Governor Bobby Jindal Battles Bloated Federal Bureaucracy in the War on the Gulf Oil Spill

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has been on the front lines directing and coordinating action to stop the growing oil slick spreading toward the Louisiana coast since the BP oil rig explosion on April 20, 2010. Any action he takes must be approved by the federal government, which has been slow to coordinate its own actions. I reported in an earlier post that Jindal's request for approval to implement a plan for sand-booming and dredging was finally approved in early June after two weeks.

This week the Coast Guard shut down 16 oil-fighting vacuum barges that the Governor had deployed, claiming their operations needed to be halted until federal inspections and certifications could be done. After the barges were shut down for 24 hours before being allowed to resume operations, the Governor said:

"Before the shut down......, oil suction operations using military and civilian vacuum barges had suctioned thousands of gallons of oil out of the marsh already and thousands more could have been removed yesterday if these operations wouldn’t have been shut down.

The frustration here is that we spent weeks talking to the Coast Guard about this new, common sense idea for cleaning out the marsh. At first, we were only allowed to produce a prototype – and once that was seen to be successful, as we knew it would be, we asked for many more of these suction barges to be deployed to coastal communities across the state. Then, after about a week of use, they were shut down because the Coast Guard wanted to inspect them. Now, they have been told they don’t need these inspections.

It is frustrating because it doesn’t seem like the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. There is no streamlined system here. This is why we keep stressing that we need to see more of a sense of urgency from the Coast Guard, federal officials and BP. We are in a war here – we are in a war against this oil that absolutely threatens our way of life."

In addition, Governor Jindal and Grand Isle Mayor David Camardelle met with the Coast Guard on a plan to narrow the passes to the east and west of Grand Isle. Governor Jindal and the Mayor had been pushing to get the rock and barge plan finalized for weeks. The Mayor and the Governor met with President Obama almost two weeks ago about this plan and stressed the importance of the Coast Guard approving the use of the rocks and barge plan quickly in order to help block oil coming into the passes to Barataria Bay. The state needs multiple lines of defense to keep oil out of its wetlands and off of the coast. The Governor and the Mayor have also been pushing for more high sea boom and skimmers for weeks to protect the passes. Since the promised resources have not arrived, the state is now seeking a combination of barges, rocks, and vacuum barges.

Governor Jindal's frustration is understandable in view of the many agencies involved in approving any action the states want to take to clean the oil and prevent further damage from oil coming into the coast, bays and wetlands. The federal government Gulf Oil response team is under the command of Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, whose team is ironically called the Unified Command. This federal team, in addition to BP personnel, includes officials from 14 federal agencies. As Bobby Jindal's comments above indicate, it often seems that the left hand of this team does not know what the right hand is doing.

But lack of coordination among all the agencies in the Unified Command is not the only problem caused by the federal bureaucracy. The citizens of the Gulf Coast have also been harmed by the moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico while the President's team investigates the causes of the oil rig explosion.

Even though this is the worst environmental disaster in US history, it is also the first and only rig explosion of this sort in over forty years of off-shore oil drilling in the Gulf. As many have noted, the moratorium is equivalent to stopping all airlines from flying after a single airline crash. In decades of airline flight, there have been many crashes, but rarely are there government orders to cancel all flights after any plane crash.

Last week, Bobby Jindal met with community groups, businesses, oil workers and local government leaders harmed by the shut down of oil drilling to protest the moratorium. A local newspaper website reported on this gathering as follows:

"In a rally atmosphere at an offshore-service dock ...., Gov. Bobby Jindal, local workers and lawmakers added to the growing outcry over a presidential ban on deepwater drilling.

'People in Louisiana shouldn't have to lose their jobs because federal officials failed to properly regulate the oil-and-gas industry', Jindal said to applause.

'There's not a man or woman in Louisiana who wants an unemployment check,' Jindal told an audience of about 200 workers, lawmakers and other oil-and-gas industry members. They were assembled at a cavernous dock where oilfield ships pull up for service at Edison Chouest Offshore's C-Port 2. 'We shouldn't have to choose between saving our coast and safe domestic energy production." http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100611/FEATURES12/100619813/0/ARTICLE

A few days ago, President Obama gave his first address to the nation from the Oval Office to discuss his plans for resolving the disaster in the Gulf. He seemed to acknowledge the concerns of the people on the Gulf Coast when he said:

"As the cleanup continues, we will offer whatever additional resources and assistance our coastal states may need. Now, a mobilization of this speed and magnitude will never be perfect, and new challenges will always arise.... So if something isn’t working, we want to hear about it. If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them.

But we have to recognize that despite our best efforts, oil has already caused damage to our coastline and its wildlife. And sadly, no matter how effective our response is, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done."

Apparently, Governor Jindal will have to go on letting Obama's team hear about what isn't working. The question is whether any of those problems can be fixed quick enough to minimize the continuing damage being done to the Gulf Coast. Governor Jindal has not been satisfied with the speed and urgency demonstrated by the federal bureaucracy so far.

Sphere: Related Content

Consequences of Presidential Bluster and Blame

Since the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster began, President Obama has restated many times that BP is responsible for stopping the oil leak at the bottom of the Gulf, cleaning up the oil in the water, as well as the environmental damage to the Gulf Coast, and for paying claims to those harmed by the loss of business, property and income due to the crisis that began with the oil rig explosion on April 20, 2010. He emphasized this point in his press conference on May 27. The next day, he said it again:

"We have ordered BP to pay economic injury claims, and we will make sure they deliver.... As I’ve said before, BP is the responsible party for this disaster. What that means is they’re legally responsible for stopping the leak and they’re financially responsible for the enormous damage that they’ve created. And we’re going to hold them accountable, along with any other party responsible for the initial explosion and loss of life on that platform."

Nevertheless, President Obama also noted in May that:

"I ultimately take responsibility for solving this crisis. I’m the President and the buck stops with me. So I give the people of this community and the entire Gulf my word that we’re going to hold ourselves accountable to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this catastrophe, to defend our natural resources, to repair the damage, and to keep this region on its feet. Justice will be done for those whose lives have been upended by this disaster, for the families of those whose lives have been lost -- that is a solemn pledge that I am making."

Basically, the President is saying that BP is responsible, but he will make sure they take all the necessary action to fix the problem and pay for it.

For BP, its CEO Tony Hayward has said:

"[W]e are doing everything we can to do the right thing. We are going to stop the leak. We're going to clean up the oil. We're going to remediate any environmental damage and we are going to return the Gulf Coast to the position it was in prior to this event. That's an absolute commitment, and we will be there long after the media has gone making good on our promises."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/8724549.stm

That firm commitment by BP to make things right has not been good enough for Obama and his team, however. After Obama said that he does not want to hear that BP is "nickel and diming" the people of the Gulf Coast filing claims for harm suffered due to the oil spill crisis, the President and many other Democrats want to tell BP how to pay for its obligations, including urging BP to cut or cease paying dividends to its shareholders.

An article on the Washington Post last week indicated the widespread implications of any government imposed restriction on BP's ability to pay its dividends:

"Smaller dividend payments would have a broad impact. The London-based giant accounts for about 12 percent of all dividends paid in Britain. A cut would be most keenly felt among pensioners there. But the impact would also reach the United States, where about 40 percent of the company's shares are held. At the end of March, major institutional holders of BP stock included State Street and Wellington Management; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also had a substantial stake." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/05/AR2010060500727_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010060503052

Many of the shareholders of BP stock are pension funds, mutual funds held in 401k accounts and individual retirees in the US and the UK. Many people of average or modest means would be adversely affected by forcing BP to stop its dividend payments.

The Obama team's drumbeat of comments criticizing BP have also caused negative reactions from some UK political figures:

"Former Conservative Party chairman Lord Tebbit accused [Obama] of giving a 'xenophobic display of partisan political presidential petulance against a multinational company'.
London Mayor Boris Johnson said there was 'something slightly worrying about the anti-British rhetoric that seems to be permeating from America'." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/politics/10303619.stm

The pressure on BP to stop its dividends and to act more quickly to resolve all of the problems caused by the oil spill is still not enough for the Obama team. On "Meet the Press" today, Obama's top political adviser, David Axelrod, said that Obama is planning to demand that BP set up an escrow account with substantial funds to pay all claims that will result from the Gulf oil spill. Axelrod said: “Our mission is to hold them accountable in every appropriate way.”

Axelrod stated that the White House wants an independent, third party to administer the escrow account and to assure that those with “legitimate” claims for damages will be compensated. Then he went on to say:

“We’re not interested in undermining the integrity of their company, but this disaster is having an impact on their company. We believe that BP has the resources to meet the claims, and we’re going to make sure that they do. They’re a highly profitable company. They’ve got lots of assets. They have the prospect of continuing, but they have to meet their obligations here.”

This type of rhetoric raises the question of whether BP can survive this disaster in the Gulf. BP executives, as well as Wall Street analysts, have all confirmed that BP has the financial strength to meet its obligations to plug the leak, to clean up the environmental damage and to pay those affected by the Gulf oil spill, but when a high ranking White House official makes a statement about "the prospect of [BP] continuing", it will raise questions in the minds of many investors that should not have been raised by a political adviser.

The consequences of this irresponsible statement by Axelrod will likely cause further erosion to the value of BP's stock, which has already dropped by about 50% since the oil rig explosion, because it is extremely probable that that his comments will appear in news media all around the country tomorrow.

The real cause of the delay in more effectively addressing the crisis in the Gulf was revealed in another statement by David Axelrod: “I don’t consider [BP] a partner.”

This statement clearly demonstrates what many with crisis management experience have noticed about the Obama team. They don't play well with others! They do not know how to work cooperatively with other interested or affected parties to resolve issues.

They cannot work with Republicans to achieve bi-partisan legislative objectives. They do not want to hear any outside advice or criticism. They only want to dictate action by others to meet their goals. This became very clear when the health care bill was rammed through Congress with legislative tricks, back room deals and no Republican votes.

Now they are using the same tactics to push a multi-national corporation to do things the Obama way, regardless of the consequences. The problem is that their ignorance of how corporations work and how to work in partnership with a non-governmental entity to achieve effective results in a timely manner has been exposed every day that this crisis continues.

This should have been a joint cooperative effort using all appropriate resources of BP and the US government from the start. Instead, more than 50 days later, the White House still does not consider BP a partner in the effort to resolve the biggest environmental disaster in US history! How tragic for the Gulf Coast, BP shareholders and our once "special relationship" with Great Britain. Sphere: Related Content

Crisis Management, Obama Style

President Obama talks a good game, but he has difficulty effectively following through with his rhetorical commitments. At his press conference regarding the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on May 27, 2010, President Obama said:

"The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort....BP is operating at our direction. Every key decision and action they take must be approved by us in advance.... The federal government is also directing the effort to contain and clean up the damage from the spill -– which is now the largest effort of its kind in U.S. history."

It is very clear from that Presidential statement that the Obama team is taking the lead in managing this terrible environmental disaster in the Gulf and any action to be taken by BP to plug the leak and clean up the oil slicks must be approved by the federal government. However, the President also admitted that only BP has the technology and expertise to stop the oil leaking from the bottom of the Gulf:

"What is true is that when it comes to stopping the leak down below, the federal government does not possess superior technology to BP. This is something, by the way -- going back to my involvement -- two or three days after this happened, we had a meeting down in the Situation Room in which I specifically asked [Secretary of Defense] Bob Gates and [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman] Mike Mullen what assets do we have that could potentially help that BP or other oil companies around the world do not have. We do not have superior technology when it comes to dealing with this particular crisis."

That, of course, is understandable since the oil companies are in the business of exploring for oil reserves and deploying the drilling technology needed to retrieve the crude oil. So they would naturally have experts, scientists and technology on hand that would give BP superior ability to plug the leak.

But the federal government certainly must have plans in place based on past experience (Exxon Valdez comes to mind) to clean up oil spills. Don't they? So why did it take the US Coast Guard two weeks to approve Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's sand-booming/barrier island/dredging plan to prevent the oil from advancing to the coastline and spoiling the marshes, wetlands and beaches of Louisiana?

Here's President Obama's answer at his press conference:

"So let’s take the example of Governor Jindal’s barrier islands idea. When I met with him when I was down there two weeks ago, I said I will make sure that our team immediately reviews this idea, that the Army Corps of Engineers is looking at the feasibility of it, and if they think -- if they tell me that this is the best approach to dealing with this problem, then we’re going to move quickly to execute it."

However, Governor Jindal did not think that federal "movement" in two weeks was very quickly executed. Here's what the Governor said after the Coast Guard decision:

"We are frustrated that it took two weeks to get any kind of response. We are frustrated that the federal government then only agreed to make BP pay for one segment while the Corps [of Engineers] approved six segments for construction. We are frustrated that they said the other five would not be approved because they needed to ensure the ‘effectiveness’ of sand-booms even though the Area Contingency Plan already calls sand-booming an ‘effective’ measure."

If sand-booming was already approved in pre-existing federal contingency plans, it would seem that the government decision-making required to protect Louisiana's coast could be done more swiftly and effectively. Under these circumstances, it is very reasonable for Governor Jindal to expect faster federal responses to their plight. However, even though oil was spreading day by day ever closer to the Gulf Coast and now has reached it, the President's answer appears to suggest that taking two weeks to make a decision already included in prior contingency plans is perfectly acceptable.

So what is the federal government doing in its role of Overlord of the Gulf Oil Crisis of 2010? Well, in addition to too slowly considering Bobby Jindal's requests for help, the President told us that he is getting reports every day; he is thinking about the problem; everyone involved knows that resolving this crisis is his number one priority; he has established a Commission to study the causes of the disaster and how to prevent future such catastrophes; he has sent Attorney General Holder to the Gulf Coast to so helpfully announce civil and criminal investigations by the Justice Department into BP's culpability in the crisis and visited the Gulf Coast three times so far to be sure that we all know he is engaged.

In his most recent visit to the Louisiana coast on Friday, Obama met with commercial fishermen, other local business people and local government officials. He assured all that he will hold BP accountable for plugging the oil leak, cleaning up the environmental damage and paying claims filed by those economically hurt by the oil spill disaster.

While the Coast Guard is clearly on the scene and playing a critical role in helping to resolve this crisis, the basic message from the President reconfirmed the government's continued reliance on BP to solve the problems and make things right with the coastal communities.

BP has already spent over $1 billion in its efforts to stop the oil leak, clean up the oil spreading through the Gulf and paying claims to people economically injured by the disaster. BP's CEO has repeatedly accepted the company's responsibility and committed to continuing BP's work on all aspects of the problems caused by the oil rig explosion that started the crisis on April 20.

The question now is whether BP will get the approvals required from the federal government to do its job quickly and efficiently or whether Obama will continue to talk a tough game while threatening and investigating BP as it keeps working to fix the mess it created. Let's hope that the federal government can move more quickly in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities from now on than it did in giving Bobby Jindal an answer to his request for approval to implement plans last month to block the oil from reaching the Gulf coast in Louisiana. Sphere: Related Content

War Planning by the Obama Administration

In the latter months of the Bush Administration, the liberal mainstream media outlets and Democratic politicians liked to repeat RUMORS that Bush and Cheney were planning to attack Iran before leaving office to assure that Iran's nuclear program would be stopped. When John McCain broke into an impromptu song of "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann" during the 2008 Presidential election campaign, the YouTube video of his brief attempt at poorly chosen musical humor was replayed by left wing media types over and over to suggest that, if elected, McCain would also be inclined to start war with Iran, if Bush did not follow through with the rumored attack before he left the White House.

Well, it is now clear that neither Bush, Cheney nor McCain have the ability to start war with Iran; so the left wing can now rest easy that they helped elect a President who would never do such a terrible thing! However, even though many of President Obama's domestic policies are clearly far left wing (and have become the pride and joy of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other Democratic officials, as well as MSNBC and other liberal media outlets) when it comes to national security, he has apparently learned through regular national security briefings that he gets, as well as the Fort Hood shooting, the failed Christmas Day bombing and the Times Square bombing attempt, that there really is a serious terrorist threat to the country.

This week there have been reports of two significant developments in military preparations pursuant to Obama's approval that could actually lead to war, not only with Iran, but also with our apparent ally in the war in Afghanistan: Pakistan.

On May 24, 2010, the New York Times reported that:

"[A] secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.....

The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive. The Obama administration insists that for the moment, it is committed to penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has to draw up detailed war plans to be prepared in advance, in the event that President Obama ever authorizes a strike." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/25military.html

In today's Washington Post, it is reported that:

"The U.S. military is reviewing options for a unilateral strike in Pakistan in the event that a successful attack on American soil is traced to the country's tribal areas, according to senior military officials. Ties between the alleged Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, and elements of the Pakistani Taliban have sharpened the Obama administration's need for retaliatory options, the officials said. They stressed that a U.S. reprisal would be contemplated only under extreme circumstances, such as a catastrophic attack that leaves President Obama convinced that the ongoing campaign of CIA drone strikes is insufficient."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052804854.html?hpid=topnews

Whether these two reports get more attention in the coming days than they would have if George W. Bush were still in the White House depends on how much these developments are even noticed in view of other pressing news, including the continuing oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico (being handled so incompetently by the current Administration), the recent admission by the White House Counsel regarding Congressman Joe Sestak that he was indeed offered some type of position to drop out of the US Senate race in Pennsylvania and the ongoing controversy over the Arizona immigration law that President Obama continues to inflame with unfounded claims that the law encourages racial profiling. See my post of May 23, 2010 for a discussion of the bogus nature of these claims of discrimination. Sphere: Related Content

Dereliction of Duty

John T. Morton, the assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune last week that his agency (ICE) may not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities because he does not think that the new Arizona immigration law is the appropriate way to address immigration problems. Later on the same day, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that federal homeland security officials will await a US Department of Justice examination of the civil rights and other implications of the new Arizona law before deciding how to approach the problem of illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico into Arizona.

So we have a high ranking federal law enforcement officer, who has sworn an oath to enforce the laws of the United States, which - of special importance to his particular agency (ICE) - includes federal immigration laws, saying that he will not work with law enforcement officials in one state due to his disagreement with that state's new law. Since the new Arizona law was passed to encourage and facilitate cooperation between Arizona officials and federal officials in enforcing laws designed to secure the country's borders, Morton's position amounts to gross malfeasance and a dereliction of his duties as director of ICE.

This is particularly odd since the ICE website states that "ICE's mission is to protect the security of the American people and homeland by vigilantly enforcing the nation's immigration and customs laws... ICE combines innovative investigative techniques, new technological resources and a high level of professionalism to provide a wide range of resources to the public and to our federal, state and local law enforcement partners." http://www.ice.gov/about/index.htm

John Morton's statement to the Chicago Tribune appears to make it clear to Arizonians that he will not be very "vigilant" nor very "professional" in providing any assistance to state law enforcement "partners" in Arizona.

