27 January 2014

Update no.632

Update from the Heartland
No.632
20.1.14 – 26.1.14
To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- The Justice Department accused top executives at US Investigations Services (USIS) – the government’s largest private security-background-check contractor – of defrauding the country of millions of dollars by methodically filing more than 660,000 flawed background investigations – 40% of the cases it sent to the government over a four-year period.  USIS is the company that performed the background check on that traitorous asylum fugitive in Russia [602, 607].
-- Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring will join two same-sex couples in asking a federal court to strike down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. You will recall the efforts of Herring’s predecessor, Ken Cuccinelli [610, 613, 621], who tried mightily to defend, reinstate and create new moral projection laws to intrude upon the private lives of the state’s residents and citizens of this Grand Republic.
-- On Friday, 24.January.2014, the Supreme Court issued a short, direct, unsigned order exempting the Little Sisters of the Poor [629 & sub] from compliance with the PPACA contraception provision, pending appeal before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Court directed the religious organization to inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that the Little Sisters of the Poor is a religious organization and they have religious objections to the PPACA contraception provision.  The Supremes closed the short order with a statement that the exemption order should not be construed as an expression of the merits of the case on appeal.

The second of the recent district court rulings, regarding the NSA’s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program (BTMP), gives us an unusual direct comparison.  Judge William H. Pauley, III, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued his ruling late last month in the case of ACLU v. Clapper [USDC NY SD 13 Civ. 3994 (WHP) (2013)] – less than two weeks after Judge Leon’s decision in Klayman v. Obama [USDC DC civil action nos. 13-0851, 13-0881 (RJL)] [630].
            Judge Pauley opened his Memorandum and Order with a relevant and illuminating example from the 9/11 Commission Report.  “Prior to the September 11th attacks, the National Security Agency ("NSA") intercepted seven calls made by hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar, who was living in San Diego, California, to an al-Qaeda safe house in Yemen. The NSA intercepted those calls using overseas signals intelligence capabilities that could not capture al-Mihdhar's telephone number identifier. Without that identifier, NSA analysts concluded mistakenly that al-Mihdhar was overseas and not in the United States. Telephony metadata would have furnished the missing information and might have permitted the NSA to notify the Federal Bureau of investigation ("FBI") of the fact that al-Mihdhar was calling the Yemeni safe house from inside the United States.”  This is the nature of the beast it seems to me.  Judge Pauley also cited three examples offered by the USG, where BTMP contributed to the identification, localization and arrest of Islamo-fascist terrorists inside the United States: Najibullah Zazi [406], Khalid Oazzani, and David Headley [492].  He noted the fact that Congress has reviewed and renewed the authorizing legislation seven times – §215, Title II, USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 {Uniting and Strengthening of America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001} [PL 107-056; 115 Stat. 272, 26.10.2001].  Further, 15 different FISC judges passed judgment on the law, 35 times, since the §215 authorization.  Judge Pauley said, “Just as the Constitution gives the Executive the duty to protect the nation, citizens' right to privacy is enshrined in the Bill of Rights,” and citing Associate Justice Jackson, “the Bill of Rights is not a suicide-pact” [Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)].  Judge Pauley believed the NSA complied with the law as defined by Congress and interpreted by the FISC (in accordance with the law), in that the USG has provided periodic reports of activities and FISC orders to Congress as required by §215.  Judge Pauley concluded, “For all of these reasons, the NSA's bulk telephony metadata collection program is lawful.”
            The contrast between ACLU [632] and Klayman [630] is stark and quite dramatic.  Judge Leon (Klayman) gave the most weight to the potential for abuse, while Judge Pauley (ACLU) stuck to the facts and law associated with the BTMP.  Given the contrast between these two district court findings and the importance of the BTMP (and other warrantless, electronic, surveillance programs), I think it is fairly certain these rulings will be appealed through the respective appeals courts and to the Supreme Court.  In all of this judicial review, it is important to remember that the USG is literally working a persistent, rolling, needle-in-the-haystack search, trying to find a mere handful of enemy operatives in a peaceful population of over 300 million spread across the entire United States.  They are looking for signs – triggers, thresholds, connections, hints – that give the analysts the clues to investigate more closely specific targets with the appropriate warrants in hand.  The potential for abuse is real, palpable and must never be ignored.

News from the economic front:
-- The PRC’s National Bureau of Statistics reported the nation’s economy grew 7.7% in 4Q2013, down slightly from the 7.8% rate in 3Q2013.  According to the Wall Street Journal, many economists expect the PRC economy to slow further as reforms are introduced to shift the Chinese economy away from dependence on investment and trade, and more on domestic spending and expansion in service industries.
-- The preliminary HSBC China Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) fell to 49.6 in January, compared with a final reading of 50.5 in December – a six-month low and another indicator of the PRC’s slowing economy.

