A lack of seriousness in US-PRC relations continues

U.S. Tries to Interpret China’s Silence Over Test - New York Times:
"It was more than a week before the intelligence leaked out: a Chinese missile had been launched and an aging weather satellite in its path, more than 500 miles above the earth, had been reduced to rubble. But protests filed by the United States, Japan, Canada and Australia, among others, were met with silence — and quizzical looks from officials in The Chinese Foreign Ministry, who seemed to be caught unaware."

Read the whole NYTimes story. What a lot of rot from this administration! Rhe idea that someone would dare to conduct an anti-satellite test launch without approval from the hightest levels of the government is absurd. The Peoples Repuvlic of China is not the sort of place where a guy exceeds his authority and gets pensioned off to write his memoirs. No, he gets a bullet for his trouble,.

Now, it is entirely possible that the foreign ministry flacks were kept in the dark so that they could engage in a little plausible deniability, especially in the event the test failed.

The case for ignorance at the top weakens further when one considers that anti-sattelite warfare is among the topics discusssed in Unrestricted Warfare by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, two senior colonels in the air arm of the Peoples Liberation Army.

I close with a very scary thought. Suppose that anti-satellite launch was unauthorized, what would that say to us about the stability of the Red Chinese regime?

Disappointing nonsense at LewRockwell.com

At Last!! by Paul Hein:
"The news media are already bringing us news of candidates for president in the election of 2008. Modesty forbade my announcing my candidacy first, but now that there are already hats in the ring, I’ll put an end to the suspense that was torturing so many of you and announce that I will once again run for the presidency. (Actually, it will be more of a stroll than a run). Yes, I’m sure you’re relieved. This is your chance to join that mini-multitude (fifteen, actually) who voted for me last time."

I occasionally take a look at the offerings on LewRockwell.com and usually find intelligent commentary from a libertarian and constitutionalist perspective, even when I may not agree in all particulars. Imagine my disappointment when an online acquaintance circularized this particular offering from a Dr. Paul Hein, previously unknown to me.

Below are somr quotes from the Hein piece and my my - dare I say? - devastating comments.

"I will be Commander in Chief, but the only command I am likely to issue will be to bring American troops back home where they belong."

There are other duties as commander-in-chief, such as recommending the promotion of officers and the appointment of senior commanders and civilian officials of the defense establishment. Also, proposing the defense budget which involves making choices about what missions are contemplated and the resources needed to carry them out. These duties require a president's attention in peacetime as well as war - unless one is among those libertarian idealists who thinks if we abolish our army no one will attack us.

"I shall make very few Treaties, since they supersede the Constitution that I am bound to uphold."

Despite the modern fascination with so-called executive agreements which some court rulings have held to be equivalent to treaties, only the US Senate can "make" a treaty operative, the president only negotiates and proposes them. Also, although I understand the concern that motivated the late Sen. John Bricker (R-OH) to propose his amendment to make it clearer that treaties are subordinate to the Constitution, it is clear from the nature of the Constitution as a limited delegation of authority from the States to the national government that the subject matter of treaties is limited to the subject matter jurisdiction of the national government as spelled out in the Constitution itself.

"I will fill vacancies in Congress that occur during recesses;"

The president has no authority to appoint members of Congress under any circumstances.

"Rarely, I might convene both houses, or, adjourn them."

Those better be rare occurrences as the president has no power to compel the convening or adjournment of Congress, nor is his consent required for their convening or adjournment.

"There is nothing in the constitutional list of presidential duties that directly involves foreign policy,"

That is, unless you consider negotiating treaties, appointing our ambassadors and consuls, receiving foreign ambassadors and trying to keep us out of wars we can avoid and winning those we can't.

There's lots more to criticize, like the wholly insane notion that any good would come of a write-in campaign for president which shows ignorance of the constitutional provisions regarding the electoral college. Without a certified slate of presidential electors to vote for in each state, such votes would simply be wasted. Besides, as far as I can remember there have only been two write-in winners for US Senate seats and both in small states, Nebraska (maybe) and South Carolina (Strom Thurmond - who had already been elected state-wide as Governor and just narrowly lost the Democrat primary for senator that year); two write-in winners of close to 5,000 elections for US Senator. Imagine how much harder it would be to prevail as a write-in for president of the whole country.

One of the things I frequently find myself doing in my private correspondence, and occasionally her in this space, is disabusing well-meaning people of the notion that just because they want a certain policy to prevail it must be a constitutional imperative. The Constitution is not some religious talisman, just a very good attempt to answer the question - how shall we govern ourselves in a small part of the powers exercised by government.

A Perfect Storm - The Duke lacrosse "rape" case

The Stripper Has No Clothes by Ann Coulter - HUMAN EVENTS :
"Stuart Taylor Jr., the liberal but brilliant legal reporter for the National Journal, described the New York Times' coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape case as '(w)orse, perhaps, than the other recent Times embarrassments.' For a newspaper that carries Maureen Dowd's column, that's saying something."

I am indebted to Ms. Coulter's latest column which discusses the NY Times article mentioned in the paragraph quoted above, as well as reporting from the Raleigh News and Observer, to supply key missing pieces of the puzzle presented by the alleged rape of an exotic dancer my members of the Duke lax squad.

The elements of the "Perfect Storm" which transformed an insubstantial allegation of a crime in North Carolina into a national news event are now apparent.

From the beginning, we have seen the political angle, an ambitious attorney, recently appointed county prosecutor and seeking election for the first time and eager for a cause to rally the African American vote. This is a story we have all seen before in real life and in the movies (from The Front Page to The Bonfire Of The Vanities). This alone would not make this incident a great national scandal.

We also figured out fairly early that the "victim" was not the most reliable of witnesses. Her story was vague except where the specifics were contradicted or beggared belief.

Now, comes the final element of the "Perfect Storm." As recounted by Ms. Coulter, the Raleigh paper has turned up strong evidence of prejudice against Duke students on the part of the police officer heading the investigation. In this case, it seems that, contrary to approved procedure, the investigator kept no contemporaneous notes and the only written record of his initial interview with the defendant four months after the fact.

Let me say that I understand from my own college days (which included being picked up by the local police for putting up Republican campaign posters in a Democrat city) just how much trouble college students can get into. And, I spent a decade working in law enforcement, so my sympathies are generally with the police. But, no profession is without the occasional practitioner who is employed in the wrong field of endeavor.

So, now we have a much clearer picture of how this storm gathered so much energy - a police investigation that was, at best, incompetent and perhaps prejudiced; a prosecutor both inept and corrupted by ambition; a victim whose story has evolved through too many expedient revisions to be reliable; and a willfully credulous press and special interest constituencies including a large segment of the Duke faculty fanning the flames.

"He who pilfers my good name ..."

BREITBART.COM - Judge Dismisses Anthrax Libel Case:
"A federal judge on Friday dismissed a libel lawsuit filed against The New York Times by a former Army scientist once identified as a person of interest in the 2001 anthrax attacks."

It would hard for me to explain how Dr. Steven Hatfill was a "public figure" before this storm of controversy was aimed in his direction by the only government agency that never makes mistakes - the FBI. Apparently it was impossible for the judge to explain the logic of such a judgment since he offered no rationale for it in handing down his ruling.

Thus, it appears that Dr. Hatfill remains one of the luckier victims of the FBI's incompetence (or worse?) along with Richard Jewell the security guard who was hung out to dry in the Atlanta Olympics case, and the lawyer who was falsely claimed to have his fingerprints on one of the London transit system bombs. I call these victims "lucky" because they are still in the land of the living unlike the 15-year old son of Randy Weaver shot at Ruby Ridge and more than a dozen children incinerated at Mt. Carmel.

A public perception that accused persons are probably guilty should be the result of efficient police and prosecutors. It would be a tragedy if those agencies were so inept that they didn't arrest and try persons who were actually guilty in the vast majority of cases. And yet, the public - and especially the press - have an equal obligation to remember that all human institutions are fallible, that zeal for results should not supersede the pursuit of the correct result in each case.

We see the same thing - complicated by issues of racism, sexism and socioeconomic status - unfolding as the Duke Lacrosse "rape" case slowly implodes. In the latest revelation, the "victim" is reported to have changed the timeline of her story to obviate defendant Seligman's ironclad alibi that a cab drive was watching him use an ATM machine nowhere near the scene of the crime at the time she first said the attack took place. Now, we learn that Seligman's cell phone records show that he was speaking with his girlfriend at the new time claimed for the assault. Bill Clinton could carry on a phone conversation while being serviced by Monica Lewinsky, but even such an experienced serial abuser of women would be hard pressed to commit a forcible assault while engaged in a phone conversation.

As former secretary of labor Ray Donovan said after he was cleared of corruption charges, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" It appears that the federal court for the eastern district of Virginia is not to be that place for Dr. Hatfield.