June 12, 2008

A nagging question about today's ruling

Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh noted a working paper (PDF) by John List, who is an economics professor at the University of Chicago, and two co-authors alleging that the Endangered Species Act actually harms endangered species. 

Why?  During the time between rulings and implementation, there is often increased development in these areas.  Also, when citizens notice and endangered species on their land, are they more likely to kill and quickly hide the animal, or tell the government and be barred from using land.  Land that you own. 

That being said, isn't it now more likely that now enemy combatants will be killed than captured and interrogated, if only to keep someone obviously guilty from being released based on a technicality?

I (obviously) have little knowledge about how the military works in situations like that.  If there are any military scholars out there, I'd be interested  to hear your thoughts. 

For what it's worth, here is Sen. John McCain's statement on the ruling (with video).  Kinda weak, but what did you expect?

Update:  I am listening to the Mark Levin Show, and the military personnel who are calling in seem to agreeing to me that the kill ratios will go way up after this decision.  Better safe than sorry. 

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 06:07 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
13kb generated in CPU 0.0249, elapsed 0.1607 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.1449 seconds, 145 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.