He has the three things that are necessary to establish an authoritarian government. And so we need to be ever-vigilant, because freedom is precious.

Broun’s a believer in the “Obama wants to create a civilian army” myth, which he goes on about at length.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Davis, as I’ve explained before, has been on death row in Georgia since 1989, when he was found guilty of killing an off-duty police officer based on the testimony of nine eyewitnesses. There was no physical evidence directly linking him to the crime, however,  and seven of the nine witnesses have since recanted their earlier statements. Another man has also boasted of committing the crime and new witnesses have said that other man was the real perpetrator. Some of the original witnesses claim they were pressured by police to identify Davis.

Despite multiple hearings at various state and federal courts on the issue, every court until yesterday had decided that the new evidence should not be considered.

Those judges all apparently agreed with Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent yesterday, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, in which he called the new hearing “a fool’s errand” and said: “This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

While Ashby Jones of zyhe Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog today calls that a “fascinating question,” it’s a question that only a lawyer can love.

In fact, even Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, no flaming liberal, wrote in 1993 that “we may assume … that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief,” as Adam Liptak points out today in The New York Times.

Fortunately, a majority of justices on Monday decided that the possibility of “actual innocence” as demonstrated by the facts of Davis’s case was sufficient to require the federal judge to at least hear the evidence. 

“The Court’s decision means that we may finally know whether Georgia sought to execute an innocent man and allowed the real perpetrator to escape,” said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, which submitted a brief on Davis’s behalf.

To say the market has been sluggish would be an understatement. The main problem is sheer volume – a staggering 150,000 vacant housing lots across metro Atlanta are available, more than a decade’s supply at current absorption rates.

The median sale price for empty lots has plunged from $57,000 at the height of the housing boom in 2007 to $30,000 this year, according to Smart Numbers, a Marietta company that tracks the local real estate market.

“It’s going to keep going down, because we have too many lots, and there’s not enough demand,” said Steve Palm, the firm’s president.

To add to the woes, smaller banks are complaining that bigger banks that received bailout funds have an unfair advantage when it comes to getting zombie subdivisions off their books.

Large banks that have received federal bailout funds are better able to sell property at sizable losses, which pushes down prices for everyone, said Joe Moss, at Security Exchange Bank in Marietta.

“We don’t have the ability to take asset write-offs against taxpayer money like these larger banks have,” Moss said. “That’s really affected the market.”

This isn’t just a Georgia problem. As TWI has reported, the foreclosure pipeline remains clogged with a huge backlog of bank-owned foreclosures, or Real Estate Owned properties, that have yet to hit the market. The zombie subdivisions are part of this, and they are evidence that the housing market has yet to hit bottom. As Reuters noted recently, bank-owned foreclosures have created a shadow inventory that will hold back any recovery for months or years to come.

“Shadow inventory has the potential to give us another leg down on home prices during the second half of the year,” said Steven Wood, chief economist at Insight Economics in Danville, California.

“It appears that there is a significant amount of shadow inventory in the form of bank owned properties, which will continue to grow with the rising in delinquencies,” he said. It can take about 4-6 months for a house for be out of foreclosure and ready for sale.

Abandoned subdivisions and neighborhood blight caused by vacant bank-owned properties are part of the human cost of a looming shadow inventory, but the problem hasn’t gotten much attention. As zombie subdivisions pile up in Georgia and elsewhere, increasing the visibility of the situation, that could change. You can’t really miss them when you drive by — the half-built homes, the weedy areas where the community pool was supposed to be. In some cities, it’s even worse, with trashed and vandalized bank-owned homes dragging down the surrounding neighborhood. Somehow, however, Washington continues to fail to see it.

While the coal industry lobby in Washington seeks to rebrand its product as “clean,” and the fate of climate change legislation in Congress remains hostage to partisan maneuvering, two recent decisions by local power companies show a lower carbon future slowly taking shape.

Biomass magazine reported yesterday that the Georgia Public Service Commission has approved plans to convert Georgia Power’s 164-megawatt coal-fired power plant located near Albany, Ga., into a 96-megawatt, 100 percent wood-fired biomass plant. The result will be a carbon neutral plant with significant reductions in certain emissions pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and mercury, according to Georgia Power.

The decision trumps the company’s traditional ideological stand. Joseph Romm at Gristmill notes that Southern has long led industry opposition to national renewable energy standards which would require power companies to obtain electricity from solar, wind or other green resources.