Continuation from Update no.630:
“I do not understand what ‘scenario’ of mine you refer to. In any case, my fears have nothing to do with al-Qaeda. The only information we have of that organization comes from people who make a living from all this, which factor makes them a poor source of information. My fear, as I failed to make clear enough, is of NSA operatives or other spies abusing their positions, a common situation throughout history. I need no connection to any real or alleged ‘terrorist’ for that to take place. Neither do you. All we need is an enemy in the wrong place.”
My reply:
            The envelope would not be sufficient, and you could not be compelled to divulge private communications; thus, to fulfill your scenario, the USG would have to read the content, which is beyond the BTMP.
            I share your fears of the potential of NSA abuse.  As I have said, the BTMP and associated programs are dreadfully close to the edge.
            Are you suggesting al-Qa’ida is not real, not a factor, and there is no Islamic Fascism?

Another continuation from Update no.630:
“Yes, the Democrats might well overdo things.  But what has come out appears more of an implosion.  And now some pretty serious stuff has been alleged beyond the bridge stoppage—getting into billion-dollar real estate deals.
“In another situation, Virginia’s former governor and his wife are being indicted on some serious charges as well.  And the people in Richmond (state capitol) are wishing they did more to investigate the governor when he was in office.  What makes this particularly egregious is that he was a former attorney general who should have known better about false statements.
“New subject- more bad press for USNA grads. Have you heard of this guy from ’85- who apparently took advantage of his classmates among others in Ponzi scheme?”
My reply:
            Re: New Jersey.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.
            Re: Virginia.  The McDonnell situation is just one more crooked politician joining the incessant list of corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle.  This is going to be bad.
            Interesting . . . Class of 1985 . . . Bryan Caisse and Lisa Nowak; did they put something in the water that year.  Never good to have shipmates cross over to the dark side.

Comments and contributions from Update no.631:
Comment to the Blog:
“We shall see what the Supremes say about marriage equality. I suspect that once they are finally pinned down, they will go with the flow of history. In the meantime we see the importance of judicial appointments.
“It is nice to see the Congress passing actual appropriations bills. You never know, but maybe they will learn to do constructive work.
“You counteract any respect that might be due the spy community in one sentence: ‘Further, the real lynchpin in all this rests with how the IC responds to the presidential guidance and reformation of the law, if any should come.’ The spy community should not have a choice about how they respond to either Presidential guidance or changes of law.
“Your linked article on the Dutch effort to approach alcoholism differently surprised me and gave me food for thought. If this reduces collateral damage in the long term it is well worth study. I will, however, point out that it will be called socialism because it pays people who are clearly less productive than others would be in the same job.
“LIBOR drags on. I will note here that coverage in the US is sparse.
“Your other correspondent takes many words to support his contention that the many (employees) should be penalized in order that the few (employers or nuns or someone) may impose their beliefs in places where they have no relevance. I agree with your linked article. Such concessions will eventually be overturned under the Establishment Clause.
“I guess I may as well comment on Governor Christie's issues. As a progressive, I had been looking forward to the Republicans having a bloodbath primary season, and I wanted to see Governor Christie front and center in that. Apparently, someone in the Republican Party has foreseen that and decided to alleviate it by disposing of Christie as a factor. The specific actions in question bear a resemblance to drug use in that they are illegal but not unusual. The media is having a field day. This particular ‘story’ takes place close to New York City, where all of the media corporations have large operations in place. It generates plenty of viewers without the messiness of sex or violence. All parties do press releases that save the media the effort of actually digging for a story. Other than Governor Christie and those who support this relatively moderate Republican, everybody's having a ball. The 9/11 thing is simply about inattention and people who, like me, see the Department of Homeland Insecurity as something less than sincere and effective.”
My response to the Blog:
            Indeed, we shall see how the Supremes fall out on equality.
            Again, indeed, we can only hope Congress is turning over a new leaf and henceforth, they will perform their constitutional duty on time.  We can only hope.
            All laws are open to interpretation, as the courts stay in business.  I know the IC will be their best to obey the law and the presidential guidance.  Just as LE interprets the law and sometimes gets it wrong . . . again, why courts stay in business.  The IC is not this evil cabal.  They are good, decent citizens trying to do their best to protect this Grand Republic.
            Then, I must be a socialist since I was proposing to isolate and give addicts drugs to not hurt anyone else or anything.    At least the Dutch are trying something productive.
            Re: LIBOR.  You got that right.
            The exchange regarding the rights of the individual versus the rights of the organization is not an easy one to resolve, especially when there is a religious issue in contest.  It is a 50-50 question I can argue either way.  I do not take kindly to imposing upon anyone.  I do not like asking anyone to compromise their religious beliefs.  I resent the intrusion of anyone into the private affairs of an individual citizen even more, which is why I lean toward the individual over the organization.
            The shenanigans of Tammany Hall vastly exceed the Christie efforts depicted so far.  Yes, I see this as a political nullification endeavor.  Forces want to eliminate Christie as a potential candidate.  There is so much we have yet to learn, and I suspect it will trickle out over the next two years to ensure maximum impact for the 2016 primary season.  One thing is fairly certain; this is not going to be pretty.

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

20 January 2014

Update no.631

Update from the Heartland
No.631
13.1.14 – 19.1.14
To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- Oklahoma has now joined the growing list of states that have had their same-sex marriage prohibition laws [363 et al] declared unconstitutional by a federal court.  U.S. District Judge Terence C. Kern of Oklahoma, Northern District, declared the state’s marriage law was a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause – Bishop v. Oklahoma [USDC OK ND no. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW].  Judge Kern also issued a concurrent stay of his ruling, pending appeal.  Since these cases are mounting up faster than my reading throughput capacity can keep up with, I will probably not review this case either, unless there is a specific request to do so.
-- The hits just keep coming!  Congress passed by a substantial majority the US$1.012T Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 [PL 113-xxx; H.R.3547; Senate: 72-26-0-2(0); House: 359-67-0-7(2); 127 Stat. xxxx].  The bill restores some of the sequestration spending cuts.  As of this Update, the President has not yet signed the bill into law, and the text of the bill was not yet available.  The long drought in proper appropriations bills is finally over [630].  Perhaps there is hope for Congress after all.

On Friday, President Obama addressed the nation regarding the NSA surveillance kerfuffle.  In the main, he defended the NSA warrantless, electronic surveillance efforts as essential to national security, while he condemned leaks of highly classified material, and also suggested some restrictions and reforms are needed.  There are those who believe the President went no where near far enough in reining in the NSA, just as there are others who believe he did go too far and hobbled a vital segment of our national security apparatus.  I thought he gave us a contemplative assessment as he walked a very fine and sensitive line with respect to our national intelligence capabilities.
            The President also issued Presidential Policy Directive 28 (PPD-28) regarding Signals Intelligence Activities.  It is not clear whether the President may issue Executive Orders or whether Congress will amend the relevant laws.  While PPD-28 does offer some refinement and guidance, it is not law.  Further, the real lynchpin in all this rests with how the IC responds to the presidential guidance and reformation of the law, if any should come.
            Lastly, in going through my notes on this topic, I think it is important to illuminate the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2414], which is actually Title VII of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 [PL 105-272; 112 Stat. 2396; 20.10.1998], and specifically §702 of the act titled: Protection of intelligence community employees who report urgent concerns to Congress.  That fugitive under asylum in Russia had the legal means to alert Congress to what he believed was the NSA’s violating of the Constitution and other laws without compromising national security.  He chose to ignore that law and violate a myriad of other laws for what appears to be narcissistic self-aggrandizement.
            A relevant opinion for your further cogitation:
“Obama’s NSA reforms could create more Snowdens”
by Ryan Cooper
Washington Post
Published: January 14 [2014] at 2:50 pm

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued a declassified, redacted version of its investigation report on the Benghazi attack the killed Ambassador Stevens [561, 568] – Review of the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012.  As has been widely reported, the Committee concluded the consequences of the attacks were preventable.  In this context, World War II was preventable.  Also, there is no perfect security.  Of particular note to me, we see yet again the all too familiar weakness of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC), namely the paucity of actionable Human Intelligence (HumInt), and the failure to disseminate tactical intelligence to operational units.  While our HumInt capabilities are improving, they are a long way from where they should be.  As the report illuminates, there were plenty of failures at State, National Intelligence, Defense, and the Executive, and a serious overestimation of local security by the in-country diplomats.  I acknowledge more than a few among us see a bevy of nefarious conduct in the Benghazi attacks and its political aftermath.  I am not one of that group.

Could it be . . . perhaps, the Dutch have been reading this humble Update forum?  I have consistently advocated for respecting the fundamental right to privacy of every citizen, including drug addicts and alcoholics.  As is often the case, the Dutch have the foresight and courage to attempt a paradigm shift that respects the autonomy of the individual while minimizing the collateral damage in the public domain.
“Alcoholics work for beer in Amsterdam program”
by Toby Sterling – Associated Press
Wichita Eagle
Published: Thursday, Jan. 16, 2014, at 6:17 a.m.; Updated Thursday, Jan. 16, 2014, at 12:32 p.m.
We have tried prohibition.  We have tried criminalization.  We have put masses of citizens in prison for exercising their freedom of choice without causing any injury to other persons or property.  We have created expansive, international, violent, criminal sub-cultures to feed the demand we are impotent to quash and retain our freedom.  On the plus side, we have taken a far more intelligent approach to tobacco addiction.  Why can’t we see the path to a more humane and respectful effort to other addictions?  The Dutch have made a bona fide attempt to improve the public domain for all citizens rather than fill jails or prisons with alcoholics and addicts.  Americans have a long, sordid history of condemning other citizens for their weaknesses, their perceived immorality, and for their actions of self-destruction.  We must find the courage to abandon our tendency toward moral projection, accept every citizens fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice, and amend the laws to focus on minimizing the collateral damage induced by those citizens who seek the oblivion of substance abuse.

London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) Debacle [552]:
-- The U.S. Justice Department charged three former Rabobank traders with fraud in connection with the LIBOR Debacle.  The three derivatives traders allegedly manipulated the ¥ LIBOR by submitting false borrowing rates. The three men are charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud.
-- So we don’t lose focus . . . the infamous 16, involved, international banks are:
  • ·      Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550]; Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Bank of America [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      BTMU [Japan] – Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Citigroup [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Credit Suisse [Switzerland] – Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Deutsche Bank [Germany] US$654M LIBOR profit [578]; set aside €500M (US$641M) for LIBOR liability [589]; Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Lloyds TSB [UK]
  • ·      HSBC [UK] – Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      HBOS [UK]
  • ·      JPMorgan Chase [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Norinchuckin [Japan]
  • ·      Rabobank [Netherlands] – fined €774M (£663M, US$1.06B); CEO resigned; 30 others censured [620]; three charged {Robson, Thompson, Motomura} [631]
  • ·      RBC [Canada]
  • ·      RBS [UK] – £390M (US$612.6M) in fines, 21 employees involved [582]; Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged {Hayes, Darin} [575]; Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      West LB [Germany]

Added to the list by the Monetary Authority of Singapore [600]:
  • ·      ING [Netherlands] Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      BNP Paribas [France] Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Crédit Agricole [France] Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      DBS [Singapore] Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation [Singapore] Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Standard Chartered [UK] Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      United Overseas Bank [Singapore] Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. [Australia] Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Macquarie [Australia] Singapore sanctions [600]
  • ·      Commerzbank [Germany] Singapore sanctions [600]

Others involved:
  • ·      ICAP [UK] fined US$87M + three executives charged {Read, Wilkinson, Goodman} [615]

I trust none of us will lose sight of what these banks have done.  Lest we forget!

Continuation from Update no.629:
“I’ve thought about your reply and have considered dropping the discussion, but I feel it is such an important issue and I feel that so many folks don’t really appreciate the seriousness of the point that I feel compelled to revisit it at least one more time. If I can’t convince of all people, you, who actually spends time to think things through far, far more than most, then I fear the long-term implications of our national collective failure to acknowledge this.
“So let’s start with the organization. In your reply you associated the organization with the State. In my view, that is the wrong place to associate it. In this case, the organization is a collection of religious sisters who all share a particular belief. Organizations have rights, as the Supreme Court has held in a recent case regarding free speech, and to therefore equate an organization with the State, I feel, is a mischaracterization – the State in this case is taking away a right of the organization to its exercise of freedom of religion – and in fact requires them to violate their deeply held beliefs – by paying for something they find morally objectionable.
“Sometimes, we can, freely by our own choice, surrender a particular right. The classic – you surrender your right to free speech (to shout “Fire”) when you voluntarily purchase a movie ticket, and as (a more serious example) you do when you accept employment that gives access to privileged or classified information. In this case, the individual would surrender the right to receive a particular medical benefit paid for by the employer as a condition of employment with the particular organization.
“And one could argue for a hierarchy of rights – those in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights perhaps trumping the right to a certain “paid for at least partially by the employer” medical service that the employee would have acknowledged would not be covered by the employer’s group health plan as it violated the organization’s (as a group of like-believing individuals) religious beliefs.
“Cap, one of the reasons this is so important is that it is a ‘first step’ in the government being able to override religious beliefs to further the social agenda of the State – it is a precedent setting issue and must be recognized as such.
“Regarding where do we draw the line, there is a danger here perhaps regarding some organizations arbitrarily declaring themselves to be opposed to something they just decide they don't want to pay for, but the issue in this case is not a modern day whim. This is a value held consistently for a very, very long time. It is certainly worth a discussion on how this can be avoided, but the principle is too important to be cast aside by a possible frivolous use of it.”
My reply:
            First and foremost, thank you very much for not dropping this topic.  I absolutely agree, the topic is far too important to the evolution of our society. 
            I use the term “organization” in the general sense of a group operating under some common set of rules.  Thus, my definition applies to any group from the State to a group of nuns, including corporations, sports teams, any group.
            I am well aware of the Supremes recent rulings, and specifically Citizens United, which gave corporations (or any organization, for that matter) virtually the rights of citizenship.  So, yes, you are quite correct, organizations have rights because the Supremes said so.
            Conversely, as I understand your perspective, you see this contraception debate as a contest between the State and the rights of organizations.  I see this debate as conflict between an organization and the individual; I see it as the most fundamental of our rights as citizens.  This is the question of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.
            I respect every citizen’s freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and especially every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy . . . to live his/her life as he chooses without interference from the State, any organization, or his neighbors.  Yes, there are conditions on those rights, e.g., the exercise of my freedoms cannot cause injury to others, or when I put on a uniform I no longer have the right to speak my mind.  Yes, one could argue for a hierarchy of rights.  As I read the preamble of the Constitution and the Declaration, as foundational documents that put the Constitution into context, We, the People, grant limited rights to the State.  The State is chartered to maintain law & order, to protect the public domain, and protecting the rights of the individual citizen.  To me, the individual citizen is at the top of that hierarchy; the rest boils down to good order & discipline in the public domain.  So, if the State or any organization seeks to intrude upon a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, there must be a substantial public domain reason for that imposition.  This is where the debate centers for me.  Does the organization’s religious beliefs exceed the individual’s fundamental right to privacy.  So, in this instance, is contraception a proper public domain issue?  My answer: I can see no rationale for that intrusion.
            I absolutely agree, this debate is certainly worth an exhaustive discussion.  I am certainly not trying to cast aside any arguments.  I struggle to reconcile the rights of various elements of our society – the State, associated organizations, and the individual.
            I understand, appreciate and respect the moral question with contraception, abortion, marriage, divorce, all of those elements of life.  The moral debate should be conducted at the individual level, not at the organizational or State level.  If the nuns disapprove of contraception, then help the individual appreciate the moral issue and make the correct decision for them.  You make good points.  Yet, to illustrate the dichotomy, if it is acceptable to make rejection of contraception a condition of employment, would it be acceptable to make gender, skin pigmentation, height, hair color, whatever, a condition of employment?  Where do we draw the line?  If all I have to do is make whatever religious objection, does that give an organization license to discriminate against an individual?  The dichotomy and the very personal, intimate nature of the issue that convinces me the rights of the individual exceed the rights of the organization.
            At the end of the day, it does not matter what I think or my misgivings.  I believe the Court will sustain the rights of the organization based on religious objections over the rights of the citizen.  I think the Court will validate your arguments.  Regardless, I place the rights of individuals over the organization.  I suppose the only solution is pre-employment disclosure that certain medical services will not be available.
            Thank you for continuing our exchange.  I just worry about the rights of the individual.
Postscript:
            An interesting article in this continuing debate:
“Exemptions from the ‘contraception mandate’ threaten religious liberty”
by Frederick Mark Gedicks
Washington Post
Published: January 15 [2014]
 . . . a further follow-up comment:
“Thanks for your reply. In the interest of getting to the root of one of the issues we seem to be on different sides of, let me ask where you come down on this question:
“Say a single individual, a religious sister, decides to open a food bank – and for the purposes of this example, let’s just say that she has an inheritance that means she has no requirement to do any fund-raising. She is passionately committed to pro-life issues and feels that contraception is truly morally objectionable. She can’t do all the work herself, so she needs to hire people to help run the food bank. She is the “sole owner” of the food bank. The other sisters of her order have nothing to do with her food bank. 
“Can she, herself, hire someone on the condition that the health insurance she provides them will not cover contraceptive services?
“You, of course, see where this is going. If you don’t agree to the above question, I haven’t made any progress…but if you do agree that a single, solitary, individual can hire someone on those conditions as an individual, what about two individuals who form a non-profit… Do they have collective rights to their individual beliefs? Then three…etc.
“Employees are not forced to seek employment with any specific organization. Potential employees would know the conditions of employment before they agree to an employment contract. No one holds a gun to their head to make them agree to those conditions of employment. They are free to seek employment with organizations, which do not have such restrictions.
“I agree that the moral debate is at the individual level, but these nuns have decided for themselves this question and on their part they have all agreed what side of the issue they are on. Should the State then have the power to require them to act contrary to that decision they have freely made?
“No one is requiring employees to make rejection of contraception a condition of employment, as you have correctly said, that is a private matter of individual conscience. And issues of “gender, skin pigmentation” etc. are red herring arguments. They could never be remotely reasonably defended.
“Thanks for the time to listen. (Refer to the first paragraph of my last reply!)”
 . . . along with my follow-up:
            You make a very valid and apropos argument.  There are many conditions of employment.  Some organizations require employees to wear uniforms, or a coat & tie, and not all medical insurance programs are the same.  An employee-prospect should make an informed decision regarding acceptance of those conditions of employment.  So, yes, I do agree that as a condition of employment, denial of contraceptive services is just another feature.
            What the USG is attempting to do with PPACA is to define a minimum threshold of coverage.  You and like-minded folks are saying contraception should not be part of that threshold, while others including me believe it should be included as a basic level of care.
            As with so many of these tipping point issues, they can go either way.  In such cases, I extend positions to their extreme to understand and appreciate the sensitivities of the question.  Further, when it is a toss up, I will come down on the side of the individual and her fundamental right to privacy.  Contraception is a very private, personal and individual decision.  It is not a business or religious decision.  The employee is dealing with that private decision.  The organization is making a collective (business) decision, in that question I must tip the scale for the individual rather than the organization.
            As I said earlier, I think my opinion is moot.  I think the Supremes will side with religious organizations.  However, it will be a toss-up whether they will allow non-religious, commercial organizations to use a religious argument to deny basic medical coverage.
 . . . one more pass:
“Just a point to your reply. It is absolutely a religious decision -- because it a moral consideration not a financial consideration. If it were a dollars and cents issue, there would be absolutely no leg for the sisters (or any other organization) to stand on.”
 . . . my response:
            So, in essence, every employer has the right to declare anything they wish as a religious objection and impose their beliefs on all of their employees.
            To extend the argument even farther, if a single nun can impose her beliefs on employees, then any organization including the State can impose their beliefs on all members or citizens.  Further, no organization, including the religious variety, has a right to discriminate based on any of the social factors.
            This is where the argument breaks down for me.  No one is even remotely asking the nun to avail herself of contraception.  However, inversely, the nun is imposing her morality on her employee.  The nun is not involved; the employee is; and, that decision is a private one, not an organizational one.

Comments and contributions from Update no.630:
“You didn’t mention the Christie imbroglio.  Perhaps a matter of timing.
“One thing to consider, something that has been overlooked. The bridge blockage was done on the anniversary of 9/11, and pulling this stunt had major national security implications.  This is the bridge with the biggest car volume in the USA, if not the world.  DHS has considered it to be a potential terrorist target on 9/11 anniversaries, and thus to close the lanes on the anniversary of 9/11 was even more irresponsible than at first glance.  In addition to everything else, that makes the whole exercise even worse.”
My response:
            Yes, you are quite correct.  My absence from opinion on the so-called bridge-gate episode is not timing, rather ambivalence.  Just as there is broad disgust with congressional, partisan intransigence and political retributive nonsense, this is just business as usual, like petty common crime, except in this case it was more like major felonious crime.
            What happened on the New Jersey side (Ft. Lee) of the George Washington Bridge last September was a crime.  I hope and trust they prosecute those who caused it to happen.  If it gets tied back to the governor, then he should be impeached, tried, convicted and removed from office – rendered to the scrap heap of failed politicians.  You offered several reasons.  It was a tragically foolish stunt to do.  The perpetrators must be held accountable for their crimes.  I have seen no connection to the governor, except by his neglect.
            To me, when the traffic began to back up, why didn’t someone responsible investigate what the problem was and resolve it . . . in hours, if not minutes?  Five days meant many others failed to perform their duties, failed to see the illegality.  The GWB, like all other infrastructure we are dependent upon, is a vital public safety necessity, set aside essential commercial enabler.  What would have happened if the perpetrators had attacked electricity, water, gas or any other essential infrastructure element?  How much money was lost?  Unfortunately, for those innocent citizens caught in the event, traffic jams are a common occurrence due to common happenings like accidents and such; I doubt very few even imagined an intentional, political, retributive occurrence.
Round Two:
“You are right and you see the ramifications of this stunt.  Your questions are exactly the ones people are asking- especially in view of the ‘hands on, know everything’ nature of the Christie administration.
“What is coming out now are more connections to the Governor and refutations of his statements of denial.  Yesterday, even during his state of the State address, the WSJ (not a ‘liberal rag’) came out with a story that puts the Gov right on the bridge on 9/11- three days into the stoppage.  And he is with some of the people that he fired or said that he had little contact with.  The guy standing next to him – just to his left, is the guy that he said he hadn’t “encountered him in a long time.”
“Equally unsettling is the story – reported by the WSJ last month- that Christie had phoned Gov Cuomo of NY to complain about the stoppage of the ‘traffic study’ and complain about the NY part of the Port Authority (bi-state operation of GWB, among others) investigating the traffic stoppage.   That totally blows apart Christie’s denials.  Coumo has   been quiet so far,- but there has been a ‘war’ between the NY and NJ parts of the Port Authority over this.  Stay tuned.
“Here is part of a comment that underscores the 9/11 point:”
Now, one of the ambient things about the New Jersey bridge scandal that has always been particularly disgusting is the fact that the bridge shutdown happened on the week of September 11th. I mean, if there are dirty tricks going on in politics somewhere, even in the New York City area, it's not like everybody expects September 11th to be an Armistice Day for politics or anything. But grid locking a town in northern New Jersey and portions of the George Washington Bridge on September 11th was particularly nasty. Not only for people in New Jersey who might have wanted to use the bridge to get to 9/11 commemorative events, this was, after all, a very hard hit area of the country; but also because, frankly, the bridge, itself, is seen as a potential terrorist target. It's not just a landmark. It is the busiest bridge in the world. And on the anniversary of 9/11, you worry, right? The mayor of Fort Lee told The New York Times this week that while the bridge lanes were closed, quote, his blood pressure rose “two ticks each day.” But he says it, quote, went up twice that on September 11th, specifically.
[See A Bridge to Scandal: Behind the Fort Lee Ruse by N. R. Kleinfield, The New York Times, 12 Jan 2014]

My response to Round Two:
Jan,
            Thanks for the additional information.
            Democrats, liberals and anti-Republicans smell blood in the water.  I will probably not join the feeding frenzy.  That kind of mindless political retribution will not endear moderates and independents.  If this debacle does castrate Christie, I suspect we will have further polarization of the political landscapes, which is very negative in my book.  And so it goes.

Comment to the Blog:
“You give us a great deal of information about the spy community and those who seek to limit it without clarifying your opinion. Let me see if I can boil down the possibilities. Do you believe (1) that the spy community should be allowed unlimited powers so long as it claims national security as its objective, (2) that somehow the spy community is appropriately limited despite the revelations of Snowden, Wikileaks, et al, or (3) that someone should be watching the watchers?
“I see no clear value in reviewing these cases prior to the Supreme Court ruling.
“For me, call it what you will, I do not want people to have access to my phone calls and emails. I am not violating any laws or plotting any terrorism, and unless someone can at least show a suspicion that I am, those activities constitute an unreasonable search in my mind. I have enough self-consciousness to want my private life to be private, and I believe these systems are subject to far more abuse than the few dozen cases to which the NSA has admitted.
“Of the movies you named, I have seen only The Deer Hunter. I remember nothing of the plot, only that it was a major part of my decision to watch no more violent movies.
“The Governor of Utah has found a way to stress married same-sex partners, but the momentum continues to favor marriage equality.
“I understand that JP Morgan Chase will continue to pay fines, even if they seem very large to those unacquainted with high finance. Like you, I want to hold flesh-and-blood perpetrators responsible for the actions of the paper creature, the corporation.
“The economy continues to baffle the experts and pundits. Perhaps they do not study some of the important factors, such as the simple fact that the unemployed spend less because they have less to spend.
“Contraception has become a battlefield in civil rights. You and I share a belief in the right of individuals to control their own medical lives.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: intelligence Community (IC).  Addressing your options:
(1) No!  The word “unlimited” should and must be an anathema in any free society, for any reason.
(2) A qualified no.  I am not yet convinced the BTMP violated the 4th Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution.  Judge Leon offered strikingly shallow evidence to substantiate his opinion in Klayman.  However, at an elemental level, I agree with the judge – the opportunity for abuse and especially undetected abuse is astronomical.  I believe we have at least one known abuse – the Spitzer disclosure [327].  I also believe I have been consistently in favor of and a vocal supporter of relevant, comprehensive reforms of the IC and specifically NSA products, if not means & methods, to reduce the opportunity for abuse and to punish harshly those who do misuse IC materials.
(3) This could be part of the reforms.  I think the FISC was the correct approach, but there must be a better, more effective, way to safeguard our constitutional rights while enabling the IC to respond and adapt to future situations.
The bottom line, as Judge Leon wrote, is the opportunities for abuse are dreadfully close.  Whether appropriate safeguards are possible is yet to be determined.  However, I am not particularly interested in hobbling the IC, either; we were not in a war in 1978, we are today.
            Understood.  I do.  The process helps me understand the eventual conclusion.  Each judge or judicial review adds knowledge to the topic.
            Re: privacy.  I share you desire and expectation.  The BTMP did not access text, only the address information on the “envelope.”  Yet, I must add, the BTMP alone would not have discovered Spitzer’s indiscretions; someone in the USG read his eMail and/or text messages, or listened to his conversations under some warrantless surveillance operation.  No contradictory evidence, information or even hearsay was ever disclosed to justify the disclosures that led to his resignation.  We have reason to be concerned, suspicious and skeptical; but, that is not sufficient to blind or even partially blind the IC.
            “The Deer Hunter” was a brutal movie illuminating the darkest corners of the Vietnam War – a good reason to avoid violent movies.
            Re: equal rights for all citizens.  Yes, you are quite correct.  The governor or attorney general of Utah or any other state will not deter the inexorable march toward freedom for all.  Now, we have another court ruling in Oklahoma to the same effect, and the governor decries the judge’s failure to recognize “the will of the people.”  That argument was not sufficient in 1861, and it is not sufficient today.  The majority does NOT have the right to impose upon a minority with whom they morally disapprove, without substantial justification for the public good.
            At lease some modicum of pain is being inflicted upon these damnable “to big to fail” banks.  I fear we have missed the motivation to break up and reform those banks.  Heck, they are already trying to unravel what reform has been attempted – Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act [PL 111-203; 124 Stat. 1376; 21.7.2010] [468, 544].
            Re: unemployment.  Perhaps. 
[Part B]
            Re: contraception.  Yes, we do share that belief.  Yet, there is a substantial portion of our citizenry who claim they are advocates for smaller government at the very same time they demand the State intrude upon the most private and intimate of our affairs.  The Texas case of Marlise and Erik Munoz is a current and graphic case of the inappropriate intrusion of government into the most private, tragic and intimate of decisions.  Texas law places the state above the individual; the state is using Marlise’s dead body as an incubator to get her fetus to viability without regard to the consequences of their actions.  The Munoz case brightly illuminates the dreadful dichotomy in our political debates about contraception, abortion, childhood sex education, et al.  If those who are so bloody convinced the interests of a few dividing cells exceeds the rights of an individual citizen were more focused on the plight of unwanted, neglected or abused children, I might be a little more sympathetic.  Conception and fetal development is not where this debate should be fought; the consequences and violations of our fundamental right to privacy are incalculable and otherwise not acceptable.
 . . . follow-up comment:
“I'd like to start by picking on the statement that the NSA collects "only" the envelope information from emails and phone calls. For a personal example, I am separated from my wife. She's a decent person, but what if she were vindictive or interested in punishing me? The "envelope information" from my phone calls or information from Facebook would tell her that I'm talking to a single lady here. A good lawyer could make that very expensive and embarrassing. What if I were in touch with openly gay organizations? Or ‘radical’ (Green Party) political operatives? Those things can be abused. In my case, I am clergy, protected only by not being mainstream. The fact, if it is true, that the NSA collects only envelope information does not justify the collection. Besides, spies notoriously lie. It's part of the job. They may well be collecting much more information.
“We are not in a war. We are experiencing a thoroughly ordinary method of controlling the population as employed worldwide now and throughout history.
“The case of Marlise Munoz sickens me, and I think I have something to add. Both survivors of lengthy comas and children who are born in extreme medical circumstances tend to have handicaps, often severe ones. My ex worked in a place that houses multi-handicapped people. I guess someone could argue that we cannot read the minds of people who cannot speak or leave this specialized care environment except by ambulance, but I think if we required the those who insist on keeping Marlise's body alive to spend a week or two working in such a facility they would cease arguing that any means whatever must be used to keep people physically alive.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            In both world wars, the USG physically read letters posted by servicemen, regardless of location or assignment.  They actually blacked out or cut out parts of letters they believed compromised operational security.  That degree of intrusion was far more intrusive than BTMP. 
            To fulfill your scenario, the USG would have to go well beyond the BTMP, as I’ve said, I think the USG has done that at least once.  A plausible similar scenario might be an intentional, al-Qa’ida, saturation campaign where they randomly call telephone numbers in the U.S. from known al-Qa’ida telephones in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, et al.  They would be “hits” in the BTMP, which in turn could compromise the privacy of innocent citizens, who are even unaware that they have been engaged.  It would also occupy substantial investigative resources to find the real operatives among all the distraction “contacts.”  There are a myriad of possibilities.
            We do not share the same view of the War on Islamic Fascism.  I do not see evidence of the USG trying to control the American citizenry – risk, yes, but no action, as yet.
            I will argue that Marlise Munoz is NOT alive.  The State has made her a biological incubator.  When the fetus is delivered, her dead body will be discarded.  What is going on in Texas in this case is far worse and more threatening to me than the NSA BTMP threat.  The State has taken over a woman’s dead body and forced her husband and family into a situation of incalculable consequences with absolutely no accountability for those imposed decisions.  The Munoz situation is wrong on so many levels it boggles the imagination . . . all because of a near mindless obsession with a symptom rather than a root cause.  We can only hope saner, more logical minds will eventually prevail.  Unfortunately, Erik Munoz and his family must suffer the burden of this insanity.

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