To all,
I was invited to give the spring commencement speech for the combined Webster University and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University graduation ceremony. Both institutions are the extended campuses located on McConnell Air Force Base, here in Wichita. Most of the graduates obtained master's degrees, and were military personnel, civil servants, family members and others. My speech, for those who might care about such things, focused on several key phrases in my life.
"Knowledge is power" - Sir Francis Bacon
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary; it fulfils the same function as pain in the human body, it calls attention to the development of an unhealthy state of things"
-- Sir Winston Churchill
"Manage Things, Lead People" -- Admiral Grace Hooper
And, passion is the cement that binds the blocks in a strong foundation. Anyway, such are the philosophical meanderings of a humble mind. Thank you, Keith, for the opportunity.
Follow-up news items:
-- In the continuing sordid saga of the U.S. attorney firings, Michael J. Elston – chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty [284] – became the fifth senior Justice Department executive to resign his post. Death by a thousand cuts, it seems. [268, 270, 273]
-- The International Space Station managed to eventually and successfully reboot their primary on-board computers, precluding an evacuation and allowing Space Shuttle Atlantis to return to Earth. [287] Atlantis landed successfully on Friday at Edwards Air Force Base. Magnificent engineering . . . every time they fly.
-- The President’s unwavering loyalty to Alberto Gonzales stands in stark, vulgar contrast to the paucity of same for Peter Pace. [176] Such are the nuances of politics inside the Beltway and the cult of personalities. In Marine vernacular, Alberto must have a picture of his boss with a goat.
-- True to form, President Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 [S.5] [287] on Wednesday, just as he did the similar bill in 2005. [241] The companion Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act of 2007 [S.30] [287], having passed the Senate, remains stagnant in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce with no identifiable prognosis for action. On the same day, the President released Executive Order 13435, titled: “Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways.” Watching politicians play scientist offers some interesting entertainment.
-- The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act [281-3] has been renamed as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592; S.1105), has passed the House [vote: 237-180-0-16], and been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for consideration. For those who may not remember, Matthew Shepard was a young man brutally murdered (1998) simply because his attackers believed he was homosexual.
A book for your "must-read" list:
Ricks, Thomas E. Fiasco. New York: Penguin Press, 2006.
I finally completed reading Tom’s book, cover to cover, word for word, including the endnotes, and my slowness in completing the read by no means reflects on the writing skills of the author, or the content and importance of the book. Fiasco covers the prelude to the Battle for Iraq and the first two years of our involvement. [252, 270-2] Tom offers detailed interviews at all levels and fills in many of the gaps in the public information. He is also quite critical of the administration and some of the general officers who just did not get it. My take for Tom's book:
1. Grossly inadequate intelligence, especially Human Intelligence.
2. Apparent single-mindedness of the administration.
3. Insufficient troops on the ground.
4. No plan, or a plan that did not recognize the need to fight a counter-insurgency.
5. Improperly trained military to fight a counter-insurgency.
Fiasco is fair, balanced and critical, as any book of this nature should be. Tom gave us a magnificent study of a very painful and difficult subject. Again, Fiasco is a must-read book, if you care about the history of the Battle for Iraq.
Interesting movie – “Breach.” If you know any of the history involving the betrayal of former FBI Special Agent Robert Philip Hanssen (2001), the movie adaptation of Hanssen’s last couple of months of freedom has much to offer . . . even though it is a fictionalization surrounding the public facts. The movie epilogue states that Hanssen is in solitary confinement in the SuperMax prison in Colorado and is only allowed out of his cell for one hour a day. That punishment is far too kind for a man who has done such damage to the security of the United States, but we must recognize that the government had to trade his life for the information he possesses. These are the times in which we live.
The success of the Hamas thugs in Gaza effectively yielded two Palestinian governments – Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared an emergency, dissolved the government, established an emergency cabinet, and called for new elections. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the U.S. intensions to release frozen funding to the Palestinian National Authority (Abbas). President Bush met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week. An intriguing thought came to me . . . imagine, if you will, the Palestinians signing a peace treaty with Israel, and collaterally, Israel, the U.S. and hopefully the E.U. recognizing the State of Palestine; thus, leaving Hamas hanging and isolated. Do you think they could say, Pyrrhic Victory?
Our litigious society continues to fall in the hog trough and it stinks. We have a Washington, DC, lawyer/judge suing a family owned dry cleaners for US$54M (yes, that is a big ‘M’ for million) in damages for misplacing (temporarily we must add) a pair of pants (yes, that is correct; one (1) pair of trousers). Yet, in the class of frivolous legal actions, the lawyer’s pants suit pales in comparison to ACLU v. Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. The American Civil Liberties Union file suit under the seldom used Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) [AKA, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS); 28 U.S.C. §1350], enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73), on behalf of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen,; Elkassim Britel, an Italian citizen; and Ahmed Agiza, an Egyptian citizen – all rendered into the CIA interrogation and confinement system. The heart of the ACLU’s ATCA claim against Jeppesen rests in the alleged flight and logistics planning services provided by the company in support of the CIA’s rendition operations – the same services provided to thousands of companies and individual aviators. The Jeppesen suit has a long way to go through the Judiciary, however I suspect this case is destined for the Supreme Court given the confusing and ambiguous legal state of the War on Islamic Fascism. The ACLU appears to be more about inducing collateral action, i.e., using the judicial process to cower corporations doing business with the government, rather than about serious damage claim litigation. Not surprisingly, the ACLU chose to file their suit in the federal district court of Northern California, and the within the jurisdiction of the consistently most liberal appeals court – the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. This legal action demands close attention for a host of reasons; and yet, I believe it to be just as frivolous as the lawyer’s pants suit, and hopefully, it is dismissed in the first court.
Executive Order 13292, formally titled: "Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, as Amended, Classified National Security Information," issued 25.March.2003 . . . who would have thought a routine administrative order by the chief executive of this Grand Republic could cause such a stir. Section 3.2 directs the Executive branch to transfer their files to the National Archive. The Office of the Vice President has not complied, as yet, and declared he is not part of the Executive branch, and thus did not have to comply with Executive Order 13292, since the Vice President also holds the office of President of the Senate in the Legislative branch. Interesting argument, but what a lame excuse! Despite the faux-rationale for non-compliance, I see a far more onerous issue at hand here. Congress wants the Executive to be as exposed and transparent as possible – some for the public good, but mostly for political gain – and yet, they remain opaque, e.g., earmarks, and place themselves above the laws they pass for all the rest of us. The Executive Order has been in existence for four years, and yet there is a very real reason the Vice President’s non-compliance has flashed into flame now. Let us see the whole picture in this kerfuffle.
I do not know what it is I find so fascinating about judicial pronouncements. Perhaps, it is because they are the most direct statement of one of the essential branches of government, and often the only filter or bulwark defending the rights of all citizens against a willful majority. Some of these cases have profound political significance to all of us. Some have very limited and focused importance. Occasionally, these rulings simply spark my ravenous curiosity. Then, there is a news item unrelated to a court ruling that gets me to dive in. So we have just such a case. Jill Coccaro, now known as Phoenix Feeley, a 27 year-old, New York artist, was arrested on 4.August.2005, in a Rochester public park for her violation of state Penal Law § 245.01, i.e., being a female and exposing the portion of her breast below the top of the aerola. Turns out, young Jill knew more about state law than the arresting police officer. Consequently, the State of New York settled Jill's wrongful arrest suit for US$29,000, last week. Digging into the law, the court ruling that put the police officer crosswise with the law was New York Court of Appeals (the state supreme court) People v. Santorelli [80 N.Y.2d 875], decided 7.July.1992; the decision established the federal and state constitutional equal protection guarantees applied to the women in that case, i.e., what is good for the gander is good for the goose. The issues intertwined here are illustrative of the broader questions of governmental involvement in our lives and definition of the State’s interest in regulating public conduct. One side of the argument cites the State’s interest in maintaining some semblance of public decency and conduct. The other side of the same issue asks where the injury is to the public good. The court considered, even if just in passing, whether the female breast, unique from the male equivalent, is a sexual organ, and thus within the domain of the State’s interest. We have members of our society who prefer no exposed skin showing in public including hands and face. We have other citizens who believe we should all be naked. The balance point rests between the extremes, and successful arguments can be constructed for both extremes. Thus, we find ourselves debating where the line should be drawn, and it is this precise topic that brings me to raise this incident. In this debate, we must decide the proper balance between a citizen's freedom of choice and the bona fide interests of the State . . . therein lies the challenge.
Comments and contributions from Update no.288:
“Uproar continues this side over the treatment of British war injured personnel and their evacuation to hospital. Cited figures put our evacuation rate behind that of your boys in Vietnam. Hotly denied by politicians but over here very few of us believe politicians. They are seen mostly as a race apart from normal decent human beings who command little respect.
“We had some very good scones in a little village north of Adelaide, in fact they were quite splendid. The waiter was, shall I say 'limp wristed' and we all, including him, had a good laugh and extra scones! I delighted to hear that scones have penetrated your side even if Kippers, Brussel Sprouts and Marmite haven't. Or are you going to prove me wrong?”
My reply:
I'm sorry to hear of the less than adequate treatment of British veterans. The facts should be the facts. If the evacuation and survival rates for British soldiers are not comparable to the American rates, the causes should be investigated and corrective action taken. I know American combat field medical services treat anyone and everyone. I imagine British combat medical treatment is comparable. I just do not know about any potential differences in the evacuation process. The American military spends enormous amounts of money to save the lives of every soldier; my oldest son being one of those Marines. I hope the government gets things sorted out, and if there is anything your colonial cousins can do to help, I trust we shall do so.
We can find scones in some establishments. Brussel sprouts are quite common in the U.S.; I have had them since I was a kid; don't care for them much when they are overcooked. While I'm quite familiar with Kippers and Marmite, I doubt any American who has not spent some time in England would be even aware of the unique British foods and condiments. We still buy imported English tea, despite being the catalytic commodity of our collective history from 244 years ago.
Another contribution:
“Thanks for the pictures. That area south to S[anta] B[arbara] has been a real growth spot for the wine industry. They have over a hundred wineries and as you know are making some pretty good product.”
My reply:
I was amazed at the extent of new, well-managed, vineyards on both sides of the road even in the hilly country west of Paso Robles, and my amazement verged on shock at the massive vineyards in the Salinas Valley. The question I kept asking myself was, where is the water coming from? Certainly, the wine business must be doing quite well to have such extensive plantings in a relative dry area. We did not have time to stop to satisfy my curiosity and sample their products. Another time perhaps.
This contribution opened with a news article about Oklahoma State law – Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (House bill 1804) – a sweeping illegal immigration initiative, to which I replied:
Perhaps we are baring witness to the opening salvos of a new civil war of sorts . . . the states v. the Feds.
. . . round two:
“I think that you are. Some states, liberal (Massachusetts) and conservative (Oklahoma and others) are tired of being dictated to by Congress to do certainly things, and then no money is provided to accomplish the objective. The second point is that Congress no longer responds to the concerns of the conservatives and those states are unwilling to put up with it any longer. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. The three major points as I see it are: gay marriages, immigration, and the emphases on global warming (cars and gasoline, manufacturing, electrical power, and use of the state's resources.)
. . . my response to round two:
You have offered some appropriate observations, it seems to me. None of us appreciates having our behavior, conduct or morals dictated to us, especially when others tell us what we must do and do not provide the resources to accomplish the dicta. I understand the societal or national significance of immigration and global warming; both affect virtually all of us, directly and indirectly, and on both sides of the issue. I do not understand how gay marriage fits into that league of societal concerns, as yet. Your thoughts on these issues are always appreciated.
. . . round three:
“I think that gay marriage affects 100% of the population. Not all, however, are concerned about it to the same degree, but nearly 100% are affected by it either economically in the case of benefits given or not given to same sex relationships regardless of formalization.
“Witness the firestorm that Disney was involved in when people of the same sex, living together, were granted the same benefits as couples who were married. The end result now is that any two people who tell Disney they are living together, now feel entitled to all the health and retirement benefits of a couple who is legally recognized as married. The legal nightmare that is evolving when these people are no longer "living together" is becoming a morass of entanglements.
“Most courts are unsure as to what is considered legally bound together and what is not, who is entitled to what benefits and how much, and how do you treat loss of mental competency in one partner. States have a vested interest in how these issues affect its citizens.
“The latest studies show over 75% of the population in the US considers themselves "Christian" in some form or another and another 3% are Jewish. I would guess that nearly 100% of the people who believe in religion in some form or another have heard about homosexuality-either for or against or non-committed. Marriage or partnership as a basic tenet in all religions is based on some form of male and female inter-relationships. Any discussion of homosexual relationships, either for or against, will be exposed to most people in the US, whether they are concerned or not. Many people are worried about the future of the family, and family means to most a male/female relationship-legally bound or not, and anything that is not familiar to them will be viewed with suspicion.
“Many people seem to have decided that governments should help them decide on what’s right and what’s wrong and since they feel most churches and the Federal government are not taking a strong stand on global warming caused by people and illegal aliens by the millions, citizens are turning to their state legislators, to whom they can personally talk, for help in clarifying issues. I do not think that governments should be the source of all wisdom, but the Federal government, especially Congress, is going out of its way to ignore the public, and people are turning to their state and local governments for help.
“Those are my reasons for feeling that gay marriage fits into the league of societal concerns such as global warming and immigration.”
. . . my response to round three:
As I read your words, there appears to be two areas of concern: benefits and family. You also raise the related issue of seeking solutions in governmental action. The New York Court of Appeals Hernandez v. Robles [1 no. 86 (2006)] [240] ruling referred to a study listing 316 tangible benefits to marriage. I have not found and thus not been able to review the reported list. However, I think it safe to say that benefits do exist for those citizens who seek a state sanction of their relationship. Intellectually, the State does have an interest in encouraging stable family units for procreation and raising children to be peaceful, law-abiding, productive citizens themselves. There are also intangible benefits such as recognition of a relationship and all that entails. The motivation for my opinions regarding marriage grows from several keys elements: 1.) the outright hypocrisy regarding the State’s protection of its interests, and 2.) the need to treat all citizens equally with respect to the social factors. I acknowledge that a citizen’s right to equal protection under the law is often in conflict with the State’s interests, and this is one of those areas of conflict. The court’s reticence to invoke equal protection for homosexuals reflects the struggle to reconcile the elements of tension in this arena. Very few state legislatures or the Congress appear willing to stand up to the reconciliation task. It seems much easier to fall back on tradition and ignore the realities of failure. As a result, I espouse our protection of the rights of all citizens in lieu of some notional interest that the State has repeatedly and continuously failed to protect. A large portion of our ancestral citizenry sought to maintain eugenic racial purity by subjugation, segregation and persecution of a minority group of other citizens. So, rather than discriminate against a small segment of our citizenry, I suggest we defend the rights of all citizens and boil down the State’s interest into proper public concern and exclude the private behavior that should be beyond our intellectual outrage.
We can easily extend this familial debate to that of lawful immigration and national security. I do not see much difference. I have used the analogy of defending my home to that of defending the nation. The realities are the same. I believe some of those who come to this country seek citizenship, to participate in the American dream. Another portion seeks economic improvement for their families. And, a relatively small element comes here for nefarious reasons from petty crime to Islamic fascism. The challenge of the current debate rests in encouragement of the first two groups while eliminating the third group. A similar argument can be constructed extending the economic and societal disparity worldwide . . . one of the environmental factors that lead to radicalism. One purpose of government is the solution of societal, community, public problems. Where we go crosswise with our Founding principles occurs when we allow moral projection into the private lives of citizens to distract and cloud our bona fide public interests. The Judiciary is the worst or most wrong branch to deal with societal change. The Legislative branch is the proper venue for community change. And yet, we have not yet found a stable, supportive and sustainable condition for legislative conduct. Thus, the court is thrust into the role of reconciliation between improper legislative action and our most fundamental Founding principles, which we have yet to protect for ALL our citizens. Just as I believe that border security, a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, and protection of the rights of all citizens must come first, I also believe that we can sort out how to define and protect the State’s interest(s).
. . . round four:
“Your analogy of immigration and security to the home is exactly what I was poorly trying to express when dealing with gay marriage. People are tired of the Feds doing nothing and have turned to the states for action. The liberal states are trying to seek local liberal solutions in all three areas (immigration, homeland security, and gay marriages) and run up against a fairly strong conservative constituency and the conservative states are trying to react to the three areas in a strong conservative fashion and end up bucking some courts and a vocal liberal press.
“When people are frustrated by lack of action by the Feds and can't get clear definitive action by the states, they look backwards in history to a time of comfort and that's what they wish for and ask for, ergo, "The way it used to be." I believe that poorly defined change is worse to people than no change at all.
“Until some clearly worded attempts at positively solving each of the three areas are proposed, no meaningful discussion will take place; all talk will skirt the issues and talk about tangential problems. As Don Adams used to say in Get Smart, ‘It's the old rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic bit.’”
. . . my reply to round four:
Well said. And, states should define the public environment and public conduct they wish. I write this week about the NY woman who got $29K for false arrest; seems NY allows women to go topless in public . . . equal treatment for men & women. Some states have the right to raise the bar on public decency, as it should be. The hard part comes in defining the line between public & private, and between citizen’s rights & state’s interests. We have a long way to go in proper governance and respect for individual rights. Federalism has long been off the tracks. Perhaps this is the beginning of the process of reigning in Federalism. We shall see.
Another contribution:
“Re Gonzales: Former Presidents have fired the entire lot of Federal DA's. (Or at least one has). To then install their own choices. So why is THIS firing of 9 or so all that different and newsworthy.
“All high tech countries will use oil and oil-based products for as long as they last-----and likely will not get really serious about alternatives until well beyond the crucial time to do that.“The various Muslim sects, like Sunni, Shiite, etc, etc, do not interest me nor do I care if they fight each other for the next 200 years. BUT----I do care about our troops being put in harm's way, where some get killed and some gravely wounded almost every day, to try and mitigate or moderate or influence in any real way how peoples of so vastly different beliefs go about their lives and power struggles. They have a LOT of oil! That is why I think. We want to ensure access to that oil at hopefully a reasonable price.
“So Pvt Smith, LCpl Davies,Sgt Mendoza, and Lt Branson all have to die in that fight. And many more of their buddies and fellow fighters will be scarred for life from wounds received in a war they did not start but did agree to fight in because of love of country, and a LOT of other much more mundane reasons. But they did go out to the pointy end of the sword when they did not have to go there. We owe them!!!
“And just what will the USA ACTUALLY do to honor them, take care of them? My guess is that it will change from time to time as political parties win the Congress and White House, and then set their own most important agendas. We may well find that our best and bravest get left behind in the dust of "other" political stuff. Won't be the first time.
“I can't effectively address the McVey vs. other categories of terrorists. So I won't.
“I too am sorry Pace did not last. I think it was not because of his actual ability but maybe because of how he decided to play that very delicate game up there in the hallowed halls. Many have been there. Some survived, for varying reasons. Others did not---also for varying reasons. That's how it is up there.
“None of it would be for me. I avoided Wash DC entirely all my career, and may well have cut off any chance of going further than I did. But I'm glad I did what I did.”
My response:
Asking for the resignations of direct staff and appointees is quite common in government and academia. Perhaps even other presidents have selectively fired U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons. That is not the issue here. It is the way it was handled, the attempted cover-up, and the implications by the conduct of the administration that justice is political. While it very well may be, I resent being slapped in the face with it; thus, my opinions.
My point in my opinion on oil & technology was perhaps not thoroughly stated. I believe we will invent, develop and use new technology to replace fossil fuel systems when it makes economic sense, and we appear to be close to that point. Doing so may increase the disparity between 1st & 3rd world countries, and thus increase the violence in the world.
Some cultures have used violence to settle disagreements for many millennia and still do. I have no problem with them killing each other, if that is their culture. But, when they export that violence or inflict injuries on innocent third parties, then I have a problem. I do not want our troops involved in sectarian, internecine violence, but in Iraq & Afghanistan, we are talking about some portion of the violence, perhaps even the majority, being caused or induced by outsiders, i.e., al-Qaeda in Iraq. It’s messy, but I think we must do our best to help Iraq defend itself and keep foreigners out. We are walking a very thin line, and I’m afraid the patience of the American People is wearing even thinner. Yes, indeed, we owe our troops enormously for the dirty job they have been ordered to perform. But, I still believe it is essential and necessary.
Peter Pace got the short shaft, but that is life at those levels. I think it was his statements on political topics outside his profession and assignment that were probably his final undoing. Democrat control of Congress did not help. Nonetheless, he took the high and honorable road. May God bless him for his service to this Grand Republic.
The closest I got to service in Washington was my tour at Pax River, and that was plenty close enough for me . . . way too many trips into NavAir and HQMC. Fortunately, I was just a little peon in the back of the room.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
I was invited to give the spring commencement speech for the combined Webster University and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University graduation ceremony. Both institutions are the extended campuses located on McConnell Air Force Base, here in Wichita. Most of the graduates obtained master's degrees, and were military personnel, civil servants, family members and others. My speech, for those who might care about such things, focused on several key phrases in my life.
"Knowledge is power" - Sir Francis Bacon
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary; it fulfils the same function as pain in the human body, it calls attention to the development of an unhealthy state of things"
-- Sir Winston Churchill
"Manage Things, Lead People" -- Admiral Grace Hooper
And, passion is the cement that binds the blocks in a strong foundation. Anyway, such are the philosophical meanderings of a humble mind. Thank you, Keith, for the opportunity.
Follow-up news items:
-- In the continuing sordid saga of the U.S. attorney firings, Michael J. Elston – chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty [284] – became the fifth senior Justice Department executive to resign his post. Death by a thousand cuts, it seems. [268, 270, 273]
-- The International Space Station managed to eventually and successfully reboot their primary on-board computers, precluding an evacuation and allowing Space Shuttle Atlantis to return to Earth. [287] Atlantis landed successfully on Friday at Edwards Air Force Base. Magnificent engineering . . . every time they fly.
-- The President’s unwavering loyalty to Alberto Gonzales stands in stark, vulgar contrast to the paucity of same for Peter Pace. [176] Such are the nuances of politics inside the Beltway and the cult of personalities. In Marine vernacular, Alberto must have a picture of his boss with a goat.
-- True to form, President Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 [S.5] [287] on Wednesday, just as he did the similar bill in 2005. [241] The companion Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act of 2007 [S.30] [287], having passed the Senate, remains stagnant in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce with no identifiable prognosis for action. On the same day, the President released Executive Order 13435, titled: “Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways.” Watching politicians play scientist offers some interesting entertainment.
-- The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act [281-3] has been renamed as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592; S.1105), has passed the House [vote: 237-180-0-16], and been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for consideration. For those who may not remember, Matthew Shepard was a young man brutally murdered (1998) simply because his attackers believed he was homosexual.
A book for your "must-read" list:
Ricks, Thomas E. Fiasco. New York: Penguin Press, 2006.
I finally completed reading Tom’s book, cover to cover, word for word, including the endnotes, and my slowness in completing the read by no means reflects on the writing skills of the author, or the content and importance of the book. Fiasco covers the prelude to the Battle for Iraq and the first two years of our involvement. [252, 270-2] Tom offers detailed interviews at all levels and fills in many of the gaps in the public information. He is also quite critical of the administration and some of the general officers who just did not get it. My take for Tom's book:
1. Grossly inadequate intelligence, especially Human Intelligence.
2. Apparent single-mindedness of the administration.
3. Insufficient troops on the ground.
4. No plan, or a plan that did not recognize the need to fight a counter-insurgency.
5. Improperly trained military to fight a counter-insurgency.
Fiasco is fair, balanced and critical, as any book of this nature should be. Tom gave us a magnificent study of a very painful and difficult subject. Again, Fiasco is a must-read book, if you care about the history of the Battle for Iraq.
Interesting movie – “Breach.” If you know any of the history involving the betrayal of former FBI Special Agent Robert Philip Hanssen (2001), the movie adaptation of Hanssen’s last couple of months of freedom has much to offer . . . even though it is a fictionalization surrounding the public facts. The movie epilogue states that Hanssen is in solitary confinement in the SuperMax prison in Colorado and is only allowed out of his cell for one hour a day. That punishment is far too kind for a man who has done such damage to the security of the United States, but we must recognize that the government had to trade his life for the information he possesses. These are the times in which we live.
The success of the Hamas thugs in Gaza effectively yielded two Palestinian governments – Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared an emergency, dissolved the government, established an emergency cabinet, and called for new elections. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the U.S. intensions to release frozen funding to the Palestinian National Authority (Abbas). President Bush met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week. An intriguing thought came to me . . . imagine, if you will, the Palestinians signing a peace treaty with Israel, and collaterally, Israel, the U.S. and hopefully the E.U. recognizing the State of Palestine; thus, leaving Hamas hanging and isolated. Do you think they could say, Pyrrhic Victory?
Our litigious society continues to fall in the hog trough and it stinks. We have a Washington, DC, lawyer/judge suing a family owned dry cleaners for US$54M (yes, that is a big ‘M’ for million) in damages for misplacing (temporarily we must add) a pair of pants (yes, that is correct; one (1) pair of trousers). Yet, in the class of frivolous legal actions, the lawyer’s pants suit pales in comparison to ACLU v. Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. The American Civil Liberties Union file suit under the seldom used Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) [AKA, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS); 28 U.S.C. §1350], enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73), on behalf of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen,; Elkassim Britel, an Italian citizen; and Ahmed Agiza, an Egyptian citizen – all rendered into the CIA interrogation and confinement system. The heart of the ACLU’s ATCA claim against Jeppesen rests in the alleged flight and logistics planning services provided by the company in support of the CIA’s rendition operations – the same services provided to thousands of companies and individual aviators. The Jeppesen suit has a long way to go through the Judiciary, however I suspect this case is destined for the Supreme Court given the confusing and ambiguous legal state of the War on Islamic Fascism. The ACLU appears to be more about inducing collateral action, i.e., using the judicial process to cower corporations doing business with the government, rather than about serious damage claim litigation. Not surprisingly, the ACLU chose to file their suit in the federal district court of Northern California, and the within the jurisdiction of the consistently most liberal appeals court – the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. This legal action demands close attention for a host of reasons; and yet, I believe it to be just as frivolous as the lawyer’s pants suit, and hopefully, it is dismissed in the first court.
Executive Order 13292, formally titled: "Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, as Amended, Classified National Security Information," issued 25.March.2003 . . . who would have thought a routine administrative order by the chief executive of this Grand Republic could cause such a stir. Section 3.2 directs the Executive branch to transfer their files to the National Archive. The Office of the Vice President has not complied, as yet, and declared he is not part of the Executive branch, and thus did not have to comply with Executive Order 13292, since the Vice President also holds the office of President of the Senate in the Legislative branch. Interesting argument, but what a lame excuse! Despite the faux-rationale for non-compliance, I see a far more onerous issue at hand here. Congress wants the Executive to be as exposed and transparent as possible – some for the public good, but mostly for political gain – and yet, they remain opaque, e.g., earmarks, and place themselves above the laws they pass for all the rest of us. The Executive Order has been in existence for four years, and yet there is a very real reason the Vice President’s non-compliance has flashed into flame now. Let us see the whole picture in this kerfuffle.
I do not know what it is I find so fascinating about judicial pronouncements. Perhaps, it is because they are the most direct statement of one of the essential branches of government, and often the only filter or bulwark defending the rights of all citizens against a willful majority. Some of these cases have profound political significance to all of us. Some have very limited and focused importance. Occasionally, these rulings simply spark my ravenous curiosity. Then, there is a news item unrelated to a court ruling that gets me to dive in. So we have just such a case. Jill Coccaro, now known as Phoenix Feeley, a 27 year-old, New York artist, was arrested on 4.August.2005, in a Rochester public park for her violation of state Penal Law § 245.01, i.e., being a female and exposing the portion of her breast below the top of the aerola. Turns out, young Jill knew more about state law than the arresting police officer. Consequently, the State of New York settled Jill's wrongful arrest suit for US$29,000, last week. Digging into the law, the court ruling that put the police officer crosswise with the law was New York Court of Appeals (the state supreme court) People v. Santorelli [80 N.Y.2d 875], decided 7.July.1992; the decision established the federal and state constitutional equal protection guarantees applied to the women in that case, i.e., what is good for the gander is good for the goose. The issues intertwined here are illustrative of the broader questions of governmental involvement in our lives and definition of the State’s interest in regulating public conduct. One side of the argument cites the State’s interest in maintaining some semblance of public decency and conduct. The other side of the same issue asks where the injury is to the public good. The court considered, even if just in passing, whether the female breast, unique from the male equivalent, is a sexual organ, and thus within the domain of the State’s interest. We have members of our society who prefer no exposed skin showing in public including hands and face. We have other citizens who believe we should all be naked. The balance point rests between the extremes, and successful arguments can be constructed for both extremes. Thus, we find ourselves debating where the line should be drawn, and it is this precise topic that brings me to raise this incident. In this debate, we must decide the proper balance between a citizen's freedom of choice and the bona fide interests of the State . . . therein lies the challenge.
Comments and contributions from Update no.288:
“Uproar continues this side over the treatment of British war injured personnel and their evacuation to hospital. Cited figures put our evacuation rate behind that of your boys in Vietnam. Hotly denied by politicians but over here very few of us believe politicians. They are seen mostly as a race apart from normal decent human beings who command little respect.
“We had some very good scones in a little village north of Adelaide, in fact they were quite splendid. The waiter was, shall I say 'limp wristed' and we all, including him, had a good laugh and extra scones! I delighted to hear that scones have penetrated your side even if Kippers, Brussel Sprouts and Marmite haven't. Or are you going to prove me wrong?”
My reply:
I'm sorry to hear of the less than adequate treatment of British veterans. The facts should be the facts. If the evacuation and survival rates for British soldiers are not comparable to the American rates, the causes should be investigated and corrective action taken. I know American combat field medical services treat anyone and everyone. I imagine British combat medical treatment is comparable. I just do not know about any potential differences in the evacuation process. The American military spends enormous amounts of money to save the lives of every soldier; my oldest son being one of those Marines. I hope the government gets things sorted out, and if there is anything your colonial cousins can do to help, I trust we shall do so.
We can find scones in some establishments. Brussel sprouts are quite common in the U.S.; I have had them since I was a kid; don't care for them much when they are overcooked. While I'm quite familiar with Kippers and Marmite, I doubt any American who has not spent some time in England would be even aware of the unique British foods and condiments. We still buy imported English tea, despite being the catalytic commodity of our collective history from 244 years ago.
Another contribution:
“Thanks for the pictures. That area south to S[anta] B[arbara] has been a real growth spot for the wine industry. They have over a hundred wineries and as you know are making some pretty good product.”
My reply:
I was amazed at the extent of new, well-managed, vineyards on both sides of the road even in the hilly country west of Paso Robles, and my amazement verged on shock at the massive vineyards in the Salinas Valley. The question I kept asking myself was, where is the water coming from? Certainly, the wine business must be doing quite well to have such extensive plantings in a relative dry area. We did not have time to stop to satisfy my curiosity and sample their products. Another time perhaps.
This contribution opened with a news article about Oklahoma State law – Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (House bill 1804) – a sweeping illegal immigration initiative, to which I replied:
Perhaps we are baring witness to the opening salvos of a new civil war of sorts . . . the states v. the Feds.
. . . round two:
“I think that you are. Some states, liberal (Massachusetts) and conservative (Oklahoma and others) are tired of being dictated to by Congress to do certainly things, and then no money is provided to accomplish the objective. The second point is that Congress no longer responds to the concerns of the conservatives and those states are unwilling to put up with it any longer. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. The three major points as I see it are: gay marriages, immigration, and the emphases on global warming (cars and gasoline, manufacturing, electrical power, and use of the state's resources.)
. . . my response to round two:
You have offered some appropriate observations, it seems to me. None of us appreciates having our behavior, conduct or morals dictated to us, especially when others tell us what we must do and do not provide the resources to accomplish the dicta. I understand the societal or national significance of immigration and global warming; both affect virtually all of us, directly and indirectly, and on both sides of the issue. I do not understand how gay marriage fits into that league of societal concerns, as yet. Your thoughts on these issues are always appreciated.
. . . round three:
“I think that gay marriage affects 100% of the population. Not all, however, are concerned about it to the same degree, but nearly 100% are affected by it either economically in the case of benefits given or not given to same sex relationships regardless of formalization.
“Witness the firestorm that Disney was involved in when people of the same sex, living together, were granted the same benefits as couples who were married. The end result now is that any two people who tell Disney they are living together, now feel entitled to all the health and retirement benefits of a couple who is legally recognized as married. The legal nightmare that is evolving when these people are no longer "living together" is becoming a morass of entanglements.
“Most courts are unsure as to what is considered legally bound together and what is not, who is entitled to what benefits and how much, and how do you treat loss of mental competency in one partner. States have a vested interest in how these issues affect its citizens.
“The latest studies show over 75% of the population in the US considers themselves "Christian" in some form or another and another 3% are Jewish. I would guess that nearly 100% of the people who believe in religion in some form or another have heard about homosexuality-either for or against or non-committed. Marriage or partnership as a basic tenet in all religions is based on some form of male and female inter-relationships. Any discussion of homosexual relationships, either for or against, will be exposed to most people in the US, whether they are concerned or not. Many people are worried about the future of the family, and family means to most a male/female relationship-legally bound or not, and anything that is not familiar to them will be viewed with suspicion.
“Many people seem to have decided that governments should help them decide on what’s right and what’s wrong and since they feel most churches and the Federal government are not taking a strong stand on global warming caused by people and illegal aliens by the millions, citizens are turning to their state legislators, to whom they can personally talk, for help in clarifying issues. I do not think that governments should be the source of all wisdom, but the Federal government, especially Congress, is going out of its way to ignore the public, and people are turning to their state and local governments for help.
“Those are my reasons for feeling that gay marriage fits into the league of societal concerns such as global warming and immigration.”
. . . my response to round three:
As I read your words, there appears to be two areas of concern: benefits and family. You also raise the related issue of seeking solutions in governmental action. The New York Court of Appeals Hernandez v. Robles [1 no. 86 (2006)] [240] ruling referred to a study listing 316 tangible benefits to marriage. I have not found and thus not been able to review the reported list. However, I think it safe to say that benefits do exist for those citizens who seek a state sanction of their relationship. Intellectually, the State does have an interest in encouraging stable family units for procreation and raising children to be peaceful, law-abiding, productive citizens themselves. There are also intangible benefits such as recognition of a relationship and all that entails. The motivation for my opinions regarding marriage grows from several keys elements: 1.) the outright hypocrisy regarding the State’s protection of its interests, and 2.) the need to treat all citizens equally with respect to the social factors. I acknowledge that a citizen’s right to equal protection under the law is often in conflict with the State’s interests, and this is one of those areas of conflict. The court’s reticence to invoke equal protection for homosexuals reflects the struggle to reconcile the elements of tension in this arena. Very few state legislatures or the Congress appear willing to stand up to the reconciliation task. It seems much easier to fall back on tradition and ignore the realities of failure. As a result, I espouse our protection of the rights of all citizens in lieu of some notional interest that the State has repeatedly and continuously failed to protect. A large portion of our ancestral citizenry sought to maintain eugenic racial purity by subjugation, segregation and persecution of a minority group of other citizens. So, rather than discriminate against a small segment of our citizenry, I suggest we defend the rights of all citizens and boil down the State’s interest into proper public concern and exclude the private behavior that should be beyond our intellectual outrage.
We can easily extend this familial debate to that of lawful immigration and national security. I do not see much difference. I have used the analogy of defending my home to that of defending the nation. The realities are the same. I believe some of those who come to this country seek citizenship, to participate in the American dream. Another portion seeks economic improvement for their families. And, a relatively small element comes here for nefarious reasons from petty crime to Islamic fascism. The challenge of the current debate rests in encouragement of the first two groups while eliminating the third group. A similar argument can be constructed extending the economic and societal disparity worldwide . . . one of the environmental factors that lead to radicalism. One purpose of government is the solution of societal, community, public problems. Where we go crosswise with our Founding principles occurs when we allow moral projection into the private lives of citizens to distract and cloud our bona fide public interests. The Judiciary is the worst or most wrong branch to deal with societal change. The Legislative branch is the proper venue for community change. And yet, we have not yet found a stable, supportive and sustainable condition for legislative conduct. Thus, the court is thrust into the role of reconciliation between improper legislative action and our most fundamental Founding principles, which we have yet to protect for ALL our citizens. Just as I believe that border security, a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, and protection of the rights of all citizens must come first, I also believe that we can sort out how to define and protect the State’s interest(s).
. . . round four:
“Your analogy of immigration and security to the home is exactly what I was poorly trying to express when dealing with gay marriage. People are tired of the Feds doing nothing and have turned to the states for action. The liberal states are trying to seek local liberal solutions in all three areas (immigration, homeland security, and gay marriages) and run up against a fairly strong conservative constituency and the conservative states are trying to react to the three areas in a strong conservative fashion and end up bucking some courts and a vocal liberal press.
“When people are frustrated by lack of action by the Feds and can't get clear definitive action by the states, they look backwards in history to a time of comfort and that's what they wish for and ask for, ergo, "The way it used to be." I believe that poorly defined change is worse to people than no change at all.
“Until some clearly worded attempts at positively solving each of the three areas are proposed, no meaningful discussion will take place; all talk will skirt the issues and talk about tangential problems. As Don Adams used to say in Get Smart, ‘It's the old rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic bit.’”
. . . my reply to round four:
Well said. And, states should define the public environment and public conduct they wish. I write this week about the NY woman who got $29K for false arrest; seems NY allows women to go topless in public . . . equal treatment for men & women. Some states have the right to raise the bar on public decency, as it should be. The hard part comes in defining the line between public & private, and between citizen’s rights & state’s interests. We have a long way to go in proper governance and respect for individual rights. Federalism has long been off the tracks. Perhaps this is the beginning of the process of reigning in Federalism. We shall see.
Another contribution:
“Re Gonzales: Former Presidents have fired the entire lot of Federal DA's. (Or at least one has). To then install their own choices. So why is THIS firing of 9 or so all that different and newsworthy.
“All high tech countries will use oil and oil-based products for as long as they last-----and likely will not get really serious about alternatives until well beyond the crucial time to do that.“The various Muslim sects, like Sunni, Shiite, etc, etc, do not interest me nor do I care if they fight each other for the next 200 years. BUT----I do care about our troops being put in harm's way, where some get killed and some gravely wounded almost every day, to try and mitigate or moderate or influence in any real way how peoples of so vastly different beliefs go about their lives and power struggles. They have a LOT of oil! That is why I think. We want to ensure access to that oil at hopefully a reasonable price.
“So Pvt Smith, LCpl Davies,Sgt Mendoza, and Lt Branson all have to die in that fight. And many more of their buddies and fellow fighters will be scarred for life from wounds received in a war they did not start but did agree to fight in because of love of country, and a LOT of other much more mundane reasons. But they did go out to the pointy end of the sword when they did not have to go there. We owe them!!!
“And just what will the USA ACTUALLY do to honor them, take care of them? My guess is that it will change from time to time as political parties win the Congress and White House, and then set their own most important agendas. We may well find that our best and bravest get left behind in the dust of "other" political stuff. Won't be the first time.
“I can't effectively address the McVey vs. other categories of terrorists. So I won't.
“I too am sorry Pace did not last. I think it was not because of his actual ability but maybe because of how he decided to play that very delicate game up there in the hallowed halls. Many have been there. Some survived, for varying reasons. Others did not---also for varying reasons. That's how it is up there.
“None of it would be for me. I avoided Wash DC entirely all my career, and may well have cut off any chance of going further than I did. But I'm glad I did what I did.”
My response:
Asking for the resignations of direct staff and appointees is quite common in government and academia. Perhaps even other presidents have selectively fired U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons. That is not the issue here. It is the way it was handled, the attempted cover-up, and the implications by the conduct of the administration that justice is political. While it very well may be, I resent being slapped in the face with it; thus, my opinions.
My point in my opinion on oil & technology was perhaps not thoroughly stated. I believe we will invent, develop and use new technology to replace fossil fuel systems when it makes economic sense, and we appear to be close to that point. Doing so may increase the disparity between 1st & 3rd world countries, and thus increase the violence in the world.
Some cultures have used violence to settle disagreements for many millennia and still do. I have no problem with them killing each other, if that is their culture. But, when they export that violence or inflict injuries on innocent third parties, then I have a problem. I do not want our troops involved in sectarian, internecine violence, but in Iraq & Afghanistan, we are talking about some portion of the violence, perhaps even the majority, being caused or induced by outsiders, i.e., al-Qaeda in Iraq. It’s messy, but I think we must do our best to help Iraq defend itself and keep foreigners out. We are walking a very thin line, and I’m afraid the patience of the American People is wearing even thinner. Yes, indeed, we owe our troops enormously for the dirty job they have been ordered to perform. But, I still believe it is essential and necessary.
Peter Pace got the short shaft, but that is life at those levels. I think it was his statements on political topics outside his profession and assignment that were probably his final undoing. Democrat control of Congress did not help. Nonetheless, he took the high and honorable road. May God bless him for his service to this Grand Republic.
The closest I got to service in Washington was my tour at Pax River, and that was plenty close enough for me . . . way too many trips into NavAir and HQMC. Fortunately, I was just a little peon in the back of the room.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment