BOOKS IN BRIEF

Just What I Said: Bloomberg Economics Columnist Takes on Bonds, Banks, Budgets, and Bubbles by Caroline Baum (Bloomberg Press, 320 pp., $19.95). If you've ever asked yourself the not unreasonable, if not entirely unavoidable, question, "Is it possible for anyone to write amusingly and interestingly about the Federal Reserve?" you will discover the answer between the covers of this book. Since 1998, Caroline Baum has written a column about the Fed for Bloomberg News (where I've been happy to be her colleague). Among her rarefied and demanding readership she has earned a reputation for timeliness, originality, knowledge, and--believe it or not--wit. And you thought it couldn't be done.

How has she pulled it off? She's a reporter first and an analyst second, which means she actually knows what she's talking about, and this allows her to cut the columnizer smoke-blowing (the besetting sin of our trade) to a bare minimum. She knows everybody, and fears nobody. Most important of all, she has a strong point of view, best tagged as "classical liberal," which equips her with a refreshing impatience with cant and self-serving obfuscation.

One quote from this collection of her columns will make my point; you'll find many other examples for yourself when you buy the book. Here she is on Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, St. Bob of Rubin, whom John Kerry had once hoped to appoint as chairman of the central bank: "It's not idle speculation to consider how Rubin would be as Fed chairman. For starters, he's a lawyer, not an economist. Second, his grasp of economics appears slim, confined to buzzwords and mantras rather than a command of how the various parts of the economy interact. Treasury secretaries will forever be indebted to Rubin for the legacy of the 'strong-dollar policy.' No matter how nonsensical the concept, his successors must utter that meaningless mantra or else be censured by the foreign exchange market."

--Andrew Ferguson

Terrorism, the Laws of War, and the Constitution: Debating the Enemy Combatant Cases edited by Peter Berkowitz (Hoover Institution Press, 196 pp., $15). The global war against terror is unlike any war the United States has ever fought. The adversary is not a nation-state. It controls no territory and defends no settled population, but rather hides among and targets civilians. In this war, there is no "home front" or designated battlefield.

So how will this unconventional war change the way the Supreme Court judges the cases of enemy combatants--both foreigners and U.S. citizens who take up arms and wage war against the United States? With the Patriot Act, a new Department of Homeland Security, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in full force, will civil liberties take a backseat to the need for heightened national security? Six essayists examine these issues in Terrorism, the Laws of War, and the Constitution--a new book edited by law professor and Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz.

Using the enemy combatant cases Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, and Rasul v. Bush as a basis for their essays, the authors reflect on the role of the Court during wartime. In his essay, legal mind John Yoo argues that the Court should defer to Congress and the president instead of involving itself in the military handling of enemy combatants, while Judge Patricia Wald applauds the Court for intervening during wartime when civil liberties are at stake. Professor Ruth Wedgwood focuses her essay on the handling of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

While the authors disagree on the exact role of the Court during wartime, all concur that this "new kind of war" needs new rules. Berkowitz's fine compilation of essays will add fire to this ongoing and necessary debate.

  • Erin Montgomery