29 October 2007

Update no.307

Update from the Heartland
No.307
22.10.07 – 28.10.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The President of the United States of America awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously to the parents of SEAL Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy, USN, of Patchogue, New York, "for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty, as the leader of a special reconnaissance element with Naval Special Warfare Task Unit Afghanistan on 27 and 28 June 2005." May God bless his immortal soul.
-- The devastating wildfires in Southern California and historic evacuation of residents dominated the broadcast news this week. Public announcements of the investigative involvement of the FBI and ATF add a chilling pawl over the tragedy, and portend the ugly prospect of al-Qaeda action. Causing wildfires as a terror weapon of war is hardly a new idea. Imperial Japan achieved some success launching incendiary balloons across the Pacific Ocean in the latter stages of the war.
-- The Airbus A380, double-decker, super-jumbo jet made its maiden commercial flight on Thursday – Singapore Airlines carried 455 passengers from Singapore to Sydney, Australia. The A380 is an incredible accomplishment and feat of engineering. Congratulations to the Airbus consortium.
-- Monday’s Washington Post presented some interesting points regarding H.R. 3321 [306] and the telecommunications immunity provisions.
“Immunity for Telecoms May Set Bad Precedent, Legal Scholars Say – Retroactive Protection Could Create Problems in the Future”
by Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 22, 2007; Page A05
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W9RH014D013CB059C0E39367EBAD70
The essential concern is precedent, i.e., allowing the potential misdeeds of non-governmental agencies to be retrospectively protected by the government, thus allowing the government to cover its tracks. In the main and as a question of principle, I agree. However, in the two areas noted, we are talking about the ability of the President to “wage war successfully” in accordance with Article II of the Constitution. We have discussed several of the vanguard court cases that threaten companies and/or agencies acting in support of the government’s efforts in the War on Islamic Fascism.
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain [542 U.S. 692 (2004)] (No. 03-339) [289]
ACLU v. NSA [USDC EDMI Case No. 06-CV-10204] [245]
ACLU v. Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. [289]
Doe v. Gonzales [USDC, SDNY 04 Civ. 2614 (VM) {2007}] [301]
Mayfield v. United States [USDC DO civil no. 04-1427-AA] [303]
The trend is quite clear and becomes painfully obvious when you read these cases. I could add all the detainee habeas corpus cases, but I think the point is clear enough. Continued litigation of and judging the Executive’s warfighting capability in public court serves only one immediate purpose – aiding the enemy. We can make the necessary corrections once the war is won, but this is not helpful. Thus, I believe the immunity provisions of H.R. 3321 are appropriate and the precedent risk is acceptable.
-- CBS’s 60 Minutes interviewed former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, a week ago Sunday. As she stated, now it is her turn to speak, as she plugged her new exposé book.
FAIR GAME – My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House
by Valerie Plame Wilson
Simon & Schuster, 411 pp.
I listened to the interview intently and found her to be generally credible, articulate, and convincing. The fact that her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, chose the public political venue to confront President Bush and his administration drew into the question the quasi-official tasking allegedly authorizing Joe Wilson to make the trip to Niger and report on his findings. It is that tasking that is the fishy part of this whole episode and the salient question of this kerfuffle. Was the outing of CIA agent Plame wrong; sure, of course. However, once Wilson made his report public and especially his link to the CIA, the whole genesis turned open and indeed became “fair game.” Whatever dialogue took place internal to the CIA during that tasking discussion and the choice of Wilson to make the trip, they should have known, understood and dealt with the potential political aspects. In short, Wilson was NOT the only choice for such a tasking, i.e., if there was a decision internal to the CIA, then that decision was made for political rather than intelligence reasons, in my humble opinion. So, while I have some empathy for Plame, I find her argument regarding the critical question to be weak, shallow and otherwise unconvincing.
-- The trial of the Phelps clan and their disrespectful endeavors has begun. [235] Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, filed a civil suit seeking unspecified damages from the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. Shirley Phelps-Rogers and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, daughters of patriarch Fred Phelps, testified in defense of their funeral protest tactics. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett is presiding.
-- The Georgia state supreme court rejected the excessive sentence for Genarlow Wilson [288] – the young man convicted of having oral sex with a consensual girl two years his junior (both were minors at the event time). Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote, "[A]t the time Wilson committed his offense, a fifty-year-old man who fondled a five year-old girl for his sexual gratification could receive as little as five years in prison, and a person who beat, choked, and forcibly raped a woman against her will could be sentenced to ten years in prison. There can be no legitimate dispute that the foregoing crimes are far more serious and disruptive of the social order than a teenager receiving oral sex from another willing teenager." The court ruled the sentence was excessive violated the 8th Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishment,” and ordered him released from prison. More on this case below.

If the only news source you had access to was television, you might be led to believe that fundamentalist evangelical Christians were the core and leadership of the Republican Party and hard-core socialists control the Democratic Party. Other than some of the candidates, we hear so little from the moderate voices within either party. Moderates rarely offer sensational news; they usually seek compromise. One among many reasons every citizen should absorb multiple and varied sources of information, so that well-informed decisions can be rendered.

With the agonizing, apparently never-ending, presidential campaign process and the various candidate debates, the latest rendition (happened to be Republican, where abortion features more prominently in the topic list) reminds me about the critical issues we face as a Nation and society. The War is an obvious, if not the paramount, issue before us in selecting our next president. Yet, with all the howling about abortion being the deciding factor by the various, fundamentalist Christian, talking heads professing divine conductivity, abortion is rising on the list of selection criteria. We can call it many names, or label it by its many reflections, but to me the issue boils down the citizen versus the State. The Republican Party has become so inundated and controlled by Christian activists, bent upon their agenda, that party has taken on a big government, big spending, Federalist, Big Brother image. I, for one, continue to advocate for removal and strong restrictions upon the State’s penetration of our private lives and impositions on our freedom of choice. The pandering to the Christian uber-Right that we continue to witness is not a successful path, in my humble opinion. So much of this societal conflict could be eliminated if we just respected the privacy, the rights & choices, of every citizen, rather than endeavor to impose our beliefs, our choices, or our will upon other citizens. I have a lot more faith in the American citizen than perhaps some of our brethren do. I wonder if we will ever have the capacity to learn and appreciate what freedom truly means.

An opinion column in our local newspaper sparked me to punch the keys.
“Concerns about gays not new for churches”
by Brent Castillo
Wichita Eagle
Published: Thursday, 18.October.2007.
Brent,
I offer my congratulations and appreciation for your “Concerns” opinion article as well as your continuing efforts to communicate Christian and moral issues. The essential point . . . you said, “Christians shouldn’t ostracize people with whom they disagree. Jesus didn’t.” Indeed!
Religion has been a vital moral compass for humanity, as it should be. I am neither a theologian nor an expert on religion, and yet as a lay student of all religions, I can recognize goodness as well as error.
You note that some Christians, perhaps most, feel that the alleged “gay lobby” is “overreaching.” Is it overreaching for any human being to expect to be treated with dignity, respect and equality under the law? The Kansas marriage amendment, and in fact the defense of marriage initiative nationally, denies equal protection under the law for a portion of our community, our society. I acknowledge the right of every citizen to their personal beliefs, views, opinions or ideas . . . as long as those beliefs do not cause harm to anyone else, and they do not try to impose their beliefs upon me. That is why I objected to and voted against the marriage amendment; it is bad law. Votes are not opinion polls; they are statements of law by We, the People. What you may perceive as a so-called “gay lobby” is actually oppressed citizens speaking out for recognition of their rights as responsible, productive, law-abiding citizens.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are predominately, if not totally, private attributes or characteristics. A citizen’s private choices come to public awareness with such simple, common, normal activities like hospital room visits, medical benefits, tax rates, ad infinitum. You stated, “[M]ost Christians don’t care to know with whom you sleep” – a nice statement but hardly reflective of reality. Those same Christians are quite content to advocate for, endorse, and pass laws condemning the private choices of other citizens and deny equal protection of the law for those citizens with whom they disagree, or with whom they disapprove of another citizen’s exercise of their freedom of choice.
I have no idea whether you know any homosexual citizens or can claim a homosexual friend who is comfortable confiding in you. Perhaps you do not care about those citizens that we discriminate against in public life. Your purposes might be well-served if you attempted to understand the consequences of your advocacy upon whom our moral projection and discrimination bites so painfully.
Each and every citizen of this Grand Republic is, or should be, guaranteed their liberty, their freedom of choice, and the protection of the law for their privacy. Every citizen also has the guaranteed right to assemble with other citizens with whom they agree or have an affinity. Our constitutional freedom of speech allows us to espouse our beliefs in any public forum. Where we go dreadfully wrong surfaces when we seek to impose our beliefs upon all citizens, and dictate the allowable private choices of every citizen where any proper State interest is weak to non-existent.
We must find the common ground upon which we can separate public and private conduct, and respect the private choices of other citizens with whom we disagree. Our focus must be on public conduct, rather than private choices.
Cheers,
Cap

As is so often the case with me, along comes an instigating incendiary article:
"The War for the Constitution"
by Gary L. McDowell
Wall Street Journal
Published: 23.October.2007; Page A19
First, we had the war on religion, and then the culture wars, and now the war for the Constitution. We seem to have forgotten the War on Islamic Fascism -- the only real war in the bunch – but, that is another story. The McDowell article remembered the destructive confirmation process and hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Heron Bork, 20 years ago, in order to make a point about the selection of justices. The conflagration of Judge Bork's confirmation process represents the challenge the United States faces regarding the Supremes and their rulings, however, it was Bork’s view of proper jurisprudence that draws my ire. As McDowell reported, "Mr. Bork's belief was that judges and justices in their interpretations of the Constitution must be bound to the original intentions of its framers. In his sober constitutional jurisprudence there was no room for any airy talk about a general right of privacy, allegedly unwritten constitutions, vague notions of unenumerated rights, or what the progressive Justice Black once derided as 'any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept.' For Mr. Bork, the framers said what they meant, and meant what they said." Here is the essence of constitutional law and the importance of the Supremes’ jurisprudence. Intellectually, Judge Bork has a logically persuasive argument. Despite my lack of any legal credentials to debate Bob Bork on constitutional law and with all due respect, I disagree – strongly. What is missing in Bork's reasoning is the context of society as it evolves, i.e., society evolves, the Constitution does not. Judge Bork insists that as society changes, the Legislative branch must alter the Constitution by the established process rather than judges doing so be judicial fiat. My understanding of Judge Bork’s jurisprudence opinions indicates that his strict interpretation of the Constitution means an American citizen has NO rights against the government expect those explicitly defined by the Constitution. If the Supremes adopted or maintained Bork's fundamentalist approach, we would probably still have a significant portion of our society in slavery, inter-racial marriage would be prohibited, non-heterosexuals would be persecuted, female citizens would deed their bodies to the State, and We, the People, would have no protection from the intimately intrusive, near-omnipresent, pervasive, Federal government – vastly more powerful than any human being could imagine in 1787. When the Constitution was framed, the reach of the government compared to the autonomy of the individual citizen was vastly different -- the context within which the Constitution must be interpreted. The common analogy that returns like a sunrise relates the difference between Air Force and Army pilots, and Navy and Marine pilots. The former see the rules as what is allowed (i.e., if it is not expressly allowed, then it must be prohibited), while the latter group views the rules as only that which is prohibited (i.e., if it is not prohibited, then it must be allowed.); huge difference in the approach to the military flying task. So it is with Bork-esque judges/justices; if is not written as applied to the People, the right belongs to the government. Why did the Founders of this Grand Republic and specifically the framers of the Constitution begin the preamble with “We, the People,” in prominent bold letters, larger than all the other letters? Why did they write the 9th and 10th Amendments? Were they simply trying to placate the populous, or were they testing us to see if we were paying attention to the process? Just a reminder for those who may not recall and for those subscribers who are not citizens of the United States:
9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
[emphasis added]
I continue to struggle with why the words “by the people” and “to the people” are so difficult for judges to understand. The oddity in Bork’s argument . . . he strictly interprets the words in one case, and specifically ignores the words in another, i.e., he apparently believes there are no fundamental rights beyond the Constitution since they are not defined and the 9th Amendment is too vague to interpret, and yet, chooses to constrain the words of the 14th Amendment to only the context in which they were written even though there are no such constraints defined. Nonetheless, in my humble opinion, Judge Bork and the other strict, fundamental constructionists fail to recognize the most basic, foundational, and obvious root of the Constitution itself – all power granted to government (Federal, state and local) comes from We, the People, and as Abraham Lincoln so eloquently said, “that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (emphasis added) I suppose they do not like the ambiguity of freedom. As such, I do not care much about and I am not impressed with, the legal scholarship of strict constructionists like Bob Bork; freedom from an oppressive government is in the very roots of the Liberty Tree that sustains us – the tree that begat the Constitution and the Declaration. The salient and most elemental portion of this argument is that the government (Legislative, Judicial and Executive) does NOT possess the authority to extend the reach of the law beyond the public domain, except where the proper public interests of the State and the protection of every citizen’s individual rights are concerned. We have acquiesced for too many years, and suffered far too many abuses upon our rights “retained by the People.” Bork’s rigid, fundamental ‘translation’ of the Constitution dramatically favors Federalism and the status quo, and as a consequence, seems to assume the goodness of mankind as the only point of salvation. On the flip side of this argument, the line between reasonable contextual interpretation of the Constitution and judicial fiat is quite thin and fickle, which leaves that particular positional determination subject to human error . . . thus, Judge Bork’s apprehension. As stated earlier, I believe Judge Bork is wrong; I believe the framers sought a balance between the federal and state governments as well as with the people – liberty and freedom were powerful influences in the construction of the Constitution. Judge Bork’s fundamentalist jurisprudence would seriously upset that balance. As a concerned citizen, I am thankful Bob Bork was not confirmed, although I am saddened by the tragically, injurious, confirmation process that he endured. Senate Rollcall vote number 348 of the 100th Congress (23.10.87) was 42-58-0, rejecting President Reagan’s nomination of Judge Bork. While some folks remember the trauma of Judge Bork’s nomination, I celebrate dodging the bullet. Judges and justices are ordinary human beings and do not possess any divine anointment; they do their best to interpret the law and dispense justice, but they are only human, and they make mistakes and commit errors. My criterion for a good Supreme Court justice is actually quite simple – an accomplished legal scholar who understands the very essence of this Grand Republic and the ultimate well-spring – We, the People. Bob Bork is not one of those; and I am thankful some judges believe in We, the People.

I am reminded of an odd little Supreme Court ruling that illustrates the absurdity of the Federalists and strict constructionists. In the case of U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind [261 U.S. 204 (1923)], Associate Justice George Sutherland, writing for the Court, affirmed a racial-based exclusion of access for immigration. The rationale reads like a judicial treatise on eugenics, under the dark shadows of a far more onerous episode in human history, soon to follow the Thind ruling. While Sutherland did not utilize an argument similar to or reflective of the strict fundamental constructionists like Bork, Thomas and Scalia, the essence of the reasoning is present, i.e., the people possess no rights other those defined by the strict, literal, interpretation of the Constitution, and associated law allowed by the Constitution. To the Thind Court, racial classification was a common, normal, and constitutionally acceptable characteristic upon which to base the law. These guys are not perfect or infallible. Even the venerable and renowned Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes would not measure-up. In Buck v. Bell [274 U.S. 200 (1927)], Holmes extended the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses far beyond the racial instigator, when he sided with the State in a involuntary sterilization of a seriously incapacitated young woman and ward of the State of Virginia. Bork et al would not be pleased. I remember some of these cases when either side rattles the saber in their attempt to push nominations to one extreme or another. The timely and fortuitous decision in Genarlow Wilson v. State of Georgia [SCGA S07A1606] noted above gives us a more contemporary view. The dissenting opinion of Associate Justice George H. Carley Sr. provides a brilliant illumination of the challenge we face with every judge and every decision. Carley admonished the majority for ignoring the will and wisdom of the legislature over a citizen's right of protection from an oppressive government. This is the point -- who is supreme, the government or the People?

A case, as incredibly human as it is shocking, comes to us from Essex, England.
“Should the Court of Appeal allow Katie Thorpe's womb to be removed? -- A mother’s request to doctors to perform a hysterectomy on her disabled teenager will test the ethics of medical intervention”
by Frances Gibb
The Times Legal Editor
The Times (of London)
October 18, 2007
http://timesonline-emails.co.uk/go.asp?/bTNL001/mT9OIC4/qK0X9C4/uNSC46/xAI8S01
Katie, the 15-year-old daughter of Alison Thorpe, suffers from cerebral palsy, and reportedly has the mental capacity of an 18-month-old child. Alison seeks a hysterectomy for her daughter to avoid the trauma of menstruation. The ethical challenge of such cases is staggering. Katie is hardly capable of making an informed consent. And, it could be argued that pregnancy by whatever means would not be healthy for ‘mother’ or child. The English court now sits in judgment of the case. In this case, the decision belongs to the parent(s) or medical guardian, and presumably several medical doctors support such a procedure. I cannot deny the adverse images of a day gone by, and yet beyond my biases, I can see a degree of humanity in Alison’s decision on behalf of her daughter. The choice is largely private and personal to the family, and once the State’s interest is satisfied to ensure no one is being abused or harmed, the decision should remain with the family. The judgment of the court should be an interesting read for a host of reasons.

Comments and contributions from Update no.306:
"I'm part Irish and I want someone to apologize for the way the Irish were treated in the country in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. "No Dogs or Irish Allowed" and all that.
"Yeah, Brownback planning to apologize for slavery is BS. Did he forget that the United States lost 600,000 people in a war that ended slavery? Did he also forget about John Brown's uprising to end slavery, which I believe occurred in Kansas. I can't hack when people apologize on my behalf for stuff I never did. What an idiot.
"Now if only Ron Paul will walk into the Reality Universe and drop out. That'll make me happy."
My reply:
Ron Paul has the right idea in many areas, but he is so extreme in other important ones. You were correct about John Brown and Kansas, but Brown's most famous incident was Harper's Ferry, Virginia, where he crossed paths with Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee, USA.

Another contribution:
"Wow, 306 is quite a mouthful.
"I regret that I cannot (or more accurately, do not...) take time to read all your offerings, all of which I accept as worthy of consideration and appreciation.
"Let me just suggest that if there were ever a more glaring confirmation of the need for a formal declaration of war than the multiple thoughts in your 306th, I have not read it. We need to figure out how to DO IT! At the very least, our inarticulate President could ask for it and let the Congress figure out how to do it. I know, it is naive of me to think that this could occur...
"Secondly, I do not believe in "hate crime" and suggest that you should not perpetuate this stupid result of the political correctness disease that has made all other epidemics in this country seem minor by comparison.
"Finally, although there are other matters that need response, I suggest that in view of any dispassionate view of history and any sane view of Islam, we not only would be foolish to bring up Armenian abuse but would be infinitely better off embracing the Turks on every available level and strengthening our relationship with the citizens of that remarkably capable ally. I am peripherally involved with the International Interfaith Dialogue, begun and perpetuated by Turkish Muslims with increasing cooperation from all but the most narrow-minded Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, and other religious communities in the southeast (and maybe elsewhere in this country and certainly elsewhere in the world). IID is one wonderfully apolitical effort to bring about peace through one-on-one human contact among people of differing faiths. Regardless of one's pessimism about religions in general, and I have a lot of it, one cannot ignore the relatively friendly basis for this and other means of cultivating ties with Turkey. We need friends in the region. Israel is not a big enough friend, although I admire its spunk, and who needs enemies when the Saudies are handy."
Another contributor added to the thread:
"I cannot speak personally to the problems between Turks and Kurds in Northern Iraq. And I think maybe the Kurds are decent people. Long trampled on by Saddam when he was alive and in Command. BUT---Turkey has been an Ally for Many years. I'd hate to see us throw that country to the wind without super good reason.
"I personally have never been able to see Religion, and so differences in beliefs, as a reason for peoples to go to war. But certainly that has been the case over and over during recorded History. I do not understand. I say let anyone believe anything they want, so long as they do not hurt their neighbor."
My response:
We have discussed the declaration of war topic many times. We are in violent agreement. With the election a year away, I can see no sliver of hope something as necessary and proper as a declaration of war happening, unless, God forbid, another serious Homeland attack is successful. I think we have what we have.
My support of “hate crimes” legislation is not motivated by political correctness; far from it. My motive is quite simple – equal protection under the law for all citizens regardless of the social factors. I am not a fan of political correctness, although I was an unwitting purveyor for a few years, and I do not espouse such things. I am an advocate for Federal protection for abused classes of citizens, since the states are often quite comfortable discriminating against some citizens based on perceived, private, moral grounds. When local and state law fails to protect citizens from abuse, discrimination and violence simply because of their perceived private activities, Federal protection is required. When such abuse ends, the government can repeal “hate crimes” law – “equal protection” will be available to all citizens, not just the self-anointed. I would like to hear more about your objection to “hate crimes” laws.
I like your “International Interfaith Dialogue.” So much of war, conflict and argument stems from ignorance and lack of understanding. Religious intolerance and parochialism is probably the single greatest spark and accelerant of human conflict in recorded history. Anything to dampen that theological zealotry and bigotry is a positive action. Communication is quite often the preferred remedy for such ignorance between individuals as well as groups of human beings. Turkey has been a good ally for many decades.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

22 October 2007

Update no.306

Update from the Heartland
No.306
15.10.07 – 21.10.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Senator Sam Brownback dropped out of the presidential campaign, and I am good with that. His public statement suggests an inability to raise sufficient funds to compete; I guess it is money that decides elections rather than ideas and leadership. Anyway, I could not have voted for dear ol’ Sam . . . way too conservative socially for me. He has indicated he would not seek a third Senate term in 2010, and would run for governor. We shall see.
-- I watched an incredibly interesting and intriguing NOVA program, Tuesday evening, titled: "Ghost in your Genes" -- the story of "epigenetics" as we know it today, or the impact of environmental influences on the genetic code that defines us, and as we are learning, affects future generations. Beyond the human genome and our ability to manipulate the proteins, the “other factors” like epigenetics broadens the arena and amplifies the importance of embryonic stem cell research.
-- The Turkish Parliament approved use force against PKK rebels (ethnic Kurds) crossing the border with Iraq and causing trouble in Turkey. This escalation of tensions in a sensitive region is not helpful to anyone, and yet, it reflects the mounting frustration of the Turks to defend their security. Then, we have the absolutely silly resolution in the House of Representatives condemning the genocide of Armenians in 1915. House Resolution 106 [H.Res 106], offered by Representative Adam Schiff of California, was approved by the Foreign Affairs Committee by a vote of 27 to 21. This resolution must be rejected.
-- Thursday evening (18.10.07) in Karachi, Pakistan, assassins made an attempt on the life of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who had just returned to the country. The suicide bombing attack killed at least 136 innocent people, wounded 380+, and is believed to be the work of an al-Qaeda linked cell opposed to the moderate leader.
-- The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 2 to approve H.R. 3321 (9/10/2007) to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The bill, in its present form, amends the procedures of the FISA court administration in an effort to improve Judicial and Legislative oversight of Executive surveillance efforts. It also provides legal immunity for actions taken in support of the government's intelligence surveillance program since 9/11. H.R. 3321 does not go far enough to enable, support and improve American domestic and international, electronic surveillance, intelligence programs, but it is better than the current law.

Quite a ta-do was made in the Press regarding the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Islamic Republic of Iran. What with public announcements that suicide bombers were targeting Voldya, the atmosphere of tension and intrigue made the visit all the more attractive to the Press. Add in the chummy photographs and video clips of Voldya and our good buddy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and we have quite a little picture of an undaunted Russian president reaching out to the oppressed and beleaguered Iranians. Then, as if that was not enough, ol’ Voldya toss a threat out of the public table that Iran must not be attacked – a not-so-veiled slap at the United States, United Kingdom, France and other EU nations. Nonetheless, I have no problem whatsoever giving W’s good buddy Voldya full and unqualified credit for averting a war, if he can convince the mad mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease and desist their enrichment programs and operations. I am more than happy to provide nuclear fuel for Iran or any other country to use in bona fide electric power generation plants. But, this ludicrous subterfuge espoused by Iamdinnajacket and his cronies that their enrichment program is for peaceful purposes cannot be tolerated; we are past the threshold in my opinion. The only way Iran’s enrichment program is for peaceful purposes, is if you consider the annihilation of Israel as a peaceful endeavor. I am not so naïve to think that is Putin’s purpose; I see more nefarious objectives, but I truly hope I am wrong. Amid the Putin-Ahmadinejad love-fest, the President publicly suggested that the lack of progress in stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program risked World War III; such loose generalities are unproductive, simplistic, foolish, and otherwise inflammatory. He could go much farther down the road of convincing the American people and the World community of the serious threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons program by providing evidence, and stating the facts, like John Kennedy did in the Cuban Missile Crisis, or Franklin Roosevelt did in the early years of the war (his rhetoric was masterful). And, oh by the way, I believe we have been in World War III since 11.September.2001 (since we don’t have a clear marker event prior to 9/11), but hey, that’s just me, and I could be wrong.

I am truly proud of the continuing efforts by the United States armed forces to minimize wartime casualties and collateral damage especially to innocent civilians. However, attempts to make nice with our enemies and civilize warfare are wrong; they just get good men killed or injury. War is hell! Always has been; always will be; get over it.

An Open Letter to my congressional representatives:
Senators Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and Representative Todd Tiahrt:
While the law does not yet recognize citizens with other than heterosexual orientation as a protected class, a group of productive, law-abiding, American citizens endure isolation, discrimination and hate crimes simply because of their perceived sexual orientation or gender-identity. Non-heterosexual citizens do not enjoy “equal protection under the law,” as guaranteed every citizen by the Constitution. I laud and support the initiative by Congress to improve employment law with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007; however, I am dismayed by subtle nuance in the language of the two versions before the House [H.R. 2015 and H.R. 3685]. The exclusion of gender-identity from the H.R. 3685 version purposefully neglects a segment of our society, and in clear conscience, should be viewed as unacceptable. Thus, I strongly urge you to vote for H.R. 2015 and reject H.R. 3685. Let us ensure all citizens of the United States receive the same respect, dignity, and protection of the law.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier

The Wichita Eagle reported on a initiative by Senator Sam Brownback in a desperate attempt to garner supporters from beyond his immediate sphere.
“Brownback advocates an apology for slavery”
by Eagle news services
Wichita Eagle
published Tuesday, 16.October.2007
Given the House Armenian foolishness noted above, I had to write to the newspaper.
Reader Views,
I realize and acknowledge that Senator Sam Brownback is trying to keep a foundering campaign alive, but this lame excuse to garner votes only accentuates the absurdity of his prospects, and the foolish and destructive resolution in the House of Representatives condemning the massacre of Armenians in Turkey 90 years ago. Are we to apologize for every senseless inhumanity of past generations -- the massacre the rebellious slaves led by Spartacus, or the religious rabidity that executed Joan of Arc, or our ancestors who killed women they thought to be witches? While these feel-good actions like Brownback's slavery apology or the House's Ottoman Turk condemnation appeal to our humanity, not one of us in any of the generations alive in any country killed those Armenians or enslaved American citizens with dark skin pigmentation. Please, let's grow up and look forward to what we can do to improve the world we live in rather than shed tears for the mistakes of our collective past. And, Sam Brownback needs to recognize reality and forget about foolish gestures in a desperate attempt to save a dying campaign.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
Postscript: as noted above, Sam Brownback did indeed abandon his presidential campaign. Now, we can only hope he also abandons this silly slavery apology resolution as well.

With so many genuine heroes of my parent's generation passing, recognition becomes a challenge. Then, along comes one of those rare cases. I note with honor and enormous respect the passing of an incredible French patriot. The Saturday Telegraph published on obituary for Countess Andrée de Jongh, 90. Known as "Dédée" to those who survived by her work, Andrée began her efforts for the French resistance in May 1940, when the Germans advanced into Belgium. The German blitzkrieg left numerous soldiers and airmen stranded behind enemy lines. Andrée knew what had to be done. She organized and operated an underground railroad, to put it in American terms, called Le Réseau Comète -- the Comet Line, so called because of the speed at which it operated. The Comet Line funneled downed airmen via numerous routes and always ended at the same house in the French-Basque village of Urrugne, known as the "last house." Andrée saved hundreds of airmen and soldiers before she was betrayed in early 1943. She survived her Gestapo interrogation and two long years in the Mauthausen and Ravensbruck concentration camps. King George VI awarded her the George Medal – Britain’s highest award for civilian bravery – a genuine hero. May God bless her immortal soul.

Comments and contributions from Update no.305:
A long-term friend, fellow Marine and contributor stopped to make a visit.
"The Marine Corps Museum [in Quantico, Virginia] appeared to be fairly small, though it is an impressive and stylistic structure. I thought I would only be there about an hour or so. I was there for three hours, but could easily have spent more but I needed to get back on the road. You know how I feel about Iwo Jima, which is how all Marines feel about Iwo Jima. There was a wall with Marine pins, and the Navy pins of our corpsman brethren, representing all who lost their life on Iwo Jima. Tears stream down my face and drip onto the desk in front of me as I type and strain to contemplate the cost of taking that island. There were over 6800 pins on that wall. But rather than try to describe to you the exhibits I saw, other than to say all exhibits were done extremely well, I will tell you more about how I felt. Tears welled up in my eyes many, many times as I meandered throughout the museum. I saw several glassy-eyed men, ages ranging from much younger than my 55 years to some much older. And I knew they all felt what we feel, for we are 'The Few, The Proud, The Marines.'"
My simple reply:
No comment necessary. Heck, tears came to me just reading your words.

Another contribution:
"Americans will have plenty of time when the war is over to second- guess ourselves over how we conducted the war. But first, WE MUST WIN! If we lose, the civilized world ends as we know it. I was pleased to see that even Speaker Pelosi answered 'Yes, of course' when asked by Chris Wallace if she wanted us to win. To ease the burden of her answer to her party, she added a few 'buts' that were weak at best. Her brethren should take a cue from her and stand up and say the same. Hard to imagine anybody in the free world supporting the naysayers of the war given what they have to lose if we lose, yet too many do. One of my leftist friends explained it as a visceral hatred for President Bush and all he represents along with Republicans. She said that hatred overrides everything else. I asked, 'Does it override losing the war on terror?' She did not answer. We've heard that 'Hollywood' response too often lately.
"The bottom line - if terror wins, we lose our freedom and millions lose their lives. So, I say let your hatred for the opposing party not guide your good sense about the future. And, that goes for both parties. In effect, to aid and abet the enemy during a time of war, such as is being done in the case of el-Masri, could be our undoing unless we come to our senses. Only this week we learned about having to wait 10 hours before tapping communications in Iraq to find a captured soldier from New York. That delay because of checking with lawyers may have cost him his life and has no defense by our civilian and military leaders. It will be one of the dark decisions to remember of how we waged this war. LGEN Sanchez had the courageous opportunity to make a statement while he wore the uniform. To do so after he takes it off is not the type of courage I admire from him or any other military leader. A leader should be promoted for what he or she is 'going to do,' more than for 'what was done in the past' in my book.
"I wonder how many diplomats and famous types want to visit Iraq without the Blackwater protection?"
My response:
In no small measure, the naysayers either do not believe we are or should be at war, or they do not feel the threat. And, the President has been largely ineffective in communicating the threat, and grossly ineffective in coalescing the necessary unifying political partnership to wage war successfully. If W. was not so bloody inarticulate, he might have had a chance, but how does anyone take seriously a leader who cannot speak properly in public?
Flag rank officers have a unique position in our society. Some feeling that societal responsibility; some do not. We need hard as nails military leaders like Al Gray, George Patton, Chesty Puller, and such, but more importantly we need thinkers and big picture military leaders like Dwight Eisenhower, Jim Mattis, et al. And, y’re spot on . . . performance not plans.
. . . round two:
"Well said about W's less than skilled communicating abilities. I prefer a good decision-maker above all, but a good decision becomes lousy if you can't convince anyone other than yourself to do it."
. . . my response to round two:
John F. Kennedy said of Winston Churchill, "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." In the summer of 1940, the British had little else beyond Winston’s words of encouragement, a mere handful of fighter pilots, and the Royal Navy. The President’s primary task above all else in Article II is national security; and, while he does not bear arms himself, his task becomes mobilizing the Nation in times of war. W. has failed in his primary task. I laud his decisiveness as well as his decision to take the fight to Afghanistan and Iraq, and I still do; but, I condemn his performance in execution of those decisions. You summarized it perfectly.
. . . the last word:
"Agreed. W does not seem to have to presence or skill to rally the populace to save themselves."

Another contribution:
"Regarding the Blackwater situation, the incident on September 16 at Nisoor Square in which over 20 Iraqis were killed was grossly excessive over-reaction. Evidence and witnesses from U.S. Army and Iraqi (notably Kurd witnesses) have shown that the Blackwater people were not fired on--at all-- and they continued to fire at vehicles GOING AWAY from them. Virtually all the damaged vehicles had holes in the rear windows. Their story about being attacked is false and more and more holes are being poked in the original Blackwater story. Perhaps the driver of one car panicked and didn't stop, but after he was killed, the Blackwater people continued to indiscriminately fire at fleeing vehicles and people--including from helos. Also, all the shells found in the area were those of Blackwater weapons--no AK-47 shells, which is the weapon used by the insurgents.
"The September 16 was not the first incident of Blackwater problems--in one infamous case, a drunk Blackwater employee killed a bodyguard of a senior Iraqi government. But the Nisoor Square incident was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
"This is not helping us--the U.S. Army unit stationed in the Nisoor Square area immediately hit the streets and told the inhabitants that they had nothing to do with the incident -- they were really worried that all hell would break loose. For them it was a very tense few days. The military is not happy with Blackwater, as they are complicating the counterinsurgency mission. It is hard to win peoples' hearts and minds when a faction of your side is alienating the populace. In fact, there have been reports of Blackwater guards pulling weapons on U.S. military personnel. Blackwater has earned a bad name with the U.S. military, as they get blamed for the company's bad acts. It likely will be replaced by another security firm."
My reply:
I make no attempt to sanctify or sterilize Blackwater or any of the other contractors. Further, I truly believe, as I have written for many years, the only reason companies like Blackwater exist is because we have been unwilling to raise the Army we need . . . and I continue to curse and condemn Rummie’s words about going to war with the Army you have.
Further, I know the professional military has objected to Blackwater and the other contractors for a host of reasons, and I’m with the professional military. However, given the conditions created by the Executive and Legislative branches, we have a tracks-don’t-meet situation, thus the necessity of Blackwater, et al.
All that aside, we have what we have. For better or worse, we put Blackwater in extraordinarily difficult taskings . . . out-manned, out-gunned, known destinations, and no back-up. I know if I was in the situation, I want to survive and accomplish my mission, and that virtually demands a shoot-first and sort the aftermath later approach. These guys have no choice; they have virtually zero margin for error.
So, I still contend . . . the intersection incident was not pretty and has an ugly smell to it, but that’s the nature of the beast; and, I still believe Blackwater is a necessary albeit vital capability dictated by woefully inadequate forces to do the job.
I have long held the believe that half-measures get good men killed. And, here is yet one more example.
. . . round two:
"I agree absolutely that the Executive and Legislative branches have abdicated their responsibility to adequately man and equip our forces-both military and security. It is a failure that is problematic on several counts and we will be trying to solve this for years. Before we went in, the high reliance on contractors was viewed with concern and sadly, the events have validated those concerns. We really need to review the issue of using private contractors to do tasks normally done by the military. In addition to cost and political issues, we may are treading on legal issues as well.
"Blackwater, unfortunately, has become the face of contractor excesses. It already had a bad rep before the 16 September incident, and that was the last straw. Iraqis officials were refusing to attend meetings where Blackwater was providing security. While the guards might have been justified in shooting at the car whose driver panicked, they went way beyond any self-defense in what followed. As I noted before, they fired at vehicles and people that were fleeing. There has been nothing to show that Blackwater guards were actually fired upon by Iraqis. There might actually have been a fight between two Blackwater groups. Blackwaters' version - actually versions- of facts has not been corroborated and, as a result, their credibility has gone into the toilet. As it looks now, they aren't going to be fired, but they won't recompete for the new contract. That all may change as the Iraqis make further decisions.
"Part of the problem is the contractors' 'security first and last' guidelines. That isn't how the services operate--they are involved in COIN and can't alienate the populace. Below is a paragraph from an article on contractors--Col Hammes is a Marine.
"As far back as 2005, U.S. officers in Iraq such as Col. Hammes were worried that while contractors may have been fulfilling their contract, they were also "making enemies each time they went out." U.S. Army Col. Peter Mansoor, one of the leading experts on counterinsurgency, similarly noted in January 2007, that 'if they push traffic off the roads or if they shoot up a car that looks suspicious, whatever it may be, they may be operating within their contract -- to the detriment of the mission, which is to bring the people over to your side. I would much rather see basically all armed entities in a counter-insurgency operation fall under a military chain of command.'"
. . . my reply to round two:
To be blunt, I am not so concerned about the legal aspects in the middle of a war. I'll probably be crucified for such a statement, but that's it. We would not be having this discussion, if the administration had done what they were supposed to do. War on the cheap is always disastrous.
I do not disagree . . . to use a double negative . . . but, I have far more empathy for what the Blackwater agents must deal with in such extraordinarily difficult circumstances. And, I don't particularly care about fleeing cars . . . war is not a police agent; it is war.
I do not dispute the various condemnations of Blackwater's aggressive tactics, but rather than ostracize Blackwater, we should be admonishing the administration for not providing the proper resources. So, perhaps diplomats should wait until the country is secure, and then there would be no need for diplomatic protection. Hammes & Mansoor are correct, and Blackwater does not contribute to winning a COIN operation -- that is not their mission.
. . . round three:
"Likely that will happen-- but Gates wants this pretty badly--and DoD originally set the rules."
. . . my reply to round three:
If DoD gains control of the contractors, they are brought under military rules of engagement, and given the support they deserve, why have contractors? This all draws back to inadequate resources in the military and DSS to do what must be done. I was against the reactive rules of engagement we suffered under in Vietnam; I remain against reactive rules of engagement in any war including this one. Waiting to be fired upon is an asinine notion conjured up by weak kneed politicians far from harm’s way.
. . . round four:
"That was one of the basic questions at the beginning of this--the large number of contractors, and the lack of control and accountability. To date, the USG can't say how many contractors are being employed in Iraq. Not sure that the ROE are made by politicians in DC--they are military and the front-line people have a strong say, at least that is my understanding. One problem is that we are doing COIN operations in the midst of what is a civil war. Also, its not just the ROE, but the way things are done. While the contractors may be fulfilling their contract, they are adversely affecting the overall mission. One answer is to modify their contracts. You are spot on in that the root cause of the mess is the inadequate resources provided the military, DSS and other security. Unfortunately, due to political considerations, that likely won't really be examined and addressed until the next administration."
. . . my reply to round four:
I stretched things a bit. For the most part, RoE are written by the military. However, where do you think the notion of not going after the NVAF fighter bases came from? The ludicrous notion of reactive engagement comes from the political environment created by the Press and politicians, and translated into the RoE an individual pilot or soldier must try to survive with.
Yes, I agree. The necessary proactive engagement tactics used by Blackwater are definitely counter-productive to the broad COIN and battle objectives, but I'm having a hard time seeing how to make the tracks meet.
1. We need the diplomats and administrators trying to help the Iraqis get some semblance of infrastructure running.
2. Those folks need protection to allow them to accomplish their mission in a hostile, anarchistic environment.
3. The USG has insufficient forces to provide the necessary protection. Hell, from the get-go, the military has had grossly insufficient forces to perform the most basic elements of their mission -- security.
Something has to give. If we impose military RoE on Blackwater, they and their principles will die at a much greater rate than they do already. Our choices are slim to none, it seems to me.
A. Pick up and leave; abandon any hope of achieving some order or stability; and probably sacrifice any credibility in the Islamic world.
B. Staff up to do the job properly and accomplish the mission.
C. Muddle along in our current woefully inadequate manner and pray for some kind of miracle
'B' is so unlikely as to be impossible unless we have another 9/11 event before 'A' is executed. 'A' may well happen given our current political environment. 'C' is the most likely. Very sad and truly tragic, but that's life. W. will not be remember well, it seems.
"That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong."

A contribution from a different subscriber:
"I agree with you about Gen Sanchez. But finding any active duty Generals or Admirals who will stand up to the national command authority.
"One thing about Blackwater. Those men are mostly all experienced combat vets. It is war, as you say. People get hurt. The idea then is first of all to keep from getting hurt yourself. You are no good to anyone dead. So proactive rather than reactive is good in my mind."
My response:
Yeah, I know, but there are generals willing to stand up to an errant administration . . . Greg Neubold for one, and there are others.
Proactive over reactive . . . you betcha. When y’ve got six guys in such situations, you cannot afford to let the bad guys take the first shot.

Yet another contribution:
"I read the rest of the speech and believe that over 50% of it was about how the journalists of the military (those in attendance and by association, all journalists) had rendered great harm to the military, the war, and the country, by lying and not telling the truth about what was going on in Iraq (and other places) and by reporting what was only convenient to the journalists' political agenda.
"He also blames Congress and others for the mess. None of this was reported nor will it be because it is highly critical of reporters and Congress. Only the administration’s failures are reported.
"Here is the whole speech: http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html"
My response:
I agree, but my ire was not leveled at his comments on the Press. Sanchez failed in his tasking in Iraq, and it was not because of the Press. Sure, he was setup. But, the failure is still his, and his alone.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

15 October 2007

Update no.305

Update from the Heartland
No.305
8.10.07 – 14.10.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I resisted reading the various judicial rulings in the case of Khaled el-Masri, as everything seemed to point toward yet another attempt to diminish the ability of the President to “wage war successfully.” Even the Supreme Court’s rejection of his appeal to hear his case did not stimulate me to learn more; then came all the yammering of the talking heads, pundits, and the Press declaring the Court’s decision a travesty of justice and an affront to the Constitution. OK! That was enough to focus my attention. What is so special about this case? While traveling in Macedonia on 31.December.2003, Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, was detained by state law enforcement officials. The Macedonians held el-Masri for 23 days before handing him over to the CIA, who then flew him to a detention facility near Kabul, Afghanistan. Khaled was held and interrogated in the Kabul facility until 28.May.2004, when he was transported to Albania, released in a remote area; picked up by Albanian officials, who took him to an airport in Tirana, Albania, from which he flew to his home in Germany. Khaled alleges he was illegally detained and subjected to torture by the CIA, and filed suit against the agents of the government on 6.December.2005. Judge Thomas Selby Ellis, III, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, issued his ruling in the case of El-Masri v. Tenet [USDC EDVA case no. 1:05cv1417] on 12.May.2006, dismissing el-Masri's claim. El-Masri appealed. At this point, the U.S. government injected itself in the case. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case of El-Masri v. United States, [4CCA no. 06-1667 (2007)], and affirmed the ruling of Judge Ellis. By not hearing the subsequent appeal, the Supreme Court chose to let the Appeals Court ruling stand. The case of Khaled el-Masri illuminates the serious challenges faced by the Judiciary in wartime circumstances. Whether el-Masri was an innocent bystander caught up in political currents or a minor player seeking to help follow jihadistanis, we may never know, or we may have to wait until the war concludes to see the evidence against el-Masri. The legal validity of the so-called “extraordinary rendition” program, like so many of the other essential tools in the War on Islamic Fascism, should not be debated in any public forum and especially the courts during a time of war. Given the rightful concerns of some, the proper forum is behind closed doors in either or both of the other branches of government. The public will have its day to debate the current war tools just as we argued over the existence and use of tools utilized in past wars like the Manhattan Project, the Room 20 operations, the Fort Hunt P.O. Box 1142 program, or any of the host of other secret efforts to win a war against a determined enemy. I am for winning this damnable war, and then we can debate the legality and wisdom of “extraordinary rendition.” The Judiciary has acted properly and appropriately, but I doubt that will appease the naysayers; the insanity of these legal challenges will undoubtedly continue unabated. Lastly, while the court has demonstrated generous tolerance of the government’s public acknowledgment of the “extraordinary rendition” program, I am not so tolerant. I think the Federal government made a grave error and had mistaken judgment in even recognizing the term. This is what happens when we weaken a wartime President. Once again, I must say, like it or not, we are at war!

The security services company Blackwater has caused quite a disturbance in the Force. Some may be curious or confused about what the company does? Or, why they are the focus of the conflagration erupting from the intersection incident two weeks ago. Two Strategic Forecasting, Inc. reports offer the best, politically unbiased appraisal of Blackwater and the services they provide.
"The Geopolitical Foundations of Blackwater"
by George Friedman
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
9.October.2007
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071009-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_CONFILTERED=071009-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR
"Security Contractors in Iraq: Tactical -- and Practical -- Considerations"
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Terrorism Intelligence Report
10.October.2007
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/tir.php?utm_source=071010-TIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_CONFILTERED=071010-TIR-header-read&utm_campaign=TIR
Now, my opinion . . . Blackwater supplements the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) [among many other specialized support duties] because Congress has repeatedly failed to properly fund the DSS for the taskings they receive. They provide essential protective services in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. These guys are always out-gunned, out-flanked, and otherwise in really deep kimchi with self-possessed important people depending on them for protection from the bad guys. I am sorry; I just do not get it. Indiscriminate shooting in situations like this rarely achieve their objective. These guys sensed threat(s), and they reacted to the threat(s). And, first, foremost, and above all else, this is war folks. Innocent people die! Get over it! Now, we have all this drivel about restricting the rules of engagement for contractors and even some seeking to cancel the Blackwater contracts. If this nonsense continues, we will add Blackwater and the contractor support, in general, to the growing list of shackles, chains, bindings, constraints, hobbles and other contraptions to keep the armed forces from winning the War on Islamic Fascism.

Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, USA (Ret.), former commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq, spoke at the Military Reporters and Editors Luncheon in Washington D.C., on Friday. He called the Battle for Iraq a “nightmare” and laid blame as a “failure of the national political leadership.” While in general I agree with Ricardo, I read his words with a sensation of revulsion. In many respects, General Sanchez was set up for failure, but that is a lame excuse for his lack of vision and integrity to stand up the national command authority. His words could have borne far more substance and credibility if he had resigned his commission when it became obvious he would not enjoy the support and resources of the political leaders who controlled the throttle. A goodly portion of General Sanchez’ failure can be laid at the feet of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but Rummie wore no stars on his shoulders. I cannot endorse the thin words of General Sanchez.

Comments and contributions from Update no.304:
“I agree with Cap on Bowman. Bowman has the right to say what he wants, but what he suggests is unconstitutional, foolish, and more than a little vane. On this last point, I would like to add one additional observation. Individuals represent only themselves. Bowman’s ideas aren't sanctified because of his military status or service nor are they representative of the military as a whole. If we took a survey of all active officers (and/or enlisted men) about what to do about Iran, I think few if any would suggest that removing OUR President from office is what the situation calls for. If we surveyed those most affected in Iraq (proximity to a situation is always important in terms of quality of information), whose lives are on the line, I suspect that they would offer some interesting suggestions, but I doubt many would agree with Bowman.”

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

09 October 2007

Update no.304

Update from the Heartland
No.304
1.10.07 – 7.10.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
A good friend sent this URL link. Lest we ever forget the horrible price of war . . . .
http://www.flashdemo.net/gallery/wake/index.htm
May God bless all those who stand in harm’s way to protect the liberty we hold so precious.

This weekend, we drove to Austin to see our grandson, Judson James . . . oh yeah, and his parents. LOL Judson is five months old, now, and quite curious about his surroundings. He is smiling and laughing. Grandchildren are truly life's reward. We took many photographs, and I have inserted two of the images below. Beyond the usual family exchanges, updates and remembrances, we went to the small central Texas town of Fredericksburg for their Oktoberfest celebration. A long-term, immigrant German community share their heritage every year in the quaint little town. We were also entertained by Spike the Spider who nightly spun beautiful circular web on Melissa and Tyson’s back porch, to collect up his dinner, and then surprisingly, Spike would take down his web near dawn and retreat to his cubbyhole.
Judson & Dad reading the newspaper

Judson & his Poppi at Oktoberfest

The follow-up news items:
-- The saga of the retiring senators continues. This week’s version . . . Senator Pietro Vichi "Pete" Domenici, 75, of New Mexico, announced he would not seek a 7th term, thus ending his 36 years of service in the Senate. His public statement indicated deteriorating health and his lack of confidence that he could complete another term.
-- On the opening day of the new session, the Supremes announced their refusal to hear the appeal in the case of Williams v. King [11CCA no. 06-11892] [DC Docket No. 98-01938-CV-5] [168, 285]. As you may recall, this case was the challenge to Alabama state law – the Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1998 -- by Sherri Williams, an adult entertainment store owner, regarding the sale of sex toys. The Court’s refusal effectively ends a nine-year struggle between Williams and the State of Alabama. I do not know the reasoning for the Supremes' refusal, but the decision speaks volumes about the Court’s leanings in favor of the State over the People. And, like content little sheep being lead to the slaughterhouse, we trundle along in our oblivious rapture. For what it’s worth, the Associated Press reported that Sherri Williams intends to open another challenge to the Alabama law on freedom of speech grounds rather than the due process basis of the current case. I wrote an extensive assessment of Williams v. King in Update no.285; in that discussion, I concluded: “[F]reedom is not just what touches us. Denying another citizen their freedom of choice chips away at all freedom, including those that apply to us. Let us confine our disagreements to words at Debater's Corner and use the law sparingly to impose upon the private lives and choices of citizens.” I stand by those words, and I believe the Supreme Court made a mistake. Lastly, this case does not bode well for We, the People, and I am not talking about the specific details here, but the principles beneath all the prurient façade. I am a Jeffersonian state’s rights person, but I am a People’s rights person above all else. I am not, never have been, and never will be a Federalist, at least regarding many of the social issues of our time. The failure of the Supremes to use this opportunity to accentuate the private freedom of choice of each and every citizen over the State’s intrusion into the private domain makes a strong statement – the Roberts Court apparently sees government's place in the private morality business. Scary!

I started reading a pivotal Supreme Court case last week that, as fate would have it, has special significance in the light of Williams v. King noted above. Washington v. Glucksberg [521 U.S. 702 (1997)] deals with the State of Washington's prohibition on assisting suicide [Wash Rev. Code 9A.36.060(1) (1994)]. The Supreme Court reversed the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that affirmed the law, and remanded for further proceedings. While the Court did not endorse or reject physician-assisted, end-of-life suicide, they did make a purposeful statement of their concerns for an individual’s most intimate and personal decisions versus the State’s interests. The Court expanded upon Glucksberg in Gonzales v. Oregon [546 U.S. 243 (2006)] [215] as they cautiously advanced the boundary of end-of-life decisions. All this thinking plowed up recurring thoughts about government's place in our lives. I believe that Federalism began sinking deep roots with the Supreme Court’s rulings in McCulloch v. Maryland [17 U.S. 316 (1819)] and Gibbons v. Ogden [22 U.S. 1 (1824)]. Certainly, the Civil War seriously amplified the extent to which Federalism could reach. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal legislation injected a quantum boost to the power and influence of the Federal government over our lives. Then, Tricky Dick Nixon took Federalism to unprecedented new dimensions of intrusion on the private lives of American citizens. The Court began backing away from the dominance of the State with its Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)] decision. Then, with the Nixon appointees, the Burger and Rehnquist Courts issued a series of rulings validating the extraordinary intrusiveness of the war on drugs along with all its associated tentacles. The Court offers extraordinary weight to the historical context involved in any contest of law, and rightly so. However, as demonstrated in Glucksberg, despite the outcome, the Court gave only cursory scrutiny to the State’s interest, in that history substantiated the State’s interest. The Court has been and continues to be reluctant to strengthen individual rights, which seems to be one reason the Supremes tend to avoid the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. In the decision not to review Williams v. King, the Court chose to back away from the most fundamental of issues and challenges faced by any democracy – the boundary and sensitive balance between the individual citizen, and the pervasive and awesome power of the State. Thus, the logic heavily favors the State, especially regarding issues where the State has taken action. In this light, a sex toy case hardly seems worthy of national scrutiny and debate, but the underlying principle is vital to our future as free citizens. We are dangerously close to losing the only remaining bulwark against the State's dominance of our lives. If We, the People, do not reassert our primacy in this Grand Republic, we may well see the day when the State shall decide when we shall live, how we shall live, and when we shall die as well as how we shall die. We have already crossed the line in numerous areas, and we appear unwilling to recognize, acknowledge or resist the State's imposition upon our lives.

Some related thoughts . . .
When the Constitution was created, written and ratified, most Americans lived miles apart. The government had little interest in bothering any individual citizen for a host of reasons -- government agents lacked the capacity or inclination to involve themselves in private matters. As long as private conduct remained private, no one cared. As cities evolved, more people came into direct contact or at least awareness of those around them. Communications -- newspapers, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, satellites -- amplified the awareness of the conduct of others. The Comstock Act of 1873 opened the door to moral projection beyond the public domain and cast the Federal government in the role of moral authority. Our freedom of choice has been eroding ever since. The sad reality in this area of the law flashes to horrific brilliance when an influential segment of the citizenry deems their moral values better than the next man's and seek to use the law to impose their moral values on every citizen. We have multitudinous examples just in the span of this humble journal, so I do not need to list them. Why have we been so willing to impose our beliefs on the private conduct of other citizens? Is it because we are blind to the consequences of our actions? Do we just not care about the other person's freedom as long as it does not affect our lives? So, when one side or the other starts baying about rulings from various levels of the Judiciary as "conservative" or "liberal," "fundamental constructionist" or "judicial activist," please make your best attempt to distill out the political partisanship and think of the extraordinary changes in American society in the past 231 years and especially the consequences of our ability to "see" into other people's lives. We must find a way to reconcile the societal changes we experience with the basic principles of the Constitution. We are a nation of free citizens, not a country to be dominated by self-appointed or even elected moral judges who seek to impose their values on everyone. Once again, I offer a very simple test -- is the matter at issue private or public, and are there true, bona fide, State interests of sufficient consequence that warrant an extraordinary intrusion into the private lives of any citizen along with the concomitant abridgement of their freedom of choice? Using such a test, I think any reasonable citizen would conclude that we have many laws that do not pass the test.

In a not-so-widely publicized decision, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly determined that the National Archivist's reliance of President Bush's Executive Order 13,233 to withhold some of President Reagan's papers from public scrutiny was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law." {American Historical Association v. National Archives and Records Administration [USDC DC Civil Action No. 01-2447 (CKK) (October 1, 2007)]} The case reigns in President Bush's sense of executive privilege, and should give We, the People, greater access to presidential papers. We do not know yet whether the administration will appeal Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling. My interest in this case grows from a significant date in 1996, and the associated opening of the Clinton papers in 2013. I wonder if by that date, we will begin to see what happened in the White House in the aftermath of TWA Flight 800.

Comments and contributions from Update no.303:
"All ok this side except for the politicians who ignore the plight of our boys coming back from war service, a government that is running the biggest deficit in the U/Ks history and keeps putting up taxes. Today + 2 pence on diesel fuel.(Now almost £1/litre) I'll let you work that out in USA speak! We are the highest taxed nation in Europe and yet the government still rides high in the polls. How come! I'll tell you. They are ignoring the family and all it means. We have youth problems with stabbings as never before.
"Parental control and guidance is non- existence in parts of our society and yet this government sees fit to support the non family unit. Our health service is in utter ruins with abysmal morale and our troops in Iraq are running out of 'puri' tablets and getting sick. I kid you not Cap, this country is staggering towards shutdown. Big time. What's worse winter's approaching and we all get crotchety then!"
My reply:
Sounds like y’all [across the pond] are in worst shape than us colonists. How and why can the government ignore the plight of the veterans returning home? Americans are certainly not the model, but we are trying to do the right thing by our soldiers returning home – in stark contrast to what our generation experienced in the aftermath of Vietnam. Hopefully, the government can be convinced to step up for veterans.
I have never been a fan of socialized medicine, or socialized anything for that matter. The government has no incentive to perform, and invariably takes a lowest-common-denominator approach to anything and everything. And yet, I am ashamed that a civilized society cannot help our disadvantaged. The fine edge of the cutting knife has a very hard time distinguishing between those who genuinely need help and those who just want to be taken care of by the government. This issue is one of the underlying currents in my Anod novels.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

01 October 2007

Update no.303

Update from the Heartland
No.303
24.9.07 – 30.9.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Information trickling in regarding the Israeli raid into Northeast Syria continues to be conflicting and speculative. [302] The best assessment I have seen so far is:
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
09.25.2007
"Israel, Syria and the Glaring Secret -- What happened in the Middle East on Sept. 6?"
by George Friedman
The image of what happened continues to clarify. This is one of those times I wish I was on the dark side with access to the raw data. Then again, if I was, I would not be writing these words.
-- The appearance of Islamic Republic of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the invitation of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs [302] occupied a goodly chunk of Western Press capacity. The pundits sliced up all aspects of the event. I do not hold Mahmoud with any regard; he is the public face and mouthpiece of the clerics who run the country. His public persona is only marginally better than Adolf Hitler. And, we can argue about the wisdom of allowing imadinnajacket to speak in a prestigious academic forum as a demonstration of our tolerance and freedom; however, giving the titular leader of the world's greatest state-sponsor of terrorism legitimization for his fallacious vitriol and propaganda hardly seems like a worthy exercise of our precious freedom of speech. But, hey, that's just me.
[NOTE: Some folks are asking, why are we so upset about the babble of a titular president? My answer: Paul Joseph Goebbels was a Nazi minister and mouthpiece, and still a war criminal.]
-- Ahmadinejad spoke to the UN General Assembly during the opening of the current session. He accused “arrogant powers” [AKA the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union] of interfering with internal Iranian matters. Mahmoud also declared that “the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed.” Show of hands, how many believe iamdinnajacket? I know there is a healthy segment of our society and probably the World who now say, the man said it’s closed, then the matter is closed. He also claims that the Iranian nuclear program, i.e., uranium enrichment, is for peaceful purposes only . . . suggesting for electrical power generation. Let us not forget that to him, detonating a nuclear device in downtown Tel Aviv, New York, or Haifa would be for peaceful purposes. When the Iranians detonate a nuclear device, it will be too late. He has proven himself to be a pathological liar, and we cannot afford to trust him. The Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT a peaceful nation, and has never been in its 28 year history.
[Just a reminder: Ahmadinejad has repeatedly cited the words of Islamic Republic of Iran founder, the late Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, when he said: "Israel must be wiped off the map." [203] Mahmoud has repeatedly responded to Western Press challenges by saying he means no harm to the people who live there. I wonder if he really expects us to believe him.]

Another interesting court case popped up on the judicial radar screen. U.S. Federal District Court Judge Anne L. Aiken [District of Oregon] issued her ruling in the case of Mayfield v. United States [USDC DO civil no. 04-1427-AA]. The background history in this case offers a modern forensics demonstration amid the complexities of the War on Islamic Fascism. During the morning rush hour on Thursday, 11.March.2004, a series of bombs exploded virtually simultaneously on various trains in Madrid, Spain, killing 191 innocent people and wounding 1,600+ others including three (3) U.S. citizens -- the deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since World War II. Shortly after the bombings, the Spanish National Police (SNP, or Policía Nacional) searched an abandoned Renault van, located near the bombing site, and recovered a plastic bag containing explosive detonators. On that plastic bag, the SNP forensic specialists identified a partial fingerprint. The SNP submitted the digital print images to InterPol Madrid, who in turn passed the prints to the FBI’s Latent Print Unit at Quantico, Virginia. By that Sunday, the FBI requested and received higher resolution images of the SNP’s suspect prints. The FBI’s search yielded 20 possible hits. Subsequently, those 20 individuals were identified, located and placed under surveillance. Ranked number 4 on that list was an Oregon lawyer – Brandon Mayfield. The FBI sought and gained broad surveillance authority from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. After an array of intrusive searches, Brandon Mayfield was arrested on 6.May.2004, for complicity in the Madrid bombings. On May 20, 2004, news reports revealed, that Spain had matched the Madrid fingerprint with an Algerian, Ouhane Daoud. Following his release, Mayfield filed suit against the FBI for wrongful arrest and violation of his 4th Amendment rights – “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Government sought and achieved an out-of-court settlement with Mayfield on all issues except one – the constitutionality of the FISA and USA PATRIOT Act – the object of this case. An odd thing about Anne Aiken’s ruling colors the overall reading and understanding – the first half of the text deals virtually and unilaterally with the plaintiff’s allegations; there is essentially no government response, input or contest. I suppose we can chalk up the bias to the out-of-court settlement between Mayfield and the Government. However, I would have thought a more balanced, factual construction might have been more useful – all the “alleged” caveats peppered throughout the background material leaves me extraordinarily suspicious. The Mayfield ruling is similar to Doe v. Gonzales [USDC, SDNY 04 Civ. 2614 (VM) {2007}] [301], in that they both deal with the FBI’s warrantless surveillance activities, but with different elements of the associated laws. While I am reticent to acknowledge any failures by the FBI in this case, I must agree with the court’s ruling on the law, as with Doe. Furthermore, by the FBI’s perhaps overzealous application of powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act, they may have seriously jeopardized our domestic intelligence operations. Thankfully, the court is doing what it is chartered to do – look out for our Rights – however, a careful read through the Mayfield ruling is disquieting to say the least. In addition to writing this section of the Update, I also wrote . . . .

An Open Letter to Senators Roberts and Brownback, and Representative Tiahrt:
Now, Mayfield v. United States [USDC DO civil no. 04-1427-AA] joins Doe v. Gonzales [USDC, SDNY 04 Civ. 2614 (VM) {2007}] as clear statements by the Judiciary, rejecting amendments to existing law by the USA PATRIOT Act [PL 107-56]. Both cases involve the FBI's intelligence activities in support of the War on Islamic Fascism. Domestic intelligence is perhaps more vital than foreign intelligence to deal with alien agents and their supporters among us, and the threat they represent to this Grand Republic. The FBI is and remains the primary domestic intelligence agency. Unfortunately, the FBI is also the federal government's principal criminal investigative and prosecutorial instrument. Both the Mayfield and Doe cases reflect the challenges we face as a Nation in the present conflict and the blurring of the safeguards to our 4th Amendment Rights. The very nature of our enemy and their tactics in the War of Islamic Fascism demands the most aggressive, swift, expansive, meticulous intelligence collection and analysis we can produce. Conversely, we cannot afford or tolerate the erosion of some of our most fundamental rights and freedoms. An alternative to the FBI for domestic intelligence purposes might by the NSA or CIA by exemption from the Posse Comitatus Act [PL 45-263], but I am not convinced. The distillation of Mayfield and Doe suggest that we need independent judicial review between the intelligence and prosecutorial elements of the FBI with a prohibition or exclusion of intelligence products being allowed into the criminal prosecution process. As such, intelligence products could only provide clues or the basis for a proper judicial warrant to begin evidence collection for prosecution in accordance with the established rules of evidence. I respectfully urge you to quickly find a worthy solution to the flaws in the current legislation as highlighted by Mayfield and Doe. We, the People, need an efficient and effective FBI intelligence division that cooperates intimately with our foreign intelligence assets. Please help us correct the deficiencies as quickly as possible, rather than wait for further judicial criticism. This issue is far too important to our freedom and our national security. I stand ready to assist you in any manner you deem appropriate.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier

Why is the UN Security Council resisting strict, harsh action to prevent Iran’s development of nuclear weapons? My opinion: Simple, Russia and China do not feel the threat, and they are perfectly content allowing the Iranians to occupy the United States and Europe. The UN is impotent. And, the Western Alliance will ultimately face the decision . . . when is enough, enough?

Florida continues to press their intention to preempt New Hampshire and Iowa in the primary process. Of course, the other big population states, California, New York, Texas, do not intend to let Florida get the lead. At the rate we are going, we will hold primary elections the day after a general election. Oh wait, why not hold a primary for the next two or three general elections. Oh hell, let’s just forget all this election crap and let the party bosses pick out next king . . . or queen as the case may be. I am really angry with the way the election process is going, and let us not forget the folly of Maryland’s National Popular Vote law [279]. Sadly, the citizens of Maryland passively accepted the relegation of their influence on the presidential election process to the big population states. These political maneuverings are such graphic demonstrations of how little we understand the Constitution and the founding principles of this Grand Republic. My generation appears destined to make our headlong rush to our place as poor custodians of our national heritage. We can only hope our children’s and grandchildren’s generations can rise to the occasion and recover the injury we have done.

For the first time in 30 years, we had a national union strike, this time by the United Auto Workers against General Motors . . . only lasted two days, but still . . . . Labor unions in the United States are their own worst enemy. They seek to extract employment guarantees on jobs from the beleaguered automotive industry. Instead of helping, collaborating, and supporting management in making American labor competitive and American industry stronger, they seek to bludgeon management in what will ultimately be a very destructive manner. I think we must recognize and acknowledge that the American union movement is incapable of learning, of changing, or of seeing the larger issues.

Just a random thought on labels . . . Some among us including the President early on called the current conflict the War on Terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, a technique utilized to wage war, like a frontal assault, amphibious landings, or vertical envelopment. Terrorism is a weapon used by our enemies to inflict injury upon us in their efforts to gain our acquiescence to their demands. Terrorism has been around for millennia, far longer than recorded human history. The Romans massacred whole villages to eradicate rebellious groups. In the Middle Ages, they lobbed plague-infected corpses into walled cities to scare the inhabitants into surrender. Today's techniques are no different. We declared war on Germany, Japan and Italy – not Nazism or fascism. Normally, we declare war against a nation-state, but in our present conflict there are no states. We could declare war against Usama bin Ladin as our self-professed enemy, but one man is hardly worth the effort. This war was started by radical, fundamentalist, Islamic clerics who began decades ago, convincing a generation of the faithful that the United States was the enemy. Usama bin Ladin, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, et al, are but animations of the root cause – radical Islam, not Islam in toto, but the radical, megalomaniacal faction that has mutated a worthy religion into a motivation for killing, domination, and oppression. Whether we like it, this is World War III – the global War on Islamic Fascism. As always, I quote Dennis Miller, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

The bishops of the Episcopal Church voted to reject demands by the worldwide Anglican Communion to abandon their liberal position regarding homosexuality. The action sets the course for a serious split with Anglican Communion -- the confederation of descendents from the Church of England -- and within the Episcopal Church, as conservative congregations threaten to align with Archbishop Peter Akinola of the Episcopal Church of Nigeria [263, 270, 273]. This is going to get interesting.

Comments and contributions from Update no.302:
This thread is a continuation of the discussion of the Bob Bowman words of treason:
“I am not as gracious as you, Cap. Bowman crossed the line as a commissioned officer in the service of the United States and at the pleasure of the President. He could have, and likely should have, resigned before making his statements. I do not totally respect those who try to walk the fine line. I want them to stand up and say exactly what they believe. That is our Constitutionally given right, so we should use it---------or maybe someday lose it.
"My example is James Webb. A Navy Academy Grad of close to Your time there, an extremely highly decorated Marine Officer from the Vietnam War (Navy Cross, Silver Star, Bronze Star and at least twice wounded), who saw more than anyone should have to see, he became an author and a best seller author. Then later was appointed Secretary of the Navy. He ran afoul of proposed cutbacks in the number of ships needed to field a viable Navy in the face of then present and projected adversaries. He resigned in protest. It was really all he could do honorably. Then he spoke and wrote his thoughts afterwards. I very much respect Jim Webb for that. Even though I do not think I like the way his personal politics have taken him since. But we shall see."
The rest? Maybe later---maybe not.
My reply:
Bowman is apparently a retired reserve officer, as I am. I believe he has a constitutional right to speak his mind as he sees fit. His words were enormously disappointing to me, that any military officer – active, retired, former or just done – would harbor such thoughts. I defend his right to say these things, and I will vehemently condemn any military officer with authority to entertain such an idea, and will resist with all of my capability (however minuscule that may be) any effort to plan or execute such action. It is the latter aspects that are treasonous.
I have long admired Jim Webb as well, although I have been surprised by his rhetoric since running for and being elected to his Senate seat. At least I believe he means what he says, and I am fine with that.
. . . to which was added:
“If Bowman is retired then I totally agree with you as far as his right to speak his mind, whether or not I like what he says.
“I agree about Webb.”
. . . and I replied:
I do not agree with Bowman; I find his words revolting and enormously disappointing; but, I defend his right to say those words.
Another comment on the Bowman issue from a different contributor
"For Bowman to preempt any action concerning Iran by suggesting military officers refuse orders to fight more than borders on treason. Bowman is a nutcase who publicly proclaims 9/11 was an inside job. While Bowman's military service long ago is to be honored, his current position does not pass the foxhole test. Bowman's support of nonsense and treacherous call for a military officer mutiny prior to any order being given is unacceptable. Being open about his poor health does not give anyone a pass when bringing dishonor upon the military officer corps by their own actions. We are all military officers for life in that respect, particularly if we choose to stay and retire as one. Retiring from the military or leaving active duty does not absolve any of us from our oath. In the end, the Bowman story is probably a sad one. Let's hope the rest of us who served in that era and beyond learn from the harm done by the Bowman's in our ranks. Integrity is a lifelong pursuit."

A different contribution on a related thread:
"I lost track of your thread of thought, but it occurred to me that we overlook an important point in the discussion about the Iranian president's freedom while here and the welcome he received from Columbia's elite. Those simple minded liberals are like so many citizens in their ignorance of our constitution, revealed when they say freedom of speech means we must give the Iranian the podium. He has no right. The right is ours. We share it with this guy at our peril, not by any obligation owed to him. If a prof or student wants to hear the guy, welcome to Iran I say, or just read the news and listen to his words. We should not honor him with any pulpit here but should rebuff him publicly and tell him to send us an email when he gets home. Oh well, my thoughts are too late. The damage is done."
. . . to which was added:
Right on!!! I like the e-mail idea. Meanwhile, WE better be ready to take that country on in a very different way than we are now. Yes, that means a huge change in our gearing up, people and equipment-wise. But we better do it.
. . . to which I added:
Imagine the message we would send to the Islamo-fascists if we began a general mobilization to triple the size of the combat arms of the military. Perhaps then, they might recognize we are serious about defeating the oppressors. I dare say general mobilization would be far less expensive than this damnable, half-measures combat.
The sad reality of this situation remains, no matter how the Columbia president handled it, he would have been criticized. But, the deed is done.
. . . another comment:
"But that would be out of character for us. We always start from behind the eight-ball."
. . . and another comment from me:
Yes, sad but true. However, in today’s world, waiting for the first strike hardly seems like a wise choice. I’m all for getting the best intelligence we can, trying all diplomatic means within some reasonable time, and if not success, smackin’ the crap outta whomever is threatening us. We are way passed the threshold with al-Qaeda, and IMHO, we are a hair’s breadth from the trigger point with Iran. We are running out of time, and I’m not willing to wait for the news report that the IRI has detonated a nuclear device underground.
. . . and a continuing comment:
"Let's harken back to previous discussions and my firm conviction that we should figure out how to make a formal declaration of war. There is a way-- we just have to figure out how, and I see no problem listing Osama Bin Laden alone or along with actual nations-- and until we do (probably after the next Pearl Harbor), we will continue to have problems mobilizing our citizenry. I wonder how many families are watching the War series on public T.V., rather than the other trash on the tube this week..."
. . . to which I added:
With the silly partisan politics and mutual idiotic ideological hatred among the two party politicians and their followers, I doubt even another 9/11 would see them passed their ludicrous, destructive and parochial objectives. I’m afraid we would need something far more dramatic, like a 5KT detonation in the middle of Manhattan, to convince more folks we are truly at war . . . and even then, there would be enough naysayers left who would claim the Right-Wing Conspiracy incited the attackers. The reality you illuminate does not alter my opinion. A full declaration of war is needed with all the associated mobilization and sacrifice, but that will not happen in our current political narcissistic environment, and I fear it might not even be possible given the above event. George failed in his primary task to lead and inspire the Nation to fight and win this war. So, we have what we have; we move on and endure.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"You may well be right, Cap. But I am for waiting. BUT---doing EVERYTHING we can to prepare for Iran itself. Maybe the Saudies, Jordan, Egypt, etc., don't want Iran having nukes either. If so, that could be a big help. We know what Israel thinks."
. . . to which I add this reply:
If waiting until the blow comes, again, is the collective wisdom, I can support that, although my counsel is to the contrary . . . after all, I doubt Wichita is on anyone’s target list. If I lived in the environs of New York City, Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles, et al, I could not afford to be so tolerant. When the blow comes, as surely it will, we shall survive. That is one of the huge differences between the United States and most other countries in the World community . . . we can absorb and survive a substantial, multi-site attack, and the loss of millions of citizens. On the other hand, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et al, do not enjoy that luxury, and probably would not survive such an attack. Thus, they tend to be much more skittish. As long as those losses are acceptable to everyone, I’m cool. I’ll be a partisan in the resistance; some of our brethren won’t be so lucky. I can virtually guarantee that the neighboring states to the Islamic Republic of Iran and/or Syria do not want either country to have a nuclear capacity no matter how thin or shallow it may be. They cannot tolerate a first strike like we can.
. . . and this follow-up comment:
"You are likely correct on all counts. And that IS cause for alarm."
. . . to which I closed:
I want to be wrong.

This thread began with an on-line news article titled, “Military is baiting insurgents in Iraq” from the Washington Post and MSNBC.com. Numerous versions of this story have appears in other newspapers and journals. I made one simple comment.
Whatever works is fine by me. Kill as many of the bastards as we can.
My comment sparked this response:
“On that I do not necessarily agree, Cap. Killing one or many is often not the answer to any problem. HOWEVER, It does prevent someone or some people from later killing You and/or Your people. But it rarely solves more than the immediate problem at hand.
“Killing is never a fun thing, unless one is psycho. I've done it from the air. Seen running men in a rice paddy suddenly flip up into the air and come down as my 20mm guns raked thru them and made wet splashes all around them, and I was gone away and above almost as quickly as I had come onto them and fired. But I KNEW I'd killed some. Killed!!! That is not at the time hard to fathom because one is engaged in the combat, (in fact it is good), but later on, back at the base, if it is the first time especially, it almost makes one sick. Or at least it did me. I had killed. Not a squirrel or rabbit or bird as a youngster out hunting. No. A real, live Human Being. Dead. I did it. A number of them. Maybe they were an enemy, yes, but in my mind now they had been first of all Human Beings. It's not like any other killing. And it's a heavy burden to bear for the average other human being. Like me. I still sometimes think about it, and a few other like times I did the same again. But that was what I needed to do to help other Marines on the ground. I did it. I could do my personal suffering later. Right now I had a job to do. I was well trained to do it. And good at it.
“Nowadays I would not count that last as a compliment. Back then? Yes.
“Never face-to-face have I had to kill or be killed, and I am extremely thankful for that little respite. I have though seen bodies scattered around our perimeter, some inside, some on, and some outside our Barbed wire impregnated with many C-4 claymore type explosives. I have smelled the odor of death and blood as it exists when finally the daylight comes in a hot and humid land where rotting and putting back into the earth from which it came applies to Everything, no matter why it happened. Quickly!! Only once, at Chu Lai in 1966. But once is enough. Later I saw some individual bodies in our own MAG-11 Bomb Dump during the Easter Sunday big ‘Thing’ in 1969 at DaNang. God! It was awesome. And I had been landing my TA-4 when it was first starting in the mid-morning. It lasted nearly 24 hours! But that is another story. Will say this: It started NOT as a result of enemy action but a fire. Of course the enemy later claimed it as their own.
“Anyway, MY idea is to do whatever we can, and whatever works for us, to include killing where and when needed, to win. To win is the ONLY objective. The rest we know we will have to sort out later. Like what do we do with the combatants and country people we have just defeated. We've not been very good at THAT part in recent years certainly, and maybe never. Why? One reason is we always go for the quick fix. When the fix is something that may take generations, and even then may not come out to be as we envisioned.”
. . . to which I responded:
I do not advocate killing for the sake of killing, but I hold no compassion or mercy for those who visit violence upon us. I am proud of our efforts to minimize or eliminate collateral injury to innocent people. To this day, I truly believe Harry Truman made the correct choice -- take several hundred thousands of lives to save several millions of lives -- and, I am thankful he did. I do not glamorize killing in war or any other time; I make no attempt to make it pretty; but, I do advocate using the most efficient techniques possible, until the bad guys decide they have had enough and wish to live in peace. May our shooters maintain a steady aim and a calm heart.
. . . the contributor added:
“You are NOT wrong. Truman was right too. War is not pretty. It is war. There are no runner ups. It's win or lose. Do it in the best way you can with the least destruction and loss of life. But whatever it takes----Do it!!”
. . . and I closed with:
Once the trigger is pulled, go all out. Half-measures just get more good people killed . . . prime example, Vietnam . . . 58,000 good lives lost. Iraq appears headed down the same path.

A contributor sent the following article:
“Moral poverty cost blacks in New Orleans”
by Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson
http://www.williamsfortexas.com/blog/article/421
. . . can be verified at:
http://www.snopes.com/katrina/soapbox/peterson.asp
. . . to which the contributor add his comment:
“The author should have acknowledged the historical reason for the moral weakness and virtual demise of the black family leader in this country (followed by similar behavior by many whites who have become what we used to call white trash before they became a major minority protected by the political correctness that has emasculated our language). The primary reason was the welfare state created by the Democratic Party, touted as compassion but rooted in white desire to derail a century of black progress and keep blacks dependant upon whites. Of course, eventually the Democratic Party and recently the Republican Party have perpetuated this scheme to purchase favor in the eyes of the black voter, a cruel modern day equivalent of slavery in this free country.
“Let's buy Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson's book. This guy may just save the black race in this country in spite of the other Jesse and Al and the Martin III and the rest. Then maybe poor white trash slaves of the welfare state can follow, and we or our grandchildren may together sing ‘Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!’”
My response:
I am reticent to partisan-politicize this issue, so I shall not contribute to the blame game here. Everyone has some culpability in this one, including the President, but fate delivering the tragedy on his watch cannot be translated into his damnation.
The phenomenon of government reliance correlates well with a term I coined -- “the lottery syndrome.” The definition goes . . . how many people would continue doing what they’re doing if they won the lottery? Back in the late 70’s, when I was developing the basis for my first novel, “The Phoenix Seduction,” my estimation was maybe 5%, if I was really generous. There is more to it than that as I was trying to imagine Earth 500 years in the future, but it should suffice. Once you become accustomed to having decisions made for you and essential services provided for you, what is the motivation to work?
In the case of New Orleans, I think the President and his administration have been far too gentle in confronting reality – a good chunk of the city is BELOW SEA LEVEL, and it’s a freakin’ coastal community in a hurricane prone region. I’m not a rocket scientist, but I understand the physics of fluid dynamics.
A good definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result. The New Orleans fiasco is the epitome of insanity.
Well, fortunately, Reverend Peterson has the balls to call a spade, a spade.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)