The Second Opinion

Former French UN ambassador arrested

Former French ambassador Jean-Bernard Merimee was arrested Monday in connection with the Oil for Fraud program.  He served as Paris' ambassador to the UN from 1991 - 1995, and as a special advisor to Kofi 'Greasy Thumb' Annan from 1999 - 2002.  According to the Washington Times' Betsy Pisik:

There have been questions about Mr. Merimee's influence on the Iraq oil-for-food program since his misspelled name turned up on the Iraqi Oil Ministry list that implicated former program chief Benon Sevan. The program was suspended in 2003.

The so-called "Al Mada list,"published in Baghdad nearly two years ago, named foreign diplomats, businessmen and journalists who supposedly had been issued vouchers for discounted oil, which could be resold at a profit to oil companies.

U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer noted in his report to Congress last year that Mr. Merimee was allocated 11 million barrels of oil from December 2001 to March 2003, according to Agence France-Presse.

However, Mr. Duelfer described the transaction as "not performed," and it was not clear whether Mr. Merimee was a willing participant.

Mr. Merimee, 68, is one of the highest-ranked officials to be indicted by the French judge investigating the oil-for-food scheme.

Well, well.  Let's see what the French legal system makes of this case.  As much as I like picking on them, I think that the Frenchies take their law pretty seriously and can be expected to investigate this case with vigor and competence.

The French are also looking at other government officials:

French Sen. Charles Pasqua, a former confidant of President Jacques Chirac and a former interior minister, also was questioned by investigators. Although he has immunity from prosecution as a senator, several of his aides have been charged.

It would also be interesting to investigate some of the other names on the al Mada list, which include high officials in France and Russia.

Eventually, the truth will come out, and some people are going to owe the Iraqis BIG TIME for having stolen from them and helped prop up Saddam and his brutish government.

I must say that this is the first time in a LONG time that I find myself rooting for the Frenchies.

If at first you don't succeed...

Ronnie Earle has apparently read some of the scathing criticisms of his 'indictment' of Tom DeLay, because he's gone and got another one.  According to the AP's April Castro:

The latest indictment, for one count of conspiring to launder money and one count of money laundering, was brought hours after DeLay's lawyers attacked on technical grounds another indictment handed down last week.

District Attorney Ronnie Earle did not return repeated phone calls from The Associated Press, but legal experts say the new charges from the Democratic prosecutor were likely filed to head off a potential problem with the previous charge.

Defense lawyers asked a judge Monday to throw out the first indictment, arguing that the charge of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws was based on a statute that didn't take effect until 2003 — a year after the acts in question.

Money laundering is a much more serious charge than... um... er... Well, it's a much more serious charge than whatever Ronnie Earle charged DeLay with in the first indictment.  DeLay and his supporters, natch, are none to thrilled with this turn of events:

"The judicial incompetence and political hatred that Ronnie Earle showed today demonstrates that Texans did not elect their best and brightest to the position of Travis County DA," DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said. "Ronnie Earle may truly be the Elmer Fudd of politics."

Again, I don't know if DeLay is innocent.  As many people have observed, one doesn't reach such a high position in American politics without having some bodies buried SOMEWHERE.  However, Ronnie Earle's indictments certainly seem to be more political hatchet jobs than serious criminal investigation.  His first indictment, handed down on the last day of the grand jury's term, was completely non-specific and indeed appears to charge DeLay under a statute that wasn't even law when the alleged crime was committed (can you say ex post facto, anyone?).  Now he's gone back to the well to find other charges.

DeLay has been pilloried by the liberal press and the democrats in Congress, mostly because he isn't nice to them.  Ronnie Earle publicly called him a bully.  Well, being a bully isn't a crime.

It may well be that nothing DeLay did was a crime, either.

Tom DeLay and Ronnie Earle

Now that more right-wingers have had time to react to the indictment of Tom DeLay, they've been able to dig up a bit more about the case and the prosecutor, Ronnie Earle.  To put it mildly, this guy seems to be a malicious fruitcake.  He has a history of bringing charges against political opponents, charges that are shown to be baseless in court.  In 1993, he indicted Kay Bailey Hutchinson on a variety of charges which he dropped after the case went to court.  Michelle Malkin has a great deal more about this guy. 

The Washington Times' Hugh Aynesworth has this to say about Earle under the headline "A Tough Prosecutor":

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has long been a nemesis of Texas Republicans, particularly of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. He called the man Washington knows as "the Hammer," for his partisan toughness, a "bully."

He has persuaded grand juries to indict several prominent Texas politicians of both parties, including the current senior sitting U.S. senator, although several of those high-profile cases failed.

The late Bob Bullock, a Democratic lieutenant governor, once compared Mr. Earle to "a little boy playing with matches."

John Podhoretz is less charitable in a New York Post editorial:

DeLay's prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, has a long history of using his office in questionable ways against political rivals. DeLay played some major political hardball back in Texas a few years ago when he masterminded a successful effort to redraw the state's congressional districts — behavior about which Texas Democrats remain plum loco — and Earle has been on his tail ever since.

Earle was humiliated in 1994 when he sought to drop a case he had brought against Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on the eve of trial just so he could switch judges and give it a second shot — only to see the judge swear in a jury to assure that Hutchison receive a full acquittal.

Some liberals defend Earle on the strange grounds that he isn't guilty of using his office to play politics because he's also indicted fellow Democrats. But in the highest-profile case he had before Hutchison, Earle was also humiliated when an absurd bribery charge he had brought against Democratic state Attorney General Jim Mattox led to a quick jury verdict of "not guilty." He also indicted himself once — on some campaign-finance charge — so there's some reason to believe he might be a bit cracked.

Attorneys Mark Levin and Barbara Comstock believe that the case will collapse simply because there's nothing to it.  Says Levin:

Other than a statement that "one or more" of 3 individuals, including Tom DeLay, entered into an illegal conspiracy, I can't find a single sentence tying Tom DeLay to a crime. That is, there's not a single sentence tying DeLay to the contribution. The indictment describes the alleged conduct of two other individuals, but nothing about DeLay. You would think if Ronnie Earle had even a thin reed of testimony linking DeLay to the contribution, it would have been noted in the indictment to justify the grand jury's action. Moreover, not only is there no information about DeLay committing acts in furtherance of a conspiracy, there's no information about DeLay entering into a conspiracy. I honestly believe that unless there's more, this is an egregious abuse of prosecutorial power. It's a disgrace. I understand that not everything has to be contained in an indictment, but how about something!

Comstock (e-mail to Michelle Malkin):

The Problems with Earle's case:

In an effort to contrive jurisdiction over DeLay, Earle charges that because Congressman DeLay may have known about the transaction before it occurred, he was then part of a conspiracy.

However, Earle's office has sworn testimony and other exculpatory evidence showing that Congressman DeLay did not have knowledge of the transaction.

In addition:

No corporation or labor organization was indicted in this conspiracy. Neither Jim Ellis nor John Colyandro is a corporation or labor organization.

No corporation or labor organization made a contribution during 60 days of an election.

What constitutes a contribution under the Texas Election Code is not strictly defined.

Neither the RNC nor RNSEC constitute a political party under Texas election law. They are considered PACs, just as the DNC is.

Corporations in Texas could have legally made contributions to the RNC or RNSEC during the period in question under Texas election law.

There was no violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. The underlying transaction was legal. Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?

But sending DeLay to jail may not be what it's all about.  After all, Earle - who spoke about the case at a democrat fundraiser in May - has provided the dems with the ability to attach the word 'indicted' to Tom DeLay's name.  It may even be that he'll be able to persuade a judge to have DeLay brought to his arraignment in handcuffs... with LOTS of photographers in attendence.  DeLay has already had to step down from his post as Majority Leader.  Even if the charges are baseless, Earle's actions have been VERY good for the DNC.

As I've already said, justice should be done.  If DeLay has broken the law, he should be punished.  But something certainly stinks about Ronnie Earle.

DeLay indicted

After months of rumors and accusations, Tom DeLay has been indicted by a Texas grand jury upon charges of conspiracy to evade Texas campaign finance laws.  The fact that the prosecutor who brought the charges, Ronnie Earle, is a democrat muddies the waters of the case.

If DeLay has committed a crime, then justice ought to be served.  For now, House Republican party rules require him to step down from his leadership position.  He will likely be replaced temporarily by Congressman David Dreier (R-CA).

Medicaid fraud in NY

And I thought New Orleans and Lousiana were bad...

The New York Post has an editorial today about a pretty shocking story uncovered by their rival (and newspaper I love to bash) the New York Times:

... aides [to Gov. George Pataki and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer] testified Monday at Assembly hearings called after The New York Times ran a two-part, 9,000-word series in July suggesting as much as $18 billion a year — some 40 percent of state Medicaid expenditures — were being lost to fraud and abuse.

Roll that off your tongue again: $18 billion. Each year.

It's mind-boggling.

Pataki, a Republican, and Spitzer, a Democrat, have specific statutory responsibility to police Medicaid. But they say they don't have the resources to go after it.

That's bipartisan baloney.

You got that right!

It's bad enough that the state may well be losing billions per year to fraud.  It's FAR worse that the two men most responsible for correcting the problem seem to feel that they "can't".  This is the kind of attitude I would expect from the officials of some corrupt, third-world s***-hole like Niger, Paraguay, or Louisiana, not from the governor and attorney general of one of the largest and most populous states in the Union.

The governor's aides continued their response, heaping even more glory on themselves:

Pataki's deputy health commish, Dennis Whalen, griped that the Times' story "does a disservice to the vast majority of recipients and providers who are using this program appropriately."

Really?

The "vast majority" of New Yorkers don't rob banks, either — but that's no reason not to chase after those who do.

"We have prosecuted world-class white-collar cases and set national recovery records," Spitzer's deputy, Peter Pope, bragged.

Then this shouldn't be too hard for the attorney general's office, eh?  After all, the NYT reporters who first broke the story didn't seem to have too much trouble gathering evidence:

Two Times reporters, armed with little more than a laptop computer and some common sense, had no problem finding scores of flagrant examples — including the case of Dr. Dolly Rosen, a dentist who allegedly filed $1 million worth of fraudulent claims. On one day, she said, she performed 991 procedures — about 100 an hour.

Think about that for a minute.

Some 100 procedures an hour — no one could fill out phony claims that fast — and it took the Times to catch her.

New Yorkers should demand prompt and effective action from Pataki and Spitzer.  Failing that, they should demand their heads.

Now Sandy will have to take something OUT of his pants: his wallet

Sandy Burglar, who got caught stuffing classified documents in his pants at the National Archives and then copped a plea to stealing and destroying them was fined $50,000 yesterday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson.

Oddly, the government lawyers with who Burglar reached his plea deal only recommended a $10,000 fine.  Apparently, Judge Robinson was a little more upset with Burglar's crimes than they were.  According to the Washington Times' Jerry Seper:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson, in ordering the fine, ignored a recommendation by government lawyers that Mr. Berger -- the Clinton administration's most senior national security official -- pay a $10,000 fine as part of a plea agreement reached in April.

"The court finds the fine is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense," Judge Robinson said in handing down the sentence. She also ordered Mr. Berger to surrender his access to classified government materials for three years, perform 100 hours of community service and serve two years' probation.

He also was ordered to pay $6,905 for the administrative costs of his two-year probation.

Burglar was apologetic... sort of:

He told the court yesterday he let "considerations of personal convenience override clear rules of handling classified material." He described the removal of the documents as a lapse of judgment that occurred while he was preparing last year to testify before the September 11 commission investigating intelligence and security failures.

"In this case, I failed. I will not again," Mr. Berger said.

He didn't explain how matters of personal convenience led him to destroy several of the documents, or why he stuffed them in his pants.

Sheesh...

Saddam confesses

Saddam has confessed to orchestrating the murders of over 185,000 Kurds.

The ACLU has called his confession inadmissible evidence.

OK, not really, though I wouldn't be surprised.

Saddam HAS confessed to the crimes, including using chemical weapons on the Kurds.  According to the New York Post:

Remarkable video and audiotapes capture the jailed ex-dictator admitting that he masterminded "executions" and the destruction of "dozens of Kurdish villages" to an investigative judge currently probing other charges against him, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said.

...

It was not immediately clear what impact Saddam's confession could have on his upcoming trial.

For example, there were questions about whether it could cancel the need for the trial or even spare him the gallows.

There also was debate about whether he may argue that he ordered the bloody actions but considered them "legal" at the time.

Talabani said in the same TV interview yesterday that Saddam should be hanged "20 times."

"Saddam deserves a death sentence 20 times a day because he tried to assassinate me 20 times," the bitter president said.

Al Franken and Air America

Michelle Malkin and Brian Maloney have tirelessly been following the Air America scandal.

What scandal, you ask?  Oh, if you've been getting your news from the BM, I guess you haven't heard about it.  Seems that Air America, the wonderful liberal radio network that was going to drive fascists rightwing talk shows like Rush and Hannity from the air, somehow got a "loan" for nearly $1 million from a charity in NYC.  There's talk of fraud and embezzlement.

Al Franken, author of Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right and host of Air America's flagship show "The O'Franken Factor" (yeah, he seems to have a thing for Fox News) has been regalling anybody who'll listen with tales of his own innocence, how he was as much a victim as anybody, and how he didn't know a thing about the loan.

Well, court documents don't jibe with these claims.  As Malkin and Maloney write:

Far from being an innocent party with no knowledge of Air America's money woes, Franken was a signatory to the agreement. The document, published here for the first time, exposes how Franken misled his listeners and the press about his knowledge of the charity loan.

Michelle has PDFs of the documents at her site and a lot more.  Brian is also covering this at his site, Radio Equalizer.

Just War Theory

Dan Trabue of Payne Hollow and I have been exchanging views about the concept of a 'Just War', and rather then leave them in comments, I thought I would start a new post.  The concept interests me from both legal and historical aspects.

Just as peoples, cultures and nations develop laws to regulate their civil affairs, they also develop laws and codes and traditions that determine how and when they may make war.  Implicit in these codes is the concept of a 'just war', i.e. war that may be waged without putting a moral onus on the people / nation waging it.  In the Western tradition, the first systematic discussion of 'just war' was written by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica.  He identifies three requirements for war to be considered just:

In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior...

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good."...

More recently, St. Thomas' principles have been expanded to seven requirements by those who support the concept of a just war:

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Within fairly broad limits, I accept these principals and believe that they have been upheld by the United States in most of our wars (the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War are notable exceptions).  However, there are some points that I question:

Requirement (2) seems to prohibit guerilla / partisan warfare of the sort waged by Americans during our War for Independence, by the Spanish during their guerilla war against Napoleon, or by the followers of Mao during World War II and China's long civil war.  Further, "legitimate" authority may well be subject to interpretation.

Requirement (3) seems clearly to prohibit preemptive action.  I realize that this concept is especially controversial of late, but there are cases where preemptive action makes logical sense.  For example, if the US had detected the Japanese fleet steaming toward Hawaii on December 6, 1941, it seems reasonable that the United States could have attacked that fleet even though Japan had not yet taken any offensive action.

Requirement (3) also seems to preclude peace keeping or police actions.  For example, the Janjaweed militia committing genocide in Darfur has not caused any injury to the United States.  Therefore, we could not wage 'just' war against them even if we so desired.

Requirement (4) interests me because it hearkens back to the medieval concept of 'guilty in defense' (see The Life of King Henry V, Act III, scene 3).  The problem lies in who should decide when a cause has become hopeless.  Should Britain have surrendered along with France in 1940?  Her cause seemed hopeless.  Should the Soviet Union have surrendered when the Nazis were mere miles from Moscow?  If the USSR had launched a massive nuclear attack against the United States, should we have refrained from retaliation?

Requirement (6) is dangerous and, frankly, bloody stupid.  Use of minimum force will almost certainly prolong a war and ultimately cause more devastation and loss of life.  Further, it implies 'tit for tat'.  No nation or people can reasonably be expected to accept such a state of affairs.

Requirement (7) is a nice sentiment, but it is nearly impossible in the modern world because nation-states make war.  Thus, their civilians become targets to the extent that they support the state's ability to make war.  Workers in munitions plants, civilian members of the state's military apparatus, and even workers not directly employed in war-related industries (such as farmers, miners, railway workers, etc) can become legitimate targets.

Naturally, I do not believe that the United States should make war rashly or maliciously.  Diplomacy should be pursued to the greatest extent possible without sacrificing our national goals.  If diplomacy fails, there are other options such as economic embargoes and attempts to get other nations to align with us to bring pressure to bear on the offending party.  However, these methods have there limitations, and when they fail, force becomes the only remedy other than surrender. 

It goes without saying that the United States should wage war with as much charity and mercy as possible.  We should not set out to bomb civilians, raze entire cities, or inflict catastrophic damage on the enemy.  Further, we have laws and rules governing the conduct of our military personnel both on the battlefield and in occupied territory, and I believe that such rules should be strictly enforced.  However, the ultimate aim of winning cannot be sacrificed if the national security of the United States is at risk, nor should American lives be lost needlessly to spare the lives of the enemy.  Our goal should always be to establish a just and lasting peace, but we should always be the victor.

Concealed carry

North Carolina adopted a concealed carry law, also known as 'shall issue', about ten years ago.  Quite a number of other states have similar laws.  The intent was to allow law-abiding citizens, once they'd passed a background check and a certified course of instruction, to legally pack heat on their person or in their car.  I believe that about 60,000 of my fellow North Carolinians have received such permits. 

Lately, I've thought about applying for one.  After reading a bit about the law, I think I'll take a pass.  While it's certainly better than nothing, the law has so many restrictions and provisions that it seems a little pointless.  Even if one has a permit, it is not legal to carry a concealed weapon in the following places:

• Schools (even if you're just dropping Junior off in the morning)
• Any place where alcohol is sold or consumed, which includes many popular restaurants
• State property
• Airports (even if you're only picking up Grandma after her flight from Hoboken)
• Courthouses
• Banks
• Any place where federal employees work (don't want to disturb their naps, I suppose)
• Any place that posts 'no concealed weapons' signs (which includes many private businesses, grocery stores, malls, etc)

In fact, one can be charged with a a FELONY if caught packing heat in restricted areas, permit or no permit.  Ironically, before the concealed carry permit law went into effect, it used to be only a misdemeanor in most cases.  How's that for government logic?

Now, the age-old maxim is that 'it ain't a crime if you don't get caught'.  I'm sure that many people both with and without permits carry in many of these places, counting on the fact that, well, their pistol is concealed and therefore nobody knows they've got it.  However, I'm not too eager to try my luck - which is generally bad - and risk being slapped with a felony charge.  Perhaps I'd feel differently if I lived or worked in a 'bad' part of town, but for now, it doesn't seem worthwhile to apply for a permit.

In my mind, the broader issue is why one needs a permit at all.  Similar logic can be used for many other instances when a citizen's rights are abridged without him first having broken the law, or even voiced intent to do so.  I like to think that I'm a pretty law-abiding chap, having never had a brush with the law more serious than a couple of speeding tickets.  I'm not planning to rob a bank, shoot up a school, start a gunfight in a bar, gun down shoppers at the Piggly Wiggly, or stage an escape from a courthouse.  I think it's reasonable to ask, therefore, why I can't legally carry a gun or other concealed weapon in such places.

It's not an entirely idle question.  One of the prime reasons that states have passed concealed carry laws is that there have been some well-known crimes that might well have been stopped had honest citizens been armed.  One such is the case of Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, TX on October 16, 1991, when George Jo Hennard crashed his pickup truck into the restaurant, drew two pistols, and started shooting.  He killed 23 people and wounded more than 20 more.

Ironically, one of the diners, Dr. Suzanna Gratia, had a gun... locked in her car.  Luby's had a 'no concealed weapons' policy, and Gratia obeyed the law.

Hennard killed both her mother and father.

As a private business, Luby's had every right to require that its patrons not be armed (which didn't exactly stop Hennard), though I believe that they've since changed their policy.  The question is: should the state also penalize a citizen for carrying a concealed weapon onto posted property?  Should it be a felony?  At most, it ought to be a misdemeanor, and even then only if the person refuses to leave or at least leave his pistol locked up in his car.  For the state to criminalize carrying a gun is effectively criminalizing not only the right to self-defense, but really assuming that the citizen is guilty before he's committed a crime.  It seems to me that a government that doesn't trust its citizens to carry weapons isn't really a government 'of the people', but rather something apart from them.