Update no.444

Update from the Heartland

No.444

14.6.10 – 20.6.10

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The drama unfolding in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil well blowout and subsequent sinking of the rig [442] is so disappointing on so many levels that defy succinct, concise writing. President Obama managed to convince BP’s Chairman to set aside US$20B for claims, to be administered by an independent person; one side screams not enough, while the other side accuses the President of shaking down BP. Indications are beginning to emerge that suggest at a minimum complacency, but more likely negligence or even malfeasance. My opinion remains unchanged to date – the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe is an engineering event that must be stabilized while a thorough, technical examination is conducted. More efficient containment and clean-up efforts are warranted as well as prompter, more generous claims adjudication for those affected by the massive oil leak. There is plenty of time for criminal prosecution, should it become evident.
-- Information continues to trickle out of the investigation into the crash of the Polish Air Force Tu-154 on approach to Smolensk that killed the Polish president and other leaders [434]. Apparently, a second as yet unidentified person was in the cockpit during the final minutes of the flight. The latest information cannot be placed in context without all the other flight data. I remained convinced that we shall eventually know what happened.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Cameron offered an extraordinary apology for the violent clash between British troops and unarmed demonstrators in Londonderry, Northern Ireland, on 30.January.1972 – known as Bloody Sunday. Thirteen died that day. The event sparked three decades of bitter and sectarian strife in Northern Island and became one of the most notorious single events in the history of the Troubles, which began in 1963 and claimed more than 3,600 lives. Mr. Cameron pronounced the tragic event was “both unjustified and unjustifiable.” He said, “On behalf of our country, I am deeply sorry. What happened should never, ever have happened.”

The Swiss Parliament’s National Council voted 81-61 (58) to approve a treaty with the U.S. that will turn over thousands of files on suspected tax cheats to U.S. authorities. Technical details remain to be worked out and the proposal may still be put to the Swiss public in a referendum before it finally becomes law. I am fairly certain Americans who have taken advantage of Swiss banking secrecy laws have been and are looking for alternatives to hide their money. I have mixed opinions regarding this whole challenge to Swiss banking laws. The opinion that prevails . . . if an American citizen has nothing to hide, then there should be no problems; however, if he does, then I say good, let him feel the full weight of American jurisprudence. I pay my taxes. Massive wealth does not entitle any other citizen to avoid paying their fair share. Further, if any of those funds are ill-gotten gains, then I want the USG to hunt them down and render them impotent.

This week’s judicial reading was Carr v. United States [560 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-1301] – an appeal from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2003, Thomas Carr, 47, was accused of improperly touching a 14-year-old girl in Alabama. In May 2004, Carr pleaded guilty in state court to first-degree sexual abuse. He was paroled a few months later, and a few months after that, he moved back to his home state of Indiana. Carr was involved in a fight in 2007. Local police searched his record. A zealous federal prosecutor charged him with violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which was signed into law by President George W. Bush as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 [PL 109-248] [441] on 27.July.2006. The Supremes avoided the constitutionality of the law and even drew up short of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution [Article I, Section 10, Clause 1]. The Court’s ruling centered on the tense of one word in the law – travel. The law uses present tense, while the prosecutor applied it retrospectively, i.e., past tense. The Court overturned Carr’s conviction and appeals court affirmation. As a point of tangent curiosity, Associate Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion, to which Justices Thomas and Ginsburg joined – an odd combination of judicial philosophy – and, they liberally interpreted the law discounting the majority’s focus on verb tense, as they extended SORNA to all “sex offenders.” My interest in this case grows from the very liberal interpretation of the law by the prosecutor and the Court’s dissenters. I have so many broader societal questions. Why are “sex offenders” publicly branded with a large, scarlet “SO” tattooed on their forehead? Forever stigmatized for their prior offense, for which they have paid their statutory debt to society. In essence, the practical reality and consequence is the branded citizen can never be rehabilitated and return to good citizenship. Such conduct on our part is the antithesis of the principles that created this Grand Republic. From a citizenship perspective, I worry about projecting moral values into the private domain, however I am far more concerned with prosecutorial overzealousness and over-extension of the law by liberal interpretation. After the travesty of Comstock [560 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-1224] [441], I return to the same questions. Why are there sex crimes? Why is sex a crime? Why isn’t violence upon another person whether it involves a sexual dimension the crime? Making sex a crime adds an emotional factor to what should be a simple question of fact – did the perpetrator commit an act of violence or injury upon another person or property? It seems to me, sex as a factor in crime is an antiquated holdover from the days of yore when women and children were simple property. Let us grow up and mature as a society.

News from the economic front:
-- The British government’s Financial Services Authority announced a restructuring of the country's bank-regulatory system that will consolidate power within the Bank of England. The FSA will be divided into three new agencies, including a bank-regulating subsidiary within the central bank. The UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Gideon George Oliver Osborne proclaimed the long-awaited changes as “a new system of regulation that learns the lessons of the greatest banking crisis in our lifetime.” We shall see.

Comments and contributions from Update no.443:
“The Saudis immediately denied having given permission for Israeli overflights for an Iranian strike. This story has periodically popped up in the news, usually from the London Times, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Saudis would have a lot of internal political problems if they allowed overflights; the ruling House of Saud might be overthrown. This is probably disinformation by the Israelis. Remember that at about the same time, there were stories, again from the Times, about Israeli submarines in Iranian waters. Purportedly, an IDF-Navy submarine is going to be permanently stationed in the Persian Gulf-- an interesting tactical and logistical problem. Again, the veracity of this has to be questioned.”
My response:
I re-read the 2009 article . . . interesting. My initial reaction was . . . oh my, who would leak such information? The Israelis would want such implicit sanction kept highly secret . . . even until well after such a strike. The Saudis certainly would not want their complicity made public, even if it could be easily deduced. Who would be served by such pre-strike disclosure? Hmmmm . . . let’s see . . . someone, or group of someones, with access to such information and a vested interest in closing that particular door . . . even if they were only guessing. Of course the veracity of the Saudi-Israeli “deal” should be questioned, just as we should question the veracity of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s claims of peaceful intent.
I want President Obama to be successful at stopping the Iranian nuclear weapons development program and capability before they detonate their first device. I truly want to congratulate him, and Secretary Clinton, and you, and all the others working to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear material, especially for state-sponsors of terrorism like the IRI.
. . . round two:
“This is from Pat Lang's blog- he is retired Army colonel who was the head of humint at DIA for the Mid-East, he is an Arabic speaker, and was the first professor of Arabic at West Point. He has also worked closely with Israeli military and intel folks. Link to his site: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/ I think you would enjoy his blog.
“His comments are below the dotted line. I think most real experts are of the opinion that Israel would have a problem in making a successful air strike. They would have a hard time making one strike and their capability of making subsequent missions is very questionable. Also recon for BDA and other logistic factors are considered nil. Also, the Iranians aren't dumb, they recall the previous strike on the Iraqi reactor and have dispersed their assets. It would be difficult for US to take out their nuclear sites. And for the Israelis to use nukes to take out the sites would be a total disaster.
_________________________________________
“Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.
“In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.
“To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom's air defences will return to full alert.”
Tomlinson
-----------------------------------------
“If this were true, and the plan were executed, the Saudis would pay a very high price in the Islamic World. The ‘legitimacy’ of Al-Saud rule in the land of the emergence of Islam would be gone. It has always been a bit shaky. The reaction of the armed forces of Pakistan is incalculable in such a situation, and they ARE the Islamic nuclear power. And what would Israel's air force accomplish in such an attack with conventional weapons? Can Israel be this foolish? Are the Saudis equally foolish? I think not.”
pl
. . . my response to round two:
I would agree with Pat Lang. There are many dimensions to this issue. However, the question is whether the House of al-Saud feels a greater threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran or Muslim backlash over an implied action (or inaction in this case)? The other wild card in this scenario, at least at present, would be Iraq and U.S. Nonetheless, I would not underestimate the ingenuity and focus of the Israeli Air Force. I would also not underestimate the performance of Mossad in this instance.
. . . round three:
“Here is a report on one of the ‘war games’ played out earlier this year. I understand that our people are dubious of Israel's chances in an air strike and are very concerned about the consequences thereof. And at best, an air strike would set back Iran's suspected quest for a bomb, not eliminate it.”
[The referenced report (article):]
“War game shows how attacking Iran could backfire”
by Warren P. Strobel
McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Sunday, February 21, 2010
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/21/87061/war-game-shows-how-attacking-iran.html
. . . my response to round three:
Could be realistic? Might not be? Interesting, so let’s freeze any threat of military action and pretend diplomacy is going to convince the IRI to abandon its nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment programs. Also interesting the war games identified what would not work, and did not offer even a hint of what might work. Is there anyone who thinks a nuclear IRI would be good for world peace? . . . well except the clerics of the IRI? As with most things, I am not so interested in what won’t work, rather far more intrigued by what might work. We shall see.

Another contribution:
“Glad you escaped what so many others in that whole part of the country did not. One thing we for sure haven't figured out yet is how to control weather.
“I agree with you on your perceptions about freedom and it's limits lying between the two extremes you mention. Respect the personage and property of others or you go outside the boundaries of exercising your own freedoms.
“I too believe the Supreme Court majority got it wrong in the case you mentioned, and agree with Justice Sotomayer's dissenting opinion. I think the decision sets a dangerous precedent, and hope something soon will overturn it. As she said, and you agreed, it was not necessary, but it may well have far reaching implications.
“Good blog this week!”
My reply:
We have gone way too far down the road of attempting to legislate private morality. It will NEVER be successful in a free society. Either we are free, or we are not; there is no in between.
The Roberts Court has been making me more nervous with virtually every decision. They are quite comfortable enhancing the power of the Federal government over the states and over the rights of individual citizens; and then, they claim to be “traditionalists” or “strict constructionists.” I truly believe the Founders & Framers would be gobsmacked at how easily we have given up slivers of our most fundamental rights – rights they sacrificed their blood and treasure to secure for us.
But, hey, that’s just me.

A different contribution:
“‘Deluge?’ ‘rising’ water? Kansas? Isn't this where I came into this movie about 15 years ago? You need to find a home on high ground Sir! Enough of this riverside living.
“Glad it wasn't as bad as 15 years ago.”
My response:
Indeed! You got that right. We’re on the largest lake in the Cowskin Creek watershed . . . should we ever make the national news like Oklahoma City did. Turns out, the water level crested well below the house. I was just a worry-wart . . . defender of the realm ‘n’ all. Jeanne went to bed with the dogs at 23:00; I stayed up until 04:00, checking the water levels every 15 minutes. Not the same conditions or situation as the big house 15 years ago. Like Jeanne said, folks live in California with earthquakes & brushfires, or in Florida with hurricanes and oil spills . . . so who are we to complain about a little high water.

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