The Senate Report On the CIA Reminds Me of A Movie

There's been a lot of debate about the use of the CIA's interrogation techniques, in the wake of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report. It's been a chance for everyone to re-litigate the entire issue of whether we tortured detainees, and there's been some good debate on this.

It's certainly an open question, and anyone who conclusively comes down either way without acknowledging the other side may have a point is not a grown-up. This debate about torture is a debate about where you draw the line on what can and what cannot be done to captured combatants in war. Reasonable minds can disagree.

However, what really upsets me about this report has nothing to do with the issue of torture. What I find completely revolting about this report is the the fact that the main findings of the committee are essentially that the CIA didn't tell them about all this, and they are shocked, shocked to find out that gambling is going on in Rick's. But that's not the movie reference I thought of.

Essentially, this report is some Senators trying to avoid the fact that they asked the CIA to do whatever it took to avoid another 9/11. Do you remember how America was after 9/11? I do. 

Everyone was looking at the smoking rubble of the twin towers, a crater in Pennsylvania, and a hole in the side of the Pentagon and saying: We cannot let this happen again. You guys in the CIA need to take the gloves off and make sure this doesn't happen again. Keep the country safe. Stop playing nice - go after these people. Do everything you can.

People who weren't openly saying this were silently happy to go along with those who were. Not a single representative of the people rose up to say Well, wait. Maybe we don't need to change how we deal with the bad guys just because they did something bad to us.

Accordingly, the CIA started turning up the heat - as they were asked to do. They didn't do this on their own accord. We the people, through our elected representatives, asked them to do this. The Senate Intelligence Committee was briefed on exactly what the CIA was doing. And now, they're trying to say: Hey, I didn't intend for you to be mean to those poor souls! I wanted you to do everything possible to keep us safe while being perfect gentlemen! I have no culpability for these things that you did!

I know. Politicians evading their responsibility seems so farfetched. In any event, this whole thing reminded me of the end of Clear and Present Danger. In the movie, the President gets very upset when a Columbian drug cartel kills a personal friend of his who was laundering money for them (and stealing a little bit for himself). Therefore, the President tells his Chief of Staff to get the CIA to start really going after the drug cartel. The CIA basically does what it is told and starts really hurting the cartel - killing people and breaking things.

Eventually, the President decides he's had enough of the operation, simply says it should go away like "It never happened", and hangs all the men out to dry, who are then killed by the cartel. Ryan is neck deep in the whole thing and eventually goes to confront the President. Here's the scene:

The President tries to tell Ryan that he is "just becoming aware" of the certain things that happened, and that he "never ordered any" strike against the cartel. Ryan, having no patience for the cutesy little game of plausible deniability, tells the President: I will not have you dishonor their memories by pretending you had nothing to do with it.

That's the note that the Senate Report strikes for me. They're trying to pretend that they had nothing to do with the CIA's methods, when it's crystal clear that they asked the CIA to take the gloves off. Specifically, the WaPo had an editorial pointing this out:

On May 26, 2002, Feinstein was quoted in the New York Times saying that the attacks of 9/11 were a real awakening and that it would no longer be “business as usual.” The attacks, she said, let us know “that the threat is profound” and “that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.”

This report is a purely political document, and its intent is to allow the authors to engage in some moral preening. They're simply engaging in a political act to curry favor with their constituents now that the existential threat from terrorism is a distant memory, and the people who swallow this report are doing the same thing.

I accept that we did some brutal things to people. We the people, asked the CIA to do exactly that. Maybe we made a decision in a moment of weakness that some of us regret. That's fine. However, it's just a damn lie for the Committee to say that they didn't know what was going on.

They all knew and approved. We The People all knew and approved. If you feel regret for what happened, that's fine. If you're ok with what we did, that's fine, too. But for goodness sake, take some responsibility for your actions.

Bernie Sanders: "You know what we need? We need to limit that pesky First Amendment."

Yes, that pesky First Amendment has been driving Democrats bonkers ever since the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions came down from the Supreme Court, basically holding that people can spend money on political advocacy and and give money to as many candidates as they want to.

So let's just limit the First Amendment.

One day before the U.S. Senate votes on a constitutional amendment to restore limits on big money in politics, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called the drive to undo Supreme Court decisions that gutted campaign finance laws “the major issue of our time” and said Monday’s showdown vote is “a pivotal moment in American history.”

The Democrats like to poke fun at the GOP controlled House of Representatives taking meaningless and purely symbolic votes to repeal Obamacare. And that's fair. Those votes are fairly meaningless and symbolic because they won't pass the Senate, and they for danged sure aren't going to be signed by the President.

But lemme get this straight: The Democrats think they're going to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate and in the GOP House, and then they're going to get three-fourths of the State Legislatures to ratify an amendment to curtail the First Amendment?

Good luck!

While they're at it they should go ahead and propose an amendment to the Second Amendment, too.

Obama's Big Mistake

Back in high school, I had a friend who was fairly smart. However, instead of working relatively hard and making great grades, he was always looking to circumvent the rules. He spent almost all of his time and energy trying to find loopholes in school rules and regulations.

More often than not, his actions would get him in trouble with teachers and administrators. He constantly pushed back against almost all authority, constantly pushing the envelope of what was allowed. Basically, he spent most of his time and energy fighting the system, rather than trying to work within the confines of the school rules.

It caused a lot of bad blood between him and the school officials over what were essentially unnecessary conflicts. He ended up graduating, but refusing to participate in the ceremony. If my friend had spent his time simply studying and working to get along with people, he would have been a top student, and he would have probably been the valedictorian, speaking at his graduation, rather than skipping it.

I see that same characteristic in our current President.

Ever since he lost his super-majority in the Senate, he's gotten absolutely nothing done. He goes on and on all the time about how the mean ol' Republicans won't work with him on anything, but the fact is, he doesn't want to work with them, either. Accordingly, our President now spends all his time trying to figure out how much he can get done without Congress. He's doing everything he can to simply avoid Congress on almost every issue. He's unilaterally changing the ACA, fighting the Halbig case so he doesn't have to ask Congress amend the law, raising the minimum wage via executive order and so on. His famous "pen and phone" line is emblematic of his mentality to simply fight/ignore the Legislative branch of our government.

This isn't how to win friends and influence Congress. (Or enact policy.) Another example is evident today, in the realm of the climate change argument.

Just today, the President has now decided that he's going to try and do some strange end run around the fact that the Senate has to ratify treaties. Apparently, the President wants to cut carbon emissions in an international treaty, but he knows the Senate won't approve it. Therefore, rather than going to the Senators and trying to cut a deal and give them something in exchange, the President is now just going to try and do what he can without the Senate.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

Our President isn't even trying to convince the Senate to go along with this. They've told him "no", but he's undeterred. He's going to try and figure out some way to enter into a treaty without actually entering into a treaty. That will be quite a trick.

If the President spent half the time actually trying to compromise and work with Congress that he spends trying to come up with ways around Congress, he might actually get something done. He needs to understand that you can't always get everything you want when there's divided government. Out of all the campaign promises he's made and broken (and there's a lot) the number one promise he's broken is that he would be a pragmatic "uniter", ending our bitter partisanship. He's absolutely done the opposite. As I referenced in my last post, steamrolling the ACA through Congress is what created the Tea Party.

For all of the soul-searching that leftists do about how our foreign aggression "creates" terrorists, they sure don't seem to realize how political aggression created the Tea Party.

But instead, this current President looks like he's going to be end up like my friend from high school. He's going to struggle against the system, and he's going to engender lots of bad blood, and ultimately, it's all going to be a big waste of time and effort, never really reaching his potential. At the rate he's going, he'll probably end up skipping graduation to go play golf.

“If you want to build a relationship and build a rapport, then you don’t talk about specific issues first,”

Says Senator Tim Scott, as he works to build relationships.

GOP Candidate for Iowa Senate Seat Makes An Interesting Ad

Here's an ad from Joni Ernst, who is one of the GOP candidates for Iowa's Senate Seat. It's kind of in the same vein as all the Sarah Palin-esqe stuff. She cruises in on a motorcycle, and then...well, just watch.

Thoughts? It kind of reminds me of (now Sentator) Joe Manchin's campaign ad where he shot a hole in the Obamacare bill with a rifle.

I guess we'll see how this plays out with Iowa voters. How does it play out with you?

Senate Expected to Vote Down a Minimum Wage Hike

Looks like the Senate won't be working with the President to raise the minimum wage.

The Senate is scheduled to take a test vote at noon Wednesday in whether to raise the minimum wage--and it's expected to fall short.

Sixty are needed to continue considering the measure. Democrats control 55 of the Senate's 100 votes, and virtually all are expected to back the increase to $10.10 from the current $7.25.

While some Republicans are seeking a compromise, others are balking. "Those who are being hurt the most in the Obama economy are the most vulnerable among us – young people, Hispanics, African-Americans and single moms,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during Tuesday's debate.

Being a classical liberal myself on such issues, I'd prefer that the minimum wage be $0. (If that makes your head explode, go read this.)

My guess is that this will be a main issue of the upcoming midterm elections. That, racism, and #WarOnWomen, I suppose. Excuse me while I go gouge my eyeballs out.

Local News Roundup, April 8, 2014

I thought I would just toss out a few headlines for you today:

The City Council is probably going to approve the current plan to spend $29 Million on the baseball stadium tonight. 

In what is probably the most compelling argument to vote for someone other than Lindsey Graham, former cocaine user Thomas Ravenel said he intends to run as an independent if Lindsey Graham wins the GOP Primary.

Bobby Jindal will be the headliner at the GOP Silver Elephant Dinner here in June. No doubt it will be his audition for 2016.

And in unrelated news, some people are upset about the fact that airlines won't have limes for drinks anymore. Get over it, people. You're on an airplane. Flying. Forget about the limes. You're flying.

My First Look at Det Bowers for US Senate

My firm hosted a short meeting with Det Bowers, who has tossed his hat into the ring in the GOP race to unseat Senator Graham.

[Full disclosure: I know the Bowers family personally. I'm about the same age as his two older sons, and I have known him and his family growing up. He was also one of the ministers at my church for awhile.]

[Second full disclosure: I was only able to stay for the first thirty minutes, as I had a court hearing to attend. Accordingly, I missed about half of the discussion.]

Having said that, coming into today's meeting I didn't know anything about Det's political opinions, so I was interested to see what his motivation for running would be, and what his intentions were. My biggest concern was that he was running "to make a statement" rather than to actually win. I have no problem supporting people whom I agree with if they truly want to win, but I have no interest in supporting a candidate who's goal is anything other than actually winning. Because of his late entry into the race, I was worried that he might not be fully committed.

Accordingly, I was pleased to hear Det say that he isn't in the race to just show up. He told us that he decided to enter the race about a month ago. He said that one of the catalysts to his entering the race was when he and his wife recently watched the HBO series John Adams. Det told us that his wife encouraged him to run for this office because it was his duty to his country to try and make it a better place. Det said that his initial response was "I can give you about eight million reasons why I shouldn't run" but his wife dismissed that objection.

Det said that ultimately, he wants to run not against Senator Graham so much as he wants to run for the things that he personally believes in. He emphasized that he felt it was his duty to run for office.

Getting to those specifics, he led off with the idea that he wants to be a Senator that doesn't live in Washington DC. He said that his life is in South Carolina, and he wouldn't be a Senator who goes up to DC and becomes detached from this State. Without directly saying so, it was clear that he believes Senator Graham has made Washington, DC his home.

This dovetailed into his position that politicians shouldn't be in office for long periods of time, and he endorsed the idea of term-limits. He spoke about Washington's overspending, and the how Congress has continually delegated more and more authority and responsibility to the other two branches of government. He was extremely familiar with the Constitution, referencing it specifically in several instances. It was clear that he would seek to reassert Congress' power at the expense of Executive agencies.

He indicated that he would not have voted to confirm either Justice Sotomayor or Justice Kagan due to their views on abortion and homosexuality, but he acknowledged that they would have been confirmed anyway. However, he made a point to de-emphasize social issues, or at least it seemed that way to me.

It appears that his primary motivation for seeking a seat in the US Senate rests more on economic freedom and lessening the federal government's role in trying to direct private action. He told us about a business owner in Charleston who said he pays more  money complying with government regulations than he pays in taxes as an example of the federal government's heavy hand with economic activity.

On the practical side, his son Wyman is dealing with the logistics of the campaign. Wyman briefly indicated that they are looking to raise $500k by March, and he said that "it was a very attainable goal". They hope to have an official campaign website up and running soon as well. In the meantime, if you want to keep up with him, he is on Twitter. Wyman indicated that it was their goal to reach out to people both in and outside of South Carolina, as a US Senator's vote affects more than just one state.

Overall, Det Bowers struck me as a very humble and authentic man who is running for office because he truly wants to try and make this country a better place for his children and grandchildren. I'll be interested to see how his campaign plays out over the next few months.

I haven't decided where I am on this GOP primary, but I'll certainly be watching all the candidates closely.

Assault Weapons Ban Shot Down By Democrats

When we last left the senior senator from California, she was being ruthlessly overwhelmed by a simple legal question from the junior senator from Texas, which left her sputtering and unable to respond in any logical, relevant manner.

Now, it appears that her own party has abandoned her. (After seeing her performance, can you really blame them?) The senate majority leader has decided not to include Feinstein's assault weapons ban in the gun control package that he will bring to the floor for discussion.

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.

We can expect lots of whining from the gun control crowd, and I'm sure they'll be very upset about all this. Just so you don't think I'm all heartless, I've got a "cheer you up" picture below the "Read More" jump for any person who's having a bad day. Senator Feinstien, you're welcome to click as well.

Ted Cruz vs. Dianne Feinstein

I post this not to discuss gun control, but if you want to, that's fine. I post this to bring up the fact that I hear this type of response all the time.

I'm a young lawyer. But you probably already knew that. When I have an opposing counsel who's on the other side of a case I sometimes (not always) hear some version of this argument: I've been a lawyer for longer than you've been alive. I've never had someone (take that position, file that motion, assert that claim) in all my years. Don't you know who I am?

My response to that? Blech. If your response to my motion, position, letter, claim is to tell me how you've been a lawyer for sooooo loooong.....guess what....you've lost the argument. I know who you are. Guess what. I don't care. The law doesn't care.

NLRB Appointments Declared Unconstitutional

Full text of the opinion here.

Remember when the President made the appointments to the NLRB by taking the position that a "pro forma" session of the Senate didn't actually count? Yeah, well the DC Court of Appeals considered that issue, and guess what? Our genius-level, three-dimensional chess playing, Constitutional scholar was wrong.

The three appointments made to the NLRB have been declared unconstitutional.

Here's the money part of the opinion:

Considering the text, history, and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception. Because the Board lacked a quorum of three members when it issued its decision in this case on February 8, 2012, its decision must be vacated.

Basically, pro-forma sessions mean the Senate is "in Session". Like everyone said. If you don't like an NLRB decision made after the appointment of those members, you can successfully challenge it. You think that anyone out there might object to some of what the NLRB has done recently?

That sound you're hearing from Boeing is not jet engines. That would be Boeing's lawyers revving up their word processors.

Someone much smarter than me (at Volokh) says this is heading to SCOTUS.