by Judith Haney USNEWSLINK/November 28, 2001 The current discourse among print and broadcast opinion makers concerning the Bush administration's war on terrorism is remindful of the "Peter Principle", i.e., those who have risen to the level of high visibility and influence have been elevated to the level of their incompetence. An example of this "principle" is Robert A. Levy, of the Cato Institute, who is an occasional contributor to various media outlets. Levy, in his latest piece, "Indefensible: The case against military tribunals", throws his argument like a plate of spaghetti against the pages of the Wall Street Journal hoping something sticks. Mr. Levy writes, "The Bush executive order takes a perilous step toward eviscerating the time-honored doctrine of the separation of powers, a centerpiece of our Constitution. Too much unchecked power is vested in a single branch of government. The president and his secretary of defense--if not this administration, then a successor with fewer constitutional scruples--can run roughshod over the Bill of Rights. At a minimum, to the extent that military tribunals can try legal aliens, without congressional authorization, that's bad law, and bad public policy. It is also morally indefensible. This decent and honorable president can do much better. " In Levy's short essay he examines the "language" of the order and offers his criticisms of same. However, nowhere in his "evaluation" does he offer alternative methods of identifying, apprehending, and prosecuting the terrorist criminals who pose an immediate danger to Americans throughout the world. The one and only saving aspect of Levy's essay is his refusal to employ ideology as a criticism of the Bush order. The absence of assigning blame to "a Republican agenda" is, indeed, a breath of fresh air. Instead, Levy uses various case law and precedents to support his arguments. However, his argument fails to "stick" because he offers no alternatives. Levy's article also fails to "stick" because it is transparently opportunistic, i.e., it is the topic that everybody's discussing; AND, he "probably" sold it as a speculative piece to the WSJ before he wrote it; AND, once they bought it, he had to knock it out in a hurry to meet an artificial deadline. After all, Levy can't keep the presses waiting can he? There's soap, cigars, and newspaper subscriptions to sell! Levy's argument is not a complete, finished work. It fails to persuade, and, it is a partial argument, as if he quit in the middle of his essay. This leads this writer to think that Levy gets paid by the word, and when those words are used up, he's through. Therefore, Levy's article must be dismissed. His thesis has potential, and Levy's background certainly places him in a position of authority, BUT he sold out. He gave up on the argument too soon. Or maybe, just maybe, Levy has no suggestions or alternatives to offer as food for thought. OR, maybe he ran out of time, or perhaps he reached the level of his incompetence. It brings to mind Levy's own words: "This decent and honorable [writer] can do much better". EDITOR'S NOTE: On November 28, 2001, Robert Levy responded to the above article by emailing the author the following: Judith Haney wrote:
Sorry, you're trying just a little too hard to be cute. Instead of a personal attack, why not identify at least one substantive point that you think I've gotten wrong?
If you read the piece more carefully, you'd know that I have no objection to military tribunals if they are approved by Congress, subject to appellate review, and used to prosecute non-resident non-citizens apprehended outside of the US. We have a criminal justice system in the US that's perfectly adequate for handling legal resident aliens. There's no reason for me to propose an alternative. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Nice try ... but the Wall Street Journal requested that I write the piece. I didn't have to sell it.
What, exactly, are you trying to say? Is that a criticism of me? Of the Journal? Of for-profit newspapers? Of capitalism?
It wasn't intended to be a book. After all, newspapers do have space limitations. So every piece has a word cap.
First, you insist that the piece is too short, then you imply that I extended it to maximize my fee. Make up your mind. For the record, I don't accept pay for newspaper articles that I write. Check out our Website. I write on many topics. Maybe you'll even find something with which you agree. Regards, |
