A Black Eye But Not A Knock Out

The United States House of Representatives approved a Republican-crafted resolution condemning news organizations for revealing a covert government program to track terrorist financing on Thursday.

According to CNN, the resolution “condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information” and “expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. The resolution, passed 227-183 on a largely party-line vote, did not specifically name the news organizations, but it was aimed at The New York Times and other news media that last week reported on a secret CIA-Treasury program to track millions of financial records in search of terrorists. The Times has defended its reporting, saying publication has served America’s public interest. Its executive editor, Bill Keller, said in a statement after the House passed the resolution that the paper took seriously the risks of reporting on intelligence. “We have on many occasions withheld information when lives were at stake, however, the administration simply did not make a convincing case that describing our efforts to monitor international banking presented such a danger. Indeed, the administration itself has talked publicly and repeatedly about its successes in the area of financial surveillance.”

This of course was seen differently in the eyes of House Republican’s. Financial Services Committee chairman, Rep. Michael Oxley, R-Ohio noted, “the recent front-page story in the aforementioned New York Times cut the legs out from under this program,” said the. “Now the terrorists are well-informed of the details of our methods and will find other ways to move money outside of the formal financial system.”

It is at this juncture that one needs to consider that fact that terrorists have already and currently are moving money outside the formal financial system, and have been doing this since the program began.

Most Democrats opposed the measure, protesting language in it that asserts that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was “rooted in sound legal authority” and that members of Congress had been appropriately briefed on the program. Democrats also reacted angrily to the GOP majority’s refusal to allow them to offer an alternative that would also have expressed concerns about the unauthorized leak of classified information but would have left out language defending the legality of the program. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, author of the alternative, said, “What you have done is to hijack the virtually unanimous support for tracking terrorist financing into an endorsement of the way the Bush administration has conducted itself.”

The bill by the Republican’s and the almost scripted response by the Democrat’s can be seen as nothing more than electioneering, due to the upcoming fall elections. However, the action itself is cause to pause. Within the American experiment we call Democracy, the press, or more appropriate in today language, Media, is more than a concept. The press is a separate and, almost, sacred institution, the fourth estate, and protected under our Constitution. Such a resolution undercuts the responsibility of this nation’s media, while at the same time vindicating its historic role as buffer between government and citizen as well as its tradition. An educated citizenry are so due to its press. Let us all remember this, honor and respect it.

Ego Boost

It has been a small ego boost to see released this week Tusday, a movie that discusses in-depth the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned America about in his farewell address.

In a post from May, entitled, “Show Me The Money” I speak on this very idea.

The film, Why We Fight by Director Eugene Jarecki (The Trials of Henry Kissinger) has used the film as a commentary on the contemporary obsession of the American elite with military power. Harking back to a speech by President Eisenhower, who, just before he left office, referred to the “military-industrial complex” that included too much intelligence, and too much business acumen in America, becoming focussed on the production of unnecessary weapons systems. Below is a link that will allow you to view the trailer. I highly recommend all to see this this film.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

Guantanamo Bay Tribunals Illegal

“I’d like to end Gitmo, like it to be over with,” the president said at a European Union summit in Vienna. World leaders pressured President Bush to close the camp, and last week he was considering doing so, noting he would decide after the court ruled. Now he has that opportunity.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday strongly limited the power of the Administration to conduct military tribunals for suspected terrorists imprisoned at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 5-3 ruling means officials will have to come up with a new policy to prosecute at least 10 so-called “enemy combatants” awaiting trial. And though the Court did not address the government’s right to detain suspects, this case was a major test of Bush’s authority as commander in chief during war.

President Bush has aggressively asserted the power of the government to capture, detain and prosecute suspected terrorists in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001. At the center of the case is Yemeni national, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, captured in Afghanistan in 2001 shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Officials have said he admitted being a personal assistant, bodyguard and driver to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In its ruling, the court said: “Whether or not the government has charged Hamdan with an offence against the law of war…the commission lacks power to proceed. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority stated further, “The military commission at issue is not expressly authorized by any congressional act, the tribunals must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of those trial protections that have been recognized by customary international law. In undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the executive [Bush] is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction.”

Hamdan’s lawyers argued that Bush exceeded his authority by setting up military commissions to try terrorist suspects, whom the administration terms “enemy combatants,” rather than prisoners of war. They also argued that the government’s charge of conspiracy against Hamdan was not allowed under international standards of law for prisoners of war, noting that earlier federal courts had rejected that standard, since it was too broadly defined.

