Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Connect the Tax Cheat Dots (Since the New York Times Won’t)

Gee. Think there just might be a connection between this story in today’s paper,

Tax Cheats Called Out of Control: So many superrich Americans evade taxes using offshore accounts that law enforcement cannot control the growing misconduct, according to a Senate report that provides the most detailed look ever at high-level tax schemes.

and last week’s story,

I.R.S. to Cut Tax AuditorsThe federal government is moving to eliminate the jobs of nearly half of the lawyers at the Internal Revenue Service who audit tax returns of some of the wealthiest Americans, specifically those who are subject to gift and estate taxes when they transfer parts of their fortunes to their children and others.

Both stories are by David Cay Johnston, but he’s too coy to remind us of the first when writing the second…

Posted in Econ & Money, Law: Tax | Comments Off on Connect the Tax Cheat Dots (Since the New York Times Won’t)

Gen. Miller Gets a Medal

Buried deep inside a story buried deep inside today’s New York Times, General in Abu Ghraib Case Retires After Forced Delay, we find this gem: the General who presided over US torture inhumane treatment of detainees just got a medal,

At his retirement ceremony Monday, General Miller received the Distinguished Service Medal, which is awarded for exceptionally commendable service in a position of great responsibility, Army officials said.

Recall that Gen. Miller is the man who appears to have brought Gitmo-style ‘interrogation’ tactics to Iraq, and then used the Sgt. Shultz defense:

Because of his experience as a commander of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, General Miller was sent to Iraq in the summer of 2003 to review the detention system and interrogation techniques there. His mission was to recommend methods that would increase the success of intelligence-gathering as coalition forces battled a tenacious and growing insurgency.

Subsequently, dogs were used as a tool of intimidation of detainees at Abu Ghraib, and debate has swirled over responsibility for abusive interrogation procedures.

General Miller initially invoked his right not to give testimony that might incriminate him, and he did not testify at the first court-martial involving a dog handler at Abu Ghraib prison.

In May, he did testify at a second court-martial for another dog handler. During his testimony, General Miller said he never suggested that dogs be used to intimidate prisoners during interrogations in Iraq.

Posted in Torture | 2 Comments

Tropical Storm Chris

Here we go again. Looks as if Tropical Storm (and eventually Hurricane?) Chris has got us right in the cross-hairs:

So far, at least, the forecast doesn’t suggest the kind of things that strengthen it into a major hurricane … but even so-called not-major hurricanes have beat us up pretty badly in the past couple of years.

There’s nothing currently in the forecast to suggest it will turn either, but it’s not moving fast, so there’s plenty of time for everything to change. Meanwhile, though, the current forecast says there’s about a 10% chance it will hit here early in the weekend.

Posted in Miami | 3 Comments

Fidel and Miami

Following the announcement that Fidel Castro had ceded power (temporarily?) to his brother Raul, they were dancing in the streets of Miami last night, just on the chance that Fidel might be dead. It seems ghoulish to me, to dance on the grave (or would-be grave) of anyone, even a dictator who, however just some of the grievances that propelled his revolution, has since strangled his people and condemned them to needless economic, political, and cultural poverty (while improving health care and repelling a US invasion). But I am not an exile, or the (grand)child of an exile, cut off a stone’s throw from the ancestral land.

When I moved to Miami, one of the nightmare scenarios for civic authorities was that Fidel Castro would die and a couple of million Cubans would take a boat ride in order to resettle in Miami. The city had an entire master plan, with heavy police presence, near-martial law, a big command post, lots of shiny cop toys. In light of the number of people willing to come during the brief period that Castro had opened the gates, the scenario seemed plausible, even if the reaction seemed somewhat militaristic. Meanwhile, an important revanchist segment of the local Cuban exile power structure dreamed of returning to Cuba to take up the reigns of power that they or their fathers (always fathers) had been forced to surrender when Batista fell. I think they expected to be greeted with flowers, to reclaim their expropriated property, and to be acclaimed — or perhaps instantly elected — rulers. It all seemed rather Bourbon and unrealistic to me. Cuba might be stuck in an economic time warp, but socially and politically it had moved on since 1959. Plus the view from the more recent exiles — frequently drawn from the bottom of the economic and social ladder — sounded somewhat different than the view from the top. I foresaw disappointment at best, and more likely strife. These were, after all, the sons and brothers of Brigade 2506, and assorted other paramilitary groups that were still active up through at least the early 1990s.

But Fidel proved to be a tough old bird, and a decade and a half makes a difference. The exile generation is now mostly too old to dream of ruling, much less fighting, although not too old to seek back family property and dream of economic development … with a whiff of economic domination … a dream that seems congenial to the next, and entrepreneurial, generation. The US is home to many second and third generation exiles, and for many their quest in post-communist Cuba will be for investments, for second homes, for nannies and au pairs.

It’s unclear, though, whether the old fear of a mass exodus of Cubans to Miami, a ‘Mariel boatlift on steroids,’ still remains valid. Today’s papers don’t say much on the subject, other than to say that the county government has activated its Emergency Operations Center. The Herald reports that the feds are just standing by for now,

The U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are on standby until they receive official word to go on alert for their Cuba Plans.

”It’s a little too early,” said Zachary Mann, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about this in the next day or two.

Posted in Miami | 1 Comment

Florida Progressive Coalition Blog

Say hello to the new Florida Progressive Coalition Blog. Florida is the ultimate 50/50 state, so it’s always nice to see progressive activists at work. Oh yes, they’ve got a Progressive Coalition Wiki too.

[Update: Read more about the plan behind the effort at Daily Kos.]

Posted in Florida | Comments Off on Florida Progressive Coalition Blog

An Excellent Explanation of Why Bush’s Policy on ‘Signing Statements’ is So Rotten

Seven former OLC members, including Walter Dellinger and Marty Lederman have jointly authored, Untangling the Debate on Signing Statements. It’s a great explanation of the issues and why the Bush position on them is so troubling, and I’m in very substantial agreement with it.

Like the authors, I don’t for a second dispute the right, indeed duty, of the President to instruct the members of the executive branch in how to do their jobs — absent contrary congressional commands anyway. And Presidents have the right to say whatever they want when signing legislation. Like the authors, I don’t think this has much relevance to what a court should do if asked to decide the constitutionality of the statute. It’s certainly not on a par with legislative history — really nothing more than an argument in a brief. But there’s no harm in that.

And I accept that modern practice has for many years accepted that Presidents can sign a bill that they believe contains an unconstitutional provision then seek to have that part severed from the bill via court action — although the purist in me would prefer that the President veto the whole thing on constitutional grounds: Judicial severing of parts of legislation is not a particularly principled process and seems to be one that, for all its pragmatic short-run virtues, in the long run we might well be better-off without.

It’s no small matter when a President fails to execute or observe a statute — although constitutional grounds and subsequent court approval have in rare cases justified this stance. And the problem is more than doubled when — as is the case with the current administration — a President fails to observe the law in a manner which is designed to hide the ball, rather than make clear to the public and the courts that the President believes there’s a serious constitutional problem. It’s not ironic but deadly serious that this administration considers the statute requiring it to report when it fails to observe a law to be one of the many laws it doesn’t actually have to follow.

The other problem, of course, is that this administration has abused the ‘constitutional objection’ card beyond all credibility. Claiming that there are hundreds of bills that require executive correction betrays a worldview which says the President is a king, with fully and plenary powers not subject to legislative constraint and indeed has more-than-royal power to rewrite legislation at will.

A healthy democracy would have antibodies to this sort of thing. Ours seem very slow to swing into action. A big chunk of the blame lies in Congress, which has taken so much of this lying down for so long. And to be fair, part of it lies with the American people who voted this crew back into office in 2004. I hope 2006 will be a different story.

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | 1 Comment