Daily Archives: March 5, 2020

In an effort to increase education funding in Rhode Island, two state lawmakers have introduced a tax reform plan that would raise taxes on residents earning more than $500,000 annually. The new tax bracket would add 1 percentage point to the 5.99 percent top rate for income earned higher than $500,000. An incremental amount of the new revenue would be directed to a designated account for funding K-12 education

Although some supporters of so-called millionaire taxes argue large-scale relocation by wealthy taxpayers is not likely to occur, the negative effect of Marylands millionaire tax provides a stark example of what could take place in Rhode Island. In 2009, Maryland enacted a millionaire tax projected to raise an additional $106 million per year. Instead of providing the anticipated revenue increase, the number of Marylanders reporting incomes of $1 million or more fell by one-third just one year after the tax became law.

Although income taxes are often sold to the people as a tax on the rich, they almost never remain as such. Income taxes nearly always expand over time to cover increasingly more taxpayers, due to governments insatiable need for tax revenue, which it uses to fuel out-of-control spending.

Although proponents of the new tax claim it is necessary to improve the quality of Rhode Islands public education system, evidence demonstrates more education funding often does not improve educational outcomes. For example, real spending per student nationwide has increased by 23.5 percent over the past decade, however, education outcomes have not improved. Scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test have remained stagnant despite record education spending. Indeed, a Cato report on school spending found only a 0.075 correlation between the spending and academic performance changes of the past 40 years, for all 50 states. This correlation is so slight it is described as essentially no link between state education spending.

Rhode Island already spends more per pupil than many states. According to Education Week, Rhode Island spends $15,320 per pupil, $2,564 more than the national average. Despite a higher level of spending, Rhode Island scored lower on the NAEP than many of its neighbors and ranked in the middle of the pack nationally according to the Providence Journal.

Instead of throwing more money at the problem, Rhode Island residents should demand increased educational opportunities for children and families. Overwhelming evidence shows that education freedom improves student safety, produces better education outcomes, increases parental satisfaction, and increases per-pupil funding for the students choosing to stay in their traditional public school.

This can be accomplished through a variety of measures. One solution is education savings accounts (ESA), which are private accounts managed by parents that are used on educational expenses for their child. Parents can use the funds to pay for online classes, private school tuition, personal tutors, books and other curricular materials, or even used to save for higher education. ESAs would allow all Rhode Island families to meet their childs educational needsand to do so at a lower cost.

Rather than increase taxes on higher earners and inhibit economic growth, Rhode Islands elected officials should focus on making the state a more attractive place for businesses and workers, a goal that would best be accomplished by restraining spending, lowering tax rates, and reducing unnecessary regulations.

The documents cited below examine millionaire taxes, their history of failing to shore up budgets and increase revenue, and the fallacy of trying improving education outcomes with increased funding alone.

Everything You Know About State Education Rankings Is Wronghttps://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/table.pdfIn this ranking, Reason Foundation uses on learning related metrics to create a more accurate ranking of state education. These rankings better reflect quality and efficiency, rather than per pupil spending, graduation rates, pre-K enrollment, and aggregated student data.

The 123s of School Choicehttps://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/123s-of-School-Choice.pdfIn this report, EdChoice experts review more than 140 empirical studies on school choice programs. They summarize these results making it easy for policy makers and others to quickly see what is working and what is not.

Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement?https://www.heritage.org/education/report/does-spending-more-education-improve-academic-achievementDan Lips and Shanea Watkins of The Heritage Foundation discuss the rising cost of education and whether increasing education spending has improved education outcomes. Taxpayers have invested considerable resources in the nations public schools. However, ever-increasing funding of Education has not led to similarly improved student performance. Instead of simply increasing funding for public Education, federal and state policymakers should implement Education reforms designed to improve resource allocation and boost student performance, wrote Lips and Watkins.

School Spending and Student Achievement in Michigan: Whats the Relationship?https://www.mackinac.org/22355In this report, Ben DeGrow and Edward C. Hoang of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy examine the relationship between school spending and student achievement in Michigan. The results suggest that there is only a very limited correlation between these two factors. Only one out of the 28 academic outputs analyzed showed a result that was positive and statistically significant, or different from zero, the authors reported.

Ten State Solutions to Emerging Issueshttps://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/ten-state-solutions-to-emerging-issues-2018This Heartland Institute booklet explores solutions to the top public policy issues facing the states in 2018 and beyond in the areas of budget and taxes, education, energy and environment, health care, and constitutional reform. The solutions identified are proven reform ideas that have garnered significant support among the states and with legislators.

Trend #1: Millionaires Taxeshttp://taxfoundation.org/article/trend-1-millionaires-taxesJoseph Henchman of the Tax Foundation examines the millionaire tax trend in this Fiscal Fact article. A number of states have enacted high income taxes on those with large incomes. Although nicknamed millionaires taxes, they have hit income at much lower levels. The trend seems to have petered out although California and Maryland may see further action, Henchman writes.

Should We Raise Taxes on the Rich?http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/14/should-we-raise-taxes-on-the-rPeter Ferrara, senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy at The Heartland Institute, writes in the American Spectator about taxing the rich and explains why such policies make no fiscal sense.

Long-run Macroeconomic Impact of Increasing Tax Rates on High-Income Taxpayers in 2013https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/long-run-macroeconomic-impact-of-increasing-tax-rates-on-high-income-taxpayers-in-2013?source=policybotThis report from Ernst & Young conducted on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Federation of Independent Business, the S Corporation Association, and the United States Chamber of Commerce examines the long-term impact of an increase in top income tax rates.

Seven Myths About Taxing the Richhttps://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/seven-myths-about-taxing-the-richCurtis S. Dubay of The Heritage Foundation considers seven commonly cited myths about policies to tax the rich. Dubay argues raising taxes on the rich would increase the progressivity of an already highly progressive tax code. It also would damage economic growth by stifling job creation, further slowing already stagnant wage growth. Although some see raising taxes on the rich as a silver bullet for fiscal woes, it actually badly damages the economy, he writes.

Education Savings Accounts: The Future of School Choice Has Arrivedhttps://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/education-savings-accounts-the-future-of-school-choice-has-arrivedIn this Heartland Policy Brief, Policy Analyst Tim Benson discusses how universal ESA programs offer the most comprehensive range of educational choices to parents; describes the six ESA programs currently in operation; and reviews possible state-level constitutional challenges to ESA programs.

Nothing in thisResearch & Commentaryis intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of The Heartland Institute. For further information on this and other topics, visit The Heartland Institutes website, andPolicyBot, Heartlands free online research database.

If you have any questions about this issue or The Heartland Institutes website, contact the government relations team, at governmentrelations@heartland.org or 312-377-4000.

Go here to see the original:

Publications - Research & Commentary: More Education Funding Does Not Improve Education Outcomes - The Heartland Institute

MIXED RESULTS: Five days into an agreement with the Taliban, and five days before peace talks are supposed to begin between the Taliban and the Afghan government, the United States is trying to keep the warring parties on the path to peace.

This agreement ... lays out a framework by which we could proceed toward an eventual intra-Afghan negotiation, Defense Secretary Mark Esper told Congress yesterday. It was supposed to happen at this point five days from now, and the results so far have been mixed.

On Tuesday, the Taliban mounted 43 separate attacks against government checkpoints in Afghanistans restive Helmand province, according to Col. Sonny Leggett, the chief spokesman for U.S Forces in Afghanistan. The resumption of violence resulted in the deaths of 25 Afghan troops, according to one report, and prompted a U.S. drone strike against the Taliban yesterday. In a tweet, Leggett said that Taliban fighters appear intent on squandering the opportunity for peace.

SMALL, LOW-LEVEL ATTACKS: Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, who appeared with Esper before the Senate Armed Services Committee, downplayed the significance of the resumption of violence, dismissing the Taliban offensive as a series of small, low-level attacks out on checkpoints.

They're all beaten back, they're at small, little outposts, said Milley, adding, There's a whole laundry list of these things that aren't happening There's no attacks in 34 provincial capitals, there's no attacks in Kabul, there's no high-profile attacks, there's no suicide bombers, there's no vehicle-borne suicide, no attack against U.S. forces, no attack against coalition.

MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: One thing has become clear since the historic agreement was signed in Doha on Saturday the U.S. and the Taliban have very different views about the Talibans responsibility to further reduce violence as peace talks begin.

The Taliban are honoring their piece of it in terms of not attacking U.S. and coalition forces but not in terms of sustaining the reduction of violence. Our special envoy is over there now, he's going to bring pulling the parties back together, Esper said, referring to Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. diplomat who negotiated the U.S. troop withdrawal agreement.

Esper suggested that the latest attack may have been conducted by rogue commanders who need to be reined in. Keeping that group of people on board is a challenge, he said. They've got their range of hardliners and softliners, and so, they're wrestling with that, too, I think.

KHALILZADS CHALLENGE: In addition to trying to get the Taliban to back off, Khalilzad is attempting to resolve the impasse over the U.S. promise to facilitate the release of up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners in a swap that was supposed to be a prelude to next Tuesday's peace talks. Afghan President Asraf Ghani has vetoed that part of the deal, which was made without his input.

In a series of tweets, Khalilzad said he met last night with Taliban chief negotiator Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar for a candid discussion about next steps, followed by a constructive phone call with President Trump.

VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP: After that call, Trump told reporters, The relationship is very good that I have with the mullah. And we had a good, long conversation today. And, you know, they want to cease the violence. They'd like to cease violence also.

Asked about the reluctance of the Afghan government to release thousands of Taliban fighters without a ceasefire or any progress on peace talks, Trump said, Well, they may be reluctant. You know, they've done very well with the United States for many years, far beyond military, if you look at all the money that we've spent in Afghanistan. We've spent trillions of dollars. Trillions of dollars.

US is committed to facilitating prisoner exchange, agreed in both US-Taliban Agreement & US-Afghanistan Joint Declaration. We will support each side to release significant numbers, Khalilzad tweeted.

THE BIG PROBLEM: The U.S. has oversold the agreement with the Taliban in its zeal to carry out Trumps desire to get out of Afghanistan after more than 18 years of war, argues Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who notes the deal includes no stipulations that the Taliban must halt attacks on Afghan forces.

Roggio accuses the U.S. of an active disinformation campaign by officials who seem determined to misrepresent the agreement.

On Sunday, [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo claimed that the Taliban denounced al Qaeda and was committed to destroy the group. However, the deal says no such thing, Roggio writes. Instead, the Taliban committed to preventing al Qaeda from attacking the U.S. and its allies. This is the same commitment the Taliban made numerous times prior to Sept. 11, 2001. The Taliban has made similar promises since 9/11, yet it has harbored al Qaeda and other terror groups that have plotted against the U.S. and its allies.

Good Thursday morning and welcome to Jamie McIntyres Daily on Defense, written and compiled by Washington Examiner National Security Senior Writer Jamie McIntyre (@jamiejmcintyre) and edited this morning by David Sivak. Email here with tips, suggestions, calendar items, and anything else. Sign up or read current and back issues at DailyonDefense.com. If signing up doesnt work, shoot us an email and well add you to our list. And be sure to follow us on Twitter: @dailyondefense.

Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine and get Washington Briefing: politics and policy stories that will keep you up to date with what's going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

NOTE TO READERS: Did you miss your Daily on Defense yesterday? It wasnt you, it was us. We had some unforeseen technical issues and were unable to publish Tuesday. Also please note that Daily on Defense will be on Spring Break the week of March 16 - 20 and will return to your inbox beginning Monday, March 23.

HAPPENING TODAY: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is meeting in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin to try to reach a ceasefire agreement that would end fighting between Turkish forces and Syrian government troops in Syria's northwestern Idlib province.

Syrian forces, with Russian air cover, were on a march to wipe out the last rebel stronghold in Syria when they ran smack into Turkish troops and found themselves up against the second-largest army in NATO. Things came to a head on Feb. 27, when a Syrian airstrike on a Turkish convoy killed at least 33 Turkish troops.

In response, the Turkish forces have used drones and artillery attacks to destroy hundreds of Syrian vehicles and equipment, shot down three Syrian planes, and reportedly killed some 3,000 Syrian troops.

A report in the Economist described it this way: Turkey punched back mostly with unmanned drones, an indigenous model called the Bayraktar that has also seen combat in Iraq and against Kurdish insurgents in eastern Turkey. They fly low and slow, without the range and payload of Americas hulking Reapers. But they pack enough power to wreck armoured units. Syrias air defences, never very formidable, were useless against swarms of drones orbiting overhead. When Syrian jets managed to shoot one down, a Turkish F-16 soon downed two of the Syrian craft the regimes worst single-day aerial losses since the war began.

BEST DEFENSE IS A GOOD OFFENSE: There is no defense against hypersonic. It goes five to 10 times the speed of sound. You're not going to defend against it.

That was the blunt assessment of Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley discussing the future of warfare in which maneuverable hypersonic missiles and glide vehicles will change todays concepts of missile defense.

You're not going to shoot the arrow. Those things are going so fast you're not going to get it. You got to shoot the archer, Milley said. You got to go deep downtown, and you got to get on the offense. If you want to defeat hypersonics, you got to go to the source, the launch pads.

During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Mark Esper insisted the U.S. is not giving up on hypersonic defenses. We are putting money into defensive systems, he testified. One of the early things that we know we need that money is going directly into is a is a low-earth orbit missile tracking system, if you will, that would be able to track hypersonic systems moving through the atmosphere.

Related: Washington Examiner: How Russia got hypersonic missiles before the US

A BILLION HERE, A BILLION THERE: A new Government Accountability Office report has found that the Pentagon has failed to collect reimbursement for thousands of instances in which the U.S. provided support to partners and allies, at a potential cost of $1 billion.

Orders remain unpaid in part because DOD has not requested timely repayment or monitored reimbursement, the report found. These management weaknesses limit DOD's ability to obtain reimbursement for overdue [acquisition and cross-servicing agreement] orders, which, according to DOD, were valued at more than $1 billion as of November 2019.

I've tried to track that number down. I can't find the billion-dollar number, Esper said when questioned by Rhode Island Democrat Sen. Jack Reed. Esper said the reimbursements were caught up at this time but said there are still approximately $38 million outstanding in flying costs.

I want to pull the thread a little bit more on that billion-dollar number to make sure I'm not missing something and that GAO report is helping.

WAR CRIMES INQUIRY: The American Civil Liberties Union has prevailed upon the International Criminal Court to open an investigation into alleged war crimes said to have been committed by U.S. military and intelligence forces in, or related to, the war in Afghanistan.

In a reversal of a previous ruling, the ICC also approved the scope of the investigation into CIA black sites in Poland, Lithuania, and Romania, the ACLU said in a release.

The ACLU represents three men, all of whom claim to have been tortured in Afghanistan.

BOLTON BOOK DELAYED: The lengthy White House review process of John Boltons book has bumped the publication date of The Room Where it Happened until May. The book was set to publish later this month on March 17, but the White House must first comb through the memoir to ensure that no confidential details are published.

Portions of Boltons book have already leaked to the press, including information about Trumps phone call with Ukrainian leaders that became the foundation for the House impeachment process. Bolton wrote that Trump had said Ukraines military aid was being put on hold until it announced an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.

EXERCISE CANCELED: Just days after it said a joint U.S.-Israel missile exercise would go on as scheduled, the U.S. European Command has announced the remaining portion of Exercise Juniper Cobra 20 has been canceled.

The decision is in alignment with recent Israeli Ministry of Health guidelines on COVID-19, and a precautionary measure to ensure the health and safety of all participants, said a statement from EUCOM this morning.

INDUSTRY WATCH:

Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin Joint Venture: The State Department has approved the potential sale of 180 Javelin missiles and 79 Javelin Command Launch Units to Poland at an estimated cost of $100 million.

Boeing: The State Department has also approved the potential sale of up to eight KC-46 Pegasus refueling aircraft for an estimated cost of $2.4 billion.

A KEANE HONOR: Retired Four Star General Jack Keane will recieve [sic] the PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM next week! Trump tweeted. Trump, a notoriously bad speller, apparently forgot the old rule, I before E except after Keane.

Washington Examiner: House Armed Services chairman wants to 'claw back' Trump border wall money

Washington Examiner: How Russia got hypersonic missiles before the US

Washington Examiner: Chinese company accuses CIA of decadelong hacking campaign

Washington Examiner: 'F--- the peace deal': SEAL who shot Osama bin Laden celebrates US airstrike after Taliban pact breached

The Economist: Turkey hits back against Syria, risking escalation with Russia

AL-Monitor: Pentagon says Patriot sale to Turkey still on table

Air Force Magazine: Congress May Intervene to Speed KC-46 Fixes

Reuters: U.S. Defense linguist charged with transmitting classified intelligence

Air Force Magazine: F-35 Full-Rate Production May Slip Again

Bloomberg: Nearly All the F-35 Jet Engines Ordered Last Year Arrived Late

The Hill: Coronavirus fears have stopped F-35 lines in Japan, Italy, Pentagon says

Stars and Stripes: Two U.S. Military Dependents Test Positive For COVID-19 In South Korea

Washington Post: Iranian Leadership Hit Hard, And Hospitals Give Bleak Assessment Of Spread

National Defense Magazine: Elon Musk: U.S. Needs Star Trek's Starfleet to Compete Against China

Miliitary.com: Here are the 16 jobs that will be available to troops in Space Force

Forbers: Ten Ways A Democratic President Would Change The Trump Defense Posture

THURSDAY | MARCH 5

8 a.m. 2425 Wilson Blvd., Arl. Association of the U.S. Army Hot Topics Forum on "Army Space and AMD (Air and Missile Defense): Protection of the U.S. Homeland, Forces Abroad, Allies and Partners, with Army Lt. Gen. James Dickinson, deputy commander of the U.S. Space Command; and Navy Vice Adm. Jon Hill, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. https://www.ausa.org/events/amd-hot-topic

9 a.m. 2359 Rayburn House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense hearing on Defense Health Program, with Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. R. Scott Dingle; Navy Surgeon General Rear Adm. Bruce Gillingham; Air Force Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Dorothy Hogg, Thomas McCaffery, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs; Lt. Gen. Ronald Place, director, Defense Health Agency; and Bill Tinston, program executive officer, Defense Healthcare Management Systems. https://appropriations.house.gov/events/hearings

9:30 a.m. 2212 Rayburn House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces Hearing: The Fiscal Year 2021 Army and Marine Corps Ground Modernization Programs, with testimony from Bruce Jette, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics, and technology; Gen. John Murray, commanding general, Army Futures Command; Lt. Gen. Eric Smith, commanding general, Marine Corps Combat Development Command; and James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, and acquisition. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

3 p.m. 1030 15th St. N.W. Atlantic Council discussion with British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace on "The Next Era of UK Defense." https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event

6 p.m. 600 New Jersey Ave. N.W. Georgetown University Law Center discussion: "America's Misadventure With Torture: New Revelations and Hard Lessons, with former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez; Alka Pradhan, human rights counsel to Guantanamo Military Commissions; former Military Commissions Chief Investigator Mark Fallon; Susan Brandon, former research director of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group; Gregg Bloche, professor at Georgetown Law; David Luban, professor at Georgetown Law; and Steven Barela, senior fellow at the University of Geneva. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news

TUESDAY | MARCH 10

10 a.m. 2118 Rayburn House Armed Services Committee hearing National Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activities in the Greater Middle East and Africa, with Kathryn Wheelbarger, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs; Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander, U.S. Central Command; Gen. Stephen Townsend, commander, U.S. Africa Command. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

2 p.m. 2118 Rayburn House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces Hearing: Department of Defense Tactical and Rotary Aircraft Acquisition and Modernization Programs in the FY21 Presidents Budget Request, with Bruce Jette, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics, and technology; Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen, director, future vertical lift cross-functional team, Army Futures Command; James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, and acquisition; Lt. Gen. Steven Rudder, deputy Marine Corps Commandant for Aviation; Rear Adm. Greg Harris, director, air warfare office of the Chief of Naval Operations; William Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology, and logistics; Gen. James Holmes, commander, Air Combat Command; Lt. Gen. David Nahom, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Requirements. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

2:30 p.m. 2212 Rayburn House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel Hearing: Domestic Violence in the Military Services What is Being Done to Reduce the Scourge of these Abhorrent Crimes? with Dolores Geise, director, Soldier and Family Readiness, U.S. Army; Lolita Allen, Navy counseling, advocacy, and prevention program manager; Col. Patrick Pohle, chief, Air Force Family Advocacy Program; Lisa Eaffaldano, assistant branch head, Prevention and Clinical Services, U.S. Marines Corps. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

WEDNESDAY | MARCH 11

10 a.m. 2118 Rayburn House Armed Services Committee hearing: National Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activity in North and South America, with Kenneth Rapuano, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and global security; Adm. Craig Faller, commander, U.S. Southern Command; Gen. Terrence OShaughnessy, commander, U.S. Northern Command. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

2 p.m. 2118 Rayburn House Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities hearing: Reviewing Department of Defense Science and Technology Strategy, Policy, and Programs for Fiscal Year 2021: Maintaining a Robust Ecosystem for Our Technological Edge, with Michael Griffin, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering; Bruce Jette, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics, and technology; James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, and acquisition; William Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology, and logistics. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

2:30 p.m. 2212 Rayburn House Armed Services Subcommittees on Seapower and Projection Forces and Readiness Joint Hearing: Sealift and Mobility Requirements in Support of the National Defense Strategy, with Gen. Steve Lyons, commander, U.S. Transportation Command; Mark Buzby, U.S. Maritime Administration; Vice Adm. Ricky Williamson, deputy chief of naval operations, Lt. Gen. David Nahom, Air Force deputy chief of staff for plans and programs. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

2:30 p.m. 106 Dirksen Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel hearing on programs in the Department of Defense, with Matthew Donovan, performing the duties of the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness; Virginia Penrod, acting assistant secretary of defense for manpower & reserve affairs; Thomas McCaffery, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs; Thomas Constable, acting assistant secretary of defense for readiness; Elizabeth Van Winkle, executive director, office of force resiliency. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings

THURSDAY | MARCH 12

9 a.m. 2118 Rayburn House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing: FY21 Navy and Marine Corps Readiness Posture, with James Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy, research, development, and acquisition; Adm. Robert Burke, Vice Chief of Naval Operations; Gen. Gary Thomas, Assistant Marine Corps Commandant. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

9:30 a.m. 2212 Rayburn House Armed Services Subcommittee Strategic Forces hearing: FY21 Priorities for Missile Defense and Missile Defeat Programs, with Gen. Terrence OShaughnessy, commander, U.S. Northern Command; Vice Adm. Jon Hill, director, Missile Defense Agency; Lt. Gen. Daniel Karbler, commanding general, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command; Rob Soofer, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy; Cristina Chaplain, Director, contracting and national security acquisitions team, Government Accountability Office. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

FRIDAY | MARCH 13

8 a.m. 1135 16th St. N.W. American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security breakfast, with Special Inspector General John Sopko discussing Corruption: A Threat to Rule of Law and Sustainable Peace in Afghanistan. https://www.americanbar.org/news

There is no defense against hypersonic. It goes five to 10 times the speed of sound. You're not going to defend against it You're not going to shoot the arrow. Those things are going so fast you're not going to get it. You got to shoot the archer.

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifying Wednesday on the challenge of defending against hypersonic weapons.

Continued here:

As Taliban resume their offensive, Pentagon downplays US airstrike in response to deadly attacks - Washington Examiner

The Judiciary seems to be making a concerted effort to protect its independence and dignity, in contrast to all other

institutions in the country which are on the verge of collapse without any attempt being made to rescue them

Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

It is evident that the Podu Peramuna Government led by Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the new President, wants desperately to withdraw the cases filed during the Yahapalana regime against corruption and criminal acts alleged to have committed during the previous regime of Mahinda Rajapaksa. However, in the absence of the support of the Judiciary, it appears clearly that a cold war situation has arisen between the Government and the Judiciary.

Some of them involved in those lawsuits publicly supported Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the Presidential Election while presidential candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa also defended them vigorously on election platforms.

The new President, soon after assuming office, appointed a three-member Presidential Commission to look into the alleged political reprisals during the Yahapalana regime. Perhaps he might have thought that it would be an easy way to rescue all those involved in litigation.

The Presidential Commission, in response to a complaint made by Wasantha Karannagoda, a former Navy Commander and D.P.K. Dissanayake, a former Navy Spokesman, issued a directive to the Attorney General to suspend the case relating to the abduction and disappearance of 11 youths until the Commission completes its investigation. The Commission may have believed that the Attorney General would disregard the law and accept the directive issued by them on behalf of the new Government which had assumed office after a huge electoral victory.

But the Attorney General refused to accept the order issued by the Commission and informed it that it is only a Commission of Inquiry, and as such the Commission had no power to issue such an order to the Attorney General who is empowered by the Constitution to pursue the case; moreover, the Attorney General informed the Commission that his department had filed the case merely on the basis of evidence presented at the inquiry and not on any other grounds. The Commission could not challenge the Attorney Generals position. This can be considered the first conflict the new Government has created with the Judiciary.

Udayanga and Karannagoda

The next incident pertaining to the Judiciary occurred when Udayanga Weeratunga, ex-Sri Lankan Ambassador to Russia and a close relative of the Rajapaksa family, who stayed out of the country for a long time, evading the Judiciary, was produced before the Fort Magistrates Court upon his return to Sri Lanka following the Presidential Election victory. Apparently the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had made all possible arrangements to ensure that Udayanga Weeratunga would be released on bail without any difficulty.

However, Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake not only questioned the Police officers vehemently about the arrangements made by the Criminal Investigation Department to secure bail for the defendant, but also refused to grant bail. Thereafter, when the case was taken for hearing on day two, he further stated that the defendant would be remanded until the conclusion of the case as a Magistrates Court does not have the power to grant bail for offences committed against the Public Property Act.

This case had been presented to the Court by a Police officer who had nothing to do with the investigation. The two Police officers who had conducted the investigation of this case for over five years had been transferred. As there was no record that the fiscal notice issued on the two Police officers to join the case had been handed over to them, the Magistrate issued an order to the Acting Inspector General of Police to reinstate them to the investigation process of the case.

The next significant incident occurred on 24 February when the case on the abduction and disappearance of 11 youth in 2008 and 2009 was taken for hearing in High Court before a three-member panel of judges. This can be considered a case in which the Presidential Commission tried to intervene. The Police had failed for the third time to produce Wasantha Karannagoda, former Navy Commander, who was a defendant in the case, before the Court.

Justice Champa Janaki Rajaratne, the Chairperson of the three-member panel of judges, said before open Court that the 14th accused who had held the highest rank in the Navy evading the Judiciary cannot be considered a simple matter. The Chairperson further stated that the Police should be ashamed of their inability to hand over the relevant summons to the accused and stressed that the Court expressed its deep displeasure on it and emphasised that the law should be enforced equally on everybody.

The Senior Additional Solicitor General who leads the case pointed out that the investigation file which was in the custody of the Criminal Investigation Department had been handed over to the Presidential Commission by order of the Presidential Commission and consequently the proceedings of this case are completely hindered. The three-member panel ordered the Director CID to take the investigation file into his custody immediately and also to send a copy of the order to the Chairman of the Presidential Commission.

Silver lining in the Judiciary

Just because a new government has come to power, it does not mean that there can be a system in the law to expedite proceedings of cases being heard against certain individuals connected with the Government. If the Attorney General and the judges had adopted a demeaning policy in these three incidents outlined above to satisfy the Government, it would certainly have become a phenomenon that signifies the demise of the Judiciary.

Taking these three events together, the Judiciary seems to be making a concerted effort to protect its independence and dignity, in contrast to all other institutions in the country which are on the verge of collapse without any attempt being made to rescue them.

It was the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) that handled most of the controversial cases. They can be considered massive investigations carried out in the field of criminal investigation. Some investigations were influenced by the former President and other political powers; yet the investigation process continued without being succumbed to their pressure. The new Government soon after it came to power bulldozed the Criminal Investigation Department completely, notwithstanding the fact that there was a Police Commission.

The ability of the Judiciary of Sri Lanka to prove that it has not fallen into a demeaning level that would force itself to dismiss cases of public interest can be compared to a silver lining flashing in the middle of the darkness. The country is in a historical moment at which it is fast moving towards complete anarchy. Although not understood by the public, the entire system of Sri Lanka is in a state of collapse. A complete collapse may occur at the same time when parliamentary election is on or soon after the Parliamentary Election. As a result, the country might be plunged into an anarchic situation.

If the Judiciary in Sri Lanka will be able to safeguard and strengthen its independence, impartiality, and dignity in the face of this crisis without falling prey to the impending collapse, it will certainly be able to perform a pioneering role in minimising the damage caused to the public under anarchic situation whilst at the same time dispelling the darkness of anarchy.

In the event of a complete collapse of the country, the responsibility of rebuilding the government and the entire institutional system into a democratic system rests upon the people and not on the politicians. If the Judiciary will be able to strengthen its existence without being a victim of the crisis, invariably it will be able to play a pioneering role in guiding the public in the process of recreation and reconstruction of the institutional system.

The evolution of the Judiciary

It was due to Colebrook Cameron Reforms implemented during the British rule in 1833 that Sri Lanka inherited a modern judicial system. There was no one common judicial system prior to that. There were several systems, one system exclusively for Europeans and many more for natives. The Governor or the Chief Executive of the country at that time also held great judicial power.

The Colebrook Reforms abolished the judicial powers of the Governor and the right of the Chief Justice to represent the main Executive Council and instead established a Supreme Court comprised of the Chief Justice and two other junior judges. All Lower Courts were brought under a uniform system of justice under the control of the Supreme Court.

Along with this, all people, regardless of race, caste, creed or class, were treated equal before the law. Therefore, Sri Lanka got a modern and optimum judicial system. At the same time, a judicial system which would not hesitate to take decisions against even the Governor who could be considered the most powerful person of the country was established. The decision reached by a panel of judges headed by the Chief Justice that the order issued by the Governor to deport Bracegirdle, a European Radical in Sri Lanka.in Bracegirdle case was contrary to the law, is a good example that can be cited to show the independence of the Judiciary at the time.

The decline of the Judiciary

Prior to independence, the majority of judges in judicial service comprised Europeans, while the majority of native judges in judicial service were Burghers. Both factions can be regarded as a group fostered by liberal thought and had a deep understanding of the role of the Judiciary in a modern democratic state. At the same time, they were well aware of the role of the Judiciary in a modern democratic state.

But since independence, not only Europeans but also the Burghers who constituted an indigenous ethnic group, left Sri Lanka, and the Judiciary became an institution comprised almost of indigenous judges. But the indigenous judges did not comprise of a team inspired and fostered by liberal thinking. They did not have a proper understanding of the role of the Judiciary in a democratic political system. Consequently, a judicial tradition that supported the policies of the governments in power, irrespective of whether they are right or wrong came into being.

The emptiness or the unsubstantial nature of freedom that Sri Lanka gained also had an impact on it. The Indian independence struggle functioned as a movement that spread basic concepts of democracy among the masses. Such a thing didnt happen as far as the independence movement of Sri Lanka was concerned.

The Indian Freedom Movement caused a major change in social psyche. But, the independence movement in Sri Lanka failed to make such a far reaching impact on the social consciousness. So much so, India did not carry forward the judicial system that it inherited from Britain as it is. India, having studies all the important judicial systems in the world developed a new judicial system to suit the needs of the country.

The Constituent Assembly of India regarded the new judicial system formulated by itself as the custodian of the ongoing program of social revolution unleashed by the independence struggle. The Indian Independence Movement and the Constitution making program that created a new constitution for India gave the Indian Judiciary an advanced perspective on the social role of the Judiciary.

However, neither the independence movement of Sri Lanka nor the independence gained was able to give such an advanced vision to the Sri Lankan Judiciary. Therefore, the Judiciary of Sri Lanka always tended to function as a prosecuting body and not as an institution that shed light on the governance process. For example, on the language issue that arose in 1956, the Judiciary of Sri Lanka functioned only as a defender of the ideology of the ruling party, the triumphant political stream and failed to guide the country and the government in the right path.

It was only after 1977 that the stagnant character of the Judiciary changed to a certain extent. It can be considered a dark period in which the ruling party which had a five-sixth parliamentary power interfered with the Judiciary in a very ugly manner and attacked it brutally. However, the Judiciary was able to play a leading role in protecting and expanding human rights while safeguarding its autonomy to some extent and without being a political cats- paw for the ruling party. President J. R. Jayewardene appointed Neville Samarakoon, a personal friend of him as chief justice, may be with the hope that he would have been able to persuade the Judiciary to function as a political cats paw of the government.

Nevertheless, Neville Samarakoon, from the time he was appointed Chief Justice, chose to act in a manner that protected the independence of the Judiciary and public rights rather than defending President Jayewardene or his Government. Despite the fact that the Judiciary was under severe attack by the Government, this era can be considered the golden age of the Judiciary in Sri Lanka after independence.

Restore the dignity

The Judiciary was on a forward journey safeguarding its independence and dignity until its custody was assigned to Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva, during the regime of Chandrika Bandaranaike. Sarath Nanda Silva can be regarded as the leader of the Judiciary who completely reversed the forward march of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva can be considered the one who has completely ruined the reputation of the Judiciary.

Almost all the professions in Sri Lanka have lost their dignity to some extent. The dignity lost cannot be regained arbitrarily. It can be restored not by force, but by dignified conduct. All professional institutions do not enforce the law against their professional colleagues when they breach professional discipline. In that sense, the Judicial Service Commission can be considered the foremost agency among them.

Despite shortcomings, there seems to be a mechanism operative in the Judicial Service Commission for investigating complaints against judges who commit offences. The Judicial Service Commission took stern action against High Court Judge Gihan Pilapitiya. Recently, it was in the news that a High Court judge had passed a 16-year jail sentence on a District Judge for taking a bribe of Rs. 300,000 to pass a favourable judgment in a case heard by him.

If there are corrupt judges in the Judiciary, it is imperative that they are removed from service. In the days of Sarath Nanda Silva, the Judicial Service Commission followed a policy of protecting even judges who committed serious offences. The policy adopted in regard to Magistrate Lenin Ratnayake and District Judge Upali Abeyratne are two good examples that can be cited to illustrate this. Sarath Nanda Silva during his tenure as Chief Justice had maintained close contacts with underworld criminals.

Noufur, who assassinated Justice Sarath Ambepitiya, acted as a close supporter who defrayed the cost of functions held in the judges training institute. The Mahinda Rajapaksa regime that came after the reign of Chandrika Kumaratunga also can be described as an era of brutal attacks on the Judiciary.

See the rest here:

Anarchy and the Judiciary - ft.lk