Update from the Heartland
No.303
24.9.07 – 30.9.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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 :-)
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 :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment