Update from the Heartland
No.405
14.9.09 – 20.9.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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.
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]
[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 :-)
-- 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
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 :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment