The Executive Orders Re Guantánamo Bay (GITMO):

People on both sides of the political isle argue that Executive Orders are an abuse of power by the President.  Many experts argue there is not a grant of power in the Constitution to the President to authorize use of Executive Orders.  The folks that justify the use of Executive Orders argue that under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states that “. . .he (the President) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, . . .”  the President can issue Executive Orders.  The argument is bizarre.  Having a responsibility to execute laws created by Congress should not be turned on its head to justify the President’s use of Executive Orders to create new laws, but it has.  Executive Orders (EO’s) do suck.   The President uses EO’s to abrogate citizen’s rights (and others) without any debate.  EO’s are used to play political football with various issues that have not been taken before the American people and/or issues that Congress should act upon.  One President comes into office and uses and EO to forbid funding of project A.  Another President comes into office a few years later and repeals the previous EO and thus does order the funding of project A.  Doesn’t the House of Representatives have the purse strings?  Congress is supposed to decide what is funded (or not) and then the President should “take Care” to execute the funding mandate–not decide whether to fund the project or not.

What are the acceptable disposition alternatives for the detainees?

First I note that the reports provided by major news media omit questionable but important nuances contained in Obama’s Executive Order  (EO) of January 22, 2009 entitled: Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities.  The preamble to the EO states that “. . . in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained. . .”  Under Section 3, the EO proclaims that the detention facilities shall be closed as soon as practicable, but no later than one year from the date of the order.  No one can say what “as soon as practicable” means but under no circumstances should the detention facilities remain operable for more than one year.  On the other hand, I would like someone to explain to the public how the “appropriate disposition of the detained individuals” is effectuated by closing the facilities.  Moreover, how is the closing of the facilities an appropriate disposition of terrorist combatants?  How can you order the facility to be closed without a disposition plan?  Obama’s answer to that is that he has created a “task force” to study alternatives and to review all the prisoner’s background, status, and whether “some may” be deserving of prosecution.  What if there are no real acceptable alternatives with respect to the terrorist detainees, in light of the language contained in the EO which mandates the closing of the facility within one year?  The omission of any provision in the EO concerning that issue is glaring.  It is very probable that the detainees will be there one year from now.

Are you smarter than a 5th Grader?

I would love to see a survey of American citizens in which they are asked; Where is Guantanamo Bay?  I would surely wager that very few Americans know where it is, or what it is.  Nevertheless, it has become a topic priority for Obama and the politically correct subject of one of his first Executive Orders.  During his campaign for President, Obama promised his voters that he would shut Gitmo down; as if that was some sort of righteous act that was long overdue.  Despite there being many valid arguments to keep the Naval base open, Obama has directed that Gitmo be closed one year from now by EO.  He doesn’t have a plan on how to close Gitmo or what is to become of the combatant detainees held there. 

Soon after Obama was elected, I made myself a promise that I would diligently track his Executive Orders and write appropriate blog posts as a way of keeping myself informed and to assist in contributing to the goal of keeping the folks informed.  In the days leading up to the inauguration, I anxiously waited for the Executive Orders to start flowing and what the subjects of the orders would be.  No doubt I will have much to write about during the next four years.

Guantanamo Bay (“GITMO”) Is A Great Real Estate Investment.

The military has referred to Guantanamo Bay as “Gitmo” for years.  Gitmos is the U.S. Naval Base in Cuba and is the oldest U.S. base overseas and the only one in a Communist country.   Located on the southeast corner of Cuba, in the Oriente Province, the base is about 400 air miles from Miami, Florida.  While serving in the United States Navy, I “visited” GITMO a couple of times on Liberty call.1  As I recall, you almost had to kick sailors off the ship to get them to take advantage of this port of call and all that it offered!  Not a vacation spot to say the least.  I am proud to say that I have not been to GITMO since 1973 however, I do recall there were an impressive array of U.S. capital improvements on the base even back then.

The legal basis for the U.S. to operate a Naval Base at Gitmo is from a Treaty lease arrangement that was last ratified in 1934.  The original lease arrangement was negotiated by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903.  Unless the U.S. abandons the real estate, the terms of the lease require that both parties have to consent to the termination of the lease agreement.  The Cuban negotiating representatives were not real sharp back then.  They probably had hopes that Cuba would someday become a State.  In any event the lease costs the U.S. $2,000 in gold coin per year according to the 1934 Treaty.  The territory is 45 square miles of real estate and thus costs U.S. taxpayers about $45.00 in gold per square mile per year.  

The major news media is not reporting it, but the Executive Order signed by Obama does not state that the Naval Base is to be “shut down,” just the detention facilities situated on the base.  There are several Naval Operations located at Gitmo under separate commands.  None of the other government and military operations are the subject of the Executive Order.  It does not appear that the U.S. will abandon this valuable Territory of which it has had sovereignty over for more than sixty years.  

As far as what Obama might do with the detainees at Gitmo, its anyone’s guess.  I have a suggestion.  Sometimes the answer to difficult issues is right in front of our face.  This is one of those situations; Obama’s answer is right in front of his nose.  Remember the Iraq prison that was “shut down” and turned over to the Iraq government–the Abu Ghraib prison.  It was just announced today that the Iraq government has decided to reopen the prison but under a new untarnished but catchy name–the Baghdad Central Prison.  It makes sense that we simply transfer the enemy combatant’s to the Baghdad Central Prison as an additional quid pro quo for pulling out of Iraq in accordance with the Obama plan.2

It is reported at a blog that until just a few weeks ago, the U.S. military operations in Iraq were holding 15,000 detainees suspected of various terrorist activities.  Under an agreement with Iraq, the U.S. had to either charge the detainees with something or release them to the Iraqi Justice system (whatever that is) or otherwise set them free.  We do not yet know the disposition of these 15,000 detainees but we do know that the Abu Ghraib prison has been empty for the last two years.  Whatever, the case, the Iraqi government appears to be ready, willing, and able to process thousands of terrorist detainees through its justice system–a few more from Gitmo should not present a problem.  Given Obama’s extreme desire to use diplomacy to solve the terrorist problem, we should all be confident that Obama can use the appropriate diplomatic channels to form an agreement with Iraqi officials that would guarantee the safety of U.S. citizens against any possible attack from the Gitmo detainees.  Let the Iraqi government deal with the problem.  There’s the plan Obama–throw it down. No reason to spend money on yet another task force.  

But Wait; There Is A Money Making Alternative for GITMO. 

It is also reported that the Iraqi prison space is in shortage.  If the Iraqi government continues to process thousands of detainees through its justice system while prison space demands outpace prison construction, then the U.S. Taxpayers are presented with a fortuitous opportunity to make some coin.  It could be that Win-Win situation politicians are always looking for.  Rather than close the ready built prison-detention facilities at GITMO, Obama could “directly” negotiate a sub-lease Treaty with Iraq whereby the Iraqi government can take over GITMO detention operations immediately.  The U.S. would not have to transfer any of the current detainees at all–simply hand them over to the Iraqi justice system.  Let the Iraqi government spend a few bucks in legal due process thus savings U.S. taxpayers billions in legal prosecution costs.  Now that’s a plan!

 

---

 
Please leave your comments here at this page. Thank you.

 

 

 

1. You won’t find a definition for Liberty Call in Wikipedia so I plan to create one. Liberty call is generally the call to deserving sailors by the ship’s Commanding Officer that the sailors are free to leave ship to enjoy time off the ship at a particular port of call.
2. Obama’s plan to withdraw troops of course is subject to “what’s happening on the ground.”

The Question: Is the U.S. Government’s teaching financial literacy a good idea, and has it been working?

The more you look behind the scenes at what is going in any government program, the more perplexed you become.  At least that’s been my experience.  Pick any topic and take a look at which pieces of the puzzle your government has its fingers on.  Any piece of the puzzle that the government is holding is costing you dollars.  Tracing the results and benefits taxpayers receive from government programs and bureaucracies is most often a conundrum.  More taxpayers should try it.  I honestly believe few taxpayers are attempting to find and measure the results, benefits, and costs associated with government (let me help you) programs.  My belief is based upon the fact that that the number of programs continue to grow exponentially without real accountability.  When is the last time any of us questioned one of our elected officials on the necessity or efficacy of any government program or bureaucracy?  This post is one simple example of the maze that the government constructs in its attempt to help you.

What’s the government been up to?

Given the “financial crisis” and all the news talk regarding massive numbers of mortgage foreclosures, and fortunes being lost in the stock market, I recently took at look at the topic of financial literacy in the United States.  “What’s the government been up to?”  That was the question in my mind; so I decided to start with the Executive Branch to perhaps locate an answer.

I quickly discovered that this past January President Bush signed an Executive Order creating a new government counsel.  At the time, Bush had one year remaining in office.  The purpose of his Executive Order was to create the President’s Advisory Counsel on Financial Literacy.  The Executive Order Section One promulgation is:

[T]o promote and enhance financial literacy among the American people. To help keep America competitive and assist the American people in understanding and addressing financial matters, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage financial literacy among the American people.

Arising from the above, a nineteen member President’s Counsel was created.  At first, I was a tiny bit impressed.  I then looked at the purpose and function of this Counsel.  The Executive Order states in part that the Counsel is to advise the President from time to time on the status of the citizenry’s financial literacy and the progress of achieving the policies set forth in Section One above, and make recommendations for ongoing further implementation of the policies stated in Section One above.  Uh?  In any event, my general reaction was; too little, too late.  Note to self.  This is almost December, has the President’s Counsel “advised” him yet?  The answer is: “No,” but there is a First Draft report in place.  An optimist might believe that Bush will receive the first report on the Financial Literacy of Americans before he leaves office in less than two months!

But, We Already Have A “One-Stop-Shop” For Financial Literacy.

I instantly became unimpressed with the fact that Bush created another layer of government inefficiency and duplicity.  How and why, you ask? Because, the Advisory Counsel was created for a term of two years by a lame duck President.  Furthermore, because I soon discovered the website, mymoney.gov and thus, the conundrum appeared!

The Mymoney.gov website proclaims to be the “[s]tarting point for information intended by the US government to help improve the financial literacy and education of persons in the United States.”  Read the additional quote below and then ask yourself, is it a content problem or a marketing problem that caused the obvious failure of its mission. The website states:

MyMoney.gov can help you.        

MyMoney.gov is the U.S. government’s website dedicated to teaching all Americans the basics about financial education. Whether you are planning to buy a home, balancing your checkbook, or investing in your 401k, the resources on MyMoney.gov can help you do it better. Throughout the site, you will find important information from 20 federal agencies government wide. (emphasis added).

The FACT Act named the Secretary of the Treasury as head of the Commission and mandated the Commission include 19 other federal agencies and bureaus. The Commission coordinates the financial education efforts throughout the federal government, supports the promotion of financial literacy by the private sector while also encouraging the synchronization of efforts between the public and private sectors.2

Uh?  At this point, I’m reminded of the Shaw Wow commercial where the guy says, “Are you with me camera guy?”

Let’s review where we are so far.  Five years ago, Congress passed a law mandating Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions (how’s that been working?).  The savior for America’s financial literacy was born–the Financial Literacy and Education Commission (FLEC)!  The FLEC put up a website; Mymoney.gov and a “National Hot Line.”  The fact that the FLEC put up a National Hot-line infers an emergency or a sense of urgency, does it not?  The number is 1-888-MyMoney.  I dialed the number but the call could not be completed from Canada which is where I live.  You try it and please let me know what you discover.  The purpose of the hot line is to serve as a primary portal to provide consumers the educational information they need on a wide-variety of important financial topics.  Congress charged the FLEC to:

improve the financial literacy and education of persons in the United States through development of a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education.3

So, the FELC was to develop and implement a national strategy to improve the financial literacy of Americans.  Two years later, the National Strategy was complete; it’s 162 pages and available in .pdf format.  In its content, The FLEC touts its effort of thoroughness.  You decide.  First, about nine months after the FACT was passed, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register seeking “succinct and responsive” comments from the public on the development of a national strategy.  In the event you misplaced your copy of the notice, you can click on the link and review it.  A massive public response ensued with the FLEC receiving “more than 150” comments.  Obviously, it took some time to read and absorb the content of the these many comments.  But, indeed the FLEC did move forward in its development of an urgent national strategy by next holding a series of “six-sector specific” meetings (all held in Washington D.C.) to gather more information from respondents to the Notice in the Federal Register!  These meetings concluded in March 2005.  The finale of its thoroughness was that it convened a working group consisting of 13 government agencies.  The working group met eleven times between June 2004 and June 2005.  There you go.  A year or so later, the FLEC produced our National Strategy.  The cost to develop the National Strategy was only $1,000,000 dollars, not including salaries or travel expense.

Again, note that the National Strategy is dated “2006.”  In attempting to determine what the FLEC has been doing since it published its national strategy report, I discovered that as of April 2007, there has not been a FLEC meeting since September 2005 according to the Office of Domestic Finance.

This is troubling given the fact that the FACT contains a specific provision that requires the FLEC to report to Congress annually.  I was unable to locate any progress report made to Congress.  However, I did find that the Government Accounting Office produced a report and submitted it to Congress in December 2006.  In that report, it is noted that Congress did not provide any funding for fiscal year 2006 to the FLEC Commission.  That might be why there were no meetings beyond September 2005.  Nonetheless, the GAO in its report, pretty much labeled the National Strategy as a good narrative but not very strategic.

The Commission (FLEC) is still in existence and is being managed so to speak by the U.S. Treasury Department (an Executive Branch Cabinet) but up-to-date information on what it is actually doing is nonexistent at the official web address.  Despite the fact the GAO refers to the National Strategy as not being strategic in content, the U.S. Treasury Department has taken a lead role by initiating a profusion of meetings across the country.  These meetings have been the Treasury Department’s independent attempt to implement the various calls to action contained in the National Strategy report.  What comes to mind here is that the Treasury Department is one of the President’s Cabinets.  So, given the close relationship between Bush and Treasury Secretary, Hank Poulson, a taxpayer would think that Bush would be aware of the FLEC and all of its strategic calls to action and work.

SEC Chairman Cox Provides Startling Testimony.

Again, despite the apparent fact that the FLEC has not provided Congress with annual progress reports, this past May, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held hearings to discuss FLEC’s agenda of boosting financial literacy in the United States.  Various representatives of the 20 different governmental agencies testified before the Senate Committee.  The Securities Exchange Commission big-dog Christopher Cox provided Congress with “new information” in his testimony to the Committee:

The SEC Chairman Christopher Cox noted that a growing population of retirees is [sic] being targeted by financial scam artists. He called for more education and scrutiny of “free lunch” investment seminars aimed at seniors. “Sadly, some industry professionals target seniors for inappropriate investments,. . .4

Now, there’s some new vital information that Congress can work with.  How come we didn’t know this before? One Senator, claiming to be a proponent of financial literacy (who isn’t?), Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) reported to the Senate Committee that progress was being made toward promoting more user-friendly investment materials.  “I’ve noticed that the materials are becoming less complex,” he said.5