Update from the Heartland
No.288
11.6.07 – 17.6.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all:
This Saturday, 16.June, the Parlier Family picnic convened in Cambria, California, near San Simeon and the famous Hearst Castle. Jeanne and I accompanied my Mother – now, the matriarch of the family – on the journey to our family conclave. We flew into Monterey, rented a Lincoln Towncar for our driving comfort, and headed off down the Cabrillo Highway – California Route 1 AKA the coast road. To my amazement, neither Mom nor Jeanne had experienced that portion of the old twisty road, like Via Aurelius along the coast of Northwest Italy. Since Mom had not been to Carmel in quite some time and Jeanne had not seen this part of California at all, we decided to have our lunch in the village of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Mom guided us to the Tuck Box Tea Room on Dolores Street, a fairy tale little building with an English heritage and excellent scones.
This Saturday, 16.June, the Parlier Family picnic convened in Cambria, California, near San Simeon and the famous Hearst Castle. Jeanne and I accompanied my Mother – now, the matriarch of the family – on the journey to our family conclave. We flew into Monterey, rented a Lincoln Towncar for our driving comfort, and headed off down the Cabrillo Highway – California Route 1 AKA the coast road. To my amazement, neither Mom nor Jeanne had experienced that portion of the old twisty road, like Via Aurelius along the coast of Northwest Italy. Since Mom had not been to Carmel in quite some time and Jeanne had not seen this part of California at all, we decided to have our lunch in the village of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Mom guided us to the Tuck Box Tea Room on Dolores Street, a fairy tale little building with an English heritage and excellent scones.
[Mom&JeanneTuckBox 070615.jpg – After Lunch at the Tuck Box] We did stop to see Great Aunt Lucy’s home; may God rest her soul. Unfortunately, lunch put us a little tight on our schedule for a planned dinner with some of the family Friday night, so we were not able to stop at the numerous vista turnouts for dramatic images of the coastline; so, no scenery images to show. If you have never driven the coast road of California between Monterey and Santa Barbara, you must put it on your list of things to do. We did manage to get a few images of the coastline and beach at Shamel Park in Cambria.
[CA coast north 070616.jpg – California coastline at Cambria looking north]
And, of course, I must have an image on my lovely wife Jeanne on the beach, actually the south portion of the beach at the park.
[Jeanne on beach 070616.jpg – As the file name suggests]
We tried to gather up the four generations of family in attendance for a photograph to record the event. This is the best image I have on our camera. Many of the children are off playing, some of the adults were tending the children, and yours truly took the photograph.
As forecast, Senator Charles Schumer of New York introduced a non-binding, sense of the Senate resolution [S.J.Res.14] proclaiming no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The vote (53-38-1-7) failed to achieve the 3/5 majority necessary for passage. This little episode was political theater, plain and simple. Even if it had passed, there would be little, if any, consequence beyond the silly season of presidential election politics. I remain quite critical of Gonzales' abysmal mismanagement of the U.S. attorney firing fiasco, but this nonsense by a congress that has far more important tasks at hand leaves me disgusted even more.
An odd thought in the on-going debate of our consumption of fossil fuels, i.e., petroleum (oil), bubbles to the fore in a wide variety of venues – dependence, international politics, global warming, economic oppression, et al. A finite quantity of natural petroleum exists. Synthetic petroleum has been around for decades; the Germans relied heavily on synthetic oil as the Allies progressively choked off their supply of natural petroleum. Bio-fuels, primarily ethanol-based fuels, seem to be quite the rage now and appear to be a worthy alternative as is being demonstrated in Brazil. And, in normal, routine conditions, supply and demand drive the market place. Consider, if you will, what might happen as oil supplies diminish, become harder to extract, or disappear outright. The technologically advanced countries will invent new fuel systems that do not use a drop of natural oil. Where will that leave the less technologically advanced nations? An interesting question to contemplate, don’t you think?
Sixteen months ago, the sacred Shia shrine in Samarra, Iraq – the Golden Dome mosque – was bombed. [220] On Wednesday, the holy site was attacked, again, this time destroying the last remaining minaret from the original structure prior to the 2006 attack. I believed then as I do today that attacks like these are the operations of al-Qaeda in Iraq. There is only one objective I can see – ensure sectarian violence maintains a roiling boil to hold and consume Americans and our allies. Al-Qaeda needs to deflect Sunni operations against them, to otherwise occupy the Sunnis defending themselves against Shia reprisals. Time is running out.
The hits just keep coming. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in the case of al-Marri v. Wright [4CCA no. 06-7427] -- yet another habeas corpus judicial pronouncement that appears destined for the Supremes. Here, the appeals court reversed a district court judgment in a 2-1 decision, finding that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri -- a legal, resident alien, university student -- had been unconstitutionally detained as an "enemy combatant." The Qatari native was apprehended peacefully in Peoria, Illinois. Several issues concerned the appeals court including al-Marri’s detention by military authorities vice civil law enforcement. However, the heart of the court’s judgment hinged upon the definition of an “enemy combatant.” When we compare the majority’s rationale with the dissent’s reasoning, the ruling offers the best contrast, so far, of the consequences associated with that basic definition, and in the broader sense, of not defining our enemy in the War on Islamic Fascism as well as not obtaining a declaration of war on the stateless, transnational, Islamic, fundamentalist jihadistanis. The enemy is not just al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but rather all those fundamentalist radical Muslims who espouse violence to attain their objectives; these enemies include clerics, politicians, children, businessmen, students, and even pregnant women. By not precisely defining our enemy, we allow the wider inclusion of worldwide terrorism in general. Terrorism has existed for the millennia of human history and exists across the globe. Case in point, Timothy McViegh was a domestic terrorist (1995). There were misty conspiracy rumors floating about regarding accomplices including even more fuzzy foreign connections. However, to my knowledge, links beyond those proven in court were never alleged or proven. The McVeigh case found the proper conclusion via the criminal justice system, and incarceration of McVeigh as a detainee like al-Marri would have been wrong. On the other hand, if McVeigh had acted on behalf of al-Qaeda, as appears to be the case with al-Marri, Padilla, et al, then he would have been an agent for a foreign enemy and should have been treated as an "enemy combatant" as Herbert Hans Haupt was in ex parte Quirin [317 U.S. 1 (1942)]. [170] To be fair, the counter-case often cited – ex parte Milligan [71 U.S. 2 (1866)] – must not be overlooked or ignored, and it was Milligan that the majority favored in the al-Marri case. Similarly, we must answer the question: is a resident alien, computer hacker in association with or acting on behalf of al-Qaeda, either directly or indirectly, simply a common criminal or an enemy combatant on a modern battlefield with a theater of operations being cyberspace? Beyond the definition question, we have a more pragmatic and burdensome question; what if Usama bin Laden directed his army of adherents to enter the United States, commit simple or common crimes, to saturation our criminal judicial system, and ultimately to contaminate a body of disgruntled and disenfranchised convicts? The sad reality reflected in this case illuminates how in the paucity of a clearly defined war footing we suffer a Judiciary that has no choice but to assume civil jurisprudence. The court’s ruling is replete with legal references that do not recognize the extraordinary war powers of the Executive or the compromised status of aliens inside the United States, or even citizens, acting as agents for our enemies. The 4th Circuit addressed the legal issues in this case as a routine squabble between the government and a resident alien, rather than between a wartime government charged with defending the nation and a foreign national in this country acting on behalf of a stateless, transnational organization sworn to our destruction. This is not the court’s error, but rather the Executive’s failure. As a consequence of these ambiguities – of being at war but not clearly recognized as at war or with an identifiable enemy – the administration has placed inordinate burden on the Judiciary. This is a case that graphically demonstrates some of the consequences of not having a full declaration of war – ambiguity abounds. Sadly, when we set aside the serious legal issues, the government’s conduct in this case could pass for an episode of the Keystone Cops. Far worse than the implications and consequences of the al-Marri case, my reaction is an admixture of remorse, anger, disgust and resentment, as our power, focus and treasure is squandered in such an inept manner. And, the administration ignorantly wonders why the support of We, the People, continues to wane. One last thought in all this . . . blind loyalty to George W. Bush does not constitute competence in any of the vast array of professional skills demanded of proper Federal governance. How much more punishment must we endure? Lastly, I must commend U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, sitting on the Circuit Court by special appointment, for his succinct and cogent dissent in the al-Marri case, with which I respectfully and sincerely agree.
In an unusual departure from precedent, I offer the following anecdote attributed to senior comedian George Carlin:
George Carlin's Solution to Save Gasoline:
“Bush wants us to cut the amount of gas we use.
“The best way to stop using so much gas is to deport 11 million illegal immigrants!
“That would be 11 million less people using our gas. The price of gas would come down.
“Bring our troops home from Iraq to guard the border. When they catch an illegal immigrant crossing the border, hand him a canteen, rifle and some ammo and ship him to Iraq. Tell him if he wants to come to America then he must serve a tour in the military. Give him a soldier's pay while he's there and tax him on it.
“After his tour, he will be allowed to become a citizen since he defended this country. He will also be registered to be taxed and be a legal patriot. This option will probably deter illegal immigration and provide a solution for the troops in Iraq and the aliens trying to make a better life for themselves. If they refuse to serve, ship them to Iraq anyway, without the canteen, rifle or ammo. Problem solved.”
-- George Carlin
Truth is, we have heard citations of more than a few immigrants who volunteered to take up arms on behalf of the United States, and having served honorably, they are now full citizens of this Grand Republic. George’s comedy sketch is not that far off.
Comments and contributions from Update no.287:
"Scooter will likely get his pardon before GW leaves office. Meanwhile he is likely NOT going to Attica, Sing Sing, Rikers on Staten Island, etc. But he won't make it out near as fast as Paris Hilton did.
"I also am sorry Pace did not measure up in Sec Def's mind. I may have said back when he was nominated that Bush figured him to be one to go along but that I bet he would not. I may have been wrong on that – or – Pace tried to straddle the fence. That's always a most difficult thing to do. Anyway, he's out of there; likely now to retirement.
"In MY opinion, if Sunnis are fighting al-Qaeda then they have there own motives in mind. Likely not ones WE would approve of.
"I generally go with Powell on what he says. So I will this time too."
My reply:
I don’t know that I disagree with Colin Powell in this instance. However, unless there is a clear action plan for holding the detainees out of action for the duration of this war, then I must strongly disagree. Further, I am not in favor of allowing detainees access to our criminal judicial process; they are more akin to POWs than criminals.
Risky step . . . arming the Sunni Iraqis. However, if they help rid Iraq of foreign fighters, we can leave. If they choose to turn the guns on each other, that’s their business. We shall see how it turns out.
Another contribution:
"[Pace] writing a letter of reference for Scooter Libby has been cited as one reason, perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back. No matter what one's opinion on Libby, the feeling was that someone in General Pace's situation should not have written such a letter. That combined with comments he had made on gays- not just on serving, but on his personal opinions with regard to gays - and his not knowing how many had been killed in Iraq during a Memorial Day event made reconfirmation hearings a potential ordeal.
"Also, many military in this town are not happy with him - especially in his relationship to Rumsfeld. Many Marines I have talked to are very disappointed in Pace. You are right - Gates did what he had to do. At least there will be a Marine at deputy ChJSC, Hoss Cartwright, a Marine aviator."
My response:
I think you hit the nail squarely. Sometimes generals forget they are just human beings like the rest of us, and they forget they are representatives of the civilian politicos. Best they stick to the professional stuff.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
[Parlier Family 070616.jpg – Parlier Family picnic – June 2007]
Other photographs were taken; however, none of those are available for the Update. Thus, these images will have to suffice. Next year . . . Oregon . . . so they say. As it is for most of us, what a treasure it is to see aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, and all those who have joined our family. Life is good.As forecast, Senator Charles Schumer of New York introduced a non-binding, sense of the Senate resolution [S.J.Res.14] proclaiming no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The vote (53-38-1-7) failed to achieve the 3/5 majority necessary for passage. This little episode was political theater, plain and simple. Even if it had passed, there would be little, if any, consequence beyond the silly season of presidential election politics. I remain quite critical of Gonzales' abysmal mismanagement of the U.S. attorney firing fiasco, but this nonsense by a congress that has far more important tasks at hand leaves me disgusted even more.
An odd thought in the on-going debate of our consumption of fossil fuels, i.e., petroleum (oil), bubbles to the fore in a wide variety of venues – dependence, international politics, global warming, economic oppression, et al. A finite quantity of natural petroleum exists. Synthetic petroleum has been around for decades; the Germans relied heavily on synthetic oil as the Allies progressively choked off their supply of natural petroleum. Bio-fuels, primarily ethanol-based fuels, seem to be quite the rage now and appear to be a worthy alternative as is being demonstrated in Brazil. And, in normal, routine conditions, supply and demand drive the market place. Consider, if you will, what might happen as oil supplies diminish, become harder to extract, or disappear outright. The technologically advanced countries will invent new fuel systems that do not use a drop of natural oil. Where will that leave the less technologically advanced nations? An interesting question to contemplate, don’t you think?
Sixteen months ago, the sacred Shia shrine in Samarra, Iraq – the Golden Dome mosque – was bombed. [220] On Wednesday, the holy site was attacked, again, this time destroying the last remaining minaret from the original structure prior to the 2006 attack. I believed then as I do today that attacks like these are the operations of al-Qaeda in Iraq. There is only one objective I can see – ensure sectarian violence maintains a roiling boil to hold and consume Americans and our allies. Al-Qaeda needs to deflect Sunni operations against them, to otherwise occupy the Sunnis defending themselves against Shia reprisals. Time is running out.
The hits just keep coming. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in the case of al-Marri v. Wright [4CCA no. 06-7427] -- yet another habeas corpus judicial pronouncement that appears destined for the Supremes. Here, the appeals court reversed a district court judgment in a 2-1 decision, finding that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri -- a legal, resident alien, university student -- had been unconstitutionally detained as an "enemy combatant." The Qatari native was apprehended peacefully in Peoria, Illinois. Several issues concerned the appeals court including al-Marri’s detention by military authorities vice civil law enforcement. However, the heart of the court’s judgment hinged upon the definition of an “enemy combatant.” When we compare the majority’s rationale with the dissent’s reasoning, the ruling offers the best contrast, so far, of the consequences associated with that basic definition, and in the broader sense, of not defining our enemy in the War on Islamic Fascism as well as not obtaining a declaration of war on the stateless, transnational, Islamic, fundamentalist jihadistanis. The enemy is not just al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but rather all those fundamentalist radical Muslims who espouse violence to attain their objectives; these enemies include clerics, politicians, children, businessmen, students, and even pregnant women. By not precisely defining our enemy, we allow the wider inclusion of worldwide terrorism in general. Terrorism has existed for the millennia of human history and exists across the globe. Case in point, Timothy McViegh was a domestic terrorist (1995). There were misty conspiracy rumors floating about regarding accomplices including even more fuzzy foreign connections. However, to my knowledge, links beyond those proven in court were never alleged or proven. The McVeigh case found the proper conclusion via the criminal justice system, and incarceration of McVeigh as a detainee like al-Marri would have been wrong. On the other hand, if McVeigh had acted on behalf of al-Qaeda, as appears to be the case with al-Marri, Padilla, et al, then he would have been an agent for a foreign enemy and should have been treated as an "enemy combatant" as Herbert Hans Haupt was in ex parte Quirin [317 U.S. 1 (1942)]. [170] To be fair, the counter-case often cited – ex parte Milligan [71 U.S. 2 (1866)] – must not be overlooked or ignored, and it was Milligan that the majority favored in the al-Marri case. Similarly, we must answer the question: is a resident alien, computer hacker in association with or acting on behalf of al-Qaeda, either directly or indirectly, simply a common criminal or an enemy combatant on a modern battlefield with a theater of operations being cyberspace? Beyond the definition question, we have a more pragmatic and burdensome question; what if Usama bin Laden directed his army of adherents to enter the United States, commit simple or common crimes, to saturation our criminal judicial system, and ultimately to contaminate a body of disgruntled and disenfranchised convicts? The sad reality reflected in this case illuminates how in the paucity of a clearly defined war footing we suffer a Judiciary that has no choice but to assume civil jurisprudence. The court’s ruling is replete with legal references that do not recognize the extraordinary war powers of the Executive or the compromised status of aliens inside the United States, or even citizens, acting as agents for our enemies. The 4th Circuit addressed the legal issues in this case as a routine squabble between the government and a resident alien, rather than between a wartime government charged with defending the nation and a foreign national in this country acting on behalf of a stateless, transnational organization sworn to our destruction. This is not the court’s error, but rather the Executive’s failure. As a consequence of these ambiguities – of being at war but not clearly recognized as at war or with an identifiable enemy – the administration has placed inordinate burden on the Judiciary. This is a case that graphically demonstrates some of the consequences of not having a full declaration of war – ambiguity abounds. Sadly, when we set aside the serious legal issues, the government’s conduct in this case could pass for an episode of the Keystone Cops. Far worse than the implications and consequences of the al-Marri case, my reaction is an admixture of remorse, anger, disgust and resentment, as our power, focus and treasure is squandered in such an inept manner. And, the administration ignorantly wonders why the support of We, the People, continues to wane. One last thought in all this . . . blind loyalty to George W. Bush does not constitute competence in any of the vast array of professional skills demanded of proper Federal governance. How much more punishment must we endure? Lastly, I must commend U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, sitting on the Circuit Court by special appointment, for his succinct and cogent dissent in the al-Marri case, with which I respectfully and sincerely agree.
In an unusual departure from precedent, I offer the following anecdote attributed to senior comedian George Carlin:
George Carlin's Solution to Save Gasoline:
“Bush wants us to cut the amount of gas we use.
“The best way to stop using so much gas is to deport 11 million illegal immigrants!
“That would be 11 million less people using our gas. The price of gas would come down.
“Bring our troops home from Iraq to guard the border. When they catch an illegal immigrant crossing the border, hand him a canteen, rifle and some ammo and ship him to Iraq. Tell him if he wants to come to America then he must serve a tour in the military. Give him a soldier's pay while he's there and tax him on it.
“After his tour, he will be allowed to become a citizen since he defended this country. He will also be registered to be taxed and be a legal patriot. This option will probably deter illegal immigration and provide a solution for the troops in Iraq and the aliens trying to make a better life for themselves. If they refuse to serve, ship them to Iraq anyway, without the canteen, rifle or ammo. Problem solved.”
-- George Carlin
Truth is, we have heard citations of more than a few immigrants who volunteered to take up arms on behalf of the United States, and having served honorably, they are now full citizens of this Grand Republic. George’s comedy sketch is not that far off.
Comments and contributions from Update no.287:
"Scooter will likely get his pardon before GW leaves office. Meanwhile he is likely NOT going to Attica, Sing Sing, Rikers on Staten Island, etc. But he won't make it out near as fast as Paris Hilton did.
"I also am sorry Pace did not measure up in Sec Def's mind. I may have said back when he was nominated that Bush figured him to be one to go along but that I bet he would not. I may have been wrong on that – or – Pace tried to straddle the fence. That's always a most difficult thing to do. Anyway, he's out of there; likely now to retirement.
"In MY opinion, if Sunnis are fighting al-Qaeda then they have there own motives in mind. Likely not ones WE would approve of.
"I generally go with Powell on what he says. So I will this time too."
My reply:
I don’t know that I disagree with Colin Powell in this instance. However, unless there is a clear action plan for holding the detainees out of action for the duration of this war, then I must strongly disagree. Further, I am not in favor of allowing detainees access to our criminal judicial process; they are more akin to POWs than criminals.
Risky step . . . arming the Sunni Iraqis. However, if they help rid Iraq of foreign fighters, we can leave. If they choose to turn the guns on each other, that’s their business. We shall see how it turns out.
Another contribution:
"[Pace] writing a letter of reference for Scooter Libby has been cited as one reason, perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back. No matter what one's opinion on Libby, the feeling was that someone in General Pace's situation should not have written such a letter. That combined with comments he had made on gays- not just on serving, but on his personal opinions with regard to gays - and his not knowing how many had been killed in Iraq during a Memorial Day event made reconfirmation hearings a potential ordeal.
"Also, many military in this town are not happy with him - especially in his relationship to Rumsfeld. Many Marines I have talked to are very disappointed in Pace. You are right - Gates did what he had to do. At least there will be a Marine at deputy ChJSC, Hoss Cartwright, a Marine aviator."
My response:
I think you hit the nail squarely. Sometimes generals forget they are just human beings like the rest of us, and they forget they are representatives of the civilian politicos. Best they stick to the professional stuff.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment