Update from the Heartland
No.346
21.7.08 – 4.8.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.346
21.7.08 – 4.8.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I missed the normal publication date for this edition of the Update from the Heartland that now encompasses two weeks rather than one. On Saturday evening, my sister Melissa, Jeanne and I took a break from trials of this moment in time to attend an exhibition, thanks to birthday gift tickets from our son Taylor. After an excellent evening meal at our favorite Japanese restaurant [Hana’s Cafe], we went to Exploration Place in Wichita, Kansas, to see the touring exhibition called “Our Body – The Universe Within.” The display offers an extraordinary public view of the construction of our bodies. I imagine some of you may have seen the exhibition already. If not, we can strongly recommend it. Then, Sunday afternoon, my Mom’s condition took a dramatic turn for the worse. Melissa and I wound up spending the night with Mom. She seemed to recover somewhat Monday. I was able to have several comparatively long conversations with her about this and that. I felt confident enough that I went back to work Tuesday, and Mom was still maintaining Tuesday evening. I went to work on Wednesday, only to receive a call that Mom was unresponsive. I arrived a few minutes later to do my own assessment. I believed that she was aware of our presence, but she was virtually paralyzed. Her condition did not improve. My Mother, Doris Evelyn Parlier, passed away at 21:59, Wednesday, 30.July.2008, at the age of 85 years. May God rest her immortal soul. The family is planning a celebratory memorial on the California coast in mid-September. For those who may be so-inclined or tempted, in lieu of flowers or other symbols of sympathy, our family requests that donations be made to Sedgwick County Zoo, 5555 Zoo Boulevard, Wichita, Kansas, USA 67212 – one of Mom’s favorite places on the Great Plains. Mom truly enjoyed the penguin exhibit. Then, as though these events were not enough, the labor union supporting the company’s operations (IAM) decided to strike at midnight Sunday. So, please pardon my jumbled state; I hope things recover to something akin to normal soon.
The follow-up news items:
-- An interesting and worthy Op-Ed piece for your critical rumination:
“Surge Protector”
By William J. Fallon
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinion/20fallon.html?th&emc=th
For clarity, the author is none other than Admiral William Joseph ‘Fox’ Fallon, USN (Ret.), the relieved, former, Commander-in-Chief Central Command (CinC CentCom) [327] and now a fellow at the M.I.T. Center for International Studies.
-- Chief Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica wrote the decision for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of CBS v. FCC [3CCA no. 06-3575 (2008)] – the appeal of the $550,000 fine levied against CBS in the aftermath of the Janet Jackson exposed breast incident in the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime show [113]. The court vacated the FCC order and remanded the case for further proceedings. Circuit Judge Marjorie ‘Midge’ Osterlund Rendell, occurring in part, dissenting in part, believed the court did not go far enough in that the FCC order should have been reversed without remand. I am with Judge Rendell on this one.
-- A federal grand jury indicted powerful Senator Theodore Fulton ‘Ted’ Stevens of Alaska on seven corruption counts [295, 296]. This does not look good for crusty ol’ Ted. Also, since we are talking about corrupt politicians, Representative William Jennings ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson of Louisiana, indicted on 16 charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [233, 240, 252, 258, 287], is slated for trial on 2.December.2008, although U.S. District Judge Thomas Selby ‘Tim’ Ellis III suggested more delays are possible. Ol’ ‘Dollar Bill’ has managed to avoid justice for nearly one full term, and he is likely to be well into another term before he is held accountable for his crimes. Interestingly, and as of this writing, both of these politicians are up for reelection this November.
-- On the 25th and 26th of July, a series of at least 24 bombs exploded in Bangalore and Ahmedabad, India, with another 25 unexploded bombs being discovered and diffused in the cities, so far. The attacks had all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation. As al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and affiliated Islamo-fascist terrorist organizations have done in Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Russia and now China, suicide and mass bombings are intended to excite sectarian animosity and violence, or in this instance, provoke India into offensive action against Pakistan.
-- The Department of Justice acknowledged the apparent suicide of Bruce Edwards Ivins, 62, a leading military anthrax researcher who worked for the past 18 years at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland. Apparently, federal prosecutors had planned to seek an indictment and the death penalty against Ivins regarding his alleged involvement in the 2001 anthrax attacks.
-- Reuters reported on 21.July, that U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey intended to seek a full declaration of war [220 et al] against al-Qaeda and associated entities. Since my recording of the news item, I have been unable to substantiate or corroborate the Reuters report. If anyone has additional information, please let us know. It is an intriguing notion, even if seven years late.
-- Notorious Bosnian Serb wartime president Radovan Karadzic, AKA the Butcher of Sarajevo, was arrested by Serbian security forces, extradicted to the war crimes tribunal in The Haque, Netherlands, and has already appeared in the dock before the bar, accused of various war crimes and crimes against humanity. I trust he shall feel the bite of justice he so disgustingly deserves.
On 24.July.2008, Queens Bench High Court Judge, the Honorable Mister Justice Sir David Eady issued his ruling in the case of Mosley v. News Group [(2008) EWHC 1777 (QB); case no: HQ08X01303]. The case is noteworthy for its condemnation of Press intrusion into the private life of a prominent person. The claimant (plaintiff) was Max Rufus Mosley, 68, President of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA – the Formula I racing organization) since 1993 and a trustee of its charitable arm, the FIA Foundation. As a related and relevant note, Max is the youngest son of infamous British Nazi sympathizer Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet of Ancoats, who was a leader of the British Union of Fascists and the 1936 Battle of Cable Street – a fascist confrontation in London’s Eastend; Max’s parents were married in 1936, at the home of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels with Adolf Hitler as their guest of honor. Upon that backdrop, Max fell victim to a betrayal by a woman known in the court document as only ‘Woman E.’ On 28.March, Max participated in sadomasochistic party with a reported Nazi theme at a private residence, and unbeknownst to him, Woman E, supplied with a hidden camera by a tabloid newspaper, recorded the event and delivered the video to the newspaper. On 30.March.2008, News Group Newspapers Ltd. published a blistering exposé by Neville Thurlbeck in their News of the World. Sir David concluded, “I decided that the Claimant (Mosley) had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities (albeit unconventional) carried on between consenting adults on private property.” He went on to say, “I accept that such behavior is viewed by some people with distaste and moral disapproval, but in the light of modern rights-based jurisprudence that does not provide any justification for the intrusion on the personal privacy of the Claimant.” Sir David found for Mosley and awarded him £60,000. News Group argued that Mosley’s party theme coupled with his father’s fascist past qualified as proper public interest. As Sir David noted, unless Mosley was acting upon some notional Nazi agenda in the public arena, his sexual fantasy peculiarities were beyond the domain of the Press, i.e., Mosley’s sexual proclivities have absolutely nothing to do with any reasonable public interest. Voyeuristic, prurient, salacious personal interests are not and must never become State or public interests – proper or improper, appropriate or inappropriate. The Mosley ruling should be a clear message to the tabloids, scandal sheets, paparazzi and all those other bottom-dwelling “Media” folks who feel ii is their right to intrude upon the private lives of the rich and famous, or anyone else they deem non-normal or newsworthy. Perhaps, our British cousins and the Mosley case can help us all return to a proper demarcation between public and private. We need a Mosley ruling or several to prohibit the Press from inappropriate intrusion into the private life of any citizen, including air-head young celebrities.
A long-term friend and contributor sent a link to this article:
“Sex Police”
by John Stossel
Real Clear Politics.com
July 23, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/sex_police.html
The opening paragraph states, “In a desolate public park in Columbus, Ohio, a man responded to the advances of a topless woman. She asked him to ‘show me yours.’ When he did, police officers arrested him. Columbus law says her being topless is OK; exposing his genitalia is not.” While I could argue there was no injured party, the fact remains that the noted exchange occurred in a public venue. I could also argue that this is a silly prosecution of a reasonable law against public indecency. Every citizen has an equal right to public spaces. Likewise, every citizen has and should have an expectation of proper conduct in public. The Columbus example sits in a grey area. Although not reported in Stossel’s article, I suspect there were citizen complaints of indecent or sexual activity in that particular park. My objection in the Columbus case rests upon the circumstance and method of law enforcement, verging upon entrapment. Stossel goes on to illuminate the peculiar American dichotomy regarding sex – an admixture of personal fascination and public revulsion. Stossel concludes his article:
“I asked the Family Research Council's [Peter] Sprigg whom the government protects when it closes down sex shops.
“‘The government is protecting actually the people who patronize those shops because I don't think it's in their interest to use pornography and sex toys.’
“Give me a break.”
Our intrusive morality laws are one of the stark failures of American legislative history – we believe we have an obligation, a duty, and the authority to dictate how every citizen is to live their private lives – who they can marry, what food they can eat, how they can enjoy sex (if at all), what they can do or think, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. We must recover the Liberty the Founders fought so hard to secure for us, and the Freedom of choice for each of us to enjoy our unique Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.
The full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari citizen and legal resident alien student in the United States., who was arrested by law enforcement on 12.December.2001, and charged with credit card fraud. Before al-Marri could be brought to trial, the President of the United States signed an order in June 2003, declaring al-Marri an enemy combatant and ordering him incarcerated by the military at the U.S. Naval Brig at Charleston, South Carolina. Even if he was not a good academic student, he has certainly been a good legal student with a blossoming string of cases.
Al-Marri v. Bush, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (C.D. Ill. 2003);
Al-Marri v. Rumsfeld, 360 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2004);
Al-Marri v. Rumsfeld, 543 U.S. 809 (2004);
Al-Marri v. Rumsfeld [no. 2:05-cv-02259-HFFRSC (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2005)];
Al-Marri v. Wright, [487 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2007)] [288];
and now the latest and I’m sure not the last case, and subject of this review: al-Marri v. Pucciarelli [4CCA no. 06-7427 (2008)].
As a succinct summary, al-Marri is a classic confrontation between the State and an individual, centered upon the definition of words; in this case, the words are ‘war’ and ‘enemy combatant.’ I have often substituted the word ‘battlefield’ for ‘enemy’ in the descriptive term, but words nonetheless. The expansive 220 page, 4 volume ruling presents a good view of the challenge we face in the War on Islamic Fascism. Conveying the court’s opinion, Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz said, “Al-Marri is not a subject of a country with which the United States is at war, he did not illegally enter the United States, and he is not alleged to have committed any other immigration violation. Rather, after lawfully entering the United States, al-Marri ‘developed substantial connections with this country,’ and so his status as an alien neither eliminates his due process rights nor provides the President with extraordinary powers to subject al-Marri to seizure and indefinite detention by the military. The President’s constitutional powers do not allow him to order the military to seize and detain indefinitely al-Marri without criminal process any more than they permit the President to order the military to seize and detain, without criminal process, other terrorists within the United States, like the Unabomber or the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing.” As is so often the case, the essential insight to this al-Marri decision comes in the dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Karen J. Williams gave us the crux of this ruling and the growing portfolio of war jurisprudence; she said, “A distillation of these precedents, I believe, yields a definition of an enemy combatant subject to detention pursuant to Congressional authorizations as an individual who meets two criteria:
“(1) he attempts or engages in belligerent acts against the United States, either domestically or in a foreign combat zone; and
“(2) on behalf of an enemy force.”
Judge Williams got it precisely correct. According to the available public information, al-Marri easily qualifies, yet the majority chose to view the current war as not war but some bizarre mutated police action. Among all the words, the best comes from the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge James Harvie Wilkinson III. He said, “There is a way to respect both our commitment to liberty and the need for security without which liberty cannot flourish. But, it is not the way my fine colleagues have chosen, and I must respectfully dissent from the reversal of the judgment.” “This reluctance to allow Congress to distinguish between war and crime will hinder the elected branches in their effort to tame the true tragedy of modern times: the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent life.” Wilkinson went on to note, “It should be clear that al-Marri is the paradigm of an enemy combatant under any reasonable interpretation of the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force (PL 107-40)]. To say that Congress did not have persons such as al-Marri in mind is to say that Congress had very little in mind at all.” How much more plainly can this be said? Wilkinson further observed, “Al-Marri was indisputably a member of al Qaeda, and he was indisputably planning terrorist attacks to kill American citizens and destroy American property. If al-Marri is not an ‘enemy combatant’ under the AUMF, then who is?” Every citizen should note and remember Judge Wilkinson’s rhetorical question. Lastly, Wilkinson concluded, “I disagree with the result reached here, but I do so in the belief that my colleagues have helped in some small way to demonstrate the good and earnest values that animate this country — values that require America prevail.” Now, for some of my observations . . . The enemy has already been successful, not just in the 9/11 attacks, but also in carving up our sense of Liberty and Freedom. We endure restrictions upon our freedom of movement, albeit nuisance, but nuisance nonetheless. We are subjected to unprecedented, unwarranted, electronic surveillance and risk. We have altered our way of life and adapted to the added intrusions upon our public and private conduct. Yes, indeed, the enemy has been successful. Now, we debate nuance in our precious writ of habeas corpus to afford the Executive the necessary tools to protect us, while risking compromise of our most fundamental constitutional rights. Of a historical note, habeas corpus has been challenged before in wartime. The two most frequently cited cases are ex parte Milligan [71 U.S. 2 (1866)] [170, 213] and ex parte Quirin [317 U.S. 1 (1942)] [170], both of which involved American citizens involved with enemy activities during wartime. Both cases are cited in al-Marri, with the majority favoring Milligan and the dissent leaning on Quirin. As noted in Judge Motz’s words, the majority does not get passed gate 1: are we at war? Diana Motz clearly thinks not. War or not in the al-Marri case, a series of facts taken separately may not connote extra-national terrorist activity by al-Marri, and yet when those facts are taken in context, the process of connecting the dots renders a far more ominous image. Does the ‘enemy combatant’ definition require the use of a firearm, does weapon include chemical or biological agents intended to incapacitate or kill Americans, or does weapon include a computer that could cause incalculable economic or physical damage? As much as I despise the cowardly tactics of al-Qaeda, I must respect their commitment to the cause for which they kill innocent people. In that respect and after reading this latest al-Marri ruling, I must say that our enemies are learning far more about what we know and don’t know, and about our means and methods of acquiring information, from this mounting pile of public court cases and of course their best sources, the New York Times and Seymour Hersh, than they could ever obtain in active combat. The ludicrousness of our wanton disclosure of warfighting intelligence in the middle of the War on Islamic Fascism is akin to telling the Germans we were reading their 3, 5 and 7-wheel Enigma codes during the Battle of Atlantic, and telling the Japanese we were reading their JN-25 Purple codes prior to the Battle of Midway. As much as I regret some of the administration’s decisions and actions, fostering distrust of them, I still believe that they believe they acted honorably and in the best interests of the American People, just as I am certain the Times and Hersh believe the same in justifying their actions. This is the glory and yet greatest weakness of democracy. And, this continued bleeding in public courtrooms and in the Press could well become our undoing. Taken in context of all American citizens, we must afford al-Marri a modicum of due process to establish via independent Judicial review whether he is an ‘enemy combatant’ as the government contends. If not, then he should be tried in civilian court for his crimes, since we allowed him to legally enter our country. If so, then he should be rendered into the military detention system, as he has been, and held for the duration of hostilities, or he is determined to be harmless, or until such time as the government wishes to prosecute him for war crimes. Once inside the U.S. Territory, he must be afforded basic habeas rights, because we must be afforded those same rights against an arbitrary or capricious government. After all, some bozo politocrat might be angered by my opinions in this humble forum and seek to eliminate my voice via the rendition process. That said, the only rights I would afford a U.S. citizen or legal alien resident would be due process up to the determination of whether he is an ‘enemy combatant.’ Once that is done, you no longer enjoy the rights and privileges of being in the United States. For other non-citizens captured outside U.S. Territory, the Constitution does not protect them. I can levy criticism upon the entire Federal government; the President has failed to focus the government and the Nation to wage war successfully in the War on Islamic Fascism; the Congress has failed to recognize the threat and enact the laws necessary to allow the President to wage war successfully; and, the Judiciary has failed to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances of the present War. Nonetheless, I shall retain my faith in the strength and power in the Liberty and freedom that are hallmarks of this Grand Republic (for better or worse, and I hope I am not blindly naïve). History shall tell the story of what we did in this fight.
Comments and contributions from Update no.345:
“Congrats on your son Taylor's graduation.
“As for Medellin, all I have to say is the World Court has NO say over how we run our affairs. If you rape and murder two teenage girls, you don't deserve to breathe fresh air, polluted air, or any other kind of air any more. The World Court should go back to taking 7 years or whatever to try one war criminal from the former Yugoslavia.
“The whole thing about when it's appropriate to use the word ‘nigger’ makes me shake my head. I do not buy the argument that it's all right for blacks to say it and not any other ethnic group. This isn't like taking the word ‘bad’ and making it mean ‘good’ in street slang (i.e., ‘Man, that outfit is bad!’). Nigger is a derogatory term no matter who says it. My Dad came up with a really good idea. If a certain segment of the black population wants to use the word nigger because it ‘empowers them’ (what horsehockey), then white people should be allowed to say the word ‘honky’ in order to empower us, but no other ethnic group is allowed to say it. See how ridiculous this is.
My reply:
We agree on the authority of the World Court. A small side story . . . I served two WestPac tours as a Marine officer – one as a lieutenant, the other as a major. On the first tour, the U.S. was still the legal authority; the second, Japanese law prevailed. Under Japanese law, possession of any amount of psychotropic substances started at an automatic seven years imprisonment; larger amounts brought longer sentences. Japanese prisons are not like U.S. prisons, and they reduced many, rough, tough Marines to whining, crying boys, begging for help. The U.S. government did not protest or intervene; we told those Marines . . . you violated Japanese law, you suffer the punishment of Japanese law. Similar positions have been maintained with Singapore, Malaysia and others. I understand and appreciate the fact that many countries including Mexico object to the use of the death penalty. My message to the Mexican government, your citizens come into this country illegally and they commit capital crimes, as Medell¿n did, and you pay the price . . . too bad, so sad. My sympathy remains with those two young girls who were denied their most fundamental right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The word ‘nigger’ is such a vile, disgusting moniker born in the obscenity and debasement of other human beings by some Americans many generations ago. The word is demeaning and intended to diminish, marginalize and segregate the object of its use. I appreciate the anger those Americans who suffered its bite must have felt, but prolonging that pain does not help the wound heal. The historical use and connotation of that word is revolting no matter who uses it for whatever reason in any context. I have no power whatsoever to stop its use. However, I respectfully advise Whoppi Goldberg and other Americans so inclined that the continued use of that word does NOT serve the interests of equality, respect and comradeship.
Another contribution:
“From what I myself have seen (on my computer), SO far, the costs of growing corn, and (I may have forgotten), soy beans, etc, surpass the costs of our drilling for oil, etc. A negative payback-----though the possibility is there. Not the right way to do it yet.
“Brazil found a way to manufacture fuel from Sugar Cane, and has, from what I've seen, a VERY successful thing going. I heard that almost 90% of the vehicles on the roads there use Ethanol derived from Sugar Cane.”
My response:
Bio-fuel is a long way from being economically or logistically viable especially in the U.S. Just because we can make ethanol from corn, does not mean we should. We have finite arable land and limited water resources for humans, animals, industry and crops. We must find new sources for fuel, food, and water . . . not yet identified or developed, to transform land not yet productive.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
I missed the normal publication date for this edition of the Update from the Heartland that now encompasses two weeks rather than one. On Saturday evening, my sister Melissa, Jeanne and I took a break from trials of this moment in time to attend an exhibition, thanks to birthday gift tickets from our son Taylor. After an excellent evening meal at our favorite Japanese restaurant [Hana’s Cafe], we went to Exploration Place in Wichita, Kansas, to see the touring exhibition called “Our Body – The Universe Within.” The display offers an extraordinary public view of the construction of our bodies. I imagine some of you may have seen the exhibition already. If not, we can strongly recommend it. Then, Sunday afternoon, my Mom’s condition took a dramatic turn for the worse. Melissa and I wound up spending the night with Mom. She seemed to recover somewhat Monday. I was able to have several comparatively long conversations with her about this and that. I felt confident enough that I went back to work Tuesday, and Mom was still maintaining Tuesday evening. I went to work on Wednesday, only to receive a call that Mom was unresponsive. I arrived a few minutes later to do my own assessment. I believed that she was aware of our presence, but she was virtually paralyzed. Her condition did not improve. My Mother, Doris Evelyn Parlier, passed away at 21:59, Wednesday, 30.July.2008, at the age of 85 years. May God rest her immortal soul. The family is planning a celebratory memorial on the California coast in mid-September. For those who may be so-inclined or tempted, in lieu of flowers or other symbols of sympathy, our family requests that donations be made to Sedgwick County Zoo, 5555 Zoo Boulevard, Wichita, Kansas, USA 67212 – one of Mom’s favorite places on the Great Plains. Mom truly enjoyed the penguin exhibit. Then, as though these events were not enough, the labor union supporting the company’s operations (IAM) decided to strike at midnight Sunday. So, please pardon my jumbled state; I hope things recover to something akin to normal soon.
The follow-up news items:
-- An interesting and worthy Op-Ed piece for your critical rumination:
“Surge Protector”
By William J. Fallon
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinion/20fallon.html?th&emc=th
For clarity, the author is none other than Admiral William Joseph ‘Fox’ Fallon, USN (Ret.), the relieved, former, Commander-in-Chief Central Command (CinC CentCom) [327] and now a fellow at the M.I.T. Center for International Studies.
-- Chief Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica wrote the decision for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of CBS v. FCC [3CCA no. 06-3575 (2008)] – the appeal of the $550,000 fine levied against CBS in the aftermath of the Janet Jackson exposed breast incident in the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime show [113]. The court vacated the FCC order and remanded the case for further proceedings. Circuit Judge Marjorie ‘Midge’ Osterlund Rendell, occurring in part, dissenting in part, believed the court did not go far enough in that the FCC order should have been reversed without remand. I am with Judge Rendell on this one.
-- A federal grand jury indicted powerful Senator Theodore Fulton ‘Ted’ Stevens of Alaska on seven corruption counts [295, 296]. This does not look good for crusty ol’ Ted. Also, since we are talking about corrupt politicians, Representative William Jennings ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson of Louisiana, indicted on 16 charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [233, 240, 252, 258, 287], is slated for trial on 2.December.2008, although U.S. District Judge Thomas Selby ‘Tim’ Ellis III suggested more delays are possible. Ol’ ‘Dollar Bill’ has managed to avoid justice for nearly one full term, and he is likely to be well into another term before he is held accountable for his crimes. Interestingly, and as of this writing, both of these politicians are up for reelection this November.
-- On the 25th and 26th of July, a series of at least 24 bombs exploded in Bangalore and Ahmedabad, India, with another 25 unexploded bombs being discovered and diffused in the cities, so far. The attacks had all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation. As al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and affiliated Islamo-fascist terrorist organizations have done in Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Russia and now China, suicide and mass bombings are intended to excite sectarian animosity and violence, or in this instance, provoke India into offensive action against Pakistan.
-- The Department of Justice acknowledged the apparent suicide of Bruce Edwards Ivins, 62, a leading military anthrax researcher who worked for the past 18 years at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland. Apparently, federal prosecutors had planned to seek an indictment and the death penalty against Ivins regarding his alleged involvement in the 2001 anthrax attacks.
-- Reuters reported on 21.July, that U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey intended to seek a full declaration of war [220 et al] against al-Qaeda and associated entities. Since my recording of the news item, I have been unable to substantiate or corroborate the Reuters report. If anyone has additional information, please let us know. It is an intriguing notion, even if seven years late.
-- Notorious Bosnian Serb wartime president Radovan Karadzic, AKA the Butcher of Sarajevo, was arrested by Serbian security forces, extradicted to the war crimes tribunal in The Haque, Netherlands, and has already appeared in the dock before the bar, accused of various war crimes and crimes against humanity. I trust he shall feel the bite of justice he so disgustingly deserves.
On 24.July.2008, Queens Bench High Court Judge, the Honorable Mister Justice Sir David Eady issued his ruling in the case of Mosley v. News Group [(2008) EWHC 1777 (QB); case no: HQ08X01303]. The case is noteworthy for its condemnation of Press intrusion into the private life of a prominent person. The claimant (plaintiff) was Max Rufus Mosley, 68, President of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA – the Formula I racing organization) since 1993 and a trustee of its charitable arm, the FIA Foundation. As a related and relevant note, Max is the youngest son of infamous British Nazi sympathizer Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet of Ancoats, who was a leader of the British Union of Fascists and the 1936 Battle of Cable Street – a fascist confrontation in London’s Eastend; Max’s parents were married in 1936, at the home of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels with Adolf Hitler as their guest of honor. Upon that backdrop, Max fell victim to a betrayal by a woman known in the court document as only ‘Woman E.’ On 28.March, Max participated in sadomasochistic party with a reported Nazi theme at a private residence, and unbeknownst to him, Woman E, supplied with a hidden camera by a tabloid newspaper, recorded the event and delivered the video to the newspaper. On 30.March.2008, News Group Newspapers Ltd. published a blistering exposé by Neville Thurlbeck in their News of the World. Sir David concluded, “I decided that the Claimant (Mosley) had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities (albeit unconventional) carried on between consenting adults on private property.” He went on to say, “I accept that such behavior is viewed by some people with distaste and moral disapproval, but in the light of modern rights-based jurisprudence that does not provide any justification for the intrusion on the personal privacy of the Claimant.” Sir David found for Mosley and awarded him £60,000. News Group argued that Mosley’s party theme coupled with his father’s fascist past qualified as proper public interest. As Sir David noted, unless Mosley was acting upon some notional Nazi agenda in the public arena, his sexual fantasy peculiarities were beyond the domain of the Press, i.e., Mosley’s sexual proclivities have absolutely nothing to do with any reasonable public interest. Voyeuristic, prurient, salacious personal interests are not and must never become State or public interests – proper or improper, appropriate or inappropriate. The Mosley ruling should be a clear message to the tabloids, scandal sheets, paparazzi and all those other bottom-dwelling “Media” folks who feel ii is their right to intrude upon the private lives of the rich and famous, or anyone else they deem non-normal or newsworthy. Perhaps, our British cousins and the Mosley case can help us all return to a proper demarcation between public and private. We need a Mosley ruling or several to prohibit the Press from inappropriate intrusion into the private life of any citizen, including air-head young celebrities.
A long-term friend and contributor sent a link to this article:
“Sex Police”
by John Stossel
Real Clear Politics.com
July 23, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/sex_police.html
The opening paragraph states, “In a desolate public park in Columbus, Ohio, a man responded to the advances of a topless woman. She asked him to ‘show me yours.’ When he did, police officers arrested him. Columbus law says her being topless is OK; exposing his genitalia is not.” While I could argue there was no injured party, the fact remains that the noted exchange occurred in a public venue. I could also argue that this is a silly prosecution of a reasonable law against public indecency. Every citizen has an equal right to public spaces. Likewise, every citizen has and should have an expectation of proper conduct in public. The Columbus example sits in a grey area. Although not reported in Stossel’s article, I suspect there were citizen complaints of indecent or sexual activity in that particular park. My objection in the Columbus case rests upon the circumstance and method of law enforcement, verging upon entrapment. Stossel goes on to illuminate the peculiar American dichotomy regarding sex – an admixture of personal fascination and public revulsion. Stossel concludes his article:
“I asked the Family Research Council's [Peter] Sprigg whom the government protects when it closes down sex shops.
“‘The government is protecting actually the people who patronize those shops because I don't think it's in their interest to use pornography and sex toys.’
“Give me a break.”
Our intrusive morality laws are one of the stark failures of American legislative history – we believe we have an obligation, a duty, and the authority to dictate how every citizen is to live their private lives – who they can marry, what food they can eat, how they can enjoy sex (if at all), what they can do or think, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. We must recover the Liberty the Founders fought so hard to secure for us, and the Freedom of choice for each of us to enjoy our unique Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.
The full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari citizen and legal resident alien student in the United States., who was arrested by law enforcement on 12.December.2001, and charged with credit card fraud. Before al-Marri could be brought to trial, the President of the United States signed an order in June 2003, declaring al-Marri an enemy combatant and ordering him incarcerated by the military at the U.S. Naval Brig at Charleston, South Carolina. Even if he was not a good academic student, he has certainly been a good legal student with a blossoming string of cases.
Al-Marri v. Bush, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (C.D. Ill. 2003);
Al-Marri v. Rumsfeld, 360 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2004);
Al-Marri v. Rumsfeld, 543 U.S. 809 (2004);
Al-Marri v. Rumsfeld [no. 2:05-cv-02259-HFFRSC (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2005)];
Al-Marri v. Wright, [487 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2007)] [288];
and now the latest and I’m sure not the last case, and subject of this review: al-Marri v. Pucciarelli [4CCA no. 06-7427 (2008)].
As a succinct summary, al-Marri is a classic confrontation between the State and an individual, centered upon the definition of words; in this case, the words are ‘war’ and ‘enemy combatant.’ I have often substituted the word ‘battlefield’ for ‘enemy’ in the descriptive term, but words nonetheless. The expansive 220 page, 4 volume ruling presents a good view of the challenge we face in the War on Islamic Fascism. Conveying the court’s opinion, Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz said, “Al-Marri is not a subject of a country with which the United States is at war, he did not illegally enter the United States, and he is not alleged to have committed any other immigration violation. Rather, after lawfully entering the United States, al-Marri ‘developed substantial connections with this country,’ and so his status as an alien neither eliminates his due process rights nor provides the President with extraordinary powers to subject al-Marri to seizure and indefinite detention by the military. The President’s constitutional powers do not allow him to order the military to seize and detain indefinitely al-Marri without criminal process any more than they permit the President to order the military to seize and detain, without criminal process, other terrorists within the United States, like the Unabomber or the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing.” As is so often the case, the essential insight to this al-Marri decision comes in the dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Karen J. Williams gave us the crux of this ruling and the growing portfolio of war jurisprudence; she said, “A distillation of these precedents, I believe, yields a definition of an enemy combatant subject to detention pursuant to Congressional authorizations as an individual who meets two criteria:
“(1) he attempts or engages in belligerent acts against the United States, either domestically or in a foreign combat zone; and
“(2) on behalf of an enemy force.”
Judge Williams got it precisely correct. According to the available public information, al-Marri easily qualifies, yet the majority chose to view the current war as not war but some bizarre mutated police action. Among all the words, the best comes from the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge James Harvie Wilkinson III. He said, “There is a way to respect both our commitment to liberty and the need for security without which liberty cannot flourish. But, it is not the way my fine colleagues have chosen, and I must respectfully dissent from the reversal of the judgment.” “This reluctance to allow Congress to distinguish between war and crime will hinder the elected branches in their effort to tame the true tragedy of modern times: the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent life.” Wilkinson went on to note, “It should be clear that al-Marri is the paradigm of an enemy combatant under any reasonable interpretation of the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force (PL 107-40)]. To say that Congress did not have persons such as al-Marri in mind is to say that Congress had very little in mind at all.” How much more plainly can this be said? Wilkinson further observed, “Al-Marri was indisputably a member of al Qaeda, and he was indisputably planning terrorist attacks to kill American citizens and destroy American property. If al-Marri is not an ‘enemy combatant’ under the AUMF, then who is?” Every citizen should note and remember Judge Wilkinson’s rhetorical question. Lastly, Wilkinson concluded, “I disagree with the result reached here, but I do so in the belief that my colleagues have helped in some small way to demonstrate the good and earnest values that animate this country — values that require America prevail.” Now, for some of my observations . . . The enemy has already been successful, not just in the 9/11 attacks, but also in carving up our sense of Liberty and Freedom. We endure restrictions upon our freedom of movement, albeit nuisance, but nuisance nonetheless. We are subjected to unprecedented, unwarranted, electronic surveillance and risk. We have altered our way of life and adapted to the added intrusions upon our public and private conduct. Yes, indeed, the enemy has been successful. Now, we debate nuance in our precious writ of habeas corpus to afford the Executive the necessary tools to protect us, while risking compromise of our most fundamental constitutional rights. Of a historical note, habeas corpus has been challenged before in wartime. The two most frequently cited cases are ex parte Milligan [71 U.S. 2 (1866)] [170, 213] and ex parte Quirin [317 U.S. 1 (1942)] [170], both of which involved American citizens involved with enemy activities during wartime. Both cases are cited in al-Marri, with the majority favoring Milligan and the dissent leaning on Quirin. As noted in Judge Motz’s words, the majority does not get passed gate 1: are we at war? Diana Motz clearly thinks not. War or not in the al-Marri case, a series of facts taken separately may not connote extra-national terrorist activity by al-Marri, and yet when those facts are taken in context, the process of connecting the dots renders a far more ominous image. Does the ‘enemy combatant’ definition require the use of a firearm, does weapon include chemical or biological agents intended to incapacitate or kill Americans, or does weapon include a computer that could cause incalculable economic or physical damage? As much as I despise the cowardly tactics of al-Qaeda, I must respect their commitment to the cause for which they kill innocent people. In that respect and after reading this latest al-Marri ruling, I must say that our enemies are learning far more about what we know and don’t know, and about our means and methods of acquiring information, from this mounting pile of public court cases and of course their best sources, the New York Times and Seymour Hersh, than they could ever obtain in active combat. The ludicrousness of our wanton disclosure of warfighting intelligence in the middle of the War on Islamic Fascism is akin to telling the Germans we were reading their 3, 5 and 7-wheel Enigma codes during the Battle of Atlantic, and telling the Japanese we were reading their JN-25 Purple codes prior to the Battle of Midway. As much as I regret some of the administration’s decisions and actions, fostering distrust of them, I still believe that they believe they acted honorably and in the best interests of the American People, just as I am certain the Times and Hersh believe the same in justifying their actions. This is the glory and yet greatest weakness of democracy. And, this continued bleeding in public courtrooms and in the Press could well become our undoing. Taken in context of all American citizens, we must afford al-Marri a modicum of due process to establish via independent Judicial review whether he is an ‘enemy combatant’ as the government contends. If not, then he should be tried in civilian court for his crimes, since we allowed him to legally enter our country. If so, then he should be rendered into the military detention system, as he has been, and held for the duration of hostilities, or he is determined to be harmless, or until such time as the government wishes to prosecute him for war crimes. Once inside the U.S. Territory, he must be afforded basic habeas rights, because we must be afforded those same rights against an arbitrary or capricious government. After all, some bozo politocrat might be angered by my opinions in this humble forum and seek to eliminate my voice via the rendition process. That said, the only rights I would afford a U.S. citizen or legal alien resident would be due process up to the determination of whether he is an ‘enemy combatant.’ Once that is done, you no longer enjoy the rights and privileges of being in the United States. For other non-citizens captured outside U.S. Territory, the Constitution does not protect them. I can levy criticism upon the entire Federal government; the President has failed to focus the government and the Nation to wage war successfully in the War on Islamic Fascism; the Congress has failed to recognize the threat and enact the laws necessary to allow the President to wage war successfully; and, the Judiciary has failed to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances of the present War. Nonetheless, I shall retain my faith in the strength and power in the Liberty and freedom that are hallmarks of this Grand Republic (for better or worse, and I hope I am not blindly naïve). History shall tell the story of what we did in this fight.
Comments and contributions from Update no.345:
“Congrats on your son Taylor's graduation.
“As for Medellin, all I have to say is the World Court has NO say over how we run our affairs. If you rape and murder two teenage girls, you don't deserve to breathe fresh air, polluted air, or any other kind of air any more. The World Court should go back to taking 7 years or whatever to try one war criminal from the former Yugoslavia.
“The whole thing about when it's appropriate to use the word ‘nigger’ makes me shake my head. I do not buy the argument that it's all right for blacks to say it and not any other ethnic group. This isn't like taking the word ‘bad’ and making it mean ‘good’ in street slang (i.e., ‘Man, that outfit is bad!’). Nigger is a derogatory term no matter who says it. My Dad came up with a really good idea. If a certain segment of the black population wants to use the word nigger because it ‘empowers them’ (what horsehockey), then white people should be allowed to say the word ‘honky’ in order to empower us, but no other ethnic group is allowed to say it. See how ridiculous this is.
My reply:
We agree on the authority of the World Court. A small side story . . . I served two WestPac tours as a Marine officer – one as a lieutenant, the other as a major. On the first tour, the U.S. was still the legal authority; the second, Japanese law prevailed. Under Japanese law, possession of any amount of psychotropic substances started at an automatic seven years imprisonment; larger amounts brought longer sentences. Japanese prisons are not like U.S. prisons, and they reduced many, rough, tough Marines to whining, crying boys, begging for help. The U.S. government did not protest or intervene; we told those Marines . . . you violated Japanese law, you suffer the punishment of Japanese law. Similar positions have been maintained with Singapore, Malaysia and others. I understand and appreciate the fact that many countries including Mexico object to the use of the death penalty. My message to the Mexican government, your citizens come into this country illegally and they commit capital crimes, as Medell¿n did, and you pay the price . . . too bad, so sad. My sympathy remains with those two young girls who were denied their most fundamental right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The word ‘nigger’ is such a vile, disgusting moniker born in the obscenity and debasement of other human beings by some Americans many generations ago. The word is demeaning and intended to diminish, marginalize and segregate the object of its use. I appreciate the anger those Americans who suffered its bite must have felt, but prolonging that pain does not help the wound heal. The historical use and connotation of that word is revolting no matter who uses it for whatever reason in any context. I have no power whatsoever to stop its use. However, I respectfully advise Whoppi Goldberg and other Americans so inclined that the continued use of that word does NOT serve the interests of equality, respect and comradeship.
Another contribution:
“From what I myself have seen (on my computer), SO far, the costs of growing corn, and (I may have forgotten), soy beans, etc, surpass the costs of our drilling for oil, etc. A negative payback-----though the possibility is there. Not the right way to do it yet.
“Brazil found a way to manufacture fuel from Sugar Cane, and has, from what I've seen, a VERY successful thing going. I heard that almost 90% of the vehicles on the roads there use Ethanol derived from Sugar Cane.”
My response:
Bio-fuel is a long way from being economically or logistically viable especially in the U.S. Just because we can make ethanol from corn, does not mean we should. We have finite arable land and limited water resources for humans, animals, industry and crops. We must find new sources for fuel, food, and water . . . not yet identified or developed, to transform land not yet productive.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment