A couple of days ago I posted on the detention of a Member of Parliament in the UK. This was Damien Green, the Shadow Minister for Immigration, not the Shadow Home Secretary, as I stated in the post.
The arrest of Mr Green has raised a lot of discussion and it appears his Wikipedia entry is being updated almost daily.
The story has evolved from the alleged involvement of the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, in allowing this arrest of an MP, to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr Michael Martin, allowing the police, without a search warrant, to enter Westminster Palace and the House of Commons area to search Mr Green's offices. The British Parliament, commonly known as the Mother of all Parliaments, guards its prerogatives closely.
Today's Manchester Guardian reports that not only have two Conservative MPs called for the resignation of the Speaker, Mr Michael Martin, but now a left wing member of the Labor Party.
As Matthew Weaver reports, it is unlikely the Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown, will agree to the Speaker (a person normally viewed as strictly neutral) stepping down, as Mr Martin would then be, by tradition, bumped to the House of Lords, opening up a by-election that could be bruising for Labor.
Our Democratic institutions need to be guarded carefully and this incident in the UK is setting a bad precedent.
Regards -- Cliff
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
Terrorism
I wanted to follow up on my comments from last evening least some readers, with a Jack Bauer complex, categorize me as one of those wishy-washy bleeding heart liberals. I believe, in fact, that I am a principled liberal in the sense the French mean it when they spit it out as they describe Maggie Thatcher. That is, I believe in individual freedom and all it encompasses. And, I believe in both principles and pragmatism.
Regarding torture, I have three reasons to be against it.
FIRST, I think it violates positions we hold true, such as the Bill of Rights and other concepts that have come to us through Common Law and the rulings of the US Supreme Court.
These all add up to protection of the rights of individuals.
SECOND, I think it puts us in bad company, along with the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, the French in Algeria and the North Vietnamese. While it is easy for those with an isolationist bent to say we shouldn't care, in fact we can't be isolationists and in fact our reputation does us a lot of good out there, notwithstanding all the polls we read.
It is easy for an otherwise civilized nation to fall into bad habits. Look at the French in Algeria. Henri Alleg, a Communist, smuggled his short memoirs out of prison, to be published in late 1958 as La Question. The book was about French torture in Algeria, which the French Government denied. The book ended up being banned in France, along with articles published about it. A translation in English was published in the United States, where I read it before I graduated from High School in 1960.
More recently, retired French General Paul Aussaresses published his memories, The Battle of the Casbah: Terrorism and Counterterrorism in Algeria 1955-1957. This slim little book cost him his reputation and his Legion of Honor. Interviewed in November of 2000, he said, ""I never liked the use of torture. But I resigned myself to it when I arrived in Algeria, by which time it was already commonplace." On the other hand, one of the responsible commanders, now 92 year old paratroop commander General Jacques Massu says: "Morally, torture is ugly."
Here is an ugly side of torture. General Aussaresses, in his book, says that information must be obtained within 24 hours (where have we heard that before) and after that the prisoner is useless and should be killed as he or she has been tortured too much to release. Not good.
We are the "City on the Hill," as John Winthrop said as the Puritans were about to disembark in Massachusetts:
THIRD, it doesn't work. Even if you thought that we needed to torture everyone we captured, the truth is it usually doesn't work, the results are unreliable and there are better ways.
Take this WashPost article from January 2005. It quotes the late Air Force Colonel, John Rothrock as saying torture is not the answer. I knew, respected and admired John. He was a right winger for sure. And a straight shooter. His testimony would be sufficient for me. You, unfortunately, did not know John Rothrock. It would have been an honor to have known him.
Sticking with the Air Force, we have this book, How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq. The author, Matthew Alexander, a pseudonym, tells of how he used appropriate techniques to track down Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq. I like this quote from the Amazon review: "We don't have to become our enemies to defeat them."
This long war is a war of ideas, not grievances. Our ideas have to be better.
Regards -- Cliff
Regarding torture, I have three reasons to be against it.
FIRST, I think it violates positions we hold true, such as the Bill of Rights and other concepts that have come to us through Common Law and the rulings of the US Supreme Court.
- Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
- Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
- Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel.
- Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
- Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
- Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
These all add up to protection of the rights of individuals.
SECOND, I think it puts us in bad company, along with the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, the French in Algeria and the North Vietnamese. While it is easy for those with an isolationist bent to say we shouldn't care, in fact we can't be isolationists and in fact our reputation does us a lot of good out there, notwithstanding all the polls we read.
It is easy for an otherwise civilized nation to fall into bad habits. Look at the French in Algeria. Henri Alleg, a Communist, smuggled his short memoirs out of prison, to be published in late 1958 as La Question. The book was about French torture in Algeria, which the French Government denied. The book ended up being banned in France, along with articles published about it. A translation in English was published in the United States, where I read it before I graduated from High School in 1960.
More recently, retired French General Paul Aussaresses published his memories, The Battle of the Casbah: Terrorism and Counterterrorism in Algeria 1955-1957. This slim little book cost him his reputation and his Legion of Honor. Interviewed in November of 2000, he said, ""I never liked the use of torture. But I resigned myself to it when I arrived in Algeria, by which time it was already commonplace." On the other hand, one of the responsible commanders, now 92 year old paratroop commander General Jacques Massu says: "Morally, torture is ugly."
Here is an ugly side of torture. General Aussaresses, in his book, says that information must be obtained within 24 hours (where have we heard that before) and after that the prisoner is useless and should be killed as he or she has been tortured too much to release. Not good.
We are the "City on the Hill," as John Winthrop said as the Puritans were about to disembark in Massachusetts:
For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.If you are uncomfortable with the idea of God intervening in the affairs of man, consider that the basic idea caught on and was repeated by President Elect Kennedy in 1961 and by President Reagan in his farewell address to the nation in 1989. We are that "City on the Hill" and we shouldn't be dealing falsely in this work that has been given to us God or circumstance or both.
THIRD, it doesn't work. Even if you thought that we needed to torture everyone we captured, the truth is it usually doesn't work, the results are unreliable and there are better ways.
Take this WashPost article from January 2005. It quotes the late Air Force Colonel, John Rothrock as saying torture is not the answer. I knew, respected and admired John. He was a right winger for sure. And a straight shooter. His testimony would be sufficient for me. You, unfortunately, did not know John Rothrock. It would have been an honor to have known him.
Sticking with the Air Force, we have this book, How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq. The author, Matthew Alexander, a pseudonym, tells of how he used appropriate techniques to track down Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq. I like this quote from the Amazon review: "We don't have to become our enemies to defeat them."
This long war is a war of ideas, not grievances. Our ideas have to be better.
Regards -- Cliff
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Catholic Intellectuals
I took my NCR (National Catholic Reporter) to Chili's to read at least one article. Right on the front page, upper left hand corner, is " 'Poped out' Wills seeks broader horizons," by John Allen, Jr. I have been reading NCR since the 1960s and Garry Wills for almost that long--mostly opinion pieces, but also his book, Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America. I liked the book.
A couple of items in the very long article, by NCR standards, raised my eyebrows and so I decided to send a letter to the editor.
Then I remembered that I am a BLOGGER and I can write my comments for all to see, without the filter of some editor--and then I can send them the URL.
The first thing I thought might be a bit off was the "Historian and journalist Garry Wills, perhaps the most distinguished Catholic intellectual in America over the last 50 years...". I wonder if 50 years precludes Uncle Fulty (as he was known in my parents house)--Bishop Fulton J Sheen? Bishop Sheen held the attention of my agnostic Father for 30 minutes each week. And what about Father Andrew Greeley, someone I have read (non-fiction only), although I don't always agree with him? So, at the beginning of the second paragraph I was asking myself if I agreed with the tenor of the piece.
Then, later on, toward the end, there is a discussion of torture and Constitutional Rights. I admit to being one of those opposed to torture. However, I am also one of those who is opposed to the idea, ensconced in law long ago, that said that the Bill of Rights didn't extend out past the US territorial waters if you were not a US Citizen. Torture in GITMO or in some European rendition site is not a violation of the US Constitution. It should be, but it isn't.
If NCR wants to do something, it should start a campaign to pass a Constitutional Amendment saying that the Bill of Rights extends to actions by the US Government wherever there is a US Government presence, overt or covert.
But, back to the article. One gathers that the author, John Allen, Jr, is celebrating the fact that Professor Wills is a Catholic opposed to the hierarchy and setting his own standards, or as Mr Allen says, "he parts company with church teaching on papal infallibility, abortion and transubstantiation...". On the other hand, Mr Wills accepts the Nicene Creed and says his Rosary every day--I hope he doesn't have the same problem I have, falling behind from time to time and having to then double up to catch up.
I guess the end of the long interview finds me figuring that I would be happy to share a pew during Mass with Professor Wills, and share a donut afterwards. But, I don't think I want him teaching the Confirmation Class.
And, the good news is that, unlike our Episcopalian Brothers and Sisters, we haven't split ourselves into two parts, one supposedly "liberal" and the other supposedly "conservative."
Regards -- Cliff
A couple of items in the very long article, by NCR standards, raised my eyebrows and so I decided to send a letter to the editor.
Then I remembered that I am a BLOGGER and I can write my comments for all to see, without the filter of some editor--and then I can send them the URL.
The first thing I thought might be a bit off was the "Historian and journalist Garry Wills, perhaps the most distinguished Catholic intellectual in America over the last 50 years...". I wonder if 50 years precludes Uncle Fulty (as he was known in my parents house)--Bishop Fulton J Sheen? Bishop Sheen held the attention of my agnostic Father for 30 minutes each week. And what about Father Andrew Greeley, someone I have read (non-fiction only), although I don't always agree with him? So, at the beginning of the second paragraph I was asking myself if I agreed with the tenor of the piece.
Then, later on, toward the end, there is a discussion of torture and Constitutional Rights. I admit to being one of those opposed to torture. However, I am also one of those who is opposed to the idea, ensconced in law long ago, that said that the Bill of Rights didn't extend out past the US territorial waters if you were not a US Citizen. Torture in GITMO or in some European rendition site is not a violation of the US Constitution. It should be, but it isn't.
If NCR wants to do something, it should start a campaign to pass a Constitutional Amendment saying that the Bill of Rights extends to actions by the US Government wherever there is a US Government presence, overt or covert.
But, back to the article. One gathers that the author, John Allen, Jr, is celebrating the fact that Professor Wills is a Catholic opposed to the hierarchy and setting his own standards, or as Mr Allen says, "he parts company with church teaching on papal infallibility, abortion and transubstantiation...". On the other hand, Mr Wills accepts the Nicene Creed and says his Rosary every day--I hope he doesn't have the same problem I have, falling behind from time to time and having to then double up to catch up.
I guess the end of the long interview finds me figuring that I would be happy to share a pew during Mass with Professor Wills, and share a donut afterwards. But, I don't think I want him teaching the Confirmation Class.
And, the good news is that, unlike our Episcopalian Brothers and Sisters, we haven't split ourselves into two parts, one supposedly "liberal" and the other supposedly "conservative."
Regards -- Cliff
India and Pakistan and Iran
Regarding "going nuclear," as mentioned in the previous post, here is one person's view.
The author, Joe Collins, is a retired Army Colonel of my acquaintance, who currently teaches at the National War College, but was, at one time, first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations.
While he is more optimistic than I about the several potential outcomes of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, he does use that key phrase--"The Day After." We should all be thinking about "The Day After."
Does Mumbai make a difference? Worthy of discussion. The Comments Section is open.
Regards -- Cliff
The author, Joe Collins, is a retired Army Colonel of my acquaintance, who currently teaches at the National War College, but was, at one time, first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations.
While he is more optimistic than I about the several potential outcomes of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, he does use that key phrase--"The Day After." We should all be thinking about "The Day After."
Does Mumbai make a difference? Worthy of discussion. The Comments Section is open.
Regards -- Cliff
India and Pakistan
I was looking over John McCreay's "NightWatch" and noted where he believes India is moving toward attacking suspected terrorist camps in Pakistan. He has the following:
The problem here--the long run problem--is that if India attacks terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan feels it has to respond by military attacks into India, it could escalate into war and then into nuclear war. The real problem with a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India--as my wife pointed out to me several years ago--is that it could make the world "safe" for nuclear warfare. The outcome would be hundreds of thousands dead. But, if the leadership on both sides walked out of their bunkers the next day and their people called for more it would be a bad sign. It might lead leaders in places like Iran and North Korea (DPRK) to begin thinking that nuclear weapons are not just symbols of modernity and power, but are usable in actual conflict.
The potential for such thinking in Iran and North Korea would lead, in turn to people in Israel and South Korea and Japan thinking that deterrence is not enough and that maybe even the US Nuclear Umbrella is not enough.
This, in turn, could lead to an Israeli decision for preemption or a South Korean or Japanese decision to obtain their own nuclear weapons. And, the possibility that Japan might obtain nuclear weapons might cause China to...
And on cue, Fox News has this item about Israel gearing up to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. I think it is mostly bluff and signally, but some day it might not be.
It is never the first problem. It is the compounding problems. And, with compounding problems, things start to go deviant.
On a good note, if there is such a thing, Mr McCreay notes that Fox News reported that Secretary Rice said there are indications of al Qaeda involvement on the attack on Mumbai. This might change the Indian Governments understanding of the threats facing them. However, the caution is that this report was not as news, but in commentary.
Remember, you can get Mr McCreay's (almost) nightly analyses at this location.
Regards -- Cliff
The Times of India reported today that the United States has “organized for retaliatory internationally backed strikes” by India against terrorist camps in Pakistan, if the Pakistani government does not first carry out measures to take them down. On Tuesday, India’s Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon met with various high-level U.S. government officials in Washington, discussing India’s position on Pakistan's culpability and the Mumbai attacks.We have seen where US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been urging Pakistan to act with alacrity in helping India deal those responsible for the attacks in Mumbai.
The problem here--the long run problem--is that if India attacks terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan feels it has to respond by military attacks into India, it could escalate into war and then into nuclear war. The real problem with a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India--as my wife pointed out to me several years ago--is that it could make the world "safe" for nuclear warfare. The outcome would be hundreds of thousands dead. But, if the leadership on both sides walked out of their bunkers the next day and their people called for more it would be a bad sign. It might lead leaders in places like Iran and North Korea (DPRK) to begin thinking that nuclear weapons are not just symbols of modernity and power, but are usable in actual conflict.
The potential for such thinking in Iran and North Korea would lead, in turn to people in Israel and South Korea and Japan thinking that deterrence is not enough and that maybe even the US Nuclear Umbrella is not enough.
This, in turn, could lead to an Israeli decision for preemption or a South Korean or Japanese decision to obtain their own nuclear weapons. And, the possibility that Japan might obtain nuclear weapons might cause China to...
And on cue, Fox News has this item about Israel gearing up to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. I think it is mostly bluff and signally, but some day it might not be.
It is never the first problem. It is the compounding problems. And, with compounding problems, things start to go deviant.
On a good note, if there is such a thing, Mr McCreay notes that Fox News reported that Secretary Rice said there are indications of al Qaeda involvement on the attack on Mumbai. This might change the Indian Governments understanding of the threats facing them. However, the caution is that this report was not as news, but in commentary.
Remember, you can get Mr McCreay's (almost) nightly analyses at this location.
Regards -- Cliff
Being on TV
Actually being on LTC TV and George Anthes' City Life Show, which includes Tom Byrne on camera and John McDonough behind the cameras. Doesn't this remind us of some previous incarnation? Of course, it does.
For those who are interested in George Anthes--remembering him from his days on WCAP--you can also catch in as a live feed from the LTC website.
For those who noted I skipped posting yesterday--I also skipped class. I finished a Telephone Conference at 1500 and came home, and instead of watching George on TV, went to bed. I have some sort of a bug.
