Words by Woods

Made from 100% real ideas.

Category: President (page 1 of 3)

The Republican Hydra

This year’s Republican nomination process was interesting, because the candidates who contested through the process represented distinct ideological perspectives.  Thus, they are proxies for the relative strength of contesting ideas within the Republican Party.

The ability of candidates with these clear distinctions to maintain the contest as long as they did may be attributed to an increase in protection of free speech rights from the Citizens United decision (see post “Super PACs: Shedding the Bad Rap” by Ray La Raja on Riding the Tiger).

In order of their relative electoral strength, the candidates and their ideas were as follows:

Mitt Romney, the victor, is the standard bearer for pragmatic stewardship, which is the dominate ideology of the Republican Party.

Rick Santorum evangelized for the religion right.  His electoral failure demonstrates the weakness of the theocrat faction.  For all their huffing and puffing, they are a minority within the party.

Newt Gingrich’s government reform platform expressed the agenda of the neoconservatives.  Republicans proclaimed him the candidate of ideas, and most Republicans don’t like ideas.

Ron Paul was followed by the ‘libertarians’.  While I disagree that Ron Paul is an advocate for freedom and limited government, his mistaken and passionate supporters label him so.  Based upon his supporters’ narrative, Paul’s showing demonstrates the electoral weakness of advocates of limited government within the Republican ranks.

A relevant mention is merited for Rick Perry, who championed the neoconfederates and was quickly booted from contention by the party of Lincoln.

Given the results on the primaries and caucuses, the Republicans have demonstrated themselves to be primarily a pragmatic party, not a conservative party.  This supports my frequent contention that those that complain loudest about RINOs as not really Republicans, but they hope that they can pretend to be the dominate voice in the party without being challenged for their fraud.

Because pragmatists oppose principles on principles, Romney’s policies will be implanted in his mind by those who do express ideas.  The changes brought into being during his potential Administration will be big government reforms from the neoconservatives, who will give empty promises that big government will be changed into better big government.  Meanwhile, the religious right will be thrown sufficient policy concessions to keep them obedient within the Republican coalition.  However, those that advocate limited government will be given rhetoric without implementing policies.

For an examination of the neoconservatives as the ideological bastard love children of Leon Trotsky and Plato, I recommend C. Bradley Thompson’s book Neoconservativism: An Obituary for an Idea.

Report This Post

U.S. Troops in Uganda? Blame Congress, Not Obama

Last October, when our President announced that the U.S. would be sending about 100 of our troops to Uganda, I heard a lot of people asking, “What is the President thinking?  How was this in U.S. interest?”

As easy as it is to find fault with our President, Obama was simply following the law.  That is right!  While Congress has not authorized the use of the U.S. military against Iran, Congress commanded the President to use military forces in Uganda as part of an effort to quash the Christian terrorist organization known as the Lord’s Resistance Army.

Thanks to Sen. Russ Feingold, Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, the unanimous consent of the U.S. Senate, and an unrecorded voice vote in the U.S. House, the Congress directed the President to come up with a plan to use the U.S. military in Uganda (see the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009).

So if you have questions about why U.S. troops are in Uganda instead of Iran, I suggest that you pose those questions to your Senators, who gave unanimous agreement to this policy.

Report This Post

An Open Letter to Gary Johnson, Libertard for President

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw4o4wSbKxQ]

Mr. Johnson,

I write to explain how your quixotic presidential campaign could become consequential in American history.

To be clear, I did not support your Republican bid; I judged you to be too inexperienced. However, now that you have surrendered serious contention by running as a Libertarian, I offer some advice at the cost of you checking your premises about your potential role in this election. If you missed it, I recommend that you see or listen to C-SPAN’s recent series “The Contenders”; in which, historians discussed the long term historical impacts of failed presidential candidates.

First, I recommend that you take a page from the once almost viable Ross Perot by making the actual ending of deficit spending the focus of your campaign. To adapt Carville, the slogan would be “It’s the federal spending, Stupid!” Given popular disbelief that real spending cuts are possible in reality, you should promise to follow Jefferson’s example and appoint a modern Albert Gallatin (our nation’s longest serving Sec. of Treasury) to discipline federal spending with a focus upon eliminating programs and positions. Gallatin roots your program to historically proven debt reduction and ties it to the Revolution of 1800, a shift in national party power. A deficit focus draws in the Tea Party, the memory of the Reform movement, and deficit hawks from both parties, while giving you the opportunity to challenge bipartisan failure, out of control Congresses from both parties, and weak Presidents from both parties.

Second, following the examples of presidential contenders of consequence, you need to develop a populist message to challenge the status quo. Instead of past irrational emotionalism, I recommend that you appeal to morality and the American sense of life by naming and challenging political corruption. The term to use to brand your corrupt opponents is the “New Spoils System”, which will focus on how the major parties rob the federal Treasury to pay off their pet special interests for electoral financing and support, and how the parties use federal regulation and executive power as a protection racket for sale. I like the bipartisanship of the term as it invokes Jacksonian abuses and Garfield’s bloody shirt while modernizing the emphasis from patronage to appropriations, regulations, waivers, and an administrative process exempt from court review (see Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council).

Third, to have a significant and ongoing influence on our political discourse, you need to champion a differentiating idea that resolves the contradictions created by your opponents’ Gordian rhetoric. In the present context, that idea is the restoration of civil society in America. Americans identify the ongoing rancor in our polity, which results from 50% plus 1 attempting to impose intrusive uniform solutions by law in ever growing areas of our lives. The idea that “we” must do something has been misappropriated to mean that government must do something, which is advocated at the expense of freedom of association and civil society, the collection of non-governmental institutions and groups acting independently, freely, and organized to achieve specific shared goals. In our foreign policy, America champions the development of civil society as the cure to tyranny, but our leading parties vote and act to strangle civil society domestically.

Fourth, at the risk of sharing an idea that could help you actually win, you need to recognize the electoral support of our major parties as coalitions of conflicted interests, which is some cases champion the protection of individual rights and in others the use of government power to violate individual rights. To break the parties’ electoral stranglehold, you need to forge a new middle that focuses exclusively upon the government’s role of protecting individual rights; this not only puts you into a position to challenge for portions of their bases, but also allows you to be the beneficiary of the two major contenders’ attacks upon one another to disaffect their opponent’s base. Further, it potentially repositions your opponents as the fringe candidates by positioning them to speak in defense of the rights-violating fringe of their base (a.k.a. the religious right, the nativists, the progressives, the environmentalists). As an example of using concrete political issues to challenge for an opponent’s base, illustrate a broader theme, and influence future policy, I recommend the recent campaign of Ontario’s Freedom Party.

As a specific example of applying this tactic in this campaign by targeting a core of the Democrats’ new electoral coalition: “President Obama, a confessed user of illegal drugs, asks the young of this country for their votes while simultaneously acceding to federal policy to criminalize these franchised citizens drinking a beer. If this is your first election and you agree that you should be prosecuted and your future encumbered by sanctions for drinking a beer, then vote for President Obama. If you reject federal paternalism in your life choices, then vote for me.” Framed so that he cannot have it both ways, who is Obama going to throw under the bus, MADD or the youth vote? If he attempts to use his office to change the policy, then your campaign has directed the policy agenda.

Finally, while previous influential presidential contenders shaped the direction of their party and its agenda, you do not have a real party to influence. Thus, the focus of your influence should be shifting the positions of congressional candidates from both parties. One reason for using Perot’s deficit elimination as a core issue to your campaign is that he was able to attract a significant enough portion of the vote to influence the outcomes of congressional elections. To win, congressional candidates should be put into a position to require your supporters, in addition to those of their party’s standard bearer. In order to attract your supporters, they will need to take strong positions for restoring civil society, and against deficit spending and corruption, while running to the middle and away from the fringe factions of their party. Congress, and not the President, will set the path for reform or further decay after the next election; should that be a Congress guided by the values outlined above? Should the next President (one of your opponents), winning a plurality instead of a majority, be positioned to become a catalyst for these changes so as to avoid becoming an instant lame duck?

While you will not win the office, through the conduct of your campaign, you could still set the policy agenda and win the future for our American republic.

Sincerely,

Jim Woods

 

Report This Post

Gingrich Pledges to Violate Constitution as President

    “It is time to insist on judges who understand the history and meaning of America as a country endowed by God.”  –Newt Gingrich, Winning the Future, p. 45

This statement goes far to exemplify a critical aspect of Newt Gingrich that makes him unfit to be an American leader.

On its face and without being isolated for focus, this statement is easy to gloss over and neglect the radical nature of his idea, which is to violate a core principle of our original and existing U.S. Constitution.  Consider:

    “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  U.S. Constitution, Article VI

If you read the whole sentence from the Constitution, it includes the charge that a President Gingrich would have to swear an oath to support the Constitution.

Does Newt Gingrich support the Constitution or not?  His own words impeach him and invalidate his candidacy.

Cross Posted from Conceding the Future

Report This Post

The Panic of 1819 and Rothbard

My readings the biographies of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe sparked an interest in the Panic of 1819, America’s first depression following the adoption of our Constitution. This panic had parallels to our present economic problems in that it was caused by credit policies of the Second Bank of the United States, federal credit policies related to the sale of western land, and changes in world trade resulting from the end of the Napoleonic wars.

Searching for a book on the event, only one kept popped up: The Panic of 1819: Reactions and Policies by Murray N. Rothbard. Frankly, this set off my crap detector. I have never read any Rothbard, but reference to his name left a bad taste in my mouth. Doing a quick Google search to investigate my reaction, I found the he had something to do with Libertarianism and was a critic of Objectivism. Not a ringing endorsement for his judgment and knowledge.

Thus, I decided to find an alternate reference by reviewing the sources and footnotes of Dumas, Ketcham, and Ammon from the biographies of the above referenced Presidents. I was surprised to find that, in addition to volumes of primary sources, both Dumas and Ammon cited Rothbard’s book. Further, Ammon praised it in a footnote by saying, “See the excellent study by Murray N. Rothbard…” As potential alternative sources, Ammon lamented the lack of a scholarly biography of Sec. of Treasury William H. Crawford, which I understand to still be true; and, he suggested Smith’s Economic Aspects of the Second Bank of the United States (Harvard Press, 1953) as a source on the public sector operations of the bank.

Lacking a better focused and concise alternative, I purchased and will read Rothbard’s book. If I can critically read authors as vile as Marx, Foucault, and Fanon, then sorting the Rothbard errors from the facts should not be too difficult of a task. I understand that this book is founded in his dissertation, so perhaps there was sufficient oversight to prevent biased analysis and omission of relevant facts. Plus, I will be able to assess Rothbard’s cited sources, if need be. I plan future posts related to the book as I read it.

Note to self: perhaps the Miller Center at UVa should organize a panel on the Panic of 1819, as it has interesting impacts upon our Presidents: Jefferson and Madison as former Presidents, and Monroe as the acting President; I suspect the same to be true of John Q. Adams as Sec. of State plus later President and legislator, and the subsequent presidencies of Jackson and Van Buren, who served during the Panic of 1837. I cannot recall any discussion associating Jackson’s veto of the Bank of the United States and the Panic of 1819, which seems like missing the elephant in the room; perhaps Remini’s trilogy on Jackson will offer me some information on that point.

Report This Post

Obama Kills an American Traitor

In addition to just praise for the CIA and our military, President Obama deserves praise for today’s killing of traitor Anwar al-Awlaki. Anyone who disputes the justice of this killing is evading the facts from reality. However, there is a separate point that is worthy of discussion: Does the process for targeting Americans turned traitorous terrorists overseas offer adequate protection for the target’s individual and constitutional rights?

Looking at this concrete example, we see that this was not a case of the executive branch going off reservation and freelancing. Serious consideration has given to understanding and assessing statutes passed by the legislature and rulings by the judiciary to ensure that the procedural rights found in our Constitution and statutes were adhered to (see Washington Post article). Further, in this particular case, the judicial branch ruled that the Obama administration was acting within the executive’s political discretion.

However, in these types of cases, are our current statutes adequate for instituting procedural rights and controls to protect the individual rights of American citizens evidently involved in terrorism and rebellion against the United States? I think that is a question worthy of congressional investigation and possibly additional legislation. For example, are the procedural rights and controls to protect Americans from having their phones tapped more than those of the President ordering their killing?

This is a case in which Rep. Ron Paul, the Republican candidate, demonstrates his utter failure in his current position, which demonstrates why he should not be President at the risk of him attempting to rule by decree. MSNBC reports that Paul condemned the killing of al-Awlaki as essentially the murder of an American by his own government. Yet, Rep. Paul was a member of Congress during a period of time that everybody knew that President Obama had ordered the killing of al-Awlaki; as a congressman, what did Paul do to spark congressional action to implement procedural rights and controls by statute? As a congressman, his job is more than voting no against almost every bill on the House floor; is the extra-judicial premeditated killing of an American citizen not sufficiently important to spark Rep. Paul to action instead of hollow rhetoric?

Further, in the case of Rep. Paul, in that MSNBC piece, he is quoted as saying that “Al-Awlaki nobody ever suggested that he was participant in 9/11.” Contrary to the point of the ignorant Paul, Awlaki has been tied to giving aid to and having direct contact with 9/11 hijackers in San Diego. Given that these facts were reported by the 9/11 commission, it is shocking that Rep. Paul, a candidate for President, should appear to be ignorant of them.

Shifting to the statement of another Republican candidate, former Gov. Gary Johnson said that the case raised serious questions about whether al-Awlaki’s constitutional due process rights had been violated. As a presidential candidate, Johnson should be better informed and speak beyond platitudes to addressing specific policy issues. Frankly, he missed a good opportunity to either be informed on an issue or shut up when he is not.

What should candidate Johnson have said, informed by my prior observations?

Al-Awlaki was a vile traitor and today he received justice. I praise the CIA, our military, and President Obama for this action to protect the individual rights of all Americans.

However, I have to be honest and point out that President Johnson would have handled this situation differently; although, it would have had the same net result. When presented with this plan to kill an American turned traitor and terrorist, I would have asked for more diligence in protecting due process rights of an American citizen. It should not be the President alone without direction from the legislature and review by the courts to decide that a traitorous American should be killed by our government. I am not suggesting that a criminal conviction is required; however, if the executive branch requires court review to listen to his phone calls, then there should be some judicial protection when the President signs an unconvicted American’s death warrant.

While the courts have ruled upon al-Awlaki’s case and validated this death sentence of a traitor and terrorist, and the executive branch acted to fully consider the constitutional protections of Al-Awlaki, I think that the Congress has fallen down on this issue of establishing protections for Americans’ rights. Given the foreknowledge of this action, I question some of my fellow Republicans also running for our party’s presidential nomination: “As current legislators, what have you done to insure that statutes were enacted to protect the rights of Americans targeted for killing based upon allegations of being traitorous terrorists?”

As President, I would have started by doing as President Obama did; however, I would have done more to spark the Congress to act so as to protect the rights of Americans subject to such allegations and penalties.

Report This Post

Answering the 14th Amendment Question

The other day, I wrote about the question that I would ask the Republican candidates for President. Today, I will answer that question as that will unpack it a bit and make the deficiencies of various candidates more evident:

I do agree that certain “Republican” candidates sound more like Jefferson Davis than Abraham Lincoln.

In some cases, they express anti-American sectionalism such as Gov. Perry endorsing secession, former Speaker Gingrich attacking federal civil rights law by endorsing essentially literacy tests as a qualification for voting, and Rep. Paul sounding like President Thomas Jefferson’s contemporary critic Rep. John Randolph of Roanoke.

Speaking about the antidisestablishment advocates, they express a hostility to the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment in the name of an appeal to a democratic trampling of individual rights…they would make failed former Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan proud.

To be specific, this error in constitutional interpretation is expressed on the Supreme Court today by the anti-conceptual orginalist doctrine advocated by Justice Scalia.

Let me attempt to summarize my own view briefly…I agree with President Jefferson who advocated a role for the federal courts as a power to protect individuals from abuse by a state. Through the leadership of George Mason and James Madison, our constitution was enhanced with a Bill of Rights identifying civil (procedural) rights that were so fundamental, although not exclusive, that the government may not infringe them. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizens the protection of due process and equal protection of the law against abuse by a state. Through Supreme Court decisions, this has been interpreted as a federal guarantee of fundamental rights (the incorporation of aspects of the Bill of Rights) such that individuals are secure in their individual rights from abuse by state action.

Many Republicans recently cheered when the Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd Amendment as a check against overreaching state and municipal gun control laws. Yet, as if ideas and principles do not matter, many of these same Republicans (some currently running for the Presidency) oppose the incorporation of the 1st Amendment’s establishment clause. Given the history of ours states abusing Christians of various sects, including the sects of these same people, they have failed to learned the lessons of history, which led to disestablishment–the separation of church and state.

Some may say that these are a lot of words that do not amount to much, so let me concretize it with a couple of examples of protections against state power that you risk taking for granted:

* buying condoms in Connecticut (Griswold v. Connecticut 1965)
* marrying the person you love in Virginia, even if you are of a different race (Loving v. Virginia 1967)
* attending school as a Jehovah’s Witness without getting beaten up for failing to pledge allegiance (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette 1943)
* just compensation for property seized by the state (Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago 1896)

While I could go on, these examples demonstrate the principles and consequences of those who seek democratic state governments unchecked by federal constitutional protections for individual rights.
* they promise to make abortion illegal, and they will take your condoms
* they seek to revoke the voting rights of blacks, and they will decide who you can marry
* they command praising the Christian god, and they will oppress the wrong kinds of Christians
* they take a citizen’s property for Pfizer’s benefit today, and they will take your property as a gift to the collective tomorrow

Related to court appointments, I would not advance advocates of Justice Scalia’s anti-conceptual originalism nor Justice Breyer’s subjectivist living constitution model; instead, I would nominated judges who appreciate that the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights and that our Constitution, civil rights statutes, our laws, and regulations are to be means to that end.

Report This Post

“Republican” Presidential Candidates vs. 14th Amendment

For tomorrow’s FoxNews/Google Republican presidential debate, YouTube was soliciting questions; unfortunately, I did not make the effort to construct a video question…such a hassle to find a period without ambient noise; yes, little girls I refer to you.

However, I did have an idea for a question, for which I wanted to understand the answer. As a visual, consider a war weary picture of President Lincoln with the following scripted audio, spoken with my own personal drawl:

In this here Republican candidates’ debate, I am surprised to see participants who are not Republicans, but are in fact neo-con-federates! Yes, Perry, Gingrich, and Paul, I am especially referring to you. Much has been and should be said about the 10th Amendment; however, some of y’all’s rhetoric is outright antagonistic to the 14th Amendment. As someone who puts yourself forward as the nominator of the federal judiciary, please expound upon your view of the 14th Amendment, equal protection, due process, and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights as a check upon the abuse of individual rights by state authorities. In praising recent decisions about the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment by the Supreme Court, please do not neglect the more vital Establishment Clause from the 1st Amendment.

Report This Post

On Foreign Policy, Our Founders vs. Ron Paul

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvo8Sc6l5PQ]

It has been asserted that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is consistent with that of our Founders.  Let me list some of the actual foreign policies of the early American government so that supporters of Paul can reconsider whether he is actually consistent with them.

•     As an ambassador overseas, John Adams undermined foreign governments by giving aid to revolutionaries; further, he sought to promote American constitutional republicanism as superior to the monarchies of Europe and democratic proposals of French intellectuals.

•     As Minister to France, both Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe sought to increase American trade with France in part to weaken Britain. Jefferson offered detailed reforms to French laws that were necessary to rollback intrusive economic regulation.

•     American governments consistently made it a matter of policy to obstruct sovereign native tribes’ relations with European powers; manifestations of this policy include:  the War of 1812, Jackson’s invasion of Spanish Florida during the Monroe Administration, and a policy of pushing Indians west of the Mississippi that began in the Washington Administration.

•     A key policy plank of the Democratic – Republican Party before 1801 was a strong alliance with and preference for post-revolutionary France as part of a policy to expand republican governments in the world.

•     As President, Jefferson secured the purchase of Louisiana by advising the French that their failure to transfer New Orleans and navigation of the Mississippi to the Americans would result in war.

•     During the Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe Administrations, Spain was under threat of war with America over Spanish West Florida; during the Napoleonic wars, an American invasion of Spanish Florida was considered so as to prevent it from falling into British hands.  As President, Monroe invaded Florida twice to suppress piracy and the Seminoles.

•     During the Jefferson Administration, the United States engaged in regime change in Tripoli.

•     The Monroe Doctrine opposed further colonization by Europeans in the Americas.

•     Madison and Monroe both championed colonization in Liberia by freed American slaves.

•     During the Jefferson and Madison Administrations, American trade with Britain and France was subject to a series of federal restrictions to prevent such commerce.  The stated object of these policies was to compel Britain and France to change their own policies.

I do not find such early American foreign policies to be consistent with an evaluation of a non-interventionist American government that “didn’t pretend to know all the answers” while staying out of other people’s business.

For a study of early American foreign policy, I recommend the following definitive biographers:  Douglas Southall Freeman on Washington, C. Bradley Thompson on John Adams, Dumas Malone on Jefferson, Ralph Ketcham on Madison, and Harry Ammon on Monroe.  I am looking forward to reading Samuel Flagg Bemis’ volume John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy; while it is out of print, it can be found and I have it.

On Jefferson in particular, Malone’s account of his time as Minister to France, Secretary of State, and President demonstrates that Jefferson established principles for American foreign policy that have been consistent to the present.

Foreign policy is just another area in which Ron Paul is anti-Jeffersonian.

Report This Post

FBI Dropping the Intelligence Ball

Over a week ago on 9/10 (evidence that I am backed up on my reading), Scott Holleran had an interesting post about a tipped link between a 9/11 hijacker, a woman, Lake Tahoe, and a FBI investigation with unknown results.  He is particularly concerned about this as a possible thread leading to a state sponsor of terrorism or Saudi Arabia.

This reminded me of comments made by John Lehman (9/11 Commissioner) during a 10 year 9/11 retrospective hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations.  Mr. Lehman appeared during the third session titled “Counterterrorism and Homeland Security: Does the United States Have the Right Strategy?

Relevant to the topic of FBI investigations of Saudi links to the hijackers, Mr. Lehman said in the context of intelligence issues (from the transcript):

And could I just take one addenda to that?  On the issue of domestic intelligence, I couldn’t agree more.  I think our domestic intelligence is very, very inadequate.  And in the 9/11 commission, I think all of us were, as the weight of evidence grew, convinced that we should split the FBI, that a cop shop should not be a domestic intelligence agency.  And we decided not to recommend that, because it was just too much going on.  You couldn’t — that kind of major surgery right after 9/11, with all the new changes that had to be done, was just not very wise.

But I think absolutely we should relook at that and reopen that issue, because most of our effective intelligence allies have that split function.  They don’t let the intelligence, domestic intelligence, have prosecutorial powers, and they don’t trust cops to be good intelligence tradesmen.

A perfect example was in our televised hearings — which I’m sure you all watched — which was when we asked the acting director — we referred to the evidence that had been gathered during the investigation from the intelligence communities of the five operatives in Saudi embassies who were clearly enablers for the — for the 19, and who were — helped them, you know, find apartments, drove them from one place to another, got them into flight schools.  And there were five named individuals that were clearly very friendly to these 19 people.  And so we said:  What has happened with them?

And the acting director said:  We did investigate them, but we found insufficient evidence to get an indictment, so we terminated those investigations.  Now, can you imagine an intelligence professional saying a thing like that?  I mean, here were some of the most valuable targets in the United States after 9/11, and FBI dropped — didn’t — so we followed up, said:  Well, where are they now?  Well, we don’t know.  We — didn’t I hear — didn’t you hear me?  I said we terminated the investigation.  That is the prosecutorial, law enforcement mentality which makes FBI such a fine law enforcement agency, and makes them unable effectively to do real intelligence tradecraft, in my judgment.

Combining Holleran’s report and Lehman’s statements, it seems probable that the FBI would have dropped the case of the woman at Lake Tahoe, because they lacked evidence to support a prosecution.  As the FBI has not publicly requested help finding this “person of interest,” I suspect that they know who she is, interviewed her, and did not pursue the link further.

On the separate issue raised by Mr. Lehman that the FBI’s cop and intelligence functions be separated, I am not eager to see such a reform unless temporary and circumscribed.  Such  a domestic intelligence operation would likely move from Justice to the Department of Homeland Security, which has a troubling record of hostility to individual rights (see TSA).  Given the intelligence, protection, and law enforcement liaison functions, where would this new domestic intelligence agency go logically: Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or Secret Service?

Personally, I would be very concerned that it would become a Secret Service function; thus, putting a new domestic intelligence service in close proximity to the White House.

Report This Post

Older posts

© 2017 Words by Woods

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog