Update from the Heartland
No.513
10.10.11 – 16.10.11
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
First, please allow me to express my deep, heartfelt gratitude to all those who offered kind and generous words of encouragement, experience, counsel and support after my little, personal announcement last week [512].
Jeanne and I had our follow-up consultation with our urologist. My biggest concern was whether the malignant cells were outside the prostate. He said insurance and the government would not approve a full body scan or bone scan without other indicators, and he said all my indicators point to organ isolation. He also said the scans were not able to detect cells, only collections or tumors, and the only positive method is to check the margins of the organ and the adjacent lymph nodes. He was very careful to outline my options from wait & see to radical excision. We discussed the benefits, risks and prognosis of each treatment modality. My primary objective, by far, is longevity, thus eradication is the leading choice. He was careful to repeatedly say, there are no guarantees. Given my facts and objective, he thought the best choice was surgery; he said I had a 90% shot. My inclination is precisely that.
We had a family meeting Wednesday night (well, at least those who live close by; the others were invited to join by conference call). Everyone handled the news & status quite well, even the grandchildren understood and asked questions. Our youngest son admonished me for what he perceived as jumping too quickly for the surgical option. Out of respect for his counsel, we will do so.
Jeanne summarized our state quite well. “After our family discussion around the table the other night, we have also made an appointment with Dr. Cannon of Cancer Center of Kansas for next Tuesday, October 18th. He was Tinka's (Mom's) oncologist. We thought we would at least cover that area, in case they have come up with some new process of dealing with prostate cancer. Dr. Steinberger is an amazing surgeon and urologist. Dad and I feel good about the decision to take the prostate out of the body; hence, the cancer is removed. This is how he has dealt with both of his skin cancers.”
The journey continues.
Some may be wondering, or even concerned, about my use of the motorcycle [502]. I check the weather every morning, as I usually do. If conditions are favorable, i.e., no chance of rain, reasonable temperatures and wind, I use the bike for my daily commute. I generally stay in the right hand (slow, i.e., lorry) lane and putt-putt along with the flow of traffic. The field of view is far better than any 4-wheeled vehicle. I am much more aware of the air. It is about as close to the sensations of flying as you can get on the ground. However, the big news was actually Jeanne’s first ride with me on Saturday afternoon. She was ready. She suggested we ride across town for an early supper – very nice I must add. We returned home on backcountry roads. It was a perfect day to ride. She is now officially my biker b----, ah lady. Life is good.
The follow-up news items:
-- More on the continuing debate regarding the elimination of Anwar al-Awlaqi [511/12]:
“Killing Awlaki was illegal, immoral and dangerous”
By Mary Ellen O’Connell – Special to CNN
Posted: October 1st, 2011; 03:48 PM ET
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/01/killing-awlaki-was-illegal-immoral-and-dangerous/
and
“America’s drone campaign – Drones and the law – America’s attacks on suspected terrorists should be more closely monitored”
The Economist
Posted: Oct 8th 2011
http://www.economist.com/node/21531477
Since academics are sensitive to such things, I open by noting that Mary Ellen O’Connell is actually the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law and Research Professor of International Dispute Resolution at the University of Notre Dame Law School. Whew! That was a mouthful; now to the meat of this topic. Mary opens here essay with this paragraph: “Every American adult knows what an armed conflict is. The U.S. is engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan and Libya. It engaged in combat in Iraq from 2003-2011. Thus, every American knows that the U.S. is not engaged in an armed conflict in Yemen - not a real armed conflict. Nevertheless, President Obama placed an American citizen in Yemen on a kill list. Anwar al-Awlaki and several other people were killed on September 30 by a ‘barrage’ of missiles launched from drones operated by the CIA.” She goes on to declare, “So they have been asserting the U.S. is in a worldwide ‘armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.’ This assertion defies common sense.” This is where my tolerance reached the threshold of boil. I would suggest Mary needs to read or re-read the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) [PL 107-040; 115 Stat. 224]. Further, as a lawyer and presumably as an educator, she should know the importance of language and definitions. The AUMF states, “[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” The language of the law is quite simple and direct. There are no other limits or constraints (geographic or otherwise); and as noted in the law, the AUMF satisfied the War Powers Resolution [PL 93-148; 87 Stat. 555] [344]. Mary’s inference that the President (either Bush or Obama) did not and does not possess authorization for such action just does not square with the law. Further, I would suggest Mary read, or re-read, Al-Aulaqi v. Obama [USDC DC case 1:10-cv-01469-JDB (2010)] [479]. As acknowledged elsewhere, we all share degrees of unease, trepidation and concern for extrajudicial, international termination of any American citizen, as reflected in Judge Bates’ careful assessment in Al-Aulaqi. We do not know the deliberations carried out within the administration regarding the al-Awlaqi action; they were secret and should remain so, until hostilities cease. As much as my curiosity would like to be fed, I hope we have to wait to know the rest of the story. I am more concerned about winning the war than understanding how the Executive branch made these decisions. I can only deduce from Mary’s choice of words and tone that she sought political inflammation rather than deliberative intercourse. I am not swayed; I trust you are not as well.
-- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [419] – AKA the underwear bomber (25.Dec.2009) – answered questions from a federal judge before pleading guilty to charges that include conspiracy to commit terrorism and attempted murder. I trust he shall enjoy the hospitality of the Federal penal system for the rest of his natural life, however unnatural that may be.
The Justice Department announced the criminal charging of naturalized U.S. citizen, Manssor Arbab Arbabsiar, 56, and Gholam Shakuri with conspiracy to assassinate Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S. According to the government’s statement, there is a strong linkage to the Quds Force, the paramilitary unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that reports directly to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, via Quds Force chief Qassem Suleimani. This verges upon an act of war and reminiscent of the Black Tom Island attack by German saboteurs before the U.S. entered World War I [at 02:08:00 [R], 30.July.1916]. This does not bode well for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
After the extended discussion of the Commerce Clause [512], I had cause to read Hoke v. United States [227 U.S. 308 (1913)] – a challenge to the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 [PL 61-277; 36 Stat. 825] (AKA Mann Act) that prohibited interstate transport of a woman or a girl for immoral purposes [327]. The central issue in Hoke was the use by Congress of the Commerce Clause to inject the Federal government into the practice of prostitution. The Supremes defended the law with no dissent. FYI: the Mann Act is the same law with which the righteous, moral guardians of the Bush administration threatened Governor Elliot Spitzer [12.Mar.2008; 327]. The Mann Act was passed in the era of Anthony Comstock, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, the rising tide of Prohibition, along with all those other moral projectionist laws we still suffer, now in mutated forms. Our grandparents learned the hard lessons of legislating private morality. It took them 13 years to recognize consequences and correct a dreadful wrong. We have but to read the Mann Act and Hoke in the context of the Declaration and Constitution to see the unfortunate over-reach. What if one state legalized prostitution, say Nevada, and a woman was transported (excluding of course her ability to transport herself) from a legal state to a prohibited state to practice her trade or avocation, or vice versa. Would the Mann Act still apply? With the abandonment of the doctrine of coveture, would such an act still be valid? What about men or boys for immoral purposes? Who determines what is “an immoral purpose”? These are very slippery questions that deal with predominately private conduct . . . except as they intersect with the public domain. So, all of these private morality laws must be repealed as they no longer exist in the context in which they were created. I know I am a broken record, but We, the People, must remove the government (in all its forms) from our private lives and resist the urge to dictate how we are to live our lives. Freedom of choice is an “unalienable” right, endowed to each of us by our Creator. Private morality is between the individual and God.
On 29.September.2011, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its judgment regarding the appeal of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [USDC CA(CD) case no. cv-04-08425-VAP (2010)] [456, 457, 461] – Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [9CCA 10-56634 and 10-56813 (2011)] – the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” challenge. The judges declared the case moot after enactment of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 [PL 111-321; 124 Stat. 3515] [471], which was certified by the military in accordance with the law and became effective on 20.September.2011. The court vacated the district court decision and all associated injunctions, and ordered the case remanded to the district court with specific orders to dismiss the case. I do not think I have seen such a pointed and harsh judgment before. Circuit Judge Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain was not satisfied and chose to write a concurring opinion to skewer District Judge Virginia Phillips. His concluding sentence, “When judges sacrifice the rule of law to find rights they favor, I fear the people may one day find that their new rights, once proclaimed so boldly, have disappeared because there is no longer a rule of law to protect them.” We do not see judicial pronouncements that border on accusations of judicial malfeasance very often. Let it suffice to say, Judge O'Scannlain’s opinion is just as political as Judge Phillips’s original decision, it seems to me – it all depends upon perspective. Nonetheless, I suspect this case will end here, although the issue of reinstatement remains.
Comments and contributions from Update no.512:
Comment to the Blog:
“You gave us the numbers on your diagnosis but no interpretation. What does this mean? The only clue I have is the death rate of 28,000 out of 218,000 men diagnosed, which works out to 1 in 8. Please tell us more about the meaning of the figures. We are concerned about you.
“If that British study is correct and applicable, I guess I won't worry about my prostate health too much yet.
“Your suggested alternative to the individual health care mandate, denial of services, will not happen. Most of us are not teabaggers in the political sense of that term. Besides, even the patron saint of sociopathic greed, Ayn Rand, found it necessary to draw on government health care eventually. The teabaggers will follow that role model anywhere.
“You and I are old enough to remember 1968; Occupy Wall Street brings back memories of that time. We shall see what happens. In the meantime, I'll be going to more demonstrations here.”
My reply to the Blog:
I chose not to get very verbose. Those who cared, would ask, as you have done. I will have more to say in the Update when we know more.
The information received from my biopsy confirmed stage 1 prostate cancer. The N & M portion of the stage are for regional and general involvement, respectively; thus, the question marks (not yet determined). The Gleason score is the pathologist’s grading system for this type of cancer; the first number is the primary cell pattern, along the secondary cell pattern equals the total. My score suggest a less aggressive form, but more testing is needed. My next consult is Wednesday to lay out the plan.
Re: individual mandate alternative. My proposal was more tongue in cheek to make the point that we cannot have it both ways – the status quo ante is unstable, unfair and otherwise unacceptable. I want the Supremes to curtail the reach of the USG via the Commerce Clause; yet, I also want the individual mandate to proceed; we can make it better as we gain experience.
I don’t think it is sociopathic greed. The real question for us is balance; where is the balance point? Communism is equally unacceptable as unregulated, capitalistic greed. The balance exists between the two extremes; we must find that point.
Yes, I remember 1968 vividly. Both the OWS and TP movements have flavors of those bygone movements. I am not a crowd person, so you will not find me at that type of public demonstration.
Another contribution:
“Too much to respond to, but as to killing a U. S. citizen involved in the war against us, I say he forfeited his rights as a citizen when he joined up with the terrorists.”
My response:
Essentially what Judge Bates concluded in Al-Aulaqi.
I share another, more personal contribution, simply because I belief the information may be of value to others who might face my situation:
“We are very disheartened to hear your disturbing news. Our sincerest hopes and prayers are with you for a favorable prognosis. Many of our friends and family have beat the villain cancer, and modern medicine has certainly contributed greatly to positive outcomes. You will be in the thoughts and prayers of many people and hopefully that will help to give you the strength and determination needed to maintain a positive outlook while meeting the challenge of this adversity.
“You are wise to learn everything you can about prostate cancer to make the best decisions about treatment with the information that you have (I humbly provide these links:
http://www.thermographyarizona.com/cancer_is_preventable.html
and
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-prostate-20111015,0,4641717.story
only because they discuss 1) the big business associated with diagnosing and treating cancer VS placing a focus on preventing cancer, and 2) the rush to pursue radical treatments including surgery).
“I am sure you will keep your readers updated as you learn more about your condition. Just like you keep reminding us every week...take care of YOURSELF,”
My reply:
Thank you so much for your kind and generous words, and thank you for the links.
I also appreciate the your concern about rushing things, but I do not feel like I am rushing or being rushed. I have dealt with two other spots: a basal cell lesion on my right ear (excised 17 years ago; no recurrence), and a squamous cell lesion on my right elbow (excised 1 year ago; so far no recurrence and still a way to go on that one). To the best of our collective knowledge, this next event is a more serious episode, but the sooner the better. I will get through this as I have all other challenges in my life.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
First, please allow me to express my deep, heartfelt gratitude to all those who offered kind and generous words of encouragement, experience, counsel and support after my little, personal announcement last week [512].
Jeanne and I had our follow-up consultation with our urologist. My biggest concern was whether the malignant cells were outside the prostate. He said insurance and the government would not approve a full body scan or bone scan without other indicators, and he said all my indicators point to organ isolation. He also said the scans were not able to detect cells, only collections or tumors, and the only positive method is to check the margins of the organ and the adjacent lymph nodes. He was very careful to outline my options from wait & see to radical excision. We discussed the benefits, risks and prognosis of each treatment modality. My primary objective, by far, is longevity, thus eradication is the leading choice. He was careful to repeatedly say, there are no guarantees. Given my facts and objective, he thought the best choice was surgery; he said I had a 90% shot. My inclination is precisely that.
We had a family meeting Wednesday night (well, at least those who live close by; the others were invited to join by conference call). Everyone handled the news & status quite well, even the grandchildren understood and asked questions. Our youngest son admonished me for what he perceived as jumping too quickly for the surgical option. Out of respect for his counsel, we will do so.
Jeanne summarized our state quite well. “After our family discussion around the table the other night, we have also made an appointment with Dr. Cannon of Cancer Center of Kansas for next Tuesday, October 18th. He was Tinka's (Mom's) oncologist. We thought we would at least cover that area, in case they have come up with some new process of dealing with prostate cancer. Dr. Steinberger is an amazing surgeon and urologist. Dad and I feel good about the decision to take the prostate out of the body; hence, the cancer is removed. This is how he has dealt with both of his skin cancers.”
The journey continues.
Some may be wondering, or even concerned, about my use of the motorcycle [502]. I check the weather every morning, as I usually do. If conditions are favorable, i.e., no chance of rain, reasonable temperatures and wind, I use the bike for my daily commute. I generally stay in the right hand (slow, i.e., lorry) lane and putt-putt along with the flow of traffic. The field of view is far better than any 4-wheeled vehicle. I am much more aware of the air. It is about as close to the sensations of flying as you can get on the ground. However, the big news was actually Jeanne’s first ride with me on Saturday afternoon. She was ready. She suggested we ride across town for an early supper – very nice I must add. We returned home on backcountry roads. It was a perfect day to ride. She is now officially my biker b----, ah lady. Life is good.
