orders.

They were simple jailers. They weren’t even tasked with interrogating prisoners which is what another unit was there for. Simply put, they were a bunch of wanna-bees posing as judge & executioner simply because they had the key to the cells.

Furthermore, it was other soldiers who dropped the dime. Did they blow the whistle via MSM? NO! They did it via their chain of command. As they learned it from boot camp. The military system of checks & balances is not perfect, but it works! And for as long as human nature will continue to exist, there will be new lessons to experience & learn from.

But if you insist on indicting Karpinski’s superiors, fine! Forget the canard that it was SOP that her troops followed. The real charge is that the brass gave her command, not out of soldierly merit, but because she had “tits & ass”. That’s right! It was PC and diversity that put an incompetent woman in charge. Not only did the brass screw up in bowing to equality, Karpinski disgraced herself and set women in the Armed Forces back several notches.

In any case, trying to pull a cHillary and claim that she failed due to the sinister boy’s club, yet she’s experienced enough to take command is like having cake & eating it. Hogwash!

3) Yes I dispute that. Pay no attention to the midgets behind the media curtain. It was Papa Bush that forced Europe to deal with Bosnia. And the world sure did give a lot of respect for our dithering on Congo, Rwanda, Haiti etc. NOT! I could just feel the love, which is why our embassies were attacked in Africa.
Which is why foreign service agents were assasinated in ME.
Which is why the Cole was bombed.
Which is why across N. Africa, the hostility against Americans was palpable even in the late 90s and after Clinton’s African Tour.
Which is why….

4) In each of those cases, SOP were violated & covered up. If as you aver the conduct was legal & normal, how come we haven’t had similar cases under Bush. What of the couple barricaded in their NE home over taxes? There are other examples. Bottomline, Janet is another prime example of someone undeserving of the position who then proceeded to micromanage each of her disasters.
As for moral stature, forgive me while I spew coffee across my keyboard. Now my nose is on fire.

The record to date is plain that FISA was complied with by the letter of the law from the macro view. That agents bungled execution? Sure, but doesn’t make Bush the tyrant. The whole saga is sheer politics, where criminal intent is contrived. The truth of it is evident in the much ado and do-nothing of the legislature. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Donks would do pretty much the same thing of stretching legal boundaries if they were in control — as it should, if they were concerned about national security.

5) Please read the GC. It addresses combatants like USSR & China and is mute on stateless fighters like AQ simply because it was unfathomable when drawn up. One may call it a “lack of imagination”. But please do not ascribe post-modern interpretations of intent to a document where there was no such intent, let alone foresight. That would be like claiming the 2nd is explicit in denying citizens the right to bear arms save a militia.

Context is everything. And as I’ve alluded to before, show me one international player that is indeed practicing the so-call higher moral ground vis a vis the GC & WOT. Just. One.
42 Andy Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Peter, PS. I meant to acknowledge that you do not think Bush is a tyrant, just that we’re verging towards the tyrannical as a nation.
43 peter Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Bob:

It is easy to second guess Janet Reno’s actions in Waco. I’m not sure there is any clean or easy way to deal with a madman like Koresh and his nutjob followers. Maybe they would have set fire to the place regardless of what she did. However, at worst she is guilty of an error in judgment. Maybe she did the right thing and maybe she did the wrong thing – you could argue both sides of the question – but she broke no laws and acted within her authority. There is no equivalence with violating FISA, which was a conscious and premeditated violation of the Constitution. The President simply does not have the authority to violate existing law. The fact that children did not die as a result is completely irrelevant. Not all unconstitutional acts end up with dead children.

Andy:

1) “The fact we haven’t heard gory details ad nauseum and embellishments galore does not prove anything.” Let me get this right. The fact that there is no known examples of, for example, innocent people being sent to Syria to be tortured means that it happened anyway but we just never heard the details? So Clinton is guilty regardless of whether or not there are any facts to support it?

2) Re Abu Ghraib: when you have an administration which has basically removed all limits of what sorts of coercion can be used against detainees, combined with soldiers at Abu Ghraib who were not given instructions or regulations, then of course there should be accountability above Karpinski’s level. (As for the guy you referred to who was a correctional officer, Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick, who stated “We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things … like rules and regulations,” says Frederick. “And it just wasn’t happening.”)

If this isn’t dereliction of duty on the part of officers above Karpinski, I’m not sure what is.

3) The people who bombed the Cole, the embassies, etc., were small in number and are an infinitesimal part of world opinion (or were at the time, anyway). The great mass of humanity had much more respect for us when Clinton was President than they do now. That’s simply a fact.

4) I’m not sure what your point is here. David Koresh died when Clinton was President. The fact that we haven’t had another Waco-type uprising somehow indicates that George Bush is doing something right which eluded Clinton?

And “FISA was complied with by the letter of the law from the macro view” is simply untrue. FISA requires warrants with a defined period. The administration ignored this. This is not “bungled execution.” It is the deliberate violation of the law.

5) If, in fact, we are fighting a war on terror, then the people we are fighting are warriors. The clear principle behind the Geneva Conventions is that warriors are entitled to certain protections. The fact that the warriors are stateless is irrelevant. Incidentally, the Second Amendment does not, in fact, provide the right to bear arms except in a militia. That’s why the first thirteen words are in there.

6) International players practicing higher moral ground? Sure: Spain. They have had their share of terrorist problems, but have not sent anyone to Syria and Egypt to be tortured, much less anyone who was completely innocent.
44 Mark Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Thread got away from me…good comments all, I’ve been too busy to respond. Ryan, responding to your comment way back - I think we actually have some common ground here. I believe, as apparently you and Bowden both do, that when it comes to torture:

(a) torture that can produce physical harm is right out, under every circumstance,

and (b) things such as waterboarding, which are probably a form of torture (most people would say so), but yet one that is relatively harmless, should remain forbidden, but be open to civil disobedience in severe circumstances. As you say, though, the whole concept of civil disobedience implies consequences.

I’ll also grant that a person can be a bad guy without being a Stalin. You and I will never see eye to eye on Bush himself, however. You feel he’s a bad guy, I think he’s a very good guy who has faced a tremendously difficult environment in foreign affairs. He’s made some good calls and some bad calls, but he’s neither a saint nor a demon. In my view (which of course you are free to disagree with), he is, at heart, a fundementally decent person…
45 Andy Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Peter,
1) Renditions went on with people sent to Egypt among others 3rd world countries. I’m not saying Clinton is guilty. All I’m saying that because the MSM didn’t report it does not mean it never happened.

2) Those guys were copping out to a sympathetic media. The perps were jailers plain & simple. They had their instructions. Do not conflate jailers with interrogators — totally different skill sets. Certainly there were missteps and shortcomings in yet to be defined regs, however, the military was guilty of ass-u-ming that civilian jailers could be counted on to do the job right. If the excuse that SGT Fredrick gave was true, why was Abu Graib — one of many jails — the one with serious problems? Logic would dictate that abuse was rampant at all jails.

Here again, Chip was a freaking SERGEANT, a Non-Commissioned Officer. Part of the responsibility that goes with the rank is leadership and common sense. Instead, we have Chip and fellow delinquents trying to pull the Nuremberg excuse of “I was just following orders, or rather the lack therof”. If that bozo had treated his Iraqi charges like he did back home … wait, strike that — I believe there’s more abuse here in the US prisons than was done in Iraq. Please Peter, quit making excuses for grown adults. I realize the MSM & DNC likes to patronize the troops and call them kids, but come on. In any case, the buck still ended with Karpinski because she never asked for guidance on the so-called missing rules & regs.

3) That’s a new fact on me. Actually, more like a revised history of fact for this world traveler.

4) The point was that the Clintons liked to send in the storm troopers in on US citizens over minor issues. If you read up on Ruby Ridge, you’d realize that it was an over reaction on our part. Likewise with Waco. You’d think that after one incident, lessons would be learned to avoid ever mowing down innocents again, but 3 times? The reason you haven’t heard of shoot em ups is because the Bush DOJ took a different approach that eluded the impatient Reno.

Re FISA, there are indeed areas that the Feds bungled — due to confusion on processes — and there are areas that were legitimately unclear. It is perfectly OK to take one interpretation while awaiting a final verdict either from Congress or Jurists. I have no qualms with that regardless of who POTUS is. I can also understand if some would disagree with certain points regardless of who POTUS is. In other words, be consistent. Goose…Gander… That’s why I didn’t bellyache about some of the debatable things that Clinton did. Deliberate violation of law — my eye.

5) Nice try with conflating combatants & warriors. In any case, please show me one or two GC items that apply to stateless combatants/warriors in the GC.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Again, context is everything. Back in those days, the Govt did not issue arms. When the local militia was called up, it was BYOA (Bring Your Own Arms), hence some fought with blunderbusses while others had pistols or muskets. Therefore in order to have a well regulated militia, the people needed to keep & bear them, otherwise, they’d all be fighting with swords, tomahawks, bows and/or stones. Also the Brits had a habit of confiscating arms from potential troublemakers. It is with that experience in mind that the FFs intended that everyone have the right to bear their own arms. In any case, let’s hope SCOTUS deals with this decisively, instead of punting it.

6) Why send anyone to Syria or Egypt for torture when you can do the same at home. Just ask the Basque Separatists if they were handled with “dignity” as befits their human rights. Like I said, it’s all lip service for Old Europe to give themselves an illusionary sense of superiority over America. The bottomline is the cops over there are less restrained by “human rights” considerations than we here. If you doubt it, just sit back and watch how they handle a riot. Tough luck if you get busted up by them.
46 Peter Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Off to a New Year’s Eve party, so I can only respond briefly:

1) “All I’m saying that because the MSM didn’t report it does not mean it never happened.” No, but unless there is some evidence to suggest that this actually happened, it’s a non-starter.

2) Whether the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were guilty or not does not exculpate those who are higher up in the chain of command.

3) Your suggestion is that we are regarded in the world more highly then we were when Clinton was President?

4) a. Whether Reno overreacted or not, there is no equivalence with breaking the law, as Bush did.
b. It has nothing to do with interpreting FISA. Read the bill. It is crystal clear.

5) The Second Amendment says what it says. Seems pretty clear to me. How do I know? To quote Sam Ervin: “English is my mother tongue.”

6) I’m not sure we can resolve this one.
47 Andy Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Enjoy and be careful.

1) The point is people tend to do what they have always done. Renditions is old hat to the CIA, hence it is logical that the players then are the same as those under Bush — Business as usual except nobody was the wiser until leakers decided to “nail” Bush.

2) Wrong, that is not how the UCMJ operates — Karpinski was the top of the chain unless she was unfit to begin with, but that’s a different matter of undeserved promotion vs the conduct of the troops.

3) I suggest that core feelings are relatively the same thruout. Except Schroeder & Cheinraq fanned the flames of anti-Americanism to divert attention from their deficient leadership. As for the “Euro -street”, regard for America didn’t much change unless one had a personal stake in what we were actually doing at the time.

IOW, we lost a lot of respect in Africa for the empty platitudes and sitting-on-hands during the 90s. We lost a lot of respect in the Arab world for pussy-footing with Saddam. And so on. The deal with Iraq is it was a convenient excuse for anti-western animus when the core problem really is Islamic extremism. Why else would dozens of Western tourists get slaughtered in Islamic countries in the 90s time and time again? Did you forget why the WTC was bombed in ‘93? I recall getting plenty of “throat-slashing” and “gunfire” hand signs from Islamic youths back then, yet being welcome with open arms by Islamic merchants. This is long before the Cole incident and while we should have been nominally “loved” by the Muslims for protecting the Kosovo & Bosnian Moslims from the “Christian” Serbs.

4) If FISA is crystal clear, why all the debates and nuanced interpretations from all quarters? Seem like something so crystal clear should have been resolved in no time at all, yet here we are 3 years later still wrangling with it. Also, you should really check into Echelon, part of the rationale that stood the program up under Clinton is the same as why Club Gitmo exists. I have no doubt that had 9/11 happened on Clinton’s watch, we’d have Gitmo and waterboarding as a matter of fact. Like I said, Goose… Gander, I’m fine with it.

5) Glad we agree that you and I have the right to bear arms.

6) Dig a little deeper.

Happy New Year!
48 Peter Says:
January 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
1) In my view, sending detainees to prisons in other countries is wrong, regardless of whether it is authorized by Bill Clinton or George Bush. However, based on what little I know about Clinton’s acts, they seem very limited both in number of people sent and what was done to them. The program was vastly expanded under Bush. The difference is one of degree. Just because you’re not a virgin doesn’t mean that you’re a whore.

2) If soldiers were sent to do a job without instructions or regulations on how to do it, that is a dereliction of duty for the senior officers.

3) I don’t know any way to prove that we are despised by vastly more people than ever before, and admired by far fewer people. However, based on reading foreign editorials, talking to people around here (about half the kids in my daughter’s class are foreign born), and talking to people who travel overseas, I don’t see how you can draw a different conclusion.

I used to live in Asia, and I’ve spent a lot of time in Muslim countries — Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia — and I’ve always been treated exceptionally well (except for the passport control guys in Dharan, but that’s a different story). This was all before 9/11.

4) FISA is crystal clear. The only controversy is a fake one generated by the Bush administration, which would argue that the moon is made of green cheese if it suited its purposes to do so. They can claim whatever they want, but if you read the bill, it’s all there in black and white.

5) I think people should be allowed to own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions (making sure they are not minors, felons, etc.). I don’t think people should own semi-automatic weapons (or at least their availability should be limited) for the same reason I don’t think people should have anti-aircraft tanks or Stinger missiles. However, I don’t think that any of this derives from the Second Amendment, which in my reading only allows ownership connected with the militia.

6) I will.

Happy New Year to you too! I hope that in the coming year, I will have enlightened you to the point where you will pull the Democratic lever in November!
49 Andy Says:
January 1st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
1) “Just because you’re not a virgin doesn’t mean that you’re a whore.” That’s a good one, may I use it?

2) It all comes down to training and Karpinski was it.

3) Times have changed and Wahabbis drove the festering hate, particularly with velocity within the last 20 years.

4) Like I said, check out Echelon. Bottomline, the NSA was not about eavesdropping on Joe Public, it was about getting at communications between foreign persons of interest and their contacts. On one hand, the contact might be a US citizen and on the other, comms between two persons outside of the US, but routed via US. In any case, so what?

5) More or less concur

6) Keep hope alive, eh?
50 Peter Says:
January 1st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
1) You may.

2) Determing how detainees are to be treated in a tinderbox situation like Iraq is the responsibility of senior Pentagon brass. It is not reasonable to expect someone like Karpinski to figure out on her own how to treat civilian detainees in an unprecedented war in a country whose culture is diametrically opposed to ours. Given the administration’s tacit acceptance of torture, and in the absence of clear guidelines, accountability properly resides with those above her level as well as below it.

3) Forget the Wahabbis. Ask the man on the street in Rome, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, whatever. Or talk to anyone whose been abroad lately. Our position in the world and our putative moral leadership is far lower than before 9/11.

4) The issue is not whether the FISA laws are wise or effective or productive. If the Bush administration thinks there is a better way to do it, then let’s hear their ideas. Rather, the issue is that the law is on the books and, right or wrong, the President does not have the authority to decide whether or not he wants to follow it.

5) Good.

6) Funny you should mention that. I am hard-pressed to think of anyone in public life I dislike more than Jesse Jackson.
51 Andy Says:
January 1st, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I see Powerline blogged about the NYT editorial and gave it a royal fisking. They then conclude with this:

Perhaps the editorial board has joined the countless millions of Americans who don’t read the Times.

After all of this fevered, paranoid prose, the editors finally get to their real point:

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

In other words: Elect a Democrat in 2008, or we’re going to stamp our feet and hold our breath until we turn blue!

Shirley the NYT wasn’t referring to Mde. Billary??? Somehow, I just don’t see her as the epitome of “integrity, principle & decency”. And most definitely not Jesse Jackson! Maybe they’re pulling for the Huckster, eh?
52 Peter Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
Fevered and paranoid? I’ll quote Barry Goldwater: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

A pro-Democrat piece? I don’t think so. In other editorials, the Times has praised John McCain for his stand on torture (also his position on immigration). He does stand in marked contrast to Romney (double Guantanamo) and Giuliani (waterboarding isn’t torture). If Mike Bloomberg ran as a Republican, I wouldn’t be surprised if they endorsed him — they’ve been very supportive of his work as Mayor.
53 Bob from Ohio Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:28 am
If Mike Bloomberg ran as a Republican, I wouldn’t be surprised if they endorsed him — they’ve been very supportive of his work as Mayor.

I am speechless.

This proves the NYT is not pro-Democrat how?

What is Bloomberg’s support among Republicans. 2%?
54 peter Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
The New York Times is pro-Democrat — their views are much more aligned with Democrats’ views. No secret there.

My point is that a) it is not uncommon for them to endorse Republicans when they think the GOP candidate is the better one and b) yesterday’s editorial was not pro-Democrat.
55 Andy Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong: Bloomberg was a longtime democrat, switched to the GOP to gain the Mayorship, now he’s an Independent. Seems to me that the NYT supports the progressive platform regardless of party, IOW advance the progressive By Any Means Necessary. In any case, he is not a conservative, hence even with a 3rd party run, he’ll damage the DNC worse than he would the GOP. Think Nader was bad? Wait till Bloomberg takes his shot. Go Bloomy Go!
56 peter Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Take a look and see who they endorse in local races (i.e., NY/NJ/PA). You might be surprised how many Republicans they endorse. True, many are in the Nelson Rockefeller/John Lindsay/Mike Bloomberg mold of Republicans lite, but many are more mainstream GOP.