Update from the Heartland
No.536
19.3.12 – 25.3.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
“Murder Is Not an Anomaly in War”
by Chris Hedges
Truthdig | Op-Ed
Published: Monday 19 March 2012
http://www.truth-out.org/murder-not-anomaly-war/1332165061
The premise is correct. The conclusions are not. Hedges used nice little catch phrases like, “To decry the butchery of this case and to defend the wars of occupation we wage is to know nothing about combat”; or, “The scale of our state-sponsored murder is masked from public view”; or, “War perverts and destroys you”; or, “War is necrophilia.” Hedges does a fairly succinct job of describing the adverse consequences of war. I doubt there are many who would argue against Hedges’ portrayal of the brutal price of war. It is for this reason that most warriors know and acknowledge that war must be the last resort. What he does not discuss is the necessity of war, or the terrible consequences of painting lipstick on a pig with respect to war fighting. War is all about killing. Our objective, when war becomes necessary, should be to inflict that injury in the most efficient and effective manner humanly possible . . . to win the war as quickly as possible. Yet, there are examples in every war when a man breaks and crosses the line from the necessary killing to murder. If Staff Sergeant Bales did what he is accused of doing, then he crossed the line and deserves the full weight of the law in his punishment. However, I have not seen the factual evidence that I need to join the popular, public condemnation of Bales; there is more to this story we have not heard. Let us all keep things in perspective. War is NOT necrophilia; it is a necessary evil when diplomacy fails, or as Generalmajor Carl von Clausewitz described war as diplomacy by other means.
Another relevant opinion:
“Sustaining success in Afghanistan”
by John McCain, Joseph I. Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham
Washington Post
Published: March 21, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/steps-to-ensure-we-achieve-success-in-afghanistan/2012/03/20/gIQAJiNXSS_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
“Reclaiming Our Rights From HR 347”
by Phil Rockstroh
Consortium News | Op-Ed
Published: Monday 19 March 2012
http://www.truth-out.org/reclaiming-commons/1332166749
In these tumultuous times, we tend to question anything and everything the government does. Reading the Rockstroh article, one might easily and understandably deduce the jack-boot of the oppressive regime has been placed upon our throat. The recently signed-into-law Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [PL 112-098; H.R.347; House: 388-3-0-42(2); Senate: unanimous consent; 126 Stat. xxxx; 8.March.2012] amends 18 USC §1752. As an example of where doubt arises, §1752 – Restricted building or grounds, (a) says whoever, (3) “knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds” shall be punishable. Prima facie, this sounds reasonable, i.e., protect sensitive buildings and persons. Yet, as we have seen with other well-intentioned laws, zealous interpretation leads to unacceptable abuses. We do not need more examples like the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056; 115 Stat. 272; 26.October.2001]. I understand the concern protectors have for the Occupy movement and the potential impact on their task and principals, but this is not the way. We do not need more ambiguous laws rife for “generous interpretation” and concomitant abuse at the unilateral discretion of the Secret Service . . . as much as I admire the Secret Service and the professional work they do for all of us.
Apparently, U.S. Attorney General Eric Himpton Holder Jr. signed new guidelines for the National Counterterrorism Center (NCC) ostensibly to improve intelligence sharing and to focus on thwarting terrorism threats. The NCC and its charter along with the National Intelligence Directorate were created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 [PL 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638; 17.December.2004] [343, 468]. The guidelines increase the NCC’s ability to retain collected information, including private data, about Americans when there is suspicion that they are tied to terrorism, from 180 days to five years. The change is expected to increase the potential for and ability of the NCC to carry out data-mining, using complex algorithms to search for patterns that could indicate a threat. Under the previous rules, the NCC had to promptly destroy any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism is evident. At face value in the War on Islamic Fascism, this is a reasonable, understandable and appropriate action. However, weak and flawed men must faithfully execute these new guidelines. As such, unfortunately, we continually endure abuses of well-intentioned laws and rules. As noted above, this is yet one more sliver off our protections against an oppressive State. Freedom and privacy are too precious and fragile to sacrifice even little bits for the perception of security. Unilateral power is rarely a good thing.
Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller wrote for a unanimous Court in The Ku Klux Cases (AKA ex parte Yarbrough) [110 U.S. 651 (1884)]. “It is as essential to the successful working of this government that the great organisms of its executive and legislative branches should be the free choice of the people, as that the original form of it should be so. In absolute governments, where the monarch is the source of all power, it is still held to be important that the exercise of that power shall be free from the influence of extraneous violence and internal corruption. In a republican government, like ours, where political power is reposed in representatives of the entire body of the people, chosen at short intervals by popular elections, the temptations to control these elections by violence and by corruption is a constant source of danger. Such has been the history of all republics, and, though ours has been comparatively free from both these evils in the past, no lover of his country can shut his eyes to the fear of future danger from both sources. If the recurrence of such acts as these prisoners stand convicted of are too common in one quarter of the country, and give omen of danger from lawless violence, the free use of money in elections, arising from the vast growth of recent wealth in other quarters, presents equal cause for anxiety. If the government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authority to provide against these evils, if the very sources of power may be poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outrage, without legal restraint, then, indeed, is the country in danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it, are at the mercy of the combinations of those who respect no right but brute force on the one hand, and unprincipled corruptionists on the other.” While Justice Miller’s concluding opinion dealt with a particular voting rights issue of his time, the principles he illuminated are just as applicable today. Let us all heed his words.
L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- On Monday, the owners of the New York Mets baseball team, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, settled the lawsuit brought against them by Irving H. Picard, the trustee for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, for US$162M. The fallout from the tragic crime continues to unfold, and yet here is one more example where we will probably never know the true culpability of Wilpon and Katz.
Comments and contributions from Update no.535:
Comment to the Blog:
“The fact that our nation and the institution of the Supreme Court have survived such decisions as Hall v DeCuir and the Dred Scott decision and that the Court has returned to sanity in time gives me hope that time will also change the current Court.
“Thank you for that excellent description of religious liberty. The notion that someone else’s religious liberty depends upon their ability to impose their beliefs or values on the rest of us is an oxymoron of the worst kind.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: SCOTUS. Well said! We could throw in Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] and a few others in that infamous lot.
Re: religious liberty. Again, well said! It is so sad, and not a function of modern theocratic thought, that the induced parochialism of the revealed religions is so bloody intolerant of freedom and diversity . . . just one more burden we must bear.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
“Murder Is Not an Anomaly in War”
by Chris Hedges
Truthdig | Op-Ed
Published: Monday 19 March 2012
http://www.truth-out.org/murder-not-anomaly-war/1332165061
The premise is correct. The conclusions are not. Hedges used nice little catch phrases like, “To decry the butchery of this case and to defend the wars of occupation we wage is to know nothing about combat”; or, “The scale of our state-sponsored murder is masked from public view”; or, “War perverts and destroys you”; or, “War is necrophilia.” Hedges does a fairly succinct job of describing the adverse consequences of war. I doubt there are many who would argue against Hedges’ portrayal of the brutal price of war. It is for this reason that most warriors know and acknowledge that war must be the last resort. What he does not discuss is the necessity of war, or the terrible consequences of painting lipstick on a pig with respect to war fighting. War is all about killing. Our objective, when war becomes necessary, should be to inflict that injury in the most efficient and effective manner humanly possible . . . to win the war as quickly as possible. Yet, there are examples in every war when a man breaks and crosses the line from the necessary killing to murder. If Staff Sergeant Bales did what he is accused of doing, then he crossed the line and deserves the full weight of the law in his punishment. However, I have not seen the factual evidence that I need to join the popular, public condemnation of Bales; there is more to this story we have not heard. Let us all keep things in perspective. War is NOT necrophilia; it is a necessary evil when diplomacy fails, or as Generalmajor Carl von Clausewitz described war as diplomacy by other means.
Another relevant opinion:
“Sustaining success in Afghanistan”
by John McCain, Joseph I. Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham
Washington Post
Published: March 21, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/steps-to-ensure-we-achieve-success-in-afghanistan/2012/03/20/gIQAJiNXSS_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
“Reclaiming Our Rights From HR 347”
by Phil Rockstroh
Consortium News | Op-Ed
Published: Monday 19 March 2012
http://www.truth-out.org/reclaiming-commons/1332166749
In these tumultuous times, we tend to question anything and everything the government does. Reading the Rockstroh article, one might easily and understandably deduce the jack-boot of the oppressive regime has been placed upon our throat. The recently signed-into-law Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [PL 112-098; H.R.347; House: 388-3-0-42(2); Senate: unanimous consent; 126 Stat. xxxx; 8.March.2012] amends 18 USC §1752. As an example of where doubt arises, §1752 – Restricted building or grounds, (a) says whoever, (3) “knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds” shall be punishable. Prima facie, this sounds reasonable, i.e., protect sensitive buildings and persons. Yet, as we have seen with other well-intentioned laws, zealous interpretation leads to unacceptable abuses. We do not need more examples like the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056; 115 Stat. 272; 26.October.2001]. I understand the concern protectors have for the Occupy movement and the potential impact on their task and principals, but this is not the way. We do not need more ambiguous laws rife for “generous interpretation” and concomitant abuse at the unilateral discretion of the Secret Service . . . as much as I admire the Secret Service and the professional work they do for all of us.
Apparently, U.S. Attorney General Eric Himpton Holder Jr. signed new guidelines for the National Counterterrorism Center (NCC) ostensibly to improve intelligence sharing and to focus on thwarting terrorism threats. The NCC and its charter along with the National Intelligence Directorate were created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 [PL 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638; 17.December.2004] [343, 468]. The guidelines increase the NCC’s ability to retain collected information, including private data, about Americans when there is suspicion that they are tied to terrorism, from 180 days to five years. The change is expected to increase the potential for and ability of the NCC to carry out data-mining, using complex algorithms to search for patterns that could indicate a threat. Under the previous rules, the NCC had to promptly destroy any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism is evident. At face value in the War on Islamic Fascism, this is a reasonable, understandable and appropriate action. However, weak and flawed men must faithfully execute these new guidelines. As such, unfortunately, we continually endure abuses of well-intentioned laws and rules. As noted above, this is yet one more sliver off our protections against an oppressive State. Freedom and privacy are too precious and fragile to sacrifice even little bits for the perception of security. Unilateral power is rarely a good thing.
Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller wrote for a unanimous Court in The Ku Klux Cases (AKA ex parte Yarbrough) [110 U.S. 651 (1884)]. “It is as essential to the successful working of this government that the great organisms of its executive and legislative branches should be the free choice of the people, as that the original form of it should be so. In absolute governments, where the monarch is the source of all power, it is still held to be important that the exercise of that power shall be free from the influence of extraneous violence and internal corruption. In a republican government, like ours, where political power is reposed in representatives of the entire body of the people, chosen at short intervals by popular elections, the temptations to control these elections by violence and by corruption is a constant source of danger. Such has been the history of all republics, and, though ours has been comparatively free from both these evils in the past, no lover of his country can shut his eyes to the fear of future danger from both sources. If the recurrence of such acts as these prisoners stand convicted of are too common in one quarter of the country, and give omen of danger from lawless violence, the free use of money in elections, arising from the vast growth of recent wealth in other quarters, presents equal cause for anxiety. If the government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authority to provide against these evils, if the very sources of power may be poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outrage, without legal restraint, then, indeed, is the country in danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it, are at the mercy of the combinations of those who respect no right but brute force on the one hand, and unprincipled corruptionists on the other.” While Justice Miller’s concluding opinion dealt with a particular voting rights issue of his time, the principles he illuminated are just as applicable today. Let us all heed his words.
L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- On Monday, the owners of the New York Mets baseball team, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, settled the lawsuit brought against them by Irving H. Picard, the trustee for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, for US$162M. The fallout from the tragic crime continues to unfold, and yet here is one more example where we will probably never know the true culpability of Wilpon and Katz.
Comments and contributions from Update no.535:
Comment to the Blog:
“The fact that our nation and the institution of the Supreme Court have survived such decisions as Hall v DeCuir and the Dred Scott decision and that the Court has returned to sanity in time gives me hope that time will also change the current Court.
“Thank you for that excellent description of religious liberty. The notion that someone else’s religious liberty depends upon their ability to impose their beliefs or values on the rest of us is an oxymoron of the worst kind.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: SCOTUS. Well said! We could throw in Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] and a few others in that infamous lot.
Re: religious liberty. Again, well said! It is so sad, and not a function of modern theocratic thought, that the induced parochialism of the revealed religions is so bloody intolerant of freedom and diversity . . . just one more burden we must bear.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
1 comment:
I see the overriding civil liberty issue as Obama’s self-proclaimed “right” to kill US citizens without due process. Consider that these people need not be terrorists, criminals, or anything else threatening. Without due process, we have no way to know, but we know that we could be next.
Post a Comment