Update from the Heartland
No.541
23.4.12 – 29.4.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The
follow-up news items:
-- Eventually, we get follow-up news items that garner
excitement. The venerable and
renovated, 143-year-old, three-masted, tea clipper RMS Cutty Sark [285, 330, 355] has been re-inaugurated by Queen Elizabeth II. The £50M restoration project completed
the display and visitor’s center after the devastating fire in 2007. Congratulations to our British
cousins. I look forward with eager
anticipation to visiting the majestic ship someday.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell announced the
U.S. and Japan reached a security agreement that will substantially reduce the
American military footprint on Okinawa.
Elements of the III Marine Expeditionary Force will be redeployed to
Guam, Hawaii and Australia (near Darwin).
I served parts of two tours on Okinawa: one as a reconnaissance platoon
commander and another as the air intelligence officer HQ III MEF. I am sorry to see the end of our presence
on Okinawa, but I appreciate the sense of sovereignty in Okinawa
Prefecture. So it is, so it shall
be.
Azzam Rahim was born (date unknown) in a Palestinian village
near Ramallah. He immigrated to
the United States in the 1970's and became a naturalized citizen. In September 1995, while on a visit to
the West Bank as a citizen of the United States, Rahim was arrested by
Palestinian Authority intelligence officers for reasons unknown, and taken to a
prison in Jericho, where he was confined, tortured, and ultimately killed. An autopsy documented and confirmed the
unmistakable signs of severe torture.
Rahim’s family brought suit against the Palestinian Authority and the
Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), for torture and extrajudicial
killing in violation of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA) [PL
102-256; 106 Stat. 73; 12.March.1992].
The District Court dismissed the suit, based on the judge’s assessment
that the TVPA applied to an individual and extended liability only to natural
persons, not organizations. The
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. The Supremes reviewed the case and
unanimously affirmed the rulings of the lower courts – Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority
[565 U.S. ___ (2012); no. 11-88].
The Court noted that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) [PL
94-583; 90 Stat. 2891; 21.October.1976] excluded sovereign nation-states, and
that the term “individual” was not defined, thus the applicable meaning had to
be confined to the ordinary, common, dictionary definition and as a consequence
did not apply to corporations or organizations. Writing for the Court,
Associate Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor observed in her conclusion that the
Congressional Record, documenting the legislative deliberations, quoted Senator
Alan Kooi Simpson of Wyoming: “[A]s a practical matter, this legislation [TVPA]
will result in a very small number of cases . . . ,” and Senator Arlen Specter
of Pennsylvania: “Let me emphasize that the bill [TVPA] is a limited measure. It is estimated that only a few of these
lawsuits will ever be brought.” We
do not know what happened, leading up to Rahim’s death in the custody of the
Palestinian Authority or why the Palestinians were so interested in him. Nonetheless, using the Court’s logic
and reasoning, TVPA is virtually a worthless law in cases like Mohamad. From the Court’s interpretation of
TVPA, the law appears to apply practically to individual U.S. agents, working
outside their agency’s authority, who might be identified in qualifying
cases. Nation-states are exempted
by the FSIA. Corporations or
organizations like the PLO are excluded by the definition of “individual.” It is questionable whether TVPA would
apply to al-Qa’ida or the Taliban, although such a linkage has not been tested,
as yet; as the Supremes decided, it does not apply to the PLO. In the end, I am not really sure what
the point is for the TVPA, and none of this offers any relief to Azzam Rahim’s
family.
News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve Policy Committee reaffirmed
their plan to keep short-term interest rates near zero through late 2014, and
softened their assessment of the nation’s economic performance. They offered no indication whether
further stimulant would be used to spur the economic recovery.
-- Standard & Poor's downgraded Spain's sovereign credit
rating by two notches to BBB+ and added a negative outlook, citing "a
challenging fiscal outlook" amid growing worries on the ability of the
country's regions to curb spending with mounting social opposition.
-- U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an
inflation-adjusted annual rate of 2.2% in 1Q2012, slowing from 3.0% rate in 4Q2011,
and below the economists’ forecast 2.6% rate.
Comments and contributions from Update no.540:
“Normally I agree with your astute observations, but I think
I disagree with the issue of prostitution, if I understood your comments.
“It has been used for blackmail and other extortion for a
long time, if pictures in compromising situations are threatened to be released
around security issues. The Secret Service is expected to be above this
kind of distraction when in service.
“I also think prostitution takes advantage of generally
poorer women who turn to it as a means of survival/ economic support and are
often taken advantage of. So many negatives for the women who feel it is their
only source of survival, and especially when used for the prurient desires of
many and that demand then can drive the human trafficking of young girls
by their use of the prostitution - legal or otherwise.
