I bitterly dispute Ann Althouse's conclusion that Obama "screwed up" by ordering Guantanamo prison closed without awaiting the results of the Pentagon study he had ordered about its compliance with Geneva standards.
Closing Gitmo was about Hope and Change, not facts and logic. Obama's base, here and abroad, would never rest while Gitmo was open. And the NATO allies that were never going to increase their troop commitment to Afghanistan anyway were double-never going to increase their troop commitment while Gitmo was open.
As some dazzling blonde nearly said, we'll always have Bagram.
We give the rights of US citizens to those who wage non-Geneva Convention war on us? Yep, it's suicide.
=====================================
Posted by: kim | February 22, 2009 at 08:51 AM
Hey, Tom. Any chance for a link in your margins to QBlog and narciso's blog?
================================
Posted by: kim | February 22, 2009 at 09:13 AM
Also to Jake Tapper's 'Political Punch'?
=======================================
Posted by: kim | February 22, 2009 at 09:14 AM
Gitmo Ender
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/02/gitmo-legal-but-so-what/comments/page/666/#comments
Posted by: boris | February 22, 2009 at 09:26 AM
Hey! How about FWDAJ too?
Posted by: Jane | February 22, 2009 at 09:29 AM
If the Taliban overrun Bagram, we won't have that either right
Posted by: narciso | February 22, 2009 at 09:37 AM
This is the particular blog post, I should come up with a less distracting header no.
I'll also try to link some more of Bellew,
Roberts, and Churchill
Posted by: narciso | February 22, 2009 at 09:51 AM
Narciso, I tried to leave a comment on your blog, but was unable to. Just wanted to tell you how good it looks and how readable it is! Congratulations!! I see you have the formatting down pretty good there now.
Posted by: centralcal | February 22, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Having called a halt to the military commissions that were about to put on trial the detainees who have been charged with war crimes, he now finds himself trying to figure what to do with them.
So far as I know, no court has yet said that these guys have a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. So Obama and Holder can sit on their hands...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Change, its not just for breakfast anymore!
( I know it makes no sense but then read the topic of the post, sense is not required for 4 years, apparently.)
Posted by: Gmax | February 22, 2009 at 10:50 AM
So far as I know, no court has yet said that these guys have a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. So Obama and Holder can sit on their hands...
But, but, but...........nevermind.
Barack Hussein needs to worry more about the job of being POTUS, and less about sticking it to the Bush administration, but, I don't expect he's capable of that, for a variety of reasons.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 22, 2009 at 10:51 AM
I don't get it, why does TM "bitterly" dispute Althouse's view Obama screwed up?
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 22, 2009 at 10:53 AM
DoT
Just wait, Obama has yet to begin flooding the judiciary with liked minded types. There will be one that sees non citizens on foreign soil getting constitutional rights, book it.
Posted by: Gmax | February 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM
One wonders about that, had we followed the precedents of ex parte Milligan, Merryman,
Quirin, and Eisentrager, let's leave out Korematsu and Harabayashi, for now, the MCA
would have stood. But that would one mean the One was wrong, and consequently, Ann Althouse, the law professor was wrong too,
we couldn't have that. Oh and I'd link it but my schadenfreude isn't that strong today, but Ed Driscoll says Dave Brook's is becoming a little skeptical on the efficacy
of Government. This is why you have to read more than the Cliff Notes to Neibuhr, to what he's saying
Posted by: narciso | February 22, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Tom et most forget the more fundamental role that the George P. Lakoff, supergenius, plays in the Democratic Party.
Guantanamo prison can be "closed" simply by renaming it.
I expect to see Robert Gibbs announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay late one Friday afternoon and the opening of "Peace Galleria-by-the-Sea" in the same spot.
Same guards.
Same people in the enclosures.
Maybe change the clothes the "guests" wear to something less orangish. A nice light apricot, perhaps.
et voila .... everybody is happy.
.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | February 22, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Narciso, I like your blog a lot. The header you have is excellent, I see no reason to change it.
Posted by: Pagar | February 22, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Gibbs is not that clever Bumper, of course he can always turn it over to Fidel, and it will become like Villa Marista, (G-2 headquarters) La Cabana and Rancho Boyeros
'areas of concern'
Posted by: narciso | February 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Just wait, Obama has yet to begin flooding the judiciary with liked minded types. There will be one that sees non citizens on foreign soil getting constitutional rights, book it.
There are certainly many otherwise well intentioned posters on the Intertubes that see it that way. They seem to think that by "Showing the terrorrists we're fair", or "Showing the World that everyone is the same" or something, I don't get it so it's even hard to parody it, that the terrorists will all stand down and it will just be spiffy.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM
ts, tm is being ironic..needling the notion that there ever was a bit of logic in the notion that Gitmo should be closed.
Posted by: clarice | February 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Agreed, Gibbs is Ari Fleischer minus the charm.
But Gibbs isn't called on to be an original thinker, he simply has to read what's in front of him or listen to what George Lakoff, supergenius, suggests several times and repeat it.
I give Gibbs credit for having the same mimicry capabilities as a Mynah bird. But then, I'm an optimist.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | February 22, 2009 at 11:22 AM
and by "Ari Fleischer" I meant "Scott McClellan". It's been a long morning.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | February 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I put you, on my Blogroll, Jane, along with JOM and Patterico, and a few choice others I tried putting Mark Steyn on, but the bots won't take it. The irony of Gitmo having become 'Devil's Island with mojitos' just doesn't really amuse. Now there's a Rush T shirt right there
Posted by: narciso | February 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Pooch, his wife slipped a big dose of irony in his Wheaties this AM.
I hope Obama keeps beating up on the Bush Administration. It's already the good old days.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | February 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Thanks Narciso. I will return the favor.
Posted by: Jane | February 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM
And I put Pal2Pal, and WattsUp as well
Posted by: narciso | February 22, 2009 at 01:46 PM
The Gitmo made him do it, with starring role from Wilner, at Shearman & Sterling
Posted by: narciso | February 22, 2009 at 02:03 PM
Did I hear O correctly regarding taxes? I thought he said 95% of working families will see a tax cut which is different than 95% of americans recieving a tax cut.
Posted by: bad | February 22, 2009 at 03:46 PM
Any chance for a link in your margins to QBlog and narciso's blog?
Sidebar's full up with the news of the day. Like for instance, the link to tradesport's contract on the Republican party maintaining control in the 2006 midterms.
(Speaking of which, I have a hot tip - sell.)
Posted by: bgates | February 22, 2009 at 04:08 PM
If Gitmo is closed for business,why not re-open it as a resort.Keep it as it is and you can cram them in selling the Gitmo Experience to Hollywood celebs would be a cinch.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 22, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Looky!!! O is going to honestly account for Social Security in his budgets!!!!
Honestly accounting for Social Security in the budget AND reducing the deficit by half...
I'm gonna need lots of highlighters and colored pencils.
LUN
Posted by: bad | February 22, 2009 at 04:09 PM
I see MSNBC (Morning Joe) is going to be broadcasting from inside the White House for 3 hours. Gibbs and Axelrod will "preview" the Presidents Tuesday speech to Congress.
Snort. As if MSNBC had any real viewers besides the Kos and DU kids!!
Posted by: centralcal | February 22, 2009 at 04:22 PM
oops - forgot to say LUN. (Using IE instead of Firefox right now.)
Posted by: centralcal | February 22, 2009 at 04:23 PM
EU Fantasyland
"European leaders also backed Merkel's call for a "charter of sustainable economic activity" that would subject all financial market activities around the globe to regulation, including credit rating agencies."
Yer pinin' for the fjords, dearies. Progressive death cult demographics are only sustainable in the grave. Assembling a SWAT team of Brussels' bureaucrats to write new regulations concerning closing doors on empty barns isn't going to improve anything.
I don't mind progs getting together to pool their ignorance but babbling about hedge funds and "tax havens" within a two hour drive of Switzerland is rather ludicrous.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 22, 2009 at 04:32 PM
OT, but I was actually polled by Rasmussen today. Do I think the country is headed in the right direction? I voted no since there was no way of choosing "You've got to be kidding me, right?"
Posted by: Granny | February 22, 2009 at 05:05 PM
Did I hear O correctly regarding taxes?
Bad, it is being reported both ways I think.
From cnbc:
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the U.S. Treasury Saturday to implement tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans, fulfilling a campaign pledge he hopes will help jolt the economy out of recession.
The fact is (IMO)that neither one is necessarily correct because the bill that Obama is claiming cuts taxes is only one of many bills/things that could effect the taxes paid by any American in Apr 2010.
Posted by: Pagar | February 22, 2009 at 05:11 PM
If Obama wants to engage in honest accounting, he could begin with his campaign's fund-raising via his web site.
It's one thing to criticize someone else. It's another to lead by example.
Posted by: PD | February 22, 2009 at 05:13 PM
Sorry forgot the link.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the U.S. Treasury Saturday to implement tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans, fulfilling a campaign pledge he hopes will help jolt the economy out of recession.
Posted by: Pagar | February 22, 2009 at 05:13 PM
Looky!!! O is going to honestly account for Social Security in his budgets!!!!
That's so he can get rid of it. First he takes the equity in our homes, then he uses social security to extend medical benefits to those who are too busy to bother to work.
Posted by: Jane | February 22, 2009 at 05:17 PM
O is going to honestly account for Social Security in his budgets!!!!
I for one am glad Obama is moving away from the failed policies of the past.
Posted by: bgates | February 22, 2009 at 05:19 PM
According to this American Thinker article Obama has a deal that will insure the Democrats all the campaign funds they need forever more.
Eat your heart out Jack Abramoff. President Obama looks forward to a guaranteed supply of Democrat campaign money which will make the imprisoned Republican fundraiser look like the small time operator he was. And better yet, Obama's multi-billion dollar nationwide scheme to circumvent campaign spending laws comes neatly disguised as a Hawaii-only deal for "reconciliation" and "justice". "Campaign finance" isn't even in the bill's description. It is called the Akaka Bill.
Posted by: Pagar | February 22, 2009 at 05:41 PM
Who pushes these bills to defeat America?
From Trevor Loudon, published at RBO.
Congressional Progressive Caucus — Fifth Column at the Heart of the US Government
Before last year’s election the CPC had 71 members in Congress. They lost Hilda Solis as a likely recruit to Obama’s Cabinet, so the caucus has gained, so far, four members from the new Congress. The final figure is expected to top 80, making it by far the largest power bloc in the US Congress.
Many leading CPCers have close ties to Institute for Policy Studies, Democratic Socialists of America, Communist Party USA, or in a few cases all three.
CPC is one of the most destructive forces in the USA-its members are a fifth column for the far left at the heart of the US government.
Nancy Pelosi was a member of the CPC before she became speaker of the House. With this many members of the US House controlled by the Socialists/Communists, I see very little hope for America.
Posted by: Pagar | February 22, 2009 at 06:18 PM
bgates, thanks for that link.
I don't have a clue whether or not he plans to address Social Security. But if he plans to "deride accounting practices of the past", he ought to.
Posted by: bad | February 22, 2009 at 06:49 PM
I see very little hope for America.
The hope is that the leftist program comes hard and fast. We don't want to fade gradually to black, like the frog in the pot being very slowly brought to a boil. We need severe restrictions on economic and other liberties, national health care
The only hope is that this country gets very quickly brought to its knees in terms of liberty and prosperity, while it still has a memory of the founding principles. Then, unlike the frog, it might wake up. We want a taste of shite, do we? Then give us a plateful, rather than gradually, slowly increasing its portion of our diet. In our wealth, sloth and ignorance, we need a very, very bad decade or two.
Nuts, right? The only other hope is too slim: that we swing abruptly back to our founding principles. Not going to happen. We're in a stupor, just like the frog.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | February 22, 2009 at 06:58 PM
Has the Island been identified yet? If not, I propose a search committee be appointed. I volunteer to be on it. Just so there is reasonably easy access to a good cardiology service.
Posted by: vnjagvet | February 22, 2009 at 07:27 PM
Britt Hume said tonight that the Fed is operating behind the scenes and no one knows what the Fed is doing.
Thoughts anyone?
Posted by: bad | February 22, 2009 at 07:35 PM
"Thoughts anyone?"
The voodoo rites and rituals pertaining to the animation of zombies. I just hope that eye of newt isn't involved. I'm tired of giving up parking spaces to RW's victims from last spring.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 22, 2009 at 07:56 PM
Rick, do you think they are buying up the toxic assests quietly and using the mortgage bailout for cover?
So they appear to be for the little guy....
Posted by: bad | February 22, 2009 at 08:01 PM
vnjagvet,
Get cracking. And I've got a topnotch cardiologist all lined up.
Posted by: Jane | February 22, 2009 at 08:02 PM
Bad,
I doubt they're buying up "toxic assets". They're mixed into $5 trillion worth of MBS and a lot of them are held by insurance companies and pension funds who value them on a maturity basis and have CDS policies in their back pockets to cover the downside.
It's the Zombies who have to carry them at nonexistent "market" value who might be persuaded to sell them but buying from Zombies won't reanimate the Zombie to actual life.
I'd say the Fed is preparing for nationalization of several of the largest banks.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 22, 2009 at 08:39 PM
I'd say the Fed is preparing for nationalization of several of the largest banks.
So is that a good thing or a bad thing.
No doubt with the Chicago mob that couldn't shoot straight it will be a disaster, but Bill Seidman made a pretty compelling case for some grown-ups declaring BofA and Citi insolvent, converting the bond holders to equity holders, dumping the trash and ending up with a smaller wiser and healthier version of each.
Regarding CDSs, aren't they the bricks in the wall which should first have they're bluff called? Mixed metaphor, I know.
If anyone is going to get burned shouldn't it be the morons who bought and traded them? The holders can squawk, as can the gaurantors but isn't it preferable they blow up than the rest of us who are being held hostage by them? The money is not there to pay them, so let them be triggered and when the money is gone the holders get it in the shorts. Seems a lot less harmful to the country and the economy than what we're doing. Why is it preferable to protect them and stick the bill with the taxpayer? Bankruptcy works.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | February 22, 2009 at 09:20 PM
Bad,
Like this.
I wonder if this is the answer to 'How do you eat a zombie?'.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 22, 2009 at 09:20 PM
Is it good if a zombie is eaten by a cannibal?
Posted by: bad | February 22, 2009 at 09:30 PM
Ignatz,
I'd say that the Fed now has the scaffolding in place for a graceful rather than a catastrophic failure of the financial system. The Lehman auction exposed the "true value" of a prestigious Wall Street firm. Eight cents on the dollar.
I hope that people understand that Wall Street is the Cloaca Maximus of the economy - a conduit carrying money rather than the economy itself. I doubt that they will understand it, given the self congratulatory back patting concerning all the "brilliance" contained within Manhattan that one finds in the press.
It's unfortunate that we have such an incompetent buffoon in the White House at such at time. I do not believe that he and Turbo are quite up to the task of the coming week - let's hope his teleprompter does not leave him entirely speechless.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 22, 2009 at 09:39 PM
Rick-
So based on that Bloomberg article, with the government and Citi looking for another arrangment, the Administration lied in their statements Friday afternoon.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 22, 2009 at 09:54 PM
I do not believe that he and Turbo are quite up to the task of the coming week - let's hope his teleprompter does not leave him entirely speechless.
Something coming down the pike or is it you think that Obama's speech is going to fall flat?
Would be interesting if the FDIC and Fed close Citi the day he makes his speech.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 22, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Wall Street is the Cloaca Maximus of the economy
There's some truth to that, but that doesn't make it any less valuable. Like the Cloaca Maximus, you really know it when it fails, which suggests that it serves an essential function. All the more reason to keep the likes of the current group of clowns in Washington from gaining control of it.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 22, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Rich,
I have not even a glimmer of a clue. Between the coming credit card debacle and over extension of credit to the great
subemerging nations I don't see a bank of any great size in the world that isn't bleeding all over the carpet. I'm wondering if HSBC will be able to pull off a rights offering at this point. If not, what government will pick up those pieces?Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 22, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Bill Seidman made a pretty compelling case for some grown-ups declaring BofA and Citi insolvent, converting the bond holders to equity holders, dumping the trash and ending up with a smaller wiser and healthier version of each.
That makes sense to me, but that's a rather different scenario from the one described in the Bloomberg story--the difference between bankruptcy and nationalization. As badly as Citi and BoA have done, I have no doubt the government can do much worse. And it will be harder to get rid of them once they have control.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 22, 2009 at 10:29 PM
I stole this from a comment at Tapper:
Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics professor and says, “I don’t understand this stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?”
The professor replied, “I don’t have any time to explain it at my office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend project, I’ll be glad to explain it to you.” The student agreed.
At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor’s house. The professor stated that the weekend project involved his backyard pool.
They both went out back to the pool, and the professor handed the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, “First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water as you can.” The student did as he was instructed.
The professor then continued, “Follow me over to the shallow end, and then dump all the water from your bucket into it.” The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told.
The professor then explained they were going to do this many more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool.
The confused student asked, “Excuse me, but why are we doing this?”
The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper.
The student didn’t think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough.
However, after the 6th trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student began to become worried that his economics professor had gone mad. The student finally replied, “All we’re doing is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this process is all over, everything will be at the same level it was before, so all you’ll really have accomplished is the destruction of what could have been truly productive action!”
The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile, “Congratulations. You now understand the stimulus bill.”
Posted by: bad | February 22, 2009 at 10:35 PM
So, how much would have been lost if these banks would have just failed? Eventually we're going to spend at least as much propping them up, only it will be "orderly".
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Jimmyk,
The function is absolutely indispensable but it is not primary. There is also no reason for so much concentration in Manhattan. Manhattan has become much too incestuous and the result is far too many credentialed morons playing 'lemming tag' to the great detriment of the primary players and the entire system.
Going back to economic growth limited to the amount of increase in retained earnings isn't going to be much fun. I have some sympathy for all the good, honest players on the Street. The coming consolidation and changes have not and will not be much fun.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 22, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Pofarmer-
I'm glad we didn't find out. During the Depression, the Reps were made a minority party for a generation.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 22, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Rick + bad-
Calculated Risk has Citi as the culprit.
And Rick, the Fed's been buying ABS' since Jan 1, FYI. At about $25B a crack.
Ignatz-
I'll put up a primer tomorrow night on how they work and who's gotsem and why, as I've been dealing with them, or used to at least.
Time for the rack.
Posted by: mel | February 22, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Rick-
I'm wondering if HSBC will be able to pull off a rights offering at this point. If not, what government will pick up those pieces?
I would hope that they wouldn't be floating a deal without some sort of guarantee that they'd get interest from the thinning pockets of the Oily sheiks and possibly the Chinese government. Had to look it up and point noted, it's one of those British banks "too big to bailout".
Posted by: RichatUF | February 22, 2009 at 11:01 PM
but that's a rather different scenario from the one described in the Bloomberg story
Naturally. Seidman has done it right.
Citi and the government retards they're dealing with haven't done one thing right in about a decade.
Ignatz-
I'll put up a primer tomorrow night on how they work and who's gotsem and why, as I've been dealing with them, or used to at least.
Thanks mel, especially the 'who's gotsem' part. Who would be crunched the most by the unraveling of the CDS market? Hope I don't miss your answer.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM
A distressing thought, specially considering
that Hoover's RFC didn't do the trick either, yet FDR called it doing nothing, Anyways on kind of a cheerier note, some memos recently unearthed about the Baroness Kesteven's early career. You'll find it kind of interesting
Posted by: narciso | February 22, 2009 at 11:15 PM
The Fed has been purchasing agency paper which ain't exactly Citi or Countrywide or Wachovia type toxic. That's just priming the pump for Fannie and Freddie.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 22, 2009 at 11:17 PM
WSJ on Citi/Fed
Financial Times checks in
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 22, 2009 at 11:26 PM
I've read that the Fed is trying to do an end-run around Congress.
Some fellow on another forum mentioned that it would have been risky but that Bernanke and Paulson should have done something similar the middle of September rather than getting Pelos and Reid in the mix at the time.
Posted by: glasater | February 22, 2009 at 11:33 PM
When federal officials began pumping capital into U.S. banks last October, few experts would have predicted that the government would soon be wrestling with the possibility of taking voting control of large financial institutions.
Isn't nationalization the logical endgame of pumping federal money into an industry?
Do "experts" simply disregard logic? Is that how they get to be experts?
Posted by: bgates | February 22, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Rick-
So converting the preferred to common would boost the tce ratio maybe, but I'm not following why they would wipeout their preferred holders (or even how this hairbrained scheme is supposed to work anymore). Also didn't the Fed say they were going to buy agency bonds for a while because they wanted to get mortgage rates down to 4.0%?
So confused.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 22, 2009 at 11:45 PM
"So confused."
I'm not alone then. It looks like the Fed has picked up around $130B worth of agency paper in the past seven weeks with the preponderance in long term stuff. The Treasury has been selling a bunch of 'new' debt, mostly with shorter maturities and much lower interest rates. Is the Fed, in effect, furnishing the cash to people to buy Treasuries? It makes some sense to sell long 5% agency paper if the bet is that inflation is going to go up. But it would have yo go way up to make it a really solid play.
I think I'll go to bed now. This isn't making me feel too good.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 23, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Some fellow on another forum mentioned that it would have been risky but that Bernanke and Paulson should have done something similar the middle of September rather than getting Pelos and Reid in the mix at the time.
Surely involving Pelosi and Reid guarantees splendid results, no matter the enterprise.
Posted by: PD | February 23, 2009 at 12:13 AM
I'm glad we didn't find out. During the Depression, the Reps were made a minority party for a generation.
Keep in mind, we haven't seen how this plays out yet. Also keep in mind that being a minority party for a generation might be preferable to knowingly burdening future generations with unsustainable levels of debt.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 23, 2009 at 03:13 AM
The function is absolutely indispensable but it is not primary. There is also no reason for so much concentration in Manhattan.
Which is another great reason to quit propping this damn thing up.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 23, 2009 at 03:20 AM
A pox on all their houses. Too bad it's the Red Death.
==================================
Posted by: kim | February 23, 2009 at 06:54 AM