Tag Archives: ethics

Foreign Policy Competence in General

Posted on by
1

Now the facts underlying the attacks on our embassy in Egypt and consulate in Libya, together with the murders of our personnel, are starting to emerge into the light.  Intelligence is now conceding that [emphasis mine]

the deadly attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda—with a former Guantanamo detainee involved.

In fact, it’s entirely possible that the erstwhile Gitmo prisoner, Sufyan Ben Qumu, may have led the attack on our consulate.  This was a terrorist that was transferred from Gitmo to Libyan custody—with the proviso that he be jailed there—during the Bush the Younger administration, and who then was promptly released by Libya’s then-MFWIC Muammar Qaddafi.

Moreover, Matt Olsen, National Counterterrorism Center Director, told the Senate’s hearing on the matter last Wednesday,

Yes, they [our Ambassador and three of his staff] were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.

Note that Wednesday testimony by Olsen.  That comes on the heels of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s claim, made through his press rep, Jay Carney, and his UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, of “do what?”  Just a short while prior to Olsen’s sworn testimony, ObamaCarney claimed that there was

no evidence of a preplanned or pre-meditated attack.  I made that clear last week, Ambassador Rice made that clear Sunday.

Indeed, Rice had busily made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows claiming that the attack in Benghazi was “spontaneous” and triggered by the Egyptian attack on our embassy there, which ostensibly was over a movie trailer that had been on YouTube for some months prior to this “spontaneity.”  See below concerning the Egyptian attack.

It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.  The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo.

But was this apparent contradiction simply the result of a continuing development of information?  Not so much.  State knew this much in real time: the Libyan president and his intelligence facility had already said the attack was premeditated.  Additionally, there was no major protest in Benghazi in the hours (!) before the attack—which went in from three different directions simultaneously.

Apparently, when the facts contradict your pre-determined outcome, it’s necessary to disregard those facts for as long as possible.

Meanwhile, over in Egypt….

The Department of Homeland Security knew two days before the attack on our Cairo embassy why it was going to occur and that it had nothing to do with a movie trailer.  And so, because DHS and State of course coordinate on such matters, State knew this two days ahead of the attacks, also.

DHS’ intel report, of which Fox News says they’ve obtained a copy, cites a Web site carrying a call to “sons of Egypt.”  DHS has also called this source fairly reliable.  The call demands the following:

Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh [the Blind Sheik, convicted and, so far, jailed for a separate terrorist attack]—even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it.

But no actionable intelligence existed, Obama has said.

Oh, and on the matter of the Blind Sheik’s release by our government, there’s this:

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland has denied the possibility.

Let me say as clearly as I can there is no plan to release the blind sheikh, there is no plan. To my knowledge we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians.

Leaving aside the careful parsing in this claim, as Chancellor Otto von Bismarck is reputed to have said,

In statecraft, never believe anything until it’s been officially denied.

The potential for this terrorist’s release is especially disturbing since he’s in the hands of a President who began his administration with a World Apology Tour, and whose State Department preceded the attacks on our Egyptian embassy with an apology for a man exercising his free speech rights.

This is a shocking failure to perform.

State Department Competence

Posted on by
Reply

On Sunday, our Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, made the rounds of the NLMSM’s Talk TV shows reciting State’s official understanding of the violent protests and murders around the Middle East, northern Africa, and now spreading to Indonesia.

What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet.  It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.

Rice also said that “extremists” arrived with heavy weapons, yet

We don’t see any signs this was a pre-meditated, pre-planned attack.

Hmm….

Meanwhile, CNN has this on “premeditation:”

According to one of the Libyan security guards who was stationed at one of the gates armed with only a radio, the assault began simultaneously from three directions.

Heavy machine guns and rocket -propelled grenades were used, according to the guard. He said masked men threatened to kill him at gunpoint for ‘protecting the infidels. He declined to appear on camera for fear of repercussions.

Yeah, that’s not premeditated.

The Obama administration also has been insisting that it had no specific, actionable intelligence with which to do anything.  Never mind a series of attacks and attempted attacks in Libya and Tunisia earlier this summer: an IED thrown at the perimeter of our Benghazi consulate (site of last week’s murders) early June, an RPG attack on the British ambassador’s motorcade in mid-June (injuring two security personnel), an attack the our Tunisian consulate, including burning our flag in late June, and .  And on Aug. 5, five weeks before the assault on the U.S. Consulate, and RPG attack on the International Committee of the Red Cross’ Benghazi building in early August.  No.  No reason to act here.  No reason to instruct our embassies and consulates to increase their security.  No reason to increase their assets so they could increase their security state.

CNN had this, too, at the above link:

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn’t good for international business.

“The situation is frightening, it scares us,” Mabrouk said they told the US officials.

No actionable intel there.  Move along, now.

Then there’s the position of the Libyan government.  Also speaking Sunday, Libyan National Congress President Mohammed el-Megarif had this to say:

The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.  We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the US Consulate.

He also noted that the attacks were carried out by foreigners and that the attacks had all the indicators of an al-Qaeda attack.

And Senator John McCain (R, AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and Congressman Mike Rogers (R, MI), House Intelligence Committee chairman (albeit Evil Republicans), said Sunday the administration’s foreign policy of “disengagement” in the Middle East had created a vacuum which made this type of attack inevitable.

The Middle East believes there is a disengagement policy with the US.

There’s more information here, at Power Line; follow the links.

Obama’s Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

This from Bret Stephens, in The Wall Street Journal [emphasis mine].

“Hasa Diga Eebowai” is the hit number in Broadway’s hit musical “The Book of Mormon,” which won nine Tony awards last year.  What does the phrase mean? I can’t tell you, because it’s unprintable in a family newspaper.

[I]f you can afford to shell out several hundred bucks for a seat, then you can watch a Mormon missionary get his holy book stuffed—well, I can’t tell you about that, either….

The “Book of Mormon”—a performance of which Hillary Clinton attended last year, without registering a complaint—comes to mind as the administration falls over itself denouncing “Innocence of Muslims.”  This is a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet.

No matter.  The film, the administration says, is “hateful and offensive” (Susan Rice), “reprehensible and disgusting” (Jay Carney) and, in a twist, “disgusting and reprehensible” (Hillary Clinton).  Mr. Carney, the White House spokesman, also lays sole blame on the film for inciting the riots that have swept the Muslim world and claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his staff in Libya.

So let’s get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam.  Why?  Maybe it’s because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons.

RTWT.  There’s more, about the assault on American free speech by this American government, and about the necessary mutuality of respect.

Stephens centers his article on the behaviors of liberalism and progressivism, but Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is the head Progressive, and his silence on his movement’s hypocrisy is deafening.

Pity the Poor Union

Posted on by
Reply

The Chicago Teacher’s Union, which is unhappy and feeling rushed.

Using the children its teachers claim to teach as hostages, the union has decided to continue its strike for more money, more job security, and less stringent individual teacher performance evaluation.  Of course, this leaves those children out of school and forces parents to lose income from taking time off from work or to incur additional child-care expenses to handle children who should be in school.  That doesn’t matter, though, to teachers whose salaries already are some 50% higher than those of the parents whose children they’re not teaching.  (On the other hand, what’s the downside for the kids, really?  This collection of teachers does poorly by the students: a 60% high school graduation rate, generally, and a 44% rate for black high schoolers.  Just 15% of fourth graders are proficient in reading.  Just 20% of the students are grade level proficient in math.)

But faced with a generous offer from the city to come back to work, the CTU declined even to vote on the offer over the weekend.

CTU President, Karen Lewis, said teachers wanted the opportunity to continue to discuss that offer.

Our members are not happy,

she said.

They want to know if there is anything more they can get,

she said.

They feel rushed,

!?  she said.

They want to squeeze more—as if their already failed performance should be rewarded.  Talk about not hurting (teachers’) self-esteem.  They feel rushed?  They always could come back to work and study the city’s offer at leisure.

In the meantime, the kids are suffering.  Or, maybe not so much.

Our Judiciary’s Selective Enforcement

Posted on by
Reply

The Ninth Circuit strikes again.  The Ninth agreed with a Federal district court that an Idaho law that lets state authorities bring criminal charges against pregnant women who seek abortions by using medications purchased online would likely be found unconstitutional (the Ninth Circuit ruling can be found here).  The Ninth, however, overruled the lower court’s enforcement injunction, saying it was too broad.  Instead, the Ninth substituted its own injunction: state authorities are enjoined only from enforcing the Idaho law against the particular woman who brought the case, not from enforcing the law everywhere else.

The WSJ‘s Law Blog provides a summary of the case:

In May 2011, Mark Hiedeman, the prosecuting attorney in Bannock County, Idaho, brought criminal charges against Jennie Linn McCormack, an unmarried mother of three, after she purchased medications over the Internet in 2010 to terminate her pregnancy.  There are no licensed healthcare providers who offer abortions in southeastern Idaho and Ms McCormack, who didn’t want to have additional children, claimed the medications were prescribed by a physician outside of Bannock County.

The lower court set aside the case against McCormack and enjoined the prosecutor from enforcing the law against anyone on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Set aside your views of abortion for a moment, and consider what this appellate court has done vis-à-vis the injunction.

The law under which Hiedeman attempted to prosecute McCormack was found by the district court to be unconstitutional, and the Ninth agreed: it is likely be found unconstitutional.  Yet the Ninth then overruled the district court’s injunction against enforcing that law at all.

Their logic centers on the premise that the law has not yet, in fact, been found unconstitutional, and so the original broad injunction went too far.  Yet injunctions, by their nature, are temporary—even permanent ones, which can be withdrawn for any number of reasons at any later date when they’re found no longer to be useful.

So where is the harm done by the lower court’s broader injunction?  The state is harmed by not being able to enforce a law that is, nominally, legitimate.  Women are harmed by being threatened with prosecution—and potentially prosecuted and convicted—for acting as McCormack did and who is protected from prosecution for those same actions by the injunction as modified by the Ninth.  The women who are under the gun here, also are in a time-sensitive situation: their pregnancy must be terminated promptly, or not at all.  We the People are harmed by this court’s announcement that selective enforcement of a law, as a matter of state policy, is entirely legitimate.

This is a rule of law question, regardless of what we might think of the legitimacy of abortion itself.