The big story this week has been the Sotomayor confirmation hearing (or, possibly, the health care agenda). While the remembered phrase from the hearing will likely be “wise Latina,” there have been several windows into Sonia Sotomayor’s views on executive power. First was the declaration on June 10 by Vice President Joe Biden to law enforcement groups that Sotomayor has “got your back.” This has been followed by Chuck Schumer’s declaration that Sotomayor rules in favor of the government 83% of the time, the median rate for judges. Stephanie Mencimer says that the confirmation hearings have shown a Sotomayor who can be as “mean” as any white male judge. Jacob Sullum, however, says that the judge’s record is far more mixed and cautions against drawing any sweeping conclusions.
It now appears to be the accepted wisdom that the secret CIA program disclosed by CIA Director Leon Panetta last week was, in fact, an assassination squad designed to locate and kill senior Al Qaeda leaders. Andy McCarthy feels that the outrage is a dummy scandal drummed up by Democrats; Stephen Hayes and Bill Kristol agree. Adam White says that disclosure of the program was not statutorily required. Kenneth Anderson argues that the disclosure will make the administration clearly decide whether to prosecute actions against Al Qaeda under a self-defense rubric or one of “soft law.” Stratfor notes that while the program was mostly rendered obsolete by the use of UAV strikes, there could still be a desire for a “boots-on-the-ground” program in the intelligence community. Philip Giraldi’s sources tell him that the program went active once and nearly encountered catastrophe; he concludes that, given the difficulties in running an effective assassination squad, it’s best that the program was shelved. Was this the secret assassination unit run by Dick Cheney that Sy Hersh reported on in March? Michael Moynihan says no. Hersh claims vindication.
What are our goals in Afghanistan? Tom Friedman of the NYT hopes that we can bring cultural change to the region through schooling but notes that this is a different goal than the elimination of Al Qaeda. Dave Schuler is sympathetic but notes that such a policy is likely to engender resistance among the Afghans. Meanwhile, commanders in Afghanistan prefer to avoid the word “surge” to describe the “planned troop increase” because it suggests that the program will be temporary. Gary Schmitt says that Obama is repeating the mistakes of the Bush administration when it comes to Afghanistan because the Afghani national institutions are not ready to stand on their own. Rory Stewart sees the conflict more as a measure of American strengths than as a mortal struggle and recommends that the U.S. and the U.K. review whether resources are better spent in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Michael Rappaport claims that the Senate should avoid “deferring” to the President when considering Supreme Court nominees. He warns that this could lead to a judiciary that tends to side with the executive branch instead of the legislative. Ilya Somin agrees, implicitly noting that too much deference would give the executive branch de facto control of the judiciary. Randy Barnett feels similarly, but reminds opponents of deference that there is no guarantee that fighting the President on the issue would be a winning proposition.
We’ve blogged previously about the Obama administration’s struggles to post bills for five days before signing and also about Congress’s inability to read the legislation it passes. This week saw the rise of discussion about whether or not sunshine on the bills is even workable or desirable. Michael Lind started the discussion by claiming that sea change reform is almost always a bad idea due to issues with transparency and interest group capture. Publius of Obsidian Wings and Conor Friedersdorf agree, though Publius argues that big complex legislation is sometimes unavoidable. Alex Knapp pours some cold water on the argument, noting that tools to provide transparency are already available – and hardly used.
Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, spoke to the Atlantic Council about “stability and reconstruction operations,” or nation-building. Part of his speech called for the establishment of an “international FEMA” to coordinate reconstruction efforts. James Joyner wonders whether the establishment of such an agency would improve the quality or merely the quantity of our reconstruction efforts.
The Washington Post reported that the Mexican army is being accused of torture and other human rights abuses as they continue their crackdown on drug cartels. The article mentions that the report could endanger U.S. funding but Radley Balko notes that the crackdown has been praised and funded by U.S. politicians.
Aram Roston reports that a CIA supervisor put fire ants on a detainee’s head during an interrogation. The CIA denies the report.
Tim Worstall reports that India is using counter-terror laws in order to censor a pornographic comic strip.
The Obama administration is looking at creating a specialized interrogation unit to be staffed by military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel. Thomas Joscelyn emphasizes that the unit would focus more on producing intelligence than gathering evidence and hopes that some enhanced interrogation techniques will be allowed for use.
The Department of Homeland Security is considering a phase-out of the color-coded “Homeland Security Advisory System.” The current threat level is yellow, in case you were wondering.
John Yoo took to the Wall Street Journal to fire back at the Inspector Generals’ report on the President’s Surveillance Program. Meanwhile, the Obama administration refused to confirm or deny whether the NSA is still involved in “dragnet” surveillance without warrants.
The F-22 fight gets nastier, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates accuses F-22 backers of shortchanging troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Jim Prevor fires back that national defense is not a zero-sum game and that “[i]f it turns out that the world is such that if we never use these high-tech F-22 aircraft, then we can look back and say we ordered a few extra planes to be on the safe side.” And Sens. Hatch and Inhofe pen an op-ed in favor of the plane.
President Obama threw out the first pitch at the All-Star game. Some things can’t be changed by interpretation of Article II power.
Tags: Weekly Web Watch
