Amy Ridenour is the president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. She and her husband David, the vice president of the National Center, are the parents of three third graders. David's comments, like those of other National Center staff members, directors, associates and fellows, often appear in this blog.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan communications and research foundation established in 1982 and based in Washington, D.C. We believe the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility, combined with a commitment to a strong national defense, provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.
Copyright 2003-2009 National Center for Public Policy Research
All links on this site are provided exclusively for educational purposes. No endorsement of the content of external links is implied; nor should any post on this blog be construed as endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for public office.
Letters to this site or to The National Center may be published, including the name of the author. Please explicitly inform us if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
GE's Jeffrey Immelt Fights Back
General Electric boss Jeffrey Immelt faced a tough crowd at GE's annual stockholder's meeting in April, and it's just now becoming clear how much he minded.
At the meeting, Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli asked if media reports that Immelt had tried to silence anti-Obama reporting on GE-owned networks are true. During her dialogue with Immelt, her microphone was cut off (it was restored after she continued talking anyway).
Then Fox News Channel O'Reilly Factor Producer Jesse Watters, a GE shareholder, asked Immelt about Keith Olbermann's handling of the Janeane Garofalo interview. Watters' microphone was soon cut off as well, but this did Immelt no good, as next up was the National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli, who, as I reported here in April, asked Immelt about GE's business with Iran, GE's lobbying for cap-and-trade, and GE's double-hit on senior citizen stockholders [by cutting dividends after saying it wouldn't while lobbying for cap-and-trade regulations that will dramatically raise consumer energy prices].
Following the meeting, in an apparent counterattack against Borelli, false allegations were made that Tom was there as a front for Fox News, which competes with GE-owned MSNBC and CNBC. Tom has no relationship with Fox News except that he appears on the network periodically as a guest and he lent an audiotape he made of the GE shareholder's meeting to Fox, which broadcast it (leading fact-challenged Keith Olbermann to falsely accuse Fox's Jesse Watters of making the perfectly legal tape and lying about it to GE security guards).
So why bring all this up now? Because it seems that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, whom one would think has better things to do, was so upset that three shareholders -- Deneen Borelli, Jesse Watters and Tom Borelli -- would ask him questions about the GE-owned networks' liberal bias, trade with Iran and lobbying for cap-and-trade that he ordered retaliation against a news media outlet that reported they had done so.
Specifically, the LA Weekly's Nicki Finke's Deadline Hollywood column reported Friday night that after Paul Bond of The Hollywood Reporter wrote a story about the three questions and the shareholder's meeting (a story immediately picked up by the Drudge Report), Immelt immediately ordered a GE-wide ban on Nielsen Business Media, which owns The Hollywood Reporter.
That's when, sources inside and outside Nielsen Business Media tell me, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt ordered a GE company-wide ban on all of THR's parent company: advertising, editorial, the works. After a few days, the ban was reduced to GE's NBC Universal against Nielsen Business Media's The Hollywood Reporter and lasted six weeks. (My NBC Universal sources believe the ban was lifted yesterday.)
My reporting is the first about the ban or what led to it. "People need to know that GE is using its media arm to stifle coverage about its company, and this is coming from Immelt and Zucker," a Nielsen Business Media insider said.
Finke adds:
...sources inside and outside Nielsen Business Media tell me, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt personally issued a GE ban on all of the Nielsen company. "Jeff Immelt severed relations between all of GE with all of Nielsen over that story. Immelt called Zucker, and Zucker took it from there. Then, after a few days, GE backtracked, and then it became NBC Universal severing relations with The Hollywood Reporter."
According to my sources, Zucker ordered NBC Universal employees "not to talk" to THR. "They took away passes and tickets," says one insider. Another told me advertising was affected: it appears all or almost all advertising was stopped by NBC Universal at what was and continues to be a very important revenue time for the trade -- just before the Emmy nominations. Still another told me that NBC Universal employees stopped returning THR reporters' calls. One NBC Universal employee actually said to a THR reporter: "I'm not allowed to talk to The Hollywood Reporter."
Only a handful of people within the publication knew about the GE/NBC Universal ban. "It was all very mysterious," one reporter whose calls stopped being returned by NBC Universal told me. "No one told me specifically why. But I think some story really pissed them off."
I don't want to quote all of the Finke column here, so I'll just say GE's retaliation evidently did not stop there. GE reportedly also tried to use its advertising clout to get The Hollywood Reporter journalist, Paul Bond, fired (go to the Finke piece for details).
My conclusion: Never assume the corporate and news executives whose work product is being criticized aren't paying attention. GE's Jeffrey Immelt is one of the most powerful corporate executive in the world. His corporation owns not just MSNBC and CNBC, but the storied NBC itself. Yet despite his lofty position, he not only is paying attention, he's paying close attention, and he apparently doesn't like the criticism one bit.
Maybe someday he'll figure out that if he cleans up his networks and starts running GE like a capitalist firm instead of as a welfare queen-wannabe, he can get the criticism he hates so much to stop.
Note: For video on the story as it originally unfolded, go here for the audio of a Glenn Beck radio interview with Tom Borelli (prepared by Olbermann Watch) and here for video of the story on the Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly Fox News shows, including an interview with talk radio host Laura Ingraham about it.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
On the Murder of Private William Long, Obama Finally Speaks
I guess the White House noticed rising numbers of complaints about the President's failure to give the apparently-political murder of Private William Long the same level of concern he gave to the apparently-political murder of Dr. George Tiller.
Michelle Malkin has the complete White House statement, along with commentary.
I agree with Michelle's commentary, but at least the President finally said something.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
Outrage of the Day: Obama's Silence on the Murder of William Long
Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link to the Newsbusters version of my post on the lopsided news media coverage of the George Tiller and William Long murders.
Kudos to Michelle for calling President Obama to account for the shameful way Obama has ignored William Long's murder.
Obama was Private Long's commander-in-chief. Long was murdered specifically because of this service. On Sunday, President Obama lamented the murder of George Tiller, whose killer allegedly had political and religious motivations. On Monday, Private Long was murdered by someone else who likewise allegedly had political and religious motives. Long, unlike Tiller, had a direct tie to President Obama -- Long had sworn an oath to follow Obama's orders, even at the risk of his own life. Then, in the performance of these duties, apparently directly because he had sworn that specific oath, Long is murdered. And Obama, so quick to condemn ideological murder just a day before, says nothing.
Even after people complain, giving the clueless White House a clue that words were sought, Obama still says nothing.
You should read the whole thing, but here's part of Michelle Malkin's column on this:
President Obama issued a statement condemning "heinous acts of violence" within hours of Tiller's death. The Justice Department issued its own statement and sent federal marshals to protect abortion clinics. News anchors and headline writers abandoned all qualms about labeling the gunman a terrorist. An almost gleeful excess of mainstream commentary poured forth on the climates of hate and fear created by conservative talk radio, blogs, and Fox News for reporting Tiller's activities.
By contrast, President Obama was silent about the military recruiter attacks that left 24-year-old Private William Long dead and 18-year-old Private Quinton Ezeagwula gravely wounded. On Tuesday afternoon -- more than 24 hours after the attack on the military recruiting center in Little Rock -- President Obama held a press conference to announce his pick for Army Secretary. It would have been exactly the right moment to express condolences for the families of the targeted Army recruiters and to condemn heinous acts of violence against our troops.
But President Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of George Tiller. Obama's omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase during his speech on homeland security.
Why the silence? Politically and religiously-motivated violence, it seems, is only worth lamenting when it demonizes opponents...
Michelle scolds the media, too: "Is it too much to ask the media cartographers in charge of mapping the 'climate of hate' to do their jobs with both eyes open?"
Yes, apparently it is.
William Long was willing to give his life to his country. Because of this, he was (apparently) targeted by a domestic terrorist and killed. His sacrifice deserves at least token recognition by his commander-in-chief.
Michelle's June 3 blog post on this contains the full text of her column. After you read it, click the "send to a friend" tag at the end, and send the column to at least five friends.
Obama does things when he thinks they'll help make him popular. If we keep this story alive, Private Long eventually may get the presidential recognition he deserves.
Addendum: Vocal Minority has good thoughts on this as well, including a roundup of comments from other sources. (That's where I learned of Michelle Malkin's hat tip in the first place, as well.)
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
In his independent column for WorldNetDaily, Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie reminds us:
Our fallen military did their part; now it is time for us to do ours. They didn't just pay the price for malevolent marplots and anarchists -- they also paid a price for us. It is time we not only realized it, but started acting like it too. It is time for us to stop wringing our hands, whining and lamenting that we don't know what to do -- and get to work taking back our country.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
Courtesy of a screen shot of my Google News homepage, I present yet another airheaded news media headline.
Truly, has any head of state ever gone to war and claimed it was without cause?
The real meat of the sentence the headline refers to ("I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done...") has to do with winning once the troops have been sent.
That's the pledge we will hold him to.
I guess the news media didn't think that was the important part.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
In Al Kamen's May 22 Washington Post column, he reports the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will be holding it's first-ever "Gay Pride Theme Party" at a Green Zone pub called Baghdaddy's on May 29.
Embassy staff, invited through what Kamen said was an "All Hands Alerts" e-mail, are encouraged to dress in drag and/or as their favorite gay icon. Suggestions on the poster include Cher, Elton John and the recently-deceased Bea Arthur.
It's not the event itself that is outrageous, but where it is being allowed. Baghdad.
This is suprising on one hand because Islamic law and homosexuality are at odds with one another. It's surprising on the other hand because the other things that offend Muslims are the subject of harsh restrictions and punishments. For example:
* For soldiers fighting the war on terrorism, General Order No. 1 from Central Command prohibits "proselytizing of any faith, religion or practice." When Al Jazeera ran footage from a documentary showing some soldiers in Afghanistan wanting to give out copies of the New Testament printed in the Dari and Pashto languages, officials said the Bibles shown in the footage were collected by military chaplins and later destroyed - allegedly burned - to prevent their distribution.
* People wishing to send things to American servicemembers stationed in the Islamic world are warned that "Host countries mostly prohibit the entry of alcoholic beverages of any kind, narcotics, munitions, pork and pork by-products, pornography and material contrary to the Islamic religion."
* A Marine was pulled from duty in 2008 when he was found to be handing out Christian-themed coins to civilians in Iraq.
* Women reporters in the Middle East have always faced restrictions because of their gender (remember when Ashleigh Banfield cut her hair and dyed it brunette to report from Afghanistan?). The Obama Administration is no different in handling this issue. For his recent tour of Europe and the Middle East, women reporters covering Obama were told to not wear nail polish, to wear closed-toe shoes and not bare their shoulders, among other things.
But a gay pride party is OK? Expect this to provide yet another lesson for the Obama team about putting the prerogatives of their special-interest supporters above traditional business practices.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
No way it's torture, says Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie in his latest independent column for WorldNetDaily.
Some excerpts (I particularly like the line about Senator John Kerry):
It is a misnomer to call the techniques employed in the extraction of information from terrorists "enhanced" anything. They should simply be called "basic interrogation techniques."
The word enhanced, by definition, means to augment with improved, advanced or sophisticated features. Therein lies my complaint in part. Forced nakedness, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, prolonged isolation, sensory bombardment (e.g., prolonged loud music and/or bright lights), scriptural desecration, simulated drowning, i.e., waterboarding, and stressful positions are not enhanced or extreme, nor are they torture.
Torture would be a battery with cables connected to one's more personal or sensitive areas. Torture would be being placed in a stressful position that caused bones to break or legs and arms to pop out of their sockets. Torture is pliers to fingers, hammers to toes, and the removal of teeth by blunt force trauma. Rough interrogation is being beaten until the person is bloodied and permanently disfigured beyond recognition.
Keeping someone awake is not torture, nor is it sophisticated. Keeping bright lights on in a room with the temperature turned up is not torture. It is being made uncomfortable...
...Neither time nor space allows me to explain fully the difference, but the plaintive cries and pleadings that the Geneva Conventions were somehow violated are scurrilous. Captured terrorists are being treated with more respect than they deserve – certainly more than Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and John Murtha, D-Pa., have shown our military personnel. In my mind, John Kerry, D-Mass., has treated our military more inhumanely with his specious accusations than the pouring of water on someone to help them remember information could ever be.
This isn't about whether Nancy Pelosi lied about being briefed. It's a reasonable belief that she did. It isn't about mistreatment of captured terrorists. It is about saving the lives of American military personnel and American citizens. It is about the disruption of terrorist activity and the incapacitation of terrorists...
...Political correctness and politically correct verbiage has sullied and redefined everything it has been applied to – and EIT is a further example. With that said, when does America's treatment of the captured get the recognition it deserves as the most humane in the history of warfare?...
Outrage of the Day: 9th Circuit Harms U.S. Security
Writing in the Washington Examiner, National Center for Public Policy Research board member Horace Cooper has harsh words for a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on "extraordinary rendition."
Horace writes:
A recent ruling by a three judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing the ACLU's lawsuit against "extraordinary rendition" to go forward was reckless and lawless. Tragically, the price for aiding the ACLU may well be the loss of American lives.
This case (Mohamed, et al., v. Jeppesen Dataplan, et al) started in 2007 when the ACLU and five non-citizens filed suit claiming that the five men were unlawfully captured and tortured as part of a "clandestine" CIA program for interrogating suspected terrorists.
...This case demonstrates the limits of courts when it comes to assessing policy matters, particularly those associated with national security. Judges have no particular skills in evaluating either the benefits or the consequences of their rulings on national security and as lifetime appointees they are well insulated from the consequences of their rulings.
...When this case came before U.S. District Judge James Ware, he dismissed this case once its implications for national security became clear. The Justice Department had invoked the "state secrets" doctrine and former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden's warned that if this case were to go forward it could cause "exceptionally grave" danger to U.S. national security.
It is well settled that when the "subject matter of a lawsuit is a matter of state secret," the suit must be dismissed without regard to the question of evidence. And as the Supreme Court has recognized for over a 100 years, any lawsuit predicated on "alleged espionage agreements" also require a per se or automatic dismissal. This case involved both elements. But in overturning Judge Ware, the Ninth Circuit decision flies head long against these precedents.
...This decision was particularly distressing as it disregarded the assertion of the "State Secrets" privilege by both the Bush and Obama Justice Departments.
Furthermore, this decision is sharply at odds with the national-security reality that Americans face: We are in a worldwide war with terrorists who seek to destroy our country and our way of life. They have attacked us at sea and on land, at home and abroad. And recent disclosures by the Obama Administration about a thwarted attack on Los Angeles a few years ago reveal that our enemies haven’t stopped their efforts to harm us.
Make no mistake the precedent of allowing these alleged victims of the United States government's "extraordinary rendition" program to misuse the Federal Court system even though the CIA is not a party to the lawsuit is lawless as well as dangerous.
Publicly exposing vital secrets will aid terrorists and others who threaten our nation’s security. Unfortunately, this ruling, by denying the seriousness of the threat, will only make the effort to save American lives more difficult.
Outrage of the Day: Lobbying the President to Ignore His Oath of Office
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness reports that anti-Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell activists are pressuring President Barack Obama to issue an order telling the Defense Department to stop enforcing that law.
The oath of office President Obama, and all U.S. Presidents, took, says: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The faithful execution of the executive office requires a President to treat our laws with respect. (If he who is in charge of enforcing the laws does not respect them, why should the rest of us?) If the President doe not agree with a law, his proper course it to urge the legislature to repeal or alter it.
Alternatively, he could resign his position as executive and present himself to the people as a candidate for the legislature.
As President Obama, when a Senator, did not push for legislation to repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, it may be that he is not reluctant to enforce it, and the activists who lobby him are wasting their time. This should be irrelevant, however. The President's job is enforcing the law; the legislature's job is creating them.
The activists, if they must lobby at all, should be lobbying the Congress to change the law, not the President to ignore it.
E-mail any comments to the National Center f or Public Policy Research info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
Since last year, Joe is once again overseas in active duty combat with the U.S. Army (no longer in Iraq). He continues to send letters. Unfortunately, he's gone months without giving me permission to publish any.
In stark contrast to his letters from Iraq, which were optimistic even when few others were optimistic about U.S. operations in that country, Joe's letters now are very alarming. Reading them, I have concluded that it would be a very good idea if all of us (bloggers, Congressmen, citizens -- all of us) paid a great deal more attention to such things as the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan (among other things).
Joe gave me permission to reprint the letter I received from him yesterday. He doesn't get into the very alarming things that are in his other letters; as depressing as it is, it's the least alarming one I've seen from him in months. Nevertheless, his reporting on how some politicians and commentators here are adversely affecting the morale of deployed soldiers should be read by anyone who wishes to see us prevail in the War on Terror.
Amy,
It is frustrating and demoralizing to see the spectacle going on in the press/media and in Washington, D.C. over the release of the CIA memos and the debate over the use of enhanced interrogation techniques or torture. My fellow soldiers are NOT impressed, and are actually quite disgusted by the moralizing going on, and the posturing of some leaders against what we, the United States, had to do in order to get control of the catastrophe that hit us on September 11th, 2001.
The root issue is not being addressed by anyone. This is that there was a massive intelligence failure and a failure of leadership during the decade leading up to 9/11. Our country had been attacked nearly every year since the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in 1993. The Khobar Towers bombing (1996), the massive bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (1998), the USS Cole bombing (2000), including foiled plots such as the Bojinka plot (1995) to hijack a dozen planes in a single day, as well as other attacks such as the massive bombings in Argentina (1994), the numerous bus bombings in Israel (1995-1996), and there were more. Osama Bin Laden had been very prominent throughout the 1990s in calling for war against American civilians, issuing his fatwa in 1998 that led to the 9/11 attacks.
I was involved in the fight against terrorism in the Middle East before 9/11 as you know, and there was a painfully disasterous ignorance and disregard of the threat of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and terrorism in general before 9/11. I wrote about this threat in 1995 in my college newspaper and was ridiculed as a racist and bigot for suggesting such a thing. FBI agents working this issue were blocked in their investigations. The infamous political "wall" preventing agencies from working together in order to understand the threat was well detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Our government and leadership failed us in the decade leading up to 9/11. Therefore, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we had to quickly learn and clarify exactly what the threat was. There were concerns of nuclear bombs being brought to New York City, and other WMD warnings. We were blind. Our nation's intelligence was blind. The American people were in a panic, and in lieu of the anger over 9/11 the American people were demanding quick action to avert any repeat of the 9/11 disaster. Our intelligence had no clarity of the extent of the threat, so aggressive measures had to be used quickly just in order to repair the blindness of not only our intelligence agencies, but also that of our leaders and the American people overall. This is why such things happened. If those moralizing today want to point the finger of blame for things they don't like about what we had to do, they need to point to our leadership and the intelligence agencies during the decade before 9/11.
I've heard that one of our current leaders likes to say that he told President Bush one day in the Oval Office that if he looked behind, no one was there following him. True. We had dropped all of our personal affairs, left civilian jobs, said goodbye to loved ones, and joined the military and deployed to the front lines overseas to confront and reverse the consequences of the past decade of failure. That was where we were, in uniform, on the front lines, following the leadership of our Commander-in-Chief.
The one thing we knew before was that we had the backing of our leadership. Yes, change has come. It is very demoralizing.
With the ugly sanctimony of those who never had to make hard decisions, the American left demands show trials of those who kept us safe after 9/11. Wrapping themselves in repugnant self-righteousness, the MoveOn.org set wants political prosecutions. Should President Obama acquiesce, he won't be furthering the rule of law, but dismantling it...
An individual whose signature line identified him as a tax analyst for GE based in Ft. Myers, Florida sent along one of the shortest blog comments possible: a link to a page on GE's website, with no accompanying commentary.
For the convenience of our readers, the linked page says:
Iran Policy
GE doesn't do business in or with Iran. Due to the developing circumstances there, the concerns of our shareholders, and our view of our corporate responsibilities, GE and its board decided in 2005 to stop doing business in Iran.
There have been two exceptions to this: completing the work for existing contracts as quickly as possible and humanitarian activity, which is authorized by U.S. Government licenses. As of June 2008, we have completed all business in Iran. GE at all times acted in full compliance with U.S. and other laws. We have always required our businesses to follow U.S. sanctions and other applicable laws. In fact, our policies have been more restrictive than U.S. law.
GE does business in more than 100 countries. We carefully consider the locations in which we do business. We want to do what is best for our shareholders, our company, our partners, and the countries in which and with whom we do business. We devote significant resources to ensuring that our business activities are in compliance with all applicable laws, that they are conducted with integrity and that they deliver value for our shareholders worldwide.
Our actions regarding Iran reflect our shareholders' concerns, our board of directors' judgment, and GE's dedication to being a responsible corporate citizen. In light of business and reputation risks that may arise from doing business with countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism by the U.S. Department of State (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria), GE will not accept business in any of these countries, except activity that is authorized by the U.S. Government for humanitarian or public policy purposes.
I don't believe this conflicts with anything we've said about GE, and it is of course silent on several of our concerns (such as GE's lobbying for cap and trade, for the new "green bank," etc.). Nevertheless we are happy to make this brief response from GE conveniently available to our readers.
Bill O'Reilly Interviews Tom Borelli on GE Doing Business with Iran
A year ago, on the occasion of General Electric's 2008 shareholder meeting, Bill O'Reilly of Fox News interviewed our Free Enterprise Project's Tom Borelli on GE's relationship with Iran.
The video includes audio, with an on-screen transcript, of Tom Borelli directly confronting GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt at the 2008 shareholder meeting about GE's receipt of what Tom called "blood money" from Iran.
Fox News conducted "man on the street" interviews outside the 2008 GE stockholder meeting and found a lot of support for Tom's position, then and now.
Do you disagree with GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt on Iran, on the need for greater regulation of the economy, and more government funds going to the private sector? If so, go here to sign Tom's petition to GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt.
Free Enterprise Project Takes on GE Today: Join It By Signing Our Online Petition
If you've followed the work of Tom Borelli and the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, you know Tom and his crew have been very tough on General Electric and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt.
GE has its shareholder meeting today in sunny Orlando, Florida. Tom will be there, and you can be, too -- virtually, that is.
You can do so by going to the Free Enterpriser website and signing the Free Enterprise Project's petition to GE CEO Immelt.
Read the petition to review the concerns Tom and his allies have about GE, both from a free enterprise and American perspective, and if you agree, please go here and add your name to the over 1,000 people who signed the petition in just the first day or so of its posting:
Jeffery Immelt Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer General Electric Company 3135 Easton Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06828 Dear Mr. Immelt,
We surround you.
I'm writing you to express my deep concern that under your leadership, GE's business practices are undermining the principles of our free society.
I'm outraged that GE sold infrastructure equipment to Iran -- a country that is a recognized state sponsor of terror. Moreover, I'm appalled you defended your business dealings with Iran by saying "The issue of whether to conduct business in certain countries is complex; we must take into account not only the views of the U.S. Government but all relevant stakeholders."
It's reckless for you to place your short-term business interest ahead of our national security.
I'm troubled by your use of GE's considerable lobbying resources to expand the growth and influence of government over my life. Specifically, GE is supporting so-called cap-and-trade legislation that would increase energy prices, increase job losses and result in slower economic growth. In addition, the legislation would lead to a massive government bureaucracy and loss of individual freedom.
I'm concerned that you are using GE's media empire to manipulate public opinion. NBC News and MSNBC are slanted to favor the left-wing political agenda and network programming is skewed to promote -- without attribution -- GE's "green" business goals.
As a supporter of the 9-12 Project and the Tax Day Tea Party rallies, I'm motivated to take action to promote the values and principles on which our country was founded.
Accordingly, I'm encouraging you to never trade with enemies of the U.S., to stop lobbying for cap-and-trade legislation and to bring fairness and balance to your media empire.
I'm putting you and your board of directors on notice that your decisions are inconsistent with my values and to inform you that as one of thousands of liberty loving citizens -- we surround you.
Sincerely,
For more information, go to Glenn Beck's website and listen to Glenn's first-hour radio interview with Tom on 4/20 (paid subscription required), and/or watch Glenn interview Tom about GE on Fox's Glenn Beck show on February 9 in the video I've embedded above.
You can also go here to read what happened when Tom confronted GE at its 2007 shareholder meeting, here to read a quote from Jeff Immelt calling for more regulation on private business, go here to see how GE lobbies for global warming regulations, or here to see Tom name Immelt one of the nation's five worst CEOs.
Or come back to this blog later today, when I post more video of Tom on other programs, discussing GE policies.
But, above all, don't forget! If you agree, go here to sign the petition to GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt.
Outrage of the Day: Obama Tries to Bill Young Soldiers for their Own Amputations
In a spirt of miserliness at odds with his usual willingness to spend tax dollars on anything and everything, President Obama is pushing a plan that would bill veterans for health care costs related to injuries suffered in combat.
If this White House plan is adopted and current spending trends continue, service-related health care costs soon will be the only thing in America not paid for by the federal government.
President Obama recently signed a bill with some 9,000 earmarks, yet now he wants to bill young soldiers for the cost of their own amputations.
Morally, the President could not be more wrong. Politically, he's insane.
[Craig] Roberts said the President's plan would increase premiums, make insurance unaffordable for veterans and impose a massive hardship on military families. It could also prevent small businesses from hiring veterans who have large health care needs, he said.
"The president's avowed purpose in doing this is to, quote, 'make the insurance companies pay their fair share,'" Roberts said. "It's not the Blue Cross that puts soldiers in harm's way, it's the federal government."
"It's a betrayal," said Joe Violante, legislative director of Disabled American Veterans, which signed the letter [veterans' groups sent] to Obama. "My insurance company didn't send me to Vietnam. My government did. The same holds true for men and women now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's the government's responsibility."
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is making clear that it is not only veterans' groups and right-wingers like myself who find this proposal reprehensible:
"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line for our safety. When our troops are injured while serving this country, we should take care of those injuries completely. We shouldn't nickel and dime them with their care."
Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME) makes it clear that Murray isn't the only member of the President's party to object:
"If that is in the budget, I will not be supporting the budget. It is unconscionable and is an insult to our veterans who've been hurt overseas. So hopefully, you will give that message to OMB as it relates to third party collections for disabled veterans, which is just unbelievable that anyone would ever think of doing that..."
Congressional Republicans also staunchly oppose the plan.
Adding insult to injury, when President Obama met with veterans' groups to discuss the issue Monday, he didn't appear even to be considering their -- and our -- point of view. As meeting participant Commander David K. Rehbein of the American Legion reported:
"It became apparent during our discussion [Monday] that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan... He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."
The least he could do -- and I literally do mean the least -- is listen to the soldiers' point of view.
But for Barack Obama, apparently, listening to the representatives of wounded soldiers is simply too much to ask.
Update 3/18/09: It appears that wiser heads (or, more likely, Congress) prevailed on the Obama White House to back down. It remains amazing that the White House floated this at all. It must be chaos over there. ___________________
"We in this country are by destiny rather than by choice the watchmen on the walls of world freedom.” John F. Kennedy did not live to speak these words from his speech, prepared to give the day he was assassinated. Yet, today, his unspoken conviction is with us in Iraq.
It has not been easy for Iraqis to reach this day. Decades of tyranny, a culture traumatized by a long legacy of repression and war, but like the Germans and Japanese after 1945 who had similar legacies, the Iraqis chose democracy.
I feel a personal kinship to my Iraqi friends, and not only because of the sacrifice my fellow American soldiers endured for Iraq. I had some personal tragedies over the past few years in my private life. This does not need elaboration except to say that the Iraqi will to survive numerous tragedies and to emerge anew today is something I feel inspired by.
I faced times of despair, as did Iraqis in their struggle, but the human spirit persevered. Iraqis, a God-fearing people, have given us all a lesson to appreciate God's Will in our lives, which is for us to break away from bondage and move on from adversity through our free choice. In the face of threats, assassinations and other extreme dangers from terrorists, most of whom come from outside Iraq, they chose to move on with their lives today in self-determination.
Ronald Reagan said, "No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.” He knew this through the struggle of people all over the world against communist enslavement. Today I'm seeing this again in Iraq.
Set aside your political views this evening and behold this American moment in the world. From Illinois, the land of Abraham Lincoln, an African-American used Lincoln's Bible to take the oath of office as our leader freely elected in a land that once had slavery. The lesson of America's remarkable story to overcome adversity and throw away bondage is striking throughout the world.
There were advocates of slavery before the Civil War who said that Africans could not be educated, that they had a tribal culture and ethos that only was good for slavery, that their history and other physical and social attributes made them best suited to live in bondage. I've heard many of these same arguments from critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom who have said Arabs are incapable of democracy and self-determination. Yet, now, moving from Barack Obama's inauguration to Iraq's election, Reagan's conviction again proves the correctness of America's exceptional leadership and example.
I'm proud of the soldiers I'm with who have made so many amazing sacrifices to volunteer during this dangerous time and leave loved ones behind. I'm proud of Iraqis who have defied naysayers worldwide and chose to seize this day in freedom. I'm proud of the courage of Americans who stood strong against the pessimists, pushed the surge in 2007 in the face of a conventional wisdom that had declared the war lost, and our leaders who did like Lincoln and Reagan by remaining committed to an unpopular mission to defeat tyranny and reject legacies of despotism.
Yes, America is moving on, and through our national will we are largely looking away from even acknowledging our victory in Iraq. Whatever we are, we are not an arrogant people. We could celebrate this mission, but it is instead our generous sacrifice that stands as "the watchmen on the walls of world freedom.” We refrained from celebrating Reagan's victory over Soviet communism, and now we are doing the same over George W. Bush's victory over Al Qaeda and tyranny in the heart of the Arab world.
We have defeated Al Qaeda and the other enemies of Arab freedom, and joined with Iraqis to set up this birth of self-determination. We did this next to other tyrants in the heart of a region that has never known the dignity of individual liberty. In the face of the most fierce and cruel attacks thrown at Iraq, together we have prevailed.
This is noble, well done, courageous, and now we move on.
SGT Joe Roche Operation Iraqi Freedom
This post was written by SGT Joe Roche, 100th BN, 442nd IN, Operation Iraqi Freedom. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org.
From Operation Iraqi Freedom: "We Have Done Something Really Good Here"
From Sgt. Joe Roche, writing from Operation Iraqi Freedom:
This is a special day to be an American soldier in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ninety years ago, hopes for freedom and self-determination sprung up all over the Arab world. After centuries of despotic foreign rule by the Ottoman Empire, European powers angling for survival in World War One's vast killing fields made all sorts of false promises to manipulate Arabs as proxies. Betrayals became the norm.
Despite dreams of self-determination after that war, our world was instead brutalized by the most horrific tyrants and genocide ever witnessed. Fascism, Nazism, Imperialism and Communism not only killed tens of millions and enslaved much of Asia and Europe, but other regions such as the Arab Middle East were gravely traumatized. Much of the fascism witnessed in the Arab world and in Islamic fundamentalism from Egypt to Iraq are largely a consequence from the manipulations by and ferocious ideologies of Europe and Asia.
American idealism for liberty and self-determination was felt here after World War One. President Woodrow Wilson dispatched the King-Crane Commission, which was followed by several other American envoys over decades trying to find ways to achieve self-determination. But the Great Powers of that time had other ideas. Hitler courted a lot of Arabs, particularly Islamist leaders in Jerusalem, bringing Muslims to the front lines with German forces outside Stalingrad, and facilitated a pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad in 1941. Though Israel's creation was a moment of great inspiration and achievement, the Arab world naturally felt it was just another in a long series of betrayals and conspiracies against them.
Because of the Cold War, the Arab people were left to languish for almost six decades under a series of megalomaniac tyrants, as long as stability was ensured. The Soviet Union's efforts at destabilizing the most vulnerable regions coerced surrender and apathy on the part of those who had once dreamt of self-determination in the Arab Middle East. Iraq became tied to the Soviets and was the recipient of Moscow’s largest foreign military aid during the 1970s. The collapse of the Soviet Union did unleash the virtuous spread of American liberty and self-determination in most parts of the world, but the Arab region remained frozen until Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I was part of the initial push in 2003. I had lived in this region before, and Iraq's suffering under repression and tyranny coerced the entire region to be in a constant state of war, paranoia and extremism.
I knew this would take a long time, but I had hope. As an American sharing our country's experience with democracy to Iraqis, I often reflected on how the United States had to discard our first constitution of 11 years after Shay's Rebellion, and yet the resulting constitution still had the institution of slavery. Women couldn't vote for over a century. We had a huge civil war, the effects of which were still violently playing out in the South in the 1960s.
I got to know many Iraqis. They impressed me greatly. I had known some Iraqis in exile before 2003, and I understood they were a very vibrant and strong people. Surviving the terror of Saddam Hussein's regime in a land tortured by centuries of conflict and turmoil, I knew these people could withstand a lot.
My unit in 2004 trained hundreds of Iraqis who served their military forces. They are some of the bravest people I ever met. Their casualty rates in the face of a horrendous terrorist offensive were 20 times worse than anything we faced, yet they kept showing up.
Over the past several months, I've seen those Iraqis we trained take over command of their country as we pull back. For the first time, self-determination is being expressed. Ninety years of betrayal and false promises are finally being corrected.
This is the achievement of America. Yes, there were scenes of protest in opposition to the treaty, but overall this was the remarkable -- and once unimaginable -- process of Iraqis debating the future of their own country. While most news only reported the protests, there were other large demonstrations in support of the US-Iraqi agreement, such as the 5,000 in Hillah last week.
To behold this is amazing. Some might want to just see the negatives, but I'd point out that our own experience with democracy gives us no basis to expect more from the Iraqis less than six years after being liberated by us. There will be further challenges. Ours is the world’s greatest democracy, but we had a shooting, a clubbing and even a sword used in the US Congress. Even one of our great Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, was killed in a duel. The birth of democracy is not a smooth process, but it is inspiring to participate in.
This is a proud moment. As an American soldier having been here at the beginning of this mission, and to be here now again at this moment of self-determination coming to fruition, is awesome. Lafayette came to us when we needed help. We’ve come here and finally reversed 90 years of betrayal. This is good, just and honorable. I’m very happy for Iraq and for our military mission. Out of the ashes of the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks, we have done something really good here.
-Joe
For more of Joe's writing from the front and elsewhere, please go here. A profile of his life and army service published by Stars and Stripes in 2004 can be found in this post. _____
Project 21's Mychal Massie and Greg Parker are denouncing the offensive racial slur made by al Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri against President-elect Barack Obama.
Project 21's Kevin Martin and four members of the U.S. Supreme Court fear the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush (pdf) -- the Guantanamo Bay/enemy combatant decision -- will cost lives:
Supreme Court Gitmo Ruling Called "Chilling"; Will Cost American Lives
Washington, D.C. - Responding to today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush that allows suspected terrorists to challenge their incarceration, Project 21 member Kevin Martin is criticizing the Court, saying this decision puts national security at risk and sends a confusing signal to the military.
"As a Navy veteran who supported and defended our Constitution at home and abroad, today's Supreme Court ruling benefiting suspected terrorists is deeply disappointing," said Martin. "To grant suspected terrorists the same rights as those fighting to protect our nation is wrong. I consider this one of the most chilling legal rulings in my lifetime. Giving alleged foreign combatants the same rights as any American provides potential ammunition to those with political agendas running counter to the commander-in-chief. Our nation's enemies will now have the ability to gum up our federal courts with baseless legal challenges and further hinder the pursuit of justice."
In the razor-thin 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court decision allows suspected terrorists such as those currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba the right to challenge their incarceration in federal courts. It overturns a law passed in 2006 that limited judicial jurisdiction and affects 270 suspected terrorists currently being held by the U.S. military - including 14 suspects al Qaeda members.
Writing in dissent, and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the 2006 law struck down today was "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law's operation... One cannot help but think... think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority's ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants."
In another scathing dissent, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the majority decision "warps the Constitution" and that "[our] nation will live to regret what the Court has done today." Scalia further warned the ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed... that consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today." Scalia also wrote a practical affect of the decision will likely be harm to enemy combatants, as the decision is likely to result in enemy combatants being turned over to other nations by the United States following capture.
Martin added: "This sends a confounding message to our men and women in uniform, within our intelligence community and to our allies. Their hard-fought efforts to capture terrorist suspects maybe for naught because they could simply be released back on the battlefield on a legal technicality."
For more information, I recommend reading the decision. _____
The Washington Post's Al Kamen poked fun at the ACLU and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in his April 16 column:
The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers are heading an effort to provide legal representation for alleged terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The groups say they've gotten involved in defending the detainees charged under the 2006 Military Commissions Act to ensure that constitutional rights are respected.
They've named their efforts the "John Adams Project," after the second president, who "defended the British soldiers charged with killing Americans in the Boston Massacre, and said that the case was 'one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.'"
Wait a minute. John Adams? Wasn't he also the guy who signed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, which were intended to suppress opposition to an undeclared naval war with France and provided for fines and imprisonment for publication of "any false, scandalous and malicious writings against the government"? The law that led to imprisonment of a couple of dozen newspaper editors and the closing of their publications?
The mistake is understandable. When the John Adams Project was introduced on April 3, the John Adams miniseries on HBO had only progressed through Adam's inauguration as vice president in 1789. He didn't sign the Alien and Sedition Acts until 1798. That episode didn't air until April 13 (full disclosure: I still need to watch that episode as well!).
To contact author David Almasi directly, write him at dalmasi@nationalcenter.org. David Almasi is executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Today is the 5th anniversary of the beginning of America's liberation of Iraq in the larger Global War on Terrorism. Anti-war activists are operating throughout the Washington, D.C. area - blocking traffic, blockading buildings and making mischief all over. Project 21 member Kevin L. Martin is trying to help keep things civil outside of the military recruiting office on L Street NW, the site of an attack by left-wing protestors in April.
This past Saturday, Kevin took part in a press conference organized by Move America Forward about the campaign of violence on the part of the left on military recruiters. A male member of the predominantly female Code Pink in attendence, wearing a pink military-style uniform, began to disrupt the event. After shouts in which the protestor - among other things - falsely claimed to be a "second-generation Marine," Kevin took the microphone and was quoted in The Washington Post as saying "Let me tell you something, dammit! I'm a Navy veteran of seven years, and... you are a joke, sir! Please step the hell out of the building!" Security later ejected the protester.
Move America Forward Executive Director Catherine Moy pointed out, "We don't do this at their press conferences."
Project 21's Kevin Martin On Times Square Terrorist Bombing
From David Almasi:
Early this morning, Times Square in New York City was rocked by a terrorist explosion. Security cameras show someone on a bicycle approach the military recruiting station located on the south end of the square at about 3:40am. A package was dropped. Minutes later, an explosion that was felt blocks away damaged the recruiting station.
Project 21 and Navy veteran Kevin Martin recently helped lead a rally in support of recruiters in Washington, DC whose office was attacked by left-wing activists (news about this rally can be found here). While the person thought to be responsible for this morning's attack has yet to be found or identified, Kevin believes that the increasingly nasty political rhetoric regarding our forces in Iraq has contributed to an atmosphere in which a domestic terrorist action against our military can be considered.
Here's what Kevin says:
This kind of unconscionable behavior is what happens when an already unhinged radical left is spurred into action by the rhetoric of politicians. They are essentially putting a target on the backs of our troops with their anti-war and anti-Bush zeal. Too many politicians seem willing to play fast-and-loose with the facts and turn any news out of Iraq into a negative these days. In the process, they are hurting troop morale and - in this case today - I believe they are inciting acts of domestic terrorism.
As a veteran, I believe this type of behavior cannot be tolerated. With our recruiting stations and recruiters under increasing attacks by leftists across the nation, I find it hard to believe that I have not yet heard anything about congressional investigations into this disturbing trend. When I hear lawmakers opposed to our work in Iraq say they want to support our troops by bringing them home where they will be safe, it now rings hollow. At least, in Iraq, our troops can shoot back when they are under attack.
As noted the other day, Project 21 member Kevin Martin led the D.C. Chapter of Free Republic in a rally of support for armed forces recruiters in Washington, D.C. Monday.
The rally was in response to an anti-war rally at the same location by some hooligans who described their activities this way:
... After many previous protests had found the 14th st recruiter "closed" at 5PM, Funk the War found them open, and the door unlocked at nearer to 6Pm and promptly exploited the situation by demonstrating to them first hand how an occupying force behaves.
After a loud commotion inside while outnumbered cops watched, recruiters finally managed to get protesters to leave-but not before literature and full-body length cardboard displays in the street window area were destroyed. In addition, hundreds more "Funk the War" stickers were plastered all over just about everything that would take them. By the time everyone was out it looked like a tornado had swept through the lobby.
One recruiter tried to grab an activist but found himself overpowered by SDS's superior strength and numbers and had no choice but to give up!
Project 21 Member to Lead D.C. Demonstration Monday Supporting Armed Forces Recruiters
From David Almasi:
On February 15, anti-war protestors affiliated with the rejuvenated Students for a Democratic Society marched through Washington, D.C.'s evening rush hour. When they found the local armed forces recruiting station open, the protestors stormed the office and trashed it. The D.C. Police chose not to intervene.
This coming Monday, Project 21 Kevin Martin and members of the D.C. chapter of Free Republic are holding their own demonstration outside of the recruiting office in support of the armed forces and all they do to protect our freedom here and abroad.
Here are the details for those who would like to attend:
Monday, February 25 3pm-6pm 1099 14th Street NW (at L Street NW) Washington, D.C.
A senior Hezbollah military commander, one of the world's most wanted men for his alleged links to a string of bombings, hijackings and kidnappings during the 1980s and 1990s, has been killed, Hezbollah said Wednesday...
...U.S. officials assert that Mughniyeh was behind the bombings in Beirut in 1983. A car bomb at the U.S. Embassy in April that year killed 63 people, including 17 Americans, while a truck bomb in October at a Marine compound killed 241 American troops.
The United States have also asserted Mughniyeh was behind the torture and murder of William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, in 1984; the kidnapping and murder of Lieutenant Colonel William Richard Higgins of the Marines, who was on peacekeeping duty in Lebanon in 1988; and, through the Islamic Jihad Organization, the seizure of Western hostages in Beirut during the 1980s.
Mughniyeh is also wanted for the hijacking in June 1985 of a TWA flight. During the hijacking, an American was killed and 39 Americans were held hostage for 17 days. It is the only terrorist action for which he has been indicted in the United States...
Joe Roche, an adjunct fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, wrote about Mughniyeh for us back in 2001, saying Mughniyeh at that time had been identified to U.S. authorities by Israel "as one of two who were setting up nearly 200 terrorists inside the U.S. for a major attack."
I wrote about the TWA 847 hijackers and murderers of sailor Robert Stethem getting away scot-free in 2005; it appears that they all haven't gotten away scot-free after all.
Ronald Reagan said in 1985 regarding Robert Stethem's murder and the TWA hijacking: "We will not rest until justice is done." It took 22 years to get Imad Mughniyeh, but Reagan called it right. Whomever got him wasn't resting. ____
Rob Johnston, writing at Spiked, takes apart ten myths popularized by British environmentalists against nuclear power.
As many if not all of these myths are promoted here in the U.S., I thought I'd reprint them here, but you have to go to Spiked to see Johnson's case for why they shouldn't be believed.
1) Uranium is running out 2) Nuclear is not a low-carbon option 3) Nuclear power is expensive 4) Reactors produce too much waste 5) Decommissioning is too expensive 6) Building reactors takes too long 7) Leukemia rates are higher near reactors 8) Reactors lead to weapons proliferation 9) Wind and wave power are more sustainable 10) Reactors are a terrorist target
(Speaking of nuclear reactors being a terrorist target, the National Center for Public Policy Research published a study of eight different terrorist-attack-on-nuclear-power-plant scenarios in 2001 by nuclear physicists Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford. The paper, "Terrorism and Nuclear Power: What are the Risks?" can be read online here.) _____
Just as critical sectors -- like the full GOP Senate leadership -- appear to be waking up to the dangers of the Law of the Sea treaty, the Wall Street Journal weighs in with a very well-argued staff editorial, "A Sinkable Treaty."
Excerpt:
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 Wednesday to approve the Law of the Sea Treaty, meaning it's now up to 34 Senate Republicans to send this giant octopus of a document back where it belongs. To wit, the bottom of the ocean.
The U.S. last disposed of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea -- LOST to its critics -- when Ronald Reagan was President. This May, however, the Bush Administration reversed course and declared that the Gipper's objections had been fixed by a 1994 amendment. We've since had a debate on these pages over that point, with former Secretaries of State George Shultz and James Baker in favor, while Ed Meese and William Clark, Reagan's Attorney General and National Security Adviser, remain opposed.
The best arguments for the treaty come from the U.S. Navy, which likes how it creates a legal framework for navigational rights. The oil and gas industry approves of provisions that create an "exclusive economic zone" for the U.S. out to 200 miles. There's also the potential for development (with clear legal title) of resources in the deep seabed, which would be managed by the International Seabed Authority on which the U.S. would be guaranteed a seat...
Then again, the Navy has been getting along fine by using the "customary law" that has guaranteed freedom of the seas for three centuries. Treaty proponents have taken to arguing that, unless we ratify, Russia will lay claim to oil rights over the Arctic seabed. But Russia's expansive Arctic claims, possibly including the sea floor under the North Pole, are themselves a product of the treaty....
The larger problem is the treaty's sheer size...
Consider the treaty's potential effects on military activities....
The Navy might also ask how its powerful sonars -- which some environmentalists say harm marine life -- could run afoul of Article 196...
Or take concerns that the treaty's requirements on pollution are a back-door mechanism for forcing U.S. compliance with the Kyoto Treaty and other global environmental pacts. Confronted with the argument, an Administration spokesman told the Senate that the treaty did not exercise jurisdiction over land-based pollution. Replied Republican Senator David Vitter: "If it is... not covered by the treaty, why is there a section entitled, 'Pollution from Land-Based Sources'?" A good question, considering that Article 213 notes that countries "shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations" to control such pollution. Note our emphasis.
Critics are also right to be concerned about the powers of direct taxation the treaty confers...
Some 154 countries have joined the Law of the Sea Treaty, with the U.S. one of the few holdouts. Critics are being labeled isolationists, or worse. But the U.S. has been abiding voluntarily with the terms of the treaty since 1983, with no ill effect. Twenty-some years ago a former President objected to handing sovereignty over two-thirds of the Earth's surface to another unaccountable international body. Ronald Reagan sank the treaty then; now it's up to 34 Senators to show similar courage.
For more in-depth information on several of these points, I encourage folks to read husband David Ridenour's National Policy Analysis paper of August 2006, "Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent Passage." Raising the issue of land-based pollution that Senator Vitter addressed in the Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, for example, David wrote then:
In a great ironic twist, the Law of the Sea Treaty - supported by many in the energy sector - may give environmentalists a blunt instrument to use against the energy industry.
Article 212 of the treaty states, in part, "States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere... States, acting especially through competent international organizations... shall endeavor to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent, reduce and control pollution." This sounds like a directive to impose Kyoto Protocol-style regulations designed to reduce state emissions of greenhouse gases. These gases are emitted through the use of the very products the energy industry sells.
Backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol might be advanced by arguing that U.S.'s anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (one-quarter of such emissions world-wide) are warming the planet causing irreparable harm to coral reefs, home to the world's most biologically-diverse marine ecosystems.
Alternatively, they could argue that sea levels are rising due to U.S.-induced climate change, causing beach erosion in such countries as the Maldives, Comoros or the Seychelles. To bolster their case, they might cite Article 194(2) of the treaty which states: "States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control are so conducted as not to cause damage by pollution to other States and their environment."
I also encourage folks to visit the National Center for Public Policy Research's special website on the Law of the Sea Treaty at http://www.unlawoftheseatreaty.org for easy access to many papers, op-eds, hearing testimonies, blog entries and videos about the Law of the Sea Treaty. I can't promise the website won't scare you, but as more and more Senators are waking up to the dangers of this treaty, all is not LOST. _____
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his gang were so, so upset that Rush Limbaugh used the term "phony soldiers."
Will they object to what Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) said on the floor of the House?
"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."
- Rep. Pete Stark (R-CA)
Addendum, 10/23/07: Congressman Stark has apologized. Good for him. _____
Would Ronald Reagan Support the Law of the Sea Treaty If He Were President Today?
Supporters of U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty often claim Ronald Reagan would support ratification of LOST (also referred to as UNCLOS, short for "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"), were he with us today. Many of them have publicly argued that President Reagan's only objection to the Law of the Sea Treaty was the treaty's deep seabed mining section, which was modified in 1994.
A few of many examples of Law of the Sea ratification supporters making this claim:
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): "President Ronald Reagan declared U.S. commitment to the principles of UNCLOS with the exception of the mining provisions."
Lawrence Eagleburger and John Norton Moore: "Opponents assert that Ronald Reagan deep-sixed the convention, when instead he set requirements for renegotiation of Part XI, which were successfully achieved..."
Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA): "The provisions on deep seabed mining, the only provisions that President Reagan objected to, were comprehensively revised to remove all of our objections in 1994."
Former Secretary of State George Shultz: "It surprises me to learn that opponents of the treaty are invoking President Reagan's name, arguing that he would have opposed ratification despite having succeeded on the deep sea-bed issue. During his administration, with full clearance and support from President Reagan, we made it very clear that we would support ratification if our position on the sea-bed issue were accepted."
David B. Sandalow / Brookings Institution: "President Reagan praised the Convention's 'many positive and very significant accomplishments,” but declined to sign because of the deep seabed mining provisions."
Amanda Griscom / Grist: "Ronald Reagan was in office and he declined to sign on because of pressure from ultra-conservatives and specific objections to deep seabed mining provisions."
Senator Richard Lugar: "President Reagan refused to sign it because of technology transfer provisions and other problems in the section on deep-seabed mining."
The Saturday before last, husband David was reading aloud to me from The Reagan Diaries (yes, liberals, that's the kind of thing conservative married couples do on Saturdays -- your suspicions are confirmed), and came upon the entry for Tuesday, June 29, 1982:
Decided in NSC meeting-will not sign "Law of the Sea" treaty even without seabed mining provisions.
Many people may claim to speak for Ronald Reagan, but Ronald Reagan himself is the one person who really knew what Ronald Reagan thought. _____
The conversation that began with Doug Bandow's article in the American Spectator on the law of the Sea Treaty, continued in the American Spectator's letters column and then moved to this blog goes forth with a rebuttal to husband David's last points from Robert J. McManus of Kile Goekjian Reed & McManus, pllc:
My letter in American Spectator, which your husband David purports to rebut in your blog, referred to "the dwindling band of sneering treaty opponents . . ." And so, I was disappointed, but not surprised, that your husband's rebuttal included a sneering reference to my profession (attorney), strongly implying that my disagreement with Doug Bandow's article was motivated by my personal financial self-interest. Nevertheless:
1. Your husband (May I call him David?) argues that the treaty will harm the cause of fisheries conservation, because it "requires states that cannot harvest the entire allowable catch in certain areas to make the surplus available to other nations . . . ." I believe this point is specious, because, under Art. 62.2, the coastal state has exclusive competence to determine "allowable catch" (a defined term) in its 200-mile economic zone (which, under Article 61, may well be less than "maximum sustainable yield."). Article 297.3(a) even exempts the coastal state's determination from compulsory dispute settlement.
2. David also argues that oil and gas exploration will be rendered illegal, because CO2 causes global warming, which kills coral reefs. "You do the math," he sneers. No, you do the math; I'll fall back on critical thought. Nothing in the treaty requires parties to adhere to environmental norms to which they have not independently subscribed. (See Article 297.1(c), for instance.) David will be on target only when the US ratifies some other treaty which prohibits oil and gas exploration. (Don't hold your breath.) In the meantime, the US will have plenty of company. Every nation on earth consumes oil and gas, thereby supposedly contributing to global warming and coral reef bleaching. They would all be subject to the dreaded "environmental litigation" you mention if the point were well taken.
3. I confess I don't understand David's lead-off point about "underwater vehicles," but he seems to believe that the US could not use ROVs, or even paravanes (which are unquestionably submerged "vehicles"), in mine-sweeping operations inside the 12-mile limit if it ratifies the treaty. I assume he understands that the "innocent passage" provisions of the treaty do not apply to US military operations in our own territorial sea. This non-problem would arise only when someone has mined some other territorial sea, thereby impeding innocent passage in the first place; without a more specific hypothetical, I can't respond further. Anyway, this alleged issue seems somehow to have escaped the notice of the CNO and the JCS.
Please tell me more about how I can profit personally from US accession to the LOS treaty. I'm all ears.
Robert J. McManus Kile Goekjian Reed & McManus, pllc
David's response:
Although I don't agree with the points that Robert McManus made, I applaud him for citing specific reasons why he believes my criticisms of the Law of the Sea Treaty are not valid. This sets him apart from most of the LOST proponents I've encountered.
He is, nonetheless, off base.
First, he calls my suggestion that the treaty might contribute to resource damage (by requiring the sharing of surplus fish stocks) "specious" because, he notes, Article 62.2 specifies coastal states have the exclusive right to determine allowable catches. Actually, Article 62.2 deals with determining harvest capabilities -- not determining allowable catches -- but it is a long treaty and mistakes such as this are easy to make.
Mr. McManus probably meant to cite Article 61, which does specify that the coastal nations "shall" determine "allowable catches."
But in noting this requirement, Mr. McManus seems to suggest that a coastal nation can simply pick the "allowable catch" number that suits it at any given time. It can't. Article 61 goes on to specify what factors the coastal state shall consider in determining the catch.
Mr. McManus notes that 297.3(a) exempts the coastal state's determinations on its catches from compulsory dispute settlement. He neglects to mention, however, that 297.1(c) requires mandatory dispute resolution if it is alleged that, in exercising its sovereign rights governing resources, the coastal state acts in contravention of international standards "which are applicable to the coastal State and which have been established by this Convention or through a competent international organization or diplomatic conference in accordance with this Convention."
In any case, Section 70 of the treaty, which attempts simultaneously to satisfy nations that wish to harvest its entire allowable catch while still providing "equitable arrangements" for nearby disadvantaged states to participate in the "exploitation" of the same "living resources," would at the very least have to be seen as encouraging a trend toward overfishing.
All this may be beside the point, as whether a coastal state is required to participate in compulsory dispute settlement does not free it from its obligations under the treaty, which surely will not escape the attention of the legal teams of interested parties.
Second, Mr. McManus dismisses my argument that environmental activists could use the treaty to stop oil and gas exploration, using, among other things, concern over global warming as an excuse. He argues that the United States would not be required to submit to any environmental requirements to which it hasn't already subscribed, and he cites 297.1 to back him up. But that provision -- as the citation earlier clearly indicates -- says no such thing. The United States is not party to the Kyoto Protocol, which clearly would qualify under 297.1.
Furthermore, environmental advocacy groups have already signaled their intent to use the treaty to pursue their global warming-related regulatory objectives. As Dr. Thilo Bode, then the international executive director of Greenpeace, wrote in 2000: "Global warming is likely to have a big impact at sea. The oceans play a central role in shaping the Earth's climate, absorbing carbon dioxide and other gases, and redistributing heat and water. Sea levels have risen by an estimated 10-25 centimeters over the last century, and as this continues the waters will cover land and coastal habitats in many countries... Solving the environmental problems facing the oceans and ensuring sustainable fisheries is one of the greatest challenges facing humankind in the 21st century. No single nation or region can do this alone: it will require comprehensive international cooperation as required by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea."
Article 212.1 of the treaty (among others, such as 207) could even be read as a mandate that party states adopt regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions: "States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere, applicable to the air space under their sovereignty and to vessels flying their flag or vessels or aircraft of their registry, taking into account internationally agreed rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures and the safety of air navigation."
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee acknowledged the treaty's mandate on party states to combat "pollution" affecting the oceans in its 2004 report accompanying the treaty, saying "[The Law of the Sea Treaty] advances U.S. interests in the protection of the environment by creating obligations binding on all States to protect and preserve the marine environment from pollution from a variety of sources, and by establishing a framework for further international action to combat pollution."
While it is unlikely that treaty negotiators more than a generation ago had carbon dioxide in mind when they referred to "pollution," no such assumption can be made in the post-Kyoto era.
Mr. McManus is, of course, correct that every nation consumes oil and gas and emits greenhouse gases. But few nations contribute 25% of the world's emissions, which makes the United States a tempting target -- even more tempting given our rejection of the Kyoto Protocol.
Further, treaties ratified by the United States can be given the effect of domestic law in U.S. courts. This simply isn't so in many other countries.
Third, Mr. McManus confesses that he didn't understand my point about underwater vehicles, so I'll explain further. Under the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zones to which the United States is a party, submarines are required to operate on the surface of the water to invoke the right of innocent passage. The Law of the Sea Treaty extends this surfacing requirement to all underwater vehicles, thus applying to unmanned underwater vehicles, including those used in mine detection. Such a surfacing requirement would render these vehicles ineffective.
He is correct that the issue would arise when mines are placed in the territorial sea of another coast nation, but he's wrong in suggesting that innocent passage would be impeded in these cases anyway.
The concern here is that mines placed by third parties -- rogue states or terrorists -- could damage or destroy U.S. naval vessels that are otherwise exercising their right to innocent passage because mine detection vessels can't do their job. It would have been wise when the treaty was renegotiated to, at minimum, consider such craft as extensions of the vessels they are protecting.
Finally, Mr. McManus implies that I said in my response to his American Spectator letter that he would personally profit from U.S. ascension to the Law of the Sea Treaty. I did not and I don't think any reasonable reader would conclude that I did.
My point was only that the Law of the Sea Treaty would spur lawsuits and be a boon to the legal profession -- a profession to which, I note, Mr. McManus belongs. I regard this comment as no different than an observation that changes to the tax code are a boon to CPAs. It was meant as good-natured ribbing.
There seems to have been already one casualty of the Law of the Sea Treaty: Its proponents' sense of humor.
Doug Bandow had an article in the American Spectator Monday, harshly critical of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST):
In short, the LOST is unsalvageable. It reflects the collectivist political environment within which it was first negotiated. Protecting navigational rights and the ocean environment are legitimate, even important, goals, but the provisions advancing these ends should not be paired with creation of a redistributionist regulatory regime for the ocean's floor.
LOST advocates have made much of the president's support for the convention, and the White House has launched a sustained campaign to co-opt Republican Senators and conservative activists. But the Bush administration long ago abandoned the traditional limited government, market-oriented tenets of conservatism. That it is pushing a treaty that establishes a collectivist system most notable for inefficient bureaucracy simply confirms that the administration has lost its ideological soul. Conservatives must say no to the LOST.
On Tuesday, the American Spectator printed two letters to the editor. The first, by Robert J. McManus of Kile Goekjian Reed & McManus, pllc, says, in part:
...former Secretary of State George Shultz supports accession, and he also sets the record straight on the position of the sainted Ronald Reagan, whose 1982 refusal to sign is often trotted out by the dwindling band of sneering treaty opponents as emblematic of conservative orthodoxy on this issue. Said Shultz: "It surprises me to learn that opponents of the treaty are invoking President's Reagan's name... During his administration, with full clearance and support from President Reagan, we made it very clear that we would support ratification if our position on the sea-bed issue were accepted."
...[Bandow] reveals much when he refers to the current Part XI as "redistributionist.” If some form of sharing in resources beyond national jurisdiction be "redistribution," then he must also believe that such oceanic resources belong exclusively to those with the power and technology to snatch them first. Well, I guess it's a position.
As general counsel of NOAA, (and a former Alternate U.S. Rep to UNCLOS), I participated in the 1982 decision not to sign the unamended text. I (and the Secretary of Commerce for whom I worked) were criticized at the time for favoring efforts to rewrite Part XI, on the oft-stated grounds that the treaty was simply "unsalvageable" (Bandow's word). The ensuing 12 years showed that the nay-sayers were wrong, but they will never say die and admit error, and they therefore applaud politically noisy treaty opponents who spread outrageous misstatements about the text of the treaty, on the web and elsewhere.
The second letter was by husband David, who wrote:
Doug Bandow's "An Administration LOST at Sea" does a great job of outlining many of the shortcomings of the Law of the Sea Treaty. To his list, I'd like to add a few more that are often overlooked.
For one, the treaty requires all underwater vehicles to travel on the surface of the water to exercise the right of "innocent passage.” This is a radical departure from previous agreements, which applied only to submarines. This represents a new security threat as it would mean that unmanned underwater vehicles used for mine detection would be required to surface, rendering these vehicles ineffective and making our ships more vulnerable to attack.
Second, the treaty contains provisions that -- contrary to proponents' claims -- could harm the marine environment. It requires states that cannot harvest the entire allowable catch in certain areas to make the surplus available to other nations, especially developing nations. Since the treaty makes re-acquiring harvest rights difficult once surrendered to a developing nation, coastal nations may seek to use the entire catch by whatever means are necessary. This may contribute to damage of marine resources.
Third, the treaty has the potential of making oil and gas exploration more difficult, not easier, as its proponents have suggested. The treaty requires state parties to "prevent, reduce and control" pollution of the marine environment, including "through the atmosphere.” A by-product of burning oil and gas is CO2, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and environmental activists argue that global warming is destroying the coral reefs, home to some of the ocean's most biologically-diverse eco-systems. You do the math.
For these reasons, and those mentioned by Bandow, the Law of the Sea Treaty needs to be scuttled.
Today, for this blog, David penned a few words in response to Mr. McManus' letter:
To allay conservative concerns over the Law of the Sea Treaty, Robert J. McManus assures us that Ronald Reagan would back the treaty, citing testimony by George Shultz saying so.
Perhaps he missed it while serving as general counsel of NOAA (where, he notes, he "participated in the 1982 decision" not to sign the treaty unless changed - a rather interesting, yet ambiguous choice of words), but conservatives were not entirely convinced of Mr. Shultz's commitment to conservative principles back when he was Secretary of State. They're unlikely to be convinced of them now.
The fact is that the Law of the Sea Treaty's environmental provisions would vastly increase the potential for environmental litigation that could either hold up or stop resource exploration. This doesn't seem to bother McManus -- perhaps not surprising given that this would be a boon to his profession -- but it should bother most conservatives. These provisions are at odds with the beliefs of most conservatives, including Ronald Reagan, who once quipped during a visit to Indiana: "If the federal government had been around when the Creator was putting His hand to this state, Indiana wouldn't be here. It'd still be waiting for an environmental impact statement."
After winning hard-fought concessions, it can be difficult to watch them go down with the rest of the ship. This may explain why so many of those who worked on the Law of the Sea Treaty are fighting so vociferously for its ratification, despite its obvious shortcomings.
But the ship should be sunk nonetheless.
My two cents: Mr. McManus says George Shultz “sets the record straight on the position of the sainted Ronald Reagan,” claiming that, according to Shultz, Reagan now would back ratification. The record is not as straight as Mr. McManus would have readers believe: Ed Meese says Reagan would still oppose it. _____
When it comes to the Law of the Sea Treaty, "neo-know-nothings" can be found in some pretty august positions.
Here's part of what Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner had to say about the Law of the Sea Treaty in a column two years ago:
in Washington, a bad idea never goes away -- it just gets tabled until everyone forgets why it was such a bad idea.
The facts are simple, and they are the same today as they were back in 1982 when President Reagan first rejected the Law of the Sea treaty and Donald Rumsfeld (then a special presidential envoy on the treaty) told the world why: It does not serve our national security interests or our economic interests, and we should make sure it isn’t ratified.
Admittedly, Secretary Rice isn’t the treaty’s only supporter. Last year, it passed the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Even some members of the U.S. military are on board. As Michael Mullen, then vice chief of naval operations, told a House committee, “we must be able to take maximum advantage of the established and widely accepted navigational rights the Law of the Sea Convention codifies to get us to the fight rapidly.”
But, in fact, the Navy stands to gain little from the treaty. As Admiral Mullen also testified, the U.S. already is complying with large parts of the agreement. “If the U.S. becomes a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, we would continue to operate as we have since 1983,” he said. “The Convention’s rules in this regard do not change the rules the Navy has operated under for over 40 years under the predecessor 1958 treaties to which the United States is a party, governing the territorial sea and high seas.”
In other words: Treaty or no treaty, we’ll keep doing what we’re doing.
But while there’s not much for us to gain, there’s plenty to lose.
In October 2003, Defense Department official Mark Esper told the Senate that other nations could use Law of the Sea treaty to curtail American military operations, even though these maneuvers are supposed to be exempt. China, for example, likely would waste no time attempting to use the treaty to stop U.S. naval war games.
It’s not merely the military that’s at risk, though. If ratified, the treaty would create virtual governments that would be outside of American control but would exercise power over American interests. For example, Section 4 of the treaty would establish the International Sea-Bed Authority to exercise executive and judicial control over almost all of the world’s oceans and seabeds -- nearly 70 percent of the planet. Its new authority would have the power to tax American interests engaged in a variety of maritime endeavors. Only U.S. lawmakers ought to be able to decide how -- and how much -- to tax Americans.
If the treaty went into effect, the result would resemble the United Nations: The U.S. would foot the bill for about 25 percent of the organizations the treaty would establish. But, as at the U.N., blocks of non-democratic nations could limit our actions easily.
Let’s be frank: These international bureaucracies don’t work. The United Nations is already dealing with a sex scandal in the Congo, genocide in Sudan and the Oil-for-Food fiasco in Iraq. Why would we want to create more unaccountable international bureaucracies and place them in charge of our oceans?
As former Secretary of State George Shultz noted last year, nations create international organizations to serve their common interests, not to govern them. The current system works well and is in our national interest. That’s why it’s time to sink the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, once and for all.
Neo-Know-Nothings? Law of the Sea Supporter Casts Civility Adrift
A story (paid subscription required) in the National Law Journal this week featured husband David as the lone supporter of U.S. sovereignty against quotes from three supporters of ratification of a treaty many Reaganite conservatives believe would hurt our national defense.
The National Law Journal article is nothing if not objective, beginning with the title "Sea Treaty Cast Adrift by the U.S.; Plenty of Support, but No Approval."
By the very definition of "plenty," there isn't "plenty of support" for the Law of the Sea treaty, because there hasn't been enough to get it approved. "Plenty" implies a surfeit. But more to the point, if there have been polls of public attitudes of the Law of the Sea Treaty, and I know of none, they certainly weren't referenced in the article.
The text commences in an equally fair and balanced manner:
The Law of the Sea Treaty, which established a sweeping legal regime for activities on and under the world's oceans, has been a fixture of international law for nearly three decades. But why, despite broad political, military, industry and environmental support in the United States, has the Senate never ratified it?
Some international law experts say it's unlikely any other treaty has been so widely supported and yet failed to come to a vote in the Senate for so long a period of time.
Today, 153 nation states have acceded to the treaty, including Russia, China, every European Union nation and virtually all U.S. allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
President Bush recently urged the Senate to dust it off and push it through by the end of this congressional session.
Is the small, but tenacious, opposition rooted in traditional conservative mistrust of international legal bodies, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court?
"I think that can be part of it," said treaty opponent David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "Certainly there are provisions of the treaty that give people reasons to be distrustful."
But that distrust is based on misinterpretations of treaty specifics and poor lawyering, insisted longtime treaty advocate John Norton Moore of the University of Virginia School of Law, director of its Center for National Security and Oceans Law and Policy...
Mr. Moore (a Law of the Sea Treaty negotiator) goes on to refer to treaty opponents as a "a neo-know-nothing movement," evidently referring to the mid-19th century Know-Nothing Party.
(The National Law Journal may have missed the reference, as it did not capitalize the party's name -- possibly its writer and/or editors thought Moore was describing critics as a movement of newly-minted idiots.)
The Know-Nothings, for those of you who have limited your knowledge of history to what they teach in schools and universities, was an anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic political party during the pre-Civil War era.
The slur is reminiscent of comments from the pro-amnesty lobby, which called law-abiding citizens who want to build a wall to protect our border before discussing amnesty for illegal aliens xenophobic immigrant bashers, among other epithets. But heck, even Jimmy Carter's amnesty of Vietnam War draft-dodgers didn't take place until after the war was over.
Peace first; then forgive.
To be fair, Mr. Moore also called some treaty opponents "fine people." If I actually were married to an anti-immigrant Catholic basher, it would be a relief indeed to know he is a fine one. And at the risk of sounding like a newly-mined idiot myself, based on his picture on the University of Virginia website, Mr. Moore looks friendly -- though not chubby -- enough to play Santa Claus. Maybe he didn't really mean it.
I'm posting a bit more of the article below, but you'll have to visit (paid subscription required) the National Law Journal website to see the whole thing:
...The treaty gives states the option of choosing among ITLOS, the International Court of Justice or arbitral tribunals to settle their disputes. The United States is on record as rejecting the two courts and as choosing arbitration once it is a party to the treaty.
States are the main parties before the court or the arbitral tribunals, unless a state authorizes a private party, for example an oil company whose tanker has been seized by a foreign state, to proceed on its own behalf. Private parties have direct access to dispute resolution only in the deep sea-bed mining portion of the treaty. Mining companies sought their own right to sue and arbitrate, which was considered radical at the time, according to Oxman, but now is quite common, particularly under investment treaties.
Despite the United States' election of arbitration, Ridenour and other treaty opponents, such as Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University School of Law, argue the United States could end up before the court when provisional measures -- similar to temporary injunctions -- are sought by a complaining state. The treaty provides that the court would automatically adjudicate such disputes when states cannot reach agreement on the method of adjudication or arbitration "within two weeks from the date of the request for provisional measures."
"You can imagine many circumstances in which the U.S. would disagree with Syria or Iran and where neither side agrees to arbitrators," said Ridenour. "The tribunal is not packed with a lot of U.S. supporters. One of the problems with these international tribunals is often you have judges from countries that do not have a long tradition of representative democracy."
But that is the "extreme setting" that treaty opponents magnify into a major, but baseless, problem, Moore said.
"All of the general dispute mechanisms are set up specifically for arbitration, like the normal commercial arbitration favored by American industry around the world," he said. At the end of the day, if parties can't agree on the arbitration process, he and others said, it is not unusual to have an appointing authority step in. And, if the United States were a treaty member, said Moore, it could have a judge on ITLOS and be an influential voice in the development of ocean laws.
Opponents also say treaty provisions on protecting the marine environment could become a "backdoor for environmental lawsuits" brought in U.S. courts on issues such as global warming. But supporters counter that U.S. courts are familiar with interpreting treaty obligations and the government wants this treaty because it offers stable rules of law and avenues for stopping environmental damage...
David's concerns about the Treaty, though it doesn't cover all of them, can be found here. _____
Liberal Senators Complaining About “Obstructionism" on Iraq Legislation Use the Same Tactic to Block Judicial Nominees
Project 21 members say the liberal Senate leadership, which has embarked on an overnight session to "highlight Republican obstructionism" on consideration to legislation to withdraw troops from Iraq, is hypocritical, as these senators have used the same tactics they now condemn to block the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominations over the past six-and-a-half years.
"The immoral duplicity of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his henchmen once again unambiguously shows there are no depths too low for liberal politicians to plumb," said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. "It is extraordinarily incongruous that, on one hand, Reid would complain about a conservative filibuster against an arbitrary and predetermined withdrawal date in Iraq while he and his gang have stalled on the confirmation of people such as Judge Southwick since the day President Bush announced his judicial first nominees."
Beginning on the morning of Tuesday, July 17 and scheduled to last through the evening of Wednesday, July 18, the Senate is expected to remain in session for debate on a plan to remove U.S. forces from Iraq by May of 2008. Democratic leaders want a simple up-or-down majority vote on the amendment, and are protesting Republican use of Senate rules to require a vote of 60 members to end the debate.
The last all-night session of this sort was held Wednesday, November 12, 2003 to protest Senate liberals requiring 60-vote majorities for confirmation of President Bush’s judicial nominees.
Judicial obstructionism continues, with allegations this week concerning bad faith by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in scheduling a committee vote on the nomination of Judge Leslie H. Southwick to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler, a nominee to the D.C. Court of Appeals, has waited more than a year for a committee vote on his nomination.
Among major non-judicial nominations, only 66 of 229 of the nominations made since January 7 -- 29 percent -- have received Senate votes.
"It's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black," added Project 21's Massie, who participated in media events in the U.S. Capitol related to the 2003 judicial all-nighter. "If Harry Reid wants an up-or-down vote on Iraq, he should at least be willing to come to the table with an offer of the same regarding the judicial nominees to our already overworked courts."
Bush Administration Law of the Sea Treaty Defense Inaccurate
Husband David has a letter in today's Washington Times. It corrects factual errors in a June 13 op-ed by deputy secretary of state John Negroponte and deputy secretary of defense Gordon England defending the Bush Administration's decision to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.
The op-ed by John D. Negroponte and Gordon England "Reap the bounty," (Wednesday) contained a number of inaccuracies.
They state that by assigning responsibility for maritime zones, the treaty would improve protections for the environment. It could do just the opposite. It requires, for example, that nations either harvest their entire allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations. Such a use it or lose it policy is reminiscent of federal grazing policy, which until recently required ranchers to use their forage rights or lose them. Because ranchers lacked the flexibility to remove cattle for extended periods, overgrazing resulted.
Mr. Negroponte and Mr. England also suggest that ratification is needed to have legal certainty of such maritime rights as "innocent passage." They're wrong in two ways: Such rights already exist under the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea, and the treaty governs the behavior of signatories -- currently numbering more than 150 nations -- regardless of whether the United States accedes to the treaty.
Finally, they suggest the treaty would bolster U.S. national security. Instead, it would complicate some of these efforts by subjecting certain actions to judgment by an international tribunal.
The Law of the Sea treaty should be scuttled.
DAVID RIDENOUR Vice President The National Center for Public Policy Research Washington
It is interesting to me that we haven't heard any environmental organizations speaking out against the possibility of United Nations-mandated overfishing, as David warns could happen under Law of the Sea.
Go here here for lots more reasons to worry about the Bush Administration's perplexing support for the Law of the Sea Treaty. _____
National Review reminds us that today was the 65th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid.
If you have children still at home who don't know what that was, get them this. As a child, I checked it out repeatedly from my grade school library -- it's riveting. Good for upper elementary students through adults. Highly recommended.
In honor of our forefathers, and an anniversary worth remembering, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's Paul Revere's Ride.
If you haven't read it lately, take a moment to read it again. It's worth recalling that the very birth of this nation was a close-run thing. We have much to be thankful for.
Trouble Is, There's Nothing Funny About This Red Skelton
Husband David wonders:
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton's ban of the phrase "global war on terror" from legislative dictionaries is reminiscent of censorship practiced in the old Soviet Union (increasingly, the new one -- Russia -- too).
Project 21's Kevin Martin says House action on Iraq today "will only secure the disgrace and defeat of the mission our brave troops are pledged to fight."
He adds: "It is the job of those in uniform to fight for and protect America and her interests no matter the cost or time required. It is the job of Congress to see that these brave men and women are well-funded and able to complete their mission. The congressional leadership has failed its mission."
"I Was Shocked at the Ignorance and Rudeness of the Members of Congress"
Joe Roche attended Rep. Henry Waxman's hearing on private military contractors on February 7. He wasn't very impressed -- with Rep. Waxman and his colleagues, that is.
Dear Amy,
The House Governmental Reform Committee hearings, led by Rep. Henry Waxman, are an absurd display of abuse, distortion and recklessness. I attended it today because there were some people testifying who deserve America's greatest thanks. Instead, they were treated horribly and made to look very bad.
It wasn't a hearing to actually learn of the work and value of the private military contractors (PMCs) who serve our country. Instead, it was a fiasco performance meant to demonize and humiliate them. I was shocked at the ignorance and rudeness of the members of Congress there.
PMCs, like Haliburton, perform an absolutely critical role for our nation and our military. They take care of things that we, the military, simply can't do for a number of reasons. Food, supplies, housing units, things like that they take care of thus allowing us soldiers to be the spear of the nation. I believe that what they save us financially because of the competitive marketing they go through, as opposed to sinking all this into a federal bureaucracy, is far more than any lost sums of money in waste and fraud.
The people who run and work the PMCs are frequently people of absolutely heroic character. I remember some in Iraq I worked with who had been soldiers in Vietnam. Now, after 30-plus years, they want to continue serving our country, so there they are in every war zone we are involved in today. They suffer and die just like the rest of us soldiers, and leave behind families for many months at a time.
The Members of Congress on the Committee were hiding behind the suffering of the families who lost loved ones in attacks on the PMCs in Iraq. That was disgusting! They made the PMCs look bad, insinuating all sorts of malicious things, all the while saying they're doing this for the families. Nonsense!
What Waxman, Dennis Kucinich and the other Congressmen are trying to do is bleed out every little shred of suspicion of scandal against the Bush Administration. They acted like vultures, ignoring the important service of the PMCs and instead just kept hammering away on all sorts of scandal-suggesting themes.
Waxman, with an elitism that was grotesque, acted all offended when for reasons of national security or Arab cultural practices, the PMC representatives couldn't answer some things. Waxman, Kucinich and the others know exactly what they are doing. It was all a performance meant to emotionally upset the American people who only catch the short sound-bite news coverage.
For example, it was easy to lament the unaccountable huge sums of money that have been spent on projects. Yes, there was some waste and abuse. More important, though, is that those operations are happening in Arab culture, Iraqi society, where Wall Street accounting just doesn't happen. This doesn't mean all that money was lost and wasted, but just that it was spent differently. This is what happens in war zones, in foreign lands, in places where things have been bad and corrupt.
I sat next to the press corps table and watched as they laughed, snickered, and got excited with every little challenge that was thrown at the PMCs. One reporter said, "I'm just here to see Haliburton get nailed." I glared, but then realized this is just the process that has been unleashed by such hearings as this.
There is no way we are being served well by Congress with hearings like this. The members of Congress gave really bizarre speeches at the beginning that had nothing to do with the real issues. Instead, they were just speaking to impress viewers and readers of the news with short attention spans. Then, after they gave their speeches, only four-or-so remained for the rest of the hours of the hearings. They didn't care about the issues, the PMCs, what is really involved. All they wanted to do was to perform so as to manipulate and fool the American people into thinking there is all sorts of Bush Administration scandal with the PMCs.
I was intrigued how the Democrats harped on the PMCs as being a Bush scandal. The reality is that PMCs became a vital part of our military after the Cold War, DURING the Clinton Administration because of the damaging downsizing that happened in the 1990s. In fact, Haliburton's contract that they are operating on in Iraq was negotiated by the Clinton Administration in 1998.
Rather than all this vulture-like scandal-mongering, I wish someone on the Committee would just say, "Thank you for having a Can-Do attitude and getting the job done!" This is all Patton, Bradley, McArthur or any of our past military leaders did. This nitpicking by Congress against the PMCs could do our military great harm in the future if this Committee fools too many people.
Now that several days have passed since Venezuela's "legislature" gave Hugo Chavez a dictator's powers, I thought I'd visit the website of his American buddy, former Congressman and Citizens Energy Corp CEO Joseph P. Kennedy II, to see if Kennedy and his organization, which accepts subsidized oil (in-kind donations) from Chavez, had anything to say, pro or con, about the demise of democracy in Venezuela.
The Citizens Energy Corp website press release page says nothing about Chavez -- or anybody else in 2007, for that matter.
I then checked the websites of organizations on whose board of directors Joe Kennedy serves. I used for my list of boards the following paragraphs from the family bios page of the Robert F Kennedy Memorial:
Joseph P. Kennedy II has provided advice to the CHR on projects involving Capitol Hill and the US State Department.
The former Congressman is currently Chairman and President of Citizens Energy Corporation www.citizensenergy.com, which he had established in 1979. Joe is also active on the Boards of Directors of: Provide Commerce www.prvd.com; Thomas C. Wales Foundation www.walesfoundation.org; Chicago Climate Exchange www.chicagoclimatex.com; I-Flex Solutions www.iflexsolutions.com and the WellChild Foundation www.nubibus.com/wellchild/html/home.html.
(It was nice of the Memorial to include the urls.)
Interestingly, not only did I find no comments on these websites about Hugo Chavez, I also found that Joe Kennedy is not, as his bio claims, on the board of directors of all of these organizations. He does serve on the Provide Commerce board of directors, but he's not on the Thomas C. Wales Foundation board of directors (he is on their advisory board -- a very different thing), or the Chicago Climate Exchange board of directors (again, he is on the advisory board), or on the I-Flex Solutions board of directors (if they have an advisory board, they don't mention it). I could not find a WellChild Foundation in the United States, although I did find references to one existing in Boston at some time in the past, so who knows: Maybe Kennedy was on their governing board.
On the whole, of five boards listed, I could confirm Kennedy's service on only one, so I doubt these groups are speaking for Kennedy on much of anything.
So, until such time as Joe Kennedy and the CitizensEnergy Corp have something to say about their patron, Hugo Chavez, and his brand-new dictatorship (officially, anyway), I leave you with a few links to what others have to say on the subject:
USATODAY.com - OPINION: Poverty vs. Politics: Cynicism, not altruism, is Behind Chavez's Oil 'Gift'
Addendum: A reader has alerted me to to an excellent essay by Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica, on Venezuela taking, as McHenry puts it, its "place in the long, sad train of Paradises on Earth that so disfigured the 20th century."
McHenry's essay begins:
It’s happening again. Another human has succeeded in combining a personal vision of the truly good and just society with the authority to attempt to create it, in the process telling several million other humans precisely how they should live. This time it’s in South America – Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, was granted the power to set aside the country’s constitution and rule by decree for a period of 18 months. The news reports I saw did not comment on whether his powers would include the power to extend his term, but few dictators in history have stepped aside willingly at any time, much less on a date set by mere statute...
I'd quote it all, but for copyright law, but you can read it all free here.
I Think the Phrase You Are Looking for is "Double Standard"
A Project 21 press release critical of Senator Barbara Boxer for implying that Secretary of State Condoleeze Rice is less qualified to handle Iraq policy because she is childless brought this comment by email from a corrspondent in the Bronx:
"OK, Rice has no children serving in the military because she has no children. But Boxer also mentioned she has neither children nor grandchildren in the military. Therefore, why the hell does she get to serve Foreign Relations?"
P.S. In a story that includes interviews with Secretary Rice and Senator Boxer about the "childlessness as a disqualification?" dustup, the New York Times is covering Project 21's Deneen Borelli's take on the issue.
P.P.S. The Huffington Post (Brad Friedman) is mad that the New York Times quoted Project 21. Says the fact that Project 21 was identified as "African-American" would mislead readers into believing Project 21 is liberal, and thus readers would misperceive its criticism of of Barbara Boxer as a defection from the left.
With his usual impeccable timing, Joe Roche has an op-ed in the Lexington Herald-Leader on U.S. actions to combat al Qaeda in Africa just as the U.S. announces air strikes against al Qaeda in Somalia.
Joe's op-ed says, in part:
...After 9/11, President Bush launched a series of twilight wars to reverse Africa's suffering caused by terrorists. The offensive couldn't be launched outright because of the focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. So it was engineered by special forces and excellent military contractors, and occasionally aided by initiatives threatening more direct U.S. and allied action. The results have been amazing.
Taylor's regime was toppled. Sanko was captured and killed. Gadhafi turned tail in fear that the United States would come after him. Insurgencies abated in Niger, Mali and Senegal.
The ripple effect of these transformations has had a similar dramatic impact on Uganda's suffering and in undermining repressive regimes in other countries. Initially al-Qaida nodes reacted with vengeance in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, but that has been increasingly brought under control.
"Thanks to President Bush, whose strong resolve, public condemnation and appropriate action forced our tyrant into exile," Liberian President Ellen Sirleaf, the first woman leader of an African nation, said last spring.
Somalia was the latest major challenge. Jihadists allied with al-Qaida almost established themselves there. Ethiopia took the lead to support the U.N.-appointed government of Somalia and throw out the jihadists, closing a terrorist training camp outside the capital in Jowhar.
Millions of Africans have renewed hope for better lives. Relief and aid agencies are pouring in on the coattails of U.S. victories. Children are escaping the horrors of war...
