youdaimonia

My Patience is Wearing Thin Mr. President

2009-03-25T22:35:00.000-07:00

I was hopeful that because Barack Obama is a Constitutional scholar he might give up some of the power accrued by the executive branch over the last 8 years. Things started off so well. Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanomo, appointed an Attorney General that unequivocally called water boarding torture, and staffed the Office of Legal Counsel with outspoken critics of the Bush administration's indefinite detention and torture policies.

However, two months later we find out that the Obama administration is defending the author of the torture memos in court, denying the Supreme Court the opportunity to rule on whether or not the President has the authority to indefinitely detain people, and attempting to throw out the lawsuits of torture victims by abusing the State Secrets Act.

Look, I know that the President is doing many good things when it comes to foreign and domestic policy. For example, I believe Obama when he says we no longer torture, but what is he doing to guarantee that future administrations won't torture. Also, Obama did the right thing when he brought charges against a detainee that Bush had declared an enemy combatant. However, in doing so he prevented the Supreme Court from ruling on whether or not the President has the power to imprison someone for 5 years without charges or a trial. My point is that I don't think we should rely on having a benevolent President in office, but right now that's what it feels like to me.

On a related note, Jonathan Turley recently provided a unique perspective on President Obama's dustup with Dick Cheney.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Stimulus Package: An Embarrassment, or Victory for the President?

2009-02-14T11:36:00.000-08:00

In short, I think it was a victory. Republicans are claiming that their almost complete opposition to the bill (zero House Republicans voted for the measure, and only three Senate Republicans voted for it) is an embarrassment to President Obama because he was unable to garner bipartisan support. Let's think about this for a moment. Obama was able to pass the largest spending bill in history, in record time, in a form very similar to his original plan. How this could be portrayed as anything less than a political victory is a mystery to me. Furthermore, the public widely believes that Obama tried his best to be bipartisan, but Republicans would have nothing to do with him. So not only did Obama get what he wanted, people believe that he tried his best to be bipartisan.

As an aside, here is a breakdown of the spending in the final version of the bill. For what it's worth, I'm very happy to see that the funding for food stamps and aid to state and local governments made into the bill. Moderate Republican and Democratic senators tried to cut these from the plan altogether, even though temporarily increasing the funding for food stamps is one of the most stimulative measures we could take. Also, environmentalists seem to be pretty happy with the final outcome.

Bipartisanship? How About Some Good Old Fashioned Partisan Warfare?

2009-02-04T22:03:00.000-08:00

Is anybody else frustrated by Obama's handling of the stimulus bill? First, he starts off by allocating 300 billion dollars of the bill to tax cuts, rather than dedicating more money to infrastructure, and using tax cuts to get Republican votes. The Republicans used Obama's attempts at bipartisanship to embarrass him. We got a watered down, less effective bill in exchange for zero Republican votes. Didn't we just have an election that was largely decided on the economy? And didn't the Democrats enlarge their majorities in both houses and win the Presidency? You would never know it.

If you ask me, Obama needs to make Republicans pay a political price for opposing his stimulus bill. I'm sure he has a lot of money left over from the campaign. He should use it to run adds in the traditionally Republican states that he won. There is no harm in pointing out which members of Congress are opposing the stimulus package.

On a somewhat related note, the Center for American Progress has a cool webpage that allows you to create your own stimulus package! Here's a fun experiment. Create a package that focuses mainly on rescue and investment, and compare it to one that focuses on tax cuts. Make sure they both have the same price tag, and compare the number of jobs they create.

The Kangaroo Court System at Guantanamo

2009-02-04T21:39:00.000-08:00

The next time you hear Dick Cheney say that the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay are an essential component of our national security aparatus, ask yourself this question: If Guantanamo is so effective, why did the Bush administration's prosecutors keep resigning?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Also, Glenn Greenwald reminds us that U.S. federal courts have a much better record of convicting terrorists than the military commission system created by the Bush administration.

Wow

2008-12-14T17:14:00.000-08:00

Won't it be nice to have a President that doesn't cause Iraqi reporters to throw their shoes at him?

Why Rachel is Different

2008-12-03T01:20:00.000-08:00

Tonight Rachel had a great segment on her MSNBC TV show.

I love the fact that she basically had a 7 minute long military planning session on national television. She and her guest went really in depth on how the recent terrorist attacks in India could affect our military operations in Afghanistan. You really got a feel for the complexity of the situation. I feel like this kind of coverage has really been absent over the past 8 years due to this administration's tendencies to look at the world in black and white. The framing done by the whitehouse seemed to constrain how those in the main stream media talked about issues (to the detriment of the country in my opinion). I'm glad to see that Rachel is challenging the conventional wisdom on what viewers are interested in when it comes to news.

Mr. President-elect: Here is My Vision

2008-11-25T22:19:00.000-08:00

"I envision a country that takes a stand against torture. It is not enough to put an end to the disastrous policies of the Bush administration. There must be investigations, and if criminal conduct is discovered, there must be prosecutions.

From a moral standpoint, we must uphold one of the founding values of this country: that no detainee shall be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. We know that torture has occurred over the past 8 years. This is not a partisan issue. Both presidential candidates acknowledged that it occurred, and said they would stop it. If there are no prosecutions, I'm worried about the legal precedents that might be set, as well as the signals being sent to the rest of the world.

Taking a stand against torture is also vital to our national security. We know that those subjected to torture often fabricate the intelligence that they believe interrogators want to hear. Unfortunately, we know this all to well. In 2003, Colin Powell made the case for the Iraq war to the United Nations based on evidence that had been obtained through torture. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi told interrogators that Iraq had an operational relationship with al Qaeda. Specifically, that the Iraqi regime had trained al Qaeda terrorists how to use chemical and biological weapons. As it turns out, al-Libi simply lied so the beatings, water-boarding, and lengthy confinement to small spaces would end. This "evidence" helped to justify one of largest foreign policy disasters in our history.

Mr. President-elect, today the Bush administration said it would not grant pardons to those involved in its torture policies. The current President believes that the memos drafted by his justice department provide him with all the legal cover that he needs. Don't you see what is going on here? Mr. Bush is attempting to use your mandate to repair his legacy. By not granting a blanket pardon he is asserting that no wrong doing took place. If you and your Democratic allies in the Congress do not act, you are implicitly taking the same position, and at the same time giving George W. Bush more political cover."

I hope that all of you will share your vision, whatever it may be, with the next President.

I'm Glad Paul Krugman is Around

2008-11-16T16:14:00.000-08:00

The Case Against Joe Lieberman

2008-11-13T22:08:00.000-08:00

I know I've been getting a little video happy lately. I'm still recuperating from the election. That being said, Rachel Maddow made a compelling case for why Joe Lieberman should be allowed to stay in the Democratic caucus, but be stripped of his Homeland Security/Government Oversight committee chairmanship. Her argument touches on the substance (Lieberman has refused to aggressively investigate the Bush administration) and the politics involved.

Lame Duck Watch

2008-11-11T22:57:00.000-08:00

This is clearly unconstitutional. The fourth amendment of the constitution states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". What does Bush not understand about the phrase probable cause? Only 69 days to go.

Just a Thought

2008-11-10T22:06:00.000-08:00

Does anyone else find it amusing that conservatives are saying that Barack Obama won by running on conservative principles (e.g. tax cuts for 95% of Americans)? A week ago these same people were saying that President-elect Obama's proposed tax cuts were equivalent to socialism. Just a thought.

Right On Keith

2008-11-10T21:52:00.000-08:00

What to Look for

2008-11-05T23:41:00.000-08:00

Senator Jim Webb had an interesting interview with Rachel Maddow tonight. As many of you may know, on January 1st the United Nations mandate that legalizes the U.S. troop presence in Iraq expires. The Bush administration has been trying to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the Iraqis that enables U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. These negotiations are not going very well, and a deal seems unlikely at this point.

In the interview, Senator Webb talks about how this might play out in the months to come. He talks about asking the U.N. to extend the mandate until Barack Obama is sworn in as President. At that point the United States would negotiate a deal with the Iraqis that sets a clear timeline for withdrawal. Webb suggests that the Iraqi parliament and the U.S. senate should then vote on the agreement.

This is significant not just because we may see the beginning of a withdrawal from Iraq, but because of the possibility that this agreement will be sent to the Senate. All along Bush has denied that this agreement is a treaty for the simple reason that if he calls it a treaty the constitution states that it must be ratified by the Senate. If President Obama (man that feels good) follows Jim Webb's advice it will be a signal that he is willing to relinquish some of the extraordinary powers accrued by the executive branch over the past 8 years. Imagine that. A President acting in accordance with the constitution. Change is coming.

A New Poll Tax?

2008-11-02T19:54:00.000-08:00

Here's a pretty good piece by Rachel Maddow.

Speaking of Ralph Nader

2008-10-29T23:42:00.001-07:00

This is why we need to open up the presidential debates to third party candidates. This idea of a tax on securities and derivatives transactions as a means of financing the Wall Street bailout is intriguing.

What do you guys think?

The Healthcare Plan Hierarchy

2008-10-27T22:40:00.000-07:00

Okay, I wan't to talk about Ralph Nader for a moment. I know I know. He cost Gore the election in 2000, which led to the horrendous presidency of George W. Bush. Let's leave that aside for the moment. The fact of the matter is that Ralph Nader is a very progressive candidate.

In this post I'm going to focus on healthcare. Now, admittedly, Barack Obama's healthcare plan is vastly superior to John McCain's. But in my opinion, both miss the mark.

The Nader plan would would create what's called a single payer healthcare system. As the name implies, a single entity is responsible for the payment of healthcare costs (as apposed to the cost being split up between you and your employer). In this case, the single payer would be the government, and for-profit insurance companies would no longer be necessary.

There are a lot of advantages of a single payer healthcare system. First, and foremost, every single American would receive high quality healthcare. Second, a single payer system would lower costs through simplicity and efficiency. It is estimated that 24% of our healthcare costs are due to administrative and other non-clinical expenses. If the federal government were solely responsible for paying healthcare costs, the current healthcare bureaucracy that coordinates between patients, employers, and insurance companies would no longer be necessary.

Let's make this a little more concrete. The World Health Organization ranks France number one in overall quality and access. The United States is ranked 37th. Yet, France spends 11.2% of its gdp on healthcare, while the U.S. spends 15.2% of gdp. So what's the deal? France has a single payer system, and the U.S. has a market based system.

So, how would Nader pay for his plan? Employers would simply pay a 7% payroll tax. For larger employers, this actually turns out to be less than what they currently spend on healthcare for their employees. This payroll tax would also level the playing field because companies that currently do not provide benefits would not have a competitive advantage. The rest of the money would come from a 2% income tax. Now, this might sound like your taxes are being raised, but when you consider the fact that you are no longer paying premiums, deductables, or copays, they actually aren't.

The bottom line is that we could be providing quality healthcare to every single American at an equal or lower cost. Let's do it.

A Simple "Yes" Would Have Been Sufficient

2008-10-24T12:02:00.000-07:00

Holly crap.

What Will Become of the Republican Party?

2008-10-23T22:11:00.000-07:00

In the last week I have seen what I believe to be the beginning of the end for the Republican party as we know it today. First, I want to start with Alan Greenspan's testimony on capitol hill today:

This is striking. Is it possible that the republican party will now acknowledge that the government has a vital oversight role to play when it comes to the economy? I certainly hope so. I really respect what Greenspan did today. It takes a lot of courage to admit that the policies you championed as chairman of the federal reserve created an environment that enabled the largest economic crisis since the great depression.

The second major event I would like to talk about is Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama. It was one of the most thoughtful moments I have seen throughout the course of this two year campaign. In addition to being an endorsement of Barack Obama, it was a rebuking of what the Republican party has become: one that has moved further to the right on domestic and foreign policy, values anti-intellectualism, and seeks to divide us rather than unite us.

Need evidence? Over the past week we heard Sarah Palin talk about the "real" America, and Michelle Bachman call for investigations into the anti-american members of congress (i.e. liberals). Take a look:

So what does this all mean? It's looking increasingly likely that November 4th will be a big win for the Democrats (gains in both houses of congress and the presidency). I believe that we are at a defining moment in our history, and that Barack Obama, like FDR before him, will usher in a new era of progressivism. The good news for the Republican party is that it will have some time to do some serious soul searching. My guess is that the party will become more moderate on social and economic issues, while continuing to advocate for small government and fiscal conservatism when possible. Personally, I'd welcome a return of the party of Barry Goldwater. At least then we could have an honest debate about the direction of the country.

In Defense of Progressive Taxation

2008-10-19T11:57:00.000-07:00

The new meme being generated by the McCain campaign is that Barack Obama is a socialist. I guess their attempt to cast Obama as a terrorist didn't work, so with two weeks to go McCain needed a new narrative. The McCain campaign offers Obama's tax plan as evidence his socialist agenda.

First of all, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Barack Obama believes in the central tenet of socialism; collective ownership of the means of production. Obama believes in a free market economy as a means of generating wealth, but acknowledges that an unregulated market is less than ideal (as the last month has shown).

Getting back to tax policy, Barack Obama's is based on the idea that the middle class is the backbone of our economy. So if tax cuts are to be given, they should favor the middle class. John McCain is clearly a supply sider; concentrate wealth at the top by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations in the hope that this wealth will trickle down to the rest of the economy.

The Center for American Progress recently released a study that compared the economies under the two most recent administrations (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) that implemented policies based on supply side economics to the economy under Bill Clinton's administration. In short, the study found that many economic indicators such as investment, productivity, GDP, unemployment, income, hourly wages, and the federal deficit were, on average, as good or better during the Clinton administration. I should also point out that this study doesn't even include the current economic crisis we find ourselves in under the Bush administration.

So is Barack Obama a socialist? I don't really call restoring fairness to the tax code socialism, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that a tax code similar to the one under Bill Clinton is better for our free market economy.

Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama

2008-10-19T11:16:00.000-07:00

I have to say that this is a very powerful endorsement.

Paul Krugman for Treasury Secretary?

2008-10-13T22:21:00.000-07:00

I have a question for everyone. Should Barack Obama appoint Paul Krugman to be his treasury secretary? It makes a lot of sense to me.

Paul Krugman called on the government to recapitalize the banks from pretty early on. Low and behold, that is exactly what Hank Paulson has decided to do.

If that isn't enough for you, Krugman was also awarded the Nobel Prize in economics today. Not a bad day for Paul Krugman. Not bad at all.

McCain Always Was a Terrible Student

2008-10-12T23:24:00.000-07:00

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) has released a report card that grades every member of congress on their support for legislation important to veterans. John McCain got a D. Barack Obama got a B. As far as I can tell, John McCain's way of supporting the troops amounts to asking them to risk their lives in unnecessary, never-ending wars.

Time for a Grand Bargain with Iran

2008-10-12T16:15:00.000-07:00

Let's stick with the theme from yesterday: Conducting foreign policy based on national interests rather than ideology.

Bush Moves Away From the Neocons

2008-10-11T12:14:00.000-07:00

The New York Times reports today that the Bush Administration has decided to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. I have to say that this is one area where I think Bush has seen the light. Many neocons such as John Bolton are criticizing the move, but here are the facts. When Bush came into office the Clinton administration had established an Agreed Framework with North Korea. This agreement provided the North with reactors for domestic energy production and provided them with oil. In exchange, North Korea froze activities at their plutonium reactors and delayed the construction of new ones. It is believed that had it not been for the Agreed Framework, North Korea might have enough weapons grade plutonium for 100 nuclear weapons.

In 2002 the Bush administration believed that North Korea had a secret uranium enrichment program, and decided to pull out of the Agreed Framework altogether. For four years there was no real effort to engage North Korea, and in 2006 the North successfully detonated a nuclear device. Clearly, Bush's policy had failed.

If we fast forward to earlier this year, the Bush administration got North Korea to dismantle its plutonium enrichment facility in Yongbyon, and allow weapons inspectors to monitor the process. In exchange the U.S. would remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. This would allow the North to normalize diplomatic relations with the world, and be eligible for financial aid. This was undoubtedly a big success.

Recently, however, there was a huge setback. North Korea was not allowing inspectors to verify the state of their nuclear program, and threatened to restart their nuclear program. They say it was because the U.S. had not removed them from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Now, it's not clear to me who was in the wrong here, and it seems like both of these things were supposed to happen simultaneously. Even with this breakdown, I still think the negotiations had made progress because North Korea's ability to produce weapons grade plutonium had suffered a huge setback.

Today the Bush administration seems to have put the negotiations back on track by agreeing to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. In exchange, North Korea has agreed to resume the dismantling of the facility at Yongbyon, and allow inspectors to return. There are still questions about how inspectors will verify the steps that North Korea is taking, but I still believe that progress is being made.

Credit Where Credit Is Due

2008-10-07T20:01:00.000-07:00

I'm going to give John McCain some credit for tonight's debate. He didn't engage in character assassination. He didn't bring up Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, or Tony Rezko. Good for you senator. Hopefully you will send the message to the rest of your campaign.

With that out of the way. I think Obama won the debate hands down. He took on McCain's supply side economic policies, his saber rattling foreign policies, his radical healthcare policy, and his drill baby drill energy policy.

McCain Asked For It

2008-10-06T21:07:00.001-07:00

Obama's Comments Disqualify Him from the Presidency?

2008-10-04T11:36:00.000-07:00

During Thursday night's VP debate Sarah Palin used a statement made by Barack Obama to argue that he is unfit for the Presidency. Here is what she was referring to:

The inconvenient truth for Governor Palin is that Barack Obama is correct. The AP did a fact check on this claim, and found that in 2007 the U.S. military was responsible for more civilian deaths than the insurgents (i.e. the Taliban and al-Qaeda) we are there to fight. The reason for this is because the U.S. diverted its attention from Afghanistan to Iraq. There are currently 146,000 troops in Iraq (more than before the surge, which is another bogus claim Palin made during the debate), but only 32,000 in Afghanistan. As a result, the U.S. has become increasingly reliant on air strikes. The fact of the matter is that a bomb, no matter how precise, cannot discriminate between insurgents and civilians better than troops on the ground. This has caused real problems in Afghanistan because it creates sympathy for the Taliban's cause.

I'd also add that Defense Secretary Bob Gates recently issued an apology for recent air strikes that killed 90 civilians in Afghanistan, but I don't hear Sarah Palin calling for his resignation.

So despite Palin's claim, I think these comments show that he is qualified to be President because he understands the current situation on the ground, and knows how to weigh the consequences of various military tactics.

Is Anybody Buying This?

2008-10-02T22:27:00.000-07:00

Is anybody buying the argument that we ought to forget about the last 8 years, and only look to the future? If we ignore the past, aren't we destined to repeat it? I thought Joe Biden hit it out of the park.

The Most Maverickey Maverick of All Mavericks

2008-10-02T21:55:00.000-07:00

Please.

A New Opportunity

2008-09-29T22:19:00.000-07:00

Over the past week I'll I've heard a lot of members of Congress say "no one likes the proposed bailout plan, but its the best we could come up with". Well, the best they could come up with failed to get the support of many Republicans in the House of Representatives today, and as a result the Dow lost 777 points.

I say its time for the Democrats to come up with a plan they truly believe in and pass it. Who is going to stop them? They have majorities in both houses, and the administration apparently has no friends left in Washington. This means they will probably be happy with anything they can get at this point.

If the Dems come up with a good plan that ends up working, I really think progressives have an opportunity to put the final nail in the coffin of the philosophy that got us into this mess in the first place.

More Voices More Choices

2008-09-28T01:20:00.000-07:00

Friday night Ralph Nader was on Realtime with Bill Maher. In this clip Ralph makes his most salient point of the entire show.

I have to say, Obama's position on Afghanistan has been starting to worry me as of late. I think he tends to highlight the military component of his policy because it allows him to project strength. He did state in the debate that there has to be other components to our strategy in Afghanistan. Namely, working to cleanup the corruption of the government and providing agricultural aid that will help improve the Afghan economy.

But Nader's point is an extremely good one (just ask the Russians). I would also add that the United States and its NATO allies have been increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. Yet, the violence there is at its highest levels since the beginning of the war. So while additional troops may help with the security situation, we have to have more comprehensive strategy moving forward. The question is, who do you trust to develop and implement that strategy? John McCain or Barack Obama?

Conservatism May Need a Bailout When this is All Said and Done

2008-09-24T00:11:00.000-07:00

I'm going to make this short. The past two weeks have really been bad for the U.S. economy. Congress is in the midst of $700 billion bailout of wall street. The consensus seems to be that without it we may be facing another great depression. I just feel like these last couple of weeks have done a lot of damage to the conservative philosophy of government. To be sure, there are those hardcore conservatives out there that oppose this bailout, but even the President seems to be 100% behind it. I have a hard time believing that these die hard "conservatives" would not do the same if they were in Bush's position.

Let's reflect on this for a moment. These are the guys that push for more and more deregulation of the private sector. Their argument is that everything will work out fine if people would just let the market do its thing unfettered. After this last week, I find this argument laughable. Not only that, these are the people that say a national healthcare system that provides insurance for every man, woman, and child is tantamount to socialism. From their perspective it's just an expensive, big government solution to a problem that is handled best by the free market. But come next week the U.S. government will be in the business of propping up its most important financial institutions to the tune of $700 billion. Sounds an awful lot like socialism to me.

Regardless Of How We Got Here, What Should We Do Now?

2008-03-21T11:30:00.000-07:00

At this point we are all familiar with the Iraq war story: the cooking up of intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, the lack of a military strategy to defeat an insurgency, and the strengthening of Al Qaeda's organization in Afghanistan to pre 9/11 levels. But regardless of how we got here, what should we do now?

The options presented to the public include a precipitous withdrawal or an open ended commitment of American troops (the latter policy being the choice of the Bush administration and John McCain). However, this is a false dichotomy. Recently, 48 Democratic candidates running for election to the United States Congress proposed a responsible plan to end the Iraq war [1].

The underlying theme of the plan is that there is no military solution in Iraq, and progress can only be made through strong diplomatic, political, and economic efforts. The first step we must take is to begin withdrawals of American troops. A policy of open ended commitment provides no incentive to the Iraqi government to work towards political reconciliation. The recent fighting in Basra provides a perfect example of this.

The city of Basra is a stronghold of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army. Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is fearful that those loyal to al-Sadr may come into power in upcoming Iraqi elections. By no means is Muqtada al-Sadr a warm and fuzzy character on the Iraqi political scene. His militia was heavily involved in the insurgency waged against American forces, but over the past year the Mahdi army has declared a ceasefire (this in conjunction with the "surge" has helped to decrease the violence in Iraq)[2]. Recently, prime minister al-Maliki jeopardized the ceasefire by sending the Iraqi army to Basra in an attempt to expel the Mahdi Army from the city. The United States blessed the operation even though Muqtada al-Sadr has a large following among Iraq's Shia muslim population. Originally, the offensive was purely fought by Iraqis, but after the Mahdi army proved to be a formidible opponent the U.S. provided air support and some special operations forces [3]. Muqtada al-Sadar's militia is still in control of the city, and as long as the U.S. is willing to side with al-Maliki against his political opponents nationwide religious and political reconciliation is not possible.

The second battle of Fallujah provides another example of why there is no military solution in Iraq. In November of 2004 the marines completely destroyed the city of Fallujah, which was considered to be a Sunni insurgent stronghold [4]. The military offensive took place right before the January 2005 elections that brought Nouri al-Malaki into power. The destruction of Fallujah inflamed Sunni muslims, and resulted in their boycott of the elections [5]. The result: a Shia dominated government that was viewed as illegitimate by a very large portion of the Iraqi population. This outcome was a major roadblock on the road to Iraqi political reconciliation.

In addition to beginning a withdrawal of American forces, a massive reconstruction effort should begin. One of the great proposals outlined in the responsible plan is to employ Iraqi's, not for profit U.S. contractors, to lead this effort. The ongoing military operations in Iraq have a devastating effect on vital infrastructure that provides basic services such as running water and electricity. For example, it is estimated that most Iraqi's have working electricity for only three hours per day [1]. When you couple the lack of basic services with high unemployment rates, taking up arms against the occupying force doesn't sound like a bad idea. This is driving much of the violence occurring in Iraq. By employing Iraqis to rebuild their country we can solve many problems. Violence will decline, infrastructure will be repaired, and the economic situation will improve.

These are only a few of the policies that are outlined in the responsible plan to end the Iraq war. Regardless of how we got into Iraq, what is needed is an exit strategy that reduces the burdens on our military, and leaves a stable country for the Iraqi people. I believe that the responsible plan is the way forward.

References:

This Post is a Wiretap

2008-03-16T17:38:00.000-07:00

Recently, the Bush administration has received a lot of criticism concerning the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The TSP enables the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on international communications without a warrant [1]. This means the NSA is potentially monitoring communications where one party is a legal resident of the United States. However, the administration insists that warrants are still required for intercepting purely domestic communications. All of this begs the question, what is an appropriate policy when it comes to the electronic surveillance of Americans?

Let us begin with the basics. The fourth amendment of the United States constitution states the following: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" [2]. However, it is not immediately clear that the fourth amendment applies in the case of electronic surveillance. When law enforcement records a phone call does this even qualify as a search or seizure? In 1967 the supreme court held that intercepting these types of communication does in fact qualify as a search and seizure [3]. Furthermore, the court ruled that such surveillance techniques are to be deemed unreasonable when there is a justifiable expectation of privacy by those involved in the communication. Thus, purely domestic communications cannot be intercepted unless the government has probable cause, and a search warrant.

What about communications that involve foreign nationals? Before the TSP was enacted the government had to abide by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA requires that a warrant be obtained in order to eavesdrop on conversations when any party involved is a resident of the United States [4]. However, if communications only involve agents of foreign governments (this includes terrorists), no warrant is necessary. The Bush administration has criticized FISA in a variety of ways. First, in times of great urgency applying for a warrant may be too time consuming. By the time the process is complete it may be too late. Second, the FISA law lacks the ability to quickly obtain warrants for large numbers of people. It is unclear whether or not these complaints are even accurate. For example, critics of the administration have pointed out that obtaining a warrant from the FISA court requires a lower standard of proof than what would be needed to obtain a criminal warrant, and can be done in a matter of hours [1].

I believe that FISA is the correct approach when conducting surveillance of Americans for a variety of reasons. The constitution seems pretty clear on this issue: If you want to spy on Americans you have to have a reason, and you have to obtain a warrant. Furthermore, we have seen abuses of electronic surveillance by the executive branch in the past. FISA was enacted as a response to the Watergate scandal where Richard Nixon used the capabilities of our intelligence agencies to spy on his political opponents [5]. Oversight by the courts is critical to ensuring that such violations do not occur. The TSP violates our system of checks and balances by sidestepping the courts.

References: