"Trust, but Verify"

The biggest controversy of the week (maybe the month! ... maybe the year!) is the acquisition of P&O (Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company) by Dubai Ports World. The issue's controversy comes down to national security. Dubai Ports World is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates.

The Seattle Times carried a story by Dick Polman that observes,"According to a bipartisan congressional letter of protest sent to the Bush administration on Thursday, money for the Sept 11 hijackers was routed primarily though the UAE banking system, and the UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components into Iran and North Korea." Indeed, two of the 9/11 hijackers had passports showing the United Arab Emirates as their home.

As of right now, I believe that these accusations can be refuted. It is important to make a distinction between the people of a country and the government of a country. Nuradin M. Abdi was an American indicted for providing material support to Al Qaeda. His trial may acquit him, but the American government (obviously) did not condone such an action. Much in the same way, the nexus of banking in the Middle East, the illegal smuggling, and the terrorists all reflect individuals within the UAE, not the government (and the Dubai Ports World) itself. Certainly a government is made up of people, but the people and religious leaders in the United Arab Emirates do not support terrorism.

As the President pointed out, "After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The UAE remains a partner in the global war on terrorism. As General Peter Pace said, "In everything that we have asked and worked with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners."

It even turns out the security role proper is not part of the Dubai deal. As the National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said, "This transaction has been incorrectly reported as being about port security or port ownership. No. It is about managing port operations. Port security remains the shared responsibility of local port authorities, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Department, the Coast Guard and others." Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign Relations says, "Among the many problems at American ports, who owns the management contract ranks near the very bottom."

It is also true that the UAE intends to "'maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements.' … DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel."

Many political commentators have speculated that the United States is trying to get on the UAE's good side in order to help ensure a reliable base of operations in the Middle East … possibly against Iran? Having a friend in the Middle East isn't a bad thing … so if the security checks out, there is every reason to enact this policy.

One final point that bears addressing is the Democratic position. For a party that decries racial profiling in airports, isn't it a twist to profile a whole country?

Then there's Hillary Clinton. "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments,” Clinton said, in a statement posted to her web site. "I will be working with [New Jersey] Senator [Robert] Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments.”

Isolationism isn't a good idea in general, but this bill is especially backwards considering the fact that the Council on Foreign Relations notes, " But the majority of port terminals across the country are foreign-run. For instance, more than 80 percent of the terminals in the largest U.S. port, the port of Los Angeles, are operated by foreign companies."

To begin to wrap up, perception can be in some ways more important than reality. In this issue it looks like the President is not as concerned about security as the Democrats. It looks like he is handing over security to a foreign power. It looks like there was not enough review. It looks like there was no information flow in the government. In this political "hot potato" issue, the President and the administration have to fight an uphill battle to look credible, informed, and concerned about security.

In conclusion, it seems that there is some justified reasons to proceed with this deal. It is also obvious that there are some large security issues that need to be discussed. Security is apparently already a problem, Dubai or no Dubai. We ought to sit down and consider the facts as a nation. If that involves putting a 45-day moratorium on the deal, so be it. No politicking, just a real discussion about the concerns of millions of Americans. President Ronald Reagan's statement on the USSR aptly applies to this situation: "Trust, but verify."

Equal Justice for All

Does the law really apply to everyone? If that is the case, Logan Clements wants to apply the concept of eminent domain to Justice Souter. "Eminent domain" is basically the government's power to expropriate, or seize, private property for government use. Eminent domain is mentioned in the Constitution, although it is not called "eminent domain" proper.

The Fifth Amendment states, "… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Just compensation is usually the market value for the land or property in question, but "public use" is the important phrase to be defined in the Amendment. Public use has been redefined over the years to include everything from "economic development" to "blight." In short, any person's private property can be redistributed if the government thinks it has a better use for your property.

The latest Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London upheld the state's right of eminent domain over private property by a 5-4 decision. Justice Sandra Day O'Conner wrote in the dissenting opinion that "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Right about here is where Clements comes in. He is asking the city of Weare in New Hampshire to use its power of eminent domain to give Clements the title to Justice Souter's land in an act of economic development. Clements plans to build a hotel and a eatery entitled, "The Just Desserts Café."

In essence, Clements is trying to turn the law back upon itself. Souter voted to uphold eminent domain but will he accept the actual application of his ruling if he is personally impacted? Right now, the city of Weare is holding the high ground. As the Weekly Standard reports, many disagree with the Kelo decision and eminent domain in general, but refuse to ever abuse the power of eminent domain as an absolute rule. Clements remains undeterred and is currently trying to sway the five-man city council to his position by helping to elect citizens to the council who agree with Clements's own ideas. The critical vote is coming up in March, but whatever the result, Clements vows that he is in for the long haul.

Frankly, I think Clements is accomplishing one helpful purpose – raising awareness. He has certainly informed me, but I also think that he picked the wrong justice. The small town seems unwilling to oust Souter simply to make a point. Eminent domain remains an issue that needs to be addressed. Whatever you may think about the actual proposal, Clements is certainly on the right track to bring the issue into the limelight where it belongs.

Note: Clements own website is here and here you can find more information and critiques on the "Lost Liberty Hotel."

Tortured to ... Life.

It's hardly new news, but many news agencies (like CNN) reported in September 2005 that, "Since August 8, the number of detainees [at Guantanamo Bay] refusing food has slowly increased from several dozen to 128, according to the Pentagon. Eighteen prisoners are in medical facilities forcibly receiving nutrition intravenously or through nasal tubes, Pentagon officials said."

Well, force feeding these inmates who swore to die in prison is tantamount to torture ... apparently.

The Seattle P-I reported on February 14 that "A U.N. investigation has found that the United States committed acts amounting to torture at Guantanamo Bay, including force-feeding detainees and subjecting them to prolonged solitary confinement, according to a draft report obtained Monday."

Ahem. If I may be direct ... What?! Since when have solitary confinement and forced nourishment been tantamount to torture? I guess all grounded teenagers in their room can rejoice; according to international precedent, they are being tortured. Seriously, however, solitary confinement for extended periods hardly counts as torture. These people are in prison and it makes sense that some seclusion is necessary for coercion and plain old punishment. By any definition, solitary confinement is not torture.

As for being force fed, I again point out that many detainees swore to die in Guantanamo Bay. These people could have valuable information and we really can't just let them die. That would be even worse publicity than saving their lives by giving them nourishment intravenously.

Even if these people are being tortured by these policies, I would agree with Charles Krauthammer. In deference to the McCain Amendment, there appear to be two instances in which torture is warranted.

The first instance is the "ticking time bomb." A captured terrorist has vital information about an attack. As Krauthammer put it: " Ethics 101: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He's not talking. Question: If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs will get you the information to save a million people, are you permitted to do it?" My answer is to take action in order to save countless lives.

The second instance is when you have a "slow fuse terrorist" who has information about a terrorist attack or plot in the future. Unfortunately, we can't just ask the people at Guantanamo Bay if they are slow fuse terrorists, so it seems to make sense to me to keep them alive until we can find out. In doing so, the United States has been accused of torture. I refer to my original question ... What?

Appeasing the Peaceful

The headlines continue without pause. “Cartoon anger unabated” reports Reuters on February 10. It all started when a Danish newspaper published some cartoon portraying Mohammad in a political bent. As Ann Coulter said, “The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular – oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.”

In response to these cartoons, many adherents to Islam rioted. The demonstrations have even led NATO troops to exchange fire with some armed protestors in Afghanistan after they attacked the NATO base.

What was the purpose of all the violence, attacking of embassies and bases, and burning of flags and effigies? From what I can tell by their slogans, they protest the mocking of the prophet and their beliefs. Basically no one is allowed to portray Mohammad in any form whatsoever, especially not in caricature. This idea is relatively new however. I again quote Ann Coulter, “The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad. “

Whatever the case, the President calling Islam a noble religion twisted by some extremists seems flawed. The only non-extreme Muslims seem to be those who relax their religion to a state of secularism. All this hype, pain, exhibition, and death is caused by caricature. In contrast, how many Christians have killed because of a caricature of Jesus? How many Buddhists have rioted because of a negative portrayal of their religion? It really comes down to the fact that Islam is not inherently peaceful.

If you have to call a religion noble and peaceful in order to prevent adherents of that religion from killing and rioting, doesn't it necessarily negate the statement that it is noble or peaceful?

Going Broke on Two Trillion Dollars

One of the more memorable moments in President Bush's State of the Union address was the applause. I mean the applause, not in general, but at the point of the speech where the Left side of the Congress rose up in applause and obvious glee at the words,"Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security."

Great.

As if the problem hasn't been presented clearly: The Wall Street Journal said today (Feb 3) that Social Security, along with other entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid, cost $3 billion dollars a day. Cutting discretionary spending is important, but the President's proposed reforms of $14 billion will be equal to the amount currently spent on these entitlements in a matter of 5 days. Enough about the numbers, there is obviously a lot of money being spent on these programs. Why?

Social Security or rather, "old age assistance," was created in 1935 with the passage of the Economic Security Bill. It is important to note two things: It was created in the midst of the Great Depression and it operated on the assumption that the generation reaching old age would be lesser or at least equal to those of the present working generation. This assumption is beginning to show its faults as the "Baby Boomer" generation reaches retirement age.

Medicare and Medicaid are health care programs designed predominantly to help the elderly and the poor respectively. Signed into law in 1965, they are encountering the same problems as Social Security - they are running out of money.

The problem with reform is that it will almost certainly reduce the amount of money flowing to the subscribers of these programs. But the problem of inaction is even greater. I, for one, certainly advocate the idea of privatization. The private market has historically done a better and cheaper job than the government in any arena. In response, some in the Democratic leadership has said the way to solve the problem is simple ... raise taxes.

Whatever the solution may be, blocking a plan or blocking even discussion on the basis of political gain or wrangling is no way to help anyone. In short, applauding because any solution could not be reached seems to be irresponsible to the point of being dangerous.