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 second 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 2003-2008 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 Please explicitly inform us if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
It's Not History, It's HBO
From David Almasi:
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...
