Interesting piece from the NY Times about how if we plan to cut health care costs (which EVERYONE agrees we have to do) it is going to mean changing the general view that more care is always better. The facts indicate that more care is often not better, and is certainly more expensive.
If you want to see a prior post about health care rationing, it’s right here.
With all the talk of whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 terrorists should be tried in civilian or military court, and concurrent discussion of whether Christmas Day underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab should have been arrested and Mirandized or shipped off to Gitmo, it feels like there is a lot of macho posturing going on instead of focusing on what is best for national security.
“The president doesn’t understand we’re at war,” people say. “Terrorists aren’t criminals…they’re the enemy,” say others. It seems everyone is jockeying to prove how poorly they can treat the enemy and thus how tough they are. But being tough isn’t the goal of a war…winning is the goal. Being tough is only relevant if it helps us win; toughness qua toughness is pointless.
Of course Obama understands we’re at war; everyone understands we’re at war. Duh. But conservatives don’t seem to understand that this is a war of messages just as much as a war of guns. We need to imprison terrorists and kill terrorists, yes, but we also need to prevent people from becoming terrorists. And the way we do that is with a hearts and minds strategy, exactly as David Petraeus, every conservative’s hero, laid out in the Army’s counterinsurgency manual.
Every time I see or read an interview with someone in the Middle East, or look at the results of surveys from that region, the consistent message is that when the US acts like a bully or a hypocrite (eg. supporting totalitarian regimes while talking up democracy (hello Egypt)), the people get angry and listen to Al Qaeda and its ilk. When the US treats people fairly and follows its own laws, folks in the Middle East think better of us. Look at this graph showing improved Middle Eastern views of the US since Obama’s election. As Stephen Walt writes in Foreign Policy, Bush’s tough detainee policies were a “propaganda boon” for Al Qaeda.
Trying KSM in civilian courts would show that the US follows its own laws; it would demonstrate commitment to a fair system of justice. This would send a positive message to the unemployed Arab youth from whom Al Qaeda recruits. Our civilian courts can handle this sort of case; we have convicted many terrorists already, and they are serving life sentences in prison. Using civilian courts doesn’t mean we are soft. It means we are fair. Coupled with Obama’s aggressive use of drone strikes to kill Taliban leaders, it’s hard to see how anyone will think we’re soft. In fact, the use of civilian courts here with tough military tactics there is exactly the “balanced application of both military and non-military means” (section 1-113) that General Petraeus calls for in the counterinsurgency manual.
In addition, why should we let Al Qaeda claim the mantle of soldier or warrior by trying them in military commissions? It’s far more insulting to treat them the same way we do common thugs and thieves. As the judge in the Richard Reid trial put it, “you are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.” Terrorists want to be seen as mighty warriors. Let’s not give them that propaganda win.
FYI, read here about how the guy arrested in Chicago for helping with the Mumbai attacks, and dropped immediately into the traditional criminal justice system, is singing like a canary.
Part of this “look how tough I am dynamic” is a tendency toward vicious attacks on those who disagree. In a protest of Eric Holder’s decision to try KSM in a civilian court, people called him a “traitor” and yelled to “lynch him” (a particularly terrible to say to a black man, by the way). That really doesn’t help. Reasonable people can disagree on the best way to fight this war against terrorism. I don’t think people who argue for military commissions are traitors or unpatriotic. I may think they are wrong about the best path forward, but I don’t think they are awful people or totalitarian fascists. Maybe focusing on policy would be a good idea.
The protest mentioned above, by the way, was organized by Debra Burlingame, the sister of one of the pilots who was killed on 9/11, and a prime mover in the attacks on the DOJ attorneys who have represented Al Qaeda prisoners. Greg Manning, whose sister was badly burned on 9/11, took the mike to say that Holder would be responsible for “hundreds of thousands dead.” I’m going to come out say something that might be controversial: I am tired of the families of 9/11 victims having special status in this argument. I feel terrible about their tragic loss, of course, but that loss doesn’t make them national security experts. Nor should their quest for vengeance affect us; we left eye-for-an-eye justice behind a long time ago.
Posted in Politics, Uncategorized
Tagged 9/11, eric holder, gitmo, justice, ksm, Politics, terror, terrorism, terrorists
Jack Goldsmith recently reviewed John Yoo’s new book on presidential power. Goldsmith, you might recall, was named under George W. Bush to head the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, where he ended up repudiating Yoo’s torture memos.
Goldsmith spends a lot of time discussing the history of a strong executive, and how liberals used to like it and conservatives hated it, and how that has changed since Reagan. He also discusses at length the Federalist Papers, as all such articles do.
But let me boil it all down for you, because here is the money quote:
“…constitutional theory is usually grounded in a theory of preferred outcomes.”
So take that, not just John You, but John Roberts, and Tony Scalia, and every other snotty jurist who thinks he or she has a monopoly on understanding the constitution.
Posted in Philosophy, Politics
Tagged constitution, gitmo, john roberts, john yoo, Politics, supreme court, torture, us constitution
In a tea party-led protest of the health care bill outside the US Capitol yesterday, protesters started chanting the N-word at John Lewis, a black congressman from Georgia and a giant of the civil rights movement. I understand (although don’t agree with) fighting against the health care bill, but yelling racial epithets at anyone, let alone 70-year old men, is another clue that, as I’ve discussed before, parts of the tea party are crazy.
This time on the theme that much of Wall Street innovation does not actually benefit society. I’ve written about that here, here and here. And in today’s Times Magazine, they note that the current Wall Street trading mentality more closely resembles a casino than the capital allocation function that Wall Street was founded to perform. I commented on the Times’ prior copying of me here.
As usual, Judge Posner is erudite and concise in his discussion of the Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision regarding gun control in Washington DC. And he manages to incorporate a broader discussion on the merits of political vs. legislative action on controversial issues (eg. abortion).
Posted in Politics
Tagged gun control, justice roberts, justice scalia, NRA, Politics, richard posner, scotus, supreme court
The Wall Street Journal wrote an article yesterday about the austerity measures Ireland has imposed to deal with its burgeoning deficit in the wake of its massive housing bust. Ireland’s current deficit is 12% of GDP, just behind Greece’s 12.7%, and not that far from our 10.6%. So what did Ireland do to address its budget deficit? Cut teacher and police salaries 15%. Reduced civil servant pay. Increased taxes across the board. People are having to skimp and make do as a consequence, but Ireland was also able to issue debt with a yield 150 basis points below Greece’s recent issuance. Ireland did what needed to be done.
Contrast that with the US, which also has yawning deficits, at the federal, state and local levels. Can you imagine what would happen here if a politician suggested cutting police pay by 15%? The police unions would raise a shitstorm of fear about rising crime rates. Politicians would elbow each other out of the way to say who was “toughest on crime.” Hell, the police would probably end up with a raise. I’m not saying that cutting police pay is a panacea; what I’m saying is that spending is going to have to go down, and taxes are going to have to go up. And instead of posturing about being tough on crime, we need to do what is really tough: admit that the party is over and it’s time to cut back. If Ireland can do it, so can we.
Here is economist Simon Johnson’s take on the news that Goldman Sachs helped Greece hide the overwhelming debt that is currently forcing the European Union to bail out the birthplace of democracy.
Tagged bailout, Business, economics, european union, federal reserve, goldman sachs, greece, Politics
I understand the feeling of the Tea Party that government isn’t responsive to the public, and that government is too big. I even understand, although strongly disagree with, the Tea Party view that government just transfers money from hard working Americans to lazy ones. But as this NY Times article makes clear, there are parts of the Tea Party movement that share the paranoid, New World Order fears which have populated certain right-wing movements for decades. When reading the quotes from some of these people, I find it difficult to conclude anything other than that they are unhinged from reality.
Tagged GOP, john birch, paranoia, Politics, right wing, tea party
Historian David Kennedy wrote an interesting article in The Atlantic about how President Wilson tried to bridge the realist and idealist camps of American foreign policy by setting up the League of Nations. Kennedy describes how the League failed, but how the UN, the IMF and other international organizations have generally managed to recognize the primacy of sovereign states and acknowledge the power of the United States while making the world “safe for democracy,” in Wilson’s words. The article is a good primer on why even the world’s most powerful nation can benefit from strong international organizations.
Thoughtbasket 