Update from the Heartland
No.332
14.3.08 – 20.4.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.332
14.3.08 – 20.4.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) failed in his second attempt to convict members of the homegrown jihadi terrorist cell known as the Liberty City 7 [237, 315]. As a reminder, these are the guys who conspired to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago. Those nagging sensations of disbelief similar to the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson criminal trial have returned.
-- Long term subscribers to this humble forum may recall the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruling in Maouloud Baby vs. State of Maryland [MD CSA 00225/05] [256, 260], centering on the withdrawal of consent in what began as consensual sexual intercourse and reversing the trial court's decision. The state appealed to the Court of Appeals -- the state's highest court -- and the decision came Thursday [State of Maryland vs. Maouloud Baby (MD CA 0014/07)]. The judicial pronouncement sequence hung upon the definition of 'holding' versus 'dictum' – a legal nuance. Regardless, the court vacated the Special Appeals' ruling and remanded the case for retrial. To the rest of us, the court declared that 'no' means 'stop' no matter when given. This case and its appeals join a list of examples of how foolish and antiquated our laws are attempting to regulate sexual conduct, and more importantly, the desperate need for reform.
One lesson from my experience as an aviator . . . any competent pilot can find something to ground an aircraft anytime he wishes not to fly. Not to be an alarmist, aircraft and the operation of aircraft is a continuous exercise in the art of compromise. The design engineers go to extraordinary lengths to balance safety, weight, cost, performance, reliability, maintainability, ease of operation, among a myriad of other factors. Concomitantly, aviation is one of the most regulated industries on the planet. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as we know it today, grew from the passage of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 [PL 69-254] and the formation of the Aeronautics Branch of the Department of Commerce. As the industry matured, the Branch evolved into a series of agencies including the Bureau of Air Commerce, the Civil Aeronautics Authority, the Civil Aeronautics Administration with its Civil Aeronautics Board, and eventually the FAA. The regulation of design began with the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) that became the current Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The prime charge of the FAA is public safety – from the passengers and crew to citizens on the terra firma. I am reminded . . .
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."
-- Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, USN.
I could go on ad nauseum, but the point of this little trip down memory lane leads me back to my first sentence. The current airline maintenance fiasco appears to be consistent with the FAA’s demonstrated performance, using a very heavy hand and a massive club in an excessive action that disregards the welfare of the flying public, the economic viability of airline operations, or the preservation of the delicate balance essential in aircraft design. The FAA appears to be far more worried and driven by their public image than in the safe and efficient operation of our Air Transportation System. The aviation industry needs regulation and impartial supervision. Yet, excessive regulation that ignores the balance of aircraft design and operation will ultimate confine the airplanes to the safety of the ground.
Two weeks ago, Texas state authorities raided the Yearning For Zion Ranch outside El Dorado, Texas – the polygamist compound founded by convicted and imprisoned felon Warren Jeffs [231]. The State removed from their parents and took into custody 416 children from the ranch. The instigating spark was reportedly a couple of telephone calls from a 16-year-old girl, who claimed to have been sexually abused by a 50-year-old man. The State has claimed the polygamist compound is an extended communal family, and one case of abuse is sufficient rationale to remove all children. This case will be evolving over many months and may well end up before the bar of the Supreme Court. In the public debate, I am torn by vastly conflicting views, and my opinion will mostly evolve as facts are brought to public illumination. My opinion of the Jeffs clan has not changed since May 2006 [231]. On one hand, I am a ‘verging-on-violent’ protector of children from all kinds of abuse -- physical, mental and emotional. I believe, as I have written numerous times, that the State has been far too tolerant and lenient of abusive parents as well as the contribution of dysfunctional parents to the creation of criminals. On the other hand, this action appears to be a grotesque over-reaction by the State of Texas, made even worse by a personal bias against those who choose to live in a different manner than some socially acceptable norm. I eagerly await the judge's rationale for signing the warrant that enabled the raid and extrication of 416 children from their families. We still have much to learn from this episode, but my impression so far places this action on a growing list excessive, heavy-handed intrusions by the State.
Wait . . . given the last two items, are we seeing a trend here?
When do people who procreate without bound become accountable for the stress they place upon the society around them? Is it the responsibility of the ‘have’ nations to feed and care for those communities that have out grown their sustenance support structure? If so, where is the threshold of tolerance? I remember the somber, dire predictions of Paul R. Ehrlich in his book – The Population Bomb (1968) – that civil war(s) would erupt before the end of the 20th Century as a direct consequence of over-population of the planet. The underlying premise of Ehrlich’s hypothesis grew from the reality of finite arable land and water resources coupled with an exponentially expanding population. While Ehrlich may have missed the time frame by a few decades, it seems we are beginning to see the early signs of the civil war(s) he predicted. The threshold of tolerance in my query is out there. Eventually, we will have to face the stark reality that unrestrained procreation will only hasten the confrontation, and we shall bear witness to a societal demonstration of Darwin’s Theory – survival of the fittest.
A similar argument, as noted above, can be raised for such topics as border security & immigration reform, universal health care, cost-effective labor & outsourcing, ad infinitum. When you carry these faux-compassionate initiatives to their extreme, we inevitably arrive at the same point – communism . . . in the classic Marxist form.
The Supreme Court affirmed lethal injection, as a means of execution in death penalty cases, that did not violate the 8th Amendment's "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" Clause -- Baze v. Rees [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 07–5439]. The ruling offers an exceptional view into the reasoning of the sitting justices as well as a broad review of a controversial societal issue. Chief Justice Roberts rendered the opinion of the Court. Associate Justice Stevens, in his concurring opinion, wrote, "I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents 'the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the State [is] patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment.'" An interesting subtle argument here is the contention that mistakes might be made because a licensed anesthesiologist does not administer the drugs, while doctors have chosen not to participate because the activity violates their Hippocratic oath, in their opinion. The objectors attempt to recreate a reverse Catch-22. Stevens went on to conclude, "The conclusion that I have reached with regard to the constitutionality of the death penalty itself makes my decision in this case particularly difficult. It does not, however, justify a refusal to respect precedents that remain a part of our law. This Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional, and has established a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of particular methods of execution. Under those precedents, whether as interpreted by The Chief Justice or Justice Ginsburg, I am persuaded that the evidence adduced by petitioners fails to prove that Kentucky's lethal injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, I join the Court's judgment." Antonin the Impaler, AKA Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, took Justice Stevens to task with a blistering concurring opinion; he said, "Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of Justice Stevens' experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence." Consistent visitors to this Update Forum will recognize my rare agreement with The Impaler, yet here is one of those exceptional cases -- spot on, Antonin! The ruling dealt with the adequateness and constitutionality of the Kentucky protocol, not with the death penalty itself, and centered upon the use of sodium thiopental to render the criminal unconscious. When the 8th Amendment was ratified, public decapitation was still a popular form of execution. Public hanging and firing squad executions were commonly in use for a century after ratification. Various forms of administering the court's sentence have been used through phases of our history. And yet, we fret about the painlessness of the perpetrator's final moments when quite often he showed no mercy whatsoever for his victims. As to my opinion, I feel no compassion or urge to molly-coddle a man who has mercilessly killed innocent human beings or inflicted extraordinary pain and suffering during their crime, or a woman who committed high treason against her country, or a serial rapist, or a man who raped and buried alive a 12-year-old girl. Is my wish to extinguish the life of such people retribution? Yes! I make no excuses and offer no mitigation for my opinion regarding those un-human people who hold such contempt for their fellow man and demonstrate their inhumanity. The uber-Left likes to denigrate the use of execution for certain capital crimes, characterizing the opinions of such citizens as barbaric, medieval tantrums of ill-informed and un-intellectual people. I choose to turn the argument . . . what value comes to society in keeping evil men alive? Like so many of the ugly sides of life -- war, crimes, poverty, hunger, disease, abortion -- the death penalty remains a regrettable fact of life. As long as there are vermin masquerading as humans who commit such unspeakable actions of cruelty, I shall advocate for their speedy extermination. And yet, as an eternal optimist, I look forward to the day when everyone can respect the rights, freedoms, and diversity of others, and there is no war, no crime, and no evil people. I am not so naive to think I shall see that day in my lifetime.
Comments and contributions from Update no.330:
"I forgot/failed to make a few points below that I was thinking of and then did not include them:
"** Saddam is also said to have used chemical agents against Iran during their Iran-Iraq War, actually known as The Persian Gulf War. Once again, an unconventional use of weapons by Saddam. Some 100,000+ Persians were reported killed by Saddam's authorization for the use of chemical weapons.
"** I have a really interesting book on the winning of that war by Iraq against Iran. I picked the book up at a used bookstore and it is fascinating about the trench warfare, and how Saddam eventually, but with great difficulty, gained superiority and defeated Iran. We were supplying Iraq though with satellite intel. I wonder whether the initiation of the Iran-Iraq War had anything to do with a strategy outlined to Saddam after the Iranian Hostage Crisis and fall of the Shah.
"** Had the Iran-Iraq War not happened, there would not have been the tanker wars, had those not taken place, The USS Vincennces would not have mistaken the Iran Air Airbus for a possible F-14 coming at them from Iran. If you minus out the Libyan plot, there are many who still profess that Pan Am #103 was downed by Iranian supported actors for retaliation over the shooting down of the Iran Air flight in the Strait of Hormuz. And you might be aware that there was an assassination attempt on the USS Vincennces' captain, here in San Diego. I've read there are far greater numbers of Iranian terrorist cells and/or Hezbollah in America, than al-Qaeda operatives here.
"** Saddam had demonstrated he was an international wildcard not only due to the invasion of Kuwait (even though there have been claims he was given a 'blessing' of no USA involvement to stop him, after his claims of Kuwait's slant oil drilling into Iraqi territory), but probably of more weight when he fired the scuds at both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"One must wonder how the landscape would be had the Shah and his family stayed in power in Iran, and had Saddam not attacked Iran or Kuwait. It is strange how many geopolitical events of high magnitude were compressed in that couple year period (1979/80) of the Shah's fall, Iranian Hostage Crisis, Saddam's rise to president after a much earlier coup by the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, and Saddam's launching war on Iran.
"Many people do not like Jimmy Carter (ex nuclear sub lieutenant Carter, although he never got to take one out, he did command diesel subs), he gets bashed daily on talk radio, but we must give this very intelligent and diligent ex-President credit because if we consider the enormity of multiple events in his term, I believe some other presidents would have escalated America into nuclear war. Carter did boldly articulate to the Soviets (I believe a PDD that Brzezinski drafted for Carter) that we would protect our national-strategic interests in the Persian Gulf up to and including the use of nukes if required. I believe they now call that the 'Carter Doctrine' and I think after the Iranian debacle, we stations nuke B-52's at Diego Garcia (was it the Rapid Deployment Force there too?). Many people blame Carter for USA not rescuing the American hostages in Tehran, yet they don't fully understand the complexity of that mission that Delta Forces along with many other military resources help, and although criticized for being too marginal a force-for-rescue, had the helicopter and C-130 not come together in a terrible and fiery ground-taxi accident, there were still possibilities a rescue could have still be achievable (though not likely). But that was a tipping point and had our hostages been extricated militarily from that failed mission, Carter would have been the hero and likely been reelected a 2nd term. Diplomacy that was already in action under Carter, was utilized by an incoming Reagan/Bush brigade for a quick perceived win by their own efforts, thereby adding to a Reagan legacy that he did something Carter could not do (it was much more complicated than that I believe). Not being too political here, I always remember Carter (and Brzezinski) and his legacy for wonderful attempt at achieving peace in the Middle East (and remember that terrible day of Sadat's execution which was another pivotal geopolitical Middle East event), as I always remember Nixon (and Kissinger) for China (and managing Israeli wars without greater escalation), and of course Watergate almost negated any gains."
My reply:
Yes, indeed, there were reports of Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran during their war (‘80-‘88), but I have no unclassified information to confirm that use in a similar manner as we do with the Halabja attack.
Saddam attacked Iran for his reasons regardless of any alleged encouragement or support from the United States or others. Sure, there were collateral consequences to the Iran-Iraq War – the Vincennes (CG-49) shoot down Iran Air Flight 655 (3.7.88) being one. [BTW, the Vincennes incident may have contributed to the PanAm 103 bombing; in our book, Kevin and I point to IranAir 655 as a contributor to the TWA800 incident. We may never know for certain.]
Whether the presence & strength of the Shah might have altered events is simply revisionist conjecture. Yet, it seems the cultures of the region are attracted to strong, dictatorial leaders. One of al-Qaeda’s principal reasons for their assault of the Western democracies and specifically the United States is our support for the region’s dictators – for us, a classic example of the “devil you know.”
I do not look kindly upon the presidency of Jimmy Carter for a myriad of reasons. Jimmy is a good and decent human being with good intentions, but he was a lousy president and suffers from swallowing too much of his own grape Kool-Aid. Operation EAGLE CLAW (the Iranian hostage rescue mission) failed because of Jimmy Carter & Harold Brown. I give him credit for making the attempt, but their meddling in the execution of the operation destined it to failure.
So I am not perceived as mindlessly partisan here, I heap enormous criticism on Richard Nixon & his cronies, whom history may well show had a far more injurious impact on We, the People, than any president in U.S. history . . . although George W. is working ‘mightily hard’ to exceed Nixon’s abuses.
Comments and contributions from Update no.331:
"We're gonna have to part ways on the Olympic Torch thing, Cap. As far as I'm concerned, The Chicoms are reaping what they have sewn. Maybe if they weren't such hard-asses when it comes to religion, or if they didn't use slave labor, or if they didn't threaten to take Taiwan by force of arms, maybe so many people wouldn't be pissed at them. I'm tired of the world kissing the ass of this dictatorship. The Torch run generates a lot of exposure, and if people want to use it to point out the many flaws of Communist China, go for it. Maybe the IOC should have realized that given China's lack of concern for human rights, Beijing may not be the best place to hold the 2008 Olympics. Then again, the IOC decided to get rid of baseball in the next Olympics in a decision where, I believe, some anti-Americanism factored into it. I guess they don't realize how huge baseball is in parts of Asia, Central America, South America and the Caribbean. A-duh! But I bet they keep curling or ballroom dancing."
My response:
If the PRC was trying to sell communism like Hitler tried to sell Nazi-fascism in 1936, I might be a little more sympathetic to the boycott talk. I object to the oppression of Chinese communism as much as any freedom-loving person, but mixing politics and sport diminishes the purity of sport. Sure, given Beijing’s history for atmospheric pollution, I am amazed the IOC selected the city, but that burden belongs to the IOC, no one else. Sure, the IOC has politics in it, and they can certainly choose that which they wish to display. If our athletes choose to compete, then let them compete with the full support of the American People. If the POTUS, as a political leader, chooses not to attend, I’m good with that, but trying to tackle the Torch runners or snuff out the flame, that is plain and simple hooliganism that besmirches the freedom we cherish.
The PRC did not decide on Beijing as the site of the 2008 Games; the IOC did.
The PRC is not the same nation it was in the days Mao Tse Tung’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. They have a long way to go for the Chinese people to know true freedom, but they are moving in a better direction.
By using the Games to protest the conduct of the PRC, we taint sport as a neutral medium of exchange like music and art.
As Associate Justice Louis Brandeis so succinctly said (1914), “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
Thus, I say, let us not denigrate the Games. Let us take the fullest advantage to use the open door into the PRC before and during the Games to shine a bright light on life within the PRC.
Another contribution:
"If the deciders at the White House, the Justice Department, and the CIA who are responsible for war crimes ever face the equivalent of the Nuremberg trials, or at least an unsparing Congressional investigation, an essential witness against them will be Murat Kurnaz. His book, 'Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantánamo' (Palgrave MacMillan), has just been published.
"CBS's 60 Minutes, keeping Edward R. Murrow's legacy alive, provided an introduction to Kurnaz on March 30, with Scott Pelley detailing how, three months after 9/11, this German citizen 'found himself in a [U.S.] prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one'-even though a secret government file eventually revealed 'information from the FBI, German intelligence and even the U.S. military pointing to his innocence.' Even then, he was kept in his cage."
My response:
I saw the 60 Minutes program when originally broadcast. A most unfortunate incident. Do you think there have ever been innocent, non-combatant people incarcerated for long periods of time during wartime? He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His status was eventually reconciled. His case does not alter my opinion regarding the detaining of battlefield combatants.
. . . a follow-up:
"This is a serious problem in America today- the disconnect between ideology vs. reality. No offense meant here, but your side tends to disregard and downplay patterns of criminality, evidence of atrocities, magnitude of death by glib comments like, must have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. This extends to the white house- a top-down systemic malady. I am sorry my comments seem to mean nothing to you. With your intellect, grasp of knowledge, and usual honesty, but for your ideology you might be leading the cause for impeachment and war crime trials."
. . . my follow-up response:
On the contrary, your comments mean a great deal to me. Most folks who find fault with my opinions simply ignore them and do nothing. You take up the pen in rebuttal, and for that I am immensely grateful.
Yes, perhaps sometimes I flippantly discount wartime death & destruction. Guilty! I have never found compassion for those who operate at the margins of the battlefield or flirt with adventure in violent countries . . . one reason you will not find Mexico or Columbia or Pakistan on my list of countries to visit.
I do not rationalize criminality. I disagree that a crime has been committed. There is a huge difference between the two. Our argument in this context goes back quite a ways, and we always return to the same root questions that never seem to get answered.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) failed in his second attempt to convict members of the homegrown jihadi terrorist cell known as the Liberty City 7 [237, 315]. As a reminder, these are the guys who conspired to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago. Those nagging sensations of disbelief similar to the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson criminal trial have returned.
-- Long term subscribers to this humble forum may recall the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruling in Maouloud Baby vs. State of Maryland [MD CSA 00225/05] [256, 260], centering on the withdrawal of consent in what began as consensual sexual intercourse and reversing the trial court's decision. The state appealed to the Court of Appeals -- the state's highest court -- and the decision came Thursday [State of Maryland vs. Maouloud Baby (MD CA 0014/07)]. The judicial pronouncement sequence hung upon the definition of 'holding' versus 'dictum' – a legal nuance. Regardless, the court vacated the Special Appeals' ruling and remanded the case for retrial. To the rest of us, the court declared that 'no' means 'stop' no matter when given. This case and its appeals join a list of examples of how foolish and antiquated our laws are attempting to regulate sexual conduct, and more importantly, the desperate need for reform.
One lesson from my experience as an aviator . . . any competent pilot can find something to ground an aircraft anytime he wishes not to fly. Not to be an alarmist, aircraft and the operation of aircraft is a continuous exercise in the art of compromise. The design engineers go to extraordinary lengths to balance safety, weight, cost, performance, reliability, maintainability, ease of operation, among a myriad of other factors. Concomitantly, aviation is one of the most regulated industries on the planet. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as we know it today, grew from the passage of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 [PL 69-254] and the formation of the Aeronautics Branch of the Department of Commerce. As the industry matured, the Branch evolved into a series of agencies including the Bureau of Air Commerce, the Civil Aeronautics Authority, the Civil Aeronautics Administration with its Civil Aeronautics Board, and eventually the FAA. The regulation of design began with the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) that became the current Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The prime charge of the FAA is public safety – from the passengers and crew to citizens on the terra firma. I am reminded . . .
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."
-- Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, USN.
I could go on ad nauseum, but the point of this little trip down memory lane leads me back to my first sentence. The current airline maintenance fiasco appears to be consistent with the FAA’s demonstrated performance, using a very heavy hand and a massive club in an excessive action that disregards the welfare of the flying public, the economic viability of airline operations, or the preservation of the delicate balance essential in aircraft design. The FAA appears to be far more worried and driven by their public image than in the safe and efficient operation of our Air Transportation System. The aviation industry needs regulation and impartial supervision. Yet, excessive regulation that ignores the balance of aircraft design and operation will ultimate confine the airplanes to the safety of the ground.
Two weeks ago, Texas state authorities raided the Yearning For Zion Ranch outside El Dorado, Texas – the polygamist compound founded by convicted and imprisoned felon Warren Jeffs [231]. The State removed from their parents and took into custody 416 children from the ranch. The instigating spark was reportedly a couple of telephone calls from a 16-year-old girl, who claimed to have been sexually abused by a 50-year-old man. The State has claimed the polygamist compound is an extended communal family, and one case of abuse is sufficient rationale to remove all children. This case will be evolving over many months and may well end up before the bar of the Supreme Court. In the public debate, I am torn by vastly conflicting views, and my opinion will mostly evolve as facts are brought to public illumination. My opinion of the Jeffs clan has not changed since May 2006 [231]. On one hand, I am a ‘verging-on-violent’ protector of children from all kinds of abuse -- physical, mental and emotional. I believe, as I have written numerous times, that the State has been far too tolerant and lenient of abusive parents as well as the contribution of dysfunctional parents to the creation of criminals. On the other hand, this action appears to be a grotesque over-reaction by the State of Texas, made even worse by a personal bias against those who choose to live in a different manner than some socially acceptable norm. I eagerly await the judge's rationale for signing the warrant that enabled the raid and extrication of 416 children from their families. We still have much to learn from this episode, but my impression so far places this action on a growing list excessive, heavy-handed intrusions by the State.
Wait . . . given the last two items, are we seeing a trend here?
When do people who procreate without bound become accountable for the stress they place upon the society around them? Is it the responsibility of the ‘have’ nations to feed and care for those communities that have out grown their sustenance support structure? If so, where is the threshold of tolerance? I remember the somber, dire predictions of Paul R. Ehrlich in his book – The Population Bomb (1968) – that civil war(s) would erupt before the end of the 20th Century as a direct consequence of over-population of the planet. The underlying premise of Ehrlich’s hypothesis grew from the reality of finite arable land and water resources coupled with an exponentially expanding population. While Ehrlich may have missed the time frame by a few decades, it seems we are beginning to see the early signs of the civil war(s) he predicted. The threshold of tolerance in my query is out there. Eventually, we will have to face the stark reality that unrestrained procreation will only hasten the confrontation, and we shall bear witness to a societal demonstration of Darwin’s Theory – survival of the fittest.
A similar argument, as noted above, can be raised for such topics as border security & immigration reform, universal health care, cost-effective labor & outsourcing, ad infinitum. When you carry these faux-compassionate initiatives to their extreme, we inevitably arrive at the same point – communism . . . in the classic Marxist form.
The Supreme Court affirmed lethal injection, as a means of execution in death penalty cases, that did not violate the 8th Amendment's "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" Clause -- Baze v. Rees [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 07–5439]. The ruling offers an exceptional view into the reasoning of the sitting justices as well as a broad review of a controversial societal issue. Chief Justice Roberts rendered the opinion of the Court. Associate Justice Stevens, in his concurring opinion, wrote, "I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents 'the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the State [is] patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment.'" An interesting subtle argument here is the contention that mistakes might be made because a licensed anesthesiologist does not administer the drugs, while doctors have chosen not to participate because the activity violates their Hippocratic oath, in their opinion. The objectors attempt to recreate a reverse Catch-22. Stevens went on to conclude, "The conclusion that I have reached with regard to the constitutionality of the death penalty itself makes my decision in this case particularly difficult. It does not, however, justify a refusal to respect precedents that remain a part of our law. This Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional, and has established a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of particular methods of execution. Under those precedents, whether as interpreted by The Chief Justice or Justice Ginsburg, I am persuaded that the evidence adduced by petitioners fails to prove that Kentucky's lethal injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, I join the Court's judgment." Antonin the Impaler, AKA Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, took Justice Stevens to task with a blistering concurring opinion; he said, "Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of Justice Stevens' experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence." Consistent visitors to this Update Forum will recognize my rare agreement with The Impaler, yet here is one of those exceptional cases -- spot on, Antonin! The ruling dealt with the adequateness and constitutionality of the Kentucky protocol, not with the death penalty itself, and centered upon the use of sodium thiopental to render the criminal unconscious. When the 8th Amendment was ratified, public decapitation was still a popular form of execution. Public hanging and firing squad executions were commonly in use for a century after ratification. Various forms of administering the court's sentence have been used through phases of our history. And yet, we fret about the painlessness of the perpetrator's final moments when quite often he showed no mercy whatsoever for his victims. As to my opinion, I feel no compassion or urge to molly-coddle a man who has mercilessly killed innocent human beings or inflicted extraordinary pain and suffering during their crime, or a woman who committed high treason against her country, or a serial rapist, or a man who raped and buried alive a 12-year-old girl. Is my wish to extinguish the life of such people retribution? Yes! I make no excuses and offer no mitigation for my opinion regarding those un-human people who hold such contempt for their fellow man and demonstrate their inhumanity. The uber-Left likes to denigrate the use of execution for certain capital crimes, characterizing the opinions of such citizens as barbaric, medieval tantrums of ill-informed and un-intellectual people. I choose to turn the argument . . . what value comes to society in keeping evil men alive? Like so many of the ugly sides of life -- war, crimes, poverty, hunger, disease, abortion -- the death penalty remains a regrettable fact of life. As long as there are vermin masquerading as humans who commit such unspeakable actions of cruelty, I shall advocate for their speedy extermination. And yet, as an eternal optimist, I look forward to the day when everyone can respect the rights, freedoms, and diversity of others, and there is no war, no crime, and no evil people. I am not so naive to think I shall see that day in my lifetime.
Comments and contributions from Update no.330:
"I forgot/failed to make a few points below that I was thinking of and then did not include them:
"** Saddam is also said to have used chemical agents against Iran during their Iran-Iraq War, actually known as The Persian Gulf War. Once again, an unconventional use of weapons by Saddam. Some 100,000+ Persians were reported killed by Saddam's authorization for the use of chemical weapons.
"** I have a really interesting book on the winning of that war by Iraq against Iran. I picked the book up at a used bookstore and it is fascinating about the trench warfare, and how Saddam eventually, but with great difficulty, gained superiority and defeated Iran. We were supplying Iraq though with satellite intel. I wonder whether the initiation of the Iran-Iraq War had anything to do with a strategy outlined to Saddam after the Iranian Hostage Crisis and fall of the Shah.
"** Had the Iran-Iraq War not happened, there would not have been the tanker wars, had those not taken place, The USS Vincennces would not have mistaken the Iran Air Airbus for a possible F-14 coming at them from Iran. If you minus out the Libyan plot, there are many who still profess that Pan Am #103 was downed by Iranian supported actors for retaliation over the shooting down of the Iran Air flight in the Strait of Hormuz. And you might be aware that there was an assassination attempt on the USS Vincennces' captain, here in San Diego. I've read there are far greater numbers of Iranian terrorist cells and/or Hezbollah in America, than al-Qaeda operatives here.
"** Saddam had demonstrated he was an international wildcard not only due to the invasion of Kuwait (even though there have been claims he was given a 'blessing' of no USA involvement to stop him, after his claims of Kuwait's slant oil drilling into Iraqi territory), but probably of more weight when he fired the scuds at both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"One must wonder how the landscape would be had the Shah and his family stayed in power in Iran, and had Saddam not attacked Iran or Kuwait. It is strange how many geopolitical events of high magnitude were compressed in that couple year period (1979/80) of the Shah's fall, Iranian Hostage Crisis, Saddam's rise to president after a much earlier coup by the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, and Saddam's launching war on Iran.
"Many people do not like Jimmy Carter (ex nuclear sub lieutenant Carter, although he never got to take one out, he did command diesel subs), he gets bashed daily on talk radio, but we must give this very intelligent and diligent ex-President credit because if we consider the enormity of multiple events in his term, I believe some other presidents would have escalated America into nuclear war. Carter did boldly articulate to the Soviets (I believe a PDD that Brzezinski drafted for Carter) that we would protect our national-strategic interests in the Persian Gulf up to and including the use of nukes if required. I believe they now call that the 'Carter Doctrine' and I think after the Iranian debacle, we stations nuke B-52's at Diego Garcia (was it the Rapid Deployment Force there too?). Many people blame Carter for USA not rescuing the American hostages in Tehran, yet they don't fully understand the complexity of that mission that Delta Forces along with many other military resources help, and although criticized for being too marginal a force-for-rescue, had the helicopter and C-130 not come together in a terrible and fiery ground-taxi accident, there were still possibilities a rescue could have still be achievable (though not likely). But that was a tipping point and had our hostages been extricated militarily from that failed mission, Carter would have been the hero and likely been reelected a 2nd term. Diplomacy that was already in action under Carter, was utilized by an incoming Reagan/Bush brigade for a quick perceived win by their own efforts, thereby adding to a Reagan legacy that he did something Carter could not do (it was much more complicated than that I believe). Not being too political here, I always remember Carter (and Brzezinski) and his legacy for wonderful attempt at achieving peace in the Middle East (and remember that terrible day of Sadat's execution which was another pivotal geopolitical Middle East event), as I always remember Nixon (and Kissinger) for China (and managing Israeli wars without greater escalation), and of course Watergate almost negated any gains."
My reply:
Yes, indeed, there were reports of Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran during their war (‘80-‘88), but I have no unclassified information to confirm that use in a similar manner as we do with the Halabja attack.
Saddam attacked Iran for his reasons regardless of any alleged encouragement or support from the United States or others. Sure, there were collateral consequences to the Iran-Iraq War – the Vincennes (CG-49) shoot down Iran Air Flight 655 (3.7.88) being one. [BTW, the Vincennes incident may have contributed to the PanAm 103 bombing; in our book, Kevin and I point to IranAir 655 as a contributor to the TWA800 incident. We may never know for certain.]
Whether the presence & strength of the Shah might have altered events is simply revisionist conjecture. Yet, it seems the cultures of the region are attracted to strong, dictatorial leaders. One of al-Qaeda’s principal reasons for their assault of the Western democracies and specifically the United States is our support for the region’s dictators – for us, a classic example of the “devil you know.”
I do not look kindly upon the presidency of Jimmy Carter for a myriad of reasons. Jimmy is a good and decent human being with good intentions, but he was a lousy president and suffers from swallowing too much of his own grape Kool-Aid. Operation EAGLE CLAW (the Iranian hostage rescue mission) failed because of Jimmy Carter & Harold Brown. I give him credit for making the attempt, but their meddling in the execution of the operation destined it to failure.
So I am not perceived as mindlessly partisan here, I heap enormous criticism on Richard Nixon & his cronies, whom history may well show had a far more injurious impact on We, the People, than any president in U.S. history . . . although George W. is working ‘mightily hard’ to exceed Nixon’s abuses.
Comments and contributions from Update no.331:
"We're gonna have to part ways on the Olympic Torch thing, Cap. As far as I'm concerned, The Chicoms are reaping what they have sewn. Maybe if they weren't such hard-asses when it comes to religion, or if they didn't use slave labor, or if they didn't threaten to take Taiwan by force of arms, maybe so many people wouldn't be pissed at them. I'm tired of the world kissing the ass of this dictatorship. The Torch run generates a lot of exposure, and if people want to use it to point out the many flaws of Communist China, go for it. Maybe the IOC should have realized that given China's lack of concern for human rights, Beijing may not be the best place to hold the 2008 Olympics. Then again, the IOC decided to get rid of baseball in the next Olympics in a decision where, I believe, some anti-Americanism factored into it. I guess they don't realize how huge baseball is in parts of Asia, Central America, South America and the Caribbean. A-duh! But I bet they keep curling or ballroom dancing."
My response:
If the PRC was trying to sell communism like Hitler tried to sell Nazi-fascism in 1936, I might be a little more sympathetic to the boycott talk. I object to the oppression of Chinese communism as much as any freedom-loving person, but mixing politics and sport diminishes the purity of sport. Sure, given Beijing’s history for atmospheric pollution, I am amazed the IOC selected the city, but that burden belongs to the IOC, no one else. Sure, the IOC has politics in it, and they can certainly choose that which they wish to display. If our athletes choose to compete, then let them compete with the full support of the American People. If the POTUS, as a political leader, chooses not to attend, I’m good with that, but trying to tackle the Torch runners or snuff out the flame, that is plain and simple hooliganism that besmirches the freedom we cherish.
The PRC did not decide on Beijing as the site of the 2008 Games; the IOC did.
The PRC is not the same nation it was in the days Mao Tse Tung’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. They have a long way to go for the Chinese people to know true freedom, but they are moving in a better direction.
By using the Games to protest the conduct of the PRC, we taint sport as a neutral medium of exchange like music and art.
As Associate Justice Louis Brandeis so succinctly said (1914), “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
Thus, I say, let us not denigrate the Games. Let us take the fullest advantage to use the open door into the PRC before and during the Games to shine a bright light on life within the PRC.
Another contribution:
"If the deciders at the White House, the Justice Department, and the CIA who are responsible for war crimes ever face the equivalent of the Nuremberg trials, or at least an unsparing Congressional investigation, an essential witness against them will be Murat Kurnaz. His book, 'Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantánamo' (Palgrave MacMillan), has just been published.
"CBS's 60 Minutes, keeping Edward R. Murrow's legacy alive, provided an introduction to Kurnaz on March 30, with Scott Pelley detailing how, three months after 9/11, this German citizen 'found himself in a [U.S.] prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one'-even though a secret government file eventually revealed 'information from the FBI, German intelligence and even the U.S. military pointing to his innocence.' Even then, he was kept in his cage."
My response:
I saw the 60 Minutes program when originally broadcast. A most unfortunate incident. Do you think there have ever been innocent, non-combatant people incarcerated for long periods of time during wartime? He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His status was eventually reconciled. His case does not alter my opinion regarding the detaining of battlefield combatants.
. . . a follow-up:
"This is a serious problem in America today- the disconnect between ideology vs. reality. No offense meant here, but your side tends to disregard and downplay patterns of criminality, evidence of atrocities, magnitude of death by glib comments like, must have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. This extends to the white house- a top-down systemic malady. I am sorry my comments seem to mean nothing to you. With your intellect, grasp of knowledge, and usual honesty, but for your ideology you might be leading the cause for impeachment and war crime trials."
. . . my follow-up response:
On the contrary, your comments mean a great deal to me. Most folks who find fault with my opinions simply ignore them and do nothing. You take up the pen in rebuttal, and for that I am immensely grateful.
Yes, perhaps sometimes I flippantly discount wartime death & destruction. Guilty! I have never found compassion for those who operate at the margins of the battlefield or flirt with adventure in violent countries . . . one reason you will not find Mexico or Columbia or Pakistan on my list of countries to visit.
I do not rationalize criminality. I disagree that a crime has been committed. There is a huge difference between the two. Our argument in this context goes back quite a ways, and we always return to the same root questions that never seem to get answered.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment