Mister Dithers

I don't know about you, but one-plus years after Obama's inauguration, I'm already suffering from “Eric Holder fatigue”. Every time I see this guy's name at the top of a news item, I'm like, “Oh man, what's this clown up to now?” And I suppose that every administration has to have its court jester – you know, that unofficial office that James Watt held under Reagan, or that Joycelyn Elders held under Clinton. These are people who manage to walk around with one foot in their mouth and their head firmly wedged up their butt – a feat that would defy the talents of even the most highly-trained Chinese contortionist.

The problem comes when the court jester – unlike the vice president, for example, who has no authority or power, and who really is the official fool in most administrations – holds an office that actually carries some clout. And in the law-obsessed society of today, no office is more threatening, or more dangerous, than that of attorney general. That's why this post is normally given to only the most upstanding, righteous, honest, intelligent, and rational people available – people like John Mitchell, Ed Meese, Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, and... oy, pardon me while I barf. So yeah, maybe the office is a sheltered workshop after all. But that shouldn't keep us from protesting when it's abused. In the current situation, it's not so much a matter of danger to the citizenry as the endless dithering about where to try the 9/11 conspirators, chief among them (but not the only one, contrary to most news reports) being the dude known only as KSM. Will it be a military trial, or a civilian one? Will it be held at the scene of the crime, or as far from there as possible? Is it a breath mint, or a candy mint? No one seems to know – least of all the attorney general, who is supposedly in charge of this whole thing. So he continues to play games with the tender feelings of the likes of Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani. Obviously, there's going to be a “security problem” no matter where the trial is held – unless, of course, they hold it in Guantanamo, which is pretty much what should have been decided eons ago.

Of course, another thing impacting on this decision is the question, what, exactly, did these guys do that was so wrong? Crazy, you say? Well, think about it. The Obama administration represents the triumph of liberalism, which, among other things, entails a completely relativistic world view, in which there is no such thing as evil, "bad" and "good" are just "social constructs" and matters of opinion, and wrongdoers are typically considered to be suffering from no more than a “social disease” (as the song from “West Side Story” says). And part of this mind set – a key part, I would say – is the by-now-familiar process of blaming the victim and coddling the “perp”. The instant a suspect is apprehended the legal figure-ground relationship reverses itself, and we find out that the criminal has all the rights, and the victims have next to none. And this is the way things ought to be, according to liberals – it's a sort of affirmative action, “leveling the playing field”, giving everyone “a piece of the pie”, and so on. Criminals become celebrities, as in the days of Prohibition... and victims become... well, just losers, basically. They should have known better than to get in the way of that bullet (which the gun fired all by itself, of course). So now, all of a sudden, we expect people brought up on a steady diet of moral relativism to get “absolute” and develop a strange new respect for law and order, and universal standards of behavior. (Let's not go so far as to talk about Natural Law – you know, that thing that scuttled Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination, courtesy of Ted Kennedy.) Among the “extenuating circumstances” for KSM & Co. might be that they had a “deprived childhood” (even though most of the terrorists were solidly middle-class) – or that they suffered “childhood abuse” -- which would certainly gain traction considering they were all brought up in a “theocracy”. There could be any number of perfectly good reasons why they did what they did – except for the one Ron Paul cited, namely “They're over here because we're over there” -- the only reason that makes any sense. But hey, what if they took him seriously? Then they would have to blame every past administration all the way back to when oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia (predating the founding of the State of Israel by a mile, I might add). But even that's not too far-fetched, since we're still apologizing for slavery and for mistreatment of the Indians, women, gays, the handicapped, and so on. (Hell, we spent all of 1992 apologizing for Columbus' discovery of America!) What it ultimately boils down to is, “stuff happens”, and I would expect KSM's defense team to consider that a key element in their pleading. They know, after all, to whom they are speaking, since they are part of the system. And yet Holder, on other occasions, has assured us that the defendants will, without a doubt, be found guilty, because... well, just because, that's all. I wonder how much money he bet that O.J. would be acquitted? Clearly the whole idea of a trial is nothing more than an annoyance – and yet one must keep up appearances. It surely wouldn't do to be like China, where “a prompt and speedy trial” is still very much a reality – as is the execution that follows soon after. No, in our system of justice dithering is Job One. After all, isn't Michael Skakel, the black sheep of the extended Kennedy clan (assuming that's not a redundancy) still filing appeals, a good 35 years after his alleged crime? In our enlightened system, it's not over until its over – which means, until the accused dies a natural death. And even then it's not over, as witness the string of posthumous pardons that are constantly being sought after. I guess ultimately, in the longest of long runs, everyone will be pardoned and set free – except for Confederates, “racists”, and “fascists”. And this ought to be some comfort to KSM... except, wait, he actually _wants_ to be tried, convicted, and executed, thereby qualifying as a martyr in the jihad pantheon. I guess Holder can't win after all -- he's trapped in a world he helped make.

Failure is an Option

It wasn't that long ago – was it? -- that Attorney General Eric Holder was solemnly intoning judgment on the 9/11 conspirators by way of defending his decision to try them in a civilian court a stone's throw from Ground Zero. He assured us that, after being given a fair trial, the defendants would surely be found guilty and dealt with accordingly. He assured us that, in fact, no other option was possible, or even conceivable.

But now comes a slightly different tune – and you have to be on the “Obama frequency” to notice. To begin with, it seems that – in line with the usual guidelines for civilian trials – evidence based on “enhanced interrogation techniques” might not be admissible! What, all that work for nothing? And yet that's precisely what is being claimed. But fear not, we have plenty of other evidence that ought to be perfectly OK – er, we think. Stuff like “seized evidence, financial transactions, recorded phone conversations, and cooperating witnesses” -- you know, all that stuff we already had prior to 9/11 but didn't do anything about.

Notice the slippage here? From “a gold mine of intelligence” based on KSM's confession, we're now back to the same old pile of stuff that has to be somehow pieced together in a credible way. Of course, if the trial were in a military setting, all of this might have been different... but then we would not have had the stirring symbolic “value” of trying them at the scene of the crime. (And New Yorkers wouldn't be complaining about all the cost and inconvenience, and Chamber of Commerce-type douchebags in Pittsburgh wouldn't be volunteering to take it off their hands.)

And who, and where, are all of these “witnesses”? I mean, who are we talking about? This isn't a matter of trolling the bars and alleyways of Chicago for losers willing to provide evidence against the Mob in exchange for getting set up for life in the witness protection program. Who would make a halfway decent witness except for other fanatics – and what are the chances that other fanatics would be willing to spill the beans (even if they wound up gaining weight while in Guantanamo)?

Saith Jack Cloonan, a retired FBI agent: “Prosecutors are going to want to put on a case that in their minds [note the expression] is overwhelming and that can leave absolutely no doubt... to put on coerced statements or some sort of flimsy circumstantial case would be disastrous.” So... what this means is, it could fail after all! I mean, look at all the “air-tight cases” that have failed over the years, leaving the populace in a state of scandal and astonishment. (Look at O.J.!) People continue to underestimate the arbitrariness, cupidity, and randomness of our system of “justice” -- and now, when it “really counts”, we're about to be treated to just another inane example.

“This is not only the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed... the entire Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder's place in history will be on trial as well.” Well, that's the good news, I guess – especially since the Obama administration is full to the brim with hacks who, if justice had been served, would already have been in jail at the time of their confirmation hearings. But in any case, I can't help but notice that anything the Obama crew touches quickly melts down into a puddle of absurdity. And I think this is ultimately because none of these people has any real concept of true justice, or of standards of conduct – they are purely political animals, which means they are sheer relativists and opportunists, whose concerns go no further than serving themselves and their supposed boss. And here they are bringing to trial a bunch of 9/11 conspirators who, say what you will, at least had some principles – and this may be the most humiliating juxtaposition of all, not that any of them will notice.

President Declares War on Supreme Court; Pictures at Eleven

In the annals of hypocrisy, a prominent place has to be given to the indignation on the part of Democrats as to the recent Supreme Court decision having to do with who, or what, is allowed to donate money to political campaigns. To hear them talk, you would think that the fate of the nation had been turned over – lock, stock, and barrel – to massive, faceless multinational corporations. Well, to begin with, my theory is that the fate of the nation already _is_ in the hands of massive, faceless multinational corporations and other related entities. But whether that's true or not, the notion of Democrats objecting to corporate largesse is a bit absurd, since – as we all know by now – the rich donate at least as much money to the Democrats as to the Republicans, if not more. The Democrats are, as I have explained numerous times, the party of the rich and the poor... and it is primarily the contributions of the modestly-endowed that keep the Republicans afloat -- you know, those so-called "values voters" who see the country they grew up in slipping away into dystopian oblivion. And if you want to talk about the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party, the situation is even more so; I doubt if one rich, or "culturally poor" person has even donated to either one. Corporate America – and, by extension, the corporate world – has, after the early years of struggle, cast its lot with the collectivists for the simple reason that, under socialism, their bottom line is more enhanced that it would be under a decentralized, laissez-faire system. Call this the moral corruption of capitalism, if you like... or the death of true capitalism. The fact remains that the government is a bigger spender than any individual, or any conglomeration of individuals... and the charms of true competition have long since been traded in for the corporate security blanket that government provides -- as vividly illustrated by the recent and ongoing "bailouts". There was a point – and I can't say precisely when it was, but I suspect somewhere in the vicinity of World War II – when the balance shifted from the marketplace to the public trough when it came to the expected source of wealth for big business... not that the marketplace is not still a factor for the “little guys” -- you know, the small businesses that are in the process of being taxed out of existence. See, I don't think the choice between Wal-Mart and, say, Sears, or Target, is a real one, any more than the choice between Chrysler and GM, or between Microsoft and Apple. They are all heads of the same hydra. My idea of competition, and a free market, is the small, independent bookseller vs. Barnes & Noble... or the local coffee shop vs. Starbucks. And I suppose that even among large businesses there are some vestigial remnants of competition where the government doesn't yet have the upper hand; pizza and fast food companies come to mind, for instance. And as for the “competitive bidding” among defense contractors – well! That's about as genuine as professional wrestling. One outfit gets one contract, the other gets another, but all prosper and all stay in business, because, basically, their contracts, and their favored status with the government, are the biggest and longest-running pork barrel in history. And all – please note – donate generously to political campaigns, especially to the Democrats, because, as everyone knows, the road to socialism is the road to prosperity – for the few, that is.

But I suppose that, for all this, the Democrats feel they still have to, from time to time, make noises and mouth words consistent with the myth that they are still “the party of the people”, and the Republicans are “the party of big business”. It's all too pathetic, really. Here, for instance, are Senators Charles Schumer and Chris Van Hollen proposing “a bill that would ban political ads by corporations that have as little as 20 percent foreign ownership”. Heck, that would prevent both the Democratic Party and the Republican party from political advertising! The bottom line is, what difference does it make whether the powers that be are involved in resourcing political campaigns openly or under the table – the outcome is the same. And, since both major parties are firmly in the pockets of the corporations, the outcome remains the same regardless of who wins any given election. But again, in the war of ideas – assuming it isn't already over and done with – it's appearances, and propaganda, that count, not the reality.

But that's not even the most interesting aspect of this controversy. That would be the open challenge delivered by President Obama to a captive audience of Supreme Court justices during his State of the Union address, in which he said, “With all due deference to separation of powers, (the court) reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections." Now, to begin with, when a politician uses the phrase “with all due deference” what he is typically saying is that the person, or people, in question are not due any deference at all. And this would certainly be true of the recent history of the relations between the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court – and I don't care which major party you're talking about. Contrary to the outdated notion that the Executive, or Congress, proposes, and the Supreme Court disposes, recent history has provided one example after another of the other two branches of government basically ignoring the Supreme Court – in spirit for certain, and often in letter as well. The Court hands down a decision having to do with affirmative action, say – and what happens? Is there a flurry of corrective action to declare null and void any law, or regulation, or policy, designed to implement affirmative action? Heck no, they simply ignore it and go on their merry, politically-correct way. I suppose that the greatest example of push-back to date has been FDR's “court packing” attempt... but presidents of a more recent vintage have not done much better. Clinton was notorious for, basically, ignoring Court decisions and encouraging his minions to do the same – the attitude being, to paraphrase Joseph Stalin, “how many divisions does the Supreme Court have?” And it's perfectly true, of course – the supremacy of the Supreme Court is only sustained as long as there is a sense of honor (and deference) among those charged with writing, and enforcing, laws, and that sense of honor has been noticeably missing of late.

Having said that, however, it is still a bit startling to see a president, in the most public of all public forums, getting totally up in the face of the Court while they sit there like mummified Buddhist monks (with the exception of Sam Alito, who apparently couldn't contain himself – but I'm sure he's been severely reprimanded for his expression of skepticism). To say, in so many words, “we don't care what you say, we're going to do it our way”... well, at least now it's out in the open. Which means that, for all intents and purposes the Supreme Court is now an irrelevant and vestigial antique, not unlike Britain's House of Lords. They can sit in judgment all they like, but if they can be ignored with impunity what difference does it make? Might as well make the Supreme Court building into a high-end food court for the convenience of Congressmen who are tired of the navy bean soup in the Senate cafeteria.

But in another sense this sorry situation is largely the Court's fault. They have had, over the years, ample opportunities to defend the Constitution against the inroads of socialists, collectivists, and totalitarians from all across the political spectrum, and have almost invariably failed in that duty. The very fact that, as Joseph Sobran has noted, “anything called a 'program' is unconstitutional” -- and that the vast majority of government agencies likewise have no constitutional basis – reflects a sorry tale of years of neglect on the part of those who should have been the last line of defense. Making the most of the allegedly “ambiguous” parts of the Constitution, and ignoring the parts that are as plain as day, has contributed to the situation as well (think “penumbras” and so on). “Providing for the general welfare” and the commerce clause have been elevated to virtual fetishes, while the Tenth Amendment has been set on the shelf like a dusty World's Fair souvenir. All in the interests of, I suppose, keeping peace in the family... and also political correctness, even though the Court is supposedly the least subject to political pressure of any assembled body in the nation – or so it was intended to be. So after years – decades – of failure in this regard, they can hardly object when a president reads them the riot act. All they can do it sit there in their stoic black robes and sweat it out, waiting for the proceedings to be over with so they can retreat to their Greek temple across 1st Street and go back to pretending they still have some power.

Ah yes, those carefree days of my youth when, thoroughly indoctrinated by my social studies teachers, I still believed that “separation of powers” was a reality. In fact, I even gave a speech on the subject, for the American Legion oratorical contest. (I didn't win, because my presentation was too dry and academic compared to the histrionics of the other speakers. They probably still vote Republican.) But I'm afraid the reality has been somewhat different, and more depressing, than all that. When it comes to waging war, for example, Congress can pretend to offer “advice and consent” but the fact remains that an American president can send any number of troops to any foreign country any time he (or she) pleases, and no one can stop him (or her) (just steeling myself for Hillary's eventual victory). And if Congress should dare pass a law contrary to the wishes of the president, why, there is the ever-popular executive order... or, at worst, a “signing statement” that basically says “I'm going to ignore this law... and, by the way, how many divisions does Congress have?” Now, I suppose the Supreme Court can, on occasion, thwart the wishes of Congress... but they will just turn around, as in this case, and blanket the landscape with such a multitude of new laws amounting to the same thing that the Court will eventually wave the white flag of surrender. (You don't like racial quotas? Well, then we'll just call it affirmative action. And if you don't like that we'll call it something else. We'll never run out of new names for the same old thing.)

Another thing that is oft forgotten in all of this is that the Supreme Court cannot decide on the Constitutional merits of anything unless someone brings a case before it – and this, as we know, is a long, drawn-out process that can take years (unless the case has to do with who the next president will be, and then it's handled with lightning speed). The justices may sit around wishing and hoping that a given question, or issue, will be presented for their consideration... but they cannot originate cases. All they can do is take what bubbles up from the provinces and choose to either hear it or not... and if they choose to hear it, the tattered rag that is all that's left of the Constitution is barely enough to wipe their glasses with. Not that there aren't some Constitutionalists on the Court, but they are vastly outnumbered by “penumbrists” and “general welfare-ists”, and so on, who would have to have a Road to Damascus experience in order to become born-again believers in, and defenders of, the Constitution.

Then there is the perennial dead hand of “settled law”, and the typical justice would consider himself (or herself) a radical bomb-thrower if he or she handed down a verdict contrary to any prior decision going back to the days of John Jay. After all, weren't those men and women every bit as intelligent as we are... and didn't they have the interests of the country and its citizenry in mind every bit as much as we do? Never mind the fact that many of the justices over the years have been nothing more than political hacks and empty suits who happen to have a law degree. They are, after all, appointed by presidents – and what president wants to set up a healthy body of opposition to his ambitions? None that I know of. So the Court tends to wind up being a sheltered workshop for the malleable... not that, again, there aren't some occasional exceptions (the result of some oversight by a president, I'm sure).

So yes, the Court has brought its troubles on itself, to some degree – mostly through neglect and the desire to “go along to get along” (though what the sanctions would be for not doing so escape me). But a civilized republic would respect its supreme court and make up for its ultimate lack of power by way of deference and obedience... the way civilized people respect their physically frail elders. So part of the problem is also the total lack of respect of wisdom which has come to dominate public life. How many times of late has a president, or governor, been characterized as “youthful”, as opposed to “wise”? Solomon himself would wander the streets of Washington for years wondering where all the wisdom went (and why the citizenry allowed it to happen). Well, he might luck out and read some opinions by Antonin Scalia, but other than that...

Well, I don't imagine that Obama, with his State of the Union challenge, struck the final blow. Either it has already been struck, or it has yet to be. But we now know, at least, where he stands on the matter, and we see that he sees no problem with his position. And thus, the slouch towards totalitarianism continues...

Location, Location

OK, so here's another in my series on The Most Incomprehensible Things About America. Today's installment has to do with the perennial “venue” controversy, especially when it comes to serious crimes. Like murder, for example. And the scenario is always the same. The “alleged perpetrator” is being held in jail on multiple charges... he (or occasionally she) hires a lawyer, or one is provided through the good offices of the taxpayers... and the question of the place of trial comes up. Now surely, through most of human history, when trials were held at all they were held pretty darned close to the scene of the crime – the same district, town, village, city ward, whatever. It made perfect sense; the local community was the one that suffered the loss, they knew the offended party (or were the offended party) and they should be the ones to see to it that justice is done. Right? Wrong! Now it turns out that any trial can be moved far afield because of “pre-trial publicity” -- presumably biased against the defendant. But wait a minute! Where did all this “pre-trial publicity” come from? Well, it was typically initiated, and perpetuated, by law enforcement officials... who never seem to learn to keep their big mouths shut, because if they don't the trial (and the perp) will be taken totally out of their hands, and out of their sphere of influence, and -- who knows? -- might wind up being tried in some mush-headed liberal community and get off scot-free. But where did we get this idea that suspects had to be tried hundreds of miles from the scene of the crime in order to insure objectivity and impartiality? Are defense lawyers so incompetent that they can't effectively counterbalance the crushing pressure of local media... and the angry crowds assembled outside the courthouse with pitchforks, torches, and nooses? That's the impression one gets. And the issue is similar to, if not exactly the same, as this notion of having to pick a completely “unbiased” jury... which in these times of 24-7 news coverage on radio, TV, the press, and the Internet usually means people who are so clueless and out of touch, or simply idiotic, that they haven't heard anything about the case, or if they have they've been unable to “form an opinion” about it. But I say again, the local community has the right to try wrongdoers who have caused it harm, and it also has the right to form opinions – which are, hopefully, subject to modification through arguments and evidence in court. You show me someone who has no opinions, or is incapable of forming any, and I'll show you someone who should never be on a jury. For one thing, everyone is supposed to be tried by “a jury of his peers”, right? Well then, whose “peers” are they who are only chosen based on their invincible ignorance? Certainly not mine!

A recent example – one of many – from this area will illustrate. A man accused of having killed three Pittsburgh police officers last April must himself be astonished that, of 93 prospective jurors, “10 said they had not read or heard about the case”. This is in the face of continuous news converage in all local media for weeks afterwards. They probably haven't heard about 9-11 yet, either – not to mention who is currently president. Who _are_ these people? Most mental patients have a keener awareness of current events than this. But to go on -- “32 said they could not set aside what they know about the case to be fair and impartial.” OK... but is what they already know going to differ significantly from what they'll find out in the courtroom? Anything they don't already know, they're going to find out there. What sort of magic quality does courtroom testimony have that normal “news” doesn't? When the jury finally retires to the jury room to decide on a verdict, have they been rendered any more “fair and impartial” than they were on the first day of the trial? My suspicion is that just the opposite has happened. So where is the demonstration of damages from pre-trial publicity? Then -- “38 said they have a set opinion about the case.” OK, these might be slightly tougher nuts to crack, but once again, they will, in fact, be present at the trial, and will be privy to all the evidence and testimony that can be brought to bear. So isn't it possible that their “set opinion” might not be so set after all?

Of course, it's also possible that the people in these latter two groups said what they said simply to get out of having to serve on a jury -- in which case, shame on them! But let's give them the benefit of the doubt. And you'll also notice that there are still 13 prospective jurors unaccounted for in all this. They are presumably the golden ones who have read or heard about the case but are perfectly willing and able to set it all aside, and who have formed absolutely no opinion on the matter. In other words, they're crazy people. But they're the ones who are most likely, along with the clueless 10, to be in the final pool.

I just find this insistence on utter ignorance on the part of jurors to be... well, not exactly within the spirit of American justice, as originally intended. There was a time when our leaders valued an informed citizenry, and a time when informed citizens were deemed more fit to perform any functions related to the welfare of the community – including jury duty. Juries in the old movies, you'll notice, are typically composed of fairly intelligent and informed people; they are properly dressed and groomed, and employed... and they speak (and seem to think) like typical middle-class Americans of their time. They are, moreover, charged with protecting, and even embodying, community values. But you can imagine what a car full of circus clowns you'd get if the present-day “ignorance criterion” were universally applied; for all I know it would resemble the demonstrators at an IMF/World Bank conference. And these are the people who we want to decide the fate of the accused – no matter how sordid the crime, or how clear the evidence? It makes a mockery of justice... or, I have to say, just the latest mockery of justice.