Another Feather in the Hat of Impeachment

I don't know if anyone really needs to second guess this one. How crazy does a world leader need to be to criticize the Geneva Convention? Does the Vice President understand the role of this treaty in international relations, or how this kind of statement would only serve to deprecate our international reputation? As if the reaction to rendition prisons and torturing terrorists wasn't enough. To wage an effective war on this kind of enemy, we need to demonstrate that we are above their ethical level. This doesn't help. That is unless you agree that what happened on September 11, 2001, was unprovoked.

Re-institute Mutual Distruction

With the advent of the post cold war era, nuclear proliferation will likely become more of a problem with smaller more militant nations looking to make an impact on the global stage. From an American perspective, this presents a significant problem because of the danger to national security. Not so much from the knee jerk reactionists, but from the bargaining chip this places in the hands of otherwise inconsequential states and the risk that a small weapon could fall into the hands of a group that would not hesitate to use a new found nuclear capability with indiscriminate abandon. This will no doubt require a fundamental shift in foreign policy because current tactics employed by world governments is not having the desired prophylactic effect.

A plausible answer to this problem is to re-institute the fear of mutually assured destruction. For the last 50 years, the fear of mutual destruction and massive collateral losses has prevented the use of nuclear weapons. This was evident during the cold war, and formed the basis for the arms race. Each side tensely rattles its sword in the hopes that the threat of nuclear holocaust would advance their political agenda. Now, though, the world stage is very different. A small nation like North Korea wouldn't be as swayed by this concept because their arsenal would not be sufficient to render a target nation unresponsive to an unprovoked nuclear attack. This is even more the case in a situation where would-be terrorists get their hands on nuclear armaments. How, then, could we prevent this dangerous kind of proliferation, and how do we use the assured threat of mutual destruction?

The shift in foreign policy needs to focus on retaliation. The promised retaliation would have to promise total annihilation. Ideally, this would keep smaller nations from making a preemptive attack. Launching one bomb would certainly insure a retaliatory response that would decimate a small nation. Few nations could make this kind of promise as well. The United States is probably one of the few countries in the world with sufficient resources, but at the same time, we may be the only nation who could make such a promise and be taken seriously.

However, this policy may not be sufficient to subdue smaller groups from using a nuclear attack. As a result, the policy would have to be expanded to include threats to host nations. By holding the nation harboring or supporting these groups responsible by threatening annihilation, it is possible that those host nations would crack down on the extremist groups to protect themselves. The concept of mutually assured destruction survives on just that premise. While fringe political extremists don't consider the impact of collateral damage in their actions, by holding governments responsible with this kind of total military response, those nations may begin to constrain extremists and institute security policies to limit nuclear proliferation. This kind of self-policing could very well operate as a more effective deterrent than economic sanctions.

On Hiatus...

Posting has been sporadic, and life has been kind of crazy. As a result, The Grey Area will be taking a bit of a break. When there is really big news, there may be the occasional post, but for now I need to work on getting things in order in life outside the blog-sphere.

Ron Paul Might be on to Something

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul might be on to something. In his opinion, not only are we on the verge of totalitarianism but the United States government is on the verge of bankruptcy.

I know what you are thinking, "a Republican who actually gets it?" I am in shock and awe as well. Sounds like the GOP might have a candidate that make sense in his policy. This means one thing, he probably won't get elected seeing as the Republican party tends to favor the neo-conservative nut jobs.

On Appeal: NSA v. ACLU

I have made a significant amount of noise regarding this case for quite some time now, largely because it became the test case for my paper on the judiciary's role in the War Powers doctrine. At the end of January the Sixth Circuit hear oral arguments in the case's appeal from the Eastern District of Michigan. You can find the recording of the oral argument from the Court's website here (right click, save-as to download).

The argument scopes over two primary issues raised on appeal. The first deals with a variety of procedural distinctions that would prevent the Court from rendering a substantive decision. Among other things, the government argues that the complainants lack standing to challenge the program and that the lower court erred in determining that it did not have to violate the state's secret privilege to review the facts of the case. The second issue deals with the legally substantive challenges to the Terrorist Surveillance Program's constitutional validity under the First and Fourth Amendments.

The Court moved through the first argument fairly quickly, almost presuming the complaining parties had standing to sue. This could be a significant issue for several reasons. Initially, the mootness argument asserted by the government argued that the Attorney General's decision to submit the TSP to the FISA Courts renders the issue moot. The primary argument against the state's contention is that this issue could constitute a continuing harm that evades review. The government rightfully points out that this exception to the doctrine of mootness only applies to these plaintiffs in this given situation. However, courts have applied the concept broadly to other parties not affiliated with law suits in Free Speech cases. The standing arguments could also pose a problem to the plaintiff's case because there isn't a way to demonstrate concrete harm without violating the state secrets privilege. Since this is a civil liberties case and not part of a criminal appeal, the state secrets privilege would provide a fairly substantial road block to the substantive disposition of this case.

The Court did attempt to spend more time dealing with the substantive issues in the case under the Fourth and First Amendments. Here, the complainants argue that the program chills their speech because they are less inclined to contact people out of the country for fear of prosecution for being a terrorist. The Fourth Amendment claims target the unconstitutionality of the wire-taps in general because they subvert the warrant requirement imposed upon the government.

Overall, it appears that the Court may address the substantive issues involved in the case, but it is unclear which way they will decide. Clearly, the TSP runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment, but whether there is enough concrete injury to support the First Amendment claim remains dubious. Regardless, this is a case we should all keep an eye on.

It Has Been A While...

It has been a while between posts. I am sorry for this discrepancy. I will work to correct this in the near future. Though I have reneged on some of the posts I promised, I will make this up soon, after I move into my new apartment and things settle down. Also, if anyone knows of any legal positions available in Washington, D.C., please let me know because I may be looking to make a move.

The Cost of War

Just a quick note on the costs of war. Not just any and all war, but this particular war.

On Libertarians and Conservatives

Just a note on the difference between conservatives and libertarians. At LewRockwell.com, Anthony Gregory's essay parses out the differences between "conservatives" and libertarians. It is important to point out that many conservatives are not libertarians, and that libertarianism hearkens back to notions that undergird the American Democracy from its inception. Conservatism, these days, is much more social than political. Conservatives rarely fall into the politically conservative ideology of libertarians. At the very least, this is an interesting read, even if only for the comparison between ideologies and not the social commentary of our current political state.

The Coming Implosion...

There has been some question as to legality of the Bush Administration operations in recent years, especially in the run up to recent events surrounding the Iraq War and the start of the next round of Presidential elections. It should be no surprise that some are predicting the ultimate collapse of the current Executive office. Not of the institution, but rather the administration acting as the current tenant of the office. Absent their most ardent supporters, many already consider this as one of the most flawed, if not the worst, Presidencies in history. Other revelations demonstrate that this is not entirely unfounded. We can only count the days until the winds of change sweep in and take us in a new direction.

Something We Can All Get Behind

Finally, a bill that may actually make it through the House and Senate but not off the President's desk. I think a law that repeals the Military Commissions Act is something we can all support.