The Administration’s position is something that the public knows already: detainees do not have the rights usually afforded prisoners of war, as outlined in the Geneva Conventions. The enemy combatant designation, according to the Bush administration, means the suspect can be held without charges in a military prison without the protections of the U.S. criminal justice system, such as the right to counsel, a status the court rejected, and using strong language the court stated, “The procedures adopted to try Hamdan violate the Geneva Conventions.”

The implications of the decision are profound, the Bush Administration will either have to court-martial the detainees or try them as civilians (something they wish not to do). However, the ruling by the court failed in one major aspect. The Supreme Court did not demand the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, instead giving the Administration an opportunity to come up with another way of trying those held. To use an analogy, it is rather like telling a bully to stop hitting kids on the playground with a stick, but not disciplining the actual bad behavior.

As the BBC noted, the US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay perhaps heralds the beginning of what will be a long-drawn out endgame for the camp. It is hopeful that such an endgame is sooner, rather than later.

Violence Begot Violence Begot…Diplomats?

A post was withheld on this topic last night for developments. The developments occurred. Last night and in the early hours of Wednesday June 28th, Israeli forces entered the Gaza Strip for the first time since they pulled out, last summer. Air strikes have destroyed a power station, cutting off electricity thus disabling water pumps in much of the strip. Three bridges have also been smashed, limiting access between the northern and southern parts of the strip. For now, at least, the troops are staying outside populated areas.

The aim seems to be to to put pressure on those holding Gilad Shalit, a soldier captured in a daring raid across the Gaza-Israel border on Sunday. Israeli officials think that Corporal Shalit is being held in the southern Gaza Strip. The hope is that through Gazans the soldiers release will occur. This is a militarily bad situation, turned worse, (no help by recent US comments) and politically bad for the Palestinian government.

Israel can not be seen giving in to the Palestinian hostage-takers, by releasing prisoners (this is the demand) since it would be politically fatal. So, for now, their best hope is that Egyptian and French diplomats (the soldier also holds French citizenship) can negotiate his release. While they wait, the Israeli military conducts its operations, embittering the Gazans and slowly turning a sympathetic world opinion against Israel.

Israel says Hamas is responsible for the soldier’s fate. This is a simple claim, since Israel cannot discern from the Palestinian Authority (PA) who is in charge. Three groups have claimed joint responsibility for the abduction: the unknown Islamic Army; the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), a small but active militia with fluid political loyalties; and the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, which now governs the PA. The abduction also shows interal issues for both Hamas and Fatah, since both are suffering deep internal divisions. the various branches of Hamas, which were already divided over attempts to reach an accord with the rival Fatah party, are practically in open war over the abduction.

There is no clear answer at present. Hope is with the diplomat’s.

Redistricting Map Upheld

The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out part but kept most of a Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

At issue was the shifting of 100,000 Hispanics out of a district represented by a Republican incumbent and into a new, oddly shaped district. Justices had been told that was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority-voting rights. Districts must be redrawn every 10 years to reflect population changes, but Republicans redrew the map a second time in a decade after taking power.
Hispanic voters had said the 2003 redistricting did not protect them as required by the Voting Rights Act, and the court agreed by a vote of 5 to 4. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan.

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents out of office. However, it was a victory for the Republican’s as well, and sadly their victory is bigger. Republicans picked up six Texas congressional seats two years ago, and the court’s ruling does not seriously threaten those gains. Lawmakers, however, will have to adjust boundary lines to address the court’s concerns. This will be done, but the question now is how often? The decision effectively means districts could change as often as the party in power does, as long as the changes do not disenfranchise minority voters.

Such a ruling by the ideologically, if not, legally, conservative Supreme Court is most interesting for one reason. The entire basis of being a constitutional strict constructionist is pointing to what the Constitution states. An electoral boundary based off of decade-by-decade census is clear-cut. How the Court’s decision and its main proponents can effectively explain such rationale is amusing. For the American citizen a warning: where you live nor your Congressional representative will never be the same.

The Mexican Election Prt.1

Latin America’s political map could find itself being redrawn as 12 of the region’s countries hold presidential elections between November 2005 and the end of 2006. One of the key issues – of concern by the Bush Administration- is whether the recent left-wing trend in the region will continue. And, if it does, what will be the likely nature of any new left-leaning government. Will newly elected leaders be of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez variety or closer to Brazil’s moderate President Lula?

The current spotlight is on Mexico as Mexico’s presidential candidates are making a final push for votes ahead of the bitterly contested 2 July election. Conservative Felipe Calderon ended his campaign in Mexico City, saying his opponent would push Mexico into crisis. Mr. Lopez Obrador holding his final rally in the capital on Wednesday ends a campaign marked by insults on all sides and rising violence. Eleven people, including four police officers, were killed over the weekend in the southern state of Guerrero.

The left-leaning former Mexico City mayor, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has actually been in the lead of opinion polls for much of the campaign. Recent surveys, however, show him pushed into second place by Felipe Calderon of the ruling National Action Party (PAN) who has promised to maintain the pro-market policies of President Fox.

The biggest obstacle for Mr. Lopez Obrador’s Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) has been trying to prove that it has appeal outside the capital. The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which ruled Mexico for seven decades until it lost power to Mr. Fox, is hoping to return to government with its candidate Roberto Madrazo, currently in third place. It is highly unlikely that PRI and Mr. Madrazo will push to the top of the opinion polls and win the election. It is also highly unlikely that if elected Mr. Lopez Obrador and PRD will push through radical economic reform, due to the simple fact that the Mexican economy is tied so closely with that of the United States. The big unknown is how the Mexican citizen will vote.

As the campaign ends for all parties, each should be happy with their supporters, their message, and though there has been tension and occasional violence, at least pleasure that violence has not been the main issue; rather the issues of governing a country.

Coverage on the Mexican election on July 2nd is forthcoming.

Raise the Minimum Wage

Unemployment in America is at 4.6%, so as expected, the US labor market should be painfully tight. Labour force participation is relatively low, by the standard of recent years, and real hourly earnings have barely budged since 2001. It is little surprise then that many Americans tell pollsters that they are not happy with the state of the economy.

Naturally, Democrats hope to profit from this in November’s congressional elections. To help them, Edward Kennedy attempted to put through a hefty hike in the Federal minimum wage to $7.25, up from $5.15 where it was fixed in 1997. It did not work. The measure was defeated in the Senate on procedural grounds, and the House has it locked up in committee.

This has not deterred Democrats as they are busy painting a stark picture of life on the minimum wage. At $5.15 an hour, a full-time worker earns less than $10,300 a year, barely above the poverty line for a single person and well under it if the wage-earner supports a child. The real value of the wage is down to its lowest level since 1955. In the late 1960s, the wage was more than half of average hourly earnings for a (low level) production worker. Now it is less than a third.

However, and this is an interesting fact not many Democrat’s will mention, the number of people earning the minimum wage has also declined. In 1980, over 15% of workers received it (or even a lower wage—there are broad exemptions for various classes of workers). That figure is now just 2.5%. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning think-tank, estimates that lifting the wage to $7.25 would affect only 4.4% of workers, giving them an average increase of $0.79 an hour. This would yield an extra $1,580 a year for full-time workers, enough to get a mother and child within shouting distance of the poverty line. But most such workers aren’t in a full-time job. Of the roughly 1.6m low-wage workers who do regular hours, nearly 1m are part-timers, most of them doing fewer than 25 hours a week. This is ammunition for opponents of an increase, who also point out that few such workers support families, or even themselves. They are mostly young (more than half of them are under 25), and according to testimony before Congress from the conservative Heritage Foundation in 2004, only 15% of workers making less than $6.65 an hour live in poverty. Many of them have family incomes well above the poverty line.

Given all this, The Economist has termed a minimum wage increase a blunt instrument for attacking poverty. Moreover, The Earned Income Tax Credit, which already gives a annual bonus to the working poor, targets poverty more directly and effectively. As for
Businesses that say that higher wages could force them to reduce staff, is unlikely.

In all, raising the minimum wage should be done, though not the politicized reasons mentioned. A higher wage gives respect. Respect breeds confidence; confidence to find those full-time jobs, and later in life, pay other workers a decent wage.

Too Much Executive Power

In his Saturday radio address, President Bush asked Congress to give him more authority to slice and dice the budget. For those readers who do not immediately know what this means, let me give you the three-word term: line-item veto. This is an idea that’s popular with conservatives who think the White House needs more muscle to restrict federal spending.

It is also popular with the Bush Administration. The president said in his address that,
“under the current system, many lawmakers are able to insert funding for pet projects into large spending bills.” According to the president this leaves lawmakers with two bad options; voting against an entire bill with “worthwhile” spending or vote for a bill that has money for special-interest projects.

It is interesting that the president explained his plea in such a way. First off, with his Party in the majority, Congress can pass most, and up to most recently, everything the president has asked of them. Second, special-interest money is part of every piece of legislation. No Party is immune; the president should not try to act the innocent or worse, the ignorant.

Of course, in terms, of what the president really wants, and what governors in 43 other states have, is the line-item veto. For those of you presidential historians out there, or just politically astute citizens, President Clinton asked for the same authority without positive results.

On Thursday, the House passed a watered-down version of a more sweeping line-item veto law that the Supreme Court struck down in 1998, saying it took too much spending authority away from Congress. The House bill, which passed 247-172, would let the president try to kill individual items contained in spending or tax bills that he otherwise signs into law. Congress would be required to vote on those specific items again. A simple majority in both the House and the Senate could override the president’s objections.

The line from the president’s address that was most interesting was how a line-item veto would reduce the incentive for Congress to spend wastefully because lawmakers would be less likely to slip pet projects into large spending bills if they knew they could be held up to public scrutiny. Here are my questions: What were the last budget figures that President Bush sent to Congress? What was the last Congressional spending amount?

Of course, lawmakers from both parties have reservations about the line-item veto, contending it shifts too much power to the president, allowing him to try to cut projects proposed by his political enemies, or to use the threat of cutting projects in exchange for favorable votes on legislation the White House desires. This is true, and more importantly if such authority was granted the entire intent of Constitutional checks and balances would be made irrelevant. As mid-term electioneering continues let us move away from the impossible to the probable. That is what the citizens really want. That is what the citizens really deserve.

International Bank Transactions Monitored

In an effort to track the flow of terrorist money in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Treasury Department obtained data from an international cooperative that transmits information between financial institutions worldwide, both the department and the cooperative said.

The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported that the records were examined under a series of broad U.S. subpoenas, with the Times reporting that Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions.

SWIFT – the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication – links about 7,800 financial institutions around the world, including virtually every major bank and brokerage.

It provides banks with instructions on how to transfer funds – instructions which include information on the individuals sending money and the amount of money sent.
The treasury department said it had carried out “tens or hundreds” of thousands of name searches on the data.

Mr. Snow said the program had been implemented in a “highly responsible” manner, with corporate and external auditors observing the process. In a statement on its website, SWIFT said: “Swift takes its role as a key infrastructure of the international financial system very seriously and co-operates with authorities to prevent illegal uses of the international financial system.

This was echoed by Tresurary Secretary Snow, “there can’t be any doubt about the fact that the program is an effective weapon in the larger war on terror,” Snow told reporters Friday and in a previous statement, saying it was “not a fishing expedition, but rather a sharp harpoon aimed at the heart of terrorist activity,” adding that the disclosure of the program in news reports, which prompted his statement, was “regrettable.”

SWIFT said its “fundamental principle has been to preserve the confidentiality of our users’ data while complying with the lawful obligations in countries where we operate.”
“Striking that balance has guided SWIFT through this process” with the Treasury Department, the statement said. This is a good arguement from the Treasury in its own defense. How SWIFT will defend its actions to harsher criticism throughout Europe will be interesting, for it will not be so easy as it currently experienced by the Treasury. People who disagree on this point should only remember the difference in public sentiment here in the US and over in the UK when no WMD’s were discovered in Iraq.

Stuart Levey, a senior Treasury official who helps conduct the terrorist finance tracking program, said at Friday’s press conference that SWIFT is primarily used for overseas fund transfers and does not contain information on daily transactions conducted by U.S. citizens such as deposits, withdrawals or electronic payments. This is an important point to remember. Here is another:

As proponents and opponent’s spar, and ordinary citizens begin to hear and believe the spin, let us remember that disrupting the flow of funds (money) to al-Qaeda, in the broader scope, all terror networks, was and still remain a primary focus in this War on Terror. So as civil liberties are discussed and politicians jockey for electioneering points with voters, let us have that basic understanding clear.

My Introduction