Who's In Charge Here?

Not everyone is on board the hope and change train. For example, this ruling from a District of Columbia federal judge:

A federal judge says the United States can continue to hold some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely without any charges.

U.S. District Judge John Bates' opinion issued Tuesday night limited the Obama administration's definition of who can be held. But he said Congress in the days after Sept. 11, 2001 gave the president the authority to hold anyone involved in planning, aiding or carrying out the terrorist attacks.

And federal lawmakers nixed the Gitmo closure at least for now:

The Senate voted on Wednesday to yank money for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp from a war spending bill, delivering a setback to President Obama in his efforts to shutter the prison by the start of 2010.

By a vote of 90-6, the Senate approved an amendment that not only blocks supplemental funds from being used to close Guantanamo and move detainees to U.S. soil, but also orders that no funds already in U.S. coffers be redirected toward that purpose.

In the meantime, Obama's teleprompter is getting a further workout in the damage-control mode. Yet even Obama's devoted chorus at the New York Times published this significant story:

An unreleased Pentagon report concludes that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are engaged in terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials.

The conclusion could strengthen the arguments of critics who have warned against the transfer or release of any more detainees as part of President Obama’s plan to shut down the prison by January. Past Pentagon reports on Guantánamo recidivism have been met with skepticism from civil liberties groups and criticized for their lack of detail.

Breaking News from the New York Post: A FBI/NYPD anti-terror task force has busted four conspirators after a year-long investigation.

Four homegrown Muslim terrorists on a mission from hell were arrested last night as they planted what they thought were high-powered plastic explosives at two Bronx synagogues, authorities said. The men were also allegedly plotting to use a Stinger missile to shoot a military plane out of the sky in upstate New York immediately after the bombings.

The Post article adds that three of the four suspects "converted to Islam after recent stints in jail."

Do we really want former Gitmo detainees mingling with prisoners in U.S. jails?

More on the jailhouse jihadists here.

Guest Blog: Saving the Lamb

Guest blogger Jason Tabrys of Painespeak.com contributes this alternative viewpoint in response to yesterday's post about the court decision requiring a boy to endure chemotherapy against his parent's will:

It is a never ending battle that now ensnares the fragile life of a young boy stricken with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Science and faith clashing over a young boy and the decision of his parents to steer clear of Western remedies like chemotherapy. Statistics say that with chemotherapy the boy stands a 95% chance of surviving, without it a 90% chance of death. Minnesota District Court Judge John Rodenberg weighed in ordering a chest X-ray of the boy to determine his prognosis and set the stage for a resumption of chemotherapy if the X-ray results showed it would be beneficial in the boys treatment. Dissatisfied with that verdict the mother decided to flee with the boy in tow. These are the irrefutable facts of this horrific story that promise to damage this boy in someway regardless of the outcome.

Stories like this are admittedly horrible, pitting family against government, a boy's life hanging in the balance and the inclusion of belief as a main player. When belief enters the fray, the argument becomes delicate. People commit to their beliefs, breathe them, and live them. It is their everything in some cases, and to attack that or be flip is to attack their entire existence. Now I respect faith, and alternate views in regard to healing. In my life I have known people who believe with their whole heart that the best course of treatment for sickness is the homeopathic route, and yet I have been someone who entrusts their wellness to medical science in the face of sickness. Both paths are a choice that must be made in an informed way, weighing both options and their positives and negatives individually. The problem here though is that the boy does not have the capacity to effectively judge which path is best for him. He is a minor child at 13 and is also reportedly illiterate. At this stage of his life it would be unfair to allow anyone to stand in the way of this young man living a long and happy life, a life that will most likely not exist beyond mere months or years if his parents are allowed to decide his fate with their views.

Now what makes science appropriate to force on this boy but not the beliefs of his parents? Fact, science is based in factual data, knowledge of what has happened within a range of similar circumstances before. Information and statistics thoroughly studied and repeatedly proven. The advances of Western medicine are real, the benefits of chemotherapy, of radiation, are real. I have seen these benefits in my own family and most likely you have to. People in this world are living longer lives because of these advances. And while a belief in the holistic must be respected and exist as possibly adequate alternatives with regard to general care and vaccinations (though that too is suspect), it cannot supply the same weight of evidence to show that this boys life will be adequately protected from the clear and present danger that grows within him. And allowing this boys parents to exist as if there is such evidence is a dereliction by society that may allow this boys life to slip away.

Yes the intrusion of the government in this matter is startling but it is an outrage that is surpassed by the actions of the boys parents who are allowing their sons safety to fall into doubt in the name of homeopathy and religious belief. Respecting their wishes for the sake of respecting faith is an understandable reflex but if their religion called for sacrificial slaughter of the boy would we not expect the legal and child welfare system to react? And is this really anything less then a near certain sacrifice? I think not, and as much as it pains me to advocate action, we must. If the boys mother and father cannot see truth through the haze of hope and do that which will give their son length of years then they prove themselves inadequate guardians and the court is right to ensure the child’s welfare and direct his treatment in ways that the parents will not. I only hope that the boy can be found in time to save his life.

Healthcare "Reform": A "Shovel Ready" Job?

"The whole trial is out of order!" That's what Arthur Kirkland, the firebrand attorney portrayed by Al Pacino in And Justice for All, shouts in the courtroom in the classic scene that concludes the movie.

That's kind of what we felt upon hearing that a Minnesota judge ordered a 13-year-old boy with Hodgkin's lymphoma to submit to chemotherapy against his will.

Admittedly, before it happens (and hopefully it never will), no one really knows how he or she would react to a diagnosis of a life-threatening illness, including what treatment to undergo.

And memo to lawmakers of both parties: The U.S. has made incredible advances in medical technology, especially in emergency situations, thanks to the freemarket, but "healthcare" is not merely about pharmaceutical drugs or surgery.

But don't you find it disturbing that a court would force someone to take chemicals into their body? Chemotherapy can destroy the patient's immune system, so it's completely understandable that a similarly situated family would resist this treatment. And perhaps Constitutionally protected religious liberty is also implicated here. Does chemotherapy offer a better ultimate outcome for the boy? An Internet search will come up with alternative, more holistic-oriented therapies for various conditions. Ironically, some physicians and other healers who have had legitimate successes following alternative protocols wind up in the crosshairs of the regulatory authorities.

Perhaps engaging in some degree of hyperbole, Mike Adams, the self-described "Health Ranger," opines the following about this case on his Natural News website:

There is not a single cancer patient that has ever been cured by chemotherapy. Zero. They don't exist. Not a single documented case in the history of western medicine.

And why is that? Because conventional medicine operates from the false belief that there is no cure for cancer! Thus, anyone offering a cure (or assisting in the body's own natural reversal of the disease) is immediately dismissed as a quack. Meanwhile, the real quackery is found in the pushing of toxic chemotherapy chemicals that are injected into the bodies of patients and called "treatment" when they should really be called "torture." (Nancy Pelosi, by the way, was never briefed on the fact that chemotherapy is torture...)

What's most disturbing in all of this, of course, is that the state is now forcing parents to poison their own children, requiring they hand over money to Big Pharma and conventional cancer treatment centers. The concept of freedom of choice has been stolen away from parents. The idea of protecting your children from toxic chemicals has been not just nullified, but made illegal!

We have no idea of the family dynamic in this particular instance, or whether the parents have fully looked into legitimate alternatives. And who knows how this situation will eventually play out. We wish the family all the best. But leaving aside this particular controversy, the larger issue is why not explore all alternatives, aside from chemicals, perhaps proceeding on a parallel conventional-holistic track? And doesn't an oncologist have a moral if not ethical duty to explore all modalities beyond chemotherapy and radiation?

On a related subject, it seems every day there is news about pharmaceutical drugs yanked off the market by the FDA because of devastating side effects? Ironically, regardless of which administration holds power, the FDA seems to be obsessed with trying to regulate the nutritional supplement industry. Seems like they should concentrate their resources on the drug regulation.

(In general, while we're in no way, shape or form giving any kind of health advice, some supplements made by reputable companies with quality ingredients can be worthwhile, some with less potent ingredients aren't. And some alternative healing techniques work for some people and not for others. But hasn't it been established that many expensive drugs don’t work for many people?)

Doctors and insurance companies have a lot of explaining to do about skyrocketing medical costs. For a variety of reasons, health insurance costs in particular are out of control, especially for any worker who has been laid off and been forced to pay for expensive COBRA benefits. The so-called stimulus package provides temporary partial reimbursement for COBRA, but that's just a band aid. So health insurance portability must be addressed.

So there needs to be sensible, structural insurance reform, but orchestrated by and in the private sector. (Another issue for another time is whether a healthy citizen should be forced to subsidize the costs of those who have led self-destructive lifestyles, or those who are here illegally.)

Not to get too metaphysical, but there is a strong mind-body connection in staying healthy, and millions of Americans have had good results with alternative approaches. Not every effective protocol shows up in a stuffy, peer-reviewed medical journal.

Again, leaving this particular cancer case aside, if really want to help people stay healthy and prevent disease, why not provide insurance reimbursement for more holistic techniques on the front end, thereby avoiding catastrophic costs on the back end?

Government-run healthcare, a/k/a single payer or socialized medicine, is not the answer. It doesn't make sense. Why would liberals and Democrats and their compliant trained seals in the news media (those that claim to be "pro choice") want to foist a system on this country that has failed in every other country that it has been tried. In fact, many of those systems are on the verge of bankruptcy. In fact, patients from other countries under national healthcare flee their system to be treated in the U.S. The logical extension of single payer is rationing and waiting lists for both routine and non-routine services. Is that an upgrade over the current system with all its faults? As P.J. O'Rourke famously said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

The Oscar-winning movie The Barbarian Invasions gives an unsettling glimpse of the botched nature of the government-run Canadian healthcare system. The excellent film (which somehow slipped past Hollywood's politically correct gatekeepers) centers on a Montreal college professor with terminal cancer who seeks to reconcile with his estranged son, or perhaps vice versa. In one pertinent scene, to get his father out of a chaotic hospital ward, the son must bribe sullen and corrupt union bosses to provide his father with a private room.

Government-run "healthcare"? The state, in the form of judges or other bureaucrats, intervening in family medical decisions? That's not reform we can believe in.

More on nationalized medical care here and here.

The "Deadbeats" Among Us

Welcome to the world of Orwellian economic doublespeak where responsible consumers who pay their monthly credit card bill in full become "deadbeats" and must be punished:

Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years.

Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit....

“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

Video: The Obama-ACORN Connection

FNC's O'Reilly airs a follow-up report on the pre-election Obama-ACORN story that was spiked by the New York Times with the ACORN whistleblower herself speaking:

Detainee Developments-- Less Hope and No Change?

France, which previously agreed to accept one Gitmo detainee, is the new home of the plaintiff in the high-profile Boumediene v. Bush case:

The United States on Friday released the Guantanamo Bay prisoner who was at the center of a Supreme Court battle giving detainees the right to challenge their confinement, an Obama administration official said.

Lakhdar Boumediene left the U.S. naval facility in Cuba Friday headed to relatives in France, said the official, who spoke on a condition of anonymity because the release was not yet cleared for announcement.

Boumediene was arrested along with five other Algerians in 2001 in Bosnia, suspected in a bomb plot against the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. He arrived in Guantanamo in January 2002...

In June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Boumediene v. Bush that foreign Guantanamo Bay detainees have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in civilian courts. On a 5-4 split, the majority said the U.S. government was violating the rights of prisoners there and that the system the Bush administration put in place to classify suspects as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.

As we noted in a previous post, the administration has made another about face in formally bringing back military tribunals:

President Obama on Friday announced plans to restart the military commissions launched under President Bush to try some suspected terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay detention site, sparking fresh anger from liberal and human rights groups who had hoped Mr. Obama's election signaled a clean break with Bush-era policies.

Mr. Obama argued that changes he was making to the system would give detainees the due process previously unavailable to them.

And here is a related development that will also further disappoint some of the president's most fervent supporters:

The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.

Nancy Pelosi's "Tortured" Logic About Waterboarding

Captain Renault, the police official in Casablanca, was shocked to learn that gambling was going on in Rick's nightclub--just as a croupier handed him his winnings. Isn't that to some degree what Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to pull in her inept and scattered press conference?

Under pressure to explain conflicting stories, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged for the first time that in 2003 she was told waterboarding and other tough tactics were being used on suspected terrorists and did not object to them, even as she defiantly accused the CIA of lying to her and Congress about the use of such controversial techniques during 2002 briefings.

The CIA, in an unusually curt response, defended its account that showed Mrs. Pelosi was briefed about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding in a Sept. 4, 2002, meeting.

Pelosi was a placeholder who only became Speaker by virtue of seniority and being next in line after the Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives and surrendered the gavel. It is now unlikely that her credibility issues will go away anytime soon.

Pelosi is not out of the woods. She could have saved herself some trouble by admitting earlier that she had been informed that the CIA was using waterboarding. By doing what she did yesterday, she has assured that she will remain a central character in the political fight that is raging. But whether by design or accident, she also succeeded in enlarging a controversy that is no longer a sideshow.

If Congress is intent on going forward with a so-called Truth Commission on enhanced interrogation techniques, how long will it be before Pelosi decides to "spend more time with her family"?

Update: In a memo to employees posted on the agency's website, CIA Director Leon Panetta (also a California Democrat who served with Pelosi in the House of Representatives) said "Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values." Click here for the full statement.