Frank's Musings

Merrick Garland approaches his AG job as an appeals court judge—refusing to take action before giving thought to all aspects. An AG should act like a prosecutor—forming a theory of the applicable law and quickly s following through.

Of course, he doesn’t act as if he were the President’s lawyer—that was how William Barr played his role under Trump.  However, Garland has so far been disappointing to progressives who expected more active enforcement of federal laws regarding social equity.

 Why do the news media continue to report and comment on the former president’s activities and declarations as he continues to ignore reality?  Yes, he has the means (in part because of his pension as a retired past president) and disaffected promoters and following.  He really believes he earned it and that they confirm his self-evaluation. 

Even those parts of the media that profess to abhor his disdain for communal governance don’t seem able to resist the temptation to fill their news coverage and commentary with his latest antics. They appear not to realize that to him the only bad publicity is no publicity.  And since his message is that most media pundits and government officials are untrustworthy, he, his followers and promoters believe denunciations in the media only substantiate that message.

Even though some of the former president’s satirists brag about not mentioning his name, their continual focus on his outrageous behavior only succeeds in further disseminating his messages and verifying them. They must believe that their audience depends on this media presentation for confirmation of their own attitudes—after all, that is the rationale for the product advertising that keeps them in business.

Putin refuses to control ransomware extorters; Biden neglects Taliban suppressers of women’s rights.  It is not appropriate for either of them to do otherwise.

Although there are extradition treaties between the U.S. and both Russia and Afghanistan, those treaties are probably irrelevant because those governments cannot be expected to acknowledge either of these actions as a violation of law.  It is surely unlikely that the Russian Federation views taking advantage of a democracy’s dependence on free information as harmful to its own national interest.  Similarly, the presumptive government of Afghanistan under the Taliban will consider limited women’s rights as consistent with its culture of strict Islamic law. Therefore, a violation of U.S. law is not a compelling reason for extradition in either jurisdiction.

In the end, it is not up to any government to enforce its own culture and laws in other states.  Only when the conduct of another country’s residents or institutions threatens the welfare of one's own nation is transnational intervention justified.  On the other hand, if a nation’s private citizens feel compelled to support non-violent change in another country, a government that allows such activity is no worse a transgressor on the comity of nations than the government which ignores extortion by its residents of victims in a rival country or condones unequal social treatment of women.

Advocates of women’s rights in Afghanistan should direct their appeals for support to the private sector rather than to the American or any other government.  Similarly, in order to adequately protect their citizens against extortion, Western .governments may be forced to prohibit block-chain and other crypto-currency methods of disguising ransom payment transactions. Both cases illustrate how the IT revolution now makes it possible for private individuals to act in concert to further their common cultural and moral standards independent of the governments they authorize to manage their national politics.