Irony: Wiretaps and Goldman

Combining my two most favorite subjects lately...

"The successful prosecution of Raj Rajaratnam suggests the difficulty prosecutors would have against Goldman Sachs. At this point, the big question for prosecutors is less about what they know to be true and more about what they can prove. And "to make a criminal case out of the mortgage activities, prosecutors would need at least one credible witness from inside the firm to point the finger at Goldman and its executives to show the company's culpability, proving that it was more than just a sharp operator."

Investigators do not have that one credible witness from the inside, and it's doubtful it will find one. Omerta will likely hold.  Unfortunately, investigators do not have wiretap evidence--something that would prove superior to a bunch of suggestive but not definitive emails."

The Obama Administration seems hellbent on renewing PATRIOT and violating the rights of average Americans even more than the Bush Adminstration.

Now there's a scenario this constant surveillance might have actually been very useful, and we've hit a wall. Instead of trying to catch a bunch of lunatics who leave other very obvious intelligence signs, we could have been wiretapping the banks, and getting enough evidence to stop what amounted to something terrorists have always aimed to do---bringing the American economy down with clandestine activities.

I guess that's irony, folks. 

Terrorist or freedom fighter?

A historical precedent: a robot signs PATRIOT Act extension into law.

With President Obama in Europe, an "autopen" has been assigned the dubious task of continuing the legacy of constitutional excesses of law, and civil rights violations.

While most of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act are permanent law (a sad fact indeed), the most controversial facets, and the ones most vulnerable to abuse and violation of the Constitution, are subject to periodic review. This includes the following three provisions: roving wiretaps that follow targets within US borders and may pick up civilian information, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance on "lone wolves"; individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities but not officially affiliated with any extremist group.  

All three provisions have been re-approved by the autopen. 

This appears to be the first time that a robot has been used to sign a law into application, and it appears to set a precedent that is still in a legal gray zone.

I for one do not welcome our new civil-rights, warrentless wiretapping overlords.

Get Palestine to Peace Talks-Mission Failed.

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel returned from Washington on Wednesday to a nearly unanimous assessment among Israelis that despite his forceful defense of Israel’s security interests, hopes were dashed that his visit might advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

One of the widely articulated goals of his trip, where he met with President Obama and addressed Congress, was to find a way to lure the Palestinians back to direct negotiations, thereby preempting their plan to approach the United Nations in September for recognition of statehood within the pre-1967 lines.

Instead, the Palestinians now say, Mr. Netanyahu’s speeches persuaded them that they had no negotiating partner. They plan to intensify their United Nations efforts, leaving Israelis worried about increasing international isolation and pressure, especially in light of the popular uprisings across the Arab world. "

Score one for oratory rhetoric.

Score negative one for Middle East peace.

Efficiency with Aid Money

Picked up a really good article on one of the most efficient ways to give aid. I like donating money to charity, but as an economist, the question of efficiency and whether or not this money actually makes a difference always sadly passes through my mind.

Now with at least some field-tested studies, my mind feels a whole lot better.

maybe you'll feel a whole lot better too

Uganda's anti-gay bill pushed back amid outrage.

A good victory for human rights.

However, the struggle is not over. Sign the petition here and call your leaders.

Together, we can make a difference.

NATO leaves 61 migrants to die of thirst and starvation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/08/nato-ship-libyan-migrants

NATO has been accused ignoring distress calls from a boat filled with adrift migrants.

If this is true, NATO is in clear violation of international law, and this represents a shocking neglect of the sacred responsibility of upholding human life.

I fear that this isn't the worst of it. A tide of those who are left to flee the upheaval will soon be flooding through Europe, and Europeans will have to ask themselves some hard questions about whether or not they can deploy resources to aid these poor souls.

It's the beginning of what I can see as a pressing issue of the 21st century---namely, how developed nations will deal with the wave of people fleeing unlivable circumstances in the Third World. Tied into this is the First World's partial culpability for these circumstances (global warming, subsidies and supports to dictatorships etc.) but, sadly, the fact that many developed nations in this world do not have the political willpower or ability to deploy resources to help their own people, never-mind people that are considered "foreigners", has to weigh in the decision as well.

These hard questions, as we can see in this example, will entail the difference between life and death. It is a heavy responsibility to bear for the developed democracies of the West, but it is something that must be acknowledged, and debated, before it is too late to save any of the lives we could have saved.

I hope events like this spark the debate, and lead to people acknowledging the sanctity of HUMAN lives, rather than constantly dividing the world into meaningless subsections of Americans, Europeans, and Africans.

Why does America seem to be on the wrong side of international freedom?

A country in the throes of revolution. An oppressive state known for jailing dissidents is going to fall soon. However, America happens to find itself in the awkward position of being a patron of this dictatorial regime. America soon defines an ambiguous position---the rebels might be a terrorist organization after all, so it is best to tread carefully.

You can apply this scenario to so many countries it isn't even funny. In this case, I think the sobering story of South Africa is a vivid illustration of hypocrisy in action.

Congress only declared that the ANC and Nelson Mandela were not terrorists in 2008.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/entry/...n_mandela_anc/

America also tacitly supported the apartheid regime and gave military support to South Africa in the South African Border War---though this should also be framed in the context of a Soviet-American proxy battle, it also once again shows how millions of people must suffer in the pursuit of some military goal that does not make sense (let's make a war on words and ideas!).

Once again, with Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, we are forced to wonder whether or not America is on the right side. I think this is particularly important, since America is the one world power that tries to claim its' legitimacy by offering itself as a luminary of human rights---which it should be said, it does follow up on sometimes.

However, certain policies it pursues seems to undermine these long-term strategic goals. How on Earth can we be so short-sided to see that depriving people of their freedom might stop a terrorist attack or two, but will generate enough anger to create an infinitely larger amount of terrorists? I also question America's ability to delineate between freedom fighter and terrorist, which seems to be firmly based on whether or not you are trying to achieve strategic American military goals, whatever they may be.

It should be pointed out that while South Africa has its' problems, you cannot argue that it is more unstable than the carcasses left behind by American military intervention (North Korea situation, Khmer Rouge, the current Iraq/Afghanistan situation). I am all for Realpolitik---but is it not realistic to say that change does not happen overnight, cannot be forced by killing and looting a country, that we must truly support the long-term aspirations of people around the world over our short-term security needs, and that America's stated willingness to help people around the world be free is what truly makes it great?