But, back to live TV.
The first thing to note is that I need to lose 60 pounds. I should have been working on that all Summer, but sadly was not. If I had, there would have been a lot less to lose at this point.
One of the things that came up during the 1+30 with Richard Howe and Tom Byrne was how much time one spends keeping a blog up to speed. I said an hour, but in fact it can be more than that. My posting on the British scandal over the detention of the British shadow Home Secretary took two hours plus. Getting the facts straight and making sure the sentences are correct and make sense and vetting and including links takes time. And, I enjoy doing it.
During the time, Tom Byrne and I got into a discussion on if we would have used nuclear weapons against Germany during World War II. Tom asserted that since we never deployed the B-29s to England, we weren't serious about going after Germany. I countered that the B-17/B-24 infrastructure was in place and that the greater range of the B-29 suited the Pacific.
With regard to actually using nuclear weapons on Germany, I stand by my statement of yes, but wish to make some caveats. We would still have had to be at war with Germany in August of 1945. I expect that the prospect of victory would have had to be fairly far out in the future, which means the Normandy landings would have not yet taken place (or our forces were contained in the beachhead area) and the Soviet Union would still be stalled out, perhaps having badly lost the Battle of Kursk in 1943. Just as the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was based upon a much longer war and a great increase in casualties, such would be the case with regard to Germany.
We would have had three nuclear device in the Summer of 1945. How would we have used them? Germany was the opposite of Japan, in that in Japan the military wanted to fight on to the end, but the Emperor realized it was time to save the people. In Germany the military was moving toward cutting a deal, but the Supreme Leader was willing to let the people perish. Also, in the case of Germany, there was the Holocaust raging. That alone, if the Allies were able to acknowledge it, would have justified major acts to terminate the war quickly.
Politics, as always, came up. And the question of Senator Clinton as the nominee for Secretary of State. This issue was addressed this morning by Joan Vennochi, in a column in the Globe, where she views the choice of Senator Clinton as "bitter brew" for Senator Kerry. On the other hand, maybe Senator Kerry is right where he wants to be as Chairman of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee. Let us all hope he uses that position to enhance the Department of State and not hobble it, as his predecessors have. The folks at the Department of State are dedicated Americans, working hard to achieve US foreign policy objectives. It is easy to dismiss them as the "wine and cheese" crowd, but that would be grossly unfair.
(In a side note, Joseph Cirincione yesterday lost a lot of credibility with me when he described Senator Kerry as a "nuclear expert.")
But, back to the show, I thoroughly enjoyed myself being on George's show on LTC, even if George wasn't there.
I included as a label for this post "History," since it included many interactions with Tom Byrne.
Regards -- Cliff
For those who are interested in George Anthes--remembering him from his days on WCAP--you can also catch in as a live feed from the LTC website.
For those who noted I skipped posting yesterday--I also skipped class. I finished a Telephone Conference at 1500 and came home, and instead of watching George on TV, went to bed. I have some sort of a bug.
But, back to live TV.
The first thing to note is that I need to lose 60 pounds. I should have been working on that all Summer, but sadly was not. If I had, there would have been a lot less to lose at this point.
One of the things that came up during the 1+30 with Richard Howe and Tom Byrne was how much time one spends keeping a blog up to speed. I said an hour, but in fact it can be more than that. My posting on the British scandal over the detention of the British shadow Home Secretary took two hours plus. Getting the facts straight and making sure the sentences are correct and make sense and vetting and including links takes time. And, I enjoy doing it.
During the time, Tom Byrne and I got into a discussion on if we would have used nuclear weapons against Germany during World War II. Tom asserted that since we never deployed the B-29s to England, we weren't serious about going after Germany. I countered that the B-17/B-24 infrastructure was in place and that the greater range of the B-29 suited the Pacific.
With regard to actually using nuclear weapons on Germany, I stand by my statement of yes, but wish to make some caveats. We would still have had to be at war with Germany in August of 1945. I expect that the prospect of victory would have had to be fairly far out in the future, which means the Normandy landings would have not yet taken place (or our forces were contained in the beachhead area) and the Soviet Union would still be stalled out, perhaps having badly lost the Battle of Kursk in 1943. Just as the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was based upon a much longer war and a great increase in casualties, such would be the case with regard to Germany.
We would have had three nuclear device in the Summer of 1945. How would we have used them? Germany was the opposite of Japan, in that in Japan the military wanted to fight on to the end, but the Emperor realized it was time to save the people. In Germany the military was moving toward cutting a deal, but the Supreme Leader was willing to let the people perish. Also, in the case of Germany, there was the Holocaust raging. That alone, if the Allies were able to acknowledge it, would have justified major acts to terminate the war quickly.
Politics, as always, came up. And the question of Senator Clinton as the nominee for Secretary of State. This issue was addressed this morning by Joan Vennochi, in a column in the Globe, where she views the choice of Senator Clinton as "bitter brew" for Senator Kerry. On the other hand, maybe Senator Kerry is right where he wants to be as Chairman of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee. Let us all hope he uses that position to enhance the Department of State and not hobble it, as his predecessors have. The folks at the Department of State are dedicated Americans, working hard to achieve US foreign policy objectives. It is easy to dismiss them as the "wine and cheese" crowd, but that would be grossly unfair.
(In a side note, Joseph Cirincione yesterday lost a lot of credibility with me when he described Senator Kerry as a "nuclear expert.")
But, back to the show, I thoroughly enjoyed myself being on George's show on LTC, even if George wasn't there.
I included as a label for this post "History," since it included many interactions with Tom Byrne.
Regards -- Cliff
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Protecting our Democracy
I started out wanting to talk about being on LTC with George Anthes, minus George, and then shifted to the EMail I received about the Holocaust no longer being taught in Britain (more on that later, but for now, not exactly true), and then I thought I should blog about Anthropologists behaving badly, but then I came across an item about abuse of Government Power in the UK.
I found this via Instapundit, who linked to a longer item by Roger Kimball.
To try and sum it up from afar, the Conservative Party, being in the opposition, has a "Shadow Minister" for each cabinet office and his or her job is to go after the Government when they find error or incompetence. The Shadow Minister for the Home Office (a sort of combination Department of Homeland Security, the CIA and the FBI) is the Honorable Damien Green, MP. After having a go at the Government in Parliament, Mr Green was arrested on 27 November and held by the British Police Anti-Terrorist Specialists (20 of them) and questioned for nine hours and had his home occupied and his computer and papers examined. (Apparently his daughter wandered in after school and thus she got entered into a database that includes children whose homes have been visited by the police.) After nine hours he was released without having been charged. For me the most unfortunate part of this is that the Speaker of the House let the police examine his Parliamentary offices.
The reason for this police action (or over reaction) has to do with two areas, "aiding and abetting misconduct in public office" and ""conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office." That is to say, his questions about bad Government performance were based on information leaked by one or more civil servants. Imagine if in the United States the Executive Branch went after every leaker and every Senator and Representative who received leaks--Congress would shut down, and the Press as well. The New York Times would be spending all its time cooperating with the Police, as they say.
When an interviewer on a Sunday talk show began addressing the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, about this, she gave a long and rambling response that essentially said that the Police are independent and do what they want. Now that is scary. In contrast, Mr Kenneth Clarke, QC, MP, a former Home Secretary (Conservative) said if he had been informed of such an act his reaction "would have been horrified fury."
Roger Kimball linked to this opinion piece in The Telegraph, by Janet Daley, who talks to it from the point of view of a conservative newspaper on the scene. But, over at The Manchester Guardian, a definite left wing paper, Columnist Henry Porter has at the Government. On the other hand, there is this defense in the same Guardian, by Vernon Bogdanor, a Constitutional Scholar at Oxford. I am not buying it.
I would be interested in seeing what Polly Toynbee of The Guardian has to say, but so far, nothing.
What I consider to be a generally reliable source regarding civil rights that looks at both sides of the Atlantic, Samizdata, has two pertinent posts:
Brian Macklethwait, who quotes Matthew Parris:
After seeing what the Labor Government did with regard to Damian Green, or allowed to happen, or at least failed to apologize for, I am not as outraged at the protections given to Congressman William Jefferson (D-Louisiana), the man with the $90,000 in cold cash in his home freezer. Back in May 2006 the Republican leadership of the House got its back up over the question of the FBI looking around Congressman Jeffferson's House offices. The Speaker told the President that he was violating the separation of powers by asking to search the office.
Democracy is a somewhat fragile flower and needs to be protected by all the practitioners. As some Brit quipped, "It is enough to make me vote Tory."
Regards -- Cliff
PS While looking over The Guardian I came across an opinion piece by WBZ's own Dan Kennedy. A local guy goes international.
I found this via Instapundit, who linked to a longer item by Roger Kimball.
To try and sum it up from afar, the Conservative Party, being in the opposition, has a "Shadow Minister" for each cabinet office and his or her job is to go after the Government when they find error or incompetence. The Shadow Minister for the Home Office (a sort of combination Department of Homeland Security, the CIA and the FBI) is the Honorable Damien Green, MP. After having a go at the Government in Parliament, Mr Green was arrested on 27 November and held by the British Police Anti-Terrorist Specialists (20 of them) and questioned for nine hours and had his home occupied and his computer and papers examined. (Apparently his daughter wandered in after school and thus she got entered into a database that includes children whose homes have been visited by the police.) After nine hours he was released without having been charged. For me the most unfortunate part of this is that the Speaker of the House let the police examine his Parliamentary offices.
The reason for this police action (or over reaction) has to do with two areas, "aiding and abetting misconduct in public office" and ""conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office." That is to say, his questions about bad Government performance were based on information leaked by one or more civil servants. Imagine if in the United States the Executive Branch went after every leaker and every Senator and Representative who received leaks--Congress would shut down, and the Press as well. The New York Times would be spending all its time cooperating with the Police, as they say.
When an interviewer on a Sunday talk show began addressing the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, about this, she gave a long and rambling response that essentially said that the Police are independent and do what they want. Now that is scary. In contrast, Mr Kenneth Clarke, QC, MP, a former Home Secretary (Conservative) said if he had been informed of such an act his reaction "would have been horrified fury."
Roger Kimball linked to this opinion piece in The Telegraph, by Janet Daley, who talks to it from the point of view of a conservative newspaper on the scene. But, over at The Manchester Guardian, a definite left wing paper, Columnist Henry Porter has at the Government. On the other hand, there is this defense in the same Guardian, by Vernon Bogdanor, a Constitutional Scholar at Oxford. I am not buying it.
I would be interested in seeing what Polly Toynbee of The Guardian has to say, but so far, nothing.
What I consider to be a generally reliable source regarding civil rights that looks at both sides of the Atlantic, Samizdata, has two pertinent posts:
Brian Macklethwait, who quotes Matthew Parris:
For me, Thomas à Becket and Canterbury Cathedral spring to mind. I picture an infuriated Prime Minister bellowing at a flat-screen television: "Will nobody rid me of these troublesome leaks?" Who the four knights were who took it upon themselves to act upon the presumed wishes of a maddened monarch, we may never know, but when Mr Brown insists that he didn't actually know, it is possible to believe him.And Philip Chaston
After seeing what the Labor Government did with regard to Damian Green, or allowed to happen, or at least failed to apologize for, I am not as outraged at the protections given to Congressman William Jefferson (D-Louisiana), the man with the $90,000 in cold cash in his home freezer. Back in May 2006 the Republican leadership of the House got its back up over the question of the FBI looking around Congressman Jeffferson's House offices. The Speaker told the President that he was violating the separation of powers by asking to search the office.
Democracy is a somewhat fragile flower and needs to be protected by all the practitioners. As some Brit quipped, "It is enough to make me vote Tory."
Regards -- Cliff
PS While looking over The Guardian I came across an opinion piece by WBZ's own Dan Kennedy. A local guy goes international.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)