28 September 2009

Update no.406

Update from the Heartland
No.406
21.9.09 – 27.9.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- In the wake of last week’s exchange on the Battle of Afghanistan [405], I reviewed the latest official appraisal. General Stanley A. McChrystal, USA [USMA 76] [387] – Commander, International Security Assistance Force (COMISAF) Afghanistan – submitted his requested assessment to Secretary of Defense Gates – subject: COMISAF’s Initial Assessment, dated: 30.August.2009. The redacted, unclassified document was made available to the public [and, we must assume, to our enemies]. The sobering evaluation offers up a direct, blunt, commander’s view of the situation in Afghanistan. For obvious reasons, the “goodies” were redacted. From the public document, the conspicuous paucity of any actions dealing with Pakistani complicity and acquiescence regarding the use of the mountainous, tribal, border region of their country struck me like a déjà vu revelation – borders that offer safe haven . . . where have we seen that before? We can only trust the Pakistani question was addressed in the redacted portions of the COMISAF assessment. While Stan did not discuss the contemporary issue of intelligence interrogations [405], he gave us a rather stark view of the detainee situation in Afghanistan. The Afghan Correction System (ACS) [I love that term, as if there is actually any prayer of rehabilitation] holds 14,500 prisoners/detainees; of those, 2,500 (17%) are committed Taliban & al-Qaeda combatants. Worse, Stan acknowledges that the ACS is a fertile environment for insurgent recruitment. He also recognized the additional adverse public attention being focused on the U.S. Bagram Theater Internment Facility (BTIF) and the resultant distraction. Before McChrystal could submit his formal request for more troops, the administration reportedly asked him to withhold his request until they can complete a strategic review. I appreciate and laud General McChrystal’s candor and frankness. My broad, prevailing opinion remains the same; if we (here, I mean POTUS on our behalf) are not prepared to deploy the necessary resources to win the battle, then I recommend we withdraw and establish a more acceptable, defensive position, like downtown Dallas, New York City, or Springfield, Illinois (see below). Hey, I’m cool . . . it’s not Wichita, Kansas . . . yet!
-- As a consequence of R (Purdy) v. Director of Public Prosecutions [(2009) UKHL 45] . . . [399], the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), delivered the guidelines for citizens regarding Death with Dignity cases, as requested by the Law Lords. To my knowledge, this is the first such list defined by the equivalent of a national attorney general as an attempt to establish prosecution thresholds for citizens seeking Death with Dignity. The guidelines are rational, reasonable and humane. Ms. Debbie Purdy [364-6, 375, 399] – British citizen – finally has the piece of mind she needs to control her end of days as she chooses. Congratulations, Debbie; your determination and perseverance have advanced humanity, freedom, privacy, and personal autonomy for all freedom-loving people.
[FYI: for those so inclined, the link to the CPS guidelines is:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/144_09/]
-- As y’all will recall, Attorney General Holder appointed a special prosecutor to investigate criminal wrong-doing in the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program (DIP) and its agents [402]. Seven (7) prior Directors of Central Intelligence (DCI) – Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet, John Deutch, R. James Woolsey. William Webster, and James R. Schlesinger – appealed to the President to abandon the Holder investigation. Their letter stated, “Those men and women who undertake difficult intelligence assignments in the aftermath of an attack such as September 11 must believe there is permanence in the legal rules that govern their actions.” This is precisely why national intelligence operatives must never become a political football to be kicked around the arena at the pleasure of the prevailing political party.
[FYI, the link to the letter:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Letter%20to%20President%20Obama%20from%20Former%20DCIs%20and%20DCIAs.pdf]

As we debate the validity of continuing the Battle of Afghanistan, we learn of at least three (3), homeland, terror operations foiled by national security agencies.
-- A federal grand jury in New York City indicted Najibullah Zazi, 24 – an airport-shuttle driver in Aurora, Colorado – on charges that he conspired to use weapons of mass destruction, “to wit: explosive bombs and other similar explosive devices, against persons and property within the United States.” Also arrested and charged in the same FBI operation were: Zazi's father, Mohammed Zazi, 53, and Ahmad Wais Afzali, 37, of Flushing, New York. Zazi bought a large amount of hydrogen peroxide, which was a clue. Where have we seen that chemical before? [352, 404]
-- The FBI arrested and charged Michael C. Finton, AKA Talib Islam, 29, with attempted murder, after he tried to detonate what he believed was a massive truck bomb outside the federal courthouse in Springfield, Illinois.
-- In an apparently similar but unrelated operation, the FBI arrested and charged Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, 19 – an illegal alien, Jordanian citizen – with attempting to detonate a weapon of mass destruction in the garage of the 60-story, Fountain Place office tower in Dallas, Texas. None of the Press reports or the FBI’s website have indicated how or when Smadi entered the United States; perhaps those details will be forthcoming.
All three episodes were unrelated, other than their Islamo-fascist jihadistani ideology. All three are facing life-time confinement in Federal prison. As a side note, these cases represent another reason why we should have open, unfettered, Internet access . . . better to get these creeps to the attention of the FBI.

Well, surprise, surprise! As the leaders of France, Great Britain and the United States were poised to expose Iranian duplicity, the Islamic Republic of Iran ‘fessed up to building and operating a secret, underground facility as part of their uranium enrichment program. I am shocked, simply shocked, I tell you.

I have supported Israel’s inherent right to defend itself. Nations must judge words and actions to assess threat / risk. The conduct of the Islamic Republic of Iran crossed the threshold of threat to the State of Israel a long time ago. The restraint shown by the leaders of Israel is laudable only to the point where the threat becomes realized – actual; then, they will be condemn for not acting sooner. They are facing a threat to the entire state, not just a few citizens. A mistake in judgment can and would be extraordinarily costly. Perhaps the United States can absorb such destruction. Israel cannot. The NATO Allies who have urged restraint by Israel had better get this one right, or history will judge them in the same harsh light as Neville Chamberlain . . . or worse.

“Banish the Cyber-Bigots”
by Michael Gerson
Washington Post
Published: Friday, September 25, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092403932.html?wpisrc=newsletter
This is why I fear the USG taking up regulation of the Internet under the innocuous guise of “network neutrality.” I want the bigots and all other malcontents out in the open. I do not them hiding in the shadows. Rather than banish the bigots, I want to encourage them to speak out and share their vitriol . . . so we can see who the real bigots are.

As the banking crisis unfolded last Fall, I argued for tighter Federal regulation to avoid the devastating consequence of rampant, unchecked greed, and the foolish, house-of-cards schemes that bankers and insurers used to bring down the financial system. The difficulty represented by two sides of the same continuum can be seen in the balance between proper regulation and abuse. We gave the USG extraordinary (virtually unchecked) warrantless surveillance authority under the PATRIOT Act {USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-56]}. I am sure considerable good for national security was done; however, it takes only one abuse of that delicate authority to despoil all the potential good that can be done with such power. I would rather take my chances with the Islamo-fascist jihadistanis than suffer one more abuse like Eliot Spitzer. So it is with banking regulations and now net neutrality. I am losing what trust I may have desperately held onto as I watch the highly corrosive and toxic political partisanship taint all the good that could be done for We, the People.

News from the economic front:
-- The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee voted 10-0 to maintain the target federal-funds rate for inter-bank lending at a record-low range of zero to 0.25%. They highlighted signs of economic recovery and unveiled a strategy for reining in one of the central bank's extraordinary measures to prop up the mortgage market. The Fed also extended its US$1.25T purchases of mortgage-backed securities into next year in order to help financial markets adjust.
-- The National Association of Realtors reported August existing-home sales declined by 2.7% from July, to a 5.10M annual rate and breaking a string of four monthly increases. Distressed property sales pushed the median price for an existing home down last month to $177,700, a 12.5% decrease from August 2008. The year-over-year existing-home sales were up 3.4% from the rate in August 2008. Hey, we did our part.
-- The G-20 leaders completed their summit meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and agreed to phase out government subsidies for the production and consumption of fossil fuels as well as directed their finance ministers to present a “range of possible options” to fund climate change mitigation in developing countries prior to the December Copenhagen meeting.

There were no comments and contributions from Update no.405.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

21 September 2009

Update no.405

Update from the Heartland
No.405
14.9.09 – 20.9.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
This is one of those “when it rains, it pours” editions, as you will note by the length and extent of contributions to this humble forum. Thank you for your indulgence, persistence, patience and continuing contributions to a vigorous public debate of contemporary issues.

Every year at this time I note and commemorate a historic event, important to every freedom-loving citizen of any country – 15.September. On that date 69 years ago, we recognize a debt to a few aviators, in the confined seat of single-engine fighter airplanes, who flew against daunting odds and incessant pressure to stop the inexorable advance of Nazi Germany in the skies above Great Britain. I trust everyone gave a quiet moment of contemplation to “The Few,” who stood in harm’s way on our behalf. I cannot speak for this Grand Republic or even my family; yet, as one enormously grateful citizen, thank you so very much to all those who won the day in the Battle of Britain all those years ago. Some of us remember and will never forget; and, some of us pass along to succeeding generations what “The Few” did during the moments of stark terror in those hours, days and weeks of sacrifice.

Constitution Day – 17.September.1787 – the day, 222 years ago, the Constitution of the United States of America was signed at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention. The document was ratified 9 months later, when New Hampshire became the 9th of the original 13 states to approve the document. Four years later, the first amendments – the Bill of Rights – to the Constitution were ratified. And so began this glorious experiment. The debate over its interpretation continues below.

In my tardiness and the rush of last week’s Update [404], I did not include a house image. My bad! More than a few chastised me for my oversight. Here is an image taken from our back deck, which is the primary reason we were attracted to this house.

View from our back deck
[view deck.jpg]

The follow-up news items:
-- Last week’s outburst by “Joe” Wilson [404] during the President’s address to the joint session of Congress attracted admonishment from the House. They passed a resolution of disapproval [H.Res.744; House: 240-179-5-10(1)]. I have mixed feelings. I resent Wilson’s lack of civility, and yet no one was injured by the exercise of his freedom of speech. Nonetheless, my bottom line; Wilson is a member of Congress and the House of Representatives, and thus a representative of the lower chamber. In such circumstances, I do not think we have the full rights and privileges of citizenship. Joe Wilson was wrong, immature, uncivil, and deserved censure.

A classmate, friend, fellow Marine and regular contributor sent along a link to Tom Ricks’ blog and the subject Op-Ed column regarding the continuing self-flagellation induced by one word – torture.
“Marine generals to Cheney: Knock it off, mac”
by Tom Ricks
ForeignPolicy.com
Published: Tuesday, 09/15/2009 - 11:11am
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/15/marine_generals_to_cheney_knock_it_off_mac
The Op-Ed column referred to:
“Fear was no excuse to condone torture”
by Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar
OPINION
Miami Herald
Posted on Friday, 09.11.09
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/1227832.html#none
For those who may not recognize the names, both are retired Marine 4-star generals. Chuck was 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Joe was Commander-in-Chief, Central Command (CinC CentCom). Just as a little historic FYI, (then) Major Joe Hoar was our XO when I was a young platoon commander with 3rd Recon in 1971-72.
Anyway, here is my response:
I certainly respect their opinions, as Marines, as general officers, and as citizens. Yet, I am disappointed they have apparently fallen victim to the same political drivel that infects so much of our public debate. They offer criticism of “public perceived” interrogation techniques and condemnation of the former Vice President, without even a sliver of recognition of the program’s accomplishments, as if every interrogation involved life-threatening, physically-maiming, Inquisition-style, brutal torture. They also imply that the former VP is off his rocker. At least the CIA OIG 2004 report attempted to find balance between cost / benefit, risk / reward, and the bona fide legal issues involved. Further, they appear to lump all interrogations conducted during the previous administration under the inflammatory and incite-ful label of “torture,” and worse, they combine them together with the abuses of Abu Graib by seriously-under-trained, poorly-supervised, mis-guided, National Guard, military police troops. This does enormous disservice to our national intelligence professionals who sought to do the right things for the country they serve.
Nonetheless, the President and his lieutenants shoulder the burden today. They have made their decisions regarding HVD interrogations. They will have to live with the consequences. I just hope and pray the citizens who will ultimately pay the real price do not suffer long. The bottom line is: my opinion on such things does not matter a hoot.
[P.S.: I would love to have a calm, extended, sit-down with both Chuck & Joe to learn more about why they have taken the position they have on this important topic. Perhaps they know far more than they are reflecting in their Op-Ed column. My opinion remains unchanged but muted.]

Next up, I noted Mark Alexander’s 1st of his two-part essay on the Constitution – “Rule of Law” [403]. The 2nd part was published last week.
“Rule of Law” (Part 2)
by Mark Alexander
Patriot Post; Vol. 09 No. 36
Published: September 10, 2009
http://media.patriotpost.us/pdf/edition/09-36a.pdf
Far too many of us (and Alexander appears to be among those) seem to confuse God and the human artifacts of our worship – religion, places of worship (church, mosque, synagogue, temple), clergy, et cetera. Jefferson’s oft-referred-to “wall of separation” observation was between church and state, not between God and the People. The mistake and confusion can be seen in Alexander’s words and logic. Regarding Jefferson’s phrase, he noted, “[W]ords that Jefferson wrote to denote the barrier between federal and state governments, not to erect a prohibition against faith expression in any and all public venues.” I have no idea how he arrives at such a statement – selective memory, perhaps; however, it is reflective of the general tenor of his essay. He went on to say, “The primacy of faith must be restored in order to preserve the conviction that, as Jefferson wrote, our ‘liberties are the gift of God;’ traditional families and values must be restored as the foundation of our culture; individual rights and responsibilities must be restored as the underpinning of republican government; free enterprise must be unbridled from government constraints; and constitutional authority over each branch of government must be restored to ensure liberty, opportunity and prosperity for a civil society.” Alexander is quite correct in numerous aspects. Our rights are indeed a gift from God . . . not from religion, or clergy, or even from one holy book or another . . . from God. The principles of our freedom, endowed by our Creator, infuse all aspects of our lives . . . even the atheists who claim no God exists. Yet, individual freedom taken to its ultimate extreme is anarchy – the paucity of any order, discipline, or rule of law. Anarchic environments are inherently unstable, fraught with threat and danger, and destined to failure. In such systems, it is survival of fittest. Our concept of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” pre-supposes civility and order to public conduct . . . thus, government is formed to establish good order and discipline for the general public welfare. As a consequence, the Founders / Framers created the Constitution, on the ashes of the Articles of Confederation, to establish a union of states and to codify the principles of governance for this Grand Republic. To say the Constitution is etched in stone and there is only one, inviolate interpretation of the words are comparable to saying that Leviticus represents the inviolate word of God in how we are to live our lives. Perhaps, the prohibitions of Leviticus had justification, reason and rationale behind them for the pre-Christian time of Judaism. Only the strictest, fundamentalist adherent holds such an invariant view. The Constitution was written when only propertied, Caucasian males could vote or stand for elected office. Females were considered the property of their fathers or husbands. Other human beings toiled in forced servitude to their masters’ wishes. Children were only one rung above slaves. There was no electricity, and centuries to pass before instant electronic communications. To say that the Constitution has only one, original, inviolate interpretation defies the very essence of what the Constitution stands for . . . a guide for governance on behalf of We, the People. This is not to say that the “despotic branch” (as Alexander refers) has not made mistakes and overextended the interpretation. While Alexander rails against judicial fiat for validation of his erroneous interpretation of Jefferson’s “wall of separation,” he fails to recognize the very essence of the Constitution itself. Apparently, from his words, he is quite comfortable with the Supremes’ interpretation of the Commerce Clause as justification for the so-called “war on drugs.” Apparently, he is quite comfortable with the government possessing control over the bodily functions of at least half our citizens. He apparently seeks to use Federalism (and to cow the Court into validating his advocacy) to dictate acceptable tolerances, guidelines, rules and laws for everyone’s “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” I reject and condemn such proposals, notions and suggestions; such travesty is the antithesis of Liberty. Concomitantly, I have no desire or intention of placing myself (or anyone else) between a man and his faith (or choice of religious affiliation). Conversely, I will resist to my last breath and ounce of strength any attempt by another man to impose his beliefs, his faith, his religion on me, or anyone else. To me, this is the argument of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” metaphor. If another citizen freely chooses to live his life by the rules of Leviticus, that is his right and privilege to do as he pleases . . . as long as he causes no harm to another person or property (contrary to Leviticus dicta for certain infractions). I’ll be damned if he has any right whatsoever to tell me I must live my life by those same principles and rules. Why is this tenant of freedom so difficult for Citizen Alexander and far too many others to grasp? Freedom is freedom . . . not someone else’s rules.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration will abandon the ballistic missile defense system for Europe, which will please Russia but offer little comfort to Europe in the shadow of threats from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Later, the President held a brief Press conference and announced the United States was indeed abandoning the Bush administration, Eastern Europe, anti-missile defense system, but was replacing it with a less-ambitious, mobile system [presumably, the Aegis-class cruiser, missile defense system] to defend Europe from the Iranian ballistic missile threat. The countries of Eastern Europe feel betrayed and abandoned. The Russians are elated. Further, I must assume some sort of deal was made with Russia to gain leverage in the Security Counsel for dealing with the nuclear threat from Iran. If so, then perhaps the trade will be worth the price; if not, then this move will be seen by history as a failure.

The following thread was lifted from another forum and I believe remains relevant:
“I tried to look up some historical quotes, seeking the one about those not knowing their history are doomed to repeat it. There were too many to wade thru, so I sent a msg. If interested, you can go through it. But suffice it to say that over time, Afghanistan has been desired by many entities for differing reasons. Thus it has been a battleground for hundreds of years. At LEAST! Can anyone tell me when Afghanistan was/ has NOT been caught in the middle of varying interests?
“Unless Genghis Khan was an Afghan, I don't know of anytime in history that Afghanistan has been the aggressor in wars. If I am wrong, correct me.
“When we first talked of Afghanistan, I remembered the accounts of the below failure by the Brits.
“First Anglo–Afghan War lasted from 1839 to 1842. It was one of the first major conflicts during the Great Game
, the 19th century competition for power and influence in Central Asia
between Great Britain
and Russia
, and also marked one of the worst setbacks inflicted on British power in the region after the consolidation of India by the East India Company .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War
. . . to which I added:
There are few, if any, Americans (or any of the Allies for that matter) who want to be fighting in Afghanistan. You are quite right, Afghans are rarely aggressors. The problem for us is, they were hosts to al-Qaeda, which is no different from being an accomplice to atrocities. If we had assurance they would not return to hosting al-Qaeda, I don't think we could care what happened in Afghanistan. Sure, our Western sensibilities would be offended by what the Taliban do to anyone who does not follow strict, Medieval, fundamentalist Islam, but so what. Innocent people get hurt all the time. But, the Taliban did not confine themselves to brutalizing their people; they hosted folks they knew were intent upon terrorist atrocities elsewhere. They are as guilty as al-Qaeda.
. . . with this follow-up:
“I agree to a point, Cap. But Afghanistan has been tribal virtually forever. As such it has never seemed to be able to find a way to gather in all the varying self interests within it's borders and form a government along with the supporting infrastructure, and the supportive will of the people to be an effective country, much less a progressive one. It takes powerful leadership, inspiring and motivating leadership with a vision of what might be/could be to get such things moving. So far, though a few have tried in more recent times, no one has succeeded. So far, the majority of average Afghan citizens have been too occupied with just trying to get through today without starving or dying at the hand of some bully.
“Now it may be that Afghans actually allow terrorists to operate within its borders and look the other way. Maybe because of the drug trade which compromises so much of their GNP. But I do not think that the everyday average Afghan wants what has happened over and over for hundreds of years, as interests force themselves into Afghanistan with agendas not concerned with what is best for Afghanistan, but for themselves. Who wants to live in fear every day, not knowing if one or one's family will be alive at dusk? No one, and not Afghans.”
. . . along with my reply:
All good points and generally agreed. As sad as it would be to see the Taliban's brutality back in power, I'm still OK with it. It is up the Afghans to decide how they wish to live. I'm quite comfortable with their choices or even lack of same. Afghanistan, like so many other countries, does not appear capable to democratic governance. Where the rub comes is, by their actions or even simple acquiescence, violent operations against American citizens, American interests or Allied citizens or interests cannot be tolerated no matter what their customs, choices or form of governance. It is the hosting of the exporters of violence that triggers us to action.
On the other side of the equation, I have long questioned our definitions of poverty, standards of living, and as a consequence our foreign policy, regarding indigenous peoples like the Afghans. We (Americans) do not have a stellar record of dealing with indigenous people. As I said, I'm perfectly comfortable and accepting if they choose to live naked or covered from head to toe, whether they choose dictatorship, communism, theocratic totalitarianism, or even anarchy. I really don't care. But, when they try to impose their choices on other people, or they harbor those who choose to do such things, then we simply cannot tolerate such disrespect for the choices of others outside their borders. That, to me, is why al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Wahabbists, Saddam's Ba'athists, Soviet or PRC communism, Nazi lebensraum, the IRA, or any other projectionist ideology cannot be tolerated and must be resisted. Once you make that decision, I would rather fight the fight over there than here at home.

News from the economic front:
-- United States District Judge Jed Saul Rakoff, Southern District of New York, rejected a proposed US$33M consent decree to settle charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Bank of America, for "materially" lying in shareholder communications regarding US$5.8B bonuses to employees of Merrill Lynch. Instead, Judge Rakoff set a 1.February trial date. I suspect the judge sees much more in this case, and thus does not bode well for Bank of America. The judgment of the court should tell us a lot about last Fall’s banking crisis.
-- U.S. retail sales rose 2.7% in August, exceeding economists’ expectations (+2%), as the automobiles industry benefited from the USG’s cash-for-clunkers program. Excluding car sales, all other retail sales increased 1.1%, another positive sign that the recovery is underway.
-- U.S. producer price index for finished goods rose 1.7% on a seasonally adjusted basis in August, after falling 0.9% in July, predominately due rising gasoline and other energy costs.
-- U.S. consumer prices rose 0.4% in August, in line with economists’ expectations. A 4.6% increase in energy prices was the largest contributor. Excluding food and energy, consumer prices rose only 0.1%. Despite the monthly increase, prices were down 1.5% compared with a year earlier.
-- New, single-family, housing starts rose a weaker-than-expected 1.5% in August to a seasonally adjusted 598,000 annual rate. Apartment construction rose by a comparable amount to offset a shallower rate for single-family homes.
-- Initial claims for unemployment benefits fell 12,000 to 545,000 in the week ending 12.September, stronger than the expected 13,000 increase in claims.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported on a proposal for the Federal Reserve to review and approve the pay for tens of thousands of bank employees nationwide to rein in risk-taking at financial institutions. The plan would place Federal regulators deep into compensation decisions traditionally reserved for the banks’ corporate boards and executives. Apparently, according to some Press reports, the Fed believes they already have the authority to implement such a policy, and thus do not need additional law(s). I find that very hard to absorb since we are talking about a very intrusive action by the government into the very core of a private enterprise. I suspect we are going to hear much more on this and other governmental actions. Some of it has to happen. The bankers and other money folks proved themselves unworthy of a nearly, free, unfettered marketplace.

A continuing exchange from Update no.403:
“I agree that the President of the United States should be respected and shown respect in front of our children ... but a mixed message also results when the children end up seeing a president (such as Clinton) they once respected and admired, embroiled in personal controversy and political controversy (Nixon). It all boils down to ... will the President HOLD that respect of the American People? We shall see. The distrust in government in general continues to endure in society.
“[My spouse] had a good idea on health care ... if the unemployed (who are fully ABLE to work) get free healthcare they must perform community services equivalent to the value of the health care they are receiving. This would be services such as cleaning trash off the streets (a big problem in [our city]), cleaning up the landscaping ... pretty much any services that are needed and currently being paid by the taxpayers could be performed instead by the unemployed people receiving free or highly reduced healthcare. This might curtail the abuse that will come with a free healthcare system if the offenders know they have to WORK for their healthcare.”
My response:
Nixon’s transgressions were far more grievous, as he subverted the very foundation of the Federal government, and even worse, probably did more to create the contemporary atmosphere of distrust of government and the penchant for personal destruction in political campaigns, and to disgrace the Office of the President. While Bill Clinton was no saint, his transgressions were more of personal failings than a subversion of government. I am not defending Slick Willie; only trying to put things in perspective. I remain enormously disappointed in George W. Bush, not least of which in his furtherance of the “imperial presidency” honed so sharply by Tricky Dick. The final straw for me was the travesty of Eliot Spitzer’s disgrace [327], undoubtedly (IMHO) using information derived from warrantless, electronic surveillance intended for use in the War on Islamic Fascism – far closer to Big Brother of Oceania than Tricky Dick ever got. If Eliot’s demise happened as I suspect, that is precisely why we distrust government possessing such powerful tools that can so easily be turned to subvert the very freedom we cherish. The jury is still out on our man Barack, but I am watching. If his assault on the CIA continues, he will join my list; he is not there yet.
I like [your spouse’s] suggestion. In fact, I have long advocated for public or community service as a consequence of government assistance. I am in favor of helping those who wish and need to be helped, but I think public service is a reasonable expectation for that assistance. I use the same approach in dealing with drug abusers – I have no problem buying their drugs and providing a safe place for them to indulge, in exchange for them being off the street, and unable to harm anyone or anything (other than themselves).
. . . a follow-up:
“Guess I have been not watching much TV or reading lately ... what is Obama trying to do with the CIA ? It is almost if he does things ... puts his little grimy feelers out there to see what kind of public response he gets .. then retracts if the opposition is too great ... hopefully there is enough opposition to his CIA moves ...”
. . . and my follow-up response:
The Obama administration has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program, ostensibly to determine if there were any prosecutable offenses during the execution of the program. Then, they withdrew interrogation responsibility from the CIA with this group they call the HIG. Unfortunately, but appropriately, so much of what the CIA does is beyond public view; we can only hope and pray that behind the scenes the administration is strengthening the CIA. Time will tell the tale, but by that time, failure will be very painful and a lot of our citizens will pay a very heavy price.

Comments and contributions from Update no.404:
“On the conviction of the 3 terrorists in the UK, it is useful to recall that the Brits were very upset at the time of the arrests. They had been tracking a larger number of people in relation to the case. They indicated that they had the suspects under tight surveillance and so briefed the USG, in a courtesy brief. The US Administration, read VPCheney, wanted the Brits to act immediately - the Brits demurred, wanting to bag an entire network. Short story, the Administration requested the Paks to arrest a leader of the group. When that happened, the Brits immediately went out and arrested all the suspects, fearing that they would go to ground on hearing of the leader's arrest. The Brits were furious that the investigation had been compromised so early. The result was that only three-- out of dozens-- were able to be tried, and for not the full range of charges. More important, a number of potential terrorists, not yet identified, escaped. This case has damaged ties between Brit and U.S. Agencies; all due to the panicked move of the Administration.”
My reply:
Quite apropos! I should have noted that connection. I do believe a dozen or so were arrested; of those, eight (8) were tried for various crimes; and of those eight, the three (3) noted in Update no.405 were convicted and sentenced for serious terrorism related offenses; of the remainder, one (1) was acquitted and released; one (1) still awaits trial; and I believe the others were convicted of lesser crimes. Nonetheless, your point is well-taken. A knee-jerk reaction by the Bush administration compromised the British surveillance and investigation, and arguably compromised the prosecution of the bad guys. What is worse, the prosecution consumed enormous, valuable resources at a dangerous time – definitely not a high point in British-American cooperation in the War of Islamic Fascism. At least three of the bad guys will get to enjoy the hospitality of Her Majesty’s Prison Service.

A contribution from across the great waters:
“Be certain our liquid bombers will serve their time, life for them means a minimum of 40 years. One will probably never see the light of day as a free man. Unlike the Libyan these are British citizens and will suffer the full penalty of the system. I wonder how many more of this ilk we have lurking like sewer rats waiting to activate their misguided dreams. The whole thing is a triumph for law enforcement and brings satisfaction and reassurance to those of us who concern ourselves over the security of the state.”
My response:
Good points on the liquid bombers. Always appreciated . . . putting a bright face on things. As another contributor noted, we, Americans, did not improve the outcome and caused a disturbance in the Force, with premature exposure of the involved terrorist cell network. Fortunately, the Crown Prosecution Service was able to compensate for our faux-pas and bad form. I trust those bad guys will enjoy the full benefit of being a guest of Her Majesty’s Prison Service.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Yesterday was Battle of Britain day – 15th; we’re on parade Sunday. In your words Cap, ‘May God bless their immortal souls.’
“This weekend we're taking an excursion train ride through the Pennines to Carlisle, a long day! A friend of ours, a WW2 widow whose husband served on Lancasters, is coming with us. (He did 32 trips and survived) The great sadness is when the war was coming to an end their aircraft was used by another crew to drop food to the Dutch. It failed to return.
. . . and my follow-up response:
Sounds like a very adventuresome trip. There were many tragic stories and well as heroic tales from WW2.
Yes, indeed, Battle of Britain Day was yesterday [15.September.1940]. I write in this week’s Update as my remembrance – even though miniscule by comparison to the gargantuan sacrifice of those young lads in the 3 months of that most epic battle. Lest we ever forget. And, yes, indeed, may God rest their immortal souls.

Another contribution:
“As always Cap you hit the nail on the head about the 2 political extremes that are strangling proper political discourse on compelling issues. Extremes in nature generally die just like extreme fads. An undamped system will go unstable - a simple law of science. The moderates and more middle of the road folks need to become a more noticeable dampening force on the extreme swings we have seen in the past few years. Not a political comment but a system analysis comment.”
My reply:
Physics is a magnificent science, isn’t it.
Very good point. I am still waiting and hoping that moderates will rise up to dampen the zealotry of both extremes.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

15 September 2009

Update no.404

Update from the Heartland
No.404
7.9.09 – 13.9.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
We moved this week from Andover to West Wichita. Jeanne finally has her idyllic lake view, and we are just a few miles from the kids and grandkids – a hectic couple of months, and we are not settled yet. We had a nice family gathering Sunday night (minus the out-of-town-ers) to celebrate the move and our new home. Our enduring realtor, who facilitated the sale, brought over a very nice lasagna meal we all enjoyed. Thank you, Peggy.

The follow-up news items:
-- The Montana State Supreme Court heard oral arguments, a week ago Wednesday (2.September), in the case of Baxter v. Montana [No. DA 09-0051 (2009)] – a Death with Dignity case, and the appeal of Baxter v. Montana [Cause No. ADV-2007-787 (2008)] [366]. Based on the content of the court’s decision, the case may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given all this political distraction about “death panels” [400] and the subject at hand, the Supremes might feel the urge to render their opinion, although they have already validated Oregon’s Death with Dignity law in Gonzales v. Oregon [546 U.S. 243 (2006); no. 04-623] [215]. This issue remains a long way from being decided. All of my state legislators have ignored my appeal for a comparable Kansas state law. I am preparing an updated request based on new information since my original letter [349A]. The struggle continues. I just hope this task is not left to our children or grandchildren to settle.
-- In a rather odd but appropriate trial, British terrorists and liquid bomb conspirators, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 28, Assad Sarwar, 29, and Tanvir Hussain, 28, were convicted – again – of plotting to execute mass murder by exploding improvised liquid explosives on numerous trans-Atlantic, commercial flights. [244, 352] They were sentenced to 30+ years to life as a quest of the British People and Her Majesty’s Prison Service. These are the bad guys that caused the liquid carry-on ban for airline travelers. Their explosive of choice was HexaMethylene Triperoxide Diamine (HMTD), which they could crudely produce with high concentration hydrogen peroxide (30-70%) and citric acid (e.g., Tang). I trust our British cousins will take very good care of these bad guys, and hopefully, they will never see the light of day again.

I was not able to watch the President’s address to a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform. I had to read his speech afterward. I am fairly certain his delivery was exemplary and inspiring as usual. The message remains controversial and strikes at the very heart of the government’s purpose and more importantly pervasiveness. I believe we can all recognize the issues. What we are haggling over is the solution(s). I think we could even agree upon many elements of the President’s proposal, if it was not for our inherent distrust of government. How much more access to our private lives and our most intimate of personal affairs are we going to give the government; and worse, what collateral use will the government find for information obtained in support of this program(s). The last administration proved unworthy of powerful surveillance tools intended to aid the War on Islamic Fascism, but used to discredit political opponents. I have serious worries intertwined with an awareness of need. That aside, regrettably, the message was overshadowed by Representative Addison Graves “Joe” Wilson, Sr., of South Carolina, who shouted out “You lie!” during the President’s speech. It seems his passion exceeded his propriety and sense of civility. Such are the time in which we live.

Since we are in our feel good mood, the administration decided give prisoners of war held by the military at Bagram Air Base access to judicial remedy for challenges to their continued confinement. Oh my, my, I feel better already. Don’t you! This new mood could be quite seductive and invigorating. Oh, I know, why don’t we free up convicted murderers, robbers and rapists, then we could feel really good about ourselves – our generosity, our magnanimity, our forgiveness. Can you detect a twinge of sarcasm in my words?

News from the economic front:
--Chicago-based Corus Bank became the first major bank to fail as a result of deteriorating construction and commercial real-estate loans in the current recession, and the second largest bank to fail this year, as Federal regulators seized the banks assets and deposits. Apparently, MB Financial will assume the viable assets, leaving the Feds with US$1.5B to US$2.4B in losses and bad debt.
-- The Obama administration responded to a U.S. International Trade Commission finding that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has been dumping passenger and light truck tires in the United States, by slapping steep tariffs on tires from the PRC. Of course, the PRC will respond in kind. So begins a trade tête-à-tête.
-- California money manager and founder of Private Equity Management Group Inc. (PEMGroup), Danny Pang, 42, [383, 385, 393], died in his Newport Beach home. The cause of death was not immediately known; however, given Pang’s financial and legal troubles, I suspect suicide. He was arrested last May, by the FBI on fraud and money laundering charges.

The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- Blago's chief fundraiser Christopher Kelly, 51, apparently overdosed on the eve of pleading guilty to Federal corruption charges and presumably turning state’s evidence against Blago. I think as the police often do, coincidences are rarely that.

Comments and contributions from Update no.403:
From the blog:
“I probably represent the ‘uber-left’ to which you occasionally refer. I would remind all and sundry that Democrats have won elections not just for President but for a majority of the seats in both houses of Congress. It’s past time for conservatives to give up claiming majority support.
“Seriously off topic: I'd like to ask your Bible-supporting opponent to read his own Bible more closely. Moral correctness must be a choice; it cannot be compelled. On top of that he or she should ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.’”
My reply to the blog:
I rarely use labels specifically. Whether you choose to embrace the uber-Left moniker is your choice entirely – not mine! I think every politically astute citizen is quite aware that Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress. I would be quite happy to toss the whole bloody lot out – Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals – I can find very few politicians who are capable of rising above self-serving, parochial, party interests . . . to do what is best for this Grand Republic.
I will print your challenge to the other contributor . . . that person’s choice to engage. I certainly agree with you . . . morals are a very private, personal matter, and cannot be compelled. IMHO, attempts to dictate moral values are the antithesis of freedom.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I'm sure everyone who would participate in this discussion is indeed aware that the Democrats control Congress and the Presidency. My point is that many of those whose views are no longer in the ascendancy find it convenient to ignore that fact and operate instead from the lie or delusion that they are a majority, which has been dis-proven by the elections.”
. . . and my follow-up:
Point noted!
From my perspective, as an avowed and proud, non-partisan independent, I see virtually the exact same conduct, simply with the shoe on the other foot. The rabid Bush-bashers of the last administration are now the “can’t we all just get along” idealists and defenders. Conversely, the last regime’s defenders appear to be incapable of seeing anything positive in the current administration. Such mindless, radically polarized, political-party parochialism really sets me off like a rocket. To me, it is the very same crap, just different labels. The uber-Right is just as wrong as the uber-Left – just different colors of the same excrement. Someone observed the other day that someday the moderates and independents, who are truly the majority, will reassert themselves and end this highly corrosive nonsense. Neither of the two predominant political parties are worthy of support; they both spend our tax dollars on their peculiar largesse and most definitely not for the public good . . . thus, my ranting comment last week. I truly believe President Obama is seeking the moderate, middle-ground compromise for much-needed health care reform; it is truly regrettable that more folks are not trying to help him find the acceptable compromise position . . . and that criticism goes to both extremes.

Another contribution:
“I think there are a few things that deserve comments ... Not sure the ranting lately has been ‘chicken little’ fatalistic type ranting ... as much as it is a concern or downright fear that Obama is going to royally screw everything up for a huge number of people who find their health plans to work well for them. Obama does lean toward socialistic tendencies ... his speech to the schools was toned down from the one he originally was going to give ... until many people informed of the content objected (requests for children to write down what they could do to help the president etc .. rather than what the speech resulted in - a basic ‘DO GOOD IN SCHOOL’ speech which is all it should have been for children that age ) ...
“If anyone has bothered to go to the democrat website they will see content providing their people responses and talking points for dealing with the opposition. The responses I have received from one die-hard Democrat I know who has worked on Democratic campaigns etc has been very canned and one-lined as if she reads and recites from this site verbatim. This is why it was feared that Obama would try to do the same with the children. Putting information in their little minds that perhaps the parents did not believe in ... and doing so just because he is the President. The opposing public is just voicing their concerns in assurance this presidency doesn't become any sort of tyranny ... if the public did NOT voice opinion, the complacency would be taken as passive acquiescence … and Obama would believe his ideas were accepted.
“Webster’s Dictionary defines tyranny as follows: 1 : oppressive power ‘Every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson;’ especially: oppressive power exerted by government
“His health plan ideas have shifted from week to week as a result of opposition ... just as you state ... ‘Is he advocating and pushing for socialist-type programs like universal, state-sponsored, health care? Yes, there is no question of the socialist bent to some of these ...’ ... He definitely is appealing to the masses of uninsured and under-insured, rightfully so ... and these people need help in emergency situations ... but if they are able to work, then reduced cost medical care should only be available on a long term basis to those who work and their families. If someone is unemployed but looking for employment (with records that prove this) they should be able to seek assistance for coverage of emergency medical costs as well as the currently existing financial aid during their unemployment.
“It should not be a REQUIREMENT to have health insurance for everyone, as Obama has proposed … with the costs of the subsidizing of insurance companies coming from the public income taxes. In NON emergency situations, unemployed people should have to apply for their healthcare so that the costs do not run rampant. It should not come easy to them or there will be a lot of abuse to the system, as there has been to many other government run systems. Such as food stamps ... how many times have you heard stories of people in line at grocery stores viewing those with stamps spending on non essential items ? The stamps should be restricted to certain essential items only ... the basics ... bread, milk, produce, grains etc.
“As you stated ... ‘In essence, I am in favor of the government helping those who seek help as long as such assistance does not allow the State to further intrude upon our private lives. I want to help, but I want the government to withdraw from the private domain ...’
“Exactly ... for those who do not feel the need for assistance as they are satisfied with their current insurance coverage, they should not have to be dragged into this nightmare of bureaucratic information collection (in the form of requiring each and every person to PROVE they have insurance each year ... providing the dollar data on what coverage they have received over the year on their tax forms??? ... what ?? ) ... We do not need yet another area of our lives for the government to monitor and regulate and TAX. Is it bad enough that Obama has talked about taking away the mortgage interest deductions ... and has been encouraging people to instead RENT their homes ... that perhaps home ownership should not be an American Dream anymore??? Is he so intent on the word CHANGE (and the notoriety it might bring him if he can accomplish it) that he is trying to change EVERYTHING sacred to us?
“So far I am not happy with Obama ... I have tried to keep an open mind to him ... I always thought he would be alot of TALK, which he does well ... but some of the public wanted CHANGE ... CHANGE ... oh everloving change ... if you can't accept change you are just OLD ... but what if the change is only going to require MORE change ... and MORE financially draining change after THAT?? His key to maintaining any considerable amount of popularity is to take his CHANGE ideas a bit more slowly ... plan them out better ... hire people that can come up with solutions that will make the MAJORITY happy yet help the minority in need. Hopefully some good people are in place to do that (Kathleen Sebelius ? et al) ... the recent ‘Czar’ Van Jones release incident was an example of someone who may have had good ideas but spoke in forked tongue ... his past video tapes I witnessed on FOX spoke of WHITE environmentalists and the results of their efforts ... Generalizing unfavorable events with the cause being WHITE environmentalists ... he could have said PRIOR environmentalists working on programs that affect the black/brown public ... but labeling them as WHITE ... very racial .. this in addition to Jones' prior Communist affiliation and his involvement with the petition accusing the Republican government of involvement with 911. Very radical.”
My response:
Presidents have addressed appropriate messages to school children for many administrations – both Republican and Democrat. All this brouhaha over President Obama’s version is such blatant political partisanship; however, that is not the part that ticks me off the most. To me, the reaction represents yet another failure of American parenting. Just like so many sensitive topics – drugs, evolution, sex, religion, et cetera – we tend to seek insulation of our children from life, rather than teach them and prepare them for stable, productive adulthood and citizenship. So, we seek to censure the President rather than help our children evaluate ideas, opinions, suggestions, and thoughts. How does such conduct help our children become engaged, informed citizens? Freedom is about contrasting ideas, arguments, and debate. Trying to pretend the President is some sort of subversive is NOT helpful to anyone . . . others perhaps – the President’s political opponents. Such criticism of the President’s motives and message are NOT conducive to the furtherance of democracy.
The other element of this corrosive political environment that bothers me at the most basic level is the lack of any reason or logic in so much of our political rancor. Just as the uber-Left could find nothing positive in George W. Bush, now the uber-Right is doing precisely the same thing with Barack Obama – tit-for-tat, now don’t we all feel better. Then, we add the equally foolish accusations of racism in our political intercourse. This is not democracy; this is political fascism. Do not debate ideas; blindly adhere to a dictated political ideology; mindlessly insult and beat down the other side. I was critical of W. and there were certainly main things he did that angered me. Likewise, I have been and will be critical of Barack. No one gets a free pass, regardless of their political ideology.
Is Barack espousing socialist ideas? Yes! Is that any surprise? He said as much during the debilitating campaign. He’s a big government guy. He is also an American citizen (despite what the “birth’ers” claim) who was elected POTUS . . . that’s not just for the believers, but the non-believers as well. He is not trying to destroy this Grand Republic. He is trying to soften the sharp edges that have been honed up in recent years. I do not see his efforts in the health care reform debate the same way as some others. He has encouraged Congress to develop approaches to resolving health care issues. Congress has done what Congress should do – develop ideas. There is NO final bill – just a bunch of ideas. So, instead of debating the ideas, we want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Most of us are happy with our health care plans. Others of us cannot afford, or do not want health care insurance. Yet, today, we all pay for those who cannot pay. They go to emergency rooms, suck up precious capacity, and the costs are put into the overhead costs that get attached to every health care dollar spent, like bad debt at a bank. The “fine” idea was just one idea in an attempt to induce compliance, to reduce non-covered people, and reduce overhead costs. I am not in favor of being forced to do anything, but there is always the issue of the public good. Add in our litigious society . . . we created an environment where doctors are “forced” into defensive medical decisions and exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums that also get put into the overhead costs and every health care dollar spent. The bottom line is, we pay for it all anyway, one way or another. So, I am all in favor of some governmental involvement to help us find some reasonable, moderate compromise to the issues that infect our system. Yet, the government is not and cannot be the answer. I believe the President is trying to find that compromise position. Let us not forget that the government has been involved in health care for a long time – the military, Mediaid / Medicare, NIH, FDA, etc. Thus, I suggest . . . let us rein in our faux-anger and focus on helping the President and Congress find solutions to very real problems . . . and we haven’t even returned to Social Security, yet.
Unfortunately, as we witnessed, so much of our public political intercourse is about winning, dominating the dialogue, and not about a vigorous debate of ideas. We have a representative who insults the President of the United States during a joint session of Congress, and who is hailed as a hero by some. We seem to have forgotten how to argue. Instead, too many folks simply seek to beat the opposition into submission. I freely and openly proclaim my ignorance. I need to hear other opinions – other views. Sure, I have opinions. Yet, it is vigorous debate that modifies, alters, and adjusts my opinion. We should all be suspicious and highly critical of anyone who attempts to dominate or quash debate, no matter what view(s) they espouse. That is one of many reasons Freedom of Speech is so precious. We all need all ideas out in the open, for proper public debate – not just the ideas offered up by one group or another. The same is true for our children; they need to know about life – the good, the bad, and the ugly – so, they can learn how to decide and deal with life. Shielding them from life only invites their curiosity, and then becomes a genuine threat. I do not advocate protecting children from ideas, but rather preparing them to consider and decide.

A different contribution:
“I will try to make a few comments on some things here. Short ones though.
“1. CIA is our primary intell gathering force. To see it cut down in it's ability to perform it's stated mission by introducing, in any way, politics and righteous grumbling by any of our leaders is sad indeed. If that is to be the case then do away with the CIA, and let the chips fall where they may. I guarantee the American people will be sorry if they let that happen----and likely sooner than later. War is war, be it against a Standing Army or against a Shadowy Army, and intel is vital to the prosecution of it. I agree with VP Cheney! But if you kill your prisoner trying to get intell you lose any hope of getting any, so I draw the line before that. But, maybe unlike some, I draw it not much before that. What we need are highly trained interrogators who can tell when a prisoner is likely to still have important info and is still holding out-----and when you have gotten all from him of any real use.
“On legalizing drugs as you propose, I disagree, though I see your point and in some ways it may have some merit. But I think in the long run it is better to fight the drug lords, and let the prices stay high. Let those who decide to follow those paths to personal destruction be allowed to do so, but perhaps without us taking care of them when they overdose. You're on your own buddy. Good luck. Or how about when the government seizes a nice haul, it sell it off at a reduced price rather than destroy it. I'm being facetious on that last a bit.
“I agree about turning opaqueness into transparency where the rights, and the responsibilities, of the people to run their government---not the government running the people is concerned. Without transparency how can the public know who to vote for who will try to keep things trasparent? Though I recognize the need for intel stuff and the techniques used to obtain it DO need to be kept from John Q Public---in his own ultimate interest.”
My response:
War is war, indeed; and, it is the ugliest part of humanity. We can fight it there or here. The bad guys kept striking us, moving closer and closer, and getting bigger and bigger, until their “check move” on 11.September.2001. We lacked vital intelligence, and we got burned. Intelligence is critical to any viable national defense or even waging war successfully. Making the CIA a political football to be kicked back and forth may not be quite suicidal, but it is equivalent to blinding yourself in the middle of a fight. We are not talking about killing a prisoner trying to get information. We are not even talking about injuring a prisoner. We are debating whether a prisoner might be injured during interrogation. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) are an inducement to divulge what a prisoner knows. As we are learning, of the thousands of captured battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism, 98 bad guys entered the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program (DIP), and of those, only 30 were subjected to EITs. The application of EITs was hardly as rampant as some folks want us to believe. There were abuses; at least one battlefield captive died in detention. Abuses should be handled like any other sensitive national security issue – acknowledgment of the event without discussing any details in public. If a grievous mistake or overzealousness is present, then the culprits should be prosecuted and punished, while protecting national security means & methods. I draw the line at permanent injury, which of course includes death. The challenge for intelligence interrogation is inducement for a recalcitrant High Value Detainee (HVD), which of course is illegal for criminal interrogations; thus, information gained during the former cannot be used for prosecution. As noted in the 7.May.2004, CIA OIG report, the Agency sought as much distance as they could from interrogations, largely as a consequence of the 1978 Church Committee, in my humble opinion. As a result in 2001, the United States did not have an intelligence interrogation capability. You are spot on. Intelligence interrogation should be a standard, maintained, practiced HumInt tool, just like technical tools of satellite imagery or electronic surveillance.
I recognize that a lot of citizens disagree with my proposed legalization / regulation of psychotropic substances. We have been fighting the drug lords for 35 years – so, how is that going for us? It seems to me, as long as the vast profits of smuggling are flowing, there will be a constant, never ending stream of “drug lords” interested in all that money. Money is just too powerful. How can folks who wish to partake of controlled substances do so when they cannot find a reasonable, legal supply? As I’ve said, I have zero interest in redemption, rehabilitation or even punishment of users; I’m quite comfortable with folks who choose to destroy themselves regardless of their substance of choice – food, tobacco, alcohol, glue, heroin, meth, doesn’t matter – their choice. I just want to minimize the collateral damage. I don’t think the government should retail-sell the impound stuff (after prosecution); but, I’d favor the government selling it to a processor to ensure standard purity and dosage. If we do not legalize / regulate the stuff, how do provide supply . . . other than the government idea, which is in the correct direction . . . just not far enough in my humble opinion.
Governmental transparency depends upon a politically neutral, aggressive Press. When the Press leans into a political bias, we lose a measure of transparency.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

08 September 2009

Update no.403

Update from the Heartland
No.403
31.8.09 – 6.9.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Former adversaries and now compatriots before the bar David Boies and Theodore Bevry “Ted” Olson [397] have followed through on their pledge to challenge the California Prop H8 [345, 355] vote [360] and subsequent state supreme court Strauss v. Horton [CA SC S168047 (2009)] ruling [389]. Boies and Olson will jointly represent plaintiffs – two couples of the same gender – in a Federal challenge of the California state constitutional law enforcing discrimination. U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Northern District of California has set the trial date in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger for 11.January.2010. I suspect we will see the result by late winter / early spring. No matter the outcome at the trial court, the decision will surely face inevitable appeals through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the process will probably take years. Beyond the human rights aspects of this case / issue, I eagerly await the scope and rationale offered up by Boies and Olson.
-- I suppose my drug regulation proposal [402] was a little too radical to be considered rational. I will freely admit that it is radical. What we need to hear are alternatives. OK, my hypothesis is not worthy, but surely there are other ideas. The status quo is simply not sustainable. Late this week, I did receive one comment [see Comments Section below].
-- As should be the case in a democracy and especially this Grand Republic, the debate over the purpose and extent of government enacted by We, the People, remains a perpetual tension [90, et al]. Another opinion, worthy of your attention:
Alexander’s Essay: “Rule of Law” – Part 1 of 2
by Mark Alexander
Patriot Post; Vol. 09 No. 35
Published: September 3, 2009
http://media.patriotpost.us/pdf/edition/09-35a.pdf
An interesting perspective, largely factual and un-opinionated, but ultimately self-serving to the ends Alexander espouses.

We shall begin this extended discussion of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program with former FBI agent Ali Soufan (1997-2005), who has been quite outspoken and critical of any use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs).
“What Torture Never Told Us”
by Ali H. Soufan – Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Published: September 5, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/opinion/06soufan.html?_r=1
Soufan was involved with the interrogation of terrorist Abu Zubaydah. He deserves to be listened to and his opinion considered. I offer my opinion below.
Another view and opinion worthy of your time:
“Torture's Unanswerable Questions”
by Richard Cohen
Washington Post
Published: Tuesday, September 1, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102911.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
At least Cohen is making an attempt to find balance in this important topic that should not but now is part of our public debate. Richard concluded his opinion, “The questions of what constitutes torture and what to do with those who, maybe innocently, applied what we now define as torture have to be removed from the political sphere. They cannot be the subject of an ideological tug of war, both sides taking extreme and illogical positions – torture never works, torture always works, torture is always immoral, torture is moral if it saves lives. Torture always is ugly. So, though, is the hole in the ground where the World Trade Center once stood.” Reading the CIA reports recently released by the Administration provide considerably more insight into the intelligence interrogation process (see below).

Last week [402], I noted the release of three (3) CIA documents regarding the Agency’s detention and interrogation program. I finally read and researched the three documents. First and foremost, before we jump in, please note the dates on each of the documents; the dates are important to place the content in context. The subject documents are:
-- “Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001 – October 2003) (2003-7123-IG);” report of the Central Intelligence Agency, Office of the Inspector General (OIG); dated: 7 May 2004; 159pp; declassified, originally classified: TOP SECRET/ [SCI].
-- “Khalid Shaykh Muhammed: Preeminent Source on Al-Qa’ida;” report of the Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence; dated: 13 July 2004; 12pp; declassified, originally classified: SECRET/ [SCI] /NOFORN/MR.
-- “Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al-Qa’ida;” report of the Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence; dated: 3 June 2005; 15pp; declassified, originally classified: SECRET/ [SCI] /NOFORN/MR.
In addition, another Bush administration Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum [381] often referred to in this discussion was:
-- Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury, Memorandum for John A. Rizzo, Acting General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency; titled: “Re: Application of the War Crimes Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to Certain Techniques that May Be Used by the CIA in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees;” dated: July 20, 2007; 79pp; declassified, originally classified: TOP SECRET/ [SCI] /NOFORN.
Despite substantial redaction, we can gain significant insight into the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program (DIP). Before I jump into my expanded opinion regarding this issue, I would like to illuminate several elements of the primary document – the 159-page, 7.May.2004, epistle written by the CIA Inspector General. OIG para.17: “The current CTC [CIA Counter-Terrorism Center] Detention and Interrogation Program has been subjected to DoJ [Department of Justice] legal review and Administration approval but diverges sharply from previous Agency policy and rules that govern interrogations by U.S. military and law enforcement officers. Officers are concerned that public revelation of the CTC Program will seriously damage Agency officers’ personal reputations, as well as the reputation and effectiveness of the Agency itself.” How prophetic! Just what we need, intelligence officers looking over their shoulder in the middle of a war! The difficulty we placed the CIA interrogators in can be clearly seen in OIG para.209: “According to a senior CTC officer, the interrogation team [redacted] considered Abu Zubaydah to be compliant and wanted to terminate EITs. [redacted] believed Abu Zubaydah continue withhold information, [redacted] at the time it generated substantial pressure from Headquarters to continue use of the EITs. According to this senior officer, the decision to resume use of the waterboard on Abu Zubaydah was made by senior officers of the DO [CIA Directorate of Operations]. [redacted] to assess Abu Zubaydah’s compliance and witnessed the final waterboard session, after which, they reported back to Headquarters that the EITs were no longer needed on Abu Zubaydah.” This episode is the primary source of Soufan’s objection to the use of EITs (noted above). From the OIG report conclusions section, para.250: “The Agency’s detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world. . . . The effectiveness of particular interrogation techniques in eliciting information that might not otherwise have been obtained cannot be so easily measured, however.” Lastly, from the OIG report, para.266: “The Agency faces potentially serious long-term political and legal challenges as a result of the CTC Detention and Interrogation Program, particularly its use of EITs and the inability of the U.S. Government to decide what it will ultimately do with terrorists detained by the Agency.” I will not extend the digestion of these government documents beyond one last observation from the 20.July.2007 OLC memorandum. As of the memo date and among the thousands of battlefield captives in the War on Islamic Fascism, 98 entered the CIA’s DIP; of those 98, only 30 required EITs to render them compliant. Let it suffice to say, even in the un-redacted portion of the intelligence reports, significant intelligence has been gathered by the CIA program.
As I read the CIA & OLC documents, I was immediately struck by several enduring impressions.
1. The primary national intelligence service of the United States – the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – possessed embarrassingly inadequate Human Intelligence (HumInt) capability prior to 9/11. [Of historic note: it appears the last time the United States had a viable interrogation capability was in 1945.]
2. The CIA did not have an established process or trained personnel for (and indeed was institutionally adverse to) an interrogation of high-value captives in the War on Islamic Fascism.
3. The CIA went to extraordinary lengths to ensure proper conduct of its field agents, however, the lack of proper training and supervision did result in events of excessive zealousness.
4. The CIA did everything prudent and proper to ensure it executed the stated policy the United States Government (USG).
5. As appears so typical with the USG, pervasive and burdensome bureaucracy rapidly set in to the CIA’s DIP shortly after the Agency was chartered with that mission.
6. The CIA’s serious lack of confidence in the political leadership in Congress and the Executive produced far too many professionals who were reluctant to be involved in the interrogation process because of doubts regarding the political will of politicians.
7. EIT’s are the tool of last resort, and can be avoided quite easily by providing the information the individual possesses.
I could go on, but those are my predominate impressions.
Knowledgeable voices like Soufan offer deserved criticism and reasonable counter-point to the public debate. Unfortunately, there are few voices to argue the benefits to national security. As a consequence, neither the Press nor any of the self-serving politicos raised the issue of context when the New York Times first disclosed the “torture” issue; and now, the pervasive notion of “torture” has taken on the mantle of truth – c’est la guerre. The fact that the USG made these documents public at all offers dark commentary on the foolish, short-sighted, politically-motivated treatment of our intelligence professionals. Then, to make matters far worse, the President decided to make the interrogation of battlefield captives a law enforcement activity, forming the High-value detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) and politicizing the HIG by having it report directly to the White House – an even further testament to the folly to which we bear witness. The HIG will use law enforcement procedures and be guided by Army Field Manual (FM) 2-22.3 – Human Intelligence Collection Operations –published in September 2006, largely after the abuses of Abu Graib [162, et al]. I have not always agreed with former Vice President Cheney, but at least he’s got the balls to stand up and defend the very agents who stand in harm’s way on our behalf. He is spot on the money . . . we have NOT been made safer or even more righteous by the political witch-hunt unleashed by the President and his Attorney General. I truly hope the uber-Left has gained some satisfaction and comfort for what they have done; I’d hate to think this foolishness has not provided pleasure to some among us. This whole sordid affair will go down in history as American self-emollition to placate the idealists. The CIA’s conduct of high-value combatant interrogations is not a high-water mark; conversely, the Agency is not a group of rogue inquisitors abusing innocent citizens. It is sad that the CIA, which went to such lengths to ensure our detention and interrogation activities were legal and appropriate including seeking Justice Department findings on the proposed techniques to be employed, is the subject of a special prosecutor investigation and public ridicule. I am appalled at how this whole issue has been blown so far out of proportion, and all to further a partisan political agenda. The incidents of overzealous agents or contractors were comparatively few, and as a few events warranted, the individuals involved should have been investigated and disciplined appropriately in secret, to protect a national security intelligence asset. One of the Founding principles of governance in this Grand Republic is that government is instituted by the People to perform the Peoples’ business. As a consequence, We, the People, expect transparency to facilitate our “supervision” of the government’s performance on our behalf, which in turn engenders us to vote for our representatives to best carry out our wishes. We depend upon an active, aggressive Press of help illuminate the actions of the government by turning the opaque into transparent, to facilitate a vigorous public debate. Such transparency stands in direct conflict with the national security charter of the Federal government. Sir Winston wisely observed, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” We seem to have forgotten Sir Winston’s wisdom. President Bush made a grave mistake (one among many, I must add) in even acknowledging the existence of the CIA’s DIP. Intelligence collection and analysis is simple a body of tools used to wage war successfully, like rifles, warships, aircraft and missiles. As a sovereign nation-state, the United States of America has every right under national and international law to use the tools in its arsenal to defeat its enemies, who seek harm to its citizens. I read the words of constraint, bureaucracy and reluctance in the CIA documents, and I shiver with true regret that we are trundling down a familiar road to emasculating our intelligence service all in the name of some feel-good sense of propriety. The very existence, let alone the activities of the U.S. Army’s Military Intelligence Service (MIS) [AKA P.O. Box 1138] in World War II took 50+ years to reach public view, and even to this day, we do not know exactly what they did and what techniques they used at Fort Hunt. What do we do, we excoriate a similar unit in public condemnation while we are in the middle of a war, and even worse, we are so effective at our disembowelment of the intelligence program that we abandoned any semblance of a successor. I am NOT a happy camper. One last angry, sarcastic thought . . . I trust someone sent the Army FM to Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaeda, so they can prepare properly – after all, fair is fair, is it not!

Afghanistan was supposedly the good battle . . . at least we were going after Usama bin Ladin and his henchmen. Now, reports of a resurgent Taliban, rapidly mounting Allied casualty figures, and assessments by flag officers reporting a dire situation, bring some citizens to conclude we should cut our losses, pull up stakes, abandon Afghanistan to its fate, and withdraw to our shores. Of course, that is a viable alternative as long as we are comfortable with the Taliban returning barbarism to that hapless country and hosting their fellow radicals – al-Qaeda. As long as we are prepared to accept the risk of the status quo ante, we’re good to go.

All this Chicken Little ranting-and-raving about President Obama taking us down the road to socialism is a bunch of hooey, IMHO (in the cyber-vernacular). Is he advocating and pushing for socialist-type programs like universal, state-sponsored, health care? Yes, there is no question of the socialist bent to some of these debates. However, as an independent, moderate, Libertarian-minded citizen, we must seek and find some intersection of balance between compassion for our fellow man with our defense of individual rights, free from intrusion by the State. I would rather spend my precious tax dollars on some form of back-stop coverage for disadvantaged or indigent citizens rather than all the damnable, porky, “bridge to nowhere” projects Congress has such a penchant to lavish on their supporters. On the flip side, I truly believe socialism is feel-good pabulum for the masses that ultimately is fatally corrosive to our freedom and Liberty. Thus, to me, the key to finding an adequate health-care compromise lays with constructing a solution that helps the less-fortunate among us without demanding universal sacrifice. As with my psychotropic substance legalization / regulation proposal, we must look to the greater public good rather than our narrow, self-serving and ultimately selfish interests. In essence, I am in favor of the government helping those who seek help as long as such assistance does not allow the State to further intrude upon our private lives. I want to help, but I want the government to withdraw from the private domain and focus solely on the public good; so much so that I will gladly sacrifice the few in need, to get the government out of the private domain. Sound cynical? Perhaps . . . but that is a measure of my dissatisfaction with what has happened within this Grand Republic in my lifetime. I want to smite the camel’s nose, not allow him to push his head, neck and forelegs into my tent.

News from the economic front:
-- The Institute of Supply Management (ISM) reported on manufacturing activity within industrial nations worldwide. August activity expanded in the United States for the first time in 18 months. ISM’s purchasing manager's index rose to 52.9 last month from 48.9 in July, reaching the highest level since June 2007. Readings above 50 indicate expansion in the manufacturing industry. The People’s Republic of China manufacturing activity continued to expand, along with Germany and France, while Spain, Italy and the UK showed unexpected weakness.
-- Retailers reported August same-store sales fell for a 12th straight month as back-to-school results came in worse than expected. The bright side of the results comes in the fact that the decline was smaller than July.
-- Employers cut 216,000 jobs last month, compared with a revised 276,000 in July. The unemployment rate grew to 9.7% from 9.4% in July – the highest level since June 1983. The rate of job losses has decreased substantially since the first of the year – a further indication the recession may be approaching the turn-around knee.
-- In a long running dispute between Boeing and Airbus, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued a preliminary ruling that Europe's Airbus had received unfair and forbidden subsidies from European Union governments. The WTO declared that every launch aid package given for the A380 passenger jet was an illegal subsidy.
-- Finance ministers and central bank chiefs from the Group of 20 largest economies agreed Saturday to a global framework for bank capital rules under which banks will face higher capital requirements. They also agreed on guidelines for the payment of bonuses to bankers, but could not agree upon a limit to the amount that can be paid to an individual. The finance official met in preparation for a gathering of G-20 leaders in Pittsburgh on 24/25.September.

Comments and contributions from Update no.402:
From the blog:
“I read the article on the C Street house, and I find that chilling. I find this much more scary than the TV preachers or assorted bigots in the streets. These people connect exactly the sort of insane ideas that you and I oppose so vehemently to the people in power that we so distrust. The hypocrisy about the sexual affairs is the least of this. The article states that they call themselves the ‘Christian Mafia.’ I suspect that they resemble the Mafia far more than they do the Christians.”
My comment to the blog:
Everything I have learned about the C Street House leaves me nauseated, angry, and incited to action. Even more regrettably, one Kansas senator (Brownback) and my representative (Tiahrt) are reported to be members of this disgusting group. Any person or group of persons who place themselves above others, no matter what the reason or rationale, will attract my ire and disdain. I also think your opinion is spot on the money; they far more closely resemble the Mafia than they do Christians . . . and now that I think of it . . . that is giving Mafiosi a bad name. At least the Mafiosi are not hypocrites.

Another contribution:
“The more I see what not just Obama but also his various appointees, and his more liberal supporters in Congress are doing, proposing, etc, the more worried I get. We get a lot of stuff saying ‘Oh NO, that is not true,’ when what has been proposed at least IS true. So why doesn't Obama fire those people, or at least put the squash on Congress people who are far left of mainstream America? Obama is no dummy! He sees what is going on.”
My reply:
Good question. My guess: all presidents in contemporary times view such actions in essentially pure political terms, i.e., to fire someone with the opposition clamoring for him to do so is a sign of weakness – fresh blood for the sharks – an incitement to a feeding frenzy.
Everything I have seen, read, heard, or I am aware of tells me these progressive disclosures, leaks and public pillory of the CIA is 100% a political ploy to placate the uber-Left. I can find very little rational justification for what is happening.

A different contribution:
“I would have another take on Holder's decision. He is the Attorney General of the United States and has a duty to investigate situations that look like they involve potential criminal conduct. What he is doing is proposing an examination of those who went beyond the guidelines that were provided for the enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) – which were pretty expansive from what had been allowed before. If there is something that looks like a serious federal crime has been committed, he is duty bound to look into it. And despite what has been said, there was no ‘investigation’ of this by DOJ. The cases in point had been sent to a U.S. Attorney’s office, NY or Northern VA I believe that essentially acted as a ‘dead letter file.’ No investigation had actually been conducted.
“The Administration clearly would not like this to happen, but that Holder is doing it shows he is doing what he is supposed to do and do so in an independent manner. There is never a good time to investigate things like this about your own government. That is the very message we were giving the Serbs a few years ago.
“And despite the fact that torture is illegal in the U.S. by law and treaty, its adherents say that is should be employed because it works. While that is a legal irrelevance, the fact is that it doesn't work. The former VP had been calling for documents to be released that would 'conclusively prove' that EIT worked. They were released and they clearly did not do what the VP said they would. See below comments from a retired FBI agent on this subject- he says the facts are not there that this stuff works.”
My response:
I finally read the recently released CIA reports as well as the referenced OLC memoranda I had not already digested. Those reports paint a far different image of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program than the popular notion espoused by the majority of the Press. We have discussed a few of the OLC memos that served as the basis. We can go ‘round & ‘round over just the definition of torture. I certainly agree that excesses did occur and should be dealt with properly; however, public investigation and trial during wartime is NOT the way to do it. I have seen no evidence to claim a general, broad moniker of ‘torture’ being applied to the USG’s intelligence interrogation process. From March 2002 to July 2007, of all the hundreds or thousands of battlefield captives in the War on Islamic Fascism, 98 were deemed high-value enough to be rendered into the CIA’s interrogation process. Of those 98, just 30 needed more than “law enforcement” procedures, i.e., EITs. 30! Just the KSM yield alone brings the question to a point. From the CIA OIG report in May 2004, we see the struggle within our primary national intelligence service regarding the interrogation process, concern by agents, and we also see the benefit.
Yes, torture is illegal; torture = the act of inflicting excruciating pain. I agree with the OLC, EITs as used by the CIA are not torture; they were not and are not administered to elicit a confession, to impose punishment, or even to seek retribution; no injury occurred. The EITs could easily be avoided by providing the information the interrogators sought.
As I have written, I think POTUS’s HIG is a really bad idea and not in the best interests of national security. National intelligence and law enforcement are two, distinct, vastly different purposes and processes. What they have done with the HIG is forced the former to shift a goodly distance toward the latter. This is just another self-inflicted wound not materially different from the 1978 Church Committee.

One last contribution this week:
“RE:..................... ‘There is much more to this story; however, this should suffice to offer a picture of what I think drug legalization / regulation might look like and how it might operate. I’m sure you have plenty of questions and arguments, so fire away. Thank you for asking and listening.’ ….........
“Your dissertations appear to reject virtually all moral boundaries which I believe leads to endless uncertainty, confusion and societal destruction. Yours is, I believe, a horrible model for parenting or leadership of any type (Civil or Military). It is I believe ludicrous, even insane, to insist or assume that there is any right to privacy that exists behind our doors or inside our bodies.
“The model you suggest requires a degree of regulation that no human can possibly define or administer. What a horrible nightmare it creates for our Civil and Military Protectors: Parents, Teachers, Politicians, Policemen and Soldiers. Only a Divine Authority can define and administer such a model. But you appear to reject any and all Divine Authority.
“For myself, I believe in and accept the Divine Authority I see in The Judeo-Christian Faith, and believe to be presented in the Christian Bible, which documents and presents clear Moral Boundaries for all Leadership.
“I believe that Faith is strongly imbedded in our United States Constitution and related documents, which have for that duration set the Moral Boundaries of our society. I am also convinced that we, as were the inhabitants of the Biblical Nineva, are destined for extinction as we drift away from that Faith.”
My reply:
The issue is not whether you or I have moral values. I think we can both recognize and acknowledge comparable moral values. The central issue is whether every citizen has the expectation – the fundamental right – to privacy and the exercise of their freedom of choice.
You said, “It is I believe ludicrous, even insane, to insist or assume that there is any right to privacy that exists behind our doors or inside our bodies.” Interesting! If so, do you believe the government (city, county, state and federal) has the authority to enter anyone’s home and to control all bodily functions of every citizen? If so, based on what authority? Where is that written in the Constitution or common law? If not, what were you trying to say? Without a fundamental right to privacy, how can any of us ever expect to realize our Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness? What is freedom without privacy? To return to your argument, why should We, the People, enact and enforce laws that attempt to control conduct / behavior in private homes?
We have a rich arena for debate.
What would you propose we do about drug use, the criminal sub-culture that supplies the drugs? Why should we tell a citizen they cannot use alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, any substance? Surely, you would agree that the war on drugs has been, is, and will remain a failure, destined to absorb more resources, destroy more lives, and compromise more of our freedom as its corrosion continues to work.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)