Update no.463

Update from the Heartland

No.463

25.10.10 – 31.10.10

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

To all,

I need to lead this edition with one simple opinion. Rumors and suggestions of the decline and demise of the United States of America are grossly exaggerated, if not resoundingly false.

Now, I shamelessly and with uncontained pride plagiarize our Son Taylor’s Facebook submittal of Wednesday, 27 October. “Please remember to vote with education and wisdom, not with fear and ignorance. Beware of ‘leaders’ who only propose their hatred and bigotry as an alternative to the life we live. Remember this, we cannot blame a snake for acting like a snake. We can most assuredly blame ourselves for an apathy that places that snake into a position of authority.”

I believe voting is a moral obligation of citizenship. Our intellectual contribution to the preservation of the freedoms we enjoy and the viability of this Grand Republic rests upon informed voting. Taylor said it far more eloquently than me. I cast my vote by mail for this election. I look forward to seeing the results of our duty.

The follow-up news items:
-- Another opinion regarding the alleged rift between the military and the nation [459, 462]:
“The R.O.T.C. Myth”
by Diane H. Mazur
New York Times
Published: October 25, 2010; pg. 27
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/opinion/25Mazur.html?th&emc=th
I read opinion’s like Mazur’s stacked up along with the other similar opinions published in the last few months and I cannot avoid the image of a conspiracy to drive a wedge between the military and We, the People. I have not been on the inside in many years, so it is conceivable that I am just ignorant and Mazur is far more thoroughly informed; however, when I compare today’s tension with the genuine chasm that existed in the 60’s & 70’s, the contemporary version seems pale to invisible. Now I am getting suspicious.
-- The presidential, National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling [AKA Oil Spill Commission (OSC)] disclosed that three out of four tests on the cement mixture Halliburton used in the Macondo oil well showed that the mixture would be unstable, and BP had the results of one of those three tests before the well exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in April. BP’s internal investigation report {Deepwater_Horizon_Accident_Investigation_Report.pdf} [456] illuminated the importance of the cement and its composition as well as the less than desired performance (pp.55-60): “Based on consideration of the properties and testing of the nitrified foam cement slurry used in the Macondo well, and on CSI Technologies’ lab results and analysis, the investigation team concluded that the nitrified foam cement slurry used in the Macondo well probably experienced nitrogen breakout, nitrogen migration and incorrect cement density. This would explain the failure to achieve zonal isolation of hydrocarbons. Nitrogen breakout and migration would have also contaminated the shoe track cement and may have caused the shoe track cement barrier to fail.” The OSC’s announcement is the first official acknowledgment of a smoking gun. By the way, the cement samples and laboratory test results were denied BP for their internal investigation, having been impounded by the FBI / OSC.

Those who have discussed or debated sensitive or controversial topics with me recognize that I cannot pass this opportunity. I strongly urge all Californians to vote YES on the state’s Proposition 19 – the legalization of marijuana. Californians can once again lead the way for the rest of this Grand Republic. It is long past due that we stand up for freedom. Far too many lives have been destroyed or irreparably damaged by a well-intentioned, but ill-advised laws and the zealous enforcement. Conversely, while I urge passage so that we may progress toward a better tomorrow, I must say Proposition 19 does not go far enough. Simple Legalization is not sufficient. Additional repeal and amendment of the laws are required to regulate usage of marijuana and TetraHydroCannabinol (THC) as we do with alcohol and tobacco products to ensure public safety. Private intoxication should be protected as individual freedom of choice; however, public safety exceeds private choice. No one has a right to endanger another citizen, including children, by their private choices.

Allied counter-terrorism agents intercepted two packages, one in Dubai and the other in England, containing explosive devices originating in Yemen and addressed to two places of Jewish worship in Chicago. Both devices were reported to be printers with PETN explosive packed into the toner cartridges with detonators to be triggered by a cell phone call or alarm. An international terror alert was issued on Friday. The associated cargo transport system was quarantined and searched. According to the professionals, no other explosive packages have been found. The leading suspect is al-Qaeda bomb-maker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, 28, a Saudi citizen based in Yemen, described as one of the most ruthless and fanatical of all al Qaeda’s followers. The prevailing opinion so far indicates the sophisticated bombs were intended to detonate in the air, perhaps on approach to Chicago O’Hare. This is the enemy we face.

I finally got around to reading a ruling from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued last May – Al Maqaleh v. Gates [CCA DC no. 09-5265 (2010)] – the Bagram detainees habeas corpus decision. The three-judge panel denied the Great Writ to Fadi al-Maqaleh, a Yemeni citizen in custody since 2003, and held at the detention facility as Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. The law is hardly settled, and thus will continue to evolve. This case gives us a snapshot of the challenges any free, democratic society faces within the structure of law (common & international law, and the evolving laws of war) when faced with an extra- territorial, unstructured, mobile, international enemy that abides no law but its own violent, oppressive, dictatorial ideology. Al Maqaleh splits a very fine hair – the unlawful combatant detainee’s rights under the U.S. Constitution depend upon a nebulous interpretation of sovereign autonomy. We fight a war, but not a conventional declared war, against an enemy that holds no territory, has no government, and uses un-uniformed “civilian” combatants to kill military as well as innocent people. While I concur with the circuit court’s finding, I continue to struggle with reconciliation of contemporary legal interpretation with history. Today’s court focuses on the location of the detainee. Yet, just a scant 65 years ago, thousands of enemy combatants were held in indefinite detention in multiple large camps scattered across the territorial United States, and the courts did not question the authority of the government, the military or the location of those Prisoners of War, nor did they imbue those POWs with extended rights. This mess will sort itself out eventually, but quite possibly not within my remaining lifetime.

News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Gross Domestic Product rose at an annual rate of 2% after climbing 1.7% in the second quarter – not exactly a booming economy but still growth. The nation’s economic growth remains too shallow and too weak to reduce unemployment any time soon.

Comments and contributions from Update no.462:
Re wiki, you raise the basic question of whether someone in the military should report crimes they witness or know about . I would think it is every citizens right to protect himself and his fellows by exposing crime . Because of the legalese by which evils are condoned , does not give a pass to those of moral standing to ignore the evil. For by ignoring or covering it up it prospers to eventually everyone's detriment.
My reply:
There are methods and procedures for any military service member to report a crime whether combat or not, whether big or small. What that person or those folks did collecting and disclosing the mass of classified documents was not reporting a crime; it was a betrayal of our Allies and us.
For the sake of debate, does any citizen or service member have the unilateral, unqualified right to publicly disclose any information he wishes when he disagrees with the leadership of the military or the Nation? Who determines evil? If any individual can make that determination, what constraints are there, if any? Since the person in question here made up his own rules, does that mean there are no rules? While we are at it, if the “no rules” approach applies to warfighting, does it also apply to any ordinary crime? Where do we draw the line? Surely there must be a threshold somewhere. Just some thoughts.

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