Update from the Heartland
No.329
24.3.08 – 30.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.329
24.3.08 – 30.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, the Iraqi government directed the Army to subdue militia elements directed by powerful Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr [141 & sub], whom I labeled "a combatant leader" in 2004. President Bush praised Prime Minister al-Malaki for his courage in taking decisive action and declared the current confrontation would be a "defining," transformative moment. We need to see how al-Sadr is going to play this confrontation.
I think we are all familiar with the violence perpetrated by radical Islamic clerics against one of the essential freedoms in the western democracies. Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan has added his voice in an opinion column worth reading.
"Islam and Free Speech"
by Peter Hoekstra
Wall Street Journal
March 26, 2008; Page A15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649269618764219.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
In an odd bit of news, the Associate Press reported criminal charging of former Marine Sergeant Ryan Weemer for his involvement in a shooting incident during the 2nd Battle of Fallujah in 2004. The oddity here is how the charges came to pass four years later. Weemer applied for and was deep into the acceptance process for the Secret Service. During a routine polygraph test, he was asked if he participated in a wrongful death event. The Marine Corps reactivated Weemer from the Individual Ready Reserve, shipped him off to Camp Pendleton, and charged him with murder. There are a lot aspects to Ryan's case that bother me. I hope Weemer receives the justice he deserves and can move on with his life. His future in law enforcement is probably over, no matter what the outcome of his court-martial.
Please remember always that intelligence is an imprecise art form. Techniques have evolved over many years of trial & error to categorize any bit of information based on the accuracy of information and the reliability of the source(s). Battlefield and wartime decisions are made based on a highly subjective judgments, directly dependent upon time, id est, the more time you have, the more assets that can be directed to improve the accuracy. Whining about intelligence failures ignores the reality of the dark side. A myriad of historic examples are available to illustrate good & bad combinations of decisions & intelligence. Leaders do the best they can with the information they have in any given situation. Sometimes they get it right; sometimes they are wrong.
I have long opposed simple popular vote elections and advocated for the wisdom of the Electoral College as a means of determining presidential elections. The confusing and debilitating conflagration in this year’s Democratic Party nomination process is a prime example. The Maryland popular vote law [279] portends similar confusion in the presidential election process. Regrettably, far too many citizens have not tried to understand or appreciate the wisdom of the Founders, and in that group I include more than a few Members of Congress. The pressure from parochial politicians who seek electoral advantage will continue to mount, and we can only hope citizens study the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, and spend some time thinking about the consequences of circumventing the Constitution as they did in Maryland. Very foolish!
We have another well written article on a sensitive topic for your rumination.
"Law Can't Prevent Underage Sex"
by John Stossel
RealClearPolitics.com
March 26, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/law_cant_prevent_underage_sex.html
The conduct of the Federal government in the Spitzer case has illuminated a serious flaw, failure and injurious process [327], by using tools entrusted to the government for the prosecution of the War on Islamic Fascism. Numerous family and friends argued against the PATRIOT Act when it was first passed in 2001 [111 & sub]; I argued for the larger objective.
"U.S. Defends Tough Tactics with Spitzer"
by David Johnston and Philip Shenon
New York Times
Published: 21.March.2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/nyregion/21justice.html?th&emc=th
As we learn more and more of the government's conduct, I must humbly admit that our youngest son, Taylor, appears to have been correct seven years ago. The abuse of the PATRIOT Act of 2001 joins the government's abuse of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as examples of the Federal government’s unworthiness to possess such powerful tools to violate our rights and freedoms. I do not want George Orwell to be seen as a prophet, but the longer we go down this path, the more it appears history may record his seminal 1949 novel as a prophetic work -- science fiction turned reality. The question to us -- We, the People -- will we wake up and stop the inexorable advance before reality is realized? (More below, in comment section)
Does the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have judicial supremacy within the United States regarding a state criminal case? The latest question reached the Supreme Court last fall, and their judgment came this week – Medell¿n v. Texas [552 U.S. ___ (2008); No. 06-984]. The ruling dealt with the interpretation of international treaty law as well as the President’s authority to intercede in a state criminal case. José Ernesto Medell¿n, an illegal alien from Mexico and a member of a gang known as the “Black and Whites,” raped and murdered two teenage girls in Houston, Texas, in 1993; he was convicted and sentenced to death. Mexico initiated a complaint against the United States in the ICJ, claiming that Medell¿n and 50 other convicted Mexican citizens were not informed of their Vienna Convention right to contact their embassy as part of the arrest process, similar to our Miranda rights (1966). The ICJ issued its ruling on 31.March.2004 – Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.) [I.C.J. 12 (2004)] AKA Avena. As a consequence, the President issued his 28.February.2005 Memorandum directing the states to comply with the ICJ’s Avena ruling. The constitutional question focused on the word “undertakes” as a non-executable provision of Article 94, Clause1, of the UN Charter. The Supremes rejected the Avena claim as well as the President’s authority to issue his compliance memorandum, thus affirming the decision of the Texas courts. In this case, I see similarities with the challenge we face with the government’s intrusion into any citizen’s private affairs; with Medell¿n, foreign affairs versus domestic judicial processes. I can only hope the Roberts Court interprets the law as precisely in questions of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.
Comments and contributions from Update no.328:
“Open dialog and debate about Islam would be a welcome change from ‘my way or death’ mentality the Islamofacists profess now. When they are willing, we will be willing. I wonder if they will ever be willing?”
My reply:
Pope Urban VIII was not exactly open to other ways of looking at things, beyond his concept of life and the world. He was wrong. Christianity has matured since the days of the Inquisition. Islam shall mature as well. One of my favorite little pearls of wisdom from Sir Winston . . .
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary; it fulfils the same function as pain in the human body, it calls attention to the development of an unhealthy state of things."
One day, Muslims will learn to have confidence in their faith, rather than fear, and they will see criticism as a positive force. The age of Islamic enlightenment is not here yet, and may not begin in our lifetime, but I have faith that enlightenment will come.
From an external thread last week, we have this continuing dialogue:
Last week:
"The article below supports the notion that something is amiss with the Spitzer situation. The author is an attorney who has followed the case. He is an expert on ethics."
"The Assault on Public Integrity Continues"
by Scott Horton
Harper's Magazine; No Comment Department
Published: March 19, 2008
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002672
"One of the more suspicious chapters in the U.S. attorneys scandal relates to the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, Debra Yang. She was engaged in a probe into corruption allegations surrounding Congressman Jerry Lewis of Redlands, California. There is evidence to suggest that Karl Rove and Harriet Miers decided that Yang’s examination of corruption allegations surrounding Lewis were uncomfortable, and that they wanted her out, presumably to protect Lewis.
"For her part, Yang denies any connection between her departure and that of other U.S. Attorneys. But it is interesting that she left to work with Theodore Olson, once President Bush’s solicitor general, for a seven-figure paycheck as a partner at the Los Angeles powerhouse law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. And that Jerry Lewis had hired high-priced counsel defending Yang’s probe – namely Ted Olson at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
"Yang was replaced by Thomas P. O’Brian, a successor far more congenial to the White House. O’Brian quickly decided that the probe into Representative Lewis wasn’t really very important. In fact he seems to have done just about everything within his power to shut it down. As the Los Angeles Daily Journal reported back in September, the new U.S. attorney decided to terminate the 25-year veteran prosecutor who was heading up the examination into Lewis. As the San Bernardino County Sun asked, was this just another of those amazing coincidences that kept getting in the way of the investigation of Lewis, or was a pattern of politically driven maneuvers to block the investigation not now evident? The Sun adopted the latter view, as has just about every person who has independently examined the curious conduct of the Los Angeles U.S. attorney’s office.
"That was September, and in the interim we learn that, just as forecast, the air has been drained from the tires of the Lewis probe. Yet another blow came this week. The Recorder, a Southern California legal periodical, discloses that the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles has decided to shut down his public integrity section.
"Paul Kiel, writing at Talking Points Memo, interviews a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles:
"'The fact of an investigation into the earmark process [i.e. the Duke Cunningham scandal and by extension the investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)],' really had a huge impact in opening up debate of how that process has been corrupted by money. That doesn’t happen if you’re not looking at it every day.
"'My concern is the message that it sends,' the lawyer continued. 'The existence of the section, the fact that talented, smart, aggressive prosecutors are looking at cases, sends a message to public officials that they need to be careful.' Now another message has been sent.
"Indeed, that message compares prominently with the recent highly played sting action involving Eliot Spitzer. That was run by the public integrity unit in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office. The whole matter opened and was developed in a matter of weeks and involved an immense deployment of resources, all with the strong approbation of Washington.
"How do we reconcile the attitude taken in Manhattan with the one in the nation’s second largest metropolis, Los Angeles? You just have to look at the party affiliation of the targets, and all questions are answered. This is the Bush Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, after all."
. . . with this additional contribution, this week:
"Here is another article you will find interesting, also from Scott Horton."
"More Political Taint in the Spitzer Case"
by Scott Horton
Harper's Magazine
Published: March 22, 2008; 3:01 PM
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002714
"According to accounts that prosecutors and investigators have leaked to the New York Times and other publications, the Spitzer case was launched by a Suspicious Activity Report submitted by the North Fork Bank. Today, however, the Miami Herald ties the investigation to a tip furnished by the notorious G.O.P. dirty trickster Roger Stone.
"Almost four months before Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in a sex scandal, a lawyer for Republican political operative Roger Stone sent a letter to the FBI alleging that Spitzer 'used the services of high-priced call girls' while in Florida. The letter, dated Nov. 19, said Miami Beach resident Stone learned the information from 'a social contact in an adult-themed club.' It offered one potentially identifying detail: The man in question hadn't taken off his calf-length black socks 'during the sex act.'
"Stone, known for shutting down the 2000 presidential election recount effort in Miami-Dade County, is a longtime Spitzer nemesis whose political experience ranges from the Nixon White House to Al Sharpton's presidential campaign. His lawyer wrote the letter containing the call-girl allegations after FBI agents had asked to speak to Stone, though he says the FBI did not specify why he was contacted. 'Mr. Stone respectfully declines to meet with you at this time,' the letter states, before going on to offer 'certain information' about Spitzer. 'The governor has paid literally tens of thousands of dollars for these services. It is Mr. Stone's understanding that the governor paid not with credit cards or cash but through some pre-arranged transfer,' the letter said.
"'It is also my client's understanding from the same source that Gov. Spitzer did not remove his mid-calf length black socks during the sex act. Perhaps you can use this detail to corroborate Mr. Stone's information,' the letter said. It was signed by attorney Paul Rolf Jensen of Costa Mesa, Calif.
"This further develops Stone's statement in an interview with Newsday in which he intimated prior knowledge of the investigation. The New York FBI office declined to confirm that it had received or acted on the Stone letter.
"It is interesting and potentially significant that prosecutors have thus far suppressed all information about Stone's involvement.
"Obviously the involvement in the case of a well-known Republican Party functionary with a reputation for gutter warfare puts a far more political cast on the case against Spitzer.
"The New York Times yesterday for the first time published an article that acknowledged the extraordinary nature of the Justice Department's investigation of Spitzer [cited above]. David Johnston and Philip Shenon write:
"'The Justice Department used some of its most intrusive tactics against Eliot Spitzer, examining his financial records, eavesdropping on his phone calls and tailing him during its criminal investigation of the Emperor's Club prostitution ring. The scale and intensity of the investigation of Mr. Spitzer, then the governor of New York, seemed on its face to be a departure for the Justice Department, which aggressively investigates allegations of wrongdoing by public officials, but almost never investigates people who pay prostitutes for sex.
"'A review of recent federal cases shows that federal prosecutors go sparingly after owners and operators of prostitution enterprises, and usually only when millions of dollars are involved or there are aggravating circumstances, like human trafficking or child exploitation. Government lawyers and investigators defend the expenditure of resources on Mr. Spitzer in the Emperor's Club V.I.P. case as justifiable and necessary since it involved the possibility of criminal wrongdoing by New York's highest elected official, who had been the state's top prosecutor.'
"This marks a strong shift in position in Justice Department explanations of the case, increasingly bringing into focus the fact that Eliot Spitzer was a target because he was Eliot Spitzer. The comparison of this case with the handling of the "D.C. Madam" case produces a very curious bifurcation. Eliot Spitzer is worthy of being a target, and the dedication of massive resources to nab him. But G.O.P. Senator David Vitter and Bush Administration Director of USAID Randall Tobias are not. What, other than the fact that the latter are Republicans and the former Democrats, provides the basis for distinction? This investigation increasingly looks like a political hit."
My response:
The essence of this rests in prostitution being a state crime, not a federal crime, unless of course, we want to use the Mann Act. The fact that Federal agents sought engagement on a prostitution case speaks volumes.
What bothers me to the point of spittin’ anger is the Feds using tools far beyond their original intent – the Controlled Substance Act, the PATRIOT Act, even the freakin’ Mann Act. What’s worse, the Supreme Court has used extraordinarily liberal constitutional interpretation of the Commerce Clause to validate these highly intrusive laws.
So far, the image we are left with is precisely as Scott stated – a political vendetta in the guise of a Federal investigation. One day, We, the People, will wake up to what has been happening to our Freedom and Liberty in the last 35 years.
I pray we have the will and strength to force the government out of our private lives. I fear we may have passed the point of no return. Time shall tell the tale.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Absolument! What really started the investigation was not the money-laundering or blackmail (from the withdrawals), but the letters from this character Stone, who has been involved in some other shady situations.
"Read some of Horton's writing on the dodgy conviction and incarceration of the former Democratic governor of Alabama. That also evidences vindictive and selective prosecution by the federal prosecutors. Another political vendetta--one that is slowly coming to light."
. . . and my follow-up response:
The consequences of Horton's allegations are dark and ominous for our future, and I certainly share some of his skepticism and apprehension. We can imagine these vast, expansive and intrusive tools in the hands of the Federal government that stretches so far for political gain while facing such gargantuan threats seems to be indicative of these days of divisive partisanship taken to new depths by George W. Bush and his cronies. It's wrong! We can only hope our next leader is a big enough and strong enough person to lead us out of the quagmire. Politicians promise us what we want to hear and service only their power base -- case in point, George W. who repeatedly told us he was a "uniter, not a divider" and has done more than any recent president to divide the Nation. He has been really good at division.
Another contribution:
"I found this to balance the right-wing "surge is going so well" blather. No mention of those nasty communists, I mean islamofascists.
"Killing and Dying in Iraq for Nothing"
by Jacob G. Hornberger
The Future of Freedom Foundation
Monday, March 24, 2008
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-03-24.asp
"As to the Winter Soldier stuff in Maryland last week, did you see any of the testimony? I know what you think of it, just curious if you actually saw any of it."
My reply:
Wow, where do I begin?
First, no, I’ve not been able to watch any of the “Winter Soldier” proceedings, but I have read various elements from several sources. Most of the mainstream Press have ignored the event . . . unlike the Vietnam era version. The ‘rules of engagement’ discussion was interesting, although quite narrow in vision.
I doubt Hornberger is open to my argument, but I am open to his, although at present I disagree for the reasons I have given previously. What intrigues me in his opinion are his use of “no legal or moral right to be in Iraq” and “imperial adventure.” Again, IMHO, when you view events in isolation, the conclusion and opinion are relative easy to rationalize and defend, like a murder or rape. Yet, when you look beyond the crime, sometimes you find a thread connecting crimes that lead to il Mafioso – a syndicate or organized activity. We can argue about legality, but “imperial?” The use of that word in any manner with respect to the United States of America is . . . well . . . I have yet to see one scintilla of evidence or even suggestion of a linkage. I continue to wait and search for reasons why American citizens use such words.
. . . and this follow-up:
"I like Hornberger - and he's a lawyer. Many of your points are well spoken and have a legalistic ring to them so I thought you would appreciate his ideas. If we bomb and attack a country and basically do it to control their resources, then isnt that imperialistic? (My oversimplification, not his) We could say we are just protecting ourselves, but that is just a justification, which is why I have made the comparison of the preemptive strike on Iraq to Hitler's invasion of Poland. Nat Parry has a really good piece at Consortiumnews.com today called 'Not handling Iraqi Truth.' http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/032608b.html If you have a chance to read it I would be interested in any mistakes he may have made in his analysis, from your perspective. I saw some of the Winter Soldier testimony at Democracynow.com and it was illuminating. Also the Christian Science Monitor ran a piece I think on Fri or Sat about the meeting. It left out the graphic and disturbing stuff. I know, war is hell..."
. . . with my follow-up reply:
Attacking for resources = imperialistic? Yes, in a form . . . that was one of the principal objectives of Imperial Japan. So, we are back to attacking Iraq for oil. If so, the accusation has no substance. If oil was our objective, we would be controlling the oil resources of Iraq, and I see no evidence whatsoever that is the case. Using military power to gain resources may be necessary in some distant era, but I see no indicative bits of information today or the near future.
The two versions of “Winter Soldier” events are dramatically different in situation and Press coverage, probably indicative of the difference between the basis of the two wars.
. . . round three:
"I could do some research and send you pieces that express better than I can that control of the oil in Iraq was a factor in the invasion, but I'll just say from my limited reading and knowledge that the Perle/Cheney/Wolfowitz. PNAC, Neocon, objective was to control the situation in Iraq so that oil production and distribution and development (since much of it is still in the ground un-drilled) could be controlled by western companies, who in fact are controlling it now. If the political situation in Iraq was controlled by us, or at least heavily influenced, then contracts, agreements, etc could be made that kept and even increased the role of Exxon, Chevron, etc, ( I have not looked into the actual companies and entities that are benefiting from this)-in controlling oil production and distribution. This to me is imperialistic in that it is the taking control of resources that do not belong to us and using them for our gain. To the man on the street, and in fact, educated friends of mine who are apolitical have made comments that amount to, "what 's wrong with that?" Well, I guess that would require more discussion and more historically perspicacity, in light of the way empires rise and fall...
"What did you think of the Larry Gatlin song? I was hoping to jar a discussion about looking at things from both the heart and the head. Marines, and Rangers, then and now, and I mean the young men in Afghanistan and Iraq as we speak, have to steel their hearts and do their jobs with only their heads. But many of them, if very few of us sitting in the warmth of our kitchens and dens, are recognizing the damage done when there is no heart in the matter. That is why movies like the Valley of Elah, Rendition, and especially Redaction are not doing well. Who wants to see the reality of war in a movie theater? Only the ones in it."
. . . my reply to round three:
To my, albeit, limited knowledge of American history, the United States of America has never gone to war for resources – oil or otherwise. We might have a sliver of an argument with the Mexican-American or the Spanish-American Wars, but that is a stretch; in those cases, other stimulants ignited the fire. We still hold territory gained in the latter war, and the land acquired in the former is a vital part of this Grand Republic, although under threat by illegal immigration. I have not seen or am I aware of any evidence whatsoever that Americans are exerting any influence over Iraqi oil, or natural resources of any other country. British and American oil companies developed the oil fields of the Persian Gulf region, but all those resources have been nationalized. If we controlled oil, we would lower the price. For a country that supposedly controls Middle Eastern oil, we are taking a very strange tack in exerting that control. I just don’t see it. We buy resources in the open market, and we pay the prevailing price. Buying is not imperialistic or wrong.
I have advocated for and would love to see the United States focus our scientific and industrial power in a Manhattan Project manner to develop non-fossil fuel energy for electricity generation, automobiles, aircraft and such, to zero our dependence on fossil-fuels – stop buying oil. I would be quite happy letting Russia and the Gulf States sell their oil to others. We would have a technology that vastly reduces the influence of the Gulf States on the marketplace. It would be quite interesting to see how the Gulf States would evolve. Dubai seems to be on the best path to a new era.
To my knowledge, citizens who have stood in harm’s way in defense of this Grand Republic in every war since the Revolution and who will stand the line in all future wars have paid a huge price for our freedoms. There have always been a pathological fraction who enjoy the killing. There have always been those who survive the combat and are irreparably broken. And, there are the majority who do what must be done, and then come home and do their best to forget the horror they experienced. I think this observation has been true since civilization began. If we only listen to one portion or the other, we gain a distorted view of reality . . . the best example being the Vietnam War. The Press focused on the “Winter Soldier Investigations” and Hanoi Jane, and ignored the majority of us who served willingly, honorably and with commitment.
I do not watch movies for any political development. Hollywood tends to have a very distorted view of their importance. War is like sausage . . . watching how it is made does not enhance the taste.
. . . to which was added, by a different participant in this thread:
"There are many reasons we are in Iraq but the question is what was the major reason our leadership embarked on this course?
"Here's my two cents. We are in Iraq to support the Dollar. Carville's quote is applicable here; "It's the economy, stupid!" The dollar is the world's reserve currency and middle eastern oil has to be purchased in dollars for the most part. That means the dollar has built in demand. Under this system we have arranged, as long as the world needs oil the world will need dollars (do we need oil dependency?). Saddam changed policy and sold his oil in Euros in 2000 which incidentally appears to be the time we began to seriously focus on "regime change". China, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others have trillions of US dollars. If dollars aren't needed for oil, why hold them? The dollar could be dumped quickly (unlikely as it would hurt the sellers) and it would collapse causing an economic catastrophe. As it is many nations are using Sovereign Wealth Funds to exchange their dollars for anything else of value without causing panic selling.
"Iran is in the crosshairs for the same reason we went into Iraq. They recently opened an oil burse accepting several currencies but not the dollar. This threatens us more than any army or any terrorists. What would it mean for the dollar to collapse and lose its role as the world's reserve currency? I am sure our leaders have thought long and hard about this and I think their conclusions have led us to war. The war could not be sold with the truth. We Americans think too highly of ourselves to kill for money. But isn't war always about security in part? And the greatest insecurity is poverty.
"We have exported our inflation to the world. The debt has to be serviced and the only way we can avoid the very real and severe pain of doing so is to respond militarily and force other countries to keep taking our dollars. And we have to print more dollars to do it. That's the way it is with all empires. I just hope we can change course in time. We still have the Constitution. Oaths are still sworn to uphold it. Maybe the American people will demand those that do actually read it. The Constitution says Congress has the duty to coin money and only gold and silver can be used.
"Abandoning the discipline gold provided and allowing for a runaway fiat money system has been our downfall. But that leads from the war to the FED. The war is a tragedy. The FED is an abomination."
. . . to which I replied:
Pressure within OPEC to switch from the dollar to the euro as the currency of fossil fuel exchange has been around for at least a decade. The current economic situation hardly created the urge to switch to the euro. None of us are parties to the decision to take out Saddam, so our opinions are simply conjecture. As I have written before, if we choose not to see the threat, to connect the dots, or we connect the dots in a different manner, to create a different picture, that is our choice. I do not believe we went into Iraq for oil, for the dollar, or for anything other than eliminating a threat.
I share some of your concern regarding the Federal government's intrusion into the marketplace ever since FDR's New Deal. I am and remain a vociferous critic of Federalism including the versions practiced by the Clinton and Bush administrations. The issue is always one of balance . . . when & how is it appropriate for the Federal government to protect the "general welfare" of We, the People. I am skeptical of the present intrusions, but I am withholding judgment for the moment.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, the Iraqi government directed the Army to subdue militia elements directed by powerful Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr [141 & sub], whom I labeled "a combatant leader" in 2004. President Bush praised Prime Minister al-Malaki for his courage in taking decisive action and declared the current confrontation would be a "defining," transformative moment. We need to see how al-Sadr is going to play this confrontation.
I think we are all familiar with the violence perpetrated by radical Islamic clerics against one of the essential freedoms in the western democracies. Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan has added his voice in an opinion column worth reading.
"Islam and Free Speech"
by Peter Hoekstra
Wall Street Journal
March 26, 2008; Page A15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649269618764219.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
In an odd bit of news, the Associate Press reported criminal charging of former Marine Sergeant Ryan Weemer for his involvement in a shooting incident during the 2nd Battle of Fallujah in 2004. The oddity here is how the charges came to pass four years later. Weemer applied for and was deep into the acceptance process for the Secret Service. During a routine polygraph test, he was asked if he participated in a wrongful death event. The Marine Corps reactivated Weemer from the Individual Ready Reserve, shipped him off to Camp Pendleton, and charged him with murder. There are a lot aspects to Ryan's case that bother me. I hope Weemer receives the justice he deserves and can move on with his life. His future in law enforcement is probably over, no matter what the outcome of his court-martial.
Please remember always that intelligence is an imprecise art form. Techniques have evolved over many years of trial & error to categorize any bit of information based on the accuracy of information and the reliability of the source(s). Battlefield and wartime decisions are made based on a highly subjective judgments, directly dependent upon time, id est, the more time you have, the more assets that can be directed to improve the accuracy. Whining about intelligence failures ignores the reality of the dark side. A myriad of historic examples are available to illustrate good & bad combinations of decisions & intelligence. Leaders do the best they can with the information they have in any given situation. Sometimes they get it right; sometimes they are wrong.
I have long opposed simple popular vote elections and advocated for the wisdom of the Electoral College as a means of determining presidential elections. The confusing and debilitating conflagration in this year’s Democratic Party nomination process is a prime example. The Maryland popular vote law [279] portends similar confusion in the presidential election process. Regrettably, far too many citizens have not tried to understand or appreciate the wisdom of the Founders, and in that group I include more than a few Members of Congress. The pressure from parochial politicians who seek electoral advantage will continue to mount, and we can only hope citizens study the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, and spend some time thinking about the consequences of circumventing the Constitution as they did in Maryland. Very foolish!
We have another well written article on a sensitive topic for your rumination.
"Law Can't Prevent Underage Sex"
by John Stossel
RealClearPolitics.com
March 26, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/law_cant_prevent_underage_sex.html
The conduct of the Federal government in the Spitzer case has illuminated a serious flaw, failure and injurious process [327], by using tools entrusted to the government for the prosecution of the War on Islamic Fascism. Numerous family and friends argued against the PATRIOT Act when it was first passed in 2001 [111 & sub]; I argued for the larger objective.
"U.S. Defends Tough Tactics with Spitzer"
by David Johnston and Philip Shenon
New York Times
Published: 21.March.2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/nyregion/21justice.html?th&emc=th
As we learn more and more of the government's conduct, I must humbly admit that our youngest son, Taylor, appears to have been correct seven years ago. The abuse of the PATRIOT Act of 2001 joins the government's abuse of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as examples of the Federal government’s unworthiness to possess such powerful tools to violate our rights and freedoms. I do not want George Orwell to be seen as a prophet, but the longer we go down this path, the more it appears history may record his seminal 1949 novel as a prophetic work -- science fiction turned reality. The question to us -- We, the People -- will we wake up and stop the inexorable advance before reality is realized? (More below, in comment section)
Does the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have judicial supremacy within the United States regarding a state criminal case? The latest question reached the Supreme Court last fall, and their judgment came this week – Medell¿n v. Texas [552 U.S. ___ (2008); No. 06-984]. The ruling dealt with the interpretation of international treaty law as well as the President’s authority to intercede in a state criminal case. José Ernesto Medell¿n, an illegal alien from Mexico and a member of a gang known as the “Black and Whites,” raped and murdered two teenage girls in Houston, Texas, in 1993; he was convicted and sentenced to death. Mexico initiated a complaint against the United States in the ICJ, claiming that Medell¿n and 50 other convicted Mexican citizens were not informed of their Vienna Convention right to contact their embassy as part of the arrest process, similar to our Miranda rights (1966). The ICJ issued its ruling on 31.March.2004 – Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.) [I.C.J. 12 (2004)] AKA Avena. As a consequence, the President issued his 28.February.2005 Memorandum directing the states to comply with the ICJ’s Avena ruling. The constitutional question focused on the word “undertakes” as a non-executable provision of Article 94, Clause1, of the UN Charter. The Supremes rejected the Avena claim as well as the President’s authority to issue his compliance memorandum, thus affirming the decision of the Texas courts. In this case, I see similarities with the challenge we face with the government’s intrusion into any citizen’s private affairs; with Medell¿n, foreign affairs versus domestic judicial processes. I can only hope the Roberts Court interprets the law as precisely in questions of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.
Comments and contributions from Update no.328:
“Open dialog and debate about Islam would be a welcome change from ‘my way or death’ mentality the Islamofacists profess now. When they are willing, we will be willing. I wonder if they will ever be willing?”
My reply:
Pope Urban VIII was not exactly open to other ways of looking at things, beyond his concept of life and the world. He was wrong. Christianity has matured since the days of the Inquisition. Islam shall mature as well. One of my favorite little pearls of wisdom from Sir Winston . . .
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary; it fulfils the same function as pain in the human body, it calls attention to the development of an unhealthy state of things."
One day, Muslims will learn to have confidence in their faith, rather than fear, and they will see criticism as a positive force. The age of Islamic enlightenment is not here yet, and may not begin in our lifetime, but I have faith that enlightenment will come.
From an external thread last week, we have this continuing dialogue:
Last week:
"The article below supports the notion that something is amiss with the Spitzer situation. The author is an attorney who has followed the case. He is an expert on ethics."
"The Assault on Public Integrity Continues"
by Scott Horton
Harper's Magazine; No Comment Department
Published: March 19, 2008
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002672
"One of the more suspicious chapters in the U.S. attorneys scandal relates to the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, Debra Yang. She was engaged in a probe into corruption allegations surrounding Congressman Jerry Lewis of Redlands, California. There is evidence to suggest that Karl Rove and Harriet Miers decided that Yang’s examination of corruption allegations surrounding Lewis were uncomfortable, and that they wanted her out, presumably to protect Lewis.
"For her part, Yang denies any connection between her departure and that of other U.S. Attorneys. But it is interesting that she left to work with Theodore Olson, once President Bush’s solicitor general, for a seven-figure paycheck as a partner at the Los Angeles powerhouse law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. And that Jerry Lewis had hired high-priced counsel defending Yang’s probe – namely Ted Olson at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
"Yang was replaced by Thomas P. O’Brian, a successor far more congenial to the White House. O’Brian quickly decided that the probe into Representative Lewis wasn’t really very important. In fact he seems to have done just about everything within his power to shut it down. As the Los Angeles Daily Journal reported back in September, the new U.S. attorney decided to terminate the 25-year veteran prosecutor who was heading up the examination into Lewis. As the San Bernardino County Sun asked, was this just another of those amazing coincidences that kept getting in the way of the investigation of Lewis, or was a pattern of politically driven maneuvers to block the investigation not now evident? The Sun adopted the latter view, as has just about every person who has independently examined the curious conduct of the Los Angeles U.S. attorney’s office.
"That was September, and in the interim we learn that, just as forecast, the air has been drained from the tires of the Lewis probe. Yet another blow came this week. The Recorder, a Southern California legal periodical, discloses that the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles has decided to shut down his public integrity section.
"Paul Kiel, writing at Talking Points Memo, interviews a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles:
"'The fact of an investigation into the earmark process [i.e. the Duke Cunningham scandal and by extension the investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)],' really had a huge impact in opening up debate of how that process has been corrupted by money. That doesn’t happen if you’re not looking at it every day.
"'My concern is the message that it sends,' the lawyer continued. 'The existence of the section, the fact that talented, smart, aggressive prosecutors are looking at cases, sends a message to public officials that they need to be careful.' Now another message has been sent.
"Indeed, that message compares prominently with the recent highly played sting action involving Eliot Spitzer. That was run by the public integrity unit in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office. The whole matter opened and was developed in a matter of weeks and involved an immense deployment of resources, all with the strong approbation of Washington.
"How do we reconcile the attitude taken in Manhattan with the one in the nation’s second largest metropolis, Los Angeles? You just have to look at the party affiliation of the targets, and all questions are answered. This is the Bush Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, after all."
. . . with this additional contribution, this week:
"Here is another article you will find interesting, also from Scott Horton."
"More Political Taint in the Spitzer Case"
by Scott Horton
Harper's Magazine
Published: March 22, 2008; 3:01 PM
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002714
"According to accounts that prosecutors and investigators have leaked to the New York Times and other publications, the Spitzer case was launched by a Suspicious Activity Report submitted by the North Fork Bank. Today, however, the Miami Herald ties the investigation to a tip furnished by the notorious G.O.P. dirty trickster Roger Stone.
"Almost four months before Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in a sex scandal, a lawyer for Republican political operative Roger Stone sent a letter to the FBI alleging that Spitzer 'used the services of high-priced call girls' while in Florida. The letter, dated Nov. 19, said Miami Beach resident Stone learned the information from 'a social contact in an adult-themed club.' It offered one potentially identifying detail: The man in question hadn't taken off his calf-length black socks 'during the sex act.'
"Stone, known for shutting down the 2000 presidential election recount effort in Miami-Dade County, is a longtime Spitzer nemesis whose political experience ranges from the Nixon White House to Al Sharpton's presidential campaign. His lawyer wrote the letter containing the call-girl allegations after FBI agents had asked to speak to Stone, though he says the FBI did not specify why he was contacted. 'Mr. Stone respectfully declines to meet with you at this time,' the letter states, before going on to offer 'certain information' about Spitzer. 'The governor has paid literally tens of thousands of dollars for these services. It is Mr. Stone's understanding that the governor paid not with credit cards or cash but through some pre-arranged transfer,' the letter said.
"'It is also my client's understanding from the same source that Gov. Spitzer did not remove his mid-calf length black socks during the sex act. Perhaps you can use this detail to corroborate Mr. Stone's information,' the letter said. It was signed by attorney Paul Rolf Jensen of Costa Mesa, Calif.
"This further develops Stone's statement in an interview with Newsday in which he intimated prior knowledge of the investigation. The New York FBI office declined to confirm that it had received or acted on the Stone letter.
"It is interesting and potentially significant that prosecutors have thus far suppressed all information about Stone's involvement.
"Obviously the involvement in the case of a well-known Republican Party functionary with a reputation for gutter warfare puts a far more political cast on the case against Spitzer.
"The New York Times yesterday for the first time published an article that acknowledged the extraordinary nature of the Justice Department's investigation of Spitzer [cited above]. David Johnston and Philip Shenon write:
"'The Justice Department used some of its most intrusive tactics against Eliot Spitzer, examining his financial records, eavesdropping on his phone calls and tailing him during its criminal investigation of the Emperor's Club prostitution ring. The scale and intensity of the investigation of Mr. Spitzer, then the governor of New York, seemed on its face to be a departure for the Justice Department, which aggressively investigates allegations of wrongdoing by public officials, but almost never investigates people who pay prostitutes for sex.
"'A review of recent federal cases shows that federal prosecutors go sparingly after owners and operators of prostitution enterprises, and usually only when millions of dollars are involved or there are aggravating circumstances, like human trafficking or child exploitation. Government lawyers and investigators defend the expenditure of resources on Mr. Spitzer in the Emperor's Club V.I.P. case as justifiable and necessary since it involved the possibility of criminal wrongdoing by New York's highest elected official, who had been the state's top prosecutor.'
"This marks a strong shift in position in Justice Department explanations of the case, increasingly bringing into focus the fact that Eliot Spitzer was a target because he was Eliot Spitzer. The comparison of this case with the handling of the "D.C. Madam" case produces a very curious bifurcation. Eliot Spitzer is worthy of being a target, and the dedication of massive resources to nab him. But G.O.P. Senator David Vitter and Bush Administration Director of USAID Randall Tobias are not. What, other than the fact that the latter are Republicans and the former Democrats, provides the basis for distinction? This investigation increasingly looks like a political hit."
My response:
The essence of this rests in prostitution being a state crime, not a federal crime, unless of course, we want to use the Mann Act. The fact that Federal agents sought engagement on a prostitution case speaks volumes.
What bothers me to the point of spittin’ anger is the Feds using tools far beyond their original intent – the Controlled Substance Act, the PATRIOT Act, even the freakin’ Mann Act. What’s worse, the Supreme Court has used extraordinarily liberal constitutional interpretation of the Commerce Clause to validate these highly intrusive laws.
So far, the image we are left with is precisely as Scott stated – a political vendetta in the guise of a Federal investigation. One day, We, the People, will wake up to what has been happening to our Freedom and Liberty in the last 35 years.
I pray we have the will and strength to force the government out of our private lives. I fear we may have passed the point of no return. Time shall tell the tale.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Absolument! What really started the investigation was not the money-laundering or blackmail (from the withdrawals), but the letters from this character Stone, who has been involved in some other shady situations.
"Read some of Horton's writing on the dodgy conviction and incarceration of the former Democratic governor of Alabama. That also evidences vindictive and selective prosecution by the federal prosecutors. Another political vendetta--one that is slowly coming to light."
. . . and my follow-up response:
The consequences of Horton's allegations are dark and ominous for our future, and I certainly share some of his skepticism and apprehension. We can imagine these vast, expansive and intrusive tools in the hands of the Federal government that stretches so far for political gain while facing such gargantuan threats seems to be indicative of these days of divisive partisanship taken to new depths by George W. Bush and his cronies. It's wrong! We can only hope our next leader is a big enough and strong enough person to lead us out of the quagmire. Politicians promise us what we want to hear and service only their power base -- case in point, George W. who repeatedly told us he was a "uniter, not a divider" and has done more than any recent president to divide the Nation. He has been really good at division.
Another contribution:
"I found this to balance the right-wing "surge is going so well" blather. No mention of those nasty communists, I mean islamofascists.
"Killing and Dying in Iraq for Nothing"
by Jacob G. Hornberger
The Future of Freedom Foundation
Monday, March 24, 2008
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-03-24.asp
"As to the Winter Soldier stuff in Maryland last week, did you see any of the testimony? I know what you think of it, just curious if you actually saw any of it."
My reply:
Wow, where do I begin?
First, no, I’ve not been able to watch any of the “Winter Soldier” proceedings, but I have read various elements from several sources. Most of the mainstream Press have ignored the event . . . unlike the Vietnam era version. The ‘rules of engagement’ discussion was interesting, although quite narrow in vision.
I doubt Hornberger is open to my argument, but I am open to his, although at present I disagree for the reasons I have given previously. What intrigues me in his opinion are his use of “no legal or moral right to be in Iraq” and “imperial adventure.” Again, IMHO, when you view events in isolation, the conclusion and opinion are relative easy to rationalize and defend, like a murder or rape. Yet, when you look beyond the crime, sometimes you find a thread connecting crimes that lead to il Mafioso – a syndicate or organized activity. We can argue about legality, but “imperial?” The use of that word in any manner with respect to the United States of America is . . . well . . . I have yet to see one scintilla of evidence or even suggestion of a linkage. I continue to wait and search for reasons why American citizens use such words.
. . . and this follow-up:
"I like Hornberger - and he's a lawyer. Many of your points are well spoken and have a legalistic ring to them so I thought you would appreciate his ideas. If we bomb and attack a country and basically do it to control their resources, then isnt that imperialistic? (My oversimplification, not his) We could say we are just protecting ourselves, but that is just a justification, which is why I have made the comparison of the preemptive strike on Iraq to Hitler's invasion of Poland. Nat Parry has a really good piece at Consortiumnews.com today called 'Not handling Iraqi Truth.' http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/032608b.html If you have a chance to read it I would be interested in any mistakes he may have made in his analysis, from your perspective. I saw some of the Winter Soldier testimony at Democracynow.com and it was illuminating. Also the Christian Science Monitor ran a piece I think on Fri or Sat about the meeting. It left out the graphic and disturbing stuff. I know, war is hell..."
. . . with my follow-up reply:
Attacking for resources = imperialistic? Yes, in a form . . . that was one of the principal objectives of Imperial Japan. So, we are back to attacking Iraq for oil. If so, the accusation has no substance. If oil was our objective, we would be controlling the oil resources of Iraq, and I see no evidence whatsoever that is the case. Using military power to gain resources may be necessary in some distant era, but I see no indicative bits of information today or the near future.
The two versions of “Winter Soldier” events are dramatically different in situation and Press coverage, probably indicative of the difference between the basis of the two wars.
. . . round three:
"I could do some research and send you pieces that express better than I can that control of the oil in Iraq was a factor in the invasion, but I'll just say from my limited reading and knowledge that the Perle/Cheney/Wolfowitz. PNAC, Neocon, objective was to control the situation in Iraq so that oil production and distribution and development (since much of it is still in the ground un-drilled) could be controlled by western companies, who in fact are controlling it now. If the political situation in Iraq was controlled by us, or at least heavily influenced, then contracts, agreements, etc could be made that kept and even increased the role of Exxon, Chevron, etc, ( I have not looked into the actual companies and entities that are benefiting from this)-in controlling oil production and distribution. This to me is imperialistic in that it is the taking control of resources that do not belong to us and using them for our gain. To the man on the street, and in fact, educated friends of mine who are apolitical have made comments that amount to, "what 's wrong with that?" Well, I guess that would require more discussion and more historically perspicacity, in light of the way empires rise and fall...
"What did you think of the Larry Gatlin song? I was hoping to jar a discussion about looking at things from both the heart and the head. Marines, and Rangers, then and now, and I mean the young men in Afghanistan and Iraq as we speak, have to steel their hearts and do their jobs with only their heads. But many of them, if very few of us sitting in the warmth of our kitchens and dens, are recognizing the damage done when there is no heart in the matter. That is why movies like the Valley of Elah, Rendition, and especially Redaction are not doing well. Who wants to see the reality of war in a movie theater? Only the ones in it."
. . . my reply to round three:
To my, albeit, limited knowledge of American history, the United States of America has never gone to war for resources – oil or otherwise. We might have a sliver of an argument with the Mexican-American or the Spanish-American Wars, but that is a stretch; in those cases, other stimulants ignited the fire. We still hold territory gained in the latter war, and the land acquired in the former is a vital part of this Grand Republic, although under threat by illegal immigration. I have not seen or am I aware of any evidence whatsoever that Americans are exerting any influence over Iraqi oil, or natural resources of any other country. British and American oil companies developed the oil fields of the Persian Gulf region, but all those resources have been nationalized. If we controlled oil, we would lower the price. For a country that supposedly controls Middle Eastern oil, we are taking a very strange tack in exerting that control. I just don’t see it. We buy resources in the open market, and we pay the prevailing price. Buying is not imperialistic or wrong.
I have advocated for and would love to see the United States focus our scientific and industrial power in a Manhattan Project manner to develop non-fossil fuel energy for electricity generation, automobiles, aircraft and such, to zero our dependence on fossil-fuels – stop buying oil. I would be quite happy letting Russia and the Gulf States sell their oil to others. We would have a technology that vastly reduces the influence of the Gulf States on the marketplace. It would be quite interesting to see how the Gulf States would evolve. Dubai seems to be on the best path to a new era.
To my knowledge, citizens who have stood in harm’s way in defense of this Grand Republic in every war since the Revolution and who will stand the line in all future wars have paid a huge price for our freedoms. There have always been a pathological fraction who enjoy the killing. There have always been those who survive the combat and are irreparably broken. And, there are the majority who do what must be done, and then come home and do their best to forget the horror they experienced. I think this observation has been true since civilization began. If we only listen to one portion or the other, we gain a distorted view of reality . . . the best example being the Vietnam War. The Press focused on the “Winter Soldier Investigations” and Hanoi Jane, and ignored the majority of us who served willingly, honorably and with commitment.
I do not watch movies for any political development. Hollywood tends to have a very distorted view of their importance. War is like sausage . . . watching how it is made does not enhance the taste.
. . . to which was added, by a different participant in this thread:
"There are many reasons we are in Iraq but the question is what was the major reason our leadership embarked on this course?
"Here's my two cents. We are in Iraq to support the Dollar. Carville's quote is applicable here; "It's the economy, stupid!" The dollar is the world's reserve currency and middle eastern oil has to be purchased in dollars for the most part. That means the dollar has built in demand. Under this system we have arranged, as long as the world needs oil the world will need dollars (do we need oil dependency?). Saddam changed policy and sold his oil in Euros in 2000 which incidentally appears to be the time we began to seriously focus on "regime change". China, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others have trillions of US dollars. If dollars aren't needed for oil, why hold them? The dollar could be dumped quickly (unlikely as it would hurt the sellers) and it would collapse causing an economic catastrophe. As it is many nations are using Sovereign Wealth Funds to exchange their dollars for anything else of value without causing panic selling.
"Iran is in the crosshairs for the same reason we went into Iraq. They recently opened an oil burse accepting several currencies but not the dollar. This threatens us more than any army or any terrorists. What would it mean for the dollar to collapse and lose its role as the world's reserve currency? I am sure our leaders have thought long and hard about this and I think their conclusions have led us to war. The war could not be sold with the truth. We Americans think too highly of ourselves to kill for money. But isn't war always about security in part? And the greatest insecurity is poverty.
"We have exported our inflation to the world. The debt has to be serviced and the only way we can avoid the very real and severe pain of doing so is to respond militarily and force other countries to keep taking our dollars. And we have to print more dollars to do it. That's the way it is with all empires. I just hope we can change course in time. We still have the Constitution. Oaths are still sworn to uphold it. Maybe the American people will demand those that do actually read it. The Constitution says Congress has the duty to coin money and only gold and silver can be used.
"Abandoning the discipline gold provided and allowing for a runaway fiat money system has been our downfall. But that leads from the war to the FED. The war is a tragedy. The FED is an abomination."
. . . to which I replied:
Pressure within OPEC to switch from the dollar to the euro as the currency of fossil fuel exchange has been around for at least a decade. The current economic situation hardly created the urge to switch to the euro. None of us are parties to the decision to take out Saddam, so our opinions are simply conjecture. As I have written before, if we choose not to see the threat, to connect the dots, or we connect the dots in a different manner, to create a different picture, that is our choice. I do not believe we went into Iraq for oil, for the dollar, or for anything other than eliminating a threat.
I share some of your concern regarding the Federal government's intrusion into the marketplace ever since FDR's New Deal. I am and remain a vociferous critic of Federalism including the versions practiced by the Clinton and Bush administrations. The issue is always one of balance . . . when & how is it appropriate for the Federal government to protect the "general welfare" of We, the People. I am skeptical of the present intrusions, but I am withholding judgment for the moment.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment