Obama Administration Defends Detention of Uighurs

Jake Tapper reports that the Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to reject a hearing for the Uighur case. These are the trained jihadists whose release into the U.S. had been ordered and then overturned. The Solicitor General Elena Kagan is arguing that the Uighurs do not have the right to be released into the U.S.:

The brief holds to the position of the Bush Administration that a court’s power to issue a remedy in a habeas case — in the wake of the Supreme Court’s mandate that the detainees have a constitutional right to seek their freedom — is limited to a finding of eligibility for release, without an actual release from captivity while diplomatic negotiations to resettle a prisoner continue.

So the Obama administration wants to detain the prisoners until they can figure out what to do with them. This is no different than the Bush administration’s position. What is also interesting is the Obama administration’s defense of Guantanamo, as reported by Tapper:

“In contrast to individuals currently detained as enemies under the laws of war, petitioners are being housed under relatively unrestrictive conditions, given the status of Guantanamo Bay as a United States military base,” Kagan writes, saying they are “in special communal housing with access to all areas of their camp, including an outdoor recreation space and picnic area.” They “sleep in an air-conditioned bunk house and have the use of an activity room equipped with various recreational items, including a television with VCR and DVD players, a stereo system, and sports equipment.”

The President just gave a speech in which he criticized Guantanamo and said “[T]he existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.” Now his administration is saying it is not so bad because it is convenient to do so in this case.

Andy McCarthy comments here.

Maintaining Focus on Health Care Reform

AEI Scholars have a report called Uncle Sam, M.D. on health care and pharmaceutical reform that everyone should at least read a few sections of (via Medical Progress Today).

The report covers the past and present of health care reform, statistics on the uninsured, lessons from Medicare and Medicaid, pharmaceutical value, regulatory reform, stem cell research, and more. These topics should be familiar to readers of this blog.

The report is well timed, as President Obama is calling for a health care reform legislation this year. The President is offering little guidance, but is asking for blind support on legislation not written yet, suggesting this is all about politics, as has been the case so far for the Obama administration.

Ted Kennedy is reportedly circulating a plan that would be disastrous: mandates for individuals and employers, Medicaid eligibility up to 500% of the poverty line, and the “public option.” We cannot afford to forget the health care debate, even in the midst of discussion about the Supreme Court and national security.

A Great American Car Company

The government, and therefore the American taxpayer, is about to own more than 70% of General Motors. That the government will now be running an industrial business is quite sobering. This experience will undoubtedly damage capitalism. Larry Kudlow wonders how much.

So many things are wrong with this scenario. Contract law and property rights are being trashed, successful companies are being forced to subsidize failing ones, unions are being bailed out, and for what? Richard Posner believes that “All that the government’s owning GM will accomplish is to make the company a political plaything.”

The consequences of the precedents we’re setting are yet to be fully realized. That the government can choose who succeeds and who fails, what cars we should make and drive, how much money people can make, which contracts will and will not be upheld, etc. opens up Pandora’s Box. Which laws do we choose to follow in the future? When do we choose to allow capitalism to work?

No one knows exactly what will happen with GM, but we can guess the government will pursue policies in line with environmental and union labor goals. What happens if the government forces GM into an unsuccessful business model, as they are likely to do? Will the government change laws and regulations to favor GM and the policies adopted there? Will taxpayers subsidize a continually failing business?

It has been sad to watch the struggles of great American companies like GM, but what we are doing is wrong. If you need recent evidence of the government’s failure to intervene in an industry, look no further than housing, whose collapse has been at the center of the problem we are now in. History suggests this will not end well.

UPDATE: Rasmussen shows that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the GM bailout plan. Another example of unpopular policy from a popular president.

UPDATE 2: Keith Hennessey has details on the bankruptcy, and Hugh Hewitt says don’t buy a socialist car (H/T Hot Air, where Ed Morrissey calls this a “political bankruptcy”).

Prop 8 Upheld in California

As was expected. Whether or not one agrees with the decision of the voters on the proposition, one thing everyone should agree on is the ability to amend a state constitution through the procedures allowed.

Opponents have a few more options. Those include taking the case to federal court and planning a new referendum.

UPDATE: Ted Olson and David Boies, who faced off in Bush v. Gore, have joined forces to file a challenge in federal court. Byron York describes the case.

Obama vs. Cheney Is Politician vs. Leader

Any attempt by the MSM to paint President Obama’s alterations to terrorist detainee policies as practical and thoughtful departures from Bush’s policies is dishonest and suggests that these Bush critics were criticizing the man more than the policy.

Charles Krauthammer is correct that Obama is vindicating Bush with these policies, and Jack Goldsmith’s view that Obama has merely changed the packaging is accurate (though I do believe the rhetoric that allows the branding improvement is dangerous, and therefore question whether it is indeed more effective). Obama’s explanation of his reversals leaves something to be desired:

Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms – among others – will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

For Obama to say he wasn’t opposed to military commissions, and then make minor changes that don’t address the main points of contention with them, implies that he was campaigning on issues like whether or not hearsay evidence should be permissible in court. That is an insult to our intelligence, not to mention these procedural changes are mostly symbolic.

The truth is that President Obama is learning on the job that leading the nation is a bit more difficult than campaigning (one of his supposed qualifications). The Democrats have struggled with national security for years, particularly since the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. We’ve seen candidates campaign against presidents and then adopt similar policies, and we’re seeing that on these national security issues because no reasonable Democrat is going to actually deliver on the promises they make to the far left wing of the party.

“Hope and Change” was the campaign slogan, but Obama has played politics as usual. Rich Lowry called out Obama’s three step plan (denounce predecessor’s policy, pretend to reverse that policy, adopt a similar version of that policy), and even the NYT has picked up on Obama’s straw man arguments. Obama still enjoys much popularity, demonstrating a remarkable separation from his unpopular policies, but his actions on national security suggest we can throw hope and change on the ash heap of political slogan history.

Obama vs. Cheney Roundup, and Defending the Constitution

Before examining the commentary and analysis on the two speeches yesterday (Obama’s here and Cheney’s here), we need to revisit Obama’s 2001 comments about the Constitution’s negative liberties, as he lamented it “Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”

Contrast that view of the Constitution with what Obama said yesterday:

But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words – “to form a more perfect union.” I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never – ever – turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

Except the parts that we don’t agree with (like the Constitution not mandating the redistribution of wealth), because political expedience is what this is all about. Obama, in the same speech, expressed the need to have due process and then implied that some detainees might need to be held indefinitely because they cannot be tried. “Just words” is exactly right.

Now that that point has been made, let’s review some commentary on the speeches and the debate.

Californians Send Message to Sacramento

And it wasn’t even close (UPDATE: Secretary of State website). The big story was the failure of Proposition 1A, which would have allowed for future tax increases. Let’s hope the politicians get the message.

The state still faces significant budget problems. California legislators should read Art Laffer and Stephen Moore, who explain how high taxes are causing people to move.

Arnold’s election brought high hopes which have ended in disappointment. Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner, or Tom Campbell should have a shot in 2010 to turn around the Golden State.

UPDATE: FlashReport has much more commentary about the special election.

Rasmussen: Americans Prefer to Keep Their Health Insurance

This Rasmussen poll puts the numbers into perspective.

I’ve debated professors, advocates, and political advisers on these statistics and what they mean. Government healthcare advocates like to cite a desire to insure everyone, and sometimes a willingness to pay higher taxes to do so. They often omit, however, the stats showing general satisfaction of private healthcare plans and an unwillingness to give up those plans for a government controlled option.

The WSJ Health Blog lists some of the tax proposals being considered to pay for healthcare. Some of the ideas shouldn’t be surprising to readers of this blog. In fact, the idea of cutting FSAs/HSAs was one I predicted, as I considered what I would do to achieve national healthcare if I were a proponent. Alcohol and sugar beverage taxes are akin to the tobacco tax idea I’ve written about. I also discussed “non-mandated government insurance,” meaning the public option. Taxing benefits, an idea mentioned, will make that government option more attractive.

It should be noted that the White House won’t rule out taxing health benefits, but won’t commit to it, because Obama campaigned against this idea. He’ll let Congress write this provision so he can deflect some of the criticism.

Conservatives for Patients’ Rights is a group advocating conservative healthcare solutions, and the website has background on the various plans floating around Congress.

What is important to understand is that most Americans want every American to have healthcare, and some are even willing to pay higher taxes to do so, but that doesn’t mean that most want nationalized care or even a public option that they know will crowd them out of their insurance. Out of context statistics, such as the one saying 46 million people are uninsured, render people more likely to support government action into healthcare. Reports like this one can give us a better understanding.

Jon Meacham and President Obama: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Newsweek‘s Jon Meacham conducted a Q&A with President Obama that is worth reading. The President’s responses ranged from good to bad to ugly. Key comments and some analysis, starting with the good.

The Good: Meacham asked about being a war President, and about the surge strategy. The President’s response about understanding the broader national security strategy, while leaving tactical execution to military commanders, is a good point. His connection of Afghanistan to Pakistan is also valid, as it points to that understanding of how different pieces fit into the puzzle.

On the surge, the President was justified in changing commanders in an attempt to shake things up in Afghanistan. The President also, in a rare occasion, related some historical context to the insurgency in Afghanistan. Acknowledging history is one thing, but understanding its lessons is another. More on that later. The change in Pakistan’s recognition of the extremist dangers there is encouraging, and President Obama is absolutely correct that a democratic government there is preferable to the Taliban, and that the military plays a necessary role in accomplishing the goals there.

Obama to Reinstate Military Commissions

This is getting little media attention, but should infuriate the civil rights crowd (H/T Andy McCarthy, who also comments on the hypocrisy of this decision).

Will the media criticize the President for using these commissions the same way they criticized President Bush? Or will we get the standard media hypocrisy?

This decision should be interesting to follow, as Obama has criticized the Military Commissions Act, and the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional in Boumediene. What changes will Obama make to the MCA so that it is applied constitutionally? Or will Andy McCarthy be correct that they’ll be re-instituting the same policies?