Another read-the-whole thing.

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the PresidentÂ’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

...

I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

He goes on to politlely explain that the president and AG Holder are both full of shit.

Obama realizes, of course, that his presidency will depend on the good behavior of the terrorists he releases into the American population. He will try to make sure they're well-behaved by putting FBI tails on them 24 hours a day.

The problem with that? A lack of resources. A friend does exactly this for the FBI. He follows terrorists around -- but not all day. Even though the FBI knows these guys are high-risk and plotting terrorism, they only follow them, say, one eight hour shift a day.

Why? There's too many of them to follow around 24/7.

Even if Obama does make sure these particular terrorists are getting the real 24/7 around-the-clock shadowing treatment, be aware, all those extra hours spent babysitting these guys come directly from hours not spent babysitting other guys.

Which is sort of why we have prisons in the first place. There is no need to actually detain anyone, if all you want to do is prevent a criminal from committing a crime. If that's all you want to do, you could just have cops follow around every convicted burglar and killer 24/7 to make sure they don't re-offend.

The problem? Well, to give burglars and killers their freedom in the general population of America, while making sure they don't break the laws further, would require a massive 20-30 person surveillance and management staff for every single criminal in America.*

This is sort of why prison was decided upon as a halfway measure between doing nothing at all to criminals, and making sure they didn't re-offend by simply putting them to death upon their first conviction for a serious crime.

But this is the special justice Obama has decided upon for terrorists. A common street-thief will be incapacitated from committing more crime by the relatively cheap measure of depriving him of his freedom for a period of years in a prison.

A terrorist, on the other hand, gets the gold-plated treatment. He gets to roam the streets, costing millions of dollars a month in salaries for surveillance people, meanwhile deducting such manpower from the general pool of eyes available to watch other terrorists.

Pretty good deal.

I'm sure Bill Ayers would agree -- common criminals are one thing, but terrorists are political criminals deserving of the Superstar treatment.

* One surveillance team consists of 4 or 5 guys, in two or even three different cars to make sure the same exact car doesn't keep appearing in the rear view mirror, plus extra bodies to take to the street when the subject is on foot or in a subway. Three such teams are needed for 24 hour a day surveillance, plus a back-up team ready to go in case the team gets burned or a new subject presents himself, plus you need at least another team on top of that because no one works 365 days per year. People need two days a week off, plus two to four weeks vacation.

So, ballparking it, 20-30 guys per terrorist. 30-35 is more like it. I'm not even addressing support staff and after-the-fact analysis. The surveillance teams themselves just surveil, they don't transcribe what they record and translate it and analyze what it might mean.

So... actually, more like 40 or 45 fairly highly paid FBI specialists covering every single terrorist Obama releases. Again, not just on your dime, but not available to surveil other terrorists.

And they've already got their hands full with the terrorists who have not yet actually been found to have committed terrorist acts.

Posted by: Ace at 08:52 AM | Comments (90)
Post contains 932 words, total size 6 kb.

Recommended to me by a lot of readers.

It' interesting to me that I'm constantly told by the left that I need more nuance and doubt, and that absolutism is wrongheaded and even bordering on anti-American. At least absolutism is wrong when it comes to the things the right is more absolute about.

When it comes to a shibboleth of the left, of course, absolutism is not only the right course, but it's the Only True American view as well.

No quote, as it's more of a cumulative, read-the-whole-thing, um, thing.

Posted by: Ace at 08:39 AM | Comments (120)
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

The assault on hedge funds, derided by the Bully in Chief as a small band of "speculators" seeking a "bailout", was more than President Obama's usual opportunistic populism - it's a signal of the pernicious effect of the increasingly intrusive federal role in the private sector.

To set the record straight, some investors in Chrysler debt are asserting their legal rights - in fact, their legal obligation to shareholders - by electing to make their case in bankruptcy court. These creditors believe the government's deal unfairly compensates their senior positions, and that less senior stakeholders are getting a better deal. Bankruptcy courts exist to properly align the rights of stakeholders in an orderly and predictable way, and that's where this matter appropriately belongs.

So President Obama maligned a group asserting their legal rights, while praising those firms - especially large banks - who buckled to White House pressure to accept the deal.

If you haven't yet read "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes, now would be a good time to pick up a copy. The parallels are certainly interesting.

Posted by: Slublog at 07:49 AM | Comments (143)
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.

Your tear jerker of the day is up over at Blackfive. The son of a fallen member of the 2nd of the 503rd received the Silver Star in front of his classmates today in honor of his father's bravery at the Battle of Wanat. This is another company but the same battalion as the guys in the firefight video here.

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 06:29 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

Since everyone is focussed on the Supreme Court, the most recent "StatPack" hosted at SCOTUSBlog makes interesting reading. SCOTUSBlog summarizes:

Justice John Paul Stevens is winning the contrarian award so far. He’s been in the majority least frequently–32 out of 48 opinions, or 66.7%–and has the highest rate of disagreement with other justices. He’s disagreed completely with Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas in 48% of cases and with Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito in 46%. In comparison, at this point in OT07, Justice Stevens had disagreed with the conservative justices in 21%-36% of cases. Justice David H. Souter is close behind–he’s been in the majority in only one more case than Justice Stevens and has similarly high rates of disagreement with the conservative justices.

Also at SCOTUSBlog, attorney Tom Goldstein speculates about Obama's likely choices to replace Justice Souter. They include the obvious (Sotomayer, Kagan) and the horrifying (Granholm), which I had somehow managed to put out of my mind.

My bet is that – this early on – it’s a big and diverse list. It would have some very well known judges (for example, Diane Wood and Sonia Sotomayor), academics (Elena Kagan (now Solicitor General), Pam Karlan, and Kathleen Sullivan), and politicians (Jennifer Granholm, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, and Janet Napolitano).

He takes it as a given that Obama's first pick will be a woman.

Update: Politico has an early oppo memo on Sotomayor, Kagan, and Wood.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:09 AM | Comments (160)
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

May? Already?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:11 AM | Comments (146)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.