Update from the Heartland
No.310
12.11.07 – 18.11.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.310
12.11.07 – 18.11.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
To the Americans among us:
Please have a most enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday with family and friends.
May peace be with you all.
The follow-up news items:
-- Just as the new Airbus A380 enters commercial service [307], the Associated Press reported the purchase of a private A380 on behalf of Saudi Prince al-Walid bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud. The 6,000 square feet of usable floor space on the double-decker, A380 super-jumbo-jet will be outfitted as his “flying palace.” This aircraft will join a private Boeing 747 already in his fleet of personal aircraft. Just the A380 aircraft itself is in the neighborhood of US$300M+. Talk about . . . ostentatious, conspicuous consumption . . . to say the least.
-- From everything I have seen, I would say the following report is a fair and reasonable, neutral assessment of the Battle for Iraq.
“Iraq: Positive Signs”
by George Friedman
November 13, 2007; 20:36 GMT
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071113-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071113-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR
After reading such an analysis, I wonder what the John Murtha’s of Congress must be thinking. They have been powerfully quiet and unseen in the last few months. Oh wait, I just figured it out . . . they are too busy doing business with earmarks to be criticizing the President’s positive achievement so far in recovering the battle.
The January-June 2007 issue of Cockpit – the journal of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots– published a technical paper titled, “Autonomous Airborne Refueling Demonstration Program,” by Dick Ewers, et al. The cover of that issue shows a two-seat, NASA, F-18 aircraft plugged into a refueling drogue. Both the pilot and flight test engineer are holding their hands up. Presumably, the still image captured a snapshot of what was a continuous, hands-off, aerial refueling event. The paper describes the details of how the system was developed and performed this complex, difficult task. Like many automated systems, especially those performing tasks in close proximity to anything, pilots are reluctant to trust the system or allow the system to do what it was designed to do – close clearance terrain following, carrier landing, the shuttle landing system, et cetera. In the 1980’s, Chan Morse and I helped develop and fly what we called the Advanced Digital Flight Control System (ADFCS). We used a prototype AH-64 (AV05, to be precise) configured with a full-authority, high-gain, fly-by-wire, ADFCS system in the front seat, including a short-compliant, 4-axis, side stick controller. I won’t bore everyone with anymore technical details, but let it suffice to say, the system performed complex, difficult, helicopter flight tasks with extraordinary precision. I left the cockpit in 1988, and entered management. Chan went on to do exemplary work on follow-on, advanced flight control, development programs; and, I am certain I only know a sliver of what has been accomplished since those early pioneer days. Please pardon the reminiscence of an aging aviator.
Nada Nadim Prouty – I ask everyone to remember that name. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg, it seems to me. So far, the only public issue is her fraudulent attainment of U.S. citizenship via a monetarily-compensated marriage to an American citizen. Her employment in sensitive positions at both the FBI and CIA gives me a chill. She allegedly accessed classified intelligence information related to Hezbollah that was not part of her job assignments. This case may well explode. She is not likely to be at the infamous, treasonous level of Robert Hanssen, Aldridge Ames, Jonathan Pollard, John Walker, et al, but I smell a stinking rat.
I am not embarrassed to admit my admiration of George W. Bush regarding some elements of his leadership style and his presidency, his sense of humor and his courage. As our duly elected President and Commander-in-Chief, regardless of the whiners still trying to relive the 2000 election, I try mightily to support his decisions especially with respect to the War on Islamic Fascism (even though he is reluctant to use the proper term). However, in the main, I cannot deny or ignore the deep, bone-gnawing disgust I hold of no.43 and his administration. The list of my objections, condemnations, disagreements, and revulsions is far larger than my admirations list. The latest among many triggers is this ridiculous spate of vetoes. The dichotomy that churns my stomach springs from my agreement with his vetoes, but for all the wrong reasons. During the entire first six (6) years of his tenure as president, Bush (43) vetoed only one bill -- the embryonic stem cell research bill [201, 241]. Then, once the Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress . . . bang, bang, bang, we have a cacophony of veto stamps and associated rhetoric. There is only one conclusion; W. does not mind obscene pork barrel spending as long as it is for Republican pork projects, what he really objects to is spending for Democrat causes. Now that Democrats have their hands in the cookie jar instead of Republicans, he says no way, you're spending too much. W. lost me a long time ago, and there is no recovery regardless of how much he exercises his ludicrous, partisan, parochial, political veto. And yet, the truly sad and sordid aspect of W. the man . . . I suspect he truly wonders why people despise him so much or why the fractious, political chasm is so broad and deep between the political extremes. In his original campaign rhetoric, he proclaimed, he was “a uniter, not a divider;” and yet, he has done more to divide the citizens of this Grand Republic than any President since Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. During wartime, division is the President's failure to unify and mobilize the Nation to "wage war successfully." Slick Willy Clinton had his flaws and failures, but we must give him credit for reaching out to the opposition and trying to find points of mutually acceptable compromise on many issues. My gosh, what got me all fired up? My answer is quite simple . . . the continuing insanity of the divisive, corrosive, partisan politics of this President and the current crop in Congress. When will just a few – a happy few – of our political leaders rise above the sloppy, odiferous muck and reach out to both sides for a unity government until the War on Islamic Fascism is won? Once we have attained peace, then they can go back to the hog trough from whence they came.
I wrote an Open Letter to each of my Federal representatives regarding passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 [306]. I received a reply from Senator Pat Roberts [309], and now, I received a snailMail letter from Senator Sam Brownback. I share his reply and my response.
October 22, 2007
Dear Mr. Parlier:
“Thank you for your correspondence regarding hate crimes. There is no better guide for making tough decisions than hearing from the people whom I serve.
“As a nation, we will not tolerate violent crime. I am appalled by news stories of individuals being assaulted, or even killed, because of their ethnicity. I am equally appalled by violence done to those who choose to live alternative lifestyles. We must send a strong message through our law enforcement and judicial system that such attacks will bring the full force of the law upon those who commit such terrible acts.
“I appreciate the good will and sincerity of those who wish to expand hate crime laws. However, I do not believe such legislation is the answer. The severity of a crime should be based upon actions committed. If a violent crime is committed, then the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Every violent crime ought to be treated as severe, regardless of why it was committed. Life is precious -- and every murder is an equally egregious crime.
“When hate crime legislation was offered in the Senate in the past, I voted against it because I strongly felt it would usurp the power and jurisdiction of the states. I believe our law enforcement and judicial system should be focused upon holding individuals accountable for what they do, not what they think. Rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind if hate crime legislation comes before the Senate in the future.
“Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. You are the reason that I am here, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.”
Sincerely,
Sam Brownback
United States Senator
. . . my response:
Senator Brownback,
Thank you for your reply.
In the 1960’s as I reached adulthood, I watched and lived the violence of Americans who were outraged at the many generations of discrimination, persecution, intimidation, and un-prosecuted violent crimes against other citizens, simply and solely because of the skin pigmentation they inherited from their parents. I look back on those years, and I regret that I did not do more to help those who suffered, to help them cast off their chains and realize the “equal protection under the law” and the freedom of choice I enjoy in my Pursuit of Happiness. I cannot stand and watch today.
Non-heterosexual citizens have reached a similar point in our societal evolution. You said, “Every violent crime ought to be treated as severe, regardless of why it was committed. Life is precious -- and every murder is an equally egregious crime.” I could not agree more. However, the salient word in your statement is ‘ought.’ The sad reality for non-heterosexual citizens in many parts of this Nation is their reality does not even closely resemble your notion. Freedom cannot be parsed. Non-heterosexual citizens live in mortal fear of exposure. Is that the American dream? Matthew Wayne Shepard’s brutal murder may well become the same watershed precipitant event for non-heterosexual equal rights as the lynching of Emmett Louis Till (1955) was for racial equal rights.
My original communications (21.October.2007) dealt with the pending legislation of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA) [H.R. 3685, as before the Senate Judiciary Committee]. For the record, I believe the inclusion of “gender identity,” as in the language of H.R. 2015, is more appropriate and should be seriously considered during your deliberations. Nonetheless, I strongly urge you to support and pass H.R. 3685.
Since you raised the additional question of hate crimes legislation, I shall offer some additional thoughts for your consideration. In a general sense, I must agree with the essence of your position – murder and other violent crimes are all reprehensible and properly the jurisdiction of the states; as such, Federal supersedence is not consistent with the Constitution. However, what your argument misses is the conflict between elements of the Constitution – individual rights versus state’s rights – and a failure to recognize the harsh reality of our contemporary society. Non-heterosexual citizens have not and still do not enjoy “equal protection under the law” – in principle, yes, in practice, no. State and local jurisdictions do not prosecute crimes against homosexuals with the same vigor they do with conforming, heterosexual citizens. Until non-heterosexual citizens can enjoy the full “rights and privileges” of citizenship, special protection by the Federal government is required.
Senator Roberts informed me that the language of S. 1105 has been inserted into the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 [H.R. 1585]. Although neither you nor Pat Roberts were selected for the conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions, I strongly urge you to work with the conferees to ensure that Title X; Subtitle C; Sec. 1023, of H.R. 1585, now titled as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, remains in the final version of the bill, to be passed by Congress.
Whether any of us wishes to admit it, racism still exists as evidenced by the Jena 6 episode, despite the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the original 1969 hate crimes law, and a host of Supreme Court decisions. A rope noose is an article of intimidation with profound symbolic weight, and is far beyond a simple juvenile prank. Denial of the fear homosexuals live under is quite easy when you do not experience such discrimination and persecution. Let us not stand by and watch as some citizens are denied their Pursuit of Happiness by the fear of a vindictive portion of our society.
Please reconsider your position regarding equal rights for all citizens, not just the chosen majority. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
[PS: I should have added . . . we are all entitled by the Constitution to our bigotry; it does not make it right, but we are guaranteed our choices. However, when thoughts become actions or the incitement of others to action, the line is crossed.]
[NOTE: FYI, an Open Letter is just that an open letter. If any or all of my words are useful to anyone, please feel free to use them as you wish.]
For those of us who remain apprehensive about and vigilant of the Judiciary, this article will add knowledge and disquiet to our vigil.
“Justice for Sale – How special-interest money threatens the integrity of our courts”
by Sandra Day O'Connor
Wall Street Journal
Published: Thursday, November 15, 2007; 00:01 EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010864
Spot on, Sandra!
Comments and contributions from Update no.309:
"I read the whole thing and agree with at least most of your comments on various subjects, but for me it is too long to wade through to maybe make comments."
My response:
I know the long ones are not to your liking, but sometimes the words just flow. At least you read the whole thing. Comment, argue, chastise or pass as you wish. Most folks choose not to comment, but presumably, they do read the Update.
Another contribution:
"So let me see if I've got this straight. The Congress wants to tell soldiers they can't get nudie mags and download porn and whatnot? Look, porno really isn't my thing, but if some grunt who's been on some harrowing patrols shooting it out with terrorist scumbags wants to kick back with a Hustler back at base camp then enjoy. So long as it ain't kiddie porn, I don't care. We have more important issues with our soldiers than whether or not they're perusing adult entertainment videos and magazines. What's next? Does Congress go the Tipper Gore route and say soldiers can't listen to music with explicit lyrics. Keep your damn hands off my heavy metal, I say.
"And . . . happy to hear about the Phelps nuts coming out on the losing end of that lawsuit. Talk about people who deserve a five-knuckle shuffle if you know what I mean. I actually saw one of their spokeswomen on Hannity and Colmes a couple times. What a wide-eyed whackjob who looks like she combs her hair with a rabid alley cat and does nothing but scream . . . a lot. Amazing what happens when one is consumed by hate.
"And lest I forget, this civilian wishes to thank all the vets out there for protecting my life and liberty."
To the Americans among us:
Please have a most enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday with family and friends.
May peace be with you all.
The follow-up news items:
-- Just as the new Airbus A380 enters commercial service [307], the Associated Press reported the purchase of a private A380 on behalf of Saudi Prince al-Walid bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud. The 6,000 square feet of usable floor space on the double-decker, A380 super-jumbo-jet will be outfitted as his “flying palace.” This aircraft will join a private Boeing 747 already in his fleet of personal aircraft. Just the A380 aircraft itself is in the neighborhood of US$300M+. Talk about . . . ostentatious, conspicuous consumption . . . to say the least.
-- From everything I have seen, I would say the following report is a fair and reasonable, neutral assessment of the Battle for Iraq.
“Iraq: Positive Signs”
by George Friedman
November 13, 2007; 20:36 GMT
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071113-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071113-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR
After reading such an analysis, I wonder what the John Murtha’s of Congress must be thinking. They have been powerfully quiet and unseen in the last few months. Oh wait, I just figured it out . . . they are too busy doing business with earmarks to be criticizing the President’s positive achievement so far in recovering the battle.
The January-June 2007 issue of Cockpit – the journal of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots– published a technical paper titled, “Autonomous Airborne Refueling Demonstration Program,” by Dick Ewers, et al. The cover of that issue shows a two-seat, NASA, F-18 aircraft plugged into a refueling drogue. Both the pilot and flight test engineer are holding their hands up. Presumably, the still image captured a snapshot of what was a continuous, hands-off, aerial refueling event. The paper describes the details of how the system was developed and performed this complex, difficult task. Like many automated systems, especially those performing tasks in close proximity to anything, pilots are reluctant to trust the system or allow the system to do what it was designed to do – close clearance terrain following, carrier landing, the shuttle landing system, et cetera. In the 1980’s, Chan Morse and I helped develop and fly what we called the Advanced Digital Flight Control System (ADFCS). We used a prototype AH-64 (AV05, to be precise) configured with a full-authority, high-gain, fly-by-wire, ADFCS system in the front seat, including a short-compliant, 4-axis, side stick controller. I won’t bore everyone with anymore technical details, but let it suffice to say, the system performed complex, difficult, helicopter flight tasks with extraordinary precision. I left the cockpit in 1988, and entered management. Chan went on to do exemplary work on follow-on, advanced flight control, development programs; and, I am certain I only know a sliver of what has been accomplished since those early pioneer days. Please pardon the reminiscence of an aging aviator.
Nada Nadim Prouty – I ask everyone to remember that name. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg, it seems to me. So far, the only public issue is her fraudulent attainment of U.S. citizenship via a monetarily-compensated marriage to an American citizen. Her employment in sensitive positions at both the FBI and CIA gives me a chill. She allegedly accessed classified intelligence information related to Hezbollah that was not part of her job assignments. This case may well explode. She is not likely to be at the infamous, treasonous level of Robert Hanssen, Aldridge Ames, Jonathan Pollard, John Walker, et al, but I smell a stinking rat.
I am not embarrassed to admit my admiration of George W. Bush regarding some elements of his leadership style and his presidency, his sense of humor and his courage. As our duly elected President and Commander-in-Chief, regardless of the whiners still trying to relive the 2000 election, I try mightily to support his decisions especially with respect to the War on Islamic Fascism (even though he is reluctant to use the proper term). However, in the main, I cannot deny or ignore the deep, bone-gnawing disgust I hold of no.43 and his administration. The list of my objections, condemnations, disagreements, and revulsions is far larger than my admirations list. The latest among many triggers is this ridiculous spate of vetoes. The dichotomy that churns my stomach springs from my agreement with his vetoes, but for all the wrong reasons. During the entire first six (6) years of his tenure as president, Bush (43) vetoed only one bill -- the embryonic stem cell research bill [201, 241]. Then, once the Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress . . . bang, bang, bang, we have a cacophony of veto stamps and associated rhetoric. There is only one conclusion; W. does not mind obscene pork barrel spending as long as it is for Republican pork projects, what he really objects to is spending for Democrat causes. Now that Democrats have their hands in the cookie jar instead of Republicans, he says no way, you're spending too much. W. lost me a long time ago, and there is no recovery regardless of how much he exercises his ludicrous, partisan, parochial, political veto. And yet, the truly sad and sordid aspect of W. the man . . . I suspect he truly wonders why people despise him so much or why the fractious, political chasm is so broad and deep between the political extremes. In his original campaign rhetoric, he proclaimed, he was “a uniter, not a divider;” and yet, he has done more to divide the citizens of this Grand Republic than any President since Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. During wartime, division is the President's failure to unify and mobilize the Nation to "wage war successfully." Slick Willy Clinton had his flaws and failures, but we must give him credit for reaching out to the opposition and trying to find points of mutually acceptable compromise on many issues. My gosh, what got me all fired up? My answer is quite simple . . . the continuing insanity of the divisive, corrosive, partisan politics of this President and the current crop in Congress. When will just a few – a happy few – of our political leaders rise above the sloppy, odiferous muck and reach out to both sides for a unity government until the War on Islamic Fascism is won? Once we have attained peace, then they can go back to the hog trough from whence they came.
I wrote an Open Letter to each of my Federal representatives regarding passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 [306]. I received a reply from Senator Pat Roberts [309], and now, I received a snailMail letter from Senator Sam Brownback. I share his reply and my response.
October 22, 2007
Dear Mr. Parlier:
“Thank you for your correspondence regarding hate crimes. There is no better guide for making tough decisions than hearing from the people whom I serve.
“As a nation, we will not tolerate violent crime. I am appalled by news stories of individuals being assaulted, or even killed, because of their ethnicity. I am equally appalled by violence done to those who choose to live alternative lifestyles. We must send a strong message through our law enforcement and judicial system that such attacks will bring the full force of the law upon those who commit such terrible acts.
“I appreciate the good will and sincerity of those who wish to expand hate crime laws. However, I do not believe such legislation is the answer. The severity of a crime should be based upon actions committed. If a violent crime is committed, then the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Every violent crime ought to be treated as severe, regardless of why it was committed. Life is precious -- and every murder is an equally egregious crime.
“When hate crime legislation was offered in the Senate in the past, I voted against it because I strongly felt it would usurp the power and jurisdiction of the states. I believe our law enforcement and judicial system should be focused upon holding individuals accountable for what they do, not what they think. Rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind if hate crime legislation comes before the Senate in the future.
“Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. You are the reason that I am here, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.”
Sincerely,
Sam Brownback
United States Senator
. . . my response:
Senator Brownback,
Thank you for your reply.
In the 1960’s as I reached adulthood, I watched and lived the violence of Americans who were outraged at the many generations of discrimination, persecution, intimidation, and un-prosecuted violent crimes against other citizens, simply and solely because of the skin pigmentation they inherited from their parents. I look back on those years, and I regret that I did not do more to help those who suffered, to help them cast off their chains and realize the “equal protection under the law” and the freedom of choice I enjoy in my Pursuit of Happiness. I cannot stand and watch today.
Non-heterosexual citizens have reached a similar point in our societal evolution. You said, “Every violent crime ought to be treated as severe, regardless of why it was committed. Life is precious -- and every murder is an equally egregious crime.” I could not agree more. However, the salient word in your statement is ‘ought.’ The sad reality for non-heterosexual citizens in many parts of this Nation is their reality does not even closely resemble your notion. Freedom cannot be parsed. Non-heterosexual citizens live in mortal fear of exposure. Is that the American dream? Matthew Wayne Shepard’s brutal murder may well become the same watershed precipitant event for non-heterosexual equal rights as the lynching of Emmett Louis Till (1955) was for racial equal rights.
My original communications (21.October.2007) dealt with the pending legislation of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA) [H.R. 3685, as before the Senate Judiciary Committee]. For the record, I believe the inclusion of “gender identity,” as in the language of H.R. 2015, is more appropriate and should be seriously considered during your deliberations. Nonetheless, I strongly urge you to support and pass H.R. 3685.
Since you raised the additional question of hate crimes legislation, I shall offer some additional thoughts for your consideration. In a general sense, I must agree with the essence of your position – murder and other violent crimes are all reprehensible and properly the jurisdiction of the states; as such, Federal supersedence is not consistent with the Constitution. However, what your argument misses is the conflict between elements of the Constitution – individual rights versus state’s rights – and a failure to recognize the harsh reality of our contemporary society. Non-heterosexual citizens have not and still do not enjoy “equal protection under the law” – in principle, yes, in practice, no. State and local jurisdictions do not prosecute crimes against homosexuals with the same vigor they do with conforming, heterosexual citizens. Until non-heterosexual citizens can enjoy the full “rights and privileges” of citizenship, special protection by the Federal government is required.
Senator Roberts informed me that the language of S. 1105 has been inserted into the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 [H.R. 1585]. Although neither you nor Pat Roberts were selected for the conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions, I strongly urge you to work with the conferees to ensure that Title X; Subtitle C; Sec. 1023, of H.R. 1585, now titled as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, remains in the final version of the bill, to be passed by Congress.
Whether any of us wishes to admit it, racism still exists as evidenced by the Jena 6 episode, despite the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the original 1969 hate crimes law, and a host of Supreme Court decisions. A rope noose is an article of intimidation with profound symbolic weight, and is far beyond a simple juvenile prank. Denial of the fear homosexuals live under is quite easy when you do not experience such discrimination and persecution. Let us not stand by and watch as some citizens are denied their Pursuit of Happiness by the fear of a vindictive portion of our society.
Please reconsider your position regarding equal rights for all citizens, not just the chosen majority. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
[PS: I should have added . . . we are all entitled by the Constitution to our bigotry; it does not make it right, but we are guaranteed our choices. However, when thoughts become actions or the incitement of others to action, the line is crossed.]
[NOTE: FYI, an Open Letter is just that an open letter. If any or all of my words are useful to anyone, please feel free to use them as you wish.]
For those of us who remain apprehensive about and vigilant of the Judiciary, this article will add knowledge and disquiet to our vigil.
“Justice for Sale – How special-interest money threatens the integrity of our courts”
by Sandra Day O'Connor
Wall Street Journal
Published: Thursday, November 15, 2007; 00:01 EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010864
Spot on, Sandra!
Comments and contributions from Update no.309:
"I read the whole thing and agree with at least most of your comments on various subjects, but for me it is too long to wade through to maybe make comments."
My response:
I know the long ones are not to your liking, but sometimes the words just flow. At least you read the whole thing. Comment, argue, chastise or pass as you wish. Most folks choose not to comment, but presumably, they do read the Update.
Another contribution:
"So let me see if I've got this straight. The Congress wants to tell soldiers they can't get nudie mags and download porn and whatnot? Look, porno really isn't my thing, but if some grunt who's been on some harrowing patrols shooting it out with terrorist scumbags wants to kick back with a Hustler back at base camp then enjoy. So long as it ain't kiddie porn, I don't care. We have more important issues with our soldiers than whether or not they're perusing adult entertainment videos and magazines. What's next? Does Congress go the Tipper Gore route and say soldiers can't listen to music with explicit lyrics. Keep your damn hands off my heavy metal, I say.
"And . . . happy to hear about the Phelps nuts coming out on the losing end of that lawsuit. Talk about people who deserve a five-knuckle shuffle if you know what I mean. I actually saw one of their spokeswomen on Hannity and Colmes a couple times. What a wide-eyed whackjob who looks like she combs her hair with a rabid alley cat and does nothing but scream . . . a lot. Amazing what happens when one is consumed by hate.
"And lest I forget, this civilian wishes to thank all the vets out there for protecting my life and liberty."
My reply:
You got it right. That is the law. I have voiced my opinion, but I don't carry any weight. For those of us who care, we must do what we can to reverse the moral projection and imposition of the self-professed, moral majority, and get the government out of the private affairs of citizens in good standing. And, I must add, get the government out of those activities that do not involve a proper, bona fide, interest of the State, rather than the moral projection that drives a willful and powerful minority in our society.
I've seen enough of the psychotic hatred of the Phelps clan. The sooner they disappear, the better, in my book.
A different contribution:
"Regarding waterboarding, last week a former SERE instructor and an Air Force interrogator both said it was essentially useless for obtaining information. Indeed, subsequently, the intel community repudiated SKM's info he gave during the sessions. Apparently he confessed to a lot of improbable things. Professional interrogators don't want to use it--they strongly feel that it doesn't give useful information. I don't have it at hand, but Col Kleinman's testimony was particularly interesting. Also a Marine Lt Col was forbidden by Pentagon leadership from testifying. He was a prosecutor who declined to bring charges against a detainee when he found how the 'confession' was obtained- through torture and deemed it unreliable. The Marine Corps was informed and had no problem with him testifying--at the last minute, the Pentagon told him not to testify- on pretty weak grounds.
"Also remember Teddy Roosevelt strongly denouncing waterboarding during the Philippine Insurrection several were court-martialed for doing just that."
My response:
I would prefer that we all lived in peace and respected the differences we all have in common. Alas, some folks still hold onto the notion of dominating other people. As long as megalomania exists, we shall have war. If we have war, then I am for winning, however ugly it might be.
I shall respectfully disagree. My definition of torture is anything that causes permanent injury; the threat of bodily harm does not qualify. I am not advocating for the use of waterboarding or any other radical inducement technique; yet, at the end of the day, I prefer to put my trust in the professionals; they are perfectly capable and positioned far better to judge what works and what does not. Having spent some time on the dark side, all intelligence is (or should be) evaluated for accuracy and reliability (of the source(s)). Further, convincing a determined enemy to relinquish any information he possesses is not an easy task, and occasionally the requisite time for more pleasant methods does not exist. Bottom line: I care far more about the safety and well-being of our troops (including the collectors), our citizens, our allies, and other innocent people than I do about the “feelings” of captured, battlefield combatant, which includes the planners like SKM. These guys are not criminals. There is no chain of evidence. They are not entitled to due process. Judicial prosecution is irrelevant and ludicrous. So, by my definition, waterboarding does not qualify as torture. I will agree that induced divulgence of information is automatically suspect and must be corroborated, but that is standard intelligence analysis.
War is hell. War is an ugly, nasty, disgusting business. Trying to put lipstick on a pig does not alter that pig. And, I have no interest in making nice with the bad guys; I’d just as soon kill them . . . but, others seek the information they possess. I say, let the professionals do what must be done; they know far better than us what works. Adjudicating this so-called torture issue in the press and/or Congress is farcical.
Sorry to be so crude and blunt, but that is the nature of the beast. I call ‘em as I see ‘em.
A continuing contribution:
“Concur in that the professionals should decide--and not be pressured by political appointees whose experience in these matters is limited by watching "24" and reading Tom Clancy. Unfortunately, that is what has appeared to have happened in some cases-- when interrogations didn't get what certain people wanted, they ordered 'the gloves taken off', but according to IC interrogation veterans, they didn't know what they were doing. If waterboarding is still being conducted, it is being done very discretely and highly-supervised by people who are not military. However, there is deep skepticism in the IC about the technique in getting useable intel. Remember, the KGB/NKVD/OGPY used it to get confessions, not intel. You may have read of Oberst Hans Scharff, the Luftwaffe's master interrogator. He eschewed torture of any kind, and was so skilled that he was able to get information out of captured Allied pilots, without them even realizing it. We brought him over after the war to talk to our government interrogators, and he later became a U.S. citizen. Also, the top Marine interrogator in the Pacific during WWII was of the same mind. Can't recall his name, but his story is the same.
“Last week the Army issued this "strategic communication hot topic" to all commands.
“The U.S. Army strictly prohibits the use of waterboarding during intelligence investigations by any of its members. It is specifically prohibited by Field Manual 2-22.3 and is not a sanctioned interrogation technique in any training manual or any instructions to soldiers in the field," the statement says.”
My response:
Good points all. I have not been on the inside for a very long time. And, I certainly have never been involved with or even close to an interrogation unit of any kind. Thus, I do not have any first-hand, factual basis for my opinions. That said, I strongly suspect waterboarding specifically and torture in general are a contemporary cause célèbre with nearly pure, parochial, political purposes. I doubt very much that waterboarding as we know it, is used very much, if at all, for the reasons you have given. Yet, I refuse to deny that tool or other extreme measures to the professionals in the field who are dealing with the realities of modern warfare on a daily basis. Once again, I must say, these bad guys are battlefield combatants, NOT criminals. The FBI conducting a criminal investigation is a war zone is a joke. Criminal standards on combat actions are a terrible joke. To me, the current public / Press / political debate revolving around waterboarding is directly akin to the insane prohibitions in our war – not bombing the fighter bases, not shooting first, not bombing the dikes, not mining Haiphong harbor, not sinking every ship and destroying every train trying to enter North Vietnam, ad infinitum. I say the things I do because I want the politicians OUT of the warfighting task. Let the professionals use the tools that work; I trust them . . . FAR more than I do any politician or arm-chair quarterback 8,000 miles from the combat zone.
These are the reasons I get so huffy about the political abuse of Blackwater and the other contractors. They simply cannot afford to wait to be fired on first, period.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
You got it right. That is the law. I have voiced my opinion, but I don't carry any weight. For those of us who care, we must do what we can to reverse the moral projection and imposition of the self-professed, moral majority, and get the government out of the private affairs of citizens in good standing. And, I must add, get the government out of those activities that do not involve a proper, bona fide, interest of the State, rather than the moral projection that drives a willful and powerful minority in our society.
I've seen enough of the psychotic hatred of the Phelps clan. The sooner they disappear, the better, in my book.
A different contribution:
"Regarding waterboarding, last week a former SERE instructor and an Air Force interrogator both said it was essentially useless for obtaining information. Indeed, subsequently, the intel community repudiated SKM's info he gave during the sessions. Apparently he confessed to a lot of improbable things. Professional interrogators don't want to use it--they strongly feel that it doesn't give useful information. I don't have it at hand, but Col Kleinman's testimony was particularly interesting. Also a Marine Lt Col was forbidden by Pentagon leadership from testifying. He was a prosecutor who declined to bring charges against a detainee when he found how the 'confession' was obtained- through torture and deemed it unreliable. The Marine Corps was informed and had no problem with him testifying--at the last minute, the Pentagon told him not to testify- on pretty weak grounds.
"Also remember Teddy Roosevelt strongly denouncing waterboarding during the Philippine Insurrection several were court-martialed for doing just that."
My response:
I would prefer that we all lived in peace and respected the differences we all have in common. Alas, some folks still hold onto the notion of dominating other people. As long as megalomania exists, we shall have war. If we have war, then I am for winning, however ugly it might be.
I shall respectfully disagree. My definition of torture is anything that causes permanent injury; the threat of bodily harm does not qualify. I am not advocating for the use of waterboarding or any other radical inducement technique; yet, at the end of the day, I prefer to put my trust in the professionals; they are perfectly capable and positioned far better to judge what works and what does not. Having spent some time on the dark side, all intelligence is (or should be) evaluated for accuracy and reliability (of the source(s)). Further, convincing a determined enemy to relinquish any information he possesses is not an easy task, and occasionally the requisite time for more pleasant methods does not exist. Bottom line: I care far more about the safety and well-being of our troops (including the collectors), our citizens, our allies, and other innocent people than I do about the “feelings” of captured, battlefield combatant, which includes the planners like SKM. These guys are not criminals. There is no chain of evidence. They are not entitled to due process. Judicial prosecution is irrelevant and ludicrous. So, by my definition, waterboarding does not qualify as torture. I will agree that induced divulgence of information is automatically suspect and must be corroborated, but that is standard intelligence analysis.
War is hell. War is an ugly, nasty, disgusting business. Trying to put lipstick on a pig does not alter that pig. And, I have no interest in making nice with the bad guys; I’d just as soon kill them . . . but, others seek the information they possess. I say, let the professionals do what must be done; they know far better than us what works. Adjudicating this so-called torture issue in the press and/or Congress is farcical.
Sorry to be so crude and blunt, but that is the nature of the beast. I call ‘em as I see ‘em.
A continuing contribution:
“Concur in that the professionals should decide--and not be pressured by political appointees whose experience in these matters is limited by watching "24" and reading Tom Clancy. Unfortunately, that is what has appeared to have happened in some cases-- when interrogations didn't get what certain people wanted, they ordered 'the gloves taken off', but according to IC interrogation veterans, they didn't know what they were doing. If waterboarding is still being conducted, it is being done very discretely and highly-supervised by people who are not military. However, there is deep skepticism in the IC about the technique in getting useable intel. Remember, the KGB/NKVD/OGPY used it to get confessions, not intel. You may have read of Oberst Hans Scharff, the Luftwaffe's master interrogator. He eschewed torture of any kind, and was so skilled that he was able to get information out of captured Allied pilots, without them even realizing it. We brought him over after the war to talk to our government interrogators, and he later became a U.S. citizen. Also, the top Marine interrogator in the Pacific during WWII was of the same mind. Can't recall his name, but his story is the same.
“Last week the Army issued this "strategic communication hot topic" to all commands.
“The U.S. Army strictly prohibits the use of waterboarding during intelligence investigations by any of its members. It is specifically prohibited by Field Manual 2-22.3 and is not a sanctioned interrogation technique in any training manual or any instructions to soldiers in the field," the statement says.”
My response:
Good points all. I have not been on the inside for a very long time. And, I certainly have never been involved with or even close to an interrogation unit of any kind. Thus, I do not have any first-hand, factual basis for my opinions. That said, I strongly suspect waterboarding specifically and torture in general are a contemporary cause célèbre with nearly pure, parochial, political purposes. I doubt very much that waterboarding as we know it, is used very much, if at all, for the reasons you have given. Yet, I refuse to deny that tool or other extreme measures to the professionals in the field who are dealing with the realities of modern warfare on a daily basis. Once again, I must say, these bad guys are battlefield combatants, NOT criminals. The FBI conducting a criminal investigation is a war zone is a joke. Criminal standards on combat actions are a terrible joke. To me, the current public / Press / political debate revolving around waterboarding is directly akin to the insane prohibitions in our war – not bombing the fighter bases, not shooting first, not bombing the dikes, not mining Haiphong harbor, not sinking every ship and destroying every train trying to enter North Vietnam, ad infinitum. I say the things I do because I want the politicians OUT of the warfighting task. Let the professionals use the tools that work; I trust them . . . FAR more than I do any politician or arm-chair quarterback 8,000 miles from the combat zone.
These are the reasons I get so huffy about the political abuse of Blackwater and the other contractors. They simply cannot afford to wait to be fired on first, period.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment