by Bob Barr | Apr 22, 2019 | Townhall Article |
The Daily CallerThe expression “cut off your nose to spite your face” has been in use for centuries. I’m not sure it translates easily into Spanish, but it reflects accurately what the Trump administration did earlier this month in nixing a pending agreement between Major League Baseball (“MLB”) and its Cuban counterpart (the “FCB”).The MLB had spent years hashing out an agreement with the FCB that would establish a lawful and workable process by which Cuban ballplayers could be scouted in Cuba by U.S. major league teams, and then signed to gainful contracts.The proposed deal would have freed Cuban players from having to rely — as they now must — on dealing with smugglers and unscrupulous agents in order to secure passage out of their home country and into the United States in order to participate in “America’s pastime.” This is because under the existing embargo rules governing U.S.-Cuba relations, players in that country cannot negotiate as free agents while still in Cuba. Thus, these players, including many eagerly sought-after by MLB scouts, have to find surreptitious (and dangerous) ways to leave their island nation; evading the many obstacles placed in their way by the Cuban government.The Dec. 19 agreement would have solved those problems, and by every reasonable standard would have been a win for players, MLB teams, and baseball fans. Importantly, the MLB made sure the proposed agreement was vetted through the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). This is the agency charged with ensuring that no U.S. national security interests are compromised in arrangements between American and foreign entities.OFAC in fact had given...
by Bob Barr | Apr 17, 2019 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.comLast week, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was dragged from the Ecuadorean embassy in London by a phalanx of British police officers; abruptly ending his nearly seven years of self-imposed political asylum in those cramped quarters. Far from ending the saga that began almost a decade ago when WikiLeaks published the trove of classified materials pilfered from the U.S. government by convicted spy Chelsea (formerly, Bradley) Manning, last week’s drama raises a slew of new questions about Washington’s sudden, high-level interest in this 48-year old Australian entrepreneur, computer programmer, and publisher. Extradition proceedings in the U.K. will launch what is certain to be a lengthy and complex legal battle that ultimately will determine if Assange will be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice; or even if he can be prosecuted by our government. Where this will end up – and who will be the winners — is far from certain.The Justice Department last week unsealed a year-old indictment charging that Assange conspired with Manning in 2010 to break into Defense Department computers. According to this remarkably short (six-page) indictment, Manning then was able to download and copy hundreds of thousands of classified documents, mostly having to do with military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan; and many of which WikiLeaks published on its website over the course of the next year.Interestingly, Assange is not charged with any substantive offense; only with conspiring to help Manning in the acts that eventually saw her convicted of espionage by a court martial. Assange is sure to defend against federal prosecution based on the claim that — since he published the materials received from Manning in...
by Bob Barr | Apr 10, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comAs the saying goes, “it was great while it lasted.” On Friday, March 29th U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued an 86-page Order declaring unconstitutional California’s law criminalizing possession of firearm magazines with a capacity to hold more than 10 rounds. The senior jurist, who was confirmed to his post in 2004 following nomination by President George W. Bush, went further than do most judges when striking down a state law as contrary to the U.S. Constitution. He directed that his Order be effective immediately. In other words, Judge Benitez did not allow California to continue to enforce the unconstitutional law while the state appealed the decision (a process that can be expected to take months).Unfortunately, less than one week later – on Thursday, April 4th – Benitez relented, and stayed his Order so as to give California’s very liberal Attorney General, former Congressman Xavier Becerra, opportunity to appeal the decision to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding the judge’s about-face, his lengthy opinion declaring the magazine ban incompatible with the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right to keep and bear arms,” deserves continued scrutiny and praise. The opinion is strikingly lucid in explaining both the history and the practical necessity of allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, if they so choose, with a firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading.At the outset, Benitez properly underpins his analysis of the magazine ban by asserting that at its core, the Second Amendment is about self-defense; not hunting, not gun collecting, but defense of one’s person, family and home. Moreover, as he explains further, this foundational principle extends...
