The Fourth Amendment Overseas, a brief summary

In the past few months, I have written extensively on which parts of the constitution apply to non-citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.  As I await official publication on my Miranda and Habeas articles, I wrote a brief explanation of the Fourth Amendment to share with a class.  Rather than keep it to myself, I decided to post it online and share it here.

Verdugo after Boumediene: Why the Guantanamo Litigation is Not Limited to Obscure Habeas Corpus Issues, and Should Matter to Everyone Who Works With Non-Citizens

Note: This is the same United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez that Professor Vladeck and I debated in Blog Cross-Pollination.

An end to the Eastern Europe Missile Shield

I've discussed the Eastern Europe Missile shield once or twice in the past, and I'm happy to see it go as a part of our continued relationship building with Russia.

--

White House to Scrap Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield - NYTimes.com: "President Obama on Thursday announced a reconfigured system that won’t be based in Poland or the Czech Republic, and will be aimed at intercepting Iranian missiles."

Looking exclusively at the foreign policy of American Presidents:

Bush (43) is to __________, as Obama is to ____________.

a) Reagan; Eisenhower
b) Nixon; Truman
c) Truman; Nixon
d) Eisenhower; Hoover

Show your work.
--

c) Truman; Nixon

Yes, this is meant to turn an eyebrow or two, but just hear me out. There are essentially two different world views: Realism/Pragmatism and Progressiveism/Liberalism. Realists essentially believe that a nation's power (economic, military, & soft) should be the main concern in foreign policy, whereas Progressives believe that ideals - human rights, freedom, democracy, et cetera - should be the main concern in foreign policy.

Too often, we get tied up in party politics, and are mislead into believing that if the Democratic President does something then it must liberal, and if a Republican president does something then it must be conservative. When we look exclusively at foreign policy, we can say with certainty that this is not the case. George W. Bush's foreign policy was often called "Neo-Conservative," but don't let the name fool you it as "Neo-Conservatism" is essentially classic Progressivism/Liberalism; it was just re-branded so that it would be more palatable for conservative voters. "Transforming the Middle East, and spreading American values, through regime change in Iraq" is textbook Liberalism (CSMonitor, 2003) which closely mirror's Truman's ideological views in the lead up to and beginning of the Cold War (for more on Truman and the beginning of the Cold War email me for a copy of my Master's thesis).

On the other hand, saying to Iran "If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," is a textbook example of pragmatism - the kind of diplomacy Nixon used when opening up relations with Communist China during the Cold War (State Department, 2009).

Which do you prefer? If a country we dislike has something we want, should we work with them or against them? Bear in mind the costs of war (IRWatch: Are Wars Good for the Economy?, On Deficits and Stimulus).

On Deficits and Stimulus

I had quite a lively response to my previous post "Are Wars Good for the Economy?", and decided a followup post was in was in order.

I don't disagree that government spending can boost the economy, by definition it adds to GDP. The only concern I have is with deficits and debt. When the the economy is doing well, you should balance your budget or run a surplus, and when the economy is doing badly, you should borrow to increase GDP through spending or tax cuts (which one you choose can be battled out later, I actually like that this one has a mix of the two). The problem as I see it is that we were running huge deficits before the economic crisis, and while it is definitely in our short term interest to go even more into debt to get us out of the economic funk, it is in our long term interest to show the international markets we're borrowing from that we're going to spend responsibly in the future and that we won't run huge deficits when our economy is growing again. If our international lenders don't think we will be fiscally responsible in the long term, they would stop lending and things would get much worse and fast.

And small note on war and the economy, there have been significant extenuating circumstances the times when war has been seen as stimulative in the past, and there are even more examples of when it has been anything but stimulative. I hope that spending that money on making stuff at home instead of on blowing stuff up overseas might have a slightly more stimulative effect. My fear is that looking back we'll find that it doesn't matter what you spend government money on, it matters how you finance it.

Are Wars Good for the Economy?

There is a myth that wars are good for economies, and as evidence people point to World War I and World War II. This is not the case. It is important when discussing the extreme budget deficits and borrowing during World Wars 1 & 2, that America was mainly borrowing from its own banking system. More importantly, America was neutral during much of both of these wars, and during that time Europe was purchasing weapons and borrowing money from us, and it was the eventual repayment of these loans enabled the post war booms in America following both wars. America was doing great after the World Wars, but Europe was not. England and France lost their empires, and Russia and Germany lost even more.

Some have said that the only way to get out of our current economic funk is by entering into a war, or using an equivalent amount of government spending. The fact is we've been at war for seven years. The problem is that we've borrowed all of the money to conduct those wars, and thus our economy worsens.

Looking back at the example of World War II, the United States is playing the role of the European countries, while China is playing the role of America - sitting back and lending as we get in way over our heads.

Speaking macro-economically, war and long term overspending is not good for the economy. It is good for the lenders, but not the debtors.

Normalization between China and Taiwan on the Horizon?

When there’s so much going wrong with the world, good news often falls through the cracks. I was pleasantly surprised this morning when I read that the leaders of China and Taiwan met today. Chinese President Hu Jintao thanked Taiwan for Taiwanese relief aid following last month’s earthquake in Sichuan province and said "As long as both sides across the strait are concerned about each other and make exchanges with each other, a peaceful and stable development of relations across the strait can be expected."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/28/asia/beijing.php

Thoughts?

An Addendum on NATO

I couldn't find a place to put this in my previous post (the Past and Future of NATO) on NATO that was going in my final thesis, but I found this interesting nonetheless. This is from Dr. Nile Gardiner of the Heritage foundation, and I have heard this slogan repeated on more than one occasion to berate NATO members who are not willing to get into the heavier fighting in Aghanistan.

"NATO is a war-fighting alliance, not a glorified peacekeeping group."
(The NATO Riga Summit: Time for Backbone in the Alliance)

Is it? Is it really? It started as a defensive organization, and since after the Cold War when it started actually intervening in conflicts, two of the three were definite peacekeeping missions. I really hate bumper sticker catch phrases because they rarely if ever have any basis in reality.

MLK and International Justice

This article comes from IRWatch Senior Correspondent, Janelle F.

Today the US remembers and celebrates Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a man known for his profound influence on the Civil Rights Movement and its intersections with American social politics. This is also a fitting time to recall Dr. King's activism in the realm of US foreign policy and world politics, specifically in his reactions to the Vietnam War. He saw the war in Vietnam as a symptom of a greater disease, one in which people's rights were denied and their welfare jeopardized – the same disease causing the ugly symptom of social injustice in the US.

On April 4, 1967, Dr. King gave a speech to Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam at Riverside Church in New York City (the full text of the speech can be found here). He called for an end to the violence in Vietnam, but also for more than that. He called for sympathies that crossed racial, political, and national boundaries – for all people to unite in their common humanity, and allow that commonality to be the driving force in relations among nations and people.

"Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

"This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
…

"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and non-violence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition."

Through mutual respect and compassion, Dr. King believed we could achieve a greater peace and find mutual benefit. However, he also had a rather sentient vision of the alternative:

"There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit. And if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing Clergy and Laymen Concerned with committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy."

Perhaps the best way to honor the legacy of Dr. King is not simply to rejoice in the great strides that have already been taken, but to continue to push forward toward the realization of his vision of true justice, equality, and peace.

______________
Source
The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute

"Tribalism" and the News from Kenya

I have been mulling over the current violence in Kenya since the New Year, trying to congeal my feelings into coherent thought. I had previously heard that the Kenyan electoral system was revered as being one of the best in Africa, and of course this violence is a tragedy. Three hundred people have died in rioting, many burned to death seeking sanctuary within a church. From what I understand, the violence was sparked by a close election, the confusion of the news media being shut down during the election, the unilateral declaration of victory by the incumbent and the statement from the election chairperson saying that he could not say who had actually won.

However I believe one of the biggest problems with this issue is its coverage in the news. I not a person who comments on the political correctness of words, however I do have a problem with inaccurate and misleading terminology. In particular, I am referring to the words tribal and tribalism. A quick scanning of headlines on Kenya include "Tribalism Isn't on the Ballot, But in Kenya It's Key Issue" (- Washington Post), "Tribalism's latest stalking ground" (- National Post) and "Old scores settled in Kenya's tribal war" (- Daily Telegraph).

So what's the problem here? The word "tribalism" incorrectly simplifies a complex situation, worse yet it is a slur. It conjures up images of nomads, of pre-industrial society, and of irresolvable blood rivalries. Thus the use of the word tribalism is at best inaccurate, and at worst bigoted. Is it too much to ask for accuracy and dare I say it a little nuance in our news? The spark was a close election and confusion, the fuel was political opportunists using existing racial mistrust as tool to get themselves more power in the chaos.

Additional Source:
Diane Rehm Show: January 3rd, 2007 (Listen Online: Real Media, Windows Media)

_________________________
Addendum:
I found this BBC article after writing my editorial. I thought I would add it because it comes to many of the same conclusions and goes into more depth on the details.

"Tribal violence spirals in Kenya," screams the front page banner in the International Herald Tribune. "Kenya plunges into interethnic violence," says Le Monde.

But headlines can be misleading.

It is certainly true that the post-electoral violence in Kenya has taken on a tribal character.

Members of the incumbent (and controversially re-installed) President Mwai Kibaki's Kikuyu tribe have been pitted against other smaller tribes.

But that is only part of the story.

A more complete headline might be: "Tribal differences in Kenya, normally accepted peacefully, are exploited by politicians hungry for power who can manipulate poverty-stricken population. ..." - BBC Africa News