Cato Daily Dispatch for November 22, 2005
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via PDA (AvantGo)
(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)
Padilla Precedent Strikes Blow to Civil LibertiesGM Cuts Jobs to Control Costs
Iraqi Factions Call for Withdrawal Timetable
Padilla Precedent Strikes Blow to Civil Liberties
"'Dirty Bomb' suspect Jose Padilla, held by the U.S. as an enemy combatant for more than three years, has been indicted on federal charges in Miami, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday," the Associated Press reports. "The indictment avoids a Supreme Court showdown. Padilla's lawyers had asked justices to review his case last month, and the Bush administration was facing a deadline next Monday for filing its legal arguments."
In "What the Supreme Court Really Said about Jose Padilla," Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, writes: "When American citizens are taken into custody, they have, at a bare minimum, the right to retain an attorney. Then an impartial court, not the president, should make the ultimate decision as to whether the arrest and imprisonment comport with the Constitution. In Padilla's case, five justices now say his ongoing detention is unacceptable. That's why Padilla must be charged or released."
In "Affront to Civil Liberties," Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, writes: "Bush often speaks about his desire to bring freedom to the people of Iraq, but some of his policies are undermining freedom here at home. Make no mistake. The Padilla precedent constitutes a break in our constitutional levee, which protects liberty by restraining government power. We should not wait until our constitutional levees collapse to appreciate the danger that the 'laws of war' pose to freedom in America. Free societies do not just 'happen.' They must be deliberately created and deliberately maintained."
GM Cuts Jobs to Control Costs
"General Motors, pounded by declining sales and rising health care costs, said yesterday it will cut more than a quarter of its North American manufacturing jobs and close 12 factories by 2008," the New York Daily News reports.
"'[T]these actions are necessary for GM to get its costs in line with our major global competitors,' GM chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner said."
In "GM's Woes Are Homemade, Not Imported," Daniel Griswold, director of the center for trade policy studies at the Cato Institute, writes: "There are plenty of reasons behind the troubles at GM, but 'unfair' competition from Japanese automakers is not among them. Japanese brands have certainly been gaining market share in the United States, but that has arguably more to do with the more appealing design, price, and quality of the cars than exchange rates. In fact, two-thirds of the Japanese cars Americans buy are not imported but are in fact made right here in the United States, according to the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association, and would not be affected much by the exchange rate anyway.
"Trade barriers and harangues about exchange rates won't save GM from itself and its unions. In an internationally competitive domestic market, GM will need to earn back its market share the old fashioned way: by controlling its costs and by producing cool cars at a price that more Americans are willing to pay."
Iraqi Factions Call for Withdrawal Timetable
"For the first time, Iraq's political factions on Monday collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign forces, in a moment of consensus that comes as the Bush administration battles pressure at home to commit itself to a pullout schedule," the New York Times reports.
In "U.S. Should Call It a Wrap after Iraq Elections," Christopher Preble, Cato's director of foreign policy studies, writes: "Now is the time to chart a new course. The first step should be a firm pledge to begin the withdrawal of American troops soon after the December 2005 elections. The Bush administration should further commit to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007 at the latest. By taking these steps to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq, we will reaffirm that the elections are the culmination of a political process that Americans started, but that Iraqis must finish."
Kristen Kestner, editor, kkestner@cato.org