The follow-up news items:
-- More on the continuing debate regarding the elimination of Anwar al-Awlaqi [511/12]:
“Killing Awlaki was illegal, immoral and dangerous”
By Mary Ellen O’Connell – Special to CNN
Posted: October 1st, 2011; 03:48 PM ET
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/01/killing-awlaki-was-illegal-immoral-and-dangerous/
and
“America’s drone campaign – Drones and the law – America’s attacks on suspected terrorists should be more closely monitored”
The Economist
Posted: Oct 8th 2011
http://www.economist.com/node/21531477
Since academics are sensitive to such things, I open by noting that Mary Ellen O’Connell is actually the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law and Research Professor of International Dispute Resolution at the University of Notre Dame Law School. Whew! That was a mouthful; now to the meat of this topic. Mary opens here essay with this paragraph: “Every American adult knows what an armed conflict is. The U.S. is engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan and Libya. It engaged in combat in Iraq from 2003-2011. Thus, every American knows that the U.S. is not engaged in an armed conflict in Yemen - not a real armed conflict. Nevertheless, President Obama placed an American citizen in Yemen on a kill list. Anwar al-Awlaki and several other people were killed on September 30 by a ‘barrage’ of missiles launched from drones operated by the CIA.” She goes on to declare, “So they have been asserting the U.S. is in a worldwide ‘armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.’ This assertion defies common sense.” This is where my tolerance reached the threshold of boil. I would suggest Mary needs to read or re-read the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) [PL 107-040; 115 Stat. 224]. Further, as a lawyer and presumably as an educator, she should know the importance of language and definitions. The AUMF states, “[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” The language of the law is quite simple and direct. There are no other limits or constraints (geographic or otherwise); and as noted in the law, the AUMF satisfied the War Powers Resolution [PL 93-148; 87 Stat. 555] [344]. Mary’s inference that the President (either Bush or Obama) did not and does not possess authorization for such action just does not square with the law. Further, I would suggest Mary read, or re-read, Al-Aulaqi v. Obama [USDC DC case 1:10-cv-01469-JDB (2010)] [479]. As acknowledged elsewhere, we all share degrees of unease, trepidation and concern for extrajudicial, international termination of any American citizen, as reflected in Judge Bates’ careful assessment in Al-Aulaqi. We do not know the deliberations carried out within the administration regarding the al-Awlaqi action; they were secret and should remain so, until hostilities cease. As much as my curiosity would like to be fed, I hope we have to wait to know the rest of the story. I am more concerned about winning the war than understanding how the Executive branch made these decisions. I can only deduce from Mary’s choice of words and tone that she sought political inflammation rather than deliberative intercourse. I am not swayed; I trust you are not as well.
-- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [419] – AKA the underwear bomber (25.Dec.2009) – answered questions from a federal judge before pleading guilty to charges that include conspiracy to commit terrorism and attempted murder. I trust he shall enjoy the hospitality of the Federal penal system for the rest of his natural life, however unnatural that may be.
The Justice Department announced the criminal charging of naturalized U.S. citizen, Manssor Arbab Arbabsiar, 56, and Gholam Shakuri with conspiracy to assassinate Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S. According to the government’s statement, there is a strong linkage to the Quds Force, the paramilitary unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that reports directly to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, via Quds Force chief Qassem Suleimani. This verges upon an act of war and reminiscent of the Black Tom Island attack by German saboteurs before the U.S. entered World War I [at 02:08:00 [R], 30.July.1916]. This does not bode well for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
After the extended discussion of the Commerce Clause [512], I had cause to read Hoke v. United States [227 U.S. 308 (1913)] – a challenge to the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 [PL 61-277; 36 Stat. 825] (AKA Mann Act) that prohibited interstate transport of a woman or a girl for immoral purposes [327]. The central issue in Hoke was the use by Congress of the Commerce Clause to inject the Federal government into the practice of prostitution. The Supremes defended the law with no dissent. FYI: the Mann Act is the same law with which the righteous, moral guardians of the Bush administration threatened Governor Elliot Spitzer [12.Mar.2008; 327]. The Mann Act was passed in the era of Anthony Comstock, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, the rising tide of Prohibition, along with all those other moral projectionist laws we still suffer, now in mutated forms. Our grandparents learned the hard lessons of legislating private morality. It took them 13 years to recognize consequences and correct a dreadful wrong. We have but to read the Mann Act and Hoke in the context of the Declaration and Constitution to see the unfortunate over-reach. What if one state legalized prostitution, say Nevada, and a woman was transported (excluding of course her ability to transport herself) from a legal state to a prohibited state to practice her trade or avocation, or vice versa. Would the Mann Act still apply? With the abandonment of the doctrine of coveture, would such an act still be valid? What about men or boys for immoral purposes? Who determines what is “an immoral purpose”? These are very slippery questions that deal with predominately private conduct . . . except as they intersect with the public domain. So, all of these private morality laws must be repealed as they no longer exist in the context in which they were created. I know I am a broken record, but We, the People, must remove the government (in all its forms) from our private lives and resist the urge to dictate how we are to live our lives. Freedom of choice is an “unalienable” right, endowed to each of us by our Creator. Private morality is between the individual and God.
On 29.September.2011, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its judgment regarding the appeal of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [USDC CA(CD) case no. cv-04-08425-VAP (2010)] [456, 457, 461] – Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [9CCA 10-56634 and 10-56813 (2011)] – the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” challenge. The judges declared the case moot after enactment of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 [PL 111-321; 124 Stat. 3515] [471], which was certified by the military in accordance with the law and became effective on 20.September.2011. The court vacated the district court decision and all associated injunctions, and ordered the case remanded to the district court with specific orders to dismiss the case. I do not think I have seen such a pointed and harsh judgment before. Circuit Judge Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain was not satisfied and chose to write a concurring opinion to skewer District Judge Virginia Phillips. His concluding sentence, “When judges sacrifice the rule of law to find rights they favor, I fear the people may one day find that their new rights, once proclaimed so boldly, have disappeared because there is no longer a rule of law to protect them.” We do not see judicial pronouncements that border on accusations of judicial malfeasance very often. Let it suffice to say, Judge O'Scannlain’s opinion is just as political as Judge Phillips’s original decision, it seems to me – it all depends upon perspective. Nonetheless, I suspect this case will end here, although the issue of reinstatement remains.
Comments and contributions from Update no.512:
Comment to the Blog:
“You gave us the numbers on your diagnosis but no interpretation. What does this mean? The only clue I have is the death rate of 28,000 out of 218,000 men diagnosed, which works out to 1 in 8. Please tell us more about the meaning of the figures. We are concerned about you.
“If that British study is correct and applicable, I guess I won't worry about my prostate health too much yet.
“Your suggested alternative to the individual health care mandate, denial of services, will not happen. Most of us are not teabaggers in the political sense of that term. Besides, even the patron saint of sociopathic greed, Ayn Rand, found it necessary to draw on government health care eventually. The teabaggers will follow that role model anywhere.
“You and I are old enough to remember 1968; Occupy Wall Street brings back memories of that time. We shall see what happens. In the meantime, I'll be going to more demonstrations here.”
My reply to the Blog:
I chose not to get very verbose. Those who cared, would ask, as you have done. I will have more to say in the Update when we know more.
The information received from my biopsy confirmed stage 1 prostate cancer. The N & M portion of the stage are for regional and general involvement, respectively; thus, the question marks (not yet determined). The Gleason score is the pathologist’s grading system for this type of cancer; the first number is the primary cell pattern, along the secondary cell pattern equals the total. My score suggest a less aggressive form, but more testing is needed. My next consult is Wednesday to lay out the plan.
Re: individual mandate alternative. My proposal was more tongue in cheek to make the point that we cannot have it both ways – the status quo ante is unstable, unfair and otherwise unacceptable. I want the Supremes to curtail the reach of the USG via the Commerce Clause; yet, I also want the individual mandate to proceed; we can make it better as we gain experience.
I don’t think it is sociopathic greed. The real question for us is balance; where is the balance point? Communism is equally unacceptable as unregulated, capitalistic greed. The balance exists between the two extremes; we must find that point.
Yes, I remember 1968 vividly. Both the OWS and TP movements have flavors of those bygone movements. I am not a crowd person, so you will not find me at that type of public demonstration.
Another contribution:
“Too much to respond to, but as to killing a U. S. citizen involved in the war against us, I say he forfeited his rights as a citizen when he joined up with the terrorists.”
My response:
Essentially what Judge Bates concluded in Al-Aulaqi.
I share another, more personal contribution, simply because I belief the information may be of value to others who might face my situation:
“We are very disheartened to hear your disturbing news. Our sincerest hopes and prayers are with you for a favorable prognosis. Many of our friends and family have beat the villain cancer, and modern medicine has certainly contributed greatly to positive outcomes. You will be in the thoughts and prayers of many people and hopefully that will help to give you the strength and determination needed to maintain a positive outlook while meeting the challenge of this adversity.
“You are wise to learn everything you can about prostate cancer to make the best decisions about treatment with the information that you have (I humbly provide these links:
http://www.thermographyarizona.com/cancer_is_preventable.html
and
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-prostate-20111015,0,4641717.story
only because they discuss 1) the big business associated with diagnosing and treating cancer VS placing a focus on preventing cancer, and 2) the rush to pursue radical treatments including surgery).
“I am sure you will keep your readers updated as you learn more about your condition. Just like you keep reminding us every week...take care of YOURSELF,”
My reply:
Thank you so much for your kind and generous words, and thank you for the links.
I also appreciate the your concern about rushing things, but I do not feel like I am rushing or being rushed. I have dealt with two other spots: a basal cell lesion on my right ear (excised 17 years ago; no recurrence), and a squamous cell lesion on my right elbow (excised 1 year ago; so far no recurrence and still a way to go on that one). To the best of our collective knowledge, this next event is a more serious episode, but the sooner the better. I will get through this as I have all other challenges in my life.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I encourage you to seek the best available advice on your struggle with cancer. I myself have no useful knowledge to share, but I am concerned for you.
I rejoice that your wife is beginning to share your love of the motorcycle. Enjoy it.
I will repeat my assertion that a war on a concept cannot be won. “Terrorism” is a concept embedded in the quote you shared, and it is as amorphous as “poverty” or “drugs,” two other concepts on which we continue lengthy “wars”. This leaves the simple fact that the US government can choose to kill a US citizen without due process as my concern here. That fact overwhelms all other concerns about civil rights. While the Mann Act is a travesty in its own right, if “human traffickers” can be seen as terrorists (and they can if manipulative people define terrorism), death or the threat of death supersedes all other attacks on their rights. That applies to anything else that powerful individuals dislike or see as obstacles to their own goals.
I regret if it upsets you that judges have political opinions which occasionally show up in their writings. While I see other judicial politics as more upsetting, such as the current Supreme Court, pretty much any act can be seen as political in the broad sense that it endorses some positions and refutes others. For example, if a gay person chooses to remain in the closet, that choice essentially endorses the moral and political statement that homosexuality is wrong. Any number of other examples could illustrate the statement. Even one’s choices of food (organic or not, vegetarian or not, genetically modified or not, prioritized to price, nutrition or taste) express opinions and ideas about subjects regulated by the political system. In the last analysis, objectivity is relative. Judges’ opinions are bound to show up at some points.
Calvin,
Thx for the encouragement. Good advice . . . taken with gratitude.
We plan to enjoy the bike as much as can safely and comfortable be done.
Once again, I do not think we are at war with a concept. We are at war with those who seek imposition of their ideology on everyone by violent means.
I think we all share your apprehension and concern about extrajudicial killing. The central element in the al-Awlaqi case was the cost of exercising a warrant in the instance of a man who publicly threatened the safety of innocent American citizens and inciting others to carry out violent acts against American citizens. We do not know the process by which the government fights this war. One day we will know. Then, we can make our judgments. The risks of this practice are enormous, just as the consequences of losing the War on Islamic Fascism are enormous.
Judges having political opinions is only natural; after all, they are flawed human beings as we all are. It is rare that a judge’s political opinions are so blatantly expressed. Usually judges are more sophisticated and subtle. Not so in that case. Interesting logic, nonetheless. Well done.
Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment