Returning soon

I'll be returning to work next week and should be back to blogging regularly. Thanks for staying tuned.

Why didn't waterboarding work?

It seems increasingly clear that waterboarding was conducted to force a confession about ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. After all the recent accounts on how effective waterboarding can be in getting people to say whatever the interrogator wants, why didn’t it work? Why didn’t the Bush administration succeed in getting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to say he was involved with Al Qaeda, despite waterboarding him 183 times?

Perhaps they did get a confession yet knew it was inadmissible (or invalid) due to the circumstances under which it was elicited. But then why waterboard if the results couldn’t be announced proudly to the world: “IRAQI OFFICIAL ADMITS TIES TO AL QAEDA!”?

Perhaps the only explanation is that Bush officials honestly thought there were ties and that waterboarding worked. This is a defense but not a good one because it shows, in yet another way, how they were not listening to so many military and intelligence professionals who knew both.

What do you think?

In Praise of Taxes

Getting the poor and lower-middle-class to vote against their interests has been one of the great successes of the conservative movement. I wonder, however, if the twin mantras against taxation and large government won't someday (perhaps soon) come back to bite the elite who've promoted them.

Smaller government means less oversight but fewer public services. The rich thrive with less oversight and can manage just fine without public services. The more vulnerable members of society, however, will suffer profoundly without good schools, unemployment insurance, hospitals, public libraries, paved roads, and checks on pollution and abuses of power (read discrimination and police brutality).

Less taxes and smaller government will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. At what point will the poor and lower-middle-class realize that the paying of taxes and the existence of a robust public sector is good for them? At what point will the rich and powerful alienate their base beyond repair?

I think the recent tea-baggers and many others need a lesson on how taxes benefit them directly and immediately. They also need to be taught that the government institutions and programs taxes fund are absolutely critical to their livelihood, safety, and general well being.

But what do you think?

(PS: As a side note, the US Department of Defense is terribly inefficient, consistently over budget, and replete with corruption and cronyism. Nobody suggest we "starve" or "shrink" that beast. On the contrary, most call for better and greater funding to rectify problems, improve oversight, and increase efficiency. Why doesn't the same principle apply to government in general?)

North Korea's Missile Test: A Multiple Choice Quiz

What does North Korea's launch of a long rang missile mean to the US and Japanese defense departments?

A) They both really dropped the ball
B) The countries they are meant to defend are now under grave threat of imminent destruction
C) They just received justification for massive budget increases and are currently popping champagne corks in celebration

What do you think?

.

Are term limits bad for democracy?

Term limits are elemental to a functional democracy. But can they also have ill effects on the public good?

One of the top priorities of a president's first term is to be reelected. During that period, it's critical they remain broadly popular by looking out for the interests of as much of the electorate as possible.

During a second term, all bets are off. Because reelection is not possible, a president can spend that time rewarding friends and allies with little regard for the political ramifications. Being in a position to accumulate vast and sustainable private influence, favor, and wealth can be well worth the cost of grave yet temporary unpopularity.

In principle, presidential terms are good for "capital-D Democracy." But are they good for our democracy?

Immigrants, Sacrifice, and a Brighter Future for our Kids.

For a variety of reasons, I've been thinking quite a bit lately about one of the guiding principles of good parenthood: the hope that our kids have a better life than we do. We all share this hope, don't we? It's only natural. But do we all feel it equally? More precisely, do we all make the same effort?

I don't think so.

Lately, I've had occasion to be around a few working-class foreigners here in Japan. Immigrating from the Philippines, China and elsewhere, they, like immigrants around the world, endure profound hardships. They don't speak the language; they following a strange religion; they look different; they have no family or close friends nearby, and they are often quite poor. Society looks down on them: they are the suspects of crime, depredation, and immorality. They suffer discrimination and ridicule at every turn.

But they endure these profound hardships because they know their kids will benefit by growing up in a country infinitely safer and more prosperous then their own.

Lately, I've begun looking at working-class immigrant families with a sense of awe. I wonder honestly if I have the same mettle. They endure so much and sacrifice so greatly to ensure their kids have a better future. What do I do? I read to my kids before they go to bed. I try to tell them creative stories and listen when they have something to say. I stash away a few dollars for their education. That's about it and it's nothing compared to the Herculean efforts of so many immigrants here in Japan, the US and around the world.

I wonder how different the world would be if all made the same sacrifices; if we all put the same effort into our kids' futures as do so many working-class immigrants.

What do you think?

Secret Legal Memos and the Meaning of "War"

The explosive legal memos of the Bush administration released yesterday justify presidential privileged that supersedes many laws and constitutional protections. They assert that president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants.

The justification for such strident executive privilege is based on the notion that the president, as Commander in Chief, has the right to take any and all action necessary in a time of war to defeat an enemy. The word "war" appears in the memos several times such as in the following example:

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."

I don't mind if my dentist wants to call the campaign against Al Qaeda a war. I don't even mind if the talking heads on cable news continue to go on about the "War on Terror." Everyone knows what they mean.

It should not be forgotten, however, that "war" has a specfic legal meaning in the United States. War can only be declaired by the Congress and, indeed, in a legal state of war, the Commander in Chief is endowed with certain special privleges. But, in a state of warfare or "virtual war," such as we've been in since 9/11, the Commander in Chief has no special legal authority.

I would not expect Joe the dentist or Sean Hannity to be sticklers for the legal definition of war. Fighting is fighting. It's all some form of war. I would, however, expect that the president's legal council makes that distinction. If he or she does not, who will?

The very reason the Founders gave Congress the sole prerogative to declare war was to prevent the president from abusing his authority as Commander in Chief. If the president had the right to declare war at will and in so doing be granted special legal privileges that enabled him to circumvent the constitution, we would have a serious problem on our hands: a dictatorship in all but name.

The secret legal memos just released suggest the administration was operating as if in a legal state of war despite there being no congressional declaration. This to me is one of the most disturbing breaches of the constitution committed by the Bush administration and the key reason why the legal arguments are inherently and absolutely indefensible.

But what do you think?


...