Andy simply rocks ! A serious guy with a serious mind; in contrast to the morally challenged (Marc Rich pardon; Elian Gonzalez; FALN terrorist pardons, and current policies on terrorism), dangerous and unqualified Holder.
Andrew C. McCarthy
May 1, 2009
By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Holder:
This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.
The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.
Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.
Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)
Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.
There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.
Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.
I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.
Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.
Very truly yours,
/S/
Andrew C. McCarthy
cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Obama & Chrysler - Being a Demagogue is Beneath the Presidency
Obama's game has been to basically try to bully the bondholders, who have significant legal rights, into accepting a raw deal so that he can disproportionately and unjustly benefit the auto unions (aka major political benefactors of Obama and Democrats). It is disgraceful.
Oppenheimer Funds Didn't Cave [Stephen Spruiell]
Yesterday, Obama said, “I stand with Chrysler’s employees and their families and communities,” and not “those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices.” Does that mean he doesn't stand with the thousands of Americans who have retirement plans with Oppenheimer Funds?
At all times in the negotiations, OppenheimerFunds sought fair treatment for the shareholders of our funds and we were willing to make very significant sacrifices to reach an agreement. Along with more than 20 other secured creditors, OppenheimerFunds rejected the Government’s offers because they unfairly asked our fund shareholders to make financial sacrifices greater than those being made by unsecured creditors [a.k.a. the UAW — SS]. Our holdings in secured Chrysler debt are entitled to priority in long-established US bankruptcy law and we are obligated to our fund shareholders to support agreements that respect these laws.
Not everyone showed this kind of backbone. I don't know about you, but knowing that Oppenheimer's managers were willing to stand up to immense political pressure on behalf of their investors kind of makes me want to open an account there.
Oppenheimer Funds Didn't Cave [Stephen Spruiell]
Yesterday, Obama said, “I stand with Chrysler’s employees and their families and communities,” and not “those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices.” Does that mean he doesn't stand with the thousands of Americans who have retirement plans with Oppenheimer Funds?
At all times in the negotiations, OppenheimerFunds sought fair treatment for the shareholders of our funds and we were willing to make very significant sacrifices to reach an agreement. Along with more than 20 other secured creditors, OppenheimerFunds rejected the Government’s offers because they unfairly asked our fund shareholders to make financial sacrifices greater than those being made by unsecured creditors [a.k.a. the UAW — SS]. Our holdings in secured Chrysler debt are entitled to priority in long-established US bankruptcy law and we are obligated to our fund shareholders to support agreements that respect these laws.
Not everyone showed this kind of backbone. I don't know about you, but knowing that Oppenheimer's managers were willing to stand up to immense political pressure on behalf of their investors kind of makes me want to open an account there.
Best Story of the Day - Dalai Lama Admires GWB - kudos for him !
The Dalia Lama, a favorite of the left (Tibet) is one of a few people that exhibits true moral leadership on this planet (which kind of is anethema to the left, so its curious that the left has embraced Tibet - must be the Hollywood early adopters).
Anyway, it is nice to see that he appreciates true leadership, friendship and moral clarity, of the kind that Bush brought to his presidency, and isn't afraid to say so, BDS be damned.
One wonders what the Dalai Lama will make of Obama ....
Knowing a Good Man When You See One [Jay Nordlinger]
The Dalai Lama has been visiting the Boston area, and I’d like to mention a few reports. First, a note from an NRO reader:
Hi, Jay,
I had the great opportunity to see the Dalai Lama speak at MIT this afternoon. When he opened the forum to audience Q&A, the following stunning exchange occurred (I will paraphrase):
Audience member: “Can you give us an example of a leader we should look up to as a positive influence?”
Dalai Lama (after thinking for a few seconds): “President Bush. I met him personally and liked him very much. He was honest and straightforward, and that is very important. I may not have agreed with all his policies, but I thought he was very honest and a very good leader.”
All this in Cambridge . . .
Incidentally, when he said, “I may not have agreed with all his policies,” the audience broke out into relieved laughter, as if they could not believe that someone — the Dalai Lama — almost made it through remarks about Bush with only positive sentiments.
And here is an item from The Tech, an MIT newspaper:
After his speech, the Dalai Lama answered questions, including one about model leaders. He singled out President George W. Bush for his straightforwardness, but stopped short on complimenting him for much else.
“I love him”, said the Dalai Lama of President Bush, “but as far as his policies are concerned, I have reservations.”
Full article, here. (Is it MIT policy to leave commas outside of quotation marks, British-style?) And here is something from the Boston Globe: “. . . the Dalai Lama said, referring to former President George W. Bush, ‘I love President Bush,’ acknowledging serious policy disagreements, but citing Bush’s warm personality.” (Full article.)
Finally, a blogger, whom Google brought up:
. . . he came out and told people he and Bush instantly hit it off and he loved the warmonger. He said he would withhold judgment on the attack of Iraq. He also said he supported Bush’s “war on terror” because, according to him, some humans are just inherently evil, referring to the Muslim “extremists” Bush branded for the kill. Bush is evil but the Dalai Lama proclaimed he loved him. The Dalai Lama is no Buddist.
(Full piece here.)
In my experience — and I’m just generalizing here — the better the person, the more positive he is about George W. Bush. Certainly the less snarky and narrow. Most of the people I admire most, admire the 43rd president. (Please note that I said “most of the people,” not “all of the people.”) This is particularly true of those who know something about tyranny, and the need to resist it: e.g., the Dalai Lama.
Anyway . . .
05/01 09:09 AM
Anyway, it is nice to see that he appreciates true leadership, friendship and moral clarity, of the kind that Bush brought to his presidency, and isn't afraid to say so, BDS be damned.
One wonders what the Dalai Lama will make of Obama ....
Knowing a Good Man When You See One [Jay Nordlinger]
The Dalai Lama has been visiting the Boston area, and I’d like to mention a few reports. First, a note from an NRO reader:
Hi, Jay,
I had the great opportunity to see the Dalai Lama speak at MIT this afternoon. When he opened the forum to audience Q&A, the following stunning exchange occurred (I will paraphrase):
Audience member: “Can you give us an example of a leader we should look up to as a positive influence?”
Dalai Lama (after thinking for a few seconds): “President Bush. I met him personally and liked him very much. He was honest and straightforward, and that is very important. I may not have agreed with all his policies, but I thought he was very honest and a very good leader.”
All this in Cambridge . . .
Incidentally, when he said, “I may not have agreed with all his policies,” the audience broke out into relieved laughter, as if they could not believe that someone — the Dalai Lama — almost made it through remarks about Bush with only positive sentiments.
And here is an item from The Tech, an MIT newspaper:
After his speech, the Dalai Lama answered questions, including one about model leaders. He singled out President George W. Bush for his straightforwardness, but stopped short on complimenting him for much else.
“I love him”, said the Dalai Lama of President Bush, “but as far as his policies are concerned, I have reservations.”
Full article, here. (Is it MIT policy to leave commas outside of quotation marks, British-style?) And here is something from the Boston Globe: “. . . the Dalai Lama said, referring to former President George W. Bush, ‘I love President Bush,’ acknowledging serious policy disagreements, but citing Bush’s warm personality.” (Full article.)
Finally, a blogger, whom Google brought up:
. . . he came out and told people he and Bush instantly hit it off and he loved the warmonger. He said he would withhold judgment on the attack of Iraq. He also said he supported Bush’s “war on terror” because, according to him, some humans are just inherently evil, referring to the Muslim “extremists” Bush branded for the kill. Bush is evil but the Dalai Lama proclaimed he loved him. The Dalai Lama is no Buddist.
(Full piece here.)
In my experience — and I’m just generalizing here — the better the person, the more positive he is about George W. Bush. Certainly the less snarky and narrow. Most of the people I admire most, admire the 43rd president. (Please note that I said “most of the people,” not “all of the people.”) This is particularly true of those who know something about tyranny, and the need to resist it: e.g., the Dalai Lama.
Anyway . . .
05/01 09:09 AM
Friday, May 1, 2009
Charles Krauthammer on "Torture"
Now here is a sensible, well reasoned view (contrast w/ Obama's nonsensical fairy tale views that smear the Bush admin, our military and our intelligence agencies, make us less safe):
Torture? No. Except . . .
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 1, 2009
Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.
Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.
The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. (One of the "torture memos" noted that the CIA had warned that terrorist "chatter" had reached pre-9/11 levels.) We know we must act but have no idea where or how -- and we can't know that until we have information. Catch-22.
Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding. (To call some of the other "enhanced interrogation" techniques -- face slap, sleep interruption, a caterpillar in a small space -- torture is to empty the word of any meaning.)
Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."
Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former attorney general Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 . . . fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.
Could we not, as the president repeatedly asserted in his Wednesday news conference, have obtained the information by less morally poisonous means? Perhaps if we'd spoken softly and sincerely to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, we could equally have obtained "high-value information."
There are two problems with the "good cop" technique. KSM, the mastermind of 9/11 who knew more about more plots than anyone else, did not seem very inclined to respond to polite inquiries about future plans. The man who boasted of personally beheading Daniel Pearl with a butcher knife answered questions about plots with "soon you will know" -- meaning, when you count the bodies in the morgue and find horribly disfigured burn victims in hospitals, you will know then what we are planning now.
The other problem is one of timing. The good cop routine can take weeks or months or years. We didn't have that luxury in the aftermath of 9/11 when waterboarding, for example, was in use. We'd been caught totally blind. We knew there were more plots out there, and we knew almost nothing about them. We needed to find out fast. We found out a lot.
"We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened," asserts Blair's predecessor, Mike McConnell. Of course, the morality of torture hinges on whether at the time the information was important enough, the danger great enough and our blindness about the enemy's plans severe enough to justify an exception to the moral injunction against torture.
Judging by Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who were informed at the time, the answer seems to be yes. In December 2007, after a report in The Post that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."
Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.
On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."
But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying "Don't do it."
On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House intelligence committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."
More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009" (the words are Blair's) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Torture? No. Except . . .
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 1, 2009
Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.
Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.
The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. (One of the "torture memos" noted that the CIA had warned that terrorist "chatter" had reached pre-9/11 levels.) We know we must act but have no idea where or how -- and we can't know that until we have information. Catch-22.
Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding. (To call some of the other "enhanced interrogation" techniques -- face slap, sleep interruption, a caterpillar in a small space -- torture is to empty the word of any meaning.)
Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."
Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former attorney general Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 . . . fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.
Could we not, as the president repeatedly asserted in his Wednesday news conference, have obtained the information by less morally poisonous means? Perhaps if we'd spoken softly and sincerely to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, we could equally have obtained "high-value information."
There are two problems with the "good cop" technique. KSM, the mastermind of 9/11 who knew more about more plots than anyone else, did not seem very inclined to respond to polite inquiries about future plans. The man who boasted of personally beheading Daniel Pearl with a butcher knife answered questions about plots with "soon you will know" -- meaning, when you count the bodies in the morgue and find horribly disfigured burn victims in hospitals, you will know then what we are planning now.
The other problem is one of timing. The good cop routine can take weeks or months or years. We didn't have that luxury in the aftermath of 9/11 when waterboarding, for example, was in use. We'd been caught totally blind. We knew there were more plots out there, and we knew almost nothing about them. We needed to find out fast. We found out a lot.
"We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened," asserts Blair's predecessor, Mike McConnell. Of course, the morality of torture hinges on whether at the time the information was important enough, the danger great enough and our blindness about the enemy's plans severe enough to justify an exception to the moral injunction against torture.
Judging by Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who were informed at the time, the answer seems to be yes. In December 2007, after a report in The Post that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."
Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.
On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."
But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying "Don't do it."
On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House intelligence committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."
More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009" (the words are Blair's) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Joe Biden & Swine Flu - the NY Post weighs in
Our foot in mouth special needs VP gets deservedly spanked by the NY Post
Re: Your Big Mouth
Dear Mr. Vice President,
If you're so concerned about the health of New Yorkers, do us a favor and cover your mouth before you talk again.
We're all a little uneasy about swine flu -- and for good reason -- but your suggestion that straphangers cut up their MetroCards and cower in their apartments is reckless and stupid, damaging to our economy and our psyche.
This is the city that never sweats, at least not the small stuff. If Osama bin Laden couldn't keep us from riding the subway after 9/11, Porky Pig certainly isn't going to now.
You say you don't like confined spaces, like airplanes. Fine -- don't get on one and come here ever again.
But if you do, here's a MetroCard so you can take the subway or the bus -- just like 7 million of us do every day, through good times and bad. Squished up against each other, we may give up our privacy, and even a little bit of our dignity, but we do it with pride and resolve.
We've done it for 105 years now, through far worse epidemics than this.
Yes, the subway we love to hate is a breeding ground for entire civilizations of germs and bacteria.
But after riding the Lexington Avenue line during rush hour, our hands are still cleaner than yours are after spending just a single minute in the seedy backrooms of Washington.
On Monday, a showboating Air Force One made half the city duck and cover, bringing back memories of our darkest day.
But yesterday, Gaffe Force Two (that'd be you, Joe took a shot at our economic backbone.
You and the president claim you want to stimulate the economy. But this week, you sent people fleeing from their desks in the middle of the workday and then urged them to stay home for good.
You campaigned as a proponent of mass transit. But your remarks could generate mass hysteria.
We didn't ask for your two cents, and our subway turnstiles don't want your two bucks.
As we say in New York: Flu you, Joe. And the pig you rode in on.
Yours truly,
The New York Post staff
Re: Your Big Mouth
Dear Mr. Vice President,
If you're so concerned about the health of New Yorkers, do us a favor and cover your mouth before you talk again.
We're all a little uneasy about swine flu -- and for good reason -- but your suggestion that straphangers cut up their MetroCards and cower in their apartments is reckless and stupid, damaging to our economy and our psyche.
This is the city that never sweats, at least not the small stuff. If Osama bin Laden couldn't keep us from riding the subway after 9/11, Porky Pig certainly isn't going to now.
You say you don't like confined spaces, like airplanes. Fine -- don't get on one and come here ever again.
But if you do, here's a MetroCard so you can take the subway or the bus -- just like 7 million of us do every day, through good times and bad. Squished up against each other, we may give up our privacy, and even a little bit of our dignity, but we do it with pride and resolve.
We've done it for 105 years now, through far worse epidemics than this.
Yes, the subway we love to hate is a breeding ground for entire civilizations of germs and bacteria.
But after riding the Lexington Avenue line during rush hour, our hands are still cleaner than yours are after spending just a single minute in the seedy backrooms of Washington.
On Monday, a showboating Air Force One made half the city duck and cover, bringing back memories of our darkest day.
But yesterday, Gaffe Force Two (that'd be you, Joe took a shot at our economic backbone.
You and the president claim you want to stimulate the economy. But this week, you sent people fleeing from their desks in the middle of the workday and then urged them to stay home for good.
You campaigned as a proponent of mass transit. But your remarks could generate mass hysteria.
We didn't ask for your two cents, and our subway turnstiles don't want your two bucks.
As we say in New York: Flu you, Joe. And the pig you rode in on.
Yours truly,
The New York Post staff
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Acronym of the Day: TOTUS
"Teleprompter of the United States"
(we mean you, Obama ...)
Hey, he does do good teleprompter ... its, uh, as I've said before, uh, when he is uh, forced to go unscripted, that uh, that cool image, as I've said before, uh, loses some of its, uh, luster.
(we mean you, Obama ...)
Hey, he does do good teleprompter ... its, uh, as I've said before, uh, when he is uh, forced to go unscripted, that uh, that cool image, as I've said before, uh, loses some of its, uh, luster.
Eric Holder -- this man is scary dangerous
Holder continues on his quest to make us less safe:
Detainees Cleared for Landing ... and You Get to Pay for It! [Andy McCarthy]
Attorney General Eric Holder, aka "the right man at the right time to protect our citizens in the critical years ahead," is in Germany discussing what he doesn't seem to want to talk about much in the United States: the Obama administration's emerging plan to comply with the President's arbitrary January 2010 deadline for closing Guantanamo Bay by throwing open the door and releasing trained jihadists into the United States (among other places). Fox News is reporting that, in addition to the Uighurs, another 13 combatants have now been "cleared" for release — bringing the total to 30. And when many, if not the vast majority, of the people who trained to kill you end up here, you'll get to pay for it! Fox elaborates:
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has indicated that detainees released in the U.S. would likely receive government assistance to help them return to society — one they've never been a part of. "If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life," Blair said last month. "You can't just put them on the street."
So to complete the picture, we now have an FBI out beating the bushes — and taking lots of flak for it — to try to find out which radical Muslims in the United States may be embedded jihadists who've gotten paramilitary training from al Qaeda, and we've got an Attorney General and a President who are simultaneously planning to embed in the United States jihadists who've gotten paramilitary training from al Qaeda.
Meantime, Republicans are squawking, understandably, over the administration's reckless determination to close Gitmo without a plan for what to do about the 240 enemy combatants still held there. I would suggest they focus their energy on the following:
1. What are the standards used by the administration to "clear" an enemy combatant for release?
2. What are the names of the 30 who have been cleared so far, and what was the basis for holding them as enemy combatants in the first place (e.g., the evidence that came out of their combatant status review tribunals)?
3. Why did the administration release Binyam Mohammed, who plotted with top-tier al Qaeda figures (like KSM) and convicted terrorist Jose Padilla to carry out mass-murder attacks in American cities — particularly under circumstances where he is living free and clear (and on public assistance) in Britain?
4. How did Binyam Mohammed meet the standards for releasing terrorists?
5. When Binyam Mohammed was incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, he was not a threat to the American people. What assurance do we have that he is not plotting against Americans today?
6. If an al Qaeda operative who planned to commit bombings in the United States with top al Qaeda chiefs has met the Obama administration's release standards, is there any detainee who wouldn't?
7. The administration claims it is committed to restoring the "rule of law" that the Bush administration purportedly flouted. The law of the United States provides that aliens are excludable from the United States if they have been affiliated with terrorist organizations or have received terrorist training. How is admitting trained alien terrorists into the United States consistent with the rule of law?
8. Many detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the jihad. Indeed, that includes the current commander of Taliban operations against American troops in Afghanistan, where President Obama has increased our troop commitment. Recognizing that we only know someone has returned to the jihad if we get reliable intelligence about that or encounter him on the battlefield — and therefore that the figure of detainees who've returned to the jihad is undoubtedly higher than what is known — what is the latest information on the number of detainees released from Guantanamo Bay who have returned to hostilities against the U.S.?
9. Are the combatants who have been cleared for release represented by American law firms? If yes, which law firms? Attorney General Holder's former law firm, for example, brags on its website:
The firm represents 17 Yemeni nationals and one Pakistani citizen held at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court will soon review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that ordered the dismissal of a number of habeas petitions filed by Guantánamo detainees; some of our clients are petitioners in the Supreme Court case. We expect to play a substantial role in the briefing. We also plan to petition the Supreme Court to hear our Pakistani client’s appeal from the D.C. Circuit’s order dismissing his case. Further, we are pursuing relief in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for all of our clients. On a separate front, we filed amicus briefs and coordinated the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court in the summer of 2006 invalidated President Bush’s military commissions and in which we have obtained favorable rulings that our clients have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.
Other Justice Department officials also represented — and their law firms represented — enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay in their numerous law suits against the American people. Have any of the detainees cleared for release been represented by Justice Department officials or the former law firms of Justice Department officials? If yes, which ones?
Detainees Cleared for Landing ... and You Get to Pay for It! [Andy McCarthy]
Attorney General Eric Holder, aka "the right man at the right time to protect our citizens in the critical years ahead," is in Germany discussing what he doesn't seem to want to talk about much in the United States: the Obama administration's emerging plan to comply with the President's arbitrary January 2010 deadline for closing Guantanamo Bay by throwing open the door and releasing trained jihadists into the United States (among other places). Fox News is reporting that, in addition to the Uighurs, another 13 combatants have now been "cleared" for release — bringing the total to 30. And when many, if not the vast majority, of the people who trained to kill you end up here, you'll get to pay for it! Fox elaborates:
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has indicated that detainees released in the U.S. would likely receive government assistance to help them return to society — one they've never been a part of. "If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life," Blair said last month. "You can't just put them on the street."
So to complete the picture, we now have an FBI out beating the bushes — and taking lots of flak for it — to try to find out which radical Muslims in the United States may be embedded jihadists who've gotten paramilitary training from al Qaeda, and we've got an Attorney General and a President who are simultaneously planning to embed in the United States jihadists who've gotten paramilitary training from al Qaeda.
Meantime, Republicans are squawking, understandably, over the administration's reckless determination to close Gitmo without a plan for what to do about the 240 enemy combatants still held there. I would suggest they focus their energy on the following:
1. What are the standards used by the administration to "clear" an enemy combatant for release?
2. What are the names of the 30 who have been cleared so far, and what was the basis for holding them as enemy combatants in the first place (e.g., the evidence that came out of their combatant status review tribunals)?
3. Why did the administration release Binyam Mohammed, who plotted with top-tier al Qaeda figures (like KSM) and convicted terrorist Jose Padilla to carry out mass-murder attacks in American cities — particularly under circumstances where he is living free and clear (and on public assistance) in Britain?
4. How did Binyam Mohammed meet the standards for releasing terrorists?
5. When Binyam Mohammed was incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, he was not a threat to the American people. What assurance do we have that he is not plotting against Americans today?
6. If an al Qaeda operative who planned to commit bombings in the United States with top al Qaeda chiefs has met the Obama administration's release standards, is there any detainee who wouldn't?
7. The administration claims it is committed to restoring the "rule of law" that the Bush administration purportedly flouted. The law of the United States provides that aliens are excludable from the United States if they have been affiliated with terrorist organizations or have received terrorist training. How is admitting trained alien terrorists into the United States consistent with the rule of law?
8. Many detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the jihad. Indeed, that includes the current commander of Taliban operations against American troops in Afghanistan, where President Obama has increased our troop commitment. Recognizing that we only know someone has returned to the jihad if we get reliable intelligence about that or encounter him on the battlefield — and therefore that the figure of detainees who've returned to the jihad is undoubtedly higher than what is known — what is the latest information on the number of detainees released from Guantanamo Bay who have returned to hostilities against the U.S.?
9. Are the combatants who have been cleared for release represented by American law firms? If yes, which law firms? Attorney General Holder's former law firm, for example, brags on its website:
The firm represents 17 Yemeni nationals and one Pakistani citizen held at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court will soon review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that ordered the dismissal of a number of habeas petitions filed by Guantánamo detainees; some of our clients are petitioners in the Supreme Court case. We expect to play a substantial role in the briefing. We also plan to petition the Supreme Court to hear our Pakistani client’s appeal from the D.C. Circuit’s order dismissing his case. Further, we are pursuing relief in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for all of our clients. On a separate front, we filed amicus briefs and coordinated the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court in the summer of 2006 invalidated President Bush’s military commissions and in which we have obtained favorable rulings that our clients have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.
Other Justice Department officials also represented — and their law firms represented — enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay in their numerous law suits against the American people. Have any of the detainees cleared for release been represented by Justice Department officials or the former law firms of Justice Department officials? If yes, which ones?
Joe Biden - interesting story developing; possible train wreck for TOTUS
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-joe-biden-associated-with-hedge-fund.html
Courtesy of Zero Hedge
Is Joe Biden Associated With A Fund Of Funds Feeder Scam?
Posted by Tyler Durden at 9:52 PM
Zero Hedge is always happy to discover something rotten in the state of capital markets. We are even happier when others dig independently and come up with their own startling conclusions. Tonight - we are very happy. John Hempton, who writes the insightful blog Bronte Capital, has done some amazing dot connecting in what, if true, and not swept promptly under the carpet by the powers that be, could expose a hedge fund scandal that could rival the Madoff fiasco, for the simple reason that it implicates none other than Barak Obama's right hand man: Joe Biden. The fund in question is Paradigm Capital, a fund of funds, that is controlled by Hunter and James Biden, the VP's son and brother, respectively.
The full story is quite intricate but very much worth it. In putting the facts together, Hempton had a temporary brush in with "the adversary's" legal counsel, only the be vindicated when his initial subject, Ponte Negra Capital, ended up having its assets formally frozen by the SEC. But it does not end there. As Hempton lays it out best:
Firstly the [Paradigm] business was not started by the Bidens – it was purchased by them. It was started by Dr James Park. When the Bidens purchased the business they believed it to have 1.5 billion of funds under management. This little section from an affidavit signed by James Biden (the VP’s brother) is revealing. The affidavit is here.
(a). The Paradigm Hedge Funds had only between two and three hundred million dollars under management, which were leveraged to over five hundred million, not the more than $1.5 billion under management represented to us by Lotito and Fasciana.
(b) The returns on the Paradigm Hedge Funds were not as represented to us by Lotito and Fasciana; and (with editing)
(d). The primary manager of the funds, Dr. James Park, had an apparent substance abuse problem and had been an absentee manager for several years...
Now please put this in perspective. The Bidens – mostly through failure to do proper due diligence – seem to have wound up in control of a fund of hedge funds which they claim (in sworn affidavit) that
• Had less than a fifth the funds under management that they represented to their customers,
• Had misrepresented their returns and
• Had a primary manager who had “an apparent substance abuse problem”.
Now if you were told a fund manager only had a fifth the funds that he represented to the world, had misrepresented his returns and had a primary manager with a substance abuse problem what you say it is?
Whatever – it quacks.
Now this affidavit was signed 13 April 2007. I presume it is the truth otherwise James Biden is guilty of perjury.
The affidavit is signed a few months after Hunter Biden resigned as the CEO of Paradigm Global – a position he took up in late 2006.
Now I am going to give you one more detail. In 2006 Paradigm represented that they had 28 staff. They represented that they had offices in multiple cities including a largish office in New York on Fifth Avenue. I have uploaded a few of their marketing documents here and here and here.
Two hundred to three hundred million in funds under management would represent less than 5 million in revenue and probably less than 3 million after any third party costs. Most funds of funds of that period took a percentage of the performance fees – and given the performance of the funds the revenue would have been less than 1% of net funds under management however Paradigm's fee structure was somewhat higher suggesting revenue about 5 million per annum.
With 28 staff mostly in New York and (according to this marketing document) with representative offices in Los Angeles, Monte Carlo and Tokyo you can’t make this business work very well.
Of course you could make it work if all the staff members were paid well under $70 thousand dollars (which does not seem likely in finance in New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo and Monte Carlo). You could also make it work if you subsidized it.
None of this would allow the senior manager to fail to show at the office and indulge a drug habit (as sworn by James Biden).
Now go back and look at this marketing document. It contains a few staff members on the marketing side. Alla Babikova is still given as an email contact on the Paradigm website. She is also listed on this document as working for Onyx Capital. Onyx was the marketer of the allegedly fraudulent Ponta Negra hedge fund. Onyx – or at least staff that worked for Onyx – were also marketers of Stanford.
Jeffrey Schneider is the contact on this document from the allegedly fraudulent Ponta Negra fund. He was the founder of Onyx.
I see lots of possibilities: all of them reflect very poorly on the Bidens.
They were and remain controllers of a fund of funds which they allege misrepresented its returns and yet which they kept operational.
They were and remain controllers of a fund of funds which houses an alleged fraud in its offices (Ponta Negra).
They were and remain controllers of a fund of funds which employed a marketing organisation (Onyx) which was associated with distributing alleged frauds (Ponta Negra and Stanford).
They were and remain controllers of a fund that claimed to have 28 staff many of whom are difficult to trace and where the revenue to fund those staff did not obviously exist. This suggests that either the staff were not paid, did not exist or (more sinisterly) they were paid by stealing from the small amount of funds under management. You could only steal the client money if the asset custody safeguards were not robust. There is an audit statement on the SEC files qualified as to the robustness of these protections – however there is no evidence that the lack of robustness was exploited.
All of this was done from the 17th Floor of 650 Fifth Avenue New York. There are a few other things housed on that floor and you need to walk past Paradigm’s desk to get to them.
There is much more to this story, and for the whole sequence please go here, here, here, here and here, in that order. Makes for one hell of a late night thriller, and if the author is correct, Vice President Biden, by implication, could soon find himself in the shoes of Walter Noel of Fairfield Greenwich.
Regardless, it is only a matter of time before Joe Biden ends up on the list of people in which the president has 100% confidence.
Courtesy of Zero Hedge
Is Joe Biden Associated With A Fund Of Funds Feeder Scam?
Posted by Tyler Durden at 9:52 PM
Zero Hedge is always happy to discover something rotten in the state of capital markets. We are even happier when others dig independently and come up with their own startling conclusions. Tonight - we are very happy. John Hempton, who writes the insightful blog Bronte Capital, has done some amazing dot connecting in what, if true, and not swept promptly under the carpet by the powers that be, could expose a hedge fund scandal that could rival the Madoff fiasco, for the simple reason that it implicates none other than Barak Obama's right hand man: Joe Biden. The fund in question is Paradigm Capital, a fund of funds, that is controlled by Hunter and James Biden, the VP's son and brother, respectively.
The full story is quite intricate but very much worth it. In putting the facts together, Hempton had a temporary brush in with "the adversary's" legal counsel, only the be vindicated when his initial subject, Ponte Negra Capital, ended up having its assets formally frozen by the SEC. But it does not end there. As Hempton lays it out best:
Firstly the [Paradigm] business was not started by the Bidens – it was purchased by them. It was started by Dr James Park. When the Bidens purchased the business they believed it to have 1.5 billion of funds under management. This little section from an affidavit signed by James Biden (the VP’s brother) is revealing. The affidavit is here.
(a). The Paradigm Hedge Funds had only between two and three hundred million dollars under management, which were leveraged to over five hundred million, not the more than $1.5 billion under management represented to us by Lotito and Fasciana.
(b) The returns on the Paradigm Hedge Funds were not as represented to us by Lotito and Fasciana; and (with editing)
(d). The primary manager of the funds, Dr. James Park, had an apparent substance abuse problem and had been an absentee manager for several years...
Now please put this in perspective. The Bidens – mostly through failure to do proper due diligence – seem to have wound up in control of a fund of hedge funds which they claim (in sworn affidavit) that
• Had less than a fifth the funds under management that they represented to their customers,
• Had misrepresented their returns and
• Had a primary manager who had “an apparent substance abuse problem”.
Now if you were told a fund manager only had a fifth the funds that he represented to the world, had misrepresented his returns and had a primary manager with a substance abuse problem what you say it is?
Whatever – it quacks.
Now this affidavit was signed 13 April 2007. I presume it is the truth otherwise James Biden is guilty of perjury.
The affidavit is signed a few months after Hunter Biden resigned as the CEO of Paradigm Global – a position he took up in late 2006.
Now I am going to give you one more detail. In 2006 Paradigm represented that they had 28 staff. They represented that they had offices in multiple cities including a largish office in New York on Fifth Avenue. I have uploaded a few of their marketing documents here and here and here.
Two hundred to three hundred million in funds under management would represent less than 5 million in revenue and probably less than 3 million after any third party costs. Most funds of funds of that period took a percentage of the performance fees – and given the performance of the funds the revenue would have been less than 1% of net funds under management however Paradigm's fee structure was somewhat higher suggesting revenue about 5 million per annum.
With 28 staff mostly in New York and (according to this marketing document) with representative offices in Los Angeles, Monte Carlo and Tokyo you can’t make this business work very well.
Of course you could make it work if all the staff members were paid well under $70 thousand dollars (which does not seem likely in finance in New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo and Monte Carlo). You could also make it work if you subsidized it.
None of this would allow the senior manager to fail to show at the office and indulge a drug habit (as sworn by James Biden).
Now go back and look at this marketing document. It contains a few staff members on the marketing side. Alla Babikova is still given as an email contact on the Paradigm website. She is also listed on this document as working for Onyx Capital. Onyx was the marketer of the allegedly fraudulent Ponta Negra hedge fund. Onyx – or at least staff that worked for Onyx – were also marketers of Stanford.
Jeffrey Schneider is the contact on this document from the allegedly fraudulent Ponta Negra fund. He was the founder of Onyx.
I see lots of possibilities: all of them reflect very poorly on the Bidens.
They were and remain controllers of a fund of funds which they allege misrepresented its returns and yet which they kept operational.
They were and remain controllers of a fund of funds which houses an alleged fraud in its offices (Ponta Negra).
They were and remain controllers of a fund of funds which employed a marketing organisation (Onyx) which was associated with distributing alleged frauds (Ponta Negra and Stanford).
They were and remain controllers of a fund that claimed to have 28 staff many of whom are difficult to trace and where the revenue to fund those staff did not obviously exist. This suggests that either the staff were not paid, did not exist or (more sinisterly) they were paid by stealing from the small amount of funds under management. You could only steal the client money if the asset custody safeguards were not robust. There is an audit statement on the SEC files qualified as to the robustness of these protections – however there is no evidence that the lack of robustness was exploited.
All of this was done from the 17th Floor of 650 Fifth Avenue New York. There are a few other things housed on that floor and you need to walk past Paradigm’s desk to get to them.
There is much more to this story, and for the whole sequence please go here, here, here, here and here, in that order. Makes for one hell of a late night thriller, and if the author is correct, Vice President Biden, by implication, could soon find himself in the shoes of Walter Noel of Fairfield Greenwich.
Regardless, it is only a matter of time before Joe Biden ends up on the list of people in which the president has 100% confidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
