Update from the Heartland
No.313
3.12.07 – 9.12.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.313
3.12.07 – 9.12.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I received a message from a British citizen, a brother-in-arms, a colleague, a friend, and a contributor on the 7th of December that needed to be my lead-off item.
Dear Cap.
The day of infamy.
I join with the people of your Republic in the memory of those you lost. Those young men who never knew the joy of fatherhood and those denied the right to grow old. They died that we might have that right. May God bless their sacrifice.
I share your remembrance.
'Lest We Forget'
My reply:
Thank you for your kind words. Indeed, we shall never forget that first Day of Infamy. Just as some of us Americans remember Battle of Britain Day – when the Nazi tide was turned that late summer day by a valiant and undaunted “Few” of British youth.
Indeed, their sacrifice is the guarantor of our freedom. As you say, may God bless them all.
Semper Fidelis,
Cap
We are proud to announce the beginning of our youngest son Taylor's service as a deputy sheriff for Butler County, Kansas. Since he left active duty as a Marine and completed his degree in political science, Taylor has sought a return to public service. Congratulations, Taylor. Godspeed and following winds.
The follow-up news items:
-- The sensational news this week boils up from the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that indicates the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) suspended their nuclear weapons program several years ago. Just as the Press and populace were distracted by the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue in the prelude and aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, this latest revelation will undoubtedly divert attention from the long-running, persistent and consistent, Iranian involvement in international terrorism. The leaders of the IRI have a long history of causing death and destruction; the nuclear dimension simply added amplification to the threat, and on-hold is a long way from eliminated. President Bush is correct regarding the continuing threat to world peace posed by the IRI.
-- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suffered a stunning, even if only marginal, electoral defeat, when his countrymen rejected his bid for unlimited occupancy of the office he holds. Hugo’s megalomaniacal character will not go quietly into the night. Stand by for more to follow; this guy is not done, yet. The most incredible, worrisome and threatening element of the Venezuelan referendum vote rests in the reality that it came as close as it did to passing.
-- Putin’s United Russia Party won 64% of the parliamentary election vote for the Duma. Their closest competitor, the Communist Party of Russia, won approximately 12% of the vote. We need to watch the political moves of President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin over the next few months and years; this period of history could be a pivotal moment for democracy in some form in Russia.
-- The joint congressional conference committee tasked to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 [H.R. 1585; S.1547] decided to delete the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act [297, 309, 310], an unfortunate casualty of political compromise.
We watched the Showtime program "Fall From Grace," written, directed and edited by K. Ryan Jones -- an informative documentary on Fred Phelps, his clan and the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church -- one of many faces of hate. Pastor Jeff Gannon said, "Fred Phelps is one person who needs love the most, and deserves it the least" -- the best observation of hate-monger Fred I have seen.
Once again, Strategic Forecasting, Inc. provided a sound, balanced assessment of a highly sensitive issue.
“The NIE Report: Solving a Geopolitical Problem with Iran”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
December 03, 2007; 23:19 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071203-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071203-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR
Director of Central Intelligence General Mike Hayden’s public statement to preempt the New York Times exposé regarding the destruction of two interrogation video tapes has certainly enraged those inclined to be offended.
First, I am far more concerned about a trusted CIA employee who thought disclosure was more important than the national defense, than I am about the means used by intelligence agents during wartime – time is precious.
Second, all this drivel about torture is far more about domestic politics than actual operational issues.
Third, the definition of what is torture is vastly different from Right to Left.
Fourth, interrogation techniques, tools and policies are as much a means & methods concern as any other intelligence collection process.
Fifth, this protracted kerfuffle about torture and interrogation techniques is precisely why the United States has a vastly inadequate Human Intelligence capability, and then we are somehow surprised when our national level intelligence fails to perform.
Lastly, disclosure of those interrogation tapes would have done grave harm to our intelligence processes. I am glad the CIA destroyed them, and the person who disclosed them acted in a near treasonous manner. Unfortunately, good people in service to this Grand Republic will now be pilloried in the public square, and Congress is going to feel some greater compulsion to pass more restrictive laws that will further harm our already anemic HumInt capability.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, augmented by retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, rendered an interesting church and state ruling -- Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, Inc. [8CCA no. 06-2741 (2007); 432 F. Supp. 2d 862 (S.D. Iowa 2006)] -- rejecting a prison rehabilitation program run by the Christian, Prison Fellowship Ministries and sponsored by the State of Iowa. This case, perhaps more so than other similar cases, represents the challenges we face with one of our essential Founding principles -- the separation of church and state. I have little doubt; in fact, I think most of us would have little doubt, that this Iowa prison rehabilitation program was beneficial to society by redeeming transgressors. However, the state’s funding and involvement in the program would lead a reasonable observer to assume that the State of Iowa endorsed the Christian faith above all others, and thus violated the Establishment Clause. Since President Bush issued Executive Order no. 13199, titled: “Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,” dated 29.January.2001, the Executive has walked a very fine line, and we have progressed toward the Judiciary challenge. The Court’s first pass – Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation [551 U.S. ___ (2007); 7CCA no. 06-157] [271, 290] – dealt only with a procedural question of standing. Whether the Americans United case makes it to the Supreme Court is yet to be determined, however, given the limited finding in Hein, I suspect the Court will either decline the case, thus affirming the 8th Circuit’s ruling, or seek to make a clear statement regarding the Executive’s faith-based initiatives. Further, with the protracted silly season of American electoral politics, it seems we are headed toward additional public debate regarding the relationship between church and state. Republican candidate Governor Mitt Romney delivered what was billed as a pivotal statement regarding his religious faith. During that speech, Mitt proclaimed that religion belongs in politics. I must be candid, Mitt ran up the scale of scary candidates. Religion, like the other social factors, does NOT belong in public secular politics, period. I wanted a John F. Kennedy speech, and I got a George W. Bush statement. I am glad that Mitt is proud of his religious faith; that is good. I do not need to know the basis of his public conduct to know that he appears to be an honorable, well-meaning, committed man; that should be enough. Regrettably, I am a minority; we are destined to sink deeper into under-mining the “wall of separation between church and state.” The 8th Circuit’s Americans United ruling attempts to hold the line; we shall see if the Supremes pick up the lance. After all, I do not need to know why someone is a good and honorable person; I just need to know that they are . . . by their actions; and, religion is not a qualifier. I do not choose my friends by their religion, and I will certainly not cast my vote for any elective office based on religion. In fact, I am far more suspicious of someone who wears their religion on their sleeve. Some fraction of religious men are quite flawed and hardly worthy of any following; religion does not make people good. Another way of looking at this is, does a man do what is right because his pastor told him to, or because scripture suggests he should, or because he truly believe it is the right thing to do. I, for one, am far more interested in a reasoned, good man, than I am blindly faithful, parochial man.
I have argued in favor of passive means by law enforcement for many years [211, 264]. In several discussions regarding the citizen and State, and specifically the 4th Amendment Search and Seizure Clause, my attention was repeatedly drawn to a particular Supreme Court ruling – Kyllo v. United States [533 U.S. 27 (2001); 9CCA no. 99-8508]. Danny Lee Kyllo was arrested in 1991, convicted and sentenced for violation of the Controlled Substances Act based on a warranted search of his home, built upon the use of an infrared thermal imaging device and the alleged detection of heat lamps used to grow marijuana inside private dwellings. The Supremes reversed the lower court rulings, establishing that passive means used in this case exceeded reasonable search standards. [As a side note unrelated to the topic, I found it quite odd that Scalia argued for restrictions upon the State’s reach, while Stevens argued against restrictions – quite odd, indeed.] While I believe the Court reached the correct decision, I think they used flawed logic for a host of reasons. Most notably, they missed the essential question . . . was the non-specific heat data sufficient to justify a warrant? Based on the available evidence, I would say, no. The Court dwells laboriously on the derived information, which was simply a delta temperature, with apparently no other corroborating evidence, only a suspicion. The primary mistake arose in the judicial warrant issuance based on such allegedly misty information. In the main, I agree with the dissent, passive means beyond the property line should be public information as it is acquired in the public domain, and thus subject to interception. However, I suspect we have passed the threshold of tolerance in this arena. Surveillance technology has grown exponentially with digital processing; smaller, more sensitive pixel resolution; sophisticated analysis programs; et cetera. I was awestruck by the performance of our technical means the last time I was on the dark-side 25 years ago; I am fairly certain the capabilities of those technical means have progressed substantially. To put this into lay terms, just think about the capabilities of your personal computer, 10 and 20 years ago, to what you have today; now, apply that increase in capability to the ability of law enforcement to watch and listen. An interesting question of logic can be tested in the 4th Amendment’s “unreasonable search and seizure” clause, when coupled with the inexorable advance of technology as well as comparative wealth. Passive means, like the thermal imager in Kyllo, depend upon electromagnetic energy, e.g., infrared band energy, which decreases in its intensity with the square of the distance from the source, i.e., what is detectable at 50 feet, will be much less detectable at 1 mile, and is not detectable at 5 miles distance. If passive devices were acceptable, then exposure might well be a function of wealth, i.e., a rich man with miles of private property does not bear the same exposure to surveillance as a poor man with a studio apartment. Using the Kyllo dissent’s reasoning, exposure to police surveillance favors the wealthy, which hardly seems compatible with the Founding principles of this Grand Republic. Thus, I wish to amend my opinion regarding the use of passive means by law enforcement agencies or any future agency of the State. As technology evolves, we must place safeguards between our fundamental right to privacy and the State’s ability to “sense” anything within my home, or within my property for that matter. If the State seeks to deploy passive means against me, it should be required to convince a judge that there is probable cause, even to deploy such technical means. One principal exception must be emissions from my property that pose a public risk, e.g., ionizing radiation, damaging chemicals, et cetera. The public good must prevail. Short of potential public injury, the State should be prohibited from intruding upon my home with any current or future surveillance capability. By my rule, the State violated the rights of Danny Lee Kyllo and his conviction should be vacated. If so, then we come to the question of law. While Kyllo did not go far enough to protecting our rights, the essence of our protection exists in the Constitution and case law if we can only see it, and it all boils down to one’s bias in that interpretation.
The Supremes heard arguments in the appeal of Boumediene v. Bush [CCA DC no. 05-5062] [273] regarding the habeas corpus rights of enemy combatants held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Their opinion will probably come early next year. We can only hope they take the larger context of a practical, if undeclared, global war. My opinion remains unchanged. Enemy combatants are NOT criminals; they are roughly equivalent to prisoners of war (although the contemporary variant does injustice to honorable warriors); and thus, they should have no habeas corpus rights under the Constitution and should remain incarcerated until they are no longer a threat or the cessation of hostilities.
We have a series of great-sounding bills before Congress, and I do not find much to celebrate in any of them. These are all silly laws that do nothing, or at least very little, for the public good beyond spending the public treasury, enhancing the government’s intrusion into our lives, and giving us a temporary, feel-good, sensation.
-- The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 [H.R.1955; S.1959] – creates a congressional commission to do what the Executive is charged by the Constitution to perform -- another way to spend public funds on needless bureaucracy. The House version of the bill was passed by a vote of 404-6-0-22. The companion Senate bill is still in committee.
-- The Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act [S.1780; H.R.3559] – makes the utterance of a “single word” or the display of a “single image” deemed obscene (by some magical process) in any of the broadcast media a Federal crime. These continued attempts at encroachment upon the freedom of speech of all citizens in the name of children are actually mind-numbing. Both versions remain in committees of their respective chambers.
-- The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 [H.R.3887] -- amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 [PL no.106-386] and adds the Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007, which is more of a congressional statement rather than an executable law. The House passed the bill [vote: 405-2-0-24], and is currently under consideration in the Senate Judiciary Committee. In case anyone may be curious as to who William Wilberforce is, he was a British abolitionist Member of Parliament who was instrumental in ending British participation in the slave trade in the early 19th Century -- interesting choice for an American bill.
-- The Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act (SAFE Act) [H.R.3791; S.519] -- among other elements of this bill, it will criminalize Wi-Fi providers who do not report users who access illegal, explicit images involving children, another twist on the United States v. Williams issue before the Supreme Court [308]. This bills attempts to force service providers to become an instrument of Big Brother. The consequences of extending the government’s reach like this are truly staggering. The House passed the bill [vote: 409-2-0-20] and is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Comments and contributions from Update no.312:
"Not only did former Aussie PM Howard's party lose the election, he lost his seat in Parliament. That is a very rare happenstance and is indicative of how badly he lost."
My reply:
Indeed! Very rare! Indicative of how unhappy his constituents were. Heck, the Conservatives lost in 1945, and Winston lost his premiership (for a few years), but he still won his seat handily. Such are the winds of political change.
. . . round two:
"When I was in Adelaide this spring, my Aussie MFA counterparts said they thought Howard would pull it out--he had a history of doing that. I don't think they remotely imagined what happened the other week. New PM Rudd will be a very interesting study-- he speaks fluent Chinese (I think Mandarin)- and was a senior diplomat, if not the ambassador in Beijing. The U.S. will have to work harder in many diplomatic fronts."
. . . my reply in round two:
I'm learning more about Rudd. He is quite a bit farther to the left of Howard, so the "harder work" may be an understatement. We shall see.
. . . round three:
"More on Howard's loss- only the second time an Australian PM has lost his seat. His party is named the Liberal Party, but it is the more conservative. It was a real train wreck. We are concerned because of Rudd's views on nuclear power. While Australia doesn't have any nuclear power plants, they are a leader in nuclear safety and work with us and the IAEA. Oh, and they are one of the top three countries in uranium mining."
. . . my reply to round three:
This will be interesting to watch as it plays out.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
I received a message from a British citizen, a brother-in-arms, a colleague, a friend, and a contributor on the 7th of December that needed to be my lead-off item.
Dear Cap.
The day of infamy.
I join with the people of your Republic in the memory of those you lost. Those young men who never knew the joy of fatherhood and those denied the right to grow old. They died that we might have that right. May God bless their sacrifice.
I share your remembrance.
'Lest We Forget'
My reply:
Thank you for your kind words. Indeed, we shall never forget that first Day of Infamy. Just as some of us Americans remember Battle of Britain Day – when the Nazi tide was turned that late summer day by a valiant and undaunted “Few” of British youth.
Indeed, their sacrifice is the guarantor of our freedom. As you say, may God bless them all.
Semper Fidelis,
Cap
We are proud to announce the beginning of our youngest son Taylor's service as a deputy sheriff for Butler County, Kansas. Since he left active duty as a Marine and completed his degree in political science, Taylor has sought a return to public service. Congratulations, Taylor. Godspeed and following winds.
The follow-up news items:
-- The sensational news this week boils up from the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that indicates the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) suspended their nuclear weapons program several years ago. Just as the Press and populace were distracted by the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue in the prelude and aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, this latest revelation will undoubtedly divert attention from the long-running, persistent and consistent, Iranian involvement in international terrorism. The leaders of the IRI have a long history of causing death and destruction; the nuclear dimension simply added amplification to the threat, and on-hold is a long way from eliminated. President Bush is correct regarding the continuing threat to world peace posed by the IRI.
-- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suffered a stunning, even if only marginal, electoral defeat, when his countrymen rejected his bid for unlimited occupancy of the office he holds. Hugo’s megalomaniacal character will not go quietly into the night. Stand by for more to follow; this guy is not done, yet. The most incredible, worrisome and threatening element of the Venezuelan referendum vote rests in the reality that it came as close as it did to passing.
-- Putin’s United Russia Party won 64% of the parliamentary election vote for the Duma. Their closest competitor, the Communist Party of Russia, won approximately 12% of the vote. We need to watch the political moves of President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin over the next few months and years; this period of history could be a pivotal moment for democracy in some form in Russia.
-- The joint congressional conference committee tasked to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 [H.R. 1585; S.1547] decided to delete the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act [297, 309, 310], an unfortunate casualty of political compromise.
We watched the Showtime program "Fall From Grace," written, directed and edited by K. Ryan Jones -- an informative documentary on Fred Phelps, his clan and the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church -- one of many faces of hate. Pastor Jeff Gannon said, "Fred Phelps is one person who needs love the most, and deserves it the least" -- the best observation of hate-monger Fred I have seen.
Once again, Strategic Forecasting, Inc. provided a sound, balanced assessment of a highly sensitive issue.
“The NIE Report: Solving a Geopolitical Problem with Iran”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
December 03, 2007; 23:19 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071203-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071203-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR
Director of Central Intelligence General Mike Hayden’s public statement to preempt the New York Times exposé regarding the destruction of two interrogation video tapes has certainly enraged those inclined to be offended.
First, I am far more concerned about a trusted CIA employee who thought disclosure was more important than the national defense, than I am about the means used by intelligence agents during wartime – time is precious.
Second, all this drivel about torture is far more about domestic politics than actual operational issues.
Third, the definition of what is torture is vastly different from Right to Left.
Fourth, interrogation techniques, tools and policies are as much a means & methods concern as any other intelligence collection process.
Fifth, this protracted kerfuffle about torture and interrogation techniques is precisely why the United States has a vastly inadequate Human Intelligence capability, and then we are somehow surprised when our national level intelligence fails to perform.
Lastly, disclosure of those interrogation tapes would have done grave harm to our intelligence processes. I am glad the CIA destroyed them, and the person who disclosed them acted in a near treasonous manner. Unfortunately, good people in service to this Grand Republic will now be pilloried in the public square, and Congress is going to feel some greater compulsion to pass more restrictive laws that will further harm our already anemic HumInt capability.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, augmented by retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, rendered an interesting church and state ruling -- Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, Inc. [8CCA no. 06-2741 (2007); 432 F. Supp. 2d 862 (S.D. Iowa 2006)] -- rejecting a prison rehabilitation program run by the Christian, Prison Fellowship Ministries and sponsored by the State of Iowa. This case, perhaps more so than other similar cases, represents the challenges we face with one of our essential Founding principles -- the separation of church and state. I have little doubt; in fact, I think most of us would have little doubt, that this Iowa prison rehabilitation program was beneficial to society by redeeming transgressors. However, the state’s funding and involvement in the program would lead a reasonable observer to assume that the State of Iowa endorsed the Christian faith above all others, and thus violated the Establishment Clause. Since President Bush issued Executive Order no. 13199, titled: “Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,” dated 29.January.2001, the Executive has walked a very fine line, and we have progressed toward the Judiciary challenge. The Court’s first pass – Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation [551 U.S. ___ (2007); 7CCA no. 06-157] [271, 290] – dealt only with a procedural question of standing. Whether the Americans United case makes it to the Supreme Court is yet to be determined, however, given the limited finding in Hein, I suspect the Court will either decline the case, thus affirming the 8th Circuit’s ruling, or seek to make a clear statement regarding the Executive’s faith-based initiatives. Further, with the protracted silly season of American electoral politics, it seems we are headed toward additional public debate regarding the relationship between church and state. Republican candidate Governor Mitt Romney delivered what was billed as a pivotal statement regarding his religious faith. During that speech, Mitt proclaimed that religion belongs in politics. I must be candid, Mitt ran up the scale of scary candidates. Religion, like the other social factors, does NOT belong in public secular politics, period. I wanted a John F. Kennedy speech, and I got a George W. Bush statement. I am glad that Mitt is proud of his religious faith; that is good. I do not need to know the basis of his public conduct to know that he appears to be an honorable, well-meaning, committed man; that should be enough. Regrettably, I am a minority; we are destined to sink deeper into under-mining the “wall of separation between church and state.” The 8th Circuit’s Americans United ruling attempts to hold the line; we shall see if the Supremes pick up the lance. After all, I do not need to know why someone is a good and honorable person; I just need to know that they are . . . by their actions; and, religion is not a qualifier. I do not choose my friends by their religion, and I will certainly not cast my vote for any elective office based on religion. In fact, I am far more suspicious of someone who wears their religion on their sleeve. Some fraction of religious men are quite flawed and hardly worthy of any following; religion does not make people good. Another way of looking at this is, does a man do what is right because his pastor told him to, or because scripture suggests he should, or because he truly believe it is the right thing to do. I, for one, am far more interested in a reasoned, good man, than I am blindly faithful, parochial man.
I have argued in favor of passive means by law enforcement for many years [211, 264]. In several discussions regarding the citizen and State, and specifically the 4th Amendment Search and Seizure Clause, my attention was repeatedly drawn to a particular Supreme Court ruling – Kyllo v. United States [533 U.S. 27 (2001); 9CCA no. 99-8508]. Danny Lee Kyllo was arrested in 1991, convicted and sentenced for violation of the Controlled Substances Act based on a warranted search of his home, built upon the use of an infrared thermal imaging device and the alleged detection of heat lamps used to grow marijuana inside private dwellings. The Supremes reversed the lower court rulings, establishing that passive means used in this case exceeded reasonable search standards. [As a side note unrelated to the topic, I found it quite odd that Scalia argued for restrictions upon the State’s reach, while Stevens argued against restrictions – quite odd, indeed.] While I believe the Court reached the correct decision, I think they used flawed logic for a host of reasons. Most notably, they missed the essential question . . . was the non-specific heat data sufficient to justify a warrant? Based on the available evidence, I would say, no. The Court dwells laboriously on the derived information, which was simply a delta temperature, with apparently no other corroborating evidence, only a suspicion. The primary mistake arose in the judicial warrant issuance based on such allegedly misty information. In the main, I agree with the dissent, passive means beyond the property line should be public information as it is acquired in the public domain, and thus subject to interception. However, I suspect we have passed the threshold of tolerance in this arena. Surveillance technology has grown exponentially with digital processing; smaller, more sensitive pixel resolution; sophisticated analysis programs; et cetera. I was awestruck by the performance of our technical means the last time I was on the dark-side 25 years ago; I am fairly certain the capabilities of those technical means have progressed substantially. To put this into lay terms, just think about the capabilities of your personal computer, 10 and 20 years ago, to what you have today; now, apply that increase in capability to the ability of law enforcement to watch and listen. An interesting question of logic can be tested in the 4th Amendment’s “unreasonable search and seizure” clause, when coupled with the inexorable advance of technology as well as comparative wealth. Passive means, like the thermal imager in Kyllo, depend upon electromagnetic energy, e.g., infrared band energy, which decreases in its intensity with the square of the distance from the source, i.e., what is detectable at 50 feet, will be much less detectable at 1 mile, and is not detectable at 5 miles distance. If passive devices were acceptable, then exposure might well be a function of wealth, i.e., a rich man with miles of private property does not bear the same exposure to surveillance as a poor man with a studio apartment. Using the Kyllo dissent’s reasoning, exposure to police surveillance favors the wealthy, which hardly seems compatible with the Founding principles of this Grand Republic. Thus, I wish to amend my opinion regarding the use of passive means by law enforcement agencies or any future agency of the State. As technology evolves, we must place safeguards between our fundamental right to privacy and the State’s ability to “sense” anything within my home, or within my property for that matter. If the State seeks to deploy passive means against me, it should be required to convince a judge that there is probable cause, even to deploy such technical means. One principal exception must be emissions from my property that pose a public risk, e.g., ionizing radiation, damaging chemicals, et cetera. The public good must prevail. Short of potential public injury, the State should be prohibited from intruding upon my home with any current or future surveillance capability. By my rule, the State violated the rights of Danny Lee Kyllo and his conviction should be vacated. If so, then we come to the question of law. While Kyllo did not go far enough to protecting our rights, the essence of our protection exists in the Constitution and case law if we can only see it, and it all boils down to one’s bias in that interpretation.
The Supremes heard arguments in the appeal of Boumediene v. Bush [CCA DC no. 05-5062] [273] regarding the habeas corpus rights of enemy combatants held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Their opinion will probably come early next year. We can only hope they take the larger context of a practical, if undeclared, global war. My opinion remains unchanged. Enemy combatants are NOT criminals; they are roughly equivalent to prisoners of war (although the contemporary variant does injustice to honorable warriors); and thus, they should have no habeas corpus rights under the Constitution and should remain incarcerated until they are no longer a threat or the cessation of hostilities.
We have a series of great-sounding bills before Congress, and I do not find much to celebrate in any of them. These are all silly laws that do nothing, or at least very little, for the public good beyond spending the public treasury, enhancing the government’s intrusion into our lives, and giving us a temporary, feel-good, sensation.
-- The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 [H.R.1955; S.1959] – creates a congressional commission to do what the Executive is charged by the Constitution to perform -- another way to spend public funds on needless bureaucracy. The House version of the bill was passed by a vote of 404-6-0-22. The companion Senate bill is still in committee.
-- The Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act [S.1780; H.R.3559] – makes the utterance of a “single word” or the display of a “single image” deemed obscene (by some magical process) in any of the broadcast media a Federal crime. These continued attempts at encroachment upon the freedom of speech of all citizens in the name of children are actually mind-numbing. Both versions remain in committees of their respective chambers.
-- The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 [H.R.3887] -- amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 [PL no.106-386] and adds the Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007, which is more of a congressional statement rather than an executable law. The House passed the bill [vote: 405-2-0-24], and is currently under consideration in the Senate Judiciary Committee. In case anyone may be curious as to who William Wilberforce is, he was a British abolitionist Member of Parliament who was instrumental in ending British participation in the slave trade in the early 19th Century -- interesting choice for an American bill.
-- The Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act (SAFE Act) [H.R.3791; S.519] -- among other elements of this bill, it will criminalize Wi-Fi providers who do not report users who access illegal, explicit images involving children, another twist on the United States v. Williams issue before the Supreme Court [308]. This bills attempts to force service providers to become an instrument of Big Brother. The consequences of extending the government’s reach like this are truly staggering. The House passed the bill [vote: 409-2-0-20] and is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Comments and contributions from Update no.312:
"Not only did former Aussie PM Howard's party lose the election, he lost his seat in Parliament. That is a very rare happenstance and is indicative of how badly he lost."
My reply:
Indeed! Very rare! Indicative of how unhappy his constituents were. Heck, the Conservatives lost in 1945, and Winston lost his premiership (for a few years), but he still won his seat handily. Such are the winds of political change.
. . . round two:
"When I was in Adelaide this spring, my Aussie MFA counterparts said they thought Howard would pull it out--he had a history of doing that. I don't think they remotely imagined what happened the other week. New PM Rudd will be a very interesting study-- he speaks fluent Chinese (I think Mandarin)- and was a senior diplomat, if not the ambassador in Beijing. The U.S. will have to work harder in many diplomatic fronts."
. . . my reply in round two:
I'm learning more about Rudd. He is quite a bit farther to the left of Howard, so the "harder work" may be an understatement. We shall see.
. . . round three:
"More on Howard's loss- only the second time an Australian PM has lost his seat. His party is named the Liberal Party, but it is the more conservative. It was a real train wreck. We are concerned because of Rudd's views on nuclear power. While Australia doesn't have any nuclear power plants, they are a leader in nuclear safety and work with us and the IAEA. Oh, and they are one of the top three countries in uranium mining."
. . . my reply to round three:
This will be interesting to watch as it plays out.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment