Category Archives: Bush

‘Due Process’ For A Despot

Now that this burlesque of justice is branded ‘made-in-America,’ it’s a Mark of Cain on all of us

Now that we’ve established a constitutional government in Iraq, the rule of law, and a judiciary capable of Nuremberg and Tokyo-type prosecutions, no less, we can sit back and observe the 6th Amendment applied in Baghdad.
Duly, Saddam Hussein is enjoying a “speedy and public trial”—he was brought to trial a mere two years after capture. The trial is public only in the sense that we know it is underway. Paula Zahn is too busy reporting on her latest colonoscopy to dispatch a legal analyst to publicize the proceedings. (Her staff is probably too scared to go, though.) Zahn’s cable cohort, for different reasons, has confined its coverage to bad-mouthing the righteous former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark. These TV titmice believe being on Saddam’s sparse defense team is the same as “supporting” him.
I believe that under American-style justice the accused also has a right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” Hussein has only recently been formally charged. As the trial commenced, so Hussein’s attorneys—well, those still alive (two defense lawyers have already been killed, another wounded)—had to request time to study the charges against their clients.
As to Hussein’s right to confront the witnesses against him—would that the Iraqis on the so-called stand were merely swaddled in abayas. Those not too frightened to testify (three men and two women, so far) were hidden behind screens, their voices modulated.
Look, prior to Bush’s invasion, I didn’t give a tinker’s toss what Iraqis did to Saddam. He was their baggage. But now that this burlesque of justice is branded ‘made-in-America,’ it’s a Mark of Cain on all of us
Incidentally, we were told until recently that Saddamites are behind the insurgency. But those behind the slaying of Saddam’s attorneys are probably Shiite—it has even been alleged members of the Iraqi “government” are involved. Yes, this is what chaos looks like. Once a rogue state; Iraq is now a failed one, where any faction that imagines its wishes are being frustrated goes out and kills its foes. Freedom is on the march.

Bill (Anderson) On Black (Conrad)—and Derivative Deviltry

Bush, Criminal Injustice, Justice, Law, libertarianism, The Zeitgeist

Hooray for crusader against injustice, economist Bill Anderson, who wrote in agreement with my column, Crucifying Conrad (Black):

“I am in complete agreement about ‘derivative crimes’ such as mail fraud and wire fraud. Candice Jackson and I have written at length about this stuff, so I am glad to see someone else also beating this same drum. An attorney friend of mine once told me that federal prosecutors are the single greatest threat to liberty in this country, and I agree.
That is why I have not been among the cheerleaders of Patrick Fitzgerald and the bogus “Plamegate,” in which the prosecutors early on realized that no law was broken, so they decided to look for other charges. I have strongly criticized other libertarians who have been cheering Fitzpatrick because he is tormenting the Bush Administration. In other words, all libertarian principles go out the window because the political outcomes in ‘Plamegate’ are satisfying.

Must reads are Bill’s “The Courts and the New Deal,” and Washington’s Biggest Crime Problem.

The Anatomy Of Group Think

Bush

As I pointed out in Bush’s Bastardized Conservatism, the anti-intellectual tribalist is easy to spot. He’s a, “You are either with us or against us” kind of a guy (or gal). Adherents of this tradition judge ideas and opinions not on their merit but according to whether they comport with preordained positions. Or according to who originated them. These sorts usually have a High Priest or two from whom they take their cues. They seldom deviate. They even blog in boring unison on almost every topic.
The skirmish over Harriett Miers typifies this group think. No sooner had a welcome conservative opposition arisen to this comical crony than “establishment Republicans” endeavored to crush it. While quite a few libertarians cogitated alongside conservatives over substantive issues—the dangers of cronyism, the patent lack of qualifications and a discernable judicial philosophy in Miers—others argued along tribal lines, ala GOP groupies.
Their first proposition: we hate neoconservatives-cum-conservatives. Their second proposition: we hate Coulter and Krauthammer. Their Third: Coulter and Krauthammer hate the idea of Harriet for judge. Ergo, we like the idea of Harriet for judge. Talk about succumbing to a non sequitur.
Not that reasoning by default doesn’t have its place, but as a habit it’s plain slothful. For example, from Nancy Pelosi’s left-liberal credo, it follows that, in general, when she opens her mouth to speak, out will come gibberish. But her political stripe doesn’t necessarily mean everything she says will be silly. “It’s a fine day,” for example. More seriously, her accurate assessments of Bush (“the emperor has no clothes”) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (it’s “not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist”).
The point being, libertarians should consider the issues, not the individuals involved. Sitting on the sidelines and hooting derisively might make an already marginalized group feel superior. Nevertheless, to feel superior isn’t necessarily to be superior. Intellectual superiority is impossible without substantively and persuasively addressing issues and winning debates. A good start is to think outside the tribe.

The Bushies New Judicial Pick

Bush, Constitution, Justice, Law, Republicans, The Courts

Bush’s new Supreme Court nomination may turn out to be the cathartic event to push his loyalists over the edge. Yes, some still imagine Bush is a conservative rather than a radical, faithless to tradition, constitutional or other. After taking a handbagging from Laura Bush, the president appointed Harriet E. Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The woman is a veteran administrator, and the president’s personal lawyer and confidante (cronyism? You don’t say!) As ominous: Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is also hot for Harriet. To say she hasn’t a discernible judicial philosophy is an understatement. But why would Bush care whether she can tell Blackstone from Bentham when he can’t? The president simply wants to ensure his appointees vote as he expects them to. Left-liberals, like Catharine Crier of Court TV, believe a judicial activist is someone who reverses precedent. George Bush thinks a judicial activist is someone who disobeys the President.
P.S. Striking down unconstitutional laws is not judicial activism. Judicial activism means 1) minting new rights not in the Constitution 2) striking down laws to comport with these freshly minted unconstitutional rights.

Update: A must read today in The Walls Street Journal is Cronyism: Alexander Hamilton wouldn’t approve of Justice Harriet Miers by Randy Barnett. Smart-alecky comments about Hamilton being a centralizer are not germane to Randy’s argument, of course. I’m only preempting the perennial libertarian red-herring harangues.