Update no.493

Update from the Heartland

No.493

23.5.11 – 29.5.11

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the Southern District of California ruled that the accused assassin of Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona [473] was mentally unfit to stand trial. Two expert witnesses testified that Loughner suffers from schizophrenia. The judge committed Loughner to a mental treatment facility in an effort to make him fit to stand trial for his crimes. I surely hope the doctors are successful. We have yet another example of the societal challenges we face when prosecuting mentally ill criminals. I struggle with the ethical dilemma. I have a very hard time accepting the mental incompetence defense when an individual plans and executes a mass killing at close range. It was not a spontaneous emotional act. We can argue whether he knew right from wrong, but he was certainly sane enough to know precisely when, where and how to execute his plan.
-- The Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile (BEA) issued another preliminary report titled: Accident to the Airbus A330-203 flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 – Update on Investigation, dated: 27 May 2011 . The four-page report is a very brief synopsis of the recovered Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) data from the ill-fated Air France Flight 447 [391]. Some among the Press have tried to sensationalize snippets of fact, which will not aid public understanding or safety. Chief among those sensationalizations is the fact the captain was not in the cockpit when the event began, which is normal, common practice on long range flights; the captain supervises the takeoff and landing phases and tries to rest during cruise to ensure maximum alertness for the most challenging segments of flight. Further, Press reports suggest the pilots reacted improperly to a confusing situation in the cockpit, which I believe does extraordinary disservice to those charged with flying machines in adversity. The BEA summary suggests the pilots were presented with a cascading set of events, alerts and warning lights. Given modern, large aircraft design, of which the Airbus A330 is among, a statistically very remote (verging on impossible) event occurred. All three, separate airspeed systems presented indications of a stall. The BEA update report does not give us air mass data, proximate weather other than their approach to the InterTropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), thrust settings, or even correlated crew actions. From other sources, the crew appears to have reacted to the stall warning systems (unfortunately triggered by erroneous airspeed data) using normal procedures, which in turn rapidly complicated their situation. Again, Press renditions reported things like the crew “apparently became distracted with faulty airspeed indications and failed to properly deal with other vital systems . . . .” No official data supports that supposition. So far, it appears the flight may have encountered a little known phenomenon best described as a non-traditional icing environment that may have compromised the pitot probes associated with each airspeed data system. As we are learning, the condition is well beyond contemporary and historic aircraft design practice. My best counsel: let us not be so fast condemning the pilots on that unfortunate flight. We need to learn.
-- As Pakistan’s furor has apparently begun to subside in the wake of Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR [490], the government has agreed to allow the CIA to send a specialized forensics team to examine the Abbottabad compound. The arrangement would allow the CIA to enter the bin Ladin complex for the first time after watching it from a distance, using satellites, stealth drones and spies operating from a nearby safe house.
-- On Friday, reportedly using a remote controlled, auto-pen from the G8 Summit in Deauville, France, President Obama signed into law an extension to the USA PATRIOT Act [111 & sub] first enacted on 26.10.2001 as PL 107-056, and reauthorized on 9.3.2006 as PL 109-177. My usual sources could not keep up. I do not have any details of the extension, as it was enacted fast and late in the week. I know the capability is needed for the current War on Islamic Fascism; however, my skepticism and doubt increases persistently that flawed human beings are incapable of handling such power. I could not affect this latest extension, but I can hope this is the last extension in its present form. Regrettably, we need filters to prevent abused of the power granted by the Act.

A friend and frequent contributor sent along this link:
“6 Crazy, Unconstitutional Laws Right-Wingers Are Blowing Your Money On -- Despite promising to slash government spending, conservatives are apparently willing to break the bank defending their fringe policies in court”
by Joshua Holland
AlterNet
http://www.alternet.org/sex/151033
The six laws Holland listed are:
1. Anti-Sharia Laws
2. Abortion Bills Conflicting with Roe [v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319]]
3. Nullification Laws
4. States Regulating Immigration
5. Don't Say This or That Laws
6. Financial 'Martial Law'
I agree with the criticism of these political efforts with one exception – no.4. The state laws I have seen to date have not attempted to regulate immigration, only to ensure those individuals in this country are here legally and employed legally. We will continue to debate the immigration situation. I has not hear the term “tenth-ers” (no.3) before, but wow, I can certainly identify that descriptor for those who advocate for their particular brand of Federalism. Regrettably, when you boil down Holland’s six (6) offenses upon our freedom, they all seek to impose upon the private domain, which I cannot accept.
. . . to which our contributor added:
“The point of this particular article was not the wrongness of the causes behind these laws but the legal expense to the states of defending laws that are sure to be overturned. This kind of grandstanding gets very expensive, especially to a less-populated state such as South Dakota.”
. . . along with my reply:
Thank you for the reminder. I understood the point. I went beyond the direct consequences of Federal dicta to what I see as the much larger base issue – using Federal law to impose moral values.

“Circumcision Saved My Life -- San Francisco's proposed ban on the practice could lead to more HIV infections”
by Diane Cole
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 25, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343492869888506.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Above, we jumped the right-wing impositions upon on freedom. This is one of the left-wing versions. Let us all stop trying to use the instruments of government to impose on the freedom of choice of other citizens. We, the People, must demand our representatives refrain from passing any more morality laws and to repeal all those such laws on the books today. A law prohibiting circumcision – oh my God – how much more personal and private can we get?

Yet another contributed opinion for discussion and debate:
“I know you have a strong interest in parental involvement and/or responsibility for children. This article is from care2.com (distinctly progressive) on educators who seek to force parents to be involved in their children's education.”
“Who's To Blame? Parents, or Kids?”
posted by: Judy Molland
care2.com
Posted: 24.May.2011
http://www.care2.com/causes/education/blog/whos-to-blame-parents-or-kids/
My opinion:
Laws as noted in the article seem like baby-steps to me, but at least they are positive from my perspective.
I strongly believe in the separation of powers for government . . . and for education. By our broad parental abdication of responsibility, we have allowed government to creep deeper and deeper into our private affairs, so much so that I have felt for years now that governmental intrusion into the private domain threatens our most precious freedoms. Parents all too often look to schools for services far beyond direct content education or even the common law in loco parentis, local custodial protector of children. They want schools to do the parenting, to baby-sit their children, to entertain their children and otherwise occupy them . . . until they can get around to returning to their children’s lives.
We have entrusted schools to teach our children the basics – readin’, writin’ & ‘rithmatic. For a variety of reasons, I think public schools are well suited to perform that task . . . after all, it is the way I learned and our children learned. Where we fail in broad measure is the moral side of education – right from wrong, respect for others, acceptable public conduct, et cetera; that is the domain of families, i.e., private, and not delegate-able. Yet, as is so often the case, we fail miserably to hold parents accountable for the havoc they wrought upon society by their inadequacy, complacency, neglect or abuse of their children. I want parents fully, directly and completely accountable for the “upbringing” of their children, to the extent that if a child commits a crime, the parents commit that crime. I also want the parents legally designated the guardian of any child born to minor, unwed parents – that means both sets of parents of the sperm donor & egg donor. I know that is harsh, but to me, it must be reality. Children being allowed to mature without understanding the consequences of aberrant behavior are simply and completely unacceptable.
If we do not reverse course and demand parental accountability, I am afraid we will never overcome the deeply intrusive, nanny-state, governmental dictation we currently suffer and endure. To me, it is quite simple – public v. private, school v. parents, book learnin’ v. moral learning.
. . . to which came this response:
“I will watch this with interest myself. Regardless of the scorn poured upon them from some state capitals recently, teachers are still the best source of successful education practices. Also, as you have mentioned, preschool and early-grade teachers get the first look at the products of parenting. These initiatives might provide a path for shaping the public behaviors of both parents and children. Of course, I wonder whether parental participation under pressure will have the same good results as truly voluntary participation. Perhaps not, but perhaps so. I certainly think it's worthy of consideration.”
. . . along with my reply:
Like all behavior and moral conduct, self-policing and self-regulation are far better than “forcing” individuals to modify their behavior, but “forcing” change is far better than the laissez faire approach we have defaulted to in the last few decades. In fact, I will be so bold to say that virtually all of the problems we have with public schools can be directly attributed to parents, NOT teachers. I also will say that it is wrong to expect or even ask our teachers to be the default moral teachers for our children. Only We, the People, can demand all parents be held accountable for the moral deficiencies in public conduct, in the “upbringing” of any child. We must decide to change societal behavior.

Comments and contributions from Update no.492:
Comment to the Blog:
“I lose the meaning of your first paragraph due to the abbreviations. I find it interesting from a writer’s perspective, though. You tend to give people’s names complete with middle names, prior married names and everything imaginable, but then with agencies or other entities you use alphabet soup like BEA, CVR, SCOTUS, POTUS, etc.
“I regret that you continue to be upset with the people you encounter while driving. I do not find them worthy of my energy.
“Your linked Wall Street Journal article requires login or registration to read. I gather someone has noticed the tentacles of the Department of Homeland Insecurity. It’s about time.
“After reading the article on the Redgraves, I remain uncertain as to the nature of the ‘curse.’ It appears to me that the women suffer from insecurity and lack of self-knowledge leading them to marry men who cannot respect them. Much of this could be avoided by honest sharing of facts and feelings by at least one of the parties.
“Kwak’s point was not about the size of government per se but about the growth that has been alleged in government and the accompanying claims that government has become more intrusive. Certainly Kwak has a viewpoint. No discussion of government is ever truly apolitical, and economics is part of government.”
My reply to the Blog:
My apologies . . . to you and everyone else. I usually define my acronyms. Unfortunately, this morning, too much of a rush. Again, my apologies; undefined, unfamiliar acronyms are a distraction to effective communications.
You have a good, healthy attitude toward bad drivers. I suppose my intolerance stems from my extended exposure to respectful and orderly drivers in England and Italy, and I must confess my paucity of enthusiasm for the commute.
Again, my apologies for the subscription link. The article was actually a series of graphic and links to various listings of private jet flights by John Travolta, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump, et cetera.
There were many familial dynamics reflected in the Adler article. Most of what was presented was far too superficial to be translated into relevant substance. My point for noting the article rested more on the collateral damage done by societal imposition of normality on those who do not fit that definition.
I understood the point of the Kwak article. He offered his opinion. I offered mine. As we trim the Federal budget, now is the time to realign the reach and focus of the Federal government. Let us withdraw the Federales from our private lives, re-focus their attention on those public activities that cause injury to or threaten other citizens, and helps those who truly need assistance. We have no choice but to dramatically contract Federal spending. We must reduce Defense . . . in the appropriate areas . . . and even expand other areas, like intelligence and special operations.
. . . with this follow-up comment:
“One bit of follow-up. We have an agreement on budgeting tax dollars for law enforcement when the laws in question are merely society's way of moral judgment. Now if each person who agrees with that statement were to write his or her senators and representative a letter concerning the waste of that money, maybe we could influence change.”
. . . any my follow-up reply:
Indeed! {NOTE: I shall add this note “To all” below.}
To all,
As noted in the previous contribution, each and every one of us needs to write our representative and both senators advocating for cost reduction by eliminating those Federal programs, agencies, bureaus, departments and laws that intrude upon the private lives and freedom of choice of citizens. Further, let us eliminate all those programs that do not benefit the population at large, e.g., oil company subsidies, bridges to nowhere, agriculture subsidies, defense appropriations not supported by SecDef, elimination of all earmarks, ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Please add whatever programs you think appropriate. Now is the time to contract the Federal government out of the private domain and refocus the government on the necessary regulation of public conduct for security, safety, the general welfare, and the public good.

From another contributor:
“A rare ‘chime in’ on only one of your several interesting subjects:
First, you offered ‘...It is all about spending the Treasury to gain our votes. In doing so, we have the two parties competing with each other to see who can spend more money . . . to gain more votes. ...’ I have always concurred with this indictment of both parties. As the Republican Party has in the past several decades competed for the championship, they earned the new name by which I have referred to them, as you know, for the past few years: The Repandercrats. The Democrats are still champs, but their imitators are not far behind, and the contest continues.
“Secondly, and not quite on point but worthy of your comment, the Repandercrats recently missed a golden opportunity to show wisdom, class, and patriotism when they resisted Obama's effort to cut big oil company subsidies. They should have bravely sacrificed their own subsidies from those corporations and joined with those brave Democrats who took a chance on losing theirs. Of course, I wondered if some of the Democrats secretly hated to risk injuring the goose that subsidizes them and were relieved at the success of the predictable Repandercrat knee jerk resistance to an idea whose time has come!”
My response:
Spot on! The only thing I could add is more examples of programs to cut . . . and a few things I would like to see strengthened. Your suggestion is certainly on my list as well.

Another contribution:
If Bernie Madoff can go to prison for essentially duping people out of millions, then I feel Harold Camping should be right behind him. This guy is a total jackass and 100% committed fraud. He raised over $80 Million and will pocket most of it. Yes, the civilians who bought into it are stupid and probably deserve to lose their money but if we're playing the 'pointing finger' game then he is guilty as can be. But as they say ‘Religion, the accepted insanity.’ As a society we will continue to make excuses in the name of religion. I am almost to the point of laughing at people who adhere to one form of religion AND chose to express their feelings. I think it's great that you can find something that gives you reason and hope to why we are here. Something to ‘make sense of it all.’ But the second you open your mouth and say ‘this is how it is’ then in my book you're an idiot. No one knows. Period.”
http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/151419/20110524/harold-camping-doomsday-open-forum-family-radio-money-video.htm
My reply:
Excellent observation and spot on opinion. Another way to look at religion-induced parochialism beyond your “open your mouth” point . . . when an individual’s evangelism attempts to impose his beliefs, values and morals on another person, then his actions have crossed the line from tolerance to threat. It is that moral projection that has gotten us off the path of the free society envisioned by the Founders & Framers.
Recognition and acknowledgment are key events to correct aberrant behavior. Hopefully, we are beginning to move along the process of correction. We have a long way to go.
I’m with you on Harold Camping, although to my knowledge, he was not selling a product or service; he simply accepted donations. Those who chose to voluntarily donate to his “ministry” have only themselves to blame. Caveat emptor.

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

Update no.492

Update from the Heartland

No.492

16.5.11 – 22.5.11

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The BEA continues to dazzle us. They located the debris field of Air France Flight 447 {31.5.2009} [391], at the bottom of 13,000 feet of ocean [486], and recovered the FDR & CVR to the BEA’s Le Bourget laboratory [490]. They announced this week that both the FDR & CVR were fully readable. I have not seen any of the data as yet, but hope to soon. I expect eventually we will see a reconstruction animation based on the FDR data, perhaps even with the CVR recording superimposed. Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of the French government and the BEA, we may eventually learn what happened to the ill-fated, trans-Atlantic flight.

Monday morning, I was a smidge late for work. I simply had to watch the historic launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour on its last mission (STS-134) to the International Space Station. Shuttle commander Captain Mark Edward Kelly, USN – husband of wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords [473] – flew a picture perfect ascent. Prior to lighting up the skyrocket, Kelly said, “As Americans, we endeavor to build a better life than the generation before and endeavor to be a united nation. In those efforts we are often tested. This mission represents the power of teamwork, commitment and exploration. It is in the DNA of our country to reach for the stars and explore. We must not stop.” Well said and spot on, Mark. Godspeed and following winds. They return to Earth next week.

It only takes one discourteous, oblivious, disrespectful person to make the daily commute a miserable event. Invariably, the offender is in one or more of three categories: 1.) an older person (older than me), 2.) a person using a handheld device (usually talking on a cellphone, but a few times text-ing; it seems all other brain function ceases), and/or 3.) a woman installing makeup (while driving 60 mph; which absolutely baffles me). I actually saw a woman doing both – one hand holding her cellphone, the other hand squeegee-ing on mascara; presumably steering with her knees . . . at 60 mph. Why do these disruptive individuals exist almost solely in the United States, compared to Europe, Canada or Japan? Why can’t these distracted individuals simply move over to the far right lane [the lorry lane, as we called it in Italy]? Or, better yet, pull off onto the shoulder until they have finished their communications or make-up.

“For the Highest Fliers, New Scrutiny
by Mark Maremont and Tom McGinty
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 21, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703551304576260870733410758.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
The technology to gather and interrogate such information has been available for a number of years. I have used comparable websites to track specific flights for family or friends. Yet, I find the collection of this type of travel information on celebrities really creepy, intrusive and verging upon a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. It is one thing to collect such information in generalities, with anonymity. It is altogether an action far more ominous and threatening when specific names are attached to such information. When we combine all the other technologies that enable government and even private citizens to intrude upon our privacy with this sort of assimilation capability, we should all be very concern and wary. These data may be tantalizing and seductively interesting, but this public presentation crosses the line. Just because we can collect and correlate information does not mean that we should or tolerate such conduct.

Human life is a vast array of colors, variations and adaptations:
“The cursed legacy that still haunts Vanessa Redgrave”
by Tim Adler
The Daily Mail [of London]
Last updated 16th May 2011; 6:53 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1384460/Cursed-legacy-Vanessa-Redgrave.html
I wonder if their behavior would have been less radical or destructive with a more tolerant and accepting society. After all, non-heterosexual conduct was a felonious crime in the United Kingdom and the United States during a goodly portion of this era.

A frequent contributor and friend offered the following essay for our contemplation and opinion:
“What’s a Big Government?”
by James Kwak
The Baseline Scenario
http://baselinescenario.com/2011/05/12/whats-a-big-government/
There are certainly elements of Kwak’s opinion that strike resonance. However, the political bias is unavoidable. Kwak wrote, “But what is the size of government, anyway? When a typical anti-government person thinks of government, she probably has in mind the EPA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the ‘jack-booted government thugs’ at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, OSHA, and all those government agencies that prevent businesses and individuals from getting on with their lives.” As I have written before, both big political parties – Democrat & Republican – seek big government; they both simply love to spend money . . . on their . . . stuff. So, the choices we are given boil down, which stuff is more important to each of us, taking all of us deeper into debt, and we are left to argue – cut his stuff, not my stuff. It is all about spending the Treasury to gain our votes. In doing so, we have the two parties competing with each other to see who can spend more money . . . to gain more votes. I believe we are spending far too much money in this process and much of it on projects or programs that are NOT within the intended and constitutional purpose of the Federal government . . . and in my humble opinion, not within the scope of any government. Kwak wants his stuff.

“Afghanistan has three wars at once. Let’s fight the right one”
by Douglas A. Ollivant [LtCol, USA (Ret.)]
Washington Post
Published: May 20 [2011]; Updated: Saturday, May 21, 7:44 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/afghanistan-has-three-wars-at-once-lets-fight-the-right-one/2011/05/16/AFk7Ay7G_story.html
Ollivant wrote:
“First, there is the fight against al-Qaeda and related terrorist groups.
“Second is the war to protect and support the fledgling Afghan government against the Taliban insurgency.
“The third war is the least understood but the most enduring: the internal social and cultural battle between the urban modernizers of Afghanistan, mostly based in Kabul, and the rural, tribal, anti-modern peoples who live in the country’s inaccessible mountain regions.”
Ollivant has far more direct experience with such things. To my limited knowledge, I would say he pegged the Afghan situation fairly well. Allied efforts can deal with the first two, but the last one is entirely up to the Afghans. We can be of some assistance, but the Afghans must reconcile – as we all must do – the old and the new, the modern and the traditional. The struggle within Afghanistan is not particularly different from the challenges we face in this Grand Republic between those who wish to live by strict fundamentalist values and those who do not. Perhaps naïvely so, I hope we will all learn – Afghans and Americans – to live our lives the best way we know how, and leave other folks alone to live their lives by their choices – not as we would wish them to live.

As I was doing the research for and writing about all this “birther” nonsense [489], I happened upon an odd constitutional case. In October 2002, two U.S. citizens gave birth to Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky in Jerusalem. Two months later, Menachem’s mother, Naomi Siegman Zivotofsky, applied at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel, for a Consular Report of Birth – an official record of U.S. citizenship for a person born abroad. Naomi insisted Menachem’s place of birth be recorded as Jerusalem, Israel. The embassy staff refused and followed long-standing State Department policy – to remain neutral regarding the sovereignty of Jerusalem; thus, Menachem’s place of birth was recorded as simply Jerusalem (no country added). Naomi then claimed the State Department was in violation of §214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 [PL 107-228; H.R.1646; 116 Stat. 1350 (30.9.2002)], which stated:
“(d) RECORD OF PLACE OF BIRTH AS ISRAEL FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES- For purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen's legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel.”
When President Bush signed the legislation into law, he objected and noted §214(d) violated the separation of powers, and thus was not enforceable. The Constitution’s Article II, §3, grant of authority to the President to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers” implies the power to recognize foreign governments. The district court and the 3-judge panel of the DC Circuit declared §214(d) unconstitutional on that basis. This case has no direct bearing for most of us, but it was an interesting read, regarding the intrusion of Congress on the authority of the Executive.

Comments and contributions from Update no.491:
“One more round on the whole bin Ladin thing and then I’ll drop it for good.
First, I still think they should have gone for a live capture. Not for moral reasons, which are nonexistent in this situation. For the same morale reasons they captured and pointedly, publicly humiliated Saddam Hussein. That would do far more to demoralize his followers than unproven (in their eyes) reports of his death.
“Secondly, many of bin Ladin’s followers are prepared to die in the moment of taking actions against those they hate. Osama bin Ladin survived taking such action and lived on for over nine years. His followers might not be impressed with our killing him this much later.
“Now to the important (to me) part of this reply. Please do not excuse alcoholics and addicts from responsibility for their actions. Not only is that a gross insult to their victims and society at large, it also takes away the addicts’ (including alcoholics) opportunity to change. Put simply, if they have no consequences for their drinking or using, they have no reason to change. Excusing their actions harms the addicts almost as much as it does their targets. That goes very well with your discussion of the need for regulation (not prohibition) of prostitution and currently-illegal drugs. Society has an obligation to control people’s actions when they harm others; moral values are and should be individual.
“I will note that if the helicopter in the famous picture is indeed a military secret, I would not discuss it in a public forum. I advocate government transparency to a higher degree than most people, but the specific points of advanced weaponry are beyond even my boundaries.”
My reply:
We will probably not know definitively for 20-50 years, but today, I believe the team’s orders were “capture or kill.” Their Rules of Engagement (RoE) probably told them to minimize their risk in a high-risk operation in the heart of another sovereign (ostensibly friendly) nation. Warriors say, it was a close run thing. If their orders had been assassination, there were a myriad of safer, less risky methods than inserting a large, multi-dimensional team in the middle of another country that did not invite us.
There is no question UbL’s followers are probably frothing at the mouth and will certainly act. This war is long from over.
Re: addiction. I have read and re-read my words in Update no.491. I am not sure how I may have said or even implied I was excusing addictive behavior. Quite the contrary! I think addicts must bear some culpability, even if they blackout and are raped. How is that excusing their addiction to intoxication? Yes, the government has a responsibility to regulate conduct that harms or threatens another individual. Yet, in doing so, that purpose does NOT give us the right to intrude upon a citizen’s freedom of choice in how he wishes to live his life, including drinking himself into a stupor and to liver failure, overdosing on heroin, or performing as a sex worker. I want the citizen’s decision to ingest intoxicants of any kind to be an accountable act, not an excuse.
Just about everything about Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR, except the outcome, should have remained TOP SECRET for 20+ years – not the team, their size, their weapons, their orders, where they came from or where they went, not the evidence, nothing other than the outcome. Not one word beyond the President’s announcement Sunday night. Let the conspiracists say what they will. The hierarchy of al-Qa’ida knows the outcome.
. . . round two:
“I apparently misread your section addressing alcoholism. My personal view is that intoxication ought not to affect charges or sentencing. As stated, full responsibility for one's action is both fair and the best hope of healing for all parties. The closest thing I have to a caveat is a difficulty in investigating. Alcoholism in general includes blackouts, a loss of memory during drinking episodes. In the situation you gave, involving two college-student drunks, there is a very real and strong possibility that neither party has any clear memory of what happened. Therefore, getting a picture of the event sufficiently clear to remove ‘reasonable doubt’ might prove impossible.”
. . . my reply to round two:
We are in complete agreement.
We can argue whether drug or alcohol addiction is a disease; however, from my perspective, it does not matter. I am comfortable with any citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, and thus the right to ingest whatever they wish for whatever purpose they wish as long as they do not injure or threaten another person. Blackouts or loss of memory are not an excuse either; they made the decision to take themselves to that state in a situation where others are at risk.
In my examples, the females in each case lost memory, and yet oddly none of the men did. Each male claimed consent. The females either intentionally ingested or were surreptitiously given intoxicants. I believed but I could not prove the felonious conduct of the males involved. None of the females chose to file criminal file charges, thus tying the hands of the police. The most I could do was counsel the females and warn the males. It was in preparation for and contemplation of those cases that my opinion regarding an individual’s accountability for placing themselves in situations and ingesting intoxicants. I take it back to the decision to attend a “party” with unknown or untrustworthy people, i.e., trusting each of them to respect and protect you. Sadly, victims sacrifice a goodly portion of their credibility in subsequent investigations as you so accurately noted.
. . . round three:
“We are in agreement that alcoholics should bear the consequences of their disease.
“I suppose that we could argue whether alcoholism is a disease, but the American Medical Association declared it so in 1956, and alcoholism is listed in the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) in both the psychiatric and medical sections.
“I disagree with you with you on the probabilities of what happened in those incidents involving college students. Given the prevalence of blackouts in heavy drinking, I tend to think that the women's loss of memory is usually honest and the men's memory is frequently, as you might think, a convenient fiction used to produce a defense. While your rape scenario likely happened in some of the incidents, we cannot make such an assumption in any given case. One of alcohol's better known effects is to loosen drinkers' inhibitions. To assume rape in such cases is to deny women's sexuality. Plenty of (recovering) women alcoholics do not attribute similar incidents to men's violence but to the loss of their own inhibitions. Certainly rapes happen and should be prosecuted. Rape is wrong in all instances. Assuming that rape has occurred because we think the victim would have resisted were she (or he) sober is rash.
“Incidentally, counseling those women about their drinking choices was your duty but was futile. If they were not alcoholics, they had already learned that lesson through suffering. If they were alcoholics, they were not able to make rational choices about their drinking. That is the nature of the disease.
“I have had the uncomfortable personal experience of overhearing as one woman explained to another that she had recently been raped anally while too drunk to physically resist. While she did not recall the experience of rape itself, her description of the situation and of her physical state the following day convinced me that this awful experience had indeed occurred. She suffered the degradation and emotional pain that accompanies rape, and physical pain as well. I came to understand rape on a deeper level that day. The other thing I came to understand concerns alcoholism. She never once considered the part that drinking played in this terrible experience. While she changed her drinking companions, the fact that she had been too drunk to resist (or even object verbally) in her own telling of the story seemed to carry no significance to her. Sadly, that is the nature of the disease.
“Other addictions consist of very similar symptoms. This is a field of study in its own right, but that's a picture of one aspect of its complexity. ‘The truth’ is a very elusive concept in this context.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Agreed. As I said earlier, I do not think the disease determination matters a hoot from my perspective . . . kinda like it does matter a hoot whether homosexuality is genetic; all non-heterosexuals deserve equal rights and respect, just as all addicts deserve respect for their freedom of choice. Conversely, whether a disease or not, addiction should not, cannot, must not be even the slightest, fractional rationale for injurious or aberrant public conduct.
I suspect we are more in agreement than disagreement regarding my student examples. In fact, my opinion of the facts in those incidents is virtually identical – “convenient fiction” indeed. As for “loosen[ing] drinkers’ inhibition,” I believe that is a popular myth used conveniently to justify abnormal behavior. You made a good point; it is certainly not my intent to deny a woman’s sexuality, which is a whole other topic. Loss of inhibition or sacrificing control . . . all the same thing from different perspectives. The sad reality is there is usually no way to prove whether consent was given, or implied, or simple incapacitation was taken advantage of, which is why the “victim” must bear some responsibility and accountability for the event – sad but reality.
Re: counseling. Well said and spot on! I believe it is nearly an axiom of life . . . the only person or process that can help the addict is the addict himself; only he must convince himself that he must change his behavior.
Your overheard example is quite similar. Sadly, as you said, that is the nature of the disease.
As we have discussed in other venues, addiction – all addictions – are complex; and yet, somehow I suspect a significant, if not major, contributing factor in addiction is the secrecy, the prohibition, the oblivion of addiction. I still contend the best thing we can do is eliminate the stigma, so we can allow those so inclined to indulge themselves until they either reach bottom and decide to get out of the hole, or die.

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

Update no.491

Update from the Heartland

No.491

9.5.11 – 15.5.11

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The foolish disclosures continue in the wake of Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR [490].
“U.S. Was Braced for Fight With Pakistanis in Bin Laden Raid”
By Eric Schmitt, Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger
New York Times
Published: May 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/world/asia/10intel.html?_r=1&emc=na
If these leaks are intended to put pressure on the government or the Pakistanis, then this is NOT the way to do it. Often, the best position is to say nothing at all.
-- I was not able to watch the President’s 8.May, 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft until a week later. The whole program was Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR [490]. I am not ashamed to confess, it was President Obama’s last few sentences that brought tears to my eyes. He said in a calm, controlled, measured voice, “As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn’t lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out. Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn’t deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.” My recurring thought during the whole interview . . . why oh why could not the President’s lieutenants have followed the President’s lead. The resilient image would have been fundamentally different. SecDef Bob Gates said it best, “Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday -- the next day.” Amen brother! Old war correspondent and long-time 60 Minutes closer chose to quote President Obama again, “And in this month which ends with our recognition of Memorial Day, the president said it best, ‘We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.’” Indeed! May God bless them all.

From a friend and frequent contributor:
“Cap, I'm sending this as a backgrounder on the progressive view of Obama. I doubt very many blog readers would actually read the whole thing, but it gives a pretty good overview of progressive views (and my own) of Obama and the important issues. As an employee of a productive company, you might find Item 3 particularly interesting. Also, the statements about the Deepwater Horizon issue (near the end) are supported by that book I read, Disaster on the Horizon.”
“5 Toxic Right-Wing Lies Obama Must Strike Down from His ‘Bully Pulpit’ – In the absence of a progressive voice in the White House, the radical Right continues to dominate the political noise, forcing its policy narratives into policy decisions.”
by Andrew Kimbrell
AlterNet.org
Posted: May 6, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/news/150788?page=1
. . . my opinion response:
For the record, Kimbrell opens his little treatise with, “Let’s be clear: the Republicans have been as cynical, malevolent, obstructionist, and downright zany during this administration as anything I have seen in the twenty-five years I have been a D.C. denizen.” I would say this one sentence pretty well sets the tone for the remainder and seriously detracts from his message. He observes . . . as if the exact opposite did not occur during the last administration. This sort of politically divisive rhetoric only serves to feed the parochial schism and does not further constructive political debate or seek compromise solutions to real problems. Nonetheless, despite my animosity toward such drivel, and in humble deference to our continued political intercourse, I pressed on to read his laborious epistle. Here is my opinion regarding his points.
“1. Reactionary Narrative: Government is the problem. It is bad, even evil, and should be eliminated or privatized as much as possible.
“Countering Progressive Narrative: Government is good and a major part of the solution to our economic and social problems — large, robust local, state and federal government services are critical to our individual and national well-being.”
The “big government” debate is quite akin to the “strict constructionist” argument regarding constitutional law – it is all about perspective, i.e., one political ideological group accuses the other of not being true to the founding principles. In similar but different terms, they are all big spenders on their affinity areas, and they paint the other side as being infidels to the true believers. Instead of illuminating the larger public debate, Kimbrell accuses the Republicans of seeking to “dismantle our public sector and public services.” If the objective of such programs is to “spread the wealth” or “equalize the wealth disparity,” then we have drifted farther toward communism, i.e., everyone is economically equal [well, except for the powerful, deciding elite]. I think we must examine the societal purpose of our social programs, i.e., what is our objective, what is the end-point? The sad reality is both political parties want to spend the treasury; the only difference is what they want to spend the money on; thus, they both seek big government, just different forms of the same thing. Today’s cause de jure is what we are going to cut, and of course, the argument will be not my pet program(s). I think the Federal government is too big, spending scarce funds on projects it should not be supporting, and yet, government is necessary and vital to a stable society. The challenge is always balance – what is enough, what is too much? Government has its proper place in society, but we must get government out of our private lives and affairs, and stop using government to impose moral values, dictate how citizens must live their lives, or use the public treasury to garner favors and votes. We are not even remotely close to the proper, in-balance, size of government. So, clearly, I do not agree with Kimbrell.
“2. Reactionary Narrative: Quality health care is a commodity available to those who can afford it.
“Countering Progressive Narrative: Quality health care is a basic human right.”
As much as our humanitarian side believes health care is a “right,” it is not. It may well be a benefit proffered by We, the People, through legislation, but it is not a right. Like all decent folks, I do not want anyone to suffer. However, like all “benefits,” where is the incentive to work, to contribute to society? How do we separate and deal with those who take advantage of our generosity? I have a hard enough time supporting my family. Why should I add to my burden to support others who only absorb rather than create? Where is the balance in our munificence?
“3. Reactionary Narrative: Free market competition is the basis for our economic life — the benefits of the winners will trickle down to the losers.
“Counter Progressive Narrative: The free market is a dangerous fiction (as is trickle-down economics) — not everything is a market commodity and even then those commodity markets have always been regulated. The question is how and for whom to regulate markets so as to create the most equitable distribution of wealth.”
I believe in the free market, just like I believe in a free society – freedom of choice to seek our individual “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness” to fulfill our personal objectives. However, I am NOT an Ayn Rand “free market über alles” aficionado. Like all human activities, I seek balance – sufficient freedom to stimulate growth and yet enough regulation to prevent collateral damage. Kimbrell wrote, “Obama should have embraced the progressive narrative that free markets cannot and have not protected workers, our environment, or even the stability of our financial systems. Over the last two centuries the purported ‘free market’ oppressed generations of workers, utilized child labor, caused exponential destruction of natural resources, and created huge booms and busts in the financial system.” Beyond the socialist bent of his statement and the focus on the current president rather than all presidents back to at least Carter, he is correct. A truly free market will consume human beings like any other resource to be transformed into wealth. Such an ethos is not appreciably different from slavery employed a few centuries ago, or the savagery of Darwinian survival of the fittest. In this context, yes, we need government to “police” the marketplace to ensure fairness, standards, informed consent, et cetera. Sub-prime mortgage vendors were no different from snake-oil salesmen of a century ago. Any reasonable person could easily recognize that the entire financial foundation sat upon an assumption that real estate values would ALWAYS go up. Too many optimistic or foolish citizens bought into that fallacy. Even worse, bankers and investors, who knew better, traded in those misty illusions and even bet on derivatives of that illusion; and if that wasn’t enough, insurance companies actually offered coverage to such insane gambling. The house of cards collapsed in 2008. While I do not go as far as Kimbrell, he does make a valid point. So, once again, where is the balance point?
“4. Reactionary Narrative: You counter terrorism by fighting land wars and overthrowing dictators (especially when oil is involved).
“Counter Progressive Narrative: The Best Way to Fight Terrorism is through Cooperative International Police Action and Foreign Policy Changes – Not Land Wars.”
Taken in isolation, Kimbrell is more correct than in error. Further, if every president from Nixon onto Obama had undertaken such response to Islamofascist activities, the “police action” method would probably have worked. However, that is not what happened. President after president took a too-distant approach, nearly ignoring, the Islamofascist movement until al-Qa’ida upped the ante several orders of magnitude. By that time, police action could no longer produce critical mass, as there were too many sympathetic or outright supportive states – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia for a time. I cannot predict how relations with Pakistan will progress after the bin Ladin raid. If Pakistan can be assuaged and reenlisted in the War on Islamic Fascism, and Afghanistan can be stabilized as a functioning, quasi-democratic state, the United States, our Allies, NATO and even the UN might actually dial back our efforts to the police action level. To point the accusatory finger at Bush and now Obama as advocating full-scale land warfare would be a gross over-simplification of a complex situation. Kimbrell conveniently ignores the influence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Waziristan, Pakistan. Islamofascist terrorists must be denied safe-haven, or we truly will be chasing them down rabbit-holes. I do not agree with Kimbrell’s characterization of Obama or the so-called “civil war” in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter). I think he misses reality.
“5. Reactionary Narrative: Global warming and other environmental problems are either vastly exaggerated or don’t really exist — and if they do exist, the solution is market and technology based.
“Progressive Narrative: It’s the ecology stupid — global warming is the greatest threat to the survival of civilization. The solution to global warming and other major environmental crises is governments at all levels cooperating to change our economic and technological systems to better comport with the principles of ecology.”
I suppose I can understand Kimbrell’s criticism of the President and his administration regarding the global warming issue. I do not agree with his characterization. I think the President deserves our praise for listening to all sides and trying to strike a reasonable compromise in a very difficult and complex situation. Staking the necessary socio-economic changes on the disputed science of global warming is simple bullying to satisfy a political agenda. The point I have repeatedly tried to make is, we need to make these changes for the future of generations to follow and the good of the planet, regardless of global warming. Most informed citizens know that we must wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, that polluting our air, water and land is destructive and ultimately counter-productive. Let us not dilute or deflect the important environmental discussion to validate the global warming hypothesis.
. . . continuation round two:
“I will not attempt our usual point-by-point discussion of this one. I am tired and likely very ill. (I am uninsured, so I cannot verify the illness part.) I again state my opinion that your responses come from your engineering background, mine from a historian's viewpoint.
“However, I would like to mention two points.
“You refer to the ‘savagery’ of Darwinian survival, and that is a mis-perception. Survival, at least among humans, has involved higher and higher degrees of cooperative activities, going from necessary-for-survival cooperation within extended families to within tribes and villages, city-states, nation-states to perhaps successful cooperation among nations in the European Union model. Remember that Darwin proposed "fitness for survival," not physical fitness or meanness as his defining idea. Human savagery has consistently been reduced, not increased, by the evolutionary process.
“Also, climate change is an established fact in the scientific community, only disputed among politicians and religious "thinkers." In 1991, when I wrote a paper on the subject for a college class, the fact of change was already mostly accepted by scientific sources, although the cause of the changes had not been nailed down back then. I'm sure I have already expressed my opinion to you about the importance of checking the sources of information. It is as if I were trying to learn about Christianity from Madelyn Murray O'Hare, Osama bin Ladin, and Fred Phelps. Put simply, if you put equal weight on all sources, you will surely go crazy.
“The article that started this particular thread still represents my views pretty precisely. In particular, the opening sentence that you so dislike works with my experience. My only disagreement with that statement is that I believe it represents the unfortunate (for the rest of us) success of a corporate takeover of the economy that has been in the making since before Reagan was elected, not a new development.”
. . . my response to round two:
My use of the word savagery was not intended to be a comment on actions or intentions, only perceptions of the outcome. Watching the Wildebeest succumb to the crocodiles at the river’s edge so that the herd may cross unmolested does not lessen the sadness of seeing a magnificent animal die. My point was, without government to establish and enforce rules of public conduct, we would degenerate into mob rule or the fastest gun (as it was in the Old West). Without law & order, the evolutionary process would regress. We bear witness to flashback episodes after natural disasters (in some locales) or third world countries.
Climate change and global warming are demonstrable, undisputed facts. The Earth has experienced more than a few ice ages and hot spells, long before humans evolved to walk upright or began to record history. The Earth will continue to warm and cool for eons, until the Sun begins to run out of fuel and degenerates into a Red Giant and consumes the inner planets. What is in dispute is whether human inhabitation has affected that cycle – that is not fact; that is hypothesis. I try to listen to an array of voices on any issue, with the intent to hear the full spectrum and then form my opinion.
I agree with Kimbrell’s observation regarding Republicans. It is true and accurate in my opinion. My objection rested upon the implication (by pointing to Republicans) that they are the only political party that suffers the affliction of “cynical, malevolent, obstructionist, and downright zany.” My point is that the pot is calling the kettle black.

An intriguing and hopefully stimulating opinion column returns us to a litmus debate topic.
“Ron Paul’s land of second-rate values”
by Michael Gerson
Washington Post
Published: May 9 [2011]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-land-of-second-rate-values/2011/05/09/AFD8B2bG_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
Paul has a comparatively small but fiercely loyal group of followers. I do not agree with him often, more from an implementation level rather than a philosophical perspective. Here is one of those topics. Simple decriminalization of psychotropic substance use or prostitution will be counter-productive and ultimately more destructive than the current prohibition. Gerson said, “And government has a limited but important role in reinforcing social norms and expectations — including laws against drugs and against the exploitation of men and women in the sex trade.” “Enforcing social norms and expectation” . . . REALLY? Is that really what the Founders envisioned when they sought freedom of choice for every citizen to pursue his “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness”? The government does have an important responsibility to ensure public safety and conduct. Decriminalization or legalization is a laissez faire approach to intoxication or prostitution, and thus an abdication of governmental responsibility; such action (or inaction depending upon one’s perspective) would be akin to chaos or anarchy, and validate prohibition. Human activities like intoxication and prostitution are despicable and disgusting to most decent, respectable citizens, but that is not sufficient reason for prohibition or to tolerate governmental abdication. We need proper regulation for acceptable public safety, not simple decriminalization or legalization. Ron Paul is partially correct, as far as he goes; he just does not go far enough for proper public safety. We must ensure drugs like alcohol are a known composition, quality and dosage; a safe delivery means are available; and, the usage of intoxicants do not injure or threaten other innocent citizens. Similar regulation is required for prostitution . . . to ensure the process is safe for both workers and customers. We must be more than reactionary; we must be realistic and respectful.

Virtually all my adult life, I have supported, defended and espoused that “no” means precisely that – NO! A woman (or a man for that matter) has the fundamental right to say no at any point of interpersonal relations. Our society has long held the belief that the burden belongs to the male, thus our paternalistic rape laws – females are fragile, weak and vulnerable, thus must be protected. [Actually, I do believe rape laws came into existence as a violation of the male’s property.] Regardless, any unwanted sexual conduct in any form must be illegal, as a violation of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and personal integrity. My brief tenure as a chancellor of a university campus exposed me to a number of alleged rape cases. Every case that came to my office involved a female alleging rape after finding herself the following morning in a man’s bed with obvious evidence of sexual intercourse, to which she did not consent. I have counseled our children and students; if you decide to ingest intoxicants, do so only with genuine friends with whom you would trust your life, because that is what you are doing. Intoxication is a broad grey area. I resent those who use intoxication as an excuse for aberrant or regretted behavior. When are we going to recognize an individual’s decision to ingest intoxicants as a relevant contributor to felonious conduct? No person should suffer unwanted sexual activity at any time for any reason, but I struggle with responsibility. If a person climbs a sheer rock face with another person on a belay rope, does he not trust his belay person with his life? Ingesting intoxicants among strangers or even acquaintances (who could probably care less about your well-being) like quite akin to that belay rope, it seems to me. My point: let us place weight upon that decision to ingest intoxicants; that action does not justify rape or sexual assault. However, just like jaywalking endangers the individual and others who might happen upon the jaywalking individual, public intoxication endangers the individual and others. To this day, I still struggle with culpability, however fractional, of an individual who consume intoxicants in public or quasi-public venues to the point of losing control of their actions.

Another link for comment:
“Every so often, as we discuss the recent petroleum and nuclear disasters, you ask, ‘What else can we do?’ Here's a reasonable answer to that question. Please note that this (as usual with me) comes from a progressive viewpoint.”
“Why clean energy can scale today”
by Stephen Lacey
ClimateProgress.org
Posted: May 9, 2011
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/09/clean-energy-scale-stephen-lacey/
My opinion:
In Lacey’s parlance, I suppose I am in the latter group. With respect, I do not believe he answers the question – how? Lacey addresses the generation by simple reference to several large scale, renewable generation projects. He does not even mention one of the primary limitations – land investment. Renewables take enormous commitments of land to gain scale. Some countries / regions do not have the luxury of that investment. Normal weather patterns seriously limit options available to many areas of this country and the world.
More significantly, to me, is the other side of the equation – demand. Until we can make electric-drive as utilitarian and practical (or hopefully better) as the current fossil fuel systems, we will not cross that growth threshold. Petrol-energy can be stored indefinitely and nearly instantly transformed into kinetic-energy, and that potential-energy can be recharged within minutes. I would love to see electric-drive as our common, standard power source. However, until the storage-recharge efficiency exceeds that delivered by fossil fuels, I do not see the emphasis shifting substantially, as much as we would like to redirect it.
. . . and these follow-up comments:
“I find it interesting that you ask ‘how?’ about new technologies but in our discussions of petroleum and nuclear disasters you insist that we merely need to improve our methodology. To make a quick response to your specific issue, though, solar and wind power need not involve new land use as their sole siting possibility. Rooftops and existing power poles both offer platforms for either of these "new" power sources, and both are in use with current technology.
“Examining the demand side of the transportation question (you changed subjects there) is an excellent idea. You didn't do that, though. You went to a very specific discussion of storage and transformation. I see no issue with transforming electricity into kinetic energy; we do that daily in such applications as household appliances and tools. The legitimate issues are storage capacity and generation sources. I discussed electricity generation briefly above. Work continues on storage capacity for vehicular applications and on distribution systems to ease the storage issue. Were a distribution network in place that paralleled the gasoline situation, the storage issue would essentially vanish in the eastern US, Europe, India, Indonesia, and much of China. Where a profit can be made, people will find a way. Unfortunately, that might have to await the time when petroleum becomes entirely unworkable due to the "peak oil" phenomenon or government regulation, which is too late in climate-change terms (see other discussions).”
. . . along with my follow-up comment:
Not the same “how,” my friend. Yes, you are of course correct. Solar water heaters and PVC arrays have been place on roof tops and power poles. Many lighted road signs have individual solar PVC panels for power. Unfortunately, those installations do not generate MWs or GWs of energy needed to replace a single nuclear powerplant – thus, the scalable question. I am an advocate for renewable energy, but there are contemporary, practical limitations.
Thank you. Stored energy and rapid transformation are essential factors in the demand side of the equation, e.g., batteries. They rapidly convert stored chemical or potential energy into kinetic energy via a motor. The problems with current battery technology are the charging time (hours) and battery mass (storing many KW-h requires substantial battery mass).
Yes, indeedie. We are seeing advances in electricity storage devices, and the profit motive is a huge motivator. Developing a deployable, affordable battery that could store 100 KW-h of energy and charge in a few minutes (like filling a gas tank) would have a huge market and enormous profit potential. I certainly hope we do not have to wait for a petrol crisis to deploy personal transportation electricity distribution.

“Bin Laden’s death and the debate over torture”
by John McCain
Washington Post
Published: May 11 [2011]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bin-ladens-death-and-the-debate-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
In response to Judge Mukasey’s opinion last week [490], John declared, “But this must be an informed debate. Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that ‘the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.’ That is false.” We know what is coming next, but first. John went on to say, “Individuals might forfeit their life as punishment for breaking laws, but even then, as recognized in our Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others.” As much as I respect John, intelligence interrogation is not punishment; it is inducement to divulge information they possess. If a detainee freely conveys his information, there is no need for EITs. Further, intelligence interrogation is not punishment, being an illegal battlefield combatant detainee is not punishment.
. . . then the inevitable response:
“Mukasey responds to McCain’s op-ed”
by Marc A. Thiessen
Washington Post
Posted: 05/12/2011; 05:10 PM ET
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/mukasey-responds-to-mccains-op-ed/2011/05/12/AFhhVO1G_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
I have not been able to confirm, but Marc reports Mike responded, “Senator McCain described as ‘false’ my statement that Khalid Sheik Mohammed broke under harsh interrogation that included waterboarding, and disclosed a torrent of information that included the nickname of Osama bin Laden’s courier. He strongly implied in the remainder of his column in the Washington Post that this harsh interrogation was not only useless but also illegal. He is simply incorrect on all three counts.” Again, according to Marc, Mike concluded, “In other words, the harsh interrogation techniques were both effective and lawful.”
. . . and a relevant follow-up contribution from last week’s thread [490]:
“Thought you would appreciate this. We brought Luftwaffe Major Scharff over after the war to teach our interrogators his methods.”
“Truth Extraction – A classic text on interrogating enemy captives offers a counterintuitive lesson on the best way to get information”
by Stephen Budiansky
Atlantic Magazine
Published: June 2005
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/06/truth-extraction/3973/
. . . my response:
Thank you very much for the article. I always appreciate learning . . . in this case, snippets of history about two renown World War II interrogators: Major Sherwood Ford Moran, USMC [1885 – 1983] and Luftwaffe Obergefreiter Hans Joachim Gottlob Scharff [1907–1992]. I knew some of their history, and I know a lot more now. There is no question, debate, disagreement or argument that professional interrogators can and do accomplish extraordinary things. Perhaps, both of they would claim there is no person either of them could not break; and, they might well be correct.
One of many reasons SERE schools were created was the R = resistance (to interrogation and confinement). The training for aviators grew from WW2, Korea and Vietnam. I’m sure the training has continued to be refined and improved since I last went through the process and I have experienced several different versions. You know the Code of Conduct as well as I do.
What John McCain endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese was torture even by my liberal definition. It was also torture to inflict pain to demoralize and subdue the POWs. That was torture, plain and simple. I do not want what happened to John McCain to happen to another human being. Full stop!
I am not sure how I have been cast in the roll of defending waterboarding. Nonetheless, here I am. To be frank, candid and clear, I am not defending any particular interrogation inducement technique. My purpose is to preserve the maximum options and tools available to the intelligence interrogators to allow them maximum flexibility in accomplishing their difficult tasks. I am not offended by the defined EITs; in fact, virtually every military aviator from our generation and on have been subjected to far worse “abuses” to prepare us for the potential of becoming a prisoner of war. I do not speak of those techniques in philosophical terms, rather in real, first-hand experience. I consider this whole discussion to be a genuine, great tragedy in our history. We should not be publicly discussing what we would and would not do in interrogating illegal battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism or any other future war; we are handing a playbook to our enemies. I want a full tool kit for our professionals. I will never support torture, and will condemn and seek punishment for anyone who tortures another human being to inflict pain for the pleasure of doing such.

News from the economic front:
-- Standard & Poor's lowered Greece's long-term credit rating to B from BB- due to concerns EU officials may extend the debt-payment maturities of the European Commission's portion of the nation's bailout – further indication of the weakness of the Greek economy.
-- A jury of his peers in Manhattan convicted billionaire investor Raj Rajaratnam [409], 53, on all 14 counts of fraud and conspiracy, involving insider trading. Rajaratnam ran the Galleon Group, one of the world's largest hedge funds. He faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced; he is expected to appeal. I trust he shall join the other financial criminals.
-- The Commerce Department reported the March U.S. trade deficit grew to US$48.18B [U.S. imports = US$220.85B (+4.9%); U.S. exports = US$172.67B (+4.6%)], as soaring oil prices caused imports to outstrip a record level of exports. The trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China contracted in March to US$18.08B [– 4.0%]; but April numbers from Beijing released earlier in the week suggest that contraction in the deficit may be temporary.

Comments and contributions from Update no.490:
“Thought you might review these and the millions of words in the blogosphere on the ‘MH-60s’ used in the raid. There is a lot of ignorant truth in them. Some neat work by some of your old compatriots.”
. . . to which was attached:
“Mystery Blackhawk: US officials described the helicopter that crashed during the takedown of Osama bin Laden on Sunday in Pakistan as a Blackhawk. However, images of the wrecked helicopter's tail section—making Internet rounds on Tuesday—reveal that this aircraft is seemingly unlike any other publicly acknowledged Blackhawk variant. The aircraft's empennage features faceted and presumably stealthy surfaces with no fasteners or apparent seams. Its six-bladed tail rotor is embedded in a saucer-shaped rotorhead—possibly a noise-reduction system. The tailplanes are forward swept. The empennage is not that of the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche stealth scout/attack chopper canceled in 2004, although its features resemble the Comanche's. The Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, based out of Fort Campbell, Ky., has been known to field a number of one-off special helicopter variants, but US officials haven't publicly discussed the unit's role in the bin Laden raid. A Sikorsky spokesman referred the Daily Report's query to US Special Operations Command, a spokesman for which said only the White House was authorized to discuss the bin Laden operation. The White House declined comment. (To view photos, see Britain's Daily Mail report, DEW Line blog entry, and Wall Street Journal photo collection)”
My response:
If it was not where and when those parts were photographed, I would have sworn it was someone’s backyard joke. I have been away from the technology too long. Given the opening rift with Pakistan, I doubt the USG is going to be forthcoming with any details. Perhaps one or more of the public professionals figures it out. After all, AW&ST figured out F-117 prior to the USAF public disclosure.
Yeah, the lads did a bang up job of it. Well done! We might even use the popular vernacular – awesome! Too bad the politicos were not up to the big leagues.

Another contribution:
“Great points on the bin Laden takedown. All the props in the world go out to Navy SEAL Team Six. I've read and watched documentaries on SEALs, and I bet what I've seen covers a fraction of everything they go through. This definitely goes down as one of the most successful anti-terror ops in history. Best of all, none of our guys were killed. Even in the Entebee raid, one Israeli died, and that is one of the textbook cases of how to take down terrorists.
“You had some brilliant points in how the Administration handled the aftermath of the bin Laden killing. My feeling is with so much wrong lately, from the economy to gas prices, to the November election (that last being wrong for Obama's ilk), they needed some kind of victory and tried to latch on to this best they could. Unfortunately, their mishandling of the aftermath should not come as a surprise. For the past two years the folks in the Obama Administration have sent out mixed messages on a variety of topics. Why should this time be any different? I know, given the nature of what happened, it should be different. But let's face it. The Obama Administration is in over its heads when it comes to running this country. But I will give credit to the President for ordering the op to go forth instead of dithering around as he is prone to do on big issues, and for also not sticking his nose into the raid, as Jimmy Carter tried in the failed Tehran mission in 1980.
“I also agree on bin Laden getting double-tapped. I couldn't care less if he was armed or not. He's one of those people I classify as ‘too dangerous to live.’ See him, shoot him, no trial, no reports to file. As one former SEAL I talked to one time said, ‘There are people in this world that need killin'.’ bin Laden was one of those people. The blood of thousands of innocents is on his hand. Two 9mm rounds to the head is justice enough for me.
“Also agree this does not end the War on Terror. There are plenty of loonies out there to take UBL's place. But maybe, just maybe, some of them may see what happened to bin Laden and think twice before messing with us. I also hope that whatever intel our guys recovered from bin Laden's ‘luxury mansion’ will go a long way to making a lot of terrorists have really lousy days.”
My reply:
Well said and agreed regarding the Usama raid. Armed or not was irrelevant in that situation; Carney should have never mentioned armed or resistance or anything else about his actions. The decision was appropriately delegated to the strike team, and I have no doubt whatsoever the shooter acted entirely within his authority. I also share your hope for the yield on the intelligence collected that morning.

A different contribution and extended thread:
“John Yoo was schooled by Eliot Spitzer the other night, ripping into him for both his (now fully -disregarded) legal opinion and for his lack of credentials for second-guessing how many SEALs it should have taken for the mission. What possible credibility has Yoo, who has no military background, to be making criticisms of the size of a military operation? Just for starters, where would have a larger force have landed-- it was hard enough for two helos? And what rationale says that more SEALs in the raid would have made a difference in the outcome?
“‘SPITZER: You know, John, I just got to say I think it is remarkable that the person who wrote the legal opinion that rationalized torture, perhaps the most ridiculed legal opinion in many years that I'm aware of, is now second guessing the tactical decisions made by the president that has been the single most successful counterterrorism effort in the past decade. Your president, for whom you work, and I mean no disrespect to mean, did not succeed and doing what President Obama has just done. And you're now second guessing down to the number of Navy SEALs he sent in saying they should have done it a different way. I just don't know what possible credentials you have to second guess the number of Navy SEALs who should have gone in to Abbottabad to capture bin Laden.’
“Also Yoo and Mukasey, a former federal judge and Attorney General, should know the legal and treaty strictures against torture or "enhanced interrogation." No matter what twisted rationale they want to espouse, it is still illegal. And we are bound to investigate such charges.”
My response:
We have been ‘round this patch before. I do not agree or consent to the use of the word “torture” regarding the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) employed by CIA operatives for wartime intelligence purposes. The Constitution and U.S. common law have rather limited stretch for illegal battlefield combatants captured during wartime.
I join you (and others) in rejecting Yoo’s foolish criticism of the President’s decision(s) in this event. President Obama took an enormous risk and had the courage to stand back and let the team perform its mission – and I do mean courage . . . huge step for any leader . . . and that should never be diminished. Likewise, suggesting that President Bush’s administration did not contribute to the bin Ladin takedown seems rather politically parochial. My understanding is the critical kernel came during intelligence interrogation circa 2006 – the nom de guerre of a principal courier.
. . . with this follow-up comment along with several article links:
“Thanks..my understanding that the 'enhanced interrogation', i.e., waterboarding of KSL and another yielded nothing. In fact, they convinced Rodriguez, the CIA head of that section, that OBL was a minor player and they shut down the OBL unit at the Agency. It was counterproductive.
“One thing to remember, before 9/11, the CIA didn't do interrogations. The FBI and military intel did. And were very good. The CIA and their contract personnel were--and untrained soldiers, were the ones doing the stuff that was long considered (and taught by JAGs like me) as torture and against the law of war. I have a few article and interviews by military interrogators that bear out that torture is counterproductive.
“Below is a piece from the Atlantic blog of Andrew Sullivan—a conservative.”
1. “Cheney Returns”
by Andrew Sullivan
The Daily Beast
Posted: 8 May 2011; 10:49 PM
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/cheney-returns.html
2. “The Torture Apologists”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: May 4, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/opinion/05thu1.html?_r=1
3. “The Unrepentant John Yoo: 'Enhanced Interrogation' Got Us bin Laden – The fallen author of the infamous torture memos returns to defend the policies of the Bush administration in the war on terror”
by Andrew Cohen
The Atlantic
Posted: May 5 2011; 7:00 AM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/the-unrepentant-john-yoo-enhanced-interrogation-got-us-bin-laden/238356/
4. “The tracking of bin Laden is no vindication of torture”
Editorial
Washington Post
Published: May 9 [2011]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-tracking-of-bin-laden-is-no-vindication-of-torture/2011/05/06/AFs0H5bG_story.html
. . . my follow-up reply:
I shall endeavor to ignore bandied labels that masquerade as broad generalizations for divisive, parochial, political gain. Neither side of this vital debate deserves consent. I believe the use of inviolate extremes on both sides of the pragmatic argument is neither constructive nor complementary to real, bona fide solutions.
It is easy to claim the moral high ground, i.e., killing is a sin, abortion is a sin, prostitution is a sin, gambling is a sin, psychotropic substances are bad, torture is morally reprehensible, et al ad infinitum. Yet, I find such sanctimonious, idealistic ideology ignores the reality of life, e.g., bad men will kill you and your family, if you are not prepared to defend yourself or your family. So it is with this near mystical term “torture.”
As you well know, everything in the legal domain hangs upon definitions. In addition, this debate must be confined to intelligence interrogations that forfeit any derived prosecutorial potential. Criminal interrogations within the jurisdiction of the Constitution must abide the common law. Further, as I have written before, we can define anything beyond milk & cookies as “torture.” In this environment, I define torture as permanent injury, e.g., fingernail extraction, severed limbs, death. Psychological and/or physical stress does not reach that threshold. That said, I recognize and acknowledge that psychological injury can occur; however, I do not see that injury as functionally different from the inherent stress of combat itself. Intelligence interrogations are an extension of combat. I might add that the exigencies of the moment sometimes warrant pulling out all the stops; if I am confronted with the potential detonation of a nuclear device, I shall seek forgiveness for my transgressions, as I must do what is necessary to prevent the explosion.
The notion that EIT for intelligence (rather than prosecutorial) purposes will or might yield some singular, light-bulb-moment confession fails to recognize the entire intelligence analysis process. Intelligence interrogations are not after confessions; they seek bits of information; even false information can be constructive. All bits of intelligence material are classified by source reliability, accuracy and corroboration. The Bush (43) administration made the serious mistake of placing too much weight on the BND’s “Curveball” source [AKA Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi] – target fixation, I’d say. Nonetheless, such single source judgments should be rare in the intelligence world even with a known reliable source. Information collected from interrogations is commonly considered unreliable and inaccurate, since the analyst must consider misinformation or subterfuge.
I have added a couple of additional opinions to the list you provided for the Update.
A. “CIA ‘deniers’ are the new ‘birthers’”
by Marc A. Thiessen,
Washington Post
Published: May 9 [2011]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cia-deniers-are-the-new-birthers/2011/05/09/AFFJiIZG_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
B. “On killing Osama bin Laden, there’s enough credit to go around”
by Jonathan Capehart
Washington Post
Posted: 05/09/2011; 08:20 AM ET
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/on-killing-osama-bin-laden-theres-enough-credit-to-go-around/2011/03/04/AFrFQZXG_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
The bottom line is, if We, the People, choose to make “milk & cookies” the threshold of torture, that is our choice. Either way, we shall reap what we sew, just as we did with Truman’s decision to deploy the product of the Manhattan Project.
So, let’s solve the problem rather than resort to the conveniences of political parochialism. Life goes on; war must be waged successfully.

Another contribution:
“Cap, thanks for your update, thought you might like to read this.”
The article:
“Johann Hari: The real meaning of Bin Laden's death – As soon as the news broke, I went to Times Square and witnessed a scene that hinted at the complexities”
by Johann Hari
The Independent [of London]
Published: Friday, 6 May 2011
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-real-meaning-of-bin-ladens-death-2279630.html
My response:
Interesting perspective . . . not atypical to many in the United States. As is so often the case, there are shades of fact. However, the political bias overshadows so much of his opinion. An Afghan refugee and drunken former Marine . . . really? I also think Hari’s opinion ignores larger, broader realities . . . safehavens, state-sponsored terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, et cetera. He also fails to acknowledge the contribution of the Arab Spring and the rejection of al-Qa’ida-like radical fundamentalist methods. I suspect the combination of many factors will lead to a realignment or redirection of U.S. / Allied foreign policy and the War on Islamic Fascism. The next months and year should give us good clues.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Thanks for that. The first inclination why a Black Hawk was lost, I was wondering.
“Also, in your last the news that the FR and cockpit recorder had been found from the Air French Airbus. A remarkable achievement by the French. Let's hope they can interrogate the electronics. In my experience with such a device, not so sophisticated, on an F4 in the Falklands, there was nothing.
“As always Cap, keep pressing the keys!”
. . . my follow-up response:
Your question has been the topic of considerable speculation. I doubt we shall know definitively anytime soon. My guess(es):
1. Inadvertent contact with the wall (pilot error),
2. Settling with power – descent rate + excess power available exceeded altitude remaining,
3. Mechanical failure at the worst time.
There are perhaps other reasons, but those are the obvious ones.
Yes, indeedie; the technical achievement by the French team in recovery of the AF447 FDR & CVR cannot be overstated. Magnificent. The technology in the A330 is a couple of generations better than that available in the F4. Nonetheless, the probability of the data remaining intact and readable must be considered low. We will hope for the best.

Another voice in a difficult debate:
“I don't believe the verdict is in, as in time we shall see.
“Violence begets violence, and while we cannot stand by after 9/11 and be pacifists, I am nervous the escalation cycle could lead us into what I've called the ‘perpetual and expanding warfare model.’
“We cannot discount in my opinion, the geopolitical and diplomatic consequences from targeted political assassinations. I often wake-up and say ‘how the hell did we become who we now are!?’ Sorry. Even my own grandpa who was career Marine, retired major, I suspect might think the same thing.
“Our overall prestige has suffered for many reasons and continues to go south.
“If our efforts will reduce the ‘terrorist threat’ then I say the guys with much more knowledge than I, must be doing something right in Washington and the Pentagon. But I have a hard time doing the math on all this.
“I will reiterate that I believe OML (UML) would have been a much better captive, for our ability to extract additional information from the said leader of al-Qaeda; to not allow his dead body in an not-at-all traditional Islamic burial in deep sea, cause his martyrdom; And very importantly, for us to demonstrate to the world we are a system of justice with laws applicable to everyone including ourselves.
“I'm sorry, I think we've been blowing it in almost every way since 9/11. The Iraq War had as far as I know no connection to Osama, al-Qaeda, or 9/11 (heck, I doubt it had a connection to WMD's).
“What also bugs the heck out of me is while I did not support many Bush-II's (43) decisions, if this had been Bush-II who either ordered a kill on OBL or if it happened on his watch, there would be enormous partisan outrage, I find now lacking.
“We have differences in our opinions, and right now I'm entitled to not supporting our various adventures in other nations with what should be sovereign borders, but soon I may not be entitled to such opinion or expressing it here, as we are on a slippery slope in America. What if GOV calls war dissenters ‘unlawful’ and dispatches private contractors to eliminate the dissenters? I know that seems far-off, though is it in this current climate and trend-vector? I never thought I would be reading about these weekly drone strikes that keep taking out civilians who are written off as collateral damage. Why are we even over there? I wish some truthful politicians could really answer that question.”
My opinion:
You are, of course, quite right. Violence begets violence. Your nervousness may well be correct . . . or, it might not. As in so many situations of violence, it progresses until one side has had enough. We did not start this fight, but we must end it.
There are consequences to all actions . . . and inactions for that matter. War is death. War is killing. As I said, we did not start this thing. Al-Qa’ida formed in 1988. They carried out their first successful attack in 1992. They continued to ratchet up their attacks until they crossed the threshold of our tolerance in 2001. Again, we did not start this fight. I think your grandfather would recognize that reality. There are few laws that cover the war we are in, and even the ones that do exist are woefully inadequate.
Many of those, like al-Qa’ida, who resort to violence to achieve their objectives expect their targets to fold before the force of their will. It has taken us far too long to gain the upper hand. It is now their turn to be on the defensive. This fight is long from over. We must not lose our nerve or focus, and we must stay the course until those who would do us harm renounce violence.
I do agree, UbL would have been a bountiful captive. Unfortunately, he would not cooperate, so we move on. World War II did not look so bright until Midway, el-Alamein, Stalingrad and Guadalcanal. We have known from the beginning that this was going to be a long war. As with all long wars, there will be up’s and down’s. We have had an “up” this month. There will be down’s ahead.
The wisdom of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM will be debated for generations, just as we debate the wisdom of the Civil War or even World War II. Only time will tell whether it was a noble fight or a grotesque blunder. I have voiced my opinion. It has not changed.
Spot on . . . regardless the lack of partisan outrage . . . a very sad, disappointing and disgusting observation of the political reality of our time. We have failed the lofty ideals of the Founders of this Grand Republic.
The public debate continues.

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

Update no.490

Update from the Heartland

No.490

2.5.11 – 8.5.11

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Circa 01:15 [E], Monday, 2.May.2011 {16:15 [R] EDT, Sunday, 1.May}, a large unit from SEAL Team Six, operating on intelligence developed by the CIA, executed Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR – a nighttime raid on a large compound in Abbottabad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, some 60 kilometers north of the capital Islamabad. The high-walled compound on roughly one hectare of land (2.5 acres) is located within walking distance of Pakestan Fewja Dersegah [the Pakistan Military Academy (AKA PMA or Kakul); roughly equivalent to West Point or Sandhurst], and in the same city as the headquarters of a brigade of the Pakistan Army’s 2nd Infantry Division. As an irrelevant side note: the Press has portrayed the compound as a luxury mansion; just an FYI: it does not meet my definition of luxury, however, perhaps by Pakistani standards it was luxury, or luxury compared to a cave in Tora Bora, Afghanistan. Word came from the assault team – “Geronimo EKIA” – target confirmed killed in action. At 23:35 [R] EDT, Sunday, 1.May, with the team safely extracted, President Obama publicly acknowledged the raid and its success in a short East Room televised statement. Killed during the compound raid were: Usama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Ladin, 54 (founder and leader of al-Qa’ida [489]); Hamza bin Usama bin Muhammed bin 'Awad bin Ladin, 19 (one of Usama’s 19 children; AKA the Crown Prince of Terror; also implicated in the assassination of Pakistani Prime Minister Benazhir Bhutto {27.12.2007 [316]}); Sheikh Abu Ahmed (trusted bin Ladin confidante and al-Qa’ida courier, AKA Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti; also reportedly the key intelligence link back to bin Ladin); along with Ahmed’s wife and brother (names unknown). With Usama when the shooters entered, the youngest of his five wives, Amal Ahmed Abdel Fatteh, 27, a Yemeni woman, was shot in the leg and will recover, probably to enjoy a rather intense interrogation, I suspect. Several other women and a number of children were captured and turned over to the Pakistani authorities; some of them may be related to bin Ladin. The precision of this strike was impressive but also expected of those shooters. According to various national and international Press reports, Usama’s corpse was extracted with the mission team to Afghanistan, and from there flown to the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) operating in the Arabian Sea. I surmise a substantial quantity of varied evidence was collected, catalogued and safely stored, before he was buried at sea in the Islamic tradition. I expect and hope whomever survived the raid will be subject to extended, proper, intelligence (vice criminal) interrogation before they are released, if they are ever released; they should become guests at the Guantánamo detention facility. While the death of bin Ladin has symbolic value to all freedom-loving people, I suspect the vastly more valuable product of the raid was the collection of intelligence source material. I also suspect proportionately far more time was spent collecting material that will be rapidly analyzed and exploited – the intelligence value may well be incalculable – than was spent securing the compound.
The President had a choice: 1.) drop a Mk84 JDAM (or two or three) from a B-2 heavy bomber, which would have obliterated the compound and everyone in it, as well as potentially unintended collateral damage around the target, inside a sovereign country and ostensible ally, or 2.) conduct a special operations raid and pray no accidents happened like those that doomed Operation EAGLE CLAW. He could not trust the Pakistanis to carry out such a critical mission. As we know now, President Obama chose the latter, to take the risk, to recover the body as proof-positive, and he pulled the trigger at 14:05 [R] EDT, 1.May. From everything I have seen or heard, the President and his national security staff handled this operation in perfect form. They considered their options, decided the mission and constraints, and once the President pulled the trigger, they stood back and watched as the operators performed their duty. Well done, all the way around, I’d say (at least up to the President’s public statement Sunday night). Now, Usama’s sidekick and deputy, Egyptian physician Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri, 59, becomes the primary target . . . and we will get him, too.
-- Congratulations, kudos, and a hearty three cheers for the government of France, the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile (BEA), the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and the recovery team for Air France Flight 447 – the aircraft that disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean, enroute from Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, to Paris, France, with 248 souls on board {31.5.2009} [391]. They located the debris field at the bottom of 13,000 feet of ocean [486], and recovered the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), the separated memory unit of the FDR, and now the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) as well. The critical devices were retrieved by a deep diving, remotely operated submersible from the MV Île de Sein (an ocean cable-laying ship owned and operated by Alcatel-Lucent), and reportedly will be transferred to a French Navy warship for transport to the BEA facility at Le Bourget Airport, outside Paris, for analysis. Both devices are in good shape externally, but we will not know the internal state until the experts carefully and methodically examine the memory at the BEA laboratory. Nonetheless, this was an extraordinary technical achievement and a genuine tribute to French persistence that was regrettably overshadowed by other world events. We now hope the techies can retrieve the data for the accident investigation, so that one day we might know what happened to that ill-fated aircraft.

“Pakistan Did Its Part”
by Asif Ali Zardari
Washington Post
Published: May 3, 2011; pg. 21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pakistan-did-its-part/2011/05/02/AFHxmybF_story.html
Zardari is President of Pakistan and widower of Benazhir Bhutto. He has skin in the game. His words are relevant. I suspect the public kerfuffle over the raid is intended to assuage local public opinion, rather than reflect an opening rift. The War on Islamic Fascism is far from over, and we need to work together to defeat the extremists bent on destruction. All this grumbling about Pakistan not being a worthy ally in the War on Islamic Fascism is misguided and misdirected. Asif did not mention this element of reality, but Pakistan is a country with a massive Muslim population, a goodly portion of which are impoverished and highly vulnerable to radical clerics or even factions within the government who will try to exploit any rift between Pakistan and the United States. We have immediate proof in the assassination of Zardari’s wife, several ministers, and countless people by al-Qa’ida or its affiliates. For a longer view example, we can use the incitement to riot and the subsequent destruction of the U.S. embassy in Islamabad, following the bombing of the Grand Mosque in Mecca [20.11.1979]. Pakistan has been and continues to walk a very fine, crooked, tortuous line between dampening the fervor of radical clerics, its own internal parochial factions, and support for the United States. Despite the public denial, I suspect Secretary Clinton was correct; we had at least tacit acquiescence from the Pakistani government. A public confrontation with Pakistan is NOT in the best interests of the United States, our Allies, or waging war successfully. Let us please keep our priorities straight.

This URL offers a video of the formal press conference statement of the administration after Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/carney-says-bin-laden-was-not-armed/2011/05/03/AFNTnRhF_video.html
White House Press Secretary James “Jay” Carney read the public statement. Whomever prepared and approved his statement should be fired. Whether bin Ladin was armed or not is irrelevant, yet that is precisely what seems to have dominated the statement. It was a very foolish public comment regarding bin Ladin being unarmed . . . REALLY!! Now, let’s just imagine what some elements of the national and international Press have focused on after that little gem? The President decided to send shooters, not law enforcement officers, to deal with bin Ladin; the operation was not a criminal arrest, it was a take down. This whole hoopla over “unarmed” is precisely and exactly why we do not deserve to have access to operational information of any kind, and why folks that do have access should keep their bloody mouths shut! We can’t handle it! Whether Carney disclosed such information inadvertently, or by some immature sense of propriety, or an even more ridiculous notion of transparency or openness, the consequences do an extraordinary disservice to all those who carried out this mission, from the President on down to the warrior who pulled his trigger (twice) that morning. They shot his wife in the leg before tapping the al-Qa’ida leader twice, which is consistent with very deliberate, purposeful shots. Carney could have and should have given a circumspect rendering and indicated that details would be available pending a proper after-action reporting and assessment process. Numerous sources have alleged the President signed a secret Executive Order authorizing a “shoot to kill” objective in contrast with the administration’s publicly stated objective. If that is the case (and eventually the truth will be known), history will not judge President Obama well. I truly hope the orders were capture or kill. For all the good the Obama administration did up to and executing this mission, this conflicting, contradicting, disjointed information, and juvenile waffling and disclosures, make them look like a batch of incompetent, amateur, school kids. The only public disclosure should have been a terse diplomatic statement of fact – simple, calm, cold, emotionless, factual rendering of that raid. What on God’s Little Green Earth was Jay Carney thinking? War is a bloody, nasty, disgusting business. It does not need to be glorified or made pretty. I will say that, like pornography, if you do not like what you see or hear, then do not look or listen. Trying to make war pretty, or pleasant, or not quite so bloody, will only get good men killed and ultimately make us all less safe. I respectfully submit . . . we need war to be violent and ugly, and we should thank the good Lord above, we have well-trained rough men who are prepared to inflict lethal violence upon those who would do us harm. Further, this foolish and naïve penchant for “openness” in wartime will surely get valuable patriots killed. I appreciate transparency in peacetime or in our political processes, but we must have opacity with wartime operations. As much as I want and like to get into the details of such operations, I no longer carry the sword and shield of a warrior; I am a citizen – a single member of We, the People – and I do NOT have a right to know means & methods of intelligence collection or field operations. This nonsense must stop! As one Press reporter noted, “The success of the bin Laden raid gave the White House a spectacular story to offer without any need to dress it up.” Those of us who have been around such braggartry, know the tarnish that inherently comes to an otherwise stellar operation. The SEALs provide a lesson for all of us, and especially the politicos – no need to speak; let your actions speak for you.

Two relevant opinions sure to raise public debate:
“From Guantanamo to Abbottabad – The bin Laden mission benefited greatly from Bush administration interrogation policies, but President Obama still prefers to kill, rather than capture, terrorists. This costs valuable intelligence.”
by John Yoo
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 4, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703834804576301032595527372.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
You may recall, John Choon Yoo was Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, during the Bush (43) administration, and wrote the controversial legal opinions regarding interrogations. Yoo said, “Mr. Obama's policies now differ from their Bush counterparts mainly on the issue of interrogation. As Sunday's operation put so vividly on display, Mr. Obama would rather kill al Qaeda leaders—whether by drones or special ops teams—than wade through the difficult questions raised by their detention. This may have dissuaded Mr. Obama from sending a more robust force to attempt a capture.” While I supported (and still do) Yoo’s legal opinion regarding Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) for intelligence purposes [381, 384], I must respectfully disagree with his assessment of the Sunday night operation. I believe the decision to kill bin Ladin was made in that split-second after entry into that 3rd floor room by that well-armed man who pulled his trigger twice; I doubt it was made by the President of the United States or anyone else in the command hierarchy. The man whose name should remain unknown for at least 20, if not 50, years is the only one who truly knows, and his perspective should remain in a highly classified after-action document for whatever that duration is decided to be.
. . . and . . .
“The Waterboarding Trail to bin Laden – Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said that as late as 2006 fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from harsh interrogations.”
by Michael B. Mukasey
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 6, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576305023876506348.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Judge Mukasey concluded, “It is, however, certain that intelligence-gathering rather than prosecution must be the first priority, and that we need a classified interrogation program administered by the agency best equipped to administer it: the CIA.
“We also need to put an end to the ongoing investigations of CIA operatives that continue to undermine intelligence community morale.
“Acknowledging and meeting the need for an effective and lawful interrogation program, which we once had, and freeing CIA operatives and others to administer it under congressional oversight, would be a fitting way to mark the demise of Osama bin Laden.”
I could not agree more. We simply must separate interrogation processes for intelligence purposes from those allowable for law enforcement and judicial prosecution. We must come to grips with the ugliness of war.

To release . . . or . . . not to release . . . that was the question! President Obama settled the conundrum on Wednesday. No mission photographs! So, that is settled. First, they should never have acknowledged that any images were taken or existed. The government’s position should have been that all information collected as part of or produced as a consequence of the operation is classified and will remain so for 20 years or more. Second, there is nothing to gain from releasing the photos and much to lose. The reality is, no matter what is released, the conspiracists will doubt anything and everything no matter what. Some folks still believe to their core that President Roosevelt intentionally allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor; that the CIA assassinated President Kennedy; that humans have never walked on the Moon; that the USG blew up the World Trade Center; and a myriad of other conspiracy theories. I will study the photographs (or any other data) when they are publicly released; however, I strongly, emphatically, urge the USG to resist the urge until they have their story straight, consistent, and can properly place any data in proper context. The public does NOT have a right to know wartime operational information.

Another perspective of Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR:
“The Slippery Story of the bin Laden Kill – The early narrative of the assault on Osama bin Laden had him using his wife as a human shield and firing from behind her. Now we learn he wasn't armed.”
by Garance Franke-Ruta
The Atlantic
Published: May 3, 2011; 4:34 PM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/the-slippery-story-of-the-bin-laden-kill/238261/
The opening sentence: “The White House Tuesday blamed ‘the fog of war’ for conflicting statements in its recounting of the events surrounding the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden, but the history of misstatements from U.S. government officials about various combat operations raises questions about whether briefers also were subjecting us to a counterterrorism strategy and not just completely confused in their initial statements.” – just the latter I am afraid. Politicians and bureaucrats in the comfort and safety of their cozy little offices in Washington, DC, with all the time they needed to sort things out, are NOT allowed to use the phrase “the fog of war,” that phrase is reserved for warriors in the field. To be blunt, the aftermath of Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR has been embarrassing, confusing, disappointing, and terribly regrettable in stark contrast to the precision of the raid itself.

“Five Mistakes the Obama Administration Has Made in the Aftermath of Bin Laden Killing”
by Mark Halperin
Time.com
Published: Tuesday, May 3, 2011; 9:40 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110504/us_time/httpthepagetimecom20110503halperinstakemistakesweremadexidrssfullnationyahoo
According to Halperin:
“The major errors so far:
“1. Not getting its story straight,
“2. Not giving George W. Bush enough credit for helping bring bin Laden to justice,
“3. Letting the photo debate get out of control,
“4. Letting the debate about the war in Afghanistan get out of control,
“5. Letting the debate about Pakistan get out of control.”
What this amounts to is a lack of preparation for the outcome – whatever that might have been? The operators rehearsed and rehearsed again to make sure every man and dog knew exactly what their part was in the operation. Unfortunately, the politicos did not rehearse their part as well (if at all) as the shooters. The contrast in public perception remains large and dominant of the broader success story. Water under the bridge, now! It is quite sad that the politicos could not have been at least fractionally as professional as the strike team. We can only hope they learned the lesson and pass it onto their successors. Not having a clear, concise, consistent statement of facts in the aftermath seriously detracts from the magnificence of the field operation and reduces the credibility of the administration, which in turn raises doubts about the validity of any information provided. Major errors . . . indeed!

“Raid raises question: Who's soldier, who's spy?”
by Kimberly Dozier and Robert Burns
Associated Press
Posted: May 5, 2011; 3:04 AM EDT
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110505/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden_blurring_military_intelligence
Dozier & Burns noted accurately that Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR was executed by Navy SEALs under operational control of the DCI rather than SecDef. We add these voices to those illuminated above regarding the moral or ethical apprehension associated with a national level covert operation of this nature. While I rationalize such activities within our national interests, I must also confess to sharing that apprehension – an incredible amount of power in the hands of one man. Just as I have consistently advocated for a separation or barrier, or at least a very strong filter, between intelligence and law enforcement, I must now add my minute voice to the need for checks and balances between intelligence collection and operational execution. The President must have the power to “wage war successfully,” and that must include the means and methods to develop and act upon intelligence; however, the ability to take a single, specific, targeted life must have constraints. The targeting of an American citizen like Anwar al-Awlaki is far more problematic than Usama bin Ladin. Al-Awlaki is entitled to due process of law at least to the point of having his citizenship revoked or being declared persona non grata; from that point, he would be solely an enemy battlefield combatant like bin Ladin, and thus fair game for a targeted strike. As we have yet to properly reform intelligence operations for information collection and judicial prosecution, we also must reform covert operations in the same manner. If we do not carry out this reform, we will continue to experience erosion of our most fundamental civil rights, and worse we may not even recognize reality until the process has gone too far, as I suspect it has already and will continue to do so until we stop and reverse it. We cannot allow al-Qa’ida to win in this arena.

News from the economic front:
-- The European Central Bank left its benchmark interest rate unchanged at 1.25%, despite recent evidence of mounting inflationary pressures across the European Economic Community.
-- The Bank of England also left its interest rate unchanged at a record low of 0.5%, in the face of weak UK economic data.
-- The United States Department of Labor reported the economy added 244,000 jobs in April, with the private sector adding all of the increase at 268,000 jobs – better than expected. The gain for March was revised to 221,000 from a previously reported 216,000.

Comments and contributions from Update no.489:
Comment to the Blog:
“To combine two of your subjects, the burial at sea of bin Laden will probably bring about an event similar to the birther accusations. As you appropriately point out, the birthers are not convinced by evidence even well beyond legal proof. Whoever wants to pick on the bin Laden killing will point out that no examination of the body is possible and will remind all who care that when Saddam Hussein was captured, he was displayed extensively to the entire world. Look for this to be protracted and strange.
“Chernobyl was indeed not a corporate incident, which shows that government entities need not face that particular kind of pressure to yield to the lure of risky ‘progress.’ My primary focus in this article is that governments have repeatedly neglected their duty to protect the population in favor of material progress. When we can say with assurance, ‘The safety systems must be operated by trained, conscientious professionals in order to avoid disaster,’ then governments (and operators, when they are not government) must assure that the training and conscientious operation take precedent over “progress” and/or profit. This is not an either/or situation, but a call for moderation. This planet cannot and should not attempt to return to ancient agrarian times. We should simply progress in a rational and safe manner.
“I agree with your stance that we must defend the freedoms of those we find repugnant or we cannot honestly claim to defend freedom. In my personal case, I find it much less difficult to defend the freedoms of pornographers and prostitutes than those of Fred Phelps and other fundamentalist religious crusaders. Nevertheless, to maintain my good conscience, I must support the right of all parties to hold and express their views. I would not allow any of them to harm others, but short of that, they are surely entitled to their beliefs and to try to live out those beliefs.”
My response to the Blog:
Well said and agreed. I made my statement on the foolish “birther” crap; I’m done. I’m still absorbing, learning and writing about the GERONIMO mission . . . more to follow I’m sure.
Once again, I think we agree regarding reasonable progress. You make a good point. Perhaps operators of potential large-scale threat systems (aircraft, nuclear powerplants, ships, deepwater drilling rigs, etc.) should be licensed, and operators annually certified competent by an independent regulator, but that would mean more government facilities and personnel. It works for pilots . . . for the most part.
Re: freedom & Phelps vs. prostitutes. Oh my, yes indeedie. The vitriol of the Phelps clan is truly injurious . . . inciting hatred rather than dialogue. The injuries associated with prostitution or pornography are largely generated by making it illegal or prohibition, just like the extraordinary damage done by mobsters during the alcohol prohibition era. The Supremes have protected the Phelps hateful speech. The foolish notion that government must protect fragile, vulnerable, hyper-sensitive citizens from the corrupting influence of pornography, gambling, prostitution, et cetera, is an out-dated, out-moded, ill-informed, antiquated remnant of the Victorian-era more than a century ago. Freedom is freedom. It is long past time for us to grow up and recognize reality.

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