Update no.482

Update from the Heartland

No.482

7.3.11 – 13.3.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On 22.January.2009, freshly inaugurated President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13492, titled: “Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities.” [371] The order established an objective of closing the facility by 22.January.2010 [one (1) year hence]. On Monday, 7.March.2011, the President issued an order approving the resumption of military trials for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which means the detention facility will not be closing anytime soon. Isn’t it amazing how things change when you have the responsibility rather than just bombastic political rhetoric to get elected? It took two years, but at least the President arrived at the proper position. The detainees at Guantánamo are illegal battlefield combatants who do not belong in the civilian criminal justice system.
-- On Saturday, the Arab League upped the ante and petitioned the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya [481]. The publicly available information (perhaps just idle speculation by the talking heads) indicates Russia and China oppose UN intervention in the Libyan civil war, which means the UN will likely remain impotent. The Arab League action put significant pressure on the U.S. and Europe to respond to the rebel’s request for support. Clearly, Colonel Moammar Muhammad al-Gadhafi, his sons and regime are not high on anyone's hit parade. I imagine the members of the Arab League do NOT want Gadhafi’s thugs to be successful reasserting their oppressive control – a process that appears to have begun.

On 11.March.2011; 14:46 [I] JST {05:46 [Z] GMT, or 10.March.2011; 23:46 [S] CST}, an 8.9 magnitude earthquake (the 5th largest in recorded history and the largest in Japanese history) struck with an epicenter 80 miles offshore, near Sendai, Japan, and 15 miles below the surface, followed by more than 300 aftershocks so far, many of them of more than magnitude 6.0, one as high as 7.4. A tsunami warning was issued for virtually the entire Pacific Basin. A reported 23-foot (7-meter) tsunami struck Sendai 20 minutes later. Japanese police say 200 to 300 bodies have been discovered so far in a northeastern coastal area around Sendai. The reports of devastation continue to pour in: 9,500 missing in Minamisanriku, Miyagi Prefecture; a turbine room fire at the Onagawa nuclear power plant; a massive fire and explosion at the natural gas facility in the Chiba prefecture, near Tokyo; and the most broadly threatening being the serious coolant problems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, near the town of Okuma. The video of the explosion at Fukushima on Saturday was not a good sign. An estimated 20,000 people were evacuated from 20-kilometer radius around the Fukushima plant, and tested for radiation poisoning. Prime Minister Naoto Kan declared the earthquake and tsunami were the greatest disaster in Japan since World War II, and will most likely vastly overshadow the world’s costliest earthquake – the 7.2 magnitude earthquake in Kobe, Japan (17.January.1995). The world has mobilized to assist the Japanese in stabilization and recovery. One important positive in this disaster is the unprecedented documentation of the aftermath of the event and significantly the arrival and destruction of the resultant tsunami.

An opinion that triggered my rumination . . . and perchance yours:
“Why Monogamy Matters”
by Ross Douthat
New York Times
Published: March 6, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
Numerous collateral aspects of the Douthat opinion percolated to the public fringe. First, Douthat makes valid and appropriate points. Strict monogamy ensures healthy procreation and for those so inclined the least risky sexual pleasure. Traditional, Victorian mores confine all sex to adult (i.e., >18yo), heterosexual, bilateral marriage, and even then virtually for procreation only; the popular notion of virginal purity being raised to paramount importance and expectation – anything else is labeled hedonistic. In those days, the doctrine of coverture dictated that married women and subsequent children were virtually the legal property of the husband / father; they had no legal standing beyond the husband /father. Legislators of the day translated those conservative, traditional attitudes into common law . . . passing laws to criminalize polygamy, prostitution, non-heterosexual conduct, any sex involving minors (<18yo), pornography, et cetera ad infinitum. Zealous prosecutors enthusiastically enforced the moral laws on private conduct when they find access to such deviant behavior. Violators of those social dicta have been branded for life with a large, bright, scarlet “A” – sex offender; or, at a minimum, labeled a deviant, a pervert, a violator of social norms . . . ostracized forever. The success of the Victorian era legislators remains with us a century later. I respectfully submit to a contemplative and discerning audience that the notion of the American Dream, at least as reflected in our attitudes toward marital relations, have caused far more destruction than they ever helped solidify the narrow concept of normal. The oppressive laws associated with “proper” moral conduct in predominately private relationships have made us afraid of our own bodies, fearful of even mentioning sex around our children, and apprehensive to say the least about discussing any aspects of human sexuality with anyone. Even worse, we shake in mortal fear of even raising the topic of sex in public debate. We giggle and snicker with uncomfortable unease when someone bolder than us mentions sex. As a consequence, our children are relegated to learning about their sex by happenstance and at the mercy of fumbling peers and fortuitous events. So, Ross Douthat reportedly on what appears to be a positive turn, but unfortunately in the context of our sexually repressed society, I see the news in more ominous terms . . . that social conservatives are re-asserting their moral values on everyone else and restricting the unalienable right of every citizen to seek his path in pursuit of Happiness. Sex is a natural, normal, necessary part of life. Each of us has a fundamental right to privacy, and as such, to make our choices (as long as no one else is injured) with a clear expectation of no interference from society. Now, before the social conservatives get all fired up, We, the People, do have a responsibility, an obligation, to define acceptable public conduct, but we must step back a few paces from dictating private conduct as our penchant has been for more than a century. Let us move into a more enlightened era and return the freedom the Founders fought so hard to secure for us . . . and our kin. Neither We, the People, nor the State belongs in the private affairs of marriages, families or citizens . . . other than as that private conduct intersects with the public domain.

The following thread between a long-term friend and colleague, and me covers an important, relevant topic for public debate. All contributions are welcome.
“A serious issue for you:
“I am constantly being told by various folks that Bradley Manning should ‘be executed,’ shot, ‘hung,’ etc. This article puts the question where it should be: Should war crimes not be reported or exposed? If you sign an oath to support and protect the Constitution of the United States, and you see what you think is a crime, do you or do you not have the duty and responsibility to report that? Does the belief that war, undeclared by Congress, make it OK to excuse murder, and other forms of illegality, simply because ‘war is hell’? Are there no rules? Are there no morals?
“If you think something is a crime and you expose it, do you think you should be held in solitary confinement and otherwise tortured, or do you think a system of laws which respects the rights of Citizens of this country, should allow you a hearing and due process to state your case? Or should military authorities, who represent the actual system which perpetrated the alleged crimes, decide your fate? Or your son's fate? Or your nephew's fate? Or some kid you don't even know's fate?
“Some fool will probably think that I am accusing the soldiers who fired from the helicopters of war crimes, when I am not. If it is not clear that those who put those soldiers in harms way and put them in situations and circumstances where the fog of war allows us to blithely say what they did was unfortunate but, well, war is hell, are the one's responsible for the crimes, then I will say it plainly: The soldiers are not responsible. The Leadership who took us into these wars and people who supported them are responsible.
“If you do not know what I am referring to in regard to the helicopter shooting, please read the article, or go here:”
http://www.collateralmurder.com/ .
http://www.alternet.org/story/150157/bradley_manning_humiliated_and_abused%3A_why_is_exposing_a_war_crime_more_dangerous_than_committing_one/comments/
My response:
I shall endeavor to step through your queries, which I presume are not rhetorical; but, first . . .
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, § 3 states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Bradley Manning reportedly violated the 2nd qualifying phrase in that definition. Please note: there is NO qualifier of “war” in that phrase. If Manning is found guilty of doing what he is accused of doing, he has committed treason. Treason is normally punished by death; 70 years ago, such an act would have been punishable by death; however, recent examples like Walker, Pollard, Ames, Hanssen, Lynd, and their ilk have failed to be properly punished for their crimes, so it is highly doubtful Manning will realize a harsher fate. That said . . . now to your queries.
1. Re: “Should war crimes not be reported or exposed?” Yes, absolutely. To my knowledge, Manning did neither. There is a defined process for reporting such crimes. To my knowledge, Manning made no attempt to activate the process.
2. Re: “If you sign an oath to support and protect the Constitution of the United States, and you see what you think is a crime, do you or do you not have the duty and responsibility to report that?” See no.1 above.
3. Re: “Does the belief that war, undeclared by Congress, make it OK to excuse murder, and other forms of illegality, simply because ‘war is hell’?” This is a troubling question on many levels. Let us set aside the declaration of war issue, since the Authorizations to use force [PL 107-040 and PL 107-243] may have been tantamount to but were not officially declarations of war. What Manning is accused of is the disclosure of massive numbers of classified military and diplomatic messages, not some discrete object or set like Ellsberg did. We can argue the legality of the USG’s action, but it will ultimately boil down to definitions, interpretations and opinions.
4. Re: “Are there no rules?” Of course there are rules; rules for traitors like Manning as well as the rest of us common folk up to and including POTUS. We may not like the decisions or actions of the USG, but to my knowledge, they followed the rules. Manning did not, and he shall suffer the consequences.
5. Re: “Are there no morals?” Here is where it really gets sporty. One man’s pornography is another man’s art. Morals are rules of private conduct. Laws define proper public conduct. When confronted with moral conflicts, our choices are adapt or resign. Manning again did neither; he chose to betray his country rather than do the proper thing – hardly an admirable trait.
6. Re: “If you think something is a crime and you expose it, do you think you should be held in solitary confinement and otherwise tortured, or do you think a system of laws which respects the rights of Citizens of this country, should allow you a hearing and due process to state your case?” I have insufficient information to form a credible opinion on Manning’s legal status. I suspect the USG is doing what they consider necessary and within the law.
7. Re: “Should military authorities, who represent the actual system which perpetrated the alleged crimes, decide your fate? Or your son's fate? Or your nephew's fate? Or some kid you don't even know's fate?” The question is moot. Manning is in the Army. History and the law gives the military jurisdiction, although any conviction can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
If Manning did what he is accused of doing, he committed treason in a time of war. Regardless of war, he should be punished for what he did. It was not some act of conscience; it was a vengeful, vindictive act because he joined the Army and then did not want to go to war. Life’s a bitch!
. . . round two:
“Good answers from the point of view of a Bush Admin apologist. A few questions:
“1. Do you think the Rules of Engagement which are put in place during an illegal occupation and invasion of a sovereign nation which was no immediate threat to the invading nation and which invasion was based on lies and fabrications, and which was never declared a ‘war’ by that nation's highest law of the land, its Constitution, and which invasion caused massive death and destruction of the invaded nation, and many deaths and obliteration of the invading nation's economy , was protection against the charge of war crimes against the perpetrators of those Rules?
“2. Did you see the video of the helicopter killings and the dialogue and attitudes of our sons, nephews, and unknown kids who were involved in executing these Rules of Engagement?
“3. Do you think the exposure of a video showing what most people would classify as war crimes was a good thing to do or bad?
“4. Do you think the release of the Pentagon Papers was treasonous?
“5. Do you think the exposure of the My Lai Massacre was a good thing, or a bad thing?
I think I know your answers to all of the above, but one more, Would you feel the same about Manning as you have stated below if he was your son, and had a fundamentally different view of this criminal war than you?
“PS: at least you took up the question with some thought- thanks
“Here is an in depth discussion of the leaked video by Wikileaks which I hope you will not discount simply because it was not on Fox News:”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zok8yMxXEwk
. . . my response to round two:
First, I am neither an apologist nor antagonist for any administration. I am only a concerned citizen. I try to focus on actions in the public domain, as best I am able. Now, to your queries . . .
1. “Do you think the Rules of Engagement which are put in place during an illegal occupation and invasion of a sovereign nation which was no immediate threat to the invading nation and which invasion was based on lies and fabrications, and which was never declared a ‘war’ by that nation's highest law of the land, its Constitution, and which invasion caused massive death and destruction of the invaded nation, and many deaths and obliteration of the invading nation's economy, was protection against the charge of war crimes against the perpetrators of those Rules?” Long, jam-packed question! A.) Congress chose to pass Authorizations rather than a formal declaration of war. I have consistently criticized that decision and failure since debate on the form began. History has not yet recorded the reasons for that failure, so we wait. B.) All international actions are based on intelligence. History is replete with examples over time of bad intelligence, i.e., the Zimmerman telegram being a prime example. I cannot subscribe to the “lies and fabrications” premise. The fact that decision-makers chose to act upon low or no corroboration is a judgment history shall make. C.) “War crimes” is a totally inappropriate legal term to be applied to the Allied decisions regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. We can disagree with the decisions, but the decisions were made in accordance with the law, thus they cannot be defined as crimes. D.) We can argue the Rules of Engagement (RoE) as you wish. I certainly have been critical of the strategy used to prosecute the Battle for Iraq on many levels; history will most likely not be kind to Rummie, W, and the others for the decisions they made to prosecute the battle, but I doubt history will condemn the President’s decision to act on the threat.
2. “Did you see the video of the helicopter killings and the dialogue and attitudes of our sons, nephews, and unknown kids who were involved in executing these Rules of Engagement?” The sterility of distant hindsight may be comforting, but it does not recognize the difficulty of combat decisions. I have been in the position of those pilots; even in peace-time training events, mistakes are made. Our training, the RoE, et cetera, give us (all warriors) the best decision-making skills possible; mistakes are a fact of life, not just war. In that light, I do not view that video as indictable; in fact, quite the contrary. They were doing the best they could and apparent innocent people got hurt.
3. “Do you think the exposure of a video showing what most people would classify as war crimes was a good thing to do or bad?” I will not stand between Freedom of the Press, the citizen’s right to know, and military combat operations. I would just add one primary, predominate caution: access is NOT knowledge. We have unprecedented access to military operations, and unless any of us have been there or can place that access into context, we should not be so quick to judge. We do NOT know the situation that led to that video. All we know is what we see, and of course the aftermath in the clarity of hindsight.
4. “Do you think the release of the Pentagon Papers was treasonous?” To be direct, yes! I did then; I do to this day. When an individual takes it upon himself to be the conscience of the government, we are steps closer to anarchy. To my thinking, there is little difference between Daniel Ellsberg and Richard Nixon – they both violated the law for reasons they believed were in the best interests of the nation; both men were dreadfully wrong.
5. “Do you think the exposure of the My Lai Massacre was a good thing, or a bad thing?” A good thing! That event was clearly a failure of the military leadership hierarchy. Unfortunately, the damage-done by mistakes in combat often vastly exceed their local impact. My Lai was an isolated event, but the impact of that event grew far beyond the crime & punishment of those involved. Warfighting, especially in today’s hyper-active digital communications world, must involve control of battlefield information to ensure we wage war successfully, and I might add as quickly as possible. That video served no purpose other than inflammation of our enemies and their supporters.
Re: “I think I know your answers to all of the above, but one more, Would you feel the same about Manning as you have stated below if he was your son, and had a fundamentally different view of this criminal war than you?” Again, short answer: yes! We taught our children to make their decisions on the best information available, and stand up to be accountable for their decisions. Regardless of our view / opinion of the War on Islamic Fascism, what Manning did (or whomever released those documents) was wrong in every possible way. I have read a number of the messages. I am glad I was able to read those messages, and I learned a lot from them, but I do not think I had a right to read them until they were properly declassified. What the discloser did (as in the Ellsberg’s case) was place himself above the entire nation. If every individual did the same thing, it would be anarchy and chaos.
You are I have been around this patch a few times, so I imagine my responses were quite predictable. Nonetheless, there you have them.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Thanks for your thoughtful but not surprising response – we see things differently, as we often do – just wish you had watched the video – I have also taught my son to do what he thinks is right; to obey the rules, do unto others etc, and if he were in the brig now being treated like manning is being treated – I hate to think what I would do.”
. . . my follow-up response:
I intend to watch it tomorrow morning [capacity permitting]. When I get it done, I will offer my opinion.
Perhaps my opinion would be different if Manning was my son. Hopefully, I would know more than I do. Figuratively speaking, my counsel to my son would be fess-up to your mistake(s) and take the consequences. If I believed he was truly innocent and erroneously accused, I would do everything in my power to exonerate him. I do not know enough to make such a judgment today. However, based on the public information, it appears to be far more the former than the latter.
. . . my postscript:
I watched the entire YouTube, WikiLeaks, al-Jazeera video titled “Collateral Murder?” and I will not waste your time. You know my opinion. I recognize and acknowledge that I am not likely to change your mind on such things. Thank you for your opinions and exchanges.

On Friday, Governor Scott Kevin Walker of Wisconsin signed into law the 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 [AKA Budget Repair Bill (SB 11)], which officially removed nearly all collective bargaining rights from the vast majority of the state's public employees. The extraordinary action in Wisconsin may well become a landmark event for all states with collective bargaining units for state employees. The trauma born out in public in Madison illuminated the imbalance that has evolved especially around collective bargaining with government entities that have no profit motive and possess the power of taxation. Unions had their place and necessity in the evolution of fair labor practice. However, I suspect we bear witness to the consequences of unchecked amplification of entitlement benefits. It is tragic that the residents of Wisconsin must suffer this trauma, but the pain is likely going to be felt elsewhere as well.

"In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity; in peace, good-will."
-- Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, PC, MP (12.12.1905)
I thought it appropriate to begin this diatribe with a relevant quotation from a flawed man who brought considerable wisdom and insight to the political and public arena. Winnie did not just spout wise words he lived them. I imagine if we polled the American People, a goodly majority would self-assess ourselves as a beneficent and magnanimous people. We have contributed treasure and the precious blood of patriots to thwart devastating fascism several times during the last century, and then contributed substantial treasure to the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. History documents American magnanimity. With our society generosity, how is it that we are so bloody contrarian in our individual and local lives? OK, now here is my rant. Our system of crime and punishment defines punishable laws, a laborious adversarial prosecutorial system heavily weighed against the State, and broad system of incarceration and probation. The intention has been, is and should be not just punishment, and presumably prevention, as well as rehabilitation and redemption. We all make mistakes. Some of us make more serious mistakes. And, a few us happen to transgress one of the moral lines in the sand that demand we pay an enormous price. The difficulty for me is not the punishment of crime. I blast off into low earth orbit when our supposedly benevolent society ostracizes a person after he has paid his debt to society. I can somewhat understand the personal concern of a citizen or an employer . . . if a person injured someone, he might do it again; so why give the guy a chance to do it again. At a more personal level for me, if a person experimented with or were even addicted to psychotropic substances, he can never again be trusted with a position of responsibility and trust. If a citizen has no hope of redemption and the prospect of returning to trust within a society, then we are condemning him to menial or risky jobs, or more likely a return to crime. Most institutional employers, including the government at all levels, ask whether a candidate has been convicted of a felony. He has only two choices: 1.) lie, which leaves him open to fraudulent employment, or 2.) tell the truth and be denied employment. In essence, the punishment continues long after he has paid the price the law says he must pay – a terrific, incalculable price for the rest of his natural life. Perhaps we need to find a more stratified system for filtration of those convicted of felonious conduct – simple mistakes, misguided, mentally ill, repeat offenders, violent offenders, unredeemable. Somehow, we must find a way to overcome our societal tendency to perpetually punish those who have paid their debt to the community for their transgressions.

Comments and contributions from Update no.481:
Comment to the Blog:
“I very grudgingly understand the Supreme Court decision in favor of Westboro Baptist Church. My understanding does not include agreement, however. Like Justice Alito, I do not believe that preserving freedom requires allowing these sick people to intrude on funerals. Indeed, I would not allow such behavior at any funeral, military or civilian, honoring any person, honorable or otherwise.
“The idea that comes to mind in this context is one that has worked for a private business near here. Following lengthy and annoying picketing by a local fundamentalist church, employees of the sex-oriented business proceeded to picket the church. After a few weeks of strippers greeting his congregation on Sunday mornings, the minister suddenly found it in his heart to offer a much more tolerant approach to the business in question and its employees.
“Whether this would work with the Phelpses and their band of lunatics is hard to say, but certainly something other than court action is in order.”
My reply to the Blog:
I have not found one citizen [outside the Phelps coven] who supports the Westboro Baptist Church and their message of hatred, intolerance and condemnation. Yet, most folks recognize the monumental significance regarding one of our precious freedoms.
As I noted, one element in the Snyder decision [481] rests on the definition of injury in the phrase “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Alito’s threshold was lower than Roberts and the other justices.
What they did not and could not illuminate is the state’s establishment of boundaries. They purposefully did not address those constraints associated with funerals and like events. The central issue in the Snyder ruling was the imposition of monetary penalty for the Phelps’ exercise of speech and assembly.
I think some folks have tried protesting at the Westboro Baptist Church, without success as I’m aware. I think I remember that case in Ohio made the national news. The big difference between them . . . the Ohio pastor cared about what other people think of them, while the Phelps clan could care less. The Phelps clan has no concept of decency, respect or neighborliness. There is an hour-long video documentary about Fred Phelps and his spawn.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I thoroughly agree with what you have said about the Phelps group, but I wish you would not call them a ‘coven.’ I know members of several covens personally. While I do not like all of them, I would not accuse any of being the repellent type of personality that Fred Phelps attracts.”
. . . and my follow-up comment.
I stand corrected. Poor choice of word . . . from Puritan Salem Trials days. My bad word choice does serious disservice to witches. In fact, now that I think of it, perhaps the greatest denigrating insult we could conjure up would be to accuse someone of being a Westboro member. The only difference between the Phelps clan and al-Qaeda is the latter uses of violence toward their ends. Regardless, my apologies for the offense.

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