It is very strange for the leader of ICE to take the position Morton has since the new Arizona law only requires state law enforcement officers to inquire about immigration status whenever "any lawful stop, detention or arrest [is] made by a law enforcement official" and a "reasonable suspicion exists that the person [stopped] is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States". Even without any statute, it would seem that such an inquiry would be a logical approach for any law enforcement officer to take in any state in the country.

Morton's refusal to cooperate with Arizona state officials in carrying out his responsibility to help protect the citizens of Arizona seems to be based on the objection to the law that has been expressed by the President, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security. All of these high ranking federal officials (of whom the latter two admitted in Congressional testimony last week that they have NOT even read the new law) have indicated publicly their concern that the law could potentially cause "racial profiling". However, the Arizona statute expressly provides that law enforcement officers "may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing" the law.

Before any person detained pursuant to the Arizona law can be released from custody that "person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government" pursuant to Section 1373 of the federal immigration law. [Arizona Senate Bill 1070 enacted as Law 2010, Chapter 113 of the Arizona statutes can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/SB1070-HB2162New.PDF.]

Section 1373 of the federal law cited above (that John Morton swore to uphold) says that no state or local government may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to ..... ICE information regarding the lawful or unlawful status of an alien in the United States. It would be presumptuous to assume that Morton's statement to the Chicago Tribune is actually an attempt to "restrict" Arizona officials from sending information to ICE. That would be a violation of the federal law Mr. Morton was sworn to uphold!

Besides, if Morton and the other higher ranking federal officials in the Obama Administration were really concerned about racial profiling (rather than just making political points with some favored bloc of the voting public), ICE could help prevent any such affront to American values of fairness by cooperating with Arizona under the ICE Secure Communities Program which is designed to assist state and local law enforcement personnel in protecting their communities from criminal illegal aliens.

The ICE website describes the Secure Communities Program as follows:

"When someone is booked into local custody, their fingerprints are taken. Those fingerprints are checked against the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) for criminal history.... [and] against the Department of Homeland Security’s database, the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) for immigration records. When fingerprint submissions match immigration records, local ICE officers are automatically notified and can promptly determine if enforcement action is required. Criminal history and immigration information can also be shared with state law enforcement agencies.

......

Secure Communities is a color blind system and reduces the opportunity for allegations of racial and ethnic profiling because the fingerprints of every individual arrested and booked into custody are checked against immigration records, not just those manually submitted by local officers." http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/secure_communities-facts.htm

It seems that Mr. Morton would want Arizona officials to report suspected illegal immigrants to ICE so that the ICE, DOJ and DHS databases could be used to assure that any decisions made about a detainee's immigration status would be based on the federal system that is designed to be "color blind" and reduces the potential for racial profiling.

The fact that DOJ has to study an 18 page state law (for at least one month as of this writing) before DHS and ICE can determine whether to work with Arizona to help solve that state's illegal immigration problems and protect its citizens from criminal acts by illegal aliens rather than to use the existing programs and databases established to enforce immigration laws based on factual information, without any racial profiling, demonstrates the utter lack of sincerity in the objections being made about the Arizona law.

The outrageous claims being made by Obama Administration officials regarding the potential of Arizona's law enforcement officers to ignore the express requirements of their state law that bar any racial profiling in the law's implementation even led to the President of Mexico expressing his opposition to the Arizona law for the same reason at a joint session of Congress last week for which he received a standing ovation by the Democrats in the hall. In effect, this event could be seen as our own government inviting a foreign leader to accuse Arizona's officers of the law of being prejudiced bigots willing to ignore their state's legal requirements. Law enforcement officials everywhere in the US should consider this an insult of the highest order.

The public protestations by the Obama Administration of the potential for racial profiling in Arizona are purely political posturing and those federal officials responsible are failing to carry out their sworn Constitutional duties.

Perhaps President Obama and his team want the news media distracted by bogus claims of racial profiling in Arizona so the spreading oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico being watched by impotent federal officials making ineffective threats against BP does not receive more attention in the news.

Sphere: Related Content

The Bizarro World of the DC City Government

On the same day and in the same city that the Attorney General of the United States, the US Secretary of Homeland Security, the FBI deputy director and the New York City Police Commissioner were announcing the arrest of a Pakistani born US citizen for an attempted terrorist attack in Times Square, the DC City Council passed a bill to legalize medical use of marijuana (a federally banned drug) and proposed a bill to prohibit the DC Police Department from reporting arrests of illegal immigrants to the US Department of Homeland Security. In the very city where Congress enacts federal law, the city government acted on two measures that permit or require actions in contravention of federal law.

The medical marijuana bill is the result of a DC public referendum passed in 1998 (during the Clinton administration) and action taken by Congress last year (during the current Democratic administration) that allowed the DC City Council to adopt a law in accordance with the 1998 referendum results. During the Bush administration, Congress did not take action to allow DC to pass the medical marijuana law.

The proposed bill to bar the DC Police from informing the federal authorities of illegal immigrants arrested in the nation's capital was, of course, introduced in reaction to the Arizona law recently enacted to permit law enforcement officers to inquire into a person's immigration status when detained or questioned about potential violations of any state law unrelated to immigration status. This means that if an illegal immigrant is arrested for breaking a law in Arizona that the police there (many of whom are Hispanic Americans) may determine that the arrested person is in this country illegally and report this information the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. However, if the DC proposal becomes law, the police in the nation's capital that arrest an illegal immigrant (even if from Pakistan) will not be allowed to report this information to ICE!

This sure seems to be a strange situation, but such are the consequences of the liberal PC world that now rules in Washington, DC.

Sphere: Related Content

Kudos to Law Enforcement on Times Square Bomb Attempt Investigation

The system worked! As in the case of the Christmas Day bomb attempt on a jetliner landing in Detroit, the Times Square bombing attempt was stopped due to alert civilians acting quickly to prevent a disaster. On Christmas Day, it was a Danish passenger on the plane who jumped on the Al Qaeda trained terrorist trying to ignite explosives hidden in his underwear. On Saturday evening in Times Square, it was two street vendors who alerted police officials nearby to a suspicious SUV left running in the crowded area near the Broadway theater district.

The investigative response following these two recent incidents of attempted terrorists' attacks, however, do not follow a similar pattern. In New York, experienced and highly trained NYPD and FBI investigators promptly cleared civilians in the area of the SUV to safety, disarmed the bomb, protected the evidence in the SUV loaded with explosives, thoroughly combed through the clues provided by the abandoned vehicle, identified the suspect, Faisal Shahzad (a Pakistani born naturalized US citizen) and arrested him on board a plane bound for Dubai after about 53 hours. The only slip in the process was the failure of the airline to prevent Shahzad, who had been added to the "no fly" list on Monday afternoon, from boarding the plane. Fortunately, Customs and Border Protection personnel matched the passenger list against the "no fly" list in time to stop the plane and take Shahzad into custody.

These outstanding law enforcement professionals in New York did not have the culprit in custody right away after being caught red-handed with smoking pants at the scene of the crime, as the Detroit authorities did on Christmas Day. Furthermore, the New York team of local and federal law enforcement officials were quick to utilize the public safety exception to the Miranda Rule after capturing the Times Square suspect and questioned him without benefit of a lawyer long enough to learn more about his training, travels and possible associates. In Detroit on Christmas, the Nigerian terrorist was given his Miranda rights and a lawyer after only 50 minutes of questioning.

Not only are the fine men and women of the NYPD, FBI, Customs and Homeland Security due congratulations in the handling of the Times Square investigation and arrest, but it would only be proper to conclude that the Obama administration learned from their admitted mistakes in the Christmas Day incident and made appropriate corrections to their approach in responding to potential terrorists' attacks.

It is also appropriate to recognize that alert civilians really are an essential part of an effective system of preventing horrible acts of terror. As many have noted, the citizens of New York City are well aware of the critical rule that if you "See Something, Say Something".

Sphere: Related Content