“Prostitution only exists in humans and our misguided
intentions of self gratification for those who use it for various purposes. Its
side effects are enormous on the disadvantaged who are taken into its den, not
addressing specifically the act itself.”
My reply:
Re:
Secret Service. From your
comments, I think you understood me precisely. Yes, absolutely, as with virtually all the “moral crimes” in
our society, “violations” have been used by nefarious people to blackmail,
extort and otherwise coerce individuals into doing things they would not
otherwise do, often illegal activities, in the lame effort by the victims to
avoid exposure & societal condemnation. It seems to me, we have another chicken & egg
conundrum. Is prostitution used to
coerce because it is illegal, and conversely would such coercion be possible if
it was legal? I fully acknowledge
that in our moralist state it is quite possible. Yet in this instance, even if prostitution was accepted as a
noble profession, those Secret Service agents and assigned military personnel
were on a mission and should have been invisible rather than drawing attention
to themselves; it is in their agency’s title for gosh sakes. I suspect they over-indulged and had
morning after regrets, but there is no excuse for potentially compromising
their mission.
Re:
prostitution. I do not dispute
your observations. Practitioners
are often poorer, less education, and otherwise disadvantaged, and they are
exposed to abuse and injury.
Again, I think we have a chicken & egg condition. Bad people are able to take advantage
of susceptible souls because it is illegal. They are able to operate in the shadows, usually hidden from
public view or scrutiny. My
purpose in legalizing and regulating prostitution is quite similar to my
opinions regarding psychotropic substance use – eliminate or minimize the
collateral damage. I argue that
human trafficking exists like drug smuggling, because it is illegal, and demand
outstrips the risks. Again, if it
was a noble profession, perhaps no women (or men for that matter) would seek
employment in the profession; I suspect that would not be the case. I see prohibition of private conduct in
a free society as much more of a threat than anything generated by the particular
conduct.
Re:
moral disapproval. I recognize and
acknowledge that most of us are offended by immoral conduct like prostitution,
gambling, abortion, drug use, nudity, intoxication, adultery, promiscuity, et
cetera. I have also come to the
realization that the legal enforcement of our moral outrage is far more
injurious and threatening for a host of reasons, not least of which is the
generation & sustainment of the criminal sub-culture that supplies those
services. Further, I think we were
and still are wrong to use the law to enforce our morality, in essence to make
moral choices for every citizen.
Morality is between God and the individual, not the State and the
individual. Prohibition is simply
too costly. So, prurient,
self-gratifying, egocentric, selfish, whatever deficient attribute we place on
the conduct, we are placing ourselves in the position of making those private,
moral choices for other citizens who may not agree with us. To me, freedom is far too precious to
be parsed in such ways.
Comment to the Blog:
“That is indeed a nice picture of Aspen. If one is not
paying attention, they go from arrival to adolescence to adulthood in the blink
of an eye. Time flies.
“I am glad that you and yours were not injured in the
tornado. The property damage requires coping skills, but health matters more.
“I ‘just don’t get’ the Secret Service scandal. Certainly
the agent(s) who participated in the loud argument that reportedly took place
in an open-to-all hallway should be disciplined for their lack of discretion.
Perhaps a supervisor should also be held accountable for not stopping or
preventing that. Beyond those minor issues, the events that took place were
ordinary and legal in their place and time. The locations of these actions did
not contain sensitive information. An investigation of whether the payments
came from the agents’ salaries or from expense (“government”) funds might be
worthwhile, but almost any of us can find more important wastes of government
money. There’s no news here.
“Your linked article on birth control and teen pregnancy
gives useful and relevant information. People who advocate against others
having sex do not live in the real world. I did not understand the point of
including the other article; you did not comment on it.
“Of the ‘trends that may completely transform our sex lives,’
I suspect the most important in the USA will prove to be the last listed, that
mainstream organizations will recognize the economic value of commercial sex.
Here as nowhere else, corporate interests influence social values. Witness the
TV advertising for condoms and for new forms of KY products. Careful
investigation of ownership might well reveal that this trend is already under
way. ‘Big Mac’ could get a whole new meaning.
“As far as the discussion of prostitution, even just reading
the headlines to which you linked convinces me that no parties listed are yet
objective enough to conduct a rational discussion of whether legal prostitution
is safer for the prostitutes. I would hazard a guess that legalization would
improve safety for the customer due to requirements for registration, health
inspection, etc. We need new voices to study