TW: Why the Arena at Politico continues to let this guy post on anything is beyond me but why they permit this attorney with no apparent economics knowledge opine on the stimulus package is even more perplexing.
From Calabresi on the stimulus plan:
"The federal government is spending way too much right now and indeed federal spending is set to reach the highest percentage of GDP since World War II. The biggest failure of the Bush Administration was its inability to keep federal spending from exploding and the former president’s failure to use his veto power.
The stimulus package on top of the financial bailout on top of the former president having let federal spending get out of control threatens to create a fiscal catastrophe. We cannot afford to borrow even more money right now from China to pay for long run capital improvements that will not immediately stimulate economic growth. What we should do is cut the two lowest federal income tax brackets as House Republicans have proposed. And if we do spend any borrowed money we do not have on capital improvements it should go for construction of new nuclear power plants"
TW: The illogic of his position is simple. He asserts (wrongly but that is for a different post) that the government is at risk of bankrupting the country with stimulus spending by increasing the deficit. His solution is to cut taxes. Obviously, to most presumably but not him apparently, if the concern is the deficit, then cutting taxes will result in exactly the same problem a higher deficit.
http://tinyurl.com/dnb225
Showing posts with label Steve Calabresi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Calabresi. Show all posts
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
#@%$$#^!!!
TW: I have posted about this "professor" before. He symbolizes what I despise about certain Republicans. As I have had to do before I will parse this gem of a comment by an alleged person of intellect.
From Steve Calabresi (Northwestern law professor, prominent right-wing attorney) responding to a question at Politico asking for comments on the Bush Administration:
"The best aspect of the Bush presidency was the President’s muscular response to the 9/11 attacks which threw the terrorists off balance and prevented another terrorist attack in the United States for an incredible seven years. Al Qaeda was a problem that Bill Clinton grew on his watch as president with his feckless responses to Al Qaeda’s attacks. Bush has pummeled Al Qaeda to the point that they are now on the ropes. If Al Qaeda reemerges it will be Barack Obama’s fault not Bush’s.
TW: Well there you have it. September 11 was Bill Clinton's fault and if another one happens post January 20, 2009 it will be Barack Obama's fault. So simple and so full of shit that will not comment further other than the past seven years post 9/11 have been just like the prior 225 years (e.g. free of 9/11 type attacks).
"Bush’s stewardship of the economy and his tax cuts set off year and years of spectacular prosperity and economic growth. In retrospect, it is clear interest rates were kept too low for too long which set off a housing bubble, but it would have been hard to anticipate that at the time. Bush has responded swiftly and effectively since the stock market crash of September 15th."
TW: You have got to be shitting me. Actual results I would hope speak for themselves.
"Another Bush triumph was his appointment of two spectacular constitutionalist justices – John Roberts and Samuel Alito – to the Supreme Court."
TW: Obviously a matter of taste, but if you are a social conservative then yes a triumph, if not then not so much.
"The weak points in the Bush presidency were twofold: first, the president lacked the ability of Ronald Reagan or Tony Blair to articulate and defend his policies. This was a critical weakness. You cannot govern if you cannot lead and you cannot lead if you cannot effectively communicate."
TW: Ah yes, the old if he could have only told the story better line of BS. His policies after all were solid just not sold well.
"Second, the Bush Administration was very uneven when it came to quality of personnel. Some appointees were terrific while others were in way over their heads. Overall, Bush has a lot to be proud of."
TW: Ah yes, the old if he had only had better folks line (see section two of the Bush apologist handbook).
Lets see he could not communicate, was a poor manager of people, advocated and perpetuated torture, spent hundreds of billions on an illegitimate war, led our economy into the worst crisis in seventy years, through an amazing jujitsu move converted world sympathy for the U.S. into disdain, tried to inject religion into any crevice of goverance he could etc. So yes overall Bush has a lot to be proud of.
From Steve Calabresi (Northwestern law professor, prominent right-wing attorney) responding to a question at Politico asking for comments on the Bush Administration:
"The best aspect of the Bush presidency was the President’s muscular response to the 9/11 attacks which threw the terrorists off balance and prevented another terrorist attack in the United States for an incredible seven years. Al Qaeda was a problem that Bill Clinton grew on his watch as president with his feckless responses to Al Qaeda’s attacks. Bush has pummeled Al Qaeda to the point that they are now on the ropes. If Al Qaeda reemerges it will be Barack Obama’s fault not Bush’s.
TW: Well there you have it. September 11 was Bill Clinton's fault and if another one happens post January 20, 2009 it will be Barack Obama's fault. So simple and so full of shit that will not comment further other than the past seven years post 9/11 have been just like the prior 225 years (e.g. free of 9/11 type attacks).
"Bush’s stewardship of the economy and his tax cuts set off year and years of spectacular prosperity and economic growth. In retrospect, it is clear interest rates were kept too low for too long which set off a housing bubble, but it would have been hard to anticipate that at the time. Bush has responded swiftly and effectively since the stock market crash of September 15th."
TW: You have got to be shitting me. Actual results I would hope speak for themselves.
"Another Bush triumph was his appointment of two spectacular constitutionalist justices – John Roberts and Samuel Alito – to the Supreme Court."
TW: Obviously a matter of taste, but if you are a social conservative then yes a triumph, if not then not so much.
"The weak points in the Bush presidency were twofold: first, the president lacked the ability of Ronald Reagan or Tony Blair to articulate and defend his policies. This was a critical weakness. You cannot govern if you cannot lead and you cannot lead if you cannot effectively communicate."
TW: Ah yes, the old if he could have only told the story better line of BS. His policies after all were solid just not sold well.
"Second, the Bush Administration was very uneven when it came to quality of personnel. Some appointees were terrific while others were in way over their heads. Overall, Bush has a lot to be proud of."
TW: Ah yes, the old if he had only had better folks line (see section two of the Bush apologist handbook).
Lets see he could not communicate, was a poor manager of people, advocated and perpetuated torture, spent hundreds of billions on an illegitimate war, led our economy into the worst crisis in seventy years, through an amazing jujitsu move converted world sympathy for the U.S. into disdain, tried to inject religion into any crevice of goverance he could etc. So yes overall Bush has a lot to be proud of.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
How NOT To Respond To Terror
From Steve Calabresi in the Politico Arena responding to the Mumbai terror attacks:
"We may not know yet who perpetrated the Mumbai terrorist attacks, but we do know that American and British citizens were singled out for slaughter which makes this an attack on us as well as on India. I think President-elect Obama needs to say that and also do more in responding to this than just issuing the statement deploring it that he issued yesterday. This is the first terrorist attack since the election. Al Qaeda will gauge Obama’s response to see whether he is any tougher than Bill Clinton who usually responded to terrorist attacks by fecklessly firing cruise missiles at abandoned targets.
...Our enemies around the world from Al Qaeda to Russia are sizing Obama up right now, and there will be hell to pay if they conclude rightly or wrongly that he is weak. Moreover, just as the markets needed reassuring last week so too do our allies in the war on terror need a reassurance from Obama this about the seriousness of his intentions. Now would be a good time to talk about boosting our troops in Afghanistan and redoubling our efforts to catch Osama Bin Laden. Our response needs to make clear that we will wage a war on terror that we will win but that we sympathize with moderate Muslims who are often the victims of terror. We need to drive a wedge between the terrorists and Islam as we finally did in Iraq."
TW: The above is egregious stupidity and represents why I very much hope Obama will be different than W. Bush and his right-wing acolytes. Lets parse the above:
1) Obama is not the POTUS for Obama to jump directly into detailed policy implementation of this nature seven weeks pre-inauguration is not constructive and potentially destructive. Calabresi is already cynically attempting to drop terrorist acts into Obama's lap with I am sure soon enough the associated blame for any future attacks.
2) Calabresi prefaces his statement by saying no one knows who perpetrated the attacks but then launches into a series of suggestions which assumes Al-Qaeda is the culprit. Any shoot first ask questions later attitude is dangerous and irresponsible. Ultimately the blind belief that Al-Qaeda is behind every terrorist attack is simplistic and leads to poor policy.
3) Most egregiously is Calabresi's effort to have the U.S. jump at any and all provocations and answer with asymmetrically powerful force. All terrorists and in particular Al-Qaeda thrive on pricking larger forces in hope of drawing heavy-handed and disproportionate responses which only feed the cycle of violence. Letting terrorists drive the agenda by reacting with vengeance instead of cold, hard calculation is exactly the wrong prescription.
4) Calabresi claims a whole host of potential challengers to the U.S. are waiting anxiously to see if Obama will react with "force" to this alleged provocation. In doing so he casually lumps Al-Qaeda and Russia into the same sentence. Russia is not a poster child for world governance but they are not Al Qaeda, lumping them together is dangerous simple minded ignorance.
5) Finally he claims a great victory against terror in Iraq. Anyone claiming "victory" of any sort in Iraq is a fool. A stemming of the casualties for now, a reduction in violence- yes for now, but victory no. To claim that Iraq is somehow the model for fighting terror is dubious in the extreme. Al Qaeda after all did not operate there before we invaded, our presence permitted them to flourish. Now that the Iraqis are moving away from them cannot be considered a template for dealing with Al Qaeda unless you ascribe to circular logic.
Calabresi should be considered a quack instead he is a respected voice of the right-wing.
"We may not know yet who perpetrated the Mumbai terrorist attacks, but we do know that American and British citizens were singled out for slaughter which makes this an attack on us as well as on India. I think President-elect Obama needs to say that and also do more in responding to this than just issuing the statement deploring it that he issued yesterday. This is the first terrorist attack since the election. Al Qaeda will gauge Obama’s response to see whether he is any tougher than Bill Clinton who usually responded to terrorist attacks by fecklessly firing cruise missiles at abandoned targets.
...Our enemies around the world from Al Qaeda to Russia are sizing Obama up right now, and there will be hell to pay if they conclude rightly or wrongly that he is weak. Moreover, just as the markets needed reassuring last week so too do our allies in the war on terror need a reassurance from Obama this about the seriousness of his intentions. Now would be a good time to talk about boosting our troops in Afghanistan and redoubling our efforts to catch Osama Bin Laden. Our response needs to make clear that we will wage a war on terror that we will win but that we sympathize with moderate Muslims who are often the victims of terror. We need to drive a wedge between the terrorists and Islam as we finally did in Iraq."
TW: The above is egregious stupidity and represents why I very much hope Obama will be different than W. Bush and his right-wing acolytes. Lets parse the above:
1) Obama is not the POTUS for Obama to jump directly into detailed policy implementation of this nature seven weeks pre-inauguration is not constructive and potentially destructive. Calabresi is already cynically attempting to drop terrorist acts into Obama's lap with I am sure soon enough the associated blame for any future attacks.
2) Calabresi prefaces his statement by saying no one knows who perpetrated the attacks but then launches into a series of suggestions which assumes Al-Qaeda is the culprit. Any shoot first ask questions later attitude is dangerous and irresponsible. Ultimately the blind belief that Al-Qaeda is behind every terrorist attack is simplistic and leads to poor policy.
3) Most egregiously is Calabresi's effort to have the U.S. jump at any and all provocations and answer with asymmetrically powerful force. All terrorists and in particular Al-Qaeda thrive on pricking larger forces in hope of drawing heavy-handed and disproportionate responses which only feed the cycle of violence. Letting terrorists drive the agenda by reacting with vengeance instead of cold, hard calculation is exactly the wrong prescription.
4) Calabresi claims a whole host of potential challengers to the U.S. are waiting anxiously to see if Obama will react with "force" to this alleged provocation. In doing so he casually lumps Al-Qaeda and Russia into the same sentence. Russia is not a poster child for world governance but they are not Al Qaeda, lumping them together is dangerous simple minded ignorance.
5) Finally he claims a great victory against terror in Iraq. Anyone claiming "victory" of any sort in Iraq is a fool. A stemming of the casualties for now, a reduction in violence- yes for now, but victory no. To claim that Iraq is somehow the model for fighting terror is dubious in the extreme. Al Qaeda after all did not operate there before we invaded, our presence permitted them to flourish. Now that the Iraqis are moving away from them cannot be considered a template for dealing with Al Qaeda unless you ascribe to circular logic.
Calabresi should be considered a quack instead he is a respected voice of the right-wing.
Greatest Hits: Steve Calabresi (Oct edition)
TW: A monthly feature, we present Steve Calabresi's most memorable quotes from the month of October. Attached also find the September edition-http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/11/greatest-hits-steve-calabresi-sept.html
On whether the US has a leadership crisis?
"The biggest weakness of the Bush Administration has been the president’s inability on television to communicate with the American people and with global public opinion. If Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator, Bush is in contrast the Great Mangler of Sentences. But communication is only a part of leadership. The other part is staking out correct positions, popular or not, and persevering until you prevail. In these respects, Bush has been another Harry Truman. Truman was also deeply unpopular when he left office too, but he sure looked great in hindsight. I think the same thing will happen with Bush."
October 1, 2008
On who won the VP debater?
"Palin was likeable, warm, knowledgeable, and well informed on every issue contrary to all the predictions of the mainstream media. I predict she will connect better with swing voters in the West and Midwest than does Biden who often seemed angry and like someone tooting his own horn. Neither candidate committed any gaffes so this debate will probably leave us with a close election in which Obama is for the moment slightly ahead...
October 2, 2008
On who won the last POTUS debate?
"McCain did a terrific job tonight in painting Obama as one of the most liberal members of Senate: a man who wants to raise taxes and shut down free trade the way Herbert Hoover did in 1929; a man who wants eventually to get America to a single payer health plan; a man who sends his own kids to private schools but who opposes vouchers which would allow anyone to do that; a man who will “look at” oil and gas drilling and nuclear power but focus his energy on building windmills; and a man who repeatedly accuses McCain of being a clone of George Bush even though everyone in the country knows he broke with Bush on strategy in Iraq,on torture, and on opposing Bush’s huge expansion of government spending. McCain was awesome tonight, and the debate was by far the best general election debate this season. The one silver lining for Obama is that he made no big mistakes and the evening produced no sound bite moment that will haunt Obama. But, overall, McCain clearly won. Whether it will be enough to close the 5% gap in this race is anyone’s guess."
October 15, 2008
On whether the McCain was done by October 24st?
"The bottom line here is that as investors have come to expect an Obama presidency with around 60 Democratic senators, the stock market has crashed and expectations of a severe recession have risen. There are many causes of all of this, but Obama's tax and regulatory plans are one of the reasons for the plunge. If he wins, we should expect further losses and less social wellbeing than we have enjoyed over the last eight years"
October 24, 2008
The Arena solicited endorsments
"...On economic policy, Senator Barack Obama is pledged to repeat Herbert Hoover’s mistake of raising taxes and reducing free trade in response to a stock market downturn.This will turn a recession into a depression the severity of which we have not seen since at least the days of Jimmy Carter’s misery index.
The stock market is going down in direct relation to Obama’s poll numbers going up. It will drop a lot more if he wins and pursues the policies he has pledged to pursue."
October 25, 2008
On whether the US has a leadership crisis?
"The biggest weakness of the Bush Administration has been the president’s inability on television to communicate with the American people and with global public opinion. If Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator, Bush is in contrast the Great Mangler of Sentences. But communication is only a part of leadership. The other part is staking out correct positions, popular or not, and persevering until you prevail. In these respects, Bush has been another Harry Truman. Truman was also deeply unpopular when he left office too, but he sure looked great in hindsight. I think the same thing will happen with Bush."
October 1, 2008
On who won the VP debater?
"Palin was likeable, warm, knowledgeable, and well informed on every issue contrary to all the predictions of the mainstream media. I predict she will connect better with swing voters in the West and Midwest than does Biden who often seemed angry and like someone tooting his own horn. Neither candidate committed any gaffes so this debate will probably leave us with a close election in which Obama is for the moment slightly ahead...
October 2, 2008
On who won the last POTUS debate?
"McCain did a terrific job tonight in painting Obama as one of the most liberal members of Senate: a man who wants to raise taxes and shut down free trade the way Herbert Hoover did in 1929; a man who wants eventually to get America to a single payer health plan; a man who sends his own kids to private schools but who opposes vouchers which would allow anyone to do that; a man who will “look at” oil and gas drilling and nuclear power but focus his energy on building windmills; and a man who repeatedly accuses McCain of being a clone of George Bush even though everyone in the country knows he broke with Bush on strategy in Iraq,on torture, and on opposing Bush’s huge expansion of government spending. McCain was awesome tonight, and the debate was by far the best general election debate this season. The one silver lining for Obama is that he made no big mistakes and the evening produced no sound bite moment that will haunt Obama. But, overall, McCain clearly won. Whether it will be enough to close the 5% gap in this race is anyone’s guess."
October 15, 2008
On whether the McCain was done by October 24st?
"The bottom line here is that as investors have come to expect an Obama presidency with around 60 Democratic senators, the stock market has crashed and expectations of a severe recession have risen. There are many causes of all of this, but Obama's tax and regulatory plans are one of the reasons for the plunge. If he wins, we should expect further losses and less social wellbeing than we have enjoyed over the last eight years"
October 24, 2008
The Arena solicited endorsments
"...On economic policy, Senator Barack Obama is pledged to repeat Herbert Hoover’s mistake of raising taxes and reducing free trade in response to a stock market downturn.This will turn a recession into a depression the severity of which we have not seen since at least the days of Jimmy Carter’s misery index.
The stock market is going down in direct relation to Obama’s poll numbers going up. It will drop a lot more if he wins and pursues the policies he has pledged to pursue."
October 25, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Greatest Hits: Steve Calabresi (Sept edition)
TW: As promised I combed the past 90 days "Arena at Politico" answers of the inimitable Prof. Steve Calabresi, Northwestern University, for his best nuggets of political insight. The nuggets are so delicious that I am going to have to break it up, these are from one month's great work.
Sept 11, 2008- How Palin did in the Gibson interview?
"Palin’s interview shows her to be Reaganesque in her toughness, niceness, and ability to connect with ordinary Americans."
Sept 15, 2008- Which candidate is reacting best to the deepening economic crisis?
"Obama offers us a second term of Jimmy Carter economics"
Sept 18, 2008- On how McCain should have reacted to Obama's surge in the polls?
"McCain should argue that the financial crisis will be made much worse by Obama’s massive spending and tax increases by his refusal to extend free trade to Columbia and South Korea, by his calls for the renegotiation of NAFTA, and by the $10 a gallon gasoline that will result from an Obama energy policy built around windmills and solar.
Obama wants to react to the financial crisis the way Herbert Hoover reacted to the stock market crash of 1929 which was to kill free trade, raise taxes to balance the budget, and impose new regulatory burdens. The Obama-Hoover approach is one sure way of turning a Wall Street crisis into a great depression."
Sept 19, 2008- On why Republicans were doing better?
"Republicans now have a war hero running for president, Ronald Reagan reincarnated as a woman running for vice president..."
Sept 23. 2008- On whether to trust the Bush Administration?
"This Administration deserves to be trusted because it has kept us safe from terrorist attack since 9/11, has fought and won two wars, has presided over eight years of economic growth, has appointed two stellar justices to the Supreme Court, and has even learned how to do Louisiana’s job of protecting that state from hurricanes. The day will come, and not before long, when Americans will wish that George Bush was still president."
Sept 11, 2008- How Palin did in the Gibson interview?
"Palin’s interview shows her to be Reaganesque in her toughness, niceness, and ability to connect with ordinary Americans."
Sept 15, 2008- Which candidate is reacting best to the deepening economic crisis?
"Obama offers us a second term of Jimmy Carter economics"
Sept 18, 2008- On how McCain should have reacted to Obama's surge in the polls?
"McCain should argue that the financial crisis will be made much worse by Obama’s massive spending and tax increases by his refusal to extend free trade to Columbia and South Korea, by his calls for the renegotiation of NAFTA, and by the $10 a gallon gasoline that will result from an Obama energy policy built around windmills and solar.
Obama wants to react to the financial crisis the way Herbert Hoover reacted to the stock market crash of 1929 which was to kill free trade, raise taxes to balance the budget, and impose new regulatory burdens. The Obama-Hoover approach is one sure way of turning a Wall Street crisis into a great depression."
Sept 19, 2008- On why Republicans were doing better?
"Republicans now have a war hero running for president, Ronald Reagan reincarnated as a woman running for vice president..."
Sept 23. 2008- On whether to trust the Bush Administration?
"This Administration deserves to be trusted because it has kept us safe from terrorist attack since 9/11, has fought and won two wars, has presided over eight years of economic growth, has appointed two stellar justices to the Supreme Court, and has even learned how to do Louisiana’s job of protecting that state from hurricanes. The day will come, and not before long, when Americans will wish that George Bush was still president."
Sept 27, 2008- Reaction to the first Obama/McCain debate (the one that was universally regarded as a key positive inflection point for Obama)
"Obama seemed rattled and peeved by McCain’s repeated polite but firm attacks.
It makes you wonder how he would do if he ever gets those meetings with Ahmadinejad, Raul Castro, or Putin! If Obama’s goal tonight was to vex McCain he not only failed but got vexed himself instead."
Saturday, November 15, 2008
GM et al: What To Do? (Part 2)
TW: I posted earlier on this topic.
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/11/gm-what-to-do-part-1.html
I am going to post at least a couple of more over the next day or so, as I find this topic demonstrative of the choices our government faces in its epic battle to avoid GD 2.0. My question for this post is why is it that the conservatives are seemingly so quick to dismiss a "bailout" of the automakers whilst having generally (obviously a strain of free-market purists attempted to grab political points by opposing parts of the TARP but I believe they were mainly political cynics) strongly supported the multi-tiered bailouts of the financial industry. I would be interested to hear a reconciliation of the two positions- automakers drop dead v. Wall Street we feel your pain.
From my favorite conservative blowhard Steve Calabresi:
When responding to a Politico Arena question regarding the TARP bill-
"The lame-duck Bush Administration has done a masterful job of responding to the financial crisis..."
Opining on a potential automaker "bailout"-
"The question whether to bail out the big three automakers is a defining moment on whether we are going to go down the road of corporate welfare..."
TW: ps- in looking through some old Arena quotes to find the TARP quote I found some great gems from this genius, am going to have to post a best of Calabresi...
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/11/gm-what-to-do-part-1.html
I am going to post at least a couple of more over the next day or so, as I find this topic demonstrative of the choices our government faces in its epic battle to avoid GD 2.0. My question for this post is why is it that the conservatives are seemingly so quick to dismiss a "bailout" of the automakers whilst having generally (obviously a strain of free-market purists attempted to grab political points by opposing parts of the TARP but I believe they were mainly political cynics) strongly supported the multi-tiered bailouts of the financial industry. I would be interested to hear a reconciliation of the two positions- automakers drop dead v. Wall Street we feel your pain.
From my favorite conservative blowhard Steve Calabresi:
When responding to a Politico Arena question regarding the TARP bill-
"The lame-duck Bush Administration has done a masterful job of responding to the financial crisis..."
Opining on a potential automaker "bailout"-
"The question whether to bail out the big three automakers is a defining moment on whether we are going to go down the road of corporate welfare..."
TW: ps- in looking through some old Arena quotes to find the TARP quote I found some great gems from this genius, am going to have to post a best of Calabresi...
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Closing Guantanamo
TW: Have quoted Mr. Calabresi previously, I typically do not care for him. This entry is interesting in that he advocates something I would agree with, closing Guantanamo, but with a much different twist. Given that even folks like Calabresi are advocating the closure one can safely assume it will be closed much sooner rather than later.
Calabresi's stance is basically that while creating a Gulag maybe constitutional and a Gulag was initially needed post 9/11, the Gulag's usefullness has run out hence it should be closed. There in rests the rub, personally I believe our Constitution is sufficiently robust to exclude the creation of Gulags and furthermore creating Gulags were, are and shall ever more (lets hope) be unneccessary. Mr. Calabresi and his ilk within the Bush Administration certainly felt otherwise. He truly seems non-pulsed by the notion of an American Gulag merely realistic that cost in lost reputation to the US internationally outweighs the benefits. He acknowledges in his last sentence that compromising the rule of law violates our own principles yet earlier attempts to argue that Guantanamo was needed. Outrageous.
From Calabresi:
"Obama should announce the immediate closing of Guantanamo in his inaugural address. The base there made sense as a brief holding pen in the early days of the War on Terror and the war in Afghanistan, but it has long since outlived its usefulness. We cannot win the War on Terror without winning the battle for global public opinion just as we could not have won the Cold War without winning the battle for global public opinion. Terrorists who have committed crimes should be detained and tried in the same way that other violent criminals are detained and tried. That means moving them to the mainland United States and holding them in a very secure federal prison possibly in solitary confinement. Our federal trial courts are conviction machines, and there is no need for a separate prison or system of military commissions to try terrorists for crimes.
The Bush Administration has argued rightly that the War on Terror is a war and not just a law enforcement problem. I agree with that. Prisoners of war can be detained without trial until the war in question ends. The problem is that the War on Terror could easily go on for thirty years, unlike World War II, and it is unfair, unjust, and frankly un-American to detain prisoners for that long without a trial. It is also unnecessary. Federal trial courts can handle these cases perfectly well with some accommodation for the use of classified evidence. It has been seven years since 9/11. Detention of prisoners of war is justifiable for maybe five years but not indefinitely. It is time to try these folks and then to punish those who are found to be guilty. The Bush Administration believed war crimes should be punished by military tribunals as was done when the Nuremburg Trials punished leading Nazis. The problem with that is that it means setting up a dual system of justice: one with civil liberties for Americans who commit crimes and a second class system of justice where the rules are sharply different for terrorists. This approach may or may not be constitutional, but it is certainly unwise. We cannot and will not win the battle for global opinion in the War on Terror if we are seen as suspending the rule of law and offering a second class system of justice to terrorists who we have caught. Such a second class system of justice would be called a Gulag, and its existence would do far more harm to our ability to win the War on Terror than would the acquittal of a few detained terrorists by American courts. One of the principles America stands for in the War on Terror is a belief in the Rule of Law. We compromise that belief whenever we suspend the Rule of Law as to suspected terrorists by using different rules and procedures as to them from the ones we use as to American criminals. "
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Steven_G__Calabresi_BF137191-6650-482A-AD30-15694927673E.html
Calabresi's stance is basically that while creating a Gulag maybe constitutional and a Gulag was initially needed post 9/11, the Gulag's usefullness has run out hence it should be closed. There in rests the rub, personally I believe our Constitution is sufficiently robust to exclude the creation of Gulags and furthermore creating Gulags were, are and shall ever more (lets hope) be unneccessary. Mr. Calabresi and his ilk within the Bush Administration certainly felt otherwise. He truly seems non-pulsed by the notion of an American Gulag merely realistic that cost in lost reputation to the US internationally outweighs the benefits. He acknowledges in his last sentence that compromising the rule of law violates our own principles yet earlier attempts to argue that Guantanamo was needed. Outrageous.
From Calabresi:
"Obama should announce the immediate closing of Guantanamo in his inaugural address. The base there made sense as a brief holding pen in the early days of the War on Terror and the war in Afghanistan, but it has long since outlived its usefulness. We cannot win the War on Terror without winning the battle for global public opinion just as we could not have won the Cold War without winning the battle for global public opinion. Terrorists who have committed crimes should be detained and tried in the same way that other violent criminals are detained and tried. That means moving them to the mainland United States and holding them in a very secure federal prison possibly in solitary confinement. Our federal trial courts are conviction machines, and there is no need for a separate prison or system of military commissions to try terrorists for crimes.
The Bush Administration has argued rightly that the War on Terror is a war and not just a law enforcement problem. I agree with that. Prisoners of war can be detained without trial until the war in question ends. The problem is that the War on Terror could easily go on for thirty years, unlike World War II, and it is unfair, unjust, and frankly un-American to detain prisoners for that long without a trial. It is also unnecessary. Federal trial courts can handle these cases perfectly well with some accommodation for the use of classified evidence. It has been seven years since 9/11. Detention of prisoners of war is justifiable for maybe five years but not indefinitely. It is time to try these folks and then to punish those who are found to be guilty. The Bush Administration believed war crimes should be punished by military tribunals as was done when the Nuremburg Trials punished leading Nazis. The problem with that is that it means setting up a dual system of justice: one with civil liberties for Americans who commit crimes and a second class system of justice where the rules are sharply different for terrorists. This approach may or may not be constitutional, but it is certainly unwise. We cannot and will not win the battle for global opinion in the War on Terror if we are seen as suspending the rule of law and offering a second class system of justice to terrorists who we have caught. Such a second class system of justice would be called a Gulag, and its existence would do far more harm to our ability to win the War on Terror than would the acquittal of a few detained terrorists by American courts. One of the principles America stands for in the War on Terror is a belief in the Rule of Law. We compromise that belief whenever we suspend the Rule of Law as to suspected terrorists by using different rules and procedures as to them from the ones we use as to American criminals. "
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Steven_G__Calabresi_BF137191-6650-482A-AD30-15694927673E.html
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Calabresi: An Intellectually Dishonest Professor
TW: I have posted previously on this Calabresi guy(http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/09/profile-in-stupidity-exhibit-steve.html). I find him so intellectually dishonest and disingenuous as to be funny. Politico has a forum, The Arena, where they invite alleged elite thinkers to comment on various topics. Most of the comments are the typical polemics of the left and right. But I go watch the Arena mainly to see what ridiculous gem Calabresi will provide, he rarely disappoints. His endorsement of McCain was very brief if predictable, listing no affirmative case for McCain, but blaming without basis the financial market crash on Obama and dismissing Obama's middle class tax cuts as welfare, nothing more nothing less.
But today he has really chafed my derriere. He pops up on the WSJ with a really scurrilous piece. WSJ featuring such drivel speaks to the vacuity of its editorial page. Calabresi starts the piece lamenting the passing of the good old days of Reagan federal judge appointments- folks like Scalia, Bork and Ken Starr (TW: I do not miss those days but that is just me). Then he veers off into gaga land.
I posted yesterday with Joe Klein's rebuttal of the Republican effort to baldly twist Obama's 2001 quote re the constitution and "income re-distribution" (http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/10/re-distributing-wealth.html). Obama's quote had nothing to do with supporting income re-distribution. Yet Calabresi grabs the quote again and twists it irresponsibly. This is a law professor who must know better but knowingly commits an intellectually dishonest act.
Then he degenerates into extrapolating to ridiculous extremes where Obama's judicial policies would take the U.S. Obama for some reason has not campaigned on the spurious extrapolations, no one during the primaries or general election has pressed him on the topics (not even Fox) but Calabresi with his omniscience sees them coming (but then Obama is the ultimate Manchurian candidate).
I comment on Calabresi to highlight the intellectual dishonesty of the WSJ and the hollowness of many (not all by any means) on the right who without sufficient affirmative reasons for supporting their nominees are now merely making stuff up.
From Calabresi/WSJ:
"...This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth?...
If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
TW: I have added another post by Cass Sunstein (guy whose Obama endorsement I posted yesterday, he is also an attorney), addressing in further detail the Obama 2001 interview.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/27/ridiculousness-about-redistribution-drudge-and-others.aspx
But today he has really chafed my derriere. He pops up on the WSJ with a really scurrilous piece. WSJ featuring such drivel speaks to the vacuity of its editorial page. Calabresi starts the piece lamenting the passing of the good old days of Reagan federal judge appointments- folks like Scalia, Bork and Ken Starr (TW: I do not miss those days but that is just me). Then he veers off into gaga land.
I posted yesterday with Joe Klein's rebuttal of the Republican effort to baldly twist Obama's 2001 quote re the constitution and "income re-distribution" (http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/10/re-distributing-wealth.html). Obama's quote had nothing to do with supporting income re-distribution. Yet Calabresi grabs the quote again and twists it irresponsibly. This is a law professor who must know better but knowingly commits an intellectually dishonest act.
Then he degenerates into extrapolating to ridiculous extremes where Obama's judicial policies would take the U.S. Obama for some reason has not campaigned on the spurious extrapolations, no one during the primaries or general election has pressed him on the topics (not even Fox) but Calabresi with his omniscience sees them coming (but then Obama is the ultimate Manchurian candidate).
I comment on Calabresi to highlight the intellectual dishonesty of the WSJ and the hollowness of many (not all by any means) on the right who without sufficient affirmative reasons for supporting their nominees are now merely making stuff up.
From Calabresi/WSJ:
"...This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth?...
If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html
TW: I have added another post by Cass Sunstein (guy whose Obama endorsement I posted yesterday, he is also an attorney), addressing in further detail the Obama 2001 interview.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/27/ridiculousness-about-redistribution-drudge-and-others.aspx
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Profile In Stupidity Exhibit A: Steve Calabresi Prof Of Law At Northwestern
TW: and who said the Democrats had cornered the market in elitist ignorance...
From Mr. Calabresi a man who presumably has received years of education, little of which did much good apparently:
"This Administration deserves to be trusted because it has kept us safe from terrorist attack since 9/11, has fought and won two wars, has presided over eight years of economic growth, has appointed two stellar justices to the Supreme Court, and has even learned how to do Louisiana’s job of protecting that state from hurricanes. The day will come, and not before long, when Americans will wish that George Bush was still president."
http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/steven_g_calabresi.html
From Mr. Calabresi a man who presumably has received years of education, little of which did much good apparently:
"This Administration deserves to be trusted because it has kept us safe from terrorist attack since 9/11, has fought and won two wars, has presided over eight years of economic growth, has appointed two stellar justices to the Supreme Court, and has even learned how to do Louisiana’s job of protecting that state from hurricanes. The day will come, and not before long, when Americans will wish that George Bush was still president."
http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/steven_g_calabresi.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)