In Wisconsin, Alliant Energy made a similar decision earlier this month. After the state Public Service Commission rejected its application to build a coal-fired plant, the company announced that it will dramatically boost its purchase of wind power. “The PSC expressed concern over carbon, and we listened,”  an Alliant spokesman told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. The company canceled another coal plant in Iowa earlier this month.

The argument that there are no practical alternatives to coal appears to be dying by a thousand cuts.

–

TWI’s Twitter feed is carbon neutral. Follow it here.

Flickr: Mrs. Carnahan

The Obama campaign announced Friday morning that it is investing new resources for a TV blitz deep in Republican territory, running new ads in North Dakota, Georgia  and Sen. John McCain’s home state of Arizona.

The announcement is either a small-buy head fake, which could stoke heady press coverage of the campaign’s offense in the closing days, or a genuine push to capitalize on McCain’s weakening standing in states that Obama strategists never thought would be winnable.

The new focus on Arizona is not one-sided, either.  McCain began spending resources there this week.  TWI’s Matt DeLong reported on its new robocall effort, explaining:

[W]ith McCain struggling to keep pace, the campaign can hardly afford to redirect money from battleground states to … Arizona. But McCain’s strategists must be at least somewhat concerned about McCain’s home-state standing, or they wouldn’t risk signaling weakness by taking this action. The robocalls will allow McCain to spread his message cheaply in Arizona.

McCain can try to shore up support with calls on the cheap, but Obama has enough money to make it rain in any red state he wants.  It’s striking that after marching around the whole country in a two-year national campaign, a presidential candidate’s fate can still turn on the local politics of his home state. But in close races, it can make all the difference. Just ask Al Gore, who lost his home state in 2000.

As Matt Duss points out, Khalidi is a respected professor of Middle Eastern studies. His history of the Palestinian people was on the syllabus of a course I took in college on the Arab-Israeli conflict. To intimate that Khalidi is in any sense a terrorist is a racist slander of the Palestinian people and betrays the cynical expectation that Jewish voters will run in fear of the Scary Arab. Whatever country Sen. John McCain is running to be president of, it sure as hell isn’t America.

Second, McCain really needs to be more careful about raising this sleazy “associations” non-issue. Because, as Cernig points out, a BBC News investigative team is finding evidence that Mikhail Saakashvili’s Georgian government — which lined the pockets of McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheuenemann — may have committed war crimes this summer as it fled South Ossetia:

Eyewitnesses have described how its tanks fired directly into an apartment block, and how civilians were shot at as they tried to escape the fighting.

Research by the international investigative organization Human Rights Watch also points to indiscriminate use of force by the Georgian military, and the possible deliberate targeting of civilians.

Indiscriminate use of force is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and serious violations are considered to be war crimes.

Funny how guilt by association works. By the standards established by the McCain campaign, the good senator should be in The Hague by now.

Davis was convicted in 1991 of murdering a Savannah, Ga., police officer based on witness testimony that, for the most part, has since been recanted. As I wrote last week, seven out of nine witnesses have said they testified falsely: several couldn’t accurately identify the shooter; two said their testimony was coerced by police, and at least three now blame the murder on another man.

One witness who signed a statement identifying Davis as the killer later said, “I did not read it because I cannot read.” Another said that the police “were telling me that I was an accessory to murder and that I would…go to jail for a long time and I would be lucky if I ever got out, especially because a police officer got killed…I was only 16 and was so scared of going to jail.”

The murder weapon was never recovered, and Davis has consistently maintained his innocence.

Davis’s lawyers have spent the last 10 years trying to get him a hearing based on this new evidence. When their plea reached the Georgia Supreme Court, however, the justices decided by one vote not to grant it.

Even if the witness affidavits the lawyers submitted were true, the majority ruled, recanted witness testimony is never sufficient grounds for a new hearing. Three judges on the court disagreed. The majority’s view “fails to allow an adequate inquiry into the fundamental question, which is whether or not an innocent person might have been convicted or even, as in this case, might be put to death,” they wrote.

The Davis case then reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which had an opportunity to decide whether executing a potentially innocent man violates the Constitution. Last week, the court decided not to decide.

The refusal to grant a hearing on new evidence to a man who may have been wrongly convicted has shocked political and spiritual leaders around the world. Pope Benedict XVI, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former President Jimmy Carter and the Council of Europe have all weighed in on Davis’s behalf.

Still, Chatham County District Atty. Spencer Lawton, Jr., who remained silent about this case for years, recently wrote in The Atlanta Constitution that he feels just fine about executing Davis on Monday. “The law is understandably skeptical of post-trial ‘newly-discovered evidence,’ ” Lawton wrote. “Such evidence as these affidavits might, for example, be paid for or coerced or the product of fading memory.”

Perhaps, but lawyers for Davis aren’t asking for their client to be freed. They just want a hearing so the witnesses who recanted their earlier testimony can explain why they testified at trial the way they did, and why they’ve changed their minds now. Lawton would presumably be free to ask them at that time whether they’ve been paid, coerced or simply can’t remember exactly what happened 17 years ago.

In a letter to Georgia’s State Board of Paroles and Pardons, the president of the sub-committee on human rights in the European Parliament wrote that this case “epitomizes everyone’s dread regarding the possible execution of an innocent person.” The European Parliament has even passed a resolution calling for Davis to get a new hearing.

Here in the United States, we’ve always assumed that, as the Supreme Court wrote in Herrera v. Collins in 1993, “a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional.”

But the court has never had an opportunity to rule directly on that point before. In petitioning the Supreme Court for review, Davis’s lawyers wrote: “Mr. Davis’s case allows this court an opportunity to determine what it has only before assumed…. that the execution of an innocent man is constitutionally abhorrent.” The high court turned down that opportunity.

Davis could likely be executed amid loud protests on Monday evening, in the tiny town of Jackson, Ga.

Lawyers for the defendant, Troy Anthony Davis, now 40, had hoped the court would grant certiorari to review whether it is constitutional for a state to execute a man where newly discovered evidence indicates he might be innocent.

In denying review without comment, the court cleared the way for Davis’s immediate execution.

Since Davis’s conviction in 1991, two witnesses in the case have said they were pressured by police officers to testify against Davis. Three witnesses have since said another man admitted to the murder. Prosecutors presented no physical evidence or murder weapon supporting Davis’ conviction.

Davis’ lawyers have been arguing for 10 years that the new evidence warrants a new hearing in the case. The Georgia Supreme Court denied that request, concluding that witness recantation alone is insufficient to warrant a new hearing.

Yesterday, Davis’s lead lawyer, Jason Ewart, said he might ask the court to reconsider.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill (Library of Congress)

One can almost hear it. “Again? We picked the wrong guy again?”

Recent events involving Pakistan, Russia and Georgia suggest that Washington has again heaped its chips on a losing number. President George W. Bush, like so many before him, succumbed to the illusion that a little personal diplomacy — oiled with a few billion in trade and aid — would secure a dependable ally in a strategic area of the world.

Then it turns out that our little buddy has flaws that should have been discernible from space. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan was a dictator! Mikheil Saakashvili is a hothead! Vladimir Putin acts like a nuclear-armed bully who will press Russia’s interests no matter how many times Bush takes him fishing off Kennebunkport!

Can it be that personal diplomacy is a chimera – a wildly unrealistic plan for achieving basic goals? Is it possible that when we look an opponent or ally “in the eye” all we see is the reflection of our own foolish hopes?

Pundits sometimes suggest that we should just pick better. If we are going to cozy up to a Mujahadeen warlord to oust the Soviets or a Philippine senator to repress communists, we ought not to choose Osama bin Laden or Ferdinand Marcos. Bingo!

Sec. of State Condoleezza meets with former President Pervez Musharraf (state.gov)

Others suggest that Washington should quit trying to do anybody a favor because all you get is ingratitude. We should think in terms of interests, not good will. Leave it the Peace Corps to pass out Hallmark cards, and calculate geopolitical strategy as coldly as everybody else. In other words, accept the maxim that no nation has permanent friends, only permanent interests.

All good advice, but it ignores the historical precedents of at least four centuries.

It is the nature of diplomacy to cultivate personal relationships with foreign dignitaries no matter who they are. Ambassadors routinely serve cookies and lemonade — or caviar and vodka — to people whom they would shudder to meet under any other circumstance.

Why? Because when the proverbial excrement hits the fan, you need someone to whom you can say, “Now, Boris.”

Personal relationships are the lubricant in the machinations of government. The first job of any head of state is to protect national interests. Amicable conversation is an important venue for assessing an opponent or ally’s most cherished goals.

This is hard to do in the middle of a crisis. But on a fishing junket, or over cocktails on the veranda, national leaders hope to discover whether it is prestige, ideals, territory or money that is most likely to kindle a gleam in the eyes of an opposite number. In other words, the interlocutors cultivate insight, since this is more useful than friendship when interests collide.

And collide they will.

Perhaps the most important relationship in the history of U.S. foreign relations was that between President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. One knowledgeable observer dubbed it “the friendship that saved the West.”

With all his legendary charm, Winnie initially wooed Franklin with pen and ink, sending letter after letter to the U.S. president, safe behind the Atlantic barrier. The prime minister sought the resources of the United States when Britain stood alone against Adolf Hitler. It was Churchill’s challenge to convince Roosevelt that placing his bet on the Britain would reap big rewards.

Roosevelt responded positively, even though, as he admitted to his closest aides, “I might be wrong.” One adviser, unconvinced by Churchill’s flattery, accused Roosevelt of “shooting craps with destiny.” Would this pug-faced pol prove any more resolute than Neville Chamberlain?

But even before the First Lord of the Admiralty became prime minister, FDR wrote Churchill, “I want you and the prime minister to know is that I shall at all times welcome it if you will keep me in touch personally with anything you want me to know about.”

Churchill did exactly this, assiduously cultivating the bond. When, after Pearl Harbor, the United States was finally “up to the neck and in to the death” (his words), Churchill laid down his head and “slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.”

But even this relationship was no bed of roses. Churchill deeply resented Roosevelt’s attempts to dismantle the British Empire. And FDR was perfectly prepared to make end runs around the prime minister if it meant achieving this objective. As much as they may have liked one another, when their goals differed, the relationship was all business.

This is not to be regretted. Politics are a bit like a market economy. The system depends on each party looking out for its own best interests — which include avoiding war, palliating local complaints, fobbing off creditors, attracting investors and making sure that neighbors stay on their side of the fence. Protecting one’s interests generally keeps people cautious and focused. Developing personal ties with all the relevant actors is a sensible move.

So where do we go wrong?

First, it is a mistake—not usually make by politicians, but common amongst the public—to think that sentimental considerations will carry anything but the lightest load. When the president says he is disappointed in his pal Vladimir Putin, it doesn’t mean that he is surprised or disillusioned. It means he hopes to sway international opinion against Russian policy. In fact, diplomats understand that while good will is important, it will never, ever trump national interest.

Second, it is naïve to wring our hands and lament that yet another relationship has gone sour when someone like Musharraf is forced to resign. He got into power all on his own. When it comes to foreign counterparts, we mostly don’t pick ‘em and we don’t control ‘em, no matter how much money we wave under their noses. They may accept our planes and tanks, but they generally do with them what they will.

A senior Bush administration official intimated last week that Washington stuck with Musharraf too long and developed few other relationships in the country to fall back on. This is the kind of mea culpa we’ve heard on innumerable occasions. Yet it’s absurd.

What if Washington had openly backed Musharraf’s opponents, and tried to bring him down? What if Bush had invited Benazir Bhutto to the White House while she still lived, or former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif?

The reaction in Pakistan might have been akin to the American reaction when revolutionary France attempted to undermine George Washington, who was unreceptive to its demands, and then tried to sway the election of 1796 against John Adams in favor of Thomas Jefferson. All heck broke loose, and one consequence was the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts. Few things backfire as quickly as stepping over national borders to cultivate members of the domestic opposition.

The point is: you are stuck with whoever is in power. Keep your fingers crossed, cultivate “friendship” and hang on for the duration. This is called respect for national sovereignty.

Lastly, perhaps our most common mistake is to give too much money to hoped-for allies, typically for the wrong things — like buying guns.

Now, some money is reasonable. Britain’s costliest mistake in the run-up to the American Revolutionary War was to neglect alliances for which it had to pay. In those days, an alliance meant cash on the barrel-head. When the Brits decided to pinch pennies and refuse subsidies to Sweden and Russia, they had two fewer “friends” to rely on. There is no shame in spreading the wealth, especially for projects that increase social capital, like education.

Diplomacy will always be personal, but the trick is not to let it get personal – as has happened between the Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Mikheil Saakashvili. Foreign leaders are, at best, placed in power by their own people and, at worst, tolerated by them. It’s our job to paste on a smile and make the most of it.

Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman is the Dwight Stanford professor of American foreign relations at San Diego State University. She served for six years on the State Dept.’s Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation. She is the author of “The Rich Neighbor Policy” and “All You Need is Love: The Peace Corps and the 1960s.”

UPDATE: Via Wall Street Journal’s Elizabeth Holmes, McCain did an interview with Time before she left, which sheds some more light on what she will do in Georgia:

McCain is traveling with the U.N.’s World Food Program, whose work she monitored in Southeast Asia and Africa this spring and summer. McCain planned to meet with Georgian President Mikheil Sakaasvili, and to visit with wounded Georgian soldiers. She would also visit representatives of the HALO Trust, which works to remove landmines and on whose board she serves.