Update from the Heartland
No.386
4.5.09 – 10.5.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.386
4.5.09 – 10.5.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Monday, after the FCC v. Fox Television [556 U.S. ___ (2009)] ruling last week [385], the Supreme Court preemptively vacated the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling in the case of CBS v. FCC [3CCA no. 06-3575 (2008)] [346], and remanded the case to the 3rd Circuit for further consideration in light of the Court’s Fox decision. In CBS, the 3rd Circuit reversed the FCC’s fine of CBS as a consequence of the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident [113]. Given Fox, I suspect the 3rd Circuit will either reinstate the FCC fine, or challenge the Supremes based on the Thomas “concurrence” and the Stevens dissent. In the 3rd Circuit’s CBS ruling, Judge Rendell felt the court had not gone far enough and should have reined in the FCC. So, the remand opinion should be interesting; however, I do not see CBS v. FCC as the constitutional question that Justice Thomas and the other Supremes seek. Vederemo!
-- Governor John Elias Baldacci of Maine signed into law a bill allowing mono-gender marriage [128, et al]. The District of Columbia City Council passed a comparable law. New Hampshire is reportedly close to passing its law ensuring equal protection under the law with respect to marriage, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The beat goes on.
-- The intensity surrounding the Influenza A/2009H1N1 virus [384] has ebbed substantially, as world health experts recognized this strain was not as virulent as originally feared. Normal precautions remain good practice. I hope all nations easy up their travel restrictions quickly, to minimize the collateral injury to Mexico’s economy.
-- Bristol Palin [351], accompanied by her father, attended the Eighth Annual National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy conference as a featured speaker – for obvious reasons. Wise, young Bristol claimed that abstinence was the only 100% sure means to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies. Of course, she is precisely correct. Curiously, she did not reiterate her statement from the campaign days that abstinence-only [190, et al] promotion is not realistic. Indeed! Yet, here we are; we continue to wish mightily that our children are protected from dirty, nasty sex, by pretending it does not exist, denying our children the education all children should have as part of the maturation process, like being taught to eat properly, to wash properly, to take care of themselves properly. The hypocrisy and lunacy blanketing this whole social topic remains astounding and staggering.
-- We have the first public casualty of the unfortunate Air Force 1 photographic mission [385]. Director of the White House Military Office Louis Caldera [USMA 1978] – son of Mexican immigrants – resigned in the aftermath of recriminations. I have voiced my opinion on this incident; my opinion remains unchanged. Sadly, a good man will be the first scapegoat – a political expedient.
I must acknowledge that I may have been idealistically naïve with the silly notion that the Constitution was derived from We, the People. Perhaps, I am not capable of understanding the 9th &10th Amendments to the Constitution; or, worse yet, that the Framers put those Amendments in the Bill of Rights simply to placate the People into acquiescing for passage of the new Constitution. Maybe, the principles espoused by those Amendments were never intended to be actionable . . . which, I might add, could be one reason the Supreme Court has been so reluctant to cite or interpret those two Amendments. What sparked off Cap’s melancholy, you might be asking yourself?
“Is the new law of privacy strangling a free press? Discuss”
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
The Times [of London]
Published: April 22, 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6150010.ece?&EMC-Bltn=LJH2LA
It seems our British cousins are struggling with judicial fiat as well. I reviewed the case in question here – Mosley v. News Group [{2008} EWHC 1777 (QB); case no: HQ08X01303] – in an Update last year [346]. The challenge to all democracies as well as the very essence of freedom itself hangs upon the relationship between the citizen and the State. Tyranny comes in many forms, and a death by a thousands cuts is no less fatal. When I get in these funks, I remind myself of a fictional television show, some years back now, and one particular scene in one episode as the staff debated the selection of a Supreme Court justice nominee.
“It’s not about abortion. It’s about the next 20 years. In the 20’s and 30’s, it was the role of government, 50’s and 60’s, it was civil rights. The next two decades are going to be privacy. I'm talkin’ about the Internet, talkin’ about cell phones, talkin’ about medical records, and who's gay and who's not. Moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this?”
-- Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe), "The West Wing," Season 1, Episode 9, "The Short List." Original Airdate: 24.November.1999
Indeed! What could be more fundamental than a citizen’s most fundamental right to privacy? The inexorable advance of technology has given government vastly greater reach in space and time, and yet, we continue to flop around like a fish on the pier with this notion of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. Congress is not likely to speak up for We, the People, as it would mean diminishment of their power. The Court has proven, over generations of justices, to be reluctant in facing the 9th Amendment’s true meaning, and only begrudgingly acknowledged the sanctity of the private domain. Frances Gibb tickled my ire. I returned to Mosley. Justice Eady wrote, “I accept that such behavior [i.e., Max Mosley’s sexual proclivities] 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.” Frances also illuminated the principle struggle for democracies – judicial interpretation versus legislative action, the citizen versus the State – and, the constant pressure of the Press’ incessant search for titillating, salacious material to stimulate the repressed masses to buy newspapers. The Press like the Government and even others citizens do NOT have the right to violate a citizen’s privacy. If the Press feels imposed upon on this issue, I am good with that. I am an advocate for a strong, vibrant, inquisitive Press, but I do not want my privacy or another citizen’s privacy – from the famous to the invisible – to be compromised. Privacy is THE issue of our day, and that issue has profound impact on our lives, in ways most of us cannot even imagine.
With national intelligence, high-value captive, interrogation means & methods the hot topic of public debate, thanks in part to our beloved New York Times and a new president seeking political points with vocal minority, I simply cannot avoid returning to the issue. A series of Press opinions pushed me over the edge. I know most folks will not read the noted articles below, and I do not want to make this anymore burdensome that it already is; however, this issue is truly and literally a national security concern of the utmost importance to the defense of this Grand Republic and our Allies. So, for your rumination, as you wish, first up:
1. “Torture: An Author and a Resister”
by Ann Wright
t r u t h o u t Perspective
Published: Friday 01 May 2009
http://www.truthout.org/050109A
Wright – a retired, Army Reserve, colonel – goes after the 1.August.2002 memorandum authored by Jay Bybee to the CIA legal counsel regarding interrogation techniques, and she passes judgment on Bybee and his legal advice. It is not clear to me whether she has even read the memorandum . . . oh well, that is not important, I suppose.
2. “Security Before Politics”
by Porter J. Goss (former Representative and former Director of Central Intelligence)
Washington Post
Published: Saturday, April 25, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339_pf.html
Goss appropriately states, “Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done.” He could not be more accurate. I am certain the uber-Left feels so much better knowing they have done irreparable harm to the national intelligence apparatus of the United States, simply to satisfy their sense of morality.
3. “A Chilling Effect on U.S. Counterterrorism”
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: April 29, 2009; 1815 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090429_chilling_effect_u_s_counterterrorism
Burton & Stewart observed, “However, when the release of the memos is examined in a wider context, and combined with a few other dynamics, it appears that the U.S. counterterrorism community is quietly slipping back into an atmosphere of risk-aversion and malaise — an atmosphere not dissimilar to that described by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (AKA the 9/11 Commission) as a contributing factor to the intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attacks.” Now, how comforting is that? They went on to conclude, “As we’ve previously noted, it was a lack of intelligence that helped fuel the fear that led the Bush administration to authorize enhanced interrogation techniques. Ironically, the current investigation into those techniques and other practices (such as renditions) may very well lead to significant gaps in terrorism-related intelligence from both internal and liaison sources — again, not primarily because of the prohibition of torture, but because of larger implications.
“When these implications are combined with the long-standing institutional aversion of U.S. government agencies toward counterterrorism, and with the difficulty of finding and retaining good people willing to serve in counterterrorism roles, the U.S. counterterrorism community may soon be facing challenges even more daunting than those posed by its already difficult mission.”
Oh yeah, I feel better already. Next, and finally in this string:
4. “Is the United States a nation of laws or not?”
by Rod Dreher (Dallas Morning News)
Wichita Eagle
Published Thursday, 7.May.2009
http://www.kansas.com/opinion/story/802090.html
This article was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. I took my virtual pen in hand and wrote to the newspaper editors.
Reader Views,
Rod Dreher’s opinion should strike a sympathetic chord in all American citizens. Taken at face value, how could anyone argue with his point – torture is unacceptable. Further, since the Press and many citizens have convinced themselves that everything President Bush did was bad, illegal, morally repugnant, and punishable, We, the People, should be very careful what we ask for in this arena.
Intelligence operations are not military or combat activities, and are most definitely not matters of judicial or prosecutorial concern.
Battlefield combatants are not criminals. In the present War on Islamic Fascism, our enemies are extra-national fighters who pride themselves on killing innocent civilians; as such, they do not even possess the status of prisoners of war.
Captured battlefield combatants are not equal. Most are just pawn fighters. Some have strategic value in wartime. Information high-value captives possess may save thousands of innocent lives.
There must be an “inducement” for high-value captives to divulge the information they possess. Milk & cookies, and a flat-screen television will not cut it.
All information derived from battlefield combatant interrogations is considered unreliable and inaccurate, and must be correlated with other intelligence data to become actionable.
War is an ugly, nasty, disgusting business, best left to the professionals.
Whether we wish to acknowledge we are at war, conducting a public investigation of our national intelligence means & methods during wartime will serve our enemies far more than any sanctimonious sense of cleansing some among us may seek.
Before we begin this debate, I strongly urge every citizen to actually read the Yoo and Bybee memoranda regarding the law, presidential authority, battlefield combatants, and interrogations. This topic is not as simple as some would like to make it.
In this discussion, Dreher is quite wrong. Our national security interests are not even marginally served by a public investigation of our intelligence interrogation means & methods. If We, the People, insist on an investigation of interrogation techniques, it should be classified TOP SECRET and conducted only behind closed doors, with legislators and staff sworn to secrecy until the war is won.
As Dennis Miller says, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Now, at this junction, I have probably babbled on too much. Let me conclude by referring to and suggesting a movie that offers a Hollywood version of the complexity of CIA, counter-terrorism, field operations – Ridley Scott’s “Body of Lies,” starring Leonard di Caprio and Russell Crowe. While it is a typical, fictional, overly simplified portrayal, the elements illuminated by the various articles noted above can be readily seen in the story and characters of the movie. Please watch it attentively and think about what was said above.
Another odd, intriguing Supreme Court decision . . . We were treated to an English lesson by the Supremes – transitive verbs, adverbs, modifiers, oh my. The case at issue here is Flores-Figueroa v. United States [556 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 08-108]. The Supremes split grammar / semantic interpretation finer than Bill Clinton’s “That depends upon what the definition of is, is.” Several justices (Scalia, Thomas and Alito) concurred in the decision but reflected some difficulty with the grammar application. The instigator . . . Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa – an illegal alien from Mexico – used fake identification documents to gain employment in this country, and one of the social security numbers he used belonged to another citizen. He was tried and convicted of numerous violations of Federal law, including aggravated identity theft [18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1)]. The §1028A(a)(1) statute reads in toto: “Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.” The whole case hinged upon the grammatical interpretation of “knowingly,” in that, did Flores-Figueroa know he was using another person’s social security number? The Court said the government has not proven that he knew the social security number he chose to use belonged to another person. Yet, he knowingly “used” a fake number, which only by random happenstance may or may not belong to another citizen. In this instance, the Court illuminated a very shallow but fatal flaw in the current law, namely, that the current law stipulates “knowing” that the social security number belonged “to another person.” This interpretation, while correct and proper, in terms of grammatical interpretation, stands in stark contrast to the next case reviewed. More on this issue is offered below.
The Supreme Court decision in the case of Dean v. United States [556 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 08-5274] would normally not exceed my threshold of interest. In combination with Gant [385] and Flores above, I could not resist – the connection below. Christopher Michael Dean and Ricardo Curtis Lopez robbed a bank, and in doing so, Dean claimed he “accidentally” discharged his pistol. He was convicted of the additional violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(iii), which stipulates: “[I]f the firearm is discharged, [the perpetrator must] be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.” Of course, Dean claimed his discharge was accidental, and thus, he should not be punished under this statute, as he had no “intent” to fire his weapon. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Court’s opinion. He illuminated the applicable writing of Sir William Blackstone (1769): “[I]f any accidental mischief happens to follow from the performance of a lawful act, the party stands excused from all guilt: but if a man be doing any thing unlawful, and a consequence ensues which he did not foresee or intend, as the death of a man or the like, his want of foresight shall be no excuse; for, being guilty of one offence, in doing antecedently what is in itself unlawful, he is criminally guilty of whatever consequence may follow the first misbehaviour.” Dean was robbing a bank – that sounds rather unlawful to me. Roberts concluded, “Those criminals wishing to avoid the penalty for an inadvertent discharge can lock or unload the firearm, handle it with care during the underlying violent or drug trafficking crime, leave the gun at home, or--best yet--avoid committing the felony in the first place.” The Court affirmed the 11th Circuit’s affirmation of the trial court’s sentencing.
The Court took a direct pragmatic view of the law’s language in Dean, in that the defendant claimed he did not “intend” to discharge his pistol, and the Court stated that intent mattered not to the law in Dean’s case. Yet, the Court stretched “knowingly,” i.e., intent, to direct knowledge that the false social security number belonged “to another person” in Flores-Figueroa. To my thinking, did Flores-Figueroa know his identification documents were not his? Does it really matter as the law is written whether Flores-Figueroa’s gamble with identity theft, when compared to Dean’s “accidental” discharge of his weapon during an armed felony? The Court did not satisfy my curiosity or inquiry regarding the intent, and thus application of the law in Flores-Figueroa. Based on my reading of both cases, Christopher Michael Dean received the punishment he deserved for his crimes; Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa did not.
News from the economic front:
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke publicly indicated that the U.S. recession appears to be easing, and recovery is likely later this year on the back of firmer household spending, a bottoming housing market and an end to inventory liquidation. He also said that the recovery will probably be slower than usual, and warned that the unemployment rate may remain high as businesses remain cautious about new hiring.
-- The Government will require banks that want to return Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds to demonstrate their ability to wean themselves off the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) guarantee of debt issuance, which allows firms to borrow money relatively inexpensively. Banks have reportedly issued more than US$333B under the FDIC program since it began last fall.
-- When the capital investment firm Goldman Sachs became a bank holding company last Fall, the ties between New York Federal Reserve Chairman Stephen Friedman and his former firm continue to raise questions and illuminate the complex inter-dependency between regulators and banks. Friedman served as Chairman of Goldman Sachs from 1990 to 1994. Interestingly, he is also Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the Intelligence Oversight Board – a busy man.
-- The New York Times reported that its parent holding company has notified federal authorities of its plans to shut down the Boston Globe, raising the possibility that New England's most storied newspaper could cease to exist within weeks – a sad commentary to our times.
-- The Bank of England will increase its target for bond purchases to £125B (US$187B) from £75B to further ease liquidity – the timing surprised economists. The Pound Sterling dropped to US$1.5064, and rose slightly against the Euro to €1.1306.
-- The European Central Bank cut its benchmark rate by 0.25% to a new record low of 1%, as expected.
-- Macro-findings of the Government’s bank stress tests continue to trickle out. The Federal Reserve has reportedly advised Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, GMAC, State Street, Bank of America, Citigroup and Regions Financial to raise combined US$75B more capital. Banks reported to have sufficient capitalization include Capital One, American Express, Bank of New York Mellon, Goldman Sachs, MetLife and J.P. Morgan Chase. Fed Chairman Bernanke reiterated the stress tests were not “tests of solvency.” Losses at the 19 involved banks could total US$600B in 2009 and 2010, under the government’s gloomy scenario of a deepening economic downturn, with mortgage and consumer loans potentially amounting to 70% of the losses.
-- The unemployment rate increased 0.4% to 8.9%, the highest level since September 1983. The economy has shed 5.7 million jobs since the recession started in December 2007. Nonfarm payrolls fell 539,000 in April, the smallest decline in six months and less than economists were expecting. However, a substantial portion of the improvement came from temporary government hiring in advance of next year’s Census.
Comments and contributions from Update no.385:
“Had to look up PORTUS. However was surprised to find that the PORTUS salary is $400,000 annual, I assume before tax.
“The man with the biggest responsibility in the world, the most powerful man in the world, come on Cap give the man a pay rise! Is he not worth more than those banking morons that have that have moved the world into a financial meltdown through gross incompetence. Is there something wrong with the way we award failure? (None of my business I know!).”
. . . my response:
Actually, it is POTUS vice PORTUS, and I believe none-other-than Sir Winston himself coined the acronym . . . POTUS = President Of The United States. Sir Winston used the term in correspondence with FDR; he referred to himself as “Naval Person” when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, and “Former Naval Person” during his wilderness years and as PM. Interesting relationship those two.
LOL I suppose you’re correct. We should pay POTUS more for what he must deal with 24/7. However, he gets a fancy mansion, personal security, the best biz jet in the world, and lots of “friends.”
Au contraire, mon ami. This financial crisis is everyone’s business; we are all affected in one way or another. I think the law will catch up to many of the perpetrators. However, the law does not cover stupidity or capricious foolishness.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Sorry mate POTUS, yes you're right nice exec jet! (We're on the flight path to Mildenhall and see lots of Uncle Sam's hardware.) Didn't realize that Churchill coined the expression originally.”
Another contribution:
“Thanks for the obvious effort you put into this update. I respect your opinions and your ability to maintain a certain amount of objectivity on a tremendously disparate and emotional list of topics.
“I also respect your commitment to ‘give POTUS the benefit of the doubt.’ I hope you are correct in your assessment that he is a man of character and that all of us 'cynical' types are missing the big picture during this time of 'desperate times/desperate measures'. I truly hope you are right and we are wrong.
“On the other hand, look at your own list of plusses and minus: Stem cell (OK); Pirate issue (jury's still out) and ‘speaking style.’ Don't you think that's just a little ‘fluffy’ considering even you admit that he stutters excessively if not reading right off the teleprompter? I want this guy’s publicist and spin doctors when I go for my next job interview.
“Now the minuses:
1. Torture memos; (and taking every other opportunity to downplay the real national security issue of our time – Islamic Extremism/terror, in favor of the Johnson/Vietnam paradigm of ‘out of sight out of mind’ so we can focus on the ‘Great Society’);
2. Providing no executive leadership on ‘crisis-justified’ pork;
3. Providing no executive leadership to curtail crisis-justified, no-debate ramrod spending on social programs in an already stressed economy.
“To which I might add: rookie mistakes in foreign affairs diminished only by our own media spin. Failure to confront union bosses to bring about some real long-term, productive change in the auto industry. Questionable (at least) appointments (and/or nominations) to just about all posts. And, of course, taking what seems to be every opportunity to work his redistribution of wealth program.
“Before you castigate me too much on my own ‘fluff’ or ‘spewing of generalities that accomplish nothing,’ (I do deserve some castigation - but not too much...) please review your own assertions about ‘he presents a good image...’ Yes, I do think that is important for a President. But how's he doing it; by following the opinion polls and reading prepared speeches telling his political base what they want to hear? Where’s the beef? Where are the hard decisions that amount to more than ‘dancing with the ‘ones what brung you’?’ Exactly what important decision has he made that does not stink of politics as usual? I personally think you are still in the Barrack ‘honeymoon’ period with the media and the rest of the PC Nation, and it’s going to be tremendously interesting to see if/when/where/what actually pushes you over the edge.
“Again, I see nothing but politics as extremely normal - Chicago politics at that. Yes, we have put lipstick on the pig - but I truly fail to see any other positive change, and a whole bunch of national security screw-up’s on the negative side of the ledger.
“However, (once again) I still sincerely hope you are correct and I’m proven to be just another loony paranoid, a Napolitano Radical…or just plain stupid. I see nothing in Obama but a pretty Carter and I would certainly rather be myopic and stupid than ‘right’ if it means exposing our Nation to that danger.”
. . . my reply:
Thank you for your kind words and generosity. Others will not be so inclined.
Actually, I hope I am wrong as well, and he actually turns out to be one of our greatest presidents. However, my opinion matters not, and history is a unforgiving taskmaster.
Good observation. My pluses are “fluffy.” There has not been sufficient time or results to be so definitive, so early – case in point, the pirate affair. If various sources are accurate, POTUS could have done his part better, and I see shades of Gerry Ford’s and Jimmy Carter’s affliction – meddling in tactical military operations. I hold Carter and his henchman, Harold Brown, directly accountable for the deaths of those warriors in Operation EAGLE CLAW; what they did was reprehensible, and got good men killed.
[M]y friend, Barack may “ah” a little too much during extemporaneous speaking, but at least he understands the English language, possesses a decent vocabulary, and pronounces the words correctly. I don’t care whether he uses a teleprompter; in fact, as I’ve written, I’m glad he does. I would much rather have POTUS speak clearly and precisely, rather than being a laughing stock.
I think our “minuses” are the same or similar, just packages in different words. I share your “minuses” precisely. Also, we agree on the unions & auto industry, but I am not so dissatisfied with his appointments; and, I still think the “wealth redistribution” as being over-played.
If you are correct, regarding his floating on the breeze of public opinion, we shall know soon enough. I hope you will give me intellectual credit for surpassing the Press affection for BHO; I think I am a little more insightful and contemplative than that. I think he will prove himself far better than a “pretty Carter.” Time will tell whether I have been too amenable, or not insightful enough.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
. . . round two:
“Well said and concur.
“Again, truly, truly hope you are right across the board. Additionally, I'm neither so blatantly pessimistic, nor confident in my own anecdotal observations and opinions that I discount that possibility. At least not yet.
“We’ll have to agree to disagree on the relative image issue. Give me tough sincerity any day over slick spin-doctored salesmanship; regardless of how well it’s ‘delivered’. President Bush may not have been a great public orator, but I doubt seriously if either you or I know the English Language any better. Perception is King and once (or if) the media gets off its Messiah kick with Obama, we'll find out how he holds up under relentless negative scrutiny. At any rate, that’s a ways down my measures of effectiveness list during a time when Western Civilization may in fact be hanging in the balance.
“As you say, we'll know soon enough - if the media ever starts doing its job again. In the mean time, I really am pulling for you.”
. . . my round two reply:
Then, agree to disagree it is. There were very few times that I did not cringe when W was speaking; he always conveyed an awkwardness at the podium. And, we shall disagree on W’s command of the English language – at least in public rhetoric. Yet, I usually agreed with his message. He has always been a staunch supporter for our soldiers and the military, and most importantly, he knew his place in the national command structure. And, as much as I admired and despised Rummie, he was head & shoulders over Harold “let them vote with their feet” Brown.
You are of course quite right. We will see how he holds up under relentless negative scrutiny; it will come in time.
Another contribution:
“Not to be cynical, but the federal prosecutor dropping the charges against the AIPAC people comes just before the annual AIPAC convention. The Bureau agents on the case were very unhappy.”
My response:
I didn’t know that part. Does look mighty fishy, kinda like the U.S. attorney fiasco in the last administration. If I had been an agent and some U.S. attorney pulled the rug out from underneath me, I would be none too happy either. There is much more to the AIPAC story than we’ve been told.
An on-line comment from the Blog:
“I'll leave most of this alone, but I can't help celebrating the Gant decision. Searching people’s cars without a clear reason was clearly an unreasonable search in my reading.”
. . . my reply:
No need to leave anything alone. Comment as your opinions go.
We agree on the Gant decision. As in the Gant case, so many of these searches turn up drugs, which should not be a crime.
Thank you for your comment. Keep ‘em comin’.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- Monday, after the FCC v. Fox Television [556 U.S. ___ (2009)] ruling last week [385], the Supreme Court preemptively vacated the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling in the case of CBS v. FCC [3CCA no. 06-3575 (2008)] [346], and remanded the case to the 3rd Circuit for further consideration in light of the Court’s Fox decision. In CBS, the 3rd Circuit reversed the FCC’s fine of CBS as a consequence of the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident [113]. Given Fox, I suspect the 3rd Circuit will either reinstate the FCC fine, or challenge the Supremes based on the Thomas “concurrence” and the Stevens dissent. In the 3rd Circuit’s CBS ruling, Judge Rendell felt the court had not gone far enough and should have reined in the FCC. So, the remand opinion should be interesting; however, I do not see CBS v. FCC as the constitutional question that Justice Thomas and the other Supremes seek. Vederemo!
-- Governor John Elias Baldacci of Maine signed into law a bill allowing mono-gender marriage [128, et al]. The District of Columbia City Council passed a comparable law. New Hampshire is reportedly close to passing its law ensuring equal protection under the law with respect to marriage, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The beat goes on.
-- The intensity surrounding the Influenza A/2009H1N1 virus [384] has ebbed substantially, as world health experts recognized this strain was not as virulent as originally feared. Normal precautions remain good practice. I hope all nations easy up their travel restrictions quickly, to minimize the collateral injury to Mexico’s economy.
-- Bristol Palin [351], accompanied by her father, attended the Eighth Annual National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy conference as a featured speaker – for obvious reasons. Wise, young Bristol claimed that abstinence was the only 100% sure means to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies. Of course, she is precisely correct. Curiously, she did not reiterate her statement from the campaign days that abstinence-only [190, et al] promotion is not realistic. Indeed! Yet, here we are; we continue to wish mightily that our children are protected from dirty, nasty sex, by pretending it does not exist, denying our children the education all children should have as part of the maturation process, like being taught to eat properly, to wash properly, to take care of themselves properly. The hypocrisy and lunacy blanketing this whole social topic remains astounding and staggering.
-- We have the first public casualty of the unfortunate Air Force 1 photographic mission [385]. Director of the White House Military Office Louis Caldera [USMA 1978] – son of Mexican immigrants – resigned in the aftermath of recriminations. I have voiced my opinion on this incident; my opinion remains unchanged. Sadly, a good man will be the first scapegoat – a political expedient.
I must acknowledge that I may have been idealistically naïve with the silly notion that the Constitution was derived from We, the People. Perhaps, I am not capable of understanding the 9th &10th Amendments to the Constitution; or, worse yet, that the Framers put those Amendments in the Bill of Rights simply to placate the People into acquiescing for passage of the new Constitution. Maybe, the principles espoused by those Amendments were never intended to be actionable . . . which, I might add, could be one reason the Supreme Court has been so reluctant to cite or interpret those two Amendments. What sparked off Cap’s melancholy, you might be asking yourself?
“Is the new law of privacy strangling a free press? Discuss”
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
The Times [of London]
Published: April 22, 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6150010.ece?&EMC-Bltn=LJH2LA
It seems our British cousins are struggling with judicial fiat as well. I reviewed the case in question here – Mosley v. News Group [{2008} EWHC 1777 (QB); case no: HQ08X01303] – in an Update last year [346]. The challenge to all democracies as well as the very essence of freedom itself hangs upon the relationship between the citizen and the State. Tyranny comes in many forms, and a death by a thousands cuts is no less fatal. When I get in these funks, I remind myself of a fictional television show, some years back now, and one particular scene in one episode as the staff debated the selection of a Supreme Court justice nominee.
“It’s not about abortion. It’s about the next 20 years. In the 20’s and 30’s, it was the role of government, 50’s and 60’s, it was civil rights. The next two decades are going to be privacy. I'm talkin’ about the Internet, talkin’ about cell phones, talkin’ about medical records, and who's gay and who's not. Moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this?”
-- Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe), "The West Wing," Season 1, Episode 9, "The Short List." Original Airdate: 24.November.1999
Indeed! What could be more fundamental than a citizen’s most fundamental right to privacy? The inexorable advance of technology has given government vastly greater reach in space and time, and yet, we continue to flop around like a fish on the pier with this notion of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. Congress is not likely to speak up for We, the People, as it would mean diminishment of their power. The Court has proven, over generations of justices, to be reluctant in facing the 9th Amendment’s true meaning, and only begrudgingly acknowledged the sanctity of the private domain. Frances Gibb tickled my ire. I returned to Mosley. Justice Eady wrote, “I accept that such behavior [i.e., Max Mosley’s sexual proclivities] 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.” Frances also illuminated the principle struggle for democracies – judicial interpretation versus legislative action, the citizen versus the State – and, the constant pressure of the Press’ incessant search for titillating, salacious material to stimulate the repressed masses to buy newspapers. The Press like the Government and even others citizens do NOT have the right to violate a citizen’s privacy. If the Press feels imposed upon on this issue, I am good with that. I am an advocate for a strong, vibrant, inquisitive Press, but I do not want my privacy or another citizen’s privacy – from the famous to the invisible – to be compromised. Privacy is THE issue of our day, and that issue has profound impact on our lives, in ways most of us cannot even imagine.
With national intelligence, high-value captive, interrogation means & methods the hot topic of public debate, thanks in part to our beloved New York Times and a new president seeking political points with vocal minority, I simply cannot avoid returning to the issue. A series of Press opinions pushed me over the edge. I know most folks will not read the noted articles below, and I do not want to make this anymore burdensome that it already is; however, this issue is truly and literally a national security concern of the utmost importance to the defense of this Grand Republic and our Allies. So, for your rumination, as you wish, first up:
1. “Torture: An Author and a Resister”
by Ann Wright
t r u t h o u t Perspective
Published: Friday 01 May 2009
http://www.truthout.org/050109A
Wright – a retired, Army Reserve, colonel – goes after the 1.August.2002 memorandum authored by Jay Bybee to the CIA legal counsel regarding interrogation techniques, and she passes judgment on Bybee and his legal advice. It is not clear to me whether she has even read the memorandum . . . oh well, that is not important, I suppose.
2. “Security Before Politics”
by Porter J. Goss (former Representative and former Director of Central Intelligence)
Washington Post
Published: Saturday, April 25, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339_pf.html
Goss appropriately states, “Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done.” He could not be more accurate. I am certain the uber-Left feels so much better knowing they have done irreparable harm to the national intelligence apparatus of the United States, simply to satisfy their sense of morality.
3. “A Chilling Effect on U.S. Counterterrorism”
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: April 29, 2009; 1815 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090429_chilling_effect_u_s_counterterrorism
Burton & Stewart observed, “However, when the release of the memos is examined in a wider context, and combined with a few other dynamics, it appears that the U.S. counterterrorism community is quietly slipping back into an atmosphere of risk-aversion and malaise — an atmosphere not dissimilar to that described by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (AKA the 9/11 Commission) as a contributing factor to the intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attacks.” Now, how comforting is that? They went on to conclude, “As we’ve previously noted, it was a lack of intelligence that helped fuel the fear that led the Bush administration to authorize enhanced interrogation techniques. Ironically, the current investigation into those techniques and other practices (such as renditions) may very well lead to significant gaps in terrorism-related intelligence from both internal and liaison sources — again, not primarily because of the prohibition of torture, but because of larger implications.
“When these implications are combined with the long-standing institutional aversion of U.S. government agencies toward counterterrorism, and with the difficulty of finding and retaining good people willing to serve in counterterrorism roles, the U.S. counterterrorism community may soon be facing challenges even more daunting than those posed by its already difficult mission.”
Oh yeah, I feel better already. Next, and finally in this string:
4. “Is the United States a nation of laws or not?”
by Rod Dreher (Dallas Morning News)
Wichita Eagle
Published Thursday, 7.May.2009
http://www.kansas.com/opinion/story/802090.html
This article was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. I took my virtual pen in hand and wrote to the newspaper editors.
Reader Views,
Rod Dreher’s opinion should strike a sympathetic chord in all American citizens. Taken at face value, how could anyone argue with his point – torture is unacceptable. Further, since the Press and many citizens have convinced themselves that everything President Bush did was bad, illegal, morally repugnant, and punishable, We, the People, should be very careful what we ask for in this arena.
Intelligence operations are not military or combat activities, and are most definitely not matters of judicial or prosecutorial concern.
Battlefield combatants are not criminals. In the present War on Islamic Fascism, our enemies are extra-national fighters who pride themselves on killing innocent civilians; as such, they do not even possess the status of prisoners of war.
Captured battlefield combatants are not equal. Most are just pawn fighters. Some have strategic value in wartime. Information high-value captives possess may save thousands of innocent lives.
There must be an “inducement” for high-value captives to divulge the information they possess. Milk & cookies, and a flat-screen television will not cut it.
All information derived from battlefield combatant interrogations is considered unreliable and inaccurate, and must be correlated with other intelligence data to become actionable.
War is an ugly, nasty, disgusting business, best left to the professionals.
Whether we wish to acknowledge we are at war, conducting a public investigation of our national intelligence means & methods during wartime will serve our enemies far more than any sanctimonious sense of cleansing some among us may seek.
Before we begin this debate, I strongly urge every citizen to actually read the Yoo and Bybee memoranda regarding the law, presidential authority, battlefield combatants, and interrogations. This topic is not as simple as some would like to make it.
In this discussion, Dreher is quite wrong. Our national security interests are not even marginally served by a public investigation of our intelligence interrogation means & methods. If We, the People, insist on an investigation of interrogation techniques, it should be classified TOP SECRET and conducted only behind closed doors, with legislators and staff sworn to secrecy until the war is won.
As Dennis Miller says, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Now, at this junction, I have probably babbled on too much. Let me conclude by referring to and suggesting a movie that offers a Hollywood version of the complexity of CIA, counter-terrorism, field operations – Ridley Scott’s “Body of Lies,” starring Leonard di Caprio and Russell Crowe. While it is a typical, fictional, overly simplified portrayal, the elements illuminated by the various articles noted above can be readily seen in the story and characters of the movie. Please watch it attentively and think about what was said above.
Another odd, intriguing Supreme Court decision . . . We were treated to an English lesson by the Supremes – transitive verbs, adverbs, modifiers, oh my. The case at issue here is Flores-Figueroa v. United States [556 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 08-108]. The Supremes split grammar / semantic interpretation finer than Bill Clinton’s “That depends upon what the definition of is, is.” Several justices (Scalia, Thomas and Alito) concurred in the decision but reflected some difficulty with the grammar application. The instigator . . . Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa – an illegal alien from Mexico – used fake identification documents to gain employment in this country, and one of the social security numbers he used belonged to another citizen. He was tried and convicted of numerous violations of Federal law, including aggravated identity theft [18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1)]. The §1028A(a)(1) statute reads in toto: “Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.” The whole case hinged upon the grammatical interpretation of “knowingly,” in that, did Flores-Figueroa know he was using another person’s social security number? The Court said the government has not proven that he knew the social security number he chose to use belonged to another person. Yet, he knowingly “used” a fake number, which only by random happenstance may or may not belong to another citizen. In this instance, the Court illuminated a very shallow but fatal flaw in the current law, namely, that the current law stipulates “knowing” that the social security number belonged “to another person.” This interpretation, while correct and proper, in terms of grammatical interpretation, stands in stark contrast to the next case reviewed. More on this issue is offered below.
The Supreme Court decision in the case of Dean v. United States [556 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 08-5274] would normally not exceed my threshold of interest. In combination with Gant [385] and Flores above, I could not resist – the connection below. Christopher Michael Dean and Ricardo Curtis Lopez robbed a bank, and in doing so, Dean claimed he “accidentally” discharged his pistol. He was convicted of the additional violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(iii), which stipulates: “[I]f the firearm is discharged, [the perpetrator must] be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.” Of course, Dean claimed his discharge was accidental, and thus, he should not be punished under this statute, as he had no “intent” to fire his weapon. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Court’s opinion. He illuminated the applicable writing of Sir William Blackstone (1769): “[I]f any accidental mischief happens to follow from the performance of a lawful act, the party stands excused from all guilt: but if a man be doing any thing unlawful, and a consequence ensues which he did not foresee or intend, as the death of a man or the like, his want of foresight shall be no excuse; for, being guilty of one offence, in doing antecedently what is in itself unlawful, he is criminally guilty of whatever consequence may follow the first misbehaviour.” Dean was robbing a bank – that sounds rather unlawful to me. Roberts concluded, “Those criminals wishing to avoid the penalty for an inadvertent discharge can lock or unload the firearm, handle it with care during the underlying violent or drug trafficking crime, leave the gun at home, or--best yet--avoid committing the felony in the first place.” The Court affirmed the 11th Circuit’s affirmation of the trial court’s sentencing.
The Court took a direct pragmatic view of the law’s language in Dean, in that the defendant claimed he did not “intend” to discharge his pistol, and the Court stated that intent mattered not to the law in Dean’s case. Yet, the Court stretched “knowingly,” i.e., intent, to direct knowledge that the false social security number belonged “to another person” in Flores-Figueroa. To my thinking, did Flores-Figueroa know his identification documents were not his? Does it really matter as the law is written whether Flores-Figueroa’s gamble with identity theft, when compared to Dean’s “accidental” discharge of his weapon during an armed felony? The Court did not satisfy my curiosity or inquiry regarding the intent, and thus application of the law in Flores-Figueroa. Based on my reading of both cases, Christopher Michael Dean received the punishment he deserved for his crimes; Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa did not.
News from the economic front:
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke publicly indicated that the U.S. recession appears to be easing, and recovery is likely later this year on the back of firmer household spending, a bottoming housing market and an end to inventory liquidation. He also said that the recovery will probably be slower than usual, and warned that the unemployment rate may remain high as businesses remain cautious about new hiring.
-- The Government will require banks that want to return Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds to demonstrate their ability to wean themselves off the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) guarantee of debt issuance, which allows firms to borrow money relatively inexpensively. Banks have reportedly issued more than US$333B under the FDIC program since it began last fall.
-- When the capital investment firm Goldman Sachs became a bank holding company last Fall, the ties between New York Federal Reserve Chairman Stephen Friedman and his former firm continue to raise questions and illuminate the complex inter-dependency between regulators and banks. Friedman served as Chairman of Goldman Sachs from 1990 to 1994. Interestingly, he is also Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the Intelligence Oversight Board – a busy man.
-- The New York Times reported that its parent holding company has notified federal authorities of its plans to shut down the Boston Globe, raising the possibility that New England's most storied newspaper could cease to exist within weeks – a sad commentary to our times.
-- The Bank of England will increase its target for bond purchases to £125B (US$187B) from £75B to further ease liquidity – the timing surprised economists. The Pound Sterling dropped to US$1.5064, and rose slightly against the Euro to €1.1306.
-- The European Central Bank cut its benchmark rate by 0.25% to a new record low of 1%, as expected.
-- Macro-findings of the Government’s bank stress tests continue to trickle out. The Federal Reserve has reportedly advised Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, GMAC, State Street, Bank of America, Citigroup and Regions Financial to raise combined US$75B more capital. Banks reported to have sufficient capitalization include Capital One, American Express, Bank of New York Mellon, Goldman Sachs, MetLife and J.P. Morgan Chase. Fed Chairman Bernanke reiterated the stress tests were not “tests of solvency.” Losses at the 19 involved banks could total US$600B in 2009 and 2010, under the government’s gloomy scenario of a deepening economic downturn, with mortgage and consumer loans potentially amounting to 70% of the losses.
-- The unemployment rate increased 0.4% to 8.9%, the highest level since September 1983. The economy has shed 5.7 million jobs since the recession started in December 2007. Nonfarm payrolls fell 539,000 in April, the smallest decline in six months and less than economists were expecting. However, a substantial portion of the improvement came from temporary government hiring in advance of next year’s Census.
Comments and contributions from Update no.385:
“Had to look up PORTUS. However was surprised to find that the PORTUS salary is $400,000 annual, I assume before tax.
“The man with the biggest responsibility in the world, the most powerful man in the world, come on Cap give the man a pay rise! Is he not worth more than those banking morons that have that have moved the world into a financial meltdown through gross incompetence. Is there something wrong with the way we award failure? (None of my business I know!).”
. . . my response:
Actually, it is POTUS vice PORTUS, and I believe none-other-than Sir Winston himself coined the acronym . . . POTUS = President Of The United States. Sir Winston used the term in correspondence with FDR; he referred to himself as “Naval Person” when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, and “Former Naval Person” during his wilderness years and as PM. Interesting relationship those two.
LOL I suppose you’re correct. We should pay POTUS more for what he must deal with 24/7. However, he gets a fancy mansion, personal security, the best biz jet in the world, and lots of “friends.”
Au contraire, mon ami. This financial crisis is everyone’s business; we are all affected in one way or another. I think the law will catch up to many of the perpetrators. However, the law does not cover stupidity or capricious foolishness.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Sorry mate POTUS, yes you're right nice exec jet! (We're on the flight path to Mildenhall and see lots of Uncle Sam's hardware.) Didn't realize that Churchill coined the expression originally.”
Another contribution:
“Thanks for the obvious effort you put into this update. I respect your opinions and your ability to maintain a certain amount of objectivity on a tremendously disparate and emotional list of topics.
“I also respect your commitment to ‘give POTUS the benefit of the doubt.’ I hope you are correct in your assessment that he is a man of character and that all of us 'cynical' types are missing the big picture during this time of 'desperate times/desperate measures'. I truly hope you are right and we are wrong.
“On the other hand, look at your own list of plusses and minus: Stem cell (OK); Pirate issue (jury's still out) and ‘speaking style.’ Don't you think that's just a little ‘fluffy’ considering even you admit that he stutters excessively if not reading right off the teleprompter? I want this guy’s publicist and spin doctors when I go for my next job interview.
“Now the minuses:
1. Torture memos; (and taking every other opportunity to downplay the real national security issue of our time – Islamic Extremism/terror, in favor of the Johnson/Vietnam paradigm of ‘out of sight out of mind’ so we can focus on the ‘Great Society’);
2. Providing no executive leadership on ‘crisis-justified’ pork;
3. Providing no executive leadership to curtail crisis-justified, no-debate ramrod spending on social programs in an already stressed economy.
“To which I might add: rookie mistakes in foreign affairs diminished only by our own media spin. Failure to confront union bosses to bring about some real long-term, productive change in the auto industry. Questionable (at least) appointments (and/or nominations) to just about all posts. And, of course, taking what seems to be every opportunity to work his redistribution of wealth program.
“Before you castigate me too much on my own ‘fluff’ or ‘spewing of generalities that accomplish nothing,’ (I do deserve some castigation - but not too much...) please review your own assertions about ‘he presents a good image...’ Yes, I do think that is important for a President. But how's he doing it; by following the opinion polls and reading prepared speeches telling his political base what they want to hear? Where’s the beef? Where are the hard decisions that amount to more than ‘dancing with the ‘ones what brung you’?’ Exactly what important decision has he made that does not stink of politics as usual? I personally think you are still in the Barrack ‘honeymoon’ period with the media and the rest of the PC Nation, and it’s going to be tremendously interesting to see if/when/where/what actually pushes you over the edge.
“Again, I see nothing but politics as extremely normal - Chicago politics at that. Yes, we have put lipstick on the pig - but I truly fail to see any other positive change, and a whole bunch of national security screw-up’s on the negative side of the ledger.
“However, (once again) I still sincerely hope you are correct and I’m proven to be just another loony paranoid, a Napolitano Radical…or just plain stupid. I see nothing in Obama but a pretty Carter and I would certainly rather be myopic and stupid than ‘right’ if it means exposing our Nation to that danger.”
. . . my reply:
Thank you for your kind words and generosity. Others will not be so inclined.
Actually, I hope I am wrong as well, and he actually turns out to be one of our greatest presidents. However, my opinion matters not, and history is a unforgiving taskmaster.
Good observation. My pluses are “fluffy.” There has not been sufficient time or results to be so definitive, so early – case in point, the pirate affair. If various sources are accurate, POTUS could have done his part better, and I see shades of Gerry Ford’s and Jimmy Carter’s affliction – meddling in tactical military operations. I hold Carter and his henchman, Harold Brown, directly accountable for the deaths of those warriors in Operation EAGLE CLAW; what they did was reprehensible, and got good men killed.
[M]y friend, Barack may “ah” a little too much during extemporaneous speaking, but at least he understands the English language, possesses a decent vocabulary, and pronounces the words correctly. I don’t care whether he uses a teleprompter; in fact, as I’ve written, I’m glad he does. I would much rather have POTUS speak clearly and precisely, rather than being a laughing stock.
I think our “minuses” are the same or similar, just packages in different words. I share your “minuses” precisely. Also, we agree on the unions & auto industry, but I am not so dissatisfied with his appointments; and, I still think the “wealth redistribution” as being over-played.
If you are correct, regarding his floating on the breeze of public opinion, we shall know soon enough. I hope you will give me intellectual credit for surpassing the Press affection for BHO; I think I am a little more insightful and contemplative than that. I think he will prove himself far better than a “pretty Carter.” Time will tell whether I have been too amenable, or not insightful enough.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
. . . round two:
“Well said and concur.
“Again, truly, truly hope you are right across the board. Additionally, I'm neither so blatantly pessimistic, nor confident in my own anecdotal observations and opinions that I discount that possibility. At least not yet.
“We’ll have to agree to disagree on the relative image issue. Give me tough sincerity any day over slick spin-doctored salesmanship; regardless of how well it’s ‘delivered’. President Bush may not have been a great public orator, but I doubt seriously if either you or I know the English Language any better. Perception is King and once (or if) the media gets off its Messiah kick with Obama, we'll find out how he holds up under relentless negative scrutiny. At any rate, that’s a ways down my measures of effectiveness list during a time when Western Civilization may in fact be hanging in the balance.
“As you say, we'll know soon enough - if the media ever starts doing its job again. In the mean time, I really am pulling for you.”
. . . my round two reply:
Then, agree to disagree it is. There were very few times that I did not cringe when W was speaking; he always conveyed an awkwardness at the podium. And, we shall disagree on W’s command of the English language – at least in public rhetoric. Yet, I usually agreed with his message. He has always been a staunch supporter for our soldiers and the military, and most importantly, he knew his place in the national command structure. And, as much as I admired and despised Rummie, he was head & shoulders over Harold “let them vote with their feet” Brown.
You are of course quite right. We will see how he holds up under relentless negative scrutiny; it will come in time.
Another contribution:
“Not to be cynical, but the federal prosecutor dropping the charges against the AIPAC people comes just before the annual AIPAC convention. The Bureau agents on the case were very unhappy.”
My response:
I didn’t know that part. Does look mighty fishy, kinda like the U.S. attorney fiasco in the last administration. If I had been an agent and some U.S. attorney pulled the rug out from underneath me, I would be none too happy either. There is much more to the AIPAC story than we’ve been told.
An on-line comment from the Blog:
“I'll leave most of this alone, but I can't help celebrating the Gant decision. Searching people’s cars without a clear reason was clearly an unreasonable search in my reading.”
. . . my reply:
No need to leave anything alone. Comment as your opinions go.
We agree on the Gant decision. As in the Gant case, so many of these searches turn up drugs, which should not be a crime.
Thank you for your comment. Keep ‘em comin’.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment