31 March 2008

Update no.329

Update from the Heartland
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 :-)

23 March 2008

Update no.328

Update from the Heartland
No.328
17.3.08 – 23.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Renowned science fiction author, inventor and visionary Sir Arthur Charles Clarke, CBE, passed away on 19.March, in a Sri Lankan hospital at age 90. His magnificent word imagery will be sorely missed. May God rest his soul.
-- I do not find many differences between the hatred preached by Reverend Fred Phelps [313] and Reverend Jeremiah Wright [327] – fear and intolerance – not the Christianity I understand.
-- ABC News 20/20 program "Prostitution in America -- Working Girls Speak" aired this week and gave us another view into the societal challenge we face [327]. They did a decent job of describing and defining the problem. They offered no solutions. We think we understand the problem, and yet, we are afraid to seek solutions. So, we shall continue to ignore the ugly underbelly of our society and pretend it does not exist.

Western law as we know it today is an amalgam derivation of many sources – Roman law, Judeo-Christian morality, English common law, the Declaration and the Constitution. The pronouncements of the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding acceptance of Sharia law in the West [323] instigated an examination of his suggestion, which was perhaps his intention. The following article offers an excellent, balanced view of Sharia law.
“Why Shariah?”
by Noah Feldman
New York Times
Published: 16.March.2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?th&emc=th
Feldman does highlight dark spots in Western law to place the popular view of Islamic law into an historic context. I still contend that Islam is evolving, and our view of contemporary Sharia law is perhaps best seen through a lens of Western law 600 years ago. Expecting a quantum leap forward for our Islamic cousins is not reasonable or realistic. Open dialogue and debate seems to be the proper path. As I repeatedly suggested, Western law has more, necessary evolution ahead as well, to realize the freedom and liberty sought by the Founders of this Grand Republic.

As is so often the case for me, a court ruling got me ta thinkin'. The California Court of Appeal reversed a lower court decision that had been in favor of the parents in a home schooling challenge – Jonathan l. and Mary Grace L. v. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services [CCoA B192878 (2008)]. California state law requires teachers of children to possess a state teaching license credential. The parents involved in this case did not possess the required credential. The family’s choices did not reach the State’s awareness until the sixth of eight children complained of abuse by the father. Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote for the court, “we find no reason to strike down the Legislature’s evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the ‘general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,’ which Article IX, section 1 of our [California] Constitution states is ‘essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people.’” We could discuss the benefits and risks of home schooling, but that is not my interest in bring this case to our attention. I think we can all agree that a teaching credential is a good thing for our children, and yet requiring a parent to obtain a credential to teach his/her children is both onerous and extraordinarily burdensome; in a practical sense, such a requirement precludes home schooling. The subject ruling represents an excellent example of judicial interpretation recognizing dominance of the State over any individual citizen, thus allowing the State to enter any home with children and judge the conduct of the family. As with so many of our societal “concerns,” We, the People, tolerate lazy laws that bludgeon private families that do not conform to the government’s notion of proper conduct. The State does have a bona fide interest in the education of children. Yet, like all the other penetrations of the public-private boundary by the State, so much depends upon the definition of the State’s proper interest in the context of the sanctity of the family and a citizen’s freedom of choice. Here, the California appeals court bowed to the power of the State, rather than acknowledge the law’s overly broad, truncheon attributes that intrude too far into the private affairs of families. The court could have returned the law to the Legislature to focus on proper State public interests; they failed! This case is yet one more reason why we must pay attention. It would be easy to say, hey, that’s California; it does not affect me. However, I respectfully submit that laws and judicial pronouncements anywhere within this Grand Republic affect us all like the proverbial camel inching its nose ever deeper into the tent.

I suspect we have had enough sex in last week's Update (and more in the comment section below). Allow me to offer a couple of interesting journalistic perspective opinions without my drivel.
"WEST WING: Why Sex Scandals Are Good for American Democracy"
by Gabor Steingart (in Washington)
Der Spiegel
Published: March 18, 2008
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,542138,00.html
and
"Politicians & Sex"
by John Stossel
RealClearPolitics.com
Published: March 19, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/politicians_sex.html

The Supreme Court issued a ruling this week that did not stimulate me to read. The case sounded like a simple, albeit important, procedural ruling. Then, I began to consider the decision in the context of Senator Obama’s ‘race in America’ speech this week, along with the Reverend Wright conflagration [327], the Jena 6 episode [300-2, 310], et al. Today’s and the latest rendition is Snyder v. Louisiana [___ U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-10119], ostensibly a Court opinion regarding the trial procedure known as preemptive challenge, as used in the Snyder case. The oddity here rests in the reflective undercurrent of race in a judicial proceeding. The Court appears to have recognized the sad reality brought to the fore by Barack’s candidacy – racism is not dead. I shall be so bold to say that the Snyder ruling was appropriate within the social fabric of this Grand Republic, however, the decision was poor constitutional jurisprudence as noted by the dissenting opinion. Barack has given us an opportunity to confront our ugly history and to take a few more lifting steps toward the light. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination or who wins the general election this Fall, I trust Barack will help us along the path of reconciliation. He is comparatively young, has a bright future, and his eloquent and persuasive public rhetoric is indeed inspirational. We have a long way to go, and we need his help.

Last week, ten score plus veterans of the War of Islamic Fascism gathered in Silver Spring, Maryland, to begin a process they called “Winter Soldier,” to speak out against the War and enjoin the government to end it. For those not old enough to remember, this phenomenon is not new. On 31.January.1971, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War began a similar process they called the “Winter Soldier Investigations,” to protest that war. As there are citizens who have been against the War on Islamic Fascism from before the get-go, the military is a reflection of the society it serves; thus, these little shindigs become Press events that amplify the voices of dissent and doubt. Of a deeper historical note, the title seems to be derived from Thomas Paine’s immortal pamphlet, “The American Crisis,” published during that bleak winter – 23.December.1776 – “These are the times that try men’s souls” – hardly an appropriate derivative source. We must listen, but let us not give them more weight than they deserve.

Comments and contributions from Update no.327:
“‘Eliot was accused, tried, condemned and executed by the Press in the court of public opinion.’ All the while, astronomically more events are taking place here in the U.S. and in the world, and the media, it seems, can only dwell on this. I guess, since steroids in baseball was waning, they needed some other minutia to make a story out of.”
My response:
Indeed! Steroids in baseball . . . but more to the point, no Britney Spears. We do enjoy our salacious voyeurism, apparently.
. . . a follow-up:
“Hey, you're absolutely right. Steroids and Spitzer have taken the heat off of Britney. Poor girl.”

A comment:
“One of the best of the updates.
“Your responses are spot on and while I'm not 100% in agreement with you, what you say is clear, unambiguous, and well supported.
“Keep on keeping on and thanks for letting me participate in the non-blog version.”
My reply:
I do not seek agreement or endorsement, only the vigorous public debate on issues of our time. I’m glad you found this Update useful. I will indeed keep on keepin’ on.

Another contribution:
“Regarding the Spitzer situation-- three words. Gambino. Crime. Family. There have been reports that the ring that ran the money laundering and prostitution ring frequented by Spitzer were associated with the GCF. Even if that were not the case, the ring was still associated with organized crime, something with which that a Governor of New York can't have any involvement. Remember that Spitzer didn't just have an extra-martial affair. He used the services of this ring for 6-8 years, or more, to the tune of over $80,000. Further, Spitzer, as the chief law enforcement officer of the State of New York, had personally supervised the busts of at least two major prostitution rings, while at the same time availing himself of the services of another such ring. (That alone raises a lot of questions.) It is simply untenable to have the State Attorney General and later, the Governor, regularly going to an organized crime prostitution ring over several years. Even more when, as AG, he had cultivated the aura of a crime buster...Eliot 'Ness' Spitzer.
"Also Spitzer had alienated his own party through some ill-conceived actions during his first year, so that he had absolutely no backing. He had lost a number of personal backers. All that said, there are some lingering questions about the government's handling of this, especially the leaks to the press. The U.S. Atty's office should be questioned sharply about the information on the investigation that was leaked."
My response:
I hadn’t heard the GCF connection, but I’m not surprised. When we make sinful pursuits like prostitution criminal, the criminal sub-culture sprouts, blooms and flourishes to fulfill and satisfy demand – one of the primary reasons to legalize it and regulate it.
I make no excused for Spitzer; he knew what he was doing, placed himself above the law, and worst of all hypocritically prosecuted his brethren.
From my perspective, albeit a miniscule minority, Spitzer’s affair was only extra-marital if done without his wife’s consent . . . and, to my knowledge, we have not been privy to the internal family dynamics. Sex should be a private matter between them. Unfortunately, we are so sexually repressed that the private affairs of others thrust into the public spotlight take on sensational dimensions.
There is little doubt in my little pea-brain that the speed and depth of his downfall were politically motivated. I am no fan of Spitzer, but I resent what the government and Press did to him and his family.
Ultimately, you are of course quite correct . . . being a customer of the criminal sub-culture is categorically untenable.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“You are right about the political motivation-- who are the other clients who weren't publicly outed? As I said, there is a lot that the U.S. Atty and the Bureau have to explain about how normally confidential information got out to the media. May have something to do with the U.S. Attorney scandal.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Indeed. I highly doubt Spitzer was the only high profile client of the Emperor Club VIP organization, but that is not a relevant question for me. I think prostitution or professional sex should be like any other personal service activity. I have the right to identify where you shop for groceries or buy your petrol, or where you bank or who your family physician is – those are public interfaces or interactions; I do not have the right to enter your private domain to gain such personal information. Yet, such intrusions into your private-to-quasi-public life would be an obscene intrusion into your private life. Just because the capability and technology exists does not mean we should tolerate such abuses. Why is it or should it be any different for sex. Slick Willy Clinton and John Kennedy possessed the physical and social attributes to charm the ladies out of their panties; Eliot Spitzer and Richard Nixon did not; some can get it for free, some must pay, and every marriage is different and unique.
I agree . . . the most likely source of this despicable leak and miscarriage of justice was the U.S. Attorney’s office – New York and/or Washington. While such unprofessional conduct is not beyond the FBI, e.g., J. Edgar Hoover, I have more faith in the FBI than the politicized U.S. Attorneys. I strongly suspect it is part & parcel to the U.S. Attorney scandal that exploded over a year ago. This administration’s inept and scandalous politicization of the Justice Department has been and will be extensively and extraordinarily harmful to this Grand Republic.

Another contribution:
“To the Spitzer ‘affair’ - This sordid episode has a multidimensional conflict aspect to it for someone like me who favors making prostitution and drugs legal, yet treating integrity as an important virtue as well. He may be one of the most sanctimonious hypocrites in my lifetime and I suspect his downfall has more to do with his self-righteous pursuit of people he disliked, but never charged, as well as failing to work with the NY legislature. He destroyed many lives before he destroyed his own. I recognize that our open system of checks and balances will sometimes result in what is certainly a terrible time for his family. I don't care who he sleeps with, but I imagine his family would have preferred someone smarter about it. Had he operated with integrity, he would still be governor. So, in some twisted respect, I'm glad he's gone because justice is served. I'm just not satisfied with the laws and tactics that did him in. The question is, if prostitution and drugs were legal, would he still have been taken down? I suspect it was a matter of time and he gave his enemies a convenient way to do him in. He's no Teddy Roosevelt in spite of his attempts to compare himself to him. The truth is he is a man with little regard for the people closest to him - his family who are the real victims. Let's repeal prohibition, but let's not bury integrity in the process. It is OK to call conduct that becomes public unacceptable, legal or illegal. In the end, integrity is the one virtue over which an individual has complete control no matter what anyone says. Spitzer should have asked of himself more than others do. And we can do better as a society if sex laws are given a hard look. The article by John Stossel [see above] is a good start.
“To the continuing dialog about Al-Quaeda - the facts support why we fight them wherever they may be. We are hurting them and will eventually beat them if we don't give up the fight. To describe our efforts as indiscriminate killing is exactly how Al-Quaeda should be described, not the brave souls risking their lives to protect us. If we fail, the enemy wins, we lose, and then we will see indiscriminate killing as never before. The Islamofacists want to kill us, enslave us, and force us to live their way. Time to ensure the bullies don't have the chance instead of condemning the very people who are busy saving the world. And, skip the argument that we are forcing democracy upon anyone. Last time I checked we have an immigration problem that is not due to people being forced to come here. Democracy is a free choice made by free people, when they are given the opportunity to make it.”
My reply:
Well said. The hypocrites are easy and appropriate targets – all of ‘em . . . politicians, clerics, all those who attempt to place themselves above the rest of us. Spitzer set himself up, as you say. Integrity is one of our most precious attributes, and Spitzer clearly bartered or threw his away.
Re: "If prostitution and drugs were legal, would he still have been taken down?" In this present case, I would say he might have had a longer fight, if not survived. However, his hypocrisy and paucity of integrity made him an easy target; if not for prostitution, it would have been something else. He gave his adversaries the bullets, loaded the gun, and cocked the hammer. That said, even if prostitution was legal and an honorable profession, there are large portions of our society who would condemn him – to them, any sex other than for procreation and especially any activities outside the confines of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is a sin, wrong and contemptible. That group would shout for punishment regardless of whether such activity was acceptable to the family. To me, moral projection and intrusion into private affairs does not rise to the level of no integrity, but those societal flaws are high on my list of contemptible conduct. I agree absolutely and totally; integrity is essential and vital; Spitzer frittered his away. He paid the price.
Sure, it is our right to speak out about anything including private conduct that becomes public. However, my focused condemnation goes to the Press that contributes to the intrusion into our private lives and the politicians who pass laws criminalizing private morality. We are a society and culture seriously out of balance, and it will only get worse as technology continues its inexorable advance, giving the government and the Press even greater ability to intrude. John Stossel hit the nail squarely and with a single stroke. “Too often, American criminal law is a blunt instrument designed to make it look as if politicians are protecting us. I think the politicians usually protect themselves, at our expense.” Spot on, John.
Excellent observation re: illegal immigration and those who condemn the conduct of the United States.

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

17 March 2008

Update no.327

Update from the Heartland
No.327
10.3.08 – 16.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On 11.March, just a year after assuming command, Admiral William Joseph "Fox" Fallon, USN, Commander-in-Chief Central Command (CinC CentCom), abruptly resigned and retired. I have not read his interview in Esquire magazine. According to Press reports, Fallon was critical of the President's hard stance toward the Islamic Republic of Iran, against the surge in Iraq, and otherwise not particularly aligned with the Commander-in-Chief. Military commanders have a responsibility to speak out on conditions as they see them, within the confines of the chain of command, not in public. Fallon committed a cardinal sin of professional military officers -- public pronouncements. My military network has not been kind to Fallon.
-- Governor Eliot Laurence Spitzer of New York resigned, effective Monday, 17.March.2008, at which time Lieutenant Governor David Alexander Paterson will be sworn in as governor – more on the Spitzer affair below. Eliot was accused, tried, condemned and executed by the Press in the court of public opinion. Americans just love to drool on themselves with a good sex scandal. The hypocrisy of this sordid episode is mind-numbing and nauseating. And, once again we prove, sex sells. The imaginings of the Press and the blogosphere absolutely saturated and over-powered all other topics – the War of Islamic Fascism, Iraq, the presidential primaries, the economy, everything. I guess we can all tell precisely where our priorities lay.
-- The House failed to override the President's veto of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 [H.R. 2082; S 1538] [House veto override vote: 225-188-0-17 (290 needed to override)]. The Press reported the offending portion of the bill was:
Title III: General Intelligence Community Matters --
Subtitle C: Other Matters --
(Sec. 327) -- "Prohibits any individual under the custody or control of an IC element, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations."
The President did what had to be done. Levying military standards and methods on the Intelligence Community (IC) is naive foolishness. The IC works in an entire different environment and dimension than the professional line military. The IC operatives must have the freedom to use the tools necessary to achieve our national objectives -- it is a secret, nasty business. Let us not try to put lipstick on the pig.
-- Congress seems to have developed a penchant for acronym laws, the latest attempt being the Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007 (RESTORE Act of 2007) [H.R.3773] -- the most recent version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007 [323]. The House passed the bill [vote: 213-197-1-20 (4)] without the provision for limited immunity for telecommunications companies assisting the war effort; the House vote was not sufficient to overcome the threatened presidential veto.
-- In the continuing saga swirling around the religious-based hatred of the Fred Phelps clan and the Topeka Westboro Baptist Church [190, 262, et al], the State of Kansas took its attempt at condemnation. Kansas passed the Funeral Privacy Act of 2007 [§ 21-4015] and directed the Attorney General to immediately test the new law before the State Supreme Court. The Morrison v. Sebelius ruling [KSSC no. 98,691 (2008)] came on Tuesday, and invalidated a portion of the new law, largely on a procedural separation of powers basis but enough to return the law to the Legislature. My opinion of the anti-Phelps funeral protest laws remains unchanged.

A Wall Street Journal editorial sparked me to return to a Supreme Court case.
"Islam and Its Critics"
Wall Street Journal
Published: March 5, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120467956360312007.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
The applicable and relevant case of interest was Whitney v. California [274 U.S. 357 (1927)] -- a significant First Amendment ruling. The editorial reminded of the wisdom of Associate Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis, from his concurring opinion in the Whitney case.
"The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly."
I started to write about the influence of radical Islamic clerics on the failure of assimilation integration in the Western democracies. The erupting conflagration surrounding the sermons of Reverend Doctor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago, Illinois, overshadowed the contributions of radical Islamic clerics to world violence. The clips of Wright's sermonic rhetoric are disturbing and disgusting, but it is the identity of one of Wright's parishioners that has drawn the brilliantly intense illumination -- Senator Barack Hussein Obama, junior senator from Illinois and presidential candidate. To my knowledge, Wright has not advocated for violence, but the line seems very close in Wright's inflammatory rhetoric. Yet, Wright has not flirted with the line articulated by Justice Brandeis. So, as we assess and criticize the inflammatory sermonic rhetoric of Islamic and Christian clerics, let us keep the wisdom of Justice Brandeis in our hearts.

Where do I begin? The Press has reported the identification of Client no.9 in a Federal money-laundering and/or tax evasion investigation as none other than Governor Eliot Laurence Spitzer of New York. An entity involved in the investigation was something called the Emperor Club VIP – allegedly a front for a high-end, sophisticated, prostitution ring. The truly sad and tragic part of the Spitzer case, like so many others that have private affairs thrust into the brilliant public spotlight, We, the People, have created an almost un-human environment and unrealistic expectations. We are collectively offended because a political, religious, business or military leader has a normal, healthy libido, and they need and seek satisfaction of that hedonistic aspect of being human. To have their private family affairs put before the public is wrong in the worst, most disgusting manner. If he violated money-laundering laws (the purpose of the original investigation), then prosecute him for his crimes . . . but a customer of prostitution . . . plaaaeeese! There are rumblings that Spitzer may have violated the Mann Act. The lawyers among us know what the Mann Act is, but I suspect many of us do not. What the Press refers to as the Mann Act is actually the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 [PL 61-702], originally enacted to make criminal interstate transportation of women for the purpose of prostitution. The Mann Act has been tested before the Supreme Court and actually expanded by the Court to include non-commercial, immoral acts that enveloped extramarital sex as well {Caminetti v. United States [242 U.S. 470 (1917)]}. Under the Caminetti definition, I suspect we have millions of sinful violators, only prosecuted if they are famous or reach public illumination. I shall resist the urge to launch into another diatribe about the absolute foolishness of attempting to legislate and/or criminalize private conduct including prostitution. Regrettably, Spitzer will soon join a long list of public figures to be bloodied, humiliated and sacrificed at the altar of sanctimonious, hypocritical Puritanism. Before I continue, I must state that there are elements of the Mann Act that are appropriate, reasonable, logical and consistent with the defense of public safety; however, in the main, the Mann Act is just another ludicrous morality law that ruins good lives and families to affirm our sense of moral propriety. Some of the most famous Mann Act convicts were the rock & roll singer Chuck Berry (1959) and heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson (1920). Once again, I state my opinion . . . prostitution should be legalized and regulated for the public good, for a host of reasons – primarily to protect workers and customers, and especially to eliminate the criminal sub-culture. The divine right of Kings no longer entitles royalty to ‘take’ women at their whim. Women and children are no longer chattel of the patriarch. We have matured (a little) as a society and culture to the point that we are moving toward the true vision of the Founders of this Grand Republic that “. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Founders may have thought equality and those unalienable rights only belonged to Caucasian, male, property owners, but they meant that they applied to all human beings. While we continue on the Founders’ journey, we have progressed far beyond 1873, 1896, 1910 and 1920 (although we took a huge step backward in 1970). As a banal metric, the erotic (some will say pornographic) movie “Deep Throat” premiered in mainstream theaters in 1972, and thrust sexually explicit cinema into the public domain; and yet, we survived. The Wild, Wild Web has made pornography available to anyone and everyone who seeks it, and yet we have not morally decayed to a primordial mush. Now, for the record, I am not a fan or advocate for Eliot Spitzer, and if he committed a proper public crime, then he must be held accountable. Yet, to be ruined publicly for being human, I raise my voice in objection. Lastly, there is a huge difference between Spitzer’s transgressions and Slick Willy Clinton’s ‘mistake(s).’ Spitzer reportedly paid his partner for services rendered, while Clinton took abusive advantage of a young woman in his employ and at his mercy. It may not sound like much of a difference to anyone else, but it is to me. When will we ever learn?

What is it about sex and drugs that we get our panties in a knot? We manage, regulate, de-criminalize, and eliminate the criminal sub-culture associated with some other immoral or sinful pursuits. Tobacco delivers one of the most addictive substances known to man; and yet, tobacco has been in popular use for centuries and remains so today, albeit regulated and restricted from minors. Today, sexually explicit pornographic images are just a few mouse-clicks away, and our societal fabric has not been torn. Gambling has become far more accessible today, even right here in the conservative Heartland, far beyond Sin City; and, scads of citizens enjoy the thrill of gambling without destroying their lives. Alcohol has been in use and abused for millennia; it has ruin its fair share of lives and families; we endured and survived an attempt at general prohibition. Tobacco, pornography, gambling and alcohol are readily available virtually anytime, anywhere, and yet, the vast majority of our society abides proper public conduct despite the free availability, and they are not subverted by these readily available sinful pursuits. I recognize and acknowledge the moralistic forces within our society who disapprove of and condemn any usage of tobacco, pornography or alcohol, or participation in gambling. Let them speak their condemnation without using the instruments of State to bludgeon our entire citizenry. All that aside, only a fraction of us allow the sinful pursuits to affect our lives or public safety, and only a mere fraction of that fraction transgress the public – private boundary. Sex and psychotropic substances are not fundamentally different. When we legalize and regulate the sex and drug trade, like we do alcohol and tobacco, we will eliminate the criminal sub-culture that actually causes the majority of societal problems, and we will certainly make it much safer for those who seek or deliver such pleasures. And, I respectfully submit, the legalization of sex and drugs will not produce the ruination of our society or this Grand Republic. Like so many of our citizens who do not use or abuse alcohol or tobacco, most citizens will not use sex or drugs, even if they were readily, freely and openly available. From my biased and opinionated perspective, our society would be richer and safer with legalized and regulated sex and drug trades. Yet, like Dennis Miller so eloquently says, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) aired a 20/20 program titled: "Sex and the Age of Consent," on Friday evening -- an interesting and thought-provoking news program. I will not rehash the Genarlow Wilson case [288, 307], however the 20/20 program illuminates the far broader consequences of how well-meaning morality laws become indiscriminate bludgeons that destroy young lives in a vastly disproportionate manner. Instead of proactively teaching our children early in their lives the healthy place sex should occupy in our lives, we allow them to blindly fumble their way through secretive experiences and sometimes find themselves branded for life -- devastating punishment for a natural and normal human physiological process. I will say that in some of these youthful sex cases the monstrous power of the State inflicts "cruel and unusual punishment" for what should be a private matter and a failure of parenting. Yet, that said, morality crimes should have an added dimension of an aggrieved party to significantly reduce the frequency and disproportional punishment; in the instance of a minor child, the offended party may well and properly should be the parent(s). What bothers me so much about our legal and societal punishment of youthful sex, like drug experimentation, et cetera, comes when we lump youthful sex offenders with real child abusers.

Comments and contributions from Update no.326:
"My appreciation of your purpose and effort grows. I find no significant flaw in your presentation on the issues of this No. 326.
"I do think that those who do become deeply involved in 'grass root' political process, that is local politics, continually, at the pre-primary point then have the opportunity to have their voice (S) heard at the Primary and Final election point. Because most of us simply will not become responsibly involve early on, you are right, we then have virtually no impact on the final election outcome: we in fact become the WHINERS, THE LOSERS, not the WINNERS. As I have previously commented on this early participation is the point that the Democratic Nature of our Governmental process is at work, yet most of us simply do not participate. (After Barack Obama's speech at the 2004 DNC convention, I had decided to support him and actually spent time handing out flyers on the passenger loading platforms on his behalf, for his run for the Senate. The local politics in Illinois were so totally corrupt that the republicans imported Alan Keyes as their candidate to oppose Obama. But as Obama's lack of any depth of understanding or any positive alternatives have became evident in his performance as a Senator, I have come to thoroughly regret my decision. I am disappointed that Mike Huckabee dropped out of the current race; I would like to see him become the V.P. choice; don't think he has had time to evolve to be a good choice for President yet, but think he will if he stays in the process. It appears to me that he has such clear sound thinking; and the capacity to maintain his own faith and conviction/principals without being overbearing about it - he understands and maintains a proper separation of 'State' and Theology. What I have found disturbing is that early on the evangelical community first endorsed Mitt Romney, which I think is a horrible choice, and only after Romney dropped out did they begrudgingly finally endorse Huckabee, but much to late to have any impact on the outcome. I do admire McCain and think he is 'not a bad choice' for President, but think he would be strengthened by having Huckabee on the ticket with him. Though I do see that, like, as I see it, yourself, McCain is more of a 'Neutralist', and the Anti-Christian elements in our population would oppose the ticket with Huckabee on it; so at this point that might not be a winning ticket. The supporters of either or both Clinton or Obama would probably vehemently oppose a ticket with Huckabee on it. That may change though.
"So, the disappointment that I have with the thoughts you expressed in #326 is that because you will not participate in the election of 'Party' candidates then you deny yourself the right to be heard in the Primary elections; does that mean you will also not vote in the Presidential elections?
"A point often left out of discussions of Winners and Losers is what happens to the losers: Even in the 'democratic' process there is for every 'Winner' one or more Losers. What do you see for the lot of the Losers: do they all become spoil sports and simply drop out of the process; do they have a positive place in their respective futures?"
My response:
A couple of clarifications, if you will permit me.
First, the primaries and caucuses are not elections. They are part of an internal, political party, candidate nominating process.
Second, I am an avowed independent or non-partisan. That does not mean I am not paying attention to the nominating process – quite the contrary.
Third, I find little affinity with any of the political parties. As has been demonstrated in graphic terms, political parties simply provide slightly different colors of the same old tripe – big government, largesse, corruption, parochial self-interest, power, imposition upon our freedom. Sorry for such a cynical view, but that is my opinion.
Fourth, I can find good elements in virtually every candidate, and yet none have all positive attributes. After all, they are flawed human beings like us all.
Lastly, just a simple historical reminder . . . Ronald Reagan and John McCain lost their first bids for the presidency; they persevered.

Another comment in a continuing thread:
"Al-Quaeda is not state sponsored. How do you gage state sponsored terrorism? By the statements and actions of a few radicals? Or the result of the actions of the state?
"Foreign Affairs is hardly naive. Extremism is another thing entirely, no matter where it comes from. How do you discount the killing of 100s of thousands of civilians because of the actions of a state which acted under false pretenses? You claim I hate America. You are wrong. I have a problem with the leadership and the followers who condone and then ignore indiscriminate killing.
"On a lighter note, isn't it odd that a famous and powerful politician who was trying to do some good also has a big sex drive? Especially when compared to chickenhawks who get off on bombing third world countries. Talkin’ ‘bout Bush, Cheney, Feith, Rumsfeld, Addington, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Perle, et al. Never catch any of those guys with a call girl, I'll bet."
My reply:
The listing in my 2nd sentence was not meant to be a string of qualifiers linked by an article; the list is separated by commas. You are, of course, precisely correct. Al-Qaeda has absolutely no affiliation with any State, however, they are a terrorist organization like other state-sponsored terrorist organizations, e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, et cetera. They all advocate for and use violence against innocent civilians to achieve their objectives.
If Foreign Affairs or any organization believes al-Qaeda is more dangerous today, then we are back into an argument of semantics, or they are naïve. Is al-Qaeda dangerous? Yes, absolutely. Yet, the level of awareness, vigilance, and posture of the United States and our Allies is orders of magnitude greater today than seven years ago. They were far more dangerous ten years ago, when they operated virtually without resistance. The implied or presumptive object of the statement was warning of our vulnerability. That is the basis of my objection. We should look at war in balance rather than unilaterally.
I do not believe I ever stated, claimed, or even suggested that you “hate America.” For the record, I make no such claim. I did ask why you feel the United States is the aggressor, the oppressor, the villain on the world stage? That is certainly the impression you have left with me. You have made numerous suggestive claims that the United States has killed 1.5M innocent Iraqis by our alleged illegal battle. I am just trying to understand why you believe that to be so. I do not accuse you of being a liar, or a hate-monger, or any of those other silly labels. I just want to understand.
You shall read of my opinion re: the Spitzer situation in this week’s Update. At a personal level, I agree with you . . . although Wolfie did get caught pretty damn close to having his pants down. Frankly, I’d be happy to contribute taxes for prostitutes to service all our leaders, but I doubt that would be a popular or well-received suggestion.

From a different venue, we have this relevant exchange:
“Unless Spitzer used tax dollars to pay for this stuff he’s not a ‘criminal.’ And to compare him with all the corporate fraudsters is outrageous (those are very REAL criminals). He's got marriage problems. Likely BOTH he and his wife have contributing issues to this reality.”
My response:
If Spitzer used public money, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Mann Act is an offense to our freedom, and should be repealed or seriously constricted to apply to only the original intent -- sex slavery; that is clearly not involved in this instance. The money-laundering laws were intended to catch drug dealers, part of another offense upon our freedom -- the Controlled Substances Act of 1970; and once again, clearly not involved here. He may have violated money-laundering law(s) by trying to follow a payment path intended to avoid U.S. banking laws, but only because prostitution is a crime, i.e., we created this crime on fallacious grounds. Hell, the guy was just trying to pay for a good time with a young woman; let's get real.
Second, this is the worst of Puritanistic, moral projectionist, prudish America paralyzed by its own history. Our laws were created by seriously repressed men, who made a moral statement, and none of the other men at the time or since have had the [chutzpah] to stand up and say, no. Virtually all of our sex laws should be repealed. And, prostitution should be legalized, regulated and elevated to a noble professional like doctors and lawyers . . . oh wait, maybe not the latter . . . not so noble.
Third, the sooner we can learn to confine government to the public domain and further only to the proper conduct of government (public safety and fair practices), the sooner we can get passed all these damnable "morality" laws. We have allowed government to penetrate far too deeply into our private affairs, and now that the freakin' camel is IN the tent, we'll have hell to pay getting him out.
Fourth, sex, like so many other "sinful" pursuits, is largely a victimless crime. It is a crime because we made it a crime. But, in today's world and especially in this instance, there were no victims; both participants were adults exercising their pursuit of Happiness and freedom of choice.
Lastly, we have no idea what arrangement or agreement the Spitzer's may have had. Sex is and should be a private matter between the contractual or consenting partners. The government and the public have no business intruding upon our private sexual affairs. So many of these "morality" laws impose criminal sanctions to "protect" the wife and children. The damage to the family, at least from what I've seen so far, rests in the conduct of the government in disclosing this conduct and especially with the Press who sensationalized this private matter.
This offense upon us all by the government should anger us all.

A query:
“Would you agree the Spitzer thing opens up a can of worms in regard to government surveillance of bank records and taping conversations, all due to 9/11, which I think we should be seriously questioning?”
My reply:
The Spitzer affair opened quite a few societal questions, some of which I discuss in this week’s Update. Yes, the Spitzer affair raises the question of government surveillance. At the outset of this discussion, I admit my apprehension regarding the FBI’s use of money-laundering laws to prosecute a prostitution case. Money-laundering laws came into pervasive prominence as a consequence of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 – a genuine and truly oppressive abuse of our freedom. The PATRIOT Act of 2001 sharpened the point and expanded the reach of the blade. The reality is, the Federal government has been watching bank transactions for three plus decades; this is not new. To my knowledge, the FBI did not seek a criminal wiretap warrant until earlier this year or late last year, when the one or more money-laundering flags were tripped. Again, to my knowledge, no intelligence means were involved.
That said, and in an attempt to succinctly state my outrage in this event . . . Someone in the FBI and/or Department of Justice chose to disclose the investigation to the New York Times. Spitzer has been accused, tried, convicted and executed in the court of public opinion by a salacious Press. If he violated money-laundering or corruption laws, let him be charged with those crimes and stand before the bar. Prostitution, the Mann Act of 1910 . . . I am so bloody, freakin’ angry I can hardly see straight. To me, this is the worst of American society . . . our sanctimonious, pseudo-self-righteous, hypocritically moralistic, duplicitous voyeurism is truly nauseating, disgusting and contemptible . . . and besides that I’m really incensed.
I think I can understand why Spitzer chose to resign, however, in deference to the good citizens of New York and Spitzer’s family, I wish he had used his legal prowess to confront all these antiquated, foolish laws that have been and are a grave offense to our liberty and freedom. I want to see more about where the money came from; we may never see the money source. Beyond that, the circular argument the FBI used to ferret out Eliot and the disgusting betrayal of our justice system is the source of my outrage. We have created crimes upon crimes upon crimes to prosecute what should be a private matter . . . but that is who we are. I continue to pray that one day we shall grow up to realize the majesty of our Founding principles. I am an eternal optimist and I have hope.

And, a comment from this article:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12526
"This is a piece by Ron Paul that I think, or hope, that you might agree with- and it is the main reason I am so upset about it -- I don't really give a r__'s ass about the sex stuff -- it's the Constitution! and what we've done to it after 9/11."
"Living by the Sword"
by Representative Ron Paul (of Texas)
March 15, 2008
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12526
My reply:
We seem to use the term "illegal" quite a bit regarding laws we do not like the Mann Act, the Authorization(s) to Use Force, the Controlled Substances Act, and so many others. Yet, in every case I am aware, they are indeed legal. We can argue the constitutionality . . . depending upon our perspective -- fundamental constructionist to living constitutionalist, Federalist to Libertarian.
Paul does have a point. What happened to Spitzer may have been legal, but it was wrong; as he says, "No matter how morally justified his comeuppance may be, his downfall demonstrates the worst of our society." I certainly agree as I have written.
I can also say I agree with his conclusion -- "What we need is more government transparency and more privacy for the individual!" Yet, I summarily reject his path to the objective.

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

10 March 2008

Update no.326

Update from the Heartland
No.326
3.3.08 – 9.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
During the last week of February, Jeanne took her first pleasure cruise aboard the Celebrity Millennium ship with her friend Cindy and four other women. They visited San Juan, St. Thomas, Casa de Campo, Dominican Republic, and Labadee, Haiti. She had a great time, saw new sights, and experienced what she imagines as the “life of the Rich & Famous,” if only for just a week. Fortuitous timing enabled her to be the vanguard of our cruisin’ time of life. Regular life is certainly not as enjoyable, but I am glad to have her home.

[Jeanne cruise 080228A.jpg] [Jeanne cruise 080228B.jpg]

Occasionally, my attention is drawn to a memorable link; so, it was this weekend. A friend and contributor sent this URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKCVS57j284
The YouTube site added this caption: “This is a video of the Cactus Cuties, very talented young ladies ranging in age from 8 to 13 singing The Star Spangled Banner. The performance was at the Texas Tech vs. Texas basketball game January 20, 2008 in front of over 11,000 people. The Cuties are Andi, Baylee, Blaire, Madeline and Tatum. The group is named for the Cactus Theater in Lubbock, Texas, and are coached by Cami Caldwell.” Magnificent . . . for voices of any age! They deserve the national and international stage; I shall do my part.

The follow-up news items:
-- Senator John Sidney McCain III of Arizona clinched the Republican Party nomination on Tuesday, with victories in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island. Governor Mike Huckabee conceded, finally. Just a simple note from personal history: John’s father, Admiral John S. McCain Jr., then Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command (CinCPac), gave the commencement speech for my Naval Academy class (1970) while John was still a prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton. Those of us who were there that day remember the poignancy of the moment. Also, not many may recall that on 29.July.1967, then Lieutenant Commander John McCain, USN, found himself smack dab in the middle of the horrific flight deck conflagration aboard USS Forrestal (CV-59); he survived, obviously.
-- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton managed to end the Obama runaway and got herself back in the race for the Democratic Party nomination. This is looking more and more like a contested, brokered convention in August . . . probably to be decided by the Party leadership (the so-called Super Delegates).
-- First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev was ‘elected’ as President of Russia, replacing Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, who is expected to be named prime minister.

Just in case someone might like to hear my opinion about the Democratic Party’s primary voting issues . . . The American primary system has evolved to popularize the Party nomination process. No matter how we cut it, the primaries are NOT elections to office or position. They are internal party activities – the effort to determine the party’s chosen candidate to compete in the general election. There is wisdom and experience in the construction of the Democratic Party procedure. And, frankly, I do not much care whether members of any political party decide to choose their candidate by drawing straws, or playing tiddlywinks or rock-paper-scissors – that is their business entirely. I am not allowed to vote in the primaries as I refuse to join any political party. Given the potential for virtually tied or deadlock primaries, the super-delegate provision has wisdom behind it. The Party must decide who is their best candidates and represent them in the general election. If state memberships cannot decide, then the Party leaders MUST decide. This silly notion of simple popular vote negates the influence of the states as well as the Party. In the current kerfuffle, the Democratic Party organizations for Florida and Michigan chose to defy the National Committee rules and held their primaries earlier than authorized. They were warned of the consequences, and they freely chose to defy the national leadership. I guess they hoped the national guys would blink; they didn’t – too bad, so sad. This tempest in a teapot has absolutely nothing to do with voting rights, elections, or fairness, so all this yammering about the voters must be heard is absolute hogwash and even that does a disservice to the noble hogs. Florida and Michigan Democratic Party members should focus on cleaning out the leadership of their state parties that chose to ignore the agreed to rules. Iacta alea est (the die is cast).

Rumblings about one political party occupying the White House and controlling both chambers of Congress with a 60+ seat Senate majority ought to give us all pause for serious contemplation – the stimulus for compromise virtually evaporates. To me, any political party holding that level of dominance within the Federal government is particularly scary. I do not think it matters which political party acquires that level of control over the apparatus of State. I think the last time we saw that domination was the Carter administration – not exactly a hallmark of Federal governance. As we witnessed from 2001 to 2007, one of the principal differences between the political parties seems to be what or rather for whom they bleed the treasury to benefit; the secret, hidden earmark process invites, ney encourages, corruption, and the only remotely possible bulwark against that corruption is a strong opposition party. Congress loves to spend money on their pet projects, to impress their financial donors and cronies. As long as we have politicians who vastly favor their political party and their friends over the welfare of this Grand Republic, I shall advocate for opposition balance.

Here is a relevant question, since so many talking heads are getting huffy about Israel’s latest incursion into Gaza. What would we do if 122mm Katyusha rockets began striking border towns along the border with Mexico? Would be just stand around and whine about how unfortunate and downtrodden the Mexicans were, while innocent Americans were being killed or injured? Or, to put this is a different context, how many of us would do nothing if we watched Katyusha rockets being launched into the city from a field beside our neighbor’s house? The Palestinian people tolerate the violence of Hamas in their midst, as many Lebanese tolerate Hezbollah in their midst; and then, they are outraged when the Israelis defend themselves. The Gaza Palestinians are NOT the innocents they claim to be. The same principles apply in the current border confrontation between Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador. Attacking someone and hiding across a border or among innocent civilians should be neither condoned nor tolerated; just as I would not standby and watch my neighbor attack someone else. We have a civic responsibility as well as accountability that apparently is not shared by other cultures and societies. I respectfully submit to a discerning audience that it is that civic responsibility that contributes to defining an advance community.

I have been watching and listening to the unfolding ricin incident in Las Vegas, that became public when police were summoned to a hotel on 26.February. The hotel room had been engaged by Roger Von Bergendorff, a 57-year-old graphic designer and pizza deliveryman, who had been admitted to a Las Vegas hospital in acute respiratory failure. Ricin is a derivative of the castor bean, usually a yellow powder, and quite toxic when ingested by or injected into humans. Preliminary reports eliminated a terrorist event, although probably in the context of the current War on Islamic Fascism; yet, there are indications this incident might be a white supremacist terrorism event. We need to know more about who this guy is and why he was in possession of ricin powder.

This week's U.S. Air Force procurement decision in the new Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) program has caused a significant disturbance in the Force. The Air Force chose the Northrup-Grumman variant based on the Airbus A330 aircraft. The competing Boeing system was based on their B767 aircraft. This decision would have been sensitive at any time in our history; it is an order of magnitude more sensitive in the context of the current presidential primary season, the impending presidential election, and the highly volatile debate over outsourcing, the faltering economy, trade deficit, et cetera. Having endured or watched a few of these major procurements, I believe the Air Force made the best choice given their range of factors. Further, free trade, international commerce and freedom of the seas have been essential elements of this Grand Republic since the Revolutionary War. We fought our first war as a nation over these principles – the First Barbary War (1801-1805) [NOTE: a war Jefferson fought although Congress never passed a declaration of war]. We have also attempted to insulate ourselves from world affairs several times in our history; all without success. So, today, to hear the talk of ‘save our jobs,’ ‘buy American,’ and all the wailing about outsourcing, I am perplexed, conflicted and disturbed. Sure, I want all American citizens to be healthy, prosperous and happy. Heck, I want all human beings to be healthy, prosperous and happy, but I am not so naïve to think any of these are within my sphere of influence. I have been unemployed. Such occurrences in any life or family are never easy or painless. My father was unemployed for a time in his life, and I can assure you those days were never pleasant. Outsourcing is a normal and natural process. No economy can sustain itself by paying workers 10-20 times what their jobs are worth in the marketplace. Globalization is not some new phenomenon concocted by evil, heartless, capitalist, industrial barons; it has been in existence since commerce began. What has changed is the speed and reach of communications, mechanization efficiency, the speed and capacity of transportation, and global community awareness. Free trade, like free speech, is not a convenience that we embrace only when it suits us. Our economy, our labor force, our laws, and our immigration process must change to reflect and represent our place in the world economy. The world is changing; so must we. We should albeit must be agents of change rather than attempting to withdraw into some imaginary shell. Rather than whine about a European airplane company deservedly winning a procurement contract, let us focus on helping our brethren learn new jobs that cannot be done elsewhere. We have long sought global markets for our products; now, let us act like we belong in the global marketplace.

I must admit that holding onto an aloof, sanctimonious position regarding so many of our societal issues must be comforting and reassuring. After all, being against war, against guns, hunger, poverty, or opposing abortion, or condemning end-of-life actions is effortless and easy. We hold hard positions on some of our most difficult societal challenges -- Social Security, immigration reform, campaign financing, earmark graft and corruption, and such. And, we pretend the seamier side of human life does not exist – prostitution, psychotropic substances, intoxication, and pornography among others. Hard positions make for hard feelings. One day, we shall learn to get down off our high horse and seek solutions to the ills that infect our souls.

Once again, a newspaper opinion column ignited my urge to write.
"Equal rights apply to Christians, too"
by Brent Castillo
Wichita Eagle
Published: Thursday, 6.March.2008; page:
http://www.kansas.com/opinion/castillo/story/332439.html
My letter to the paper:
You stated, “There are two things that our politically correct culture still targets with glee: adult Caucasian males and conservative Christianity.” I am certainly no fan or advocate of this silly notion we call political correctness. And, you may well be correct in your statement. After all, you are not alone in voicing that observation.
Our precious 1st Amendment rights – religion, speech, Press, assembly and petition – belong to all of us in equal measure. In fact, many of us have stood in harm’s way to defend those essential freedoms. “We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . .”
Yet, your opinion column fails to examine, address, recognize, understand or appreciate the underlying reasons for the perceived “anti-Christian” reaction by some in American society.
I respectfully submit that what you speak of as political correctness and “anti-Christian” behavior is in part backlash and to an extent defense of the Founding ideals of this Grand Republic – freedom for everyone, not just what is allowed under a Christian (or any other religion) umbrella. I join you in offense when a student is denied her freedom of speech, simply because she chooses to invoke a religious image. Yet, there is a world of difference between a student and a public school principal or teacher in such circumstances.
What some Christians, and apparently you among them, illuminate as “anti-Christian” oppression, is quite possibly resentment to having your version of Christianity, or Christianity in general, imposed upon them, injected into their lives, and especially with the consent of the State, implicit or otherwise.
The Pew survey reported in the Eagle pegs Christians as 78% of the American population. Such a majority, or even greater, does not entail the right to impose your values on private conduct of other citizens. So, if you perceive resistance, I suggest you examine why there is resistance. To be frank and candid, there are Christians who strongly oppose what conservative and/or fundamentalist Christians have been attempting to accomplish – marshalling the instruments of State to dictate their version of values, both public and private. I truly believe there would be less public resistance, if there was less intrusion upon our private lives. I urge you to think about it.

Comments and contributions from Update no.325:
“I think your logic is backwards. The jihadists whoever they are, have won so far with a policy that has caused Bush and cohorts to waste American blood and treasure in a fruitless attempt at empire building. We are broke and the Army is broke and a draft will be the next step- which hopefully will never happen (but this is a sticky issue), so McCain, as good as he sounds to you and your compatriots for his tough talk and blow ‘em all up attitude will recruit more and more people to the side of the folks that really hate us, and thus if there was a strategy that wanted to make things worse for us it will be to continue stay the course insanity. The extremists are winning this battle while moderates and people who know history and people who care about life, everyone's, are hoping we do not succumb to the fear mongering and jingoism coming from the war party. Other than that , you are usually right on!
“Was that you who was responding to this? "To the author of the baseless rot spewed about '...Libertarians, Feminists, and Homosexuals' in 'A Continuing thread...; . Very good response.
“In regard to our discussion about our military killing innocents and unarmed captives. This goes to the heart of the matter: are we virtuous, or are we not? If we are, then we don't condone being criminals or criminal activity, even in warfare. All wars have produced the horrors of murder, etc- war is indeed hell, and that is why we should have out grown it a couple generations ago. But we haven't and we won't. Only those kids coming home now, if they ever do, since their redeployment seems unending, can understand what war is. You note anecdotal instances of kindness, magnanimity which are indeed real, but you are too light on the bad stuff and quickly say it is aberration. I don't know if you are serious or delusional. Our kids are being told, on orders, to kill innocents and to shoot unarmed captives. This is a fact and I won't bore you with the details of how I know because I can't prove it without incriminating others, and besides even if I was waterboarded I'm not sure I could give you accurate information. My point is it is as real as all murder is in all wars- but the difference is today's war has a special meanness to it, and yet a callousness as well- mainly because we choose not to know about it. In past wars most people didn't know about the brutality, until Vietnam sent color moving pictures of it home, so their ignorance was just a simple fact. Today we can see what is going on, read about it, and then choose to ignore the court cases that show we have tortured, as a policy, murdered, as a policy, and thumbed our nose at the Geneva convention- ah! because this is a different war- this one is against something different than past wars- this is against an idea, not a state! And God knows how hard it is to kill an idea. So we throw our American traditions to the wind, break our own and international laws and invade a sovereign nation which had nothing to do with attacking us. This is a war that we started because we want an empire in the 21st Century and because we want to make sure we control the down side of the peak oil supply. In order to rally the moms and pops and the shut-in's who are staring at FoxNews all day we had to turn it into a crusade.
“You are mistaken if you take anything I say to be critical of the men and women boys and girls who don the uniform in service to our country. It is crimes that I am criticizing. If you or any member of your family was ordered to shoot unarmed captives, would you or they have done it? I sit here in my warm house with my coffee brewing and think I know what I would do. After all, what is the point of being free, supporting liberty, the rights of man, calling myself a Christian if I would shoot an unarmed man simply because I was ordered to do so? Am I just a robotron of killing? Or am I a man with a sense of right and wrong? Do I follow orders or do I stand on principle? Do I do it because I cannot see how I could possibly go against my superiors or against my comrades who are doing it? Fact is, I am no hero. I would follow orders, and that is my larger point. We should never have started this war.”
My response:
I have made no claim to being correct, righteous or even reflective. So, could my logic be backwards; yes, absolutely. After all, it is but my opinion.
You continue and repeatedly imply, if not accuse, the United States of ‘empire building.’ Would you be so kind to explain why you think this is the case? Perhaps I am blind to the obvious, but I can see no such evidence or rationale. In fact, if we were of the mind to ‘build an empire,’ we are going about it in a strangely odd and distorted manner. In fact, my opinion is quite the opposite; we seek to destroy those who wish to oppress. The jihadistanis may well be winning, but that is not clear to me. My criticism of the Bush administration is not over the choice or objective, but in the grotesquely inefficient manner taken to achieve the objective. Bush/Rumsfeld cost precious American lives; they shall bear that burden.
Re: our military killing innocent and unarmed civilians. As I am sure you can imagine, there are numerous citizen subscribers who are active duty, retired and former military personnel from all branches of U.S. and Allied services; they may wish to comment as well. Let us establish a few baseline facts. Have innocent, unarmed civilians been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, absolutely, without exception. Unfortunately, ‘innocent’ and ‘unarmed’ are matters of perspective in this kind of war, and thus open to debate. A woman clothed in a head-to-toe Burka who runs toward me and fails to stop when ordered to do so in English and Arabic is no longer innocent or unarmed, regardless of what gender is under the Burka or whether s/he possesses a weapon; s/he is a threat, and I trust I would and any other soldier or Marine would act appropriately. Any military enlisted or officer who has served in the U.S. military and especially the combat arms in the last 40 years will attest to the training each and every one of us receives on the Code of Conduct, rules of engagement, laws of war, the Geneva Convention, et cetera. As I have acknowledged previously, there are murderers, rapists and thieves in the military; there always have been; there always will be. The military goes to extraordinary lengths to localize and prosecute those in uniform who commit crimes, even in combat. IMHO, I think the military has gone too far in prosecuting some incidents. I cannot and I am not asking you to compromise any of your sources. However, I would ask you see other opinions. Unless someone else can substantiate or corroborate such extraordinary accusations, I shall summarily reject and condemn such accusations. I cannot imagine any officer at any rank getting away with issuing such an outlandish order. That aside, I am sure some who have not served in combat would criticize my order to my Marines to shoot to kill anyone who threatened our safety or our mission. If that is ordering the killing of innocent, unarmed civilians, then I am a sinner, but I am alive and my Marines are safe for my sins. I ask you to stand back from the emotion of the killing and consider the basis for such claims. Less than 1% may commit bona fide crimes in combat, and there have been some in these battles; but, to condemn all as criminals is wrong.
Re: “the leadership promoting the war.” First, the leadership does not pull the actual trigger; they define objectives. I have far more faith in the conduct of our soldiers and Marines, that even if they were ordered to kill ‘innocents,’ they would withhold their fire. The difficulty in judging decisions in combat by those of us who sleep in our warm beds at night rests in the perception of threat. Such definitions depend upon circumstances, timing, resources, weapons, numbers, et cetera. I trust the judgment of our soldiers far beyond lawyers, politicians, judges and civilians sitting in their fancy chairs in their posh offices. Second, the relationship between the civilian leadership, the generals, the officer corps, and the non-commissioned officers down to the shooters with rifles in their hands is well established, consistent, time-proven and honorable. There are far too many checks & balances for such orders for indiscriminate killing to ever be executed even if they were ever issued. Third, as there have been in every war, there are those citizens who are transformed by the process of looking down the sight of a rifle aimed at a man’s chest and pulling the trigger. Are there soldiers who revile and negatively react to such experience; yes, absolutely, without question; and, they often make outrageous claims to rationalize their inability to perform. I could offer a few notable examples, but I think you can draw your own conclusions. Killing a man, a woman or a child is never easy, but it is necessary, and that is why we train a professional military; I trust their training and their judgment to identify and eliminate any threat regardless of gender, age, race, ethnicity or any of the other social factors. Someone who makes a threatening gesture toward a soldier in combat made a very poor, final choice.
I have repeatedly said that there is one very simple and easy way to judge the violence in any war zone – stop fighting. If you analyze U.S./Allied operations, I think you will readily find where there is peace, there are no offensive U.S. operations. Where there is violence, we seek out and destroy those who commit such violence. AQI will not allow peace to happen; they do not want peace; they want war, chaos, anarchy, fear and confusion . . . the conditions where force of arms thrives, e.g., the wild, wild West. We seek the rule of law by Iraqis, for Iraqis, and we seek to destroy those who want to deny freedom to the Iraqis.
We did NOT start this war. We resisted this damnable war far too long, and that reluctance to confront the oppressors three plus decades ago has cost us enormously today. And, again IMHO, our withdrawal from finishing the job now will only make that cost infinitely greater tomorrow.
. . . round two:
“You raise some interesting points but I think you missed my basic one and that is that we should never have started this war, i.e. an invasion of Iraq. You and I disagree on this and I doubt anyone reading this forum would agree with me. I feel the invasion was illegal (Congress did not declare it, having abrogated its Constitutional duty), and under our Constitution all treaties and agreements are the supreme law of the land- hence we broke international law by invading a sovereign nation, as Hitler did when he invaded Poland, under similar justifications, and as Saddam did when he invaded Kuwait. Your points about killing women and children if they are perceived as a threat to our military seems to reduce us to the level of those who we think are our enemy. You want to destroy those who seek to oppress. How can you know what is in the minds of those you are destroying? You casually brush aside the deaths of 100,000s of innocent civilians, need I add that most are women and children, because they seek to oppress? A few extremists wanted to do us harm. Bush invaded Iraq. Now thousands of extremists want to do us harm. What is the percentage in that? We are acting like the Israelis against the Palestinians. Is that a good thing? If you think it is not true that orders are not given to our soldiers to shoot unarmed captives who are on their knees with their backs to their shooters, then I don't know what to say but assume you think I am a liar. I can't control what you think. My contention is that this is a destructive policy to our cause and no matter how much it went on during the Viet Nam war, or any war, or how effective other nations who advise our military think it is, it is wrong. You praise the high standards of the fighting men and women of our military, as do I. It is the leadership which should be held accountable. I won't hold my breath. We all should read and learn from middle eastern experts who do not tell us what we already believe in order to get a more balanced understanding of the repercussions of what we do. I try to read both sides- Gingrich and Juan Cole. I bet you haven't read Juan Cole.”
. . . my response to round two:
Yes, we do disagree on the authority to invade Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the War on Islamic Fascism, but not entirely. I have long criticized the President for failing to seek and gain a full and proper declaration of war per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; by not doing so, enormous ambiguity was created. Yet, the President possesses expansive authority under Article II, Section 2, which is Bush’s interpretation, and to date, the Supreme Court has largely supported the President’s interpretation. Also, Article 51 of the UN Charter acknowledges the right of every nation to self-defense, which like the individual soldier facing a threat, is largely self-defined. All that aside, legal or illegal, right or wrong, once the trigger is pulled and troops go in harm’s way, my interest in the legality vanishes, and my only concern is winning the war as quickly and efficiently as possible to minimize the blood of our patriots; we’ll sort out the administrivia afterward.
The comparison of U.S. v. Iraq to Germany v. Poland (1939) is inappropriate for a host of reasons, unless you deny Saddam’s provocation, defiance, development & use of WMDs, sponsorship of international terrorism, ad infinitum. We gave Saddam a ridiculous number of warnings, second chances, and opportunities to join the community of peaceful nations; he chose a different path; he paid the price. If al-Qaeda had not been successful on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we would probably still be whining at Saddam; 9/11 altered the context, and rightly so.
I continue to find it most troubling that you apparently see the United States of America as the aggressor, the occupier, the oppressor, the imperial colonialist, the rogue state. If so, I hope someday you will help me understand why?
Unless any citizen has stood in harm’s way as a soldier in combat, or a police officer responding to a disturbance, explaining a threat may not be possible. The truth is a threat can be defined by a myriad of factors including context, environment, appearance, actions, associates, and such. I have offered and can offer many more examples. Such judgments in combat have absolutely nothing to do with what the threatening person is thinking . . . kind of like a man in a riot raising a toy pistol toward a police officer – death by cop – doesn’t matter what he was thinking or whether he was even armed. He chose to take a provocative action; I reacted to kill him dead.
Re: “Bush invaded Iraq. Now thousands of extremists want to do us harm.” The weakness in the logic rests in the disconnection and ignorance of the decades of killing the Islamo-fascists have been perpetrating. As long as you see all these events as isolated, unconnected, unfortunate-acting-up by disenfranchised criminals, the disconnection is easy, and thus the image that Bush’s action in Iraq was wrong becomes easy to embrace. As long as we ignore the provocation of the Israelis by the Hamas & Hezbollah, we can readily see the Palestinians as oppressed. Likewise, as long as we choose to ignore the provocations of the Islamo-fascists and the mounting number of Americans who have died at their hands, it is easy to see the United States as the oppressor. Bottom line: I cannot and will no see the decades of provocations as disconnected. Therein lies the essence of our disagreement, it seems to me.
Re: “If you think it is not true that orders are not given to our soldiers to shoot unarmed captives who are on their knees with their backs to their shooters, then I don't know what to say but assume you think I am a liar.” I am not so foolish or immature to make such an allegation. I believe you believe what you say as true. I respectfully submit that such judgments depend upon context (among other factors). If I was the team leader of a small Recon, SEAL, SF or Ranger team (which I have done at one time in my life) in bad guy country, outnumbered and engaged, I would not and I trust none of my team would hesitate to eliminate enemy combatants – armed or unarmed, bound or free. A seven man Recon team has no capacity to take captives. My failure to do so might well lead to one of those captives being the determinant in the fight – context. Might someone on that team be offended by such an action? Perhaps. And, I respectfully submit, such an individual becomes a risk to the team. I used an example of a Burka-clad female running toward a checkpoint and failing to respond to warnings – context. This is why I contend that just because we have the Internet, YouTube, vidclips and such, giving us instant views of combat, does not give us the right to sit in judgment of Marines in combat making those instantaneous life-or-death decisions. You will also find that I am a staunch, relentless advocate for the defense of those Marines. We have soldiers and Marines facing charges today that I find revolting and reprehensible – combat in Fallujah or Baghdad is not crime in Kansas City. Yet, at the end of the day, I trust the generals to ignore the Press and popular outrage and to do the correct thing for those soldiers and Marines. So, again, no, I absolutely do not believe orders have been issued formally or by a wink & a nod to kill innocent, unarmed civilians. And, I do not believe you are a liar; I just think you choose to see that which you wish to see; which is also why I continue to attempt explanations . . . in hopes that (the general) you might see such events through a different lens.
Re: leadership accountability. I agree in the main. Yet, I do not agree in specific for the reasons I have offered. President Bush had the courage to do what should have been done in 1979 and subsequent. I have seen nothing that causes me doubt. Conversely, I have been and remain a vociferous critic of President Bush, especially during the Donald Rumsfeld debacle years, for his attempting to fight a war by half-measures. John McCain resisted the trigger pull as he should have . . . in a non-public, behind-the-scenes manner, but once the trigger was pulled, he has been an unwavering advocate for victory. John suffered the consequences of half-measures far more so than some of the rest of us, and he has not forgotten those lessons.

This next contribution follows a continuing thread from several Updates. To avoid any confusion regarding my possible complacency, the original contributor sought to void his anonymity within this forum with the subsequent comment.
“I apologize to you for what my at least 'felt' response was to the "Another Comment" message. I am just getting my own blog going and was not aware of the mechanism by which my attachments to you might be shared; though I have no objection to them being shared or available to anyone. I have made some minor revisions to my attachments which will also be attachments on my own blog, which I will re-include as attachments to this message.
“My Personal Blog will be:
http://groups.msn.com/ourmastermindclub3173.
“My commercial Blogs are:
http://www.hermanosborne.com/blog (don't have these perfected yet; and http://www.ourmastermindclub3173.com.
“My primary business site, still under development is:
http://www.hermanosborne.com.”
My response:
No need to apologize. I often have to walk a very fine line between free exchanges of opinions and ideas, and protecting the anonymity of contributors. I seek the vigorous public intercourse . . . not to belittle or disparage anyone’s opinions. The rub with freedom of speech rests with the freedom everyone enjoys to speak their minds, from their perspective and their experience.
I will be happy to include your website, blog & links, but that will eliminate your anonymity. I would like your confirmation of acceptability before I do so.
. . . and a follow-up:
“Yes, this is my confirmation of acceptability of releasing my anonymity, for you to include my websites, Blogs and links etc. Sort of a side note: I attended a Wednesday evening service in which the ministers' messages cited how at the height of the revolutionary battle when then General Washington's troops were engaging in the British in battle at New York against formidable odds, a goodly portion of the local American population their were watching the battle from the roof tops, unwilling to engage in the battle for their own freedom: I intend to dedicate my remain time on earth to preserve Our Nation as did our founders; I am not content to be a cowardly rooftop watcher as anti-Christian forces seek to dismember and destroy Our Nation.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
As you wish, so it shall be. It is a good thing to engage rather than watch as "a cowardly rooftop watcher as anti-Christian forces seek to dismember and destroy Our Nation." An opinion column in our local newspaper spoke of anti-Christian activities; I wrote a response that will be in this week's Update; it says what I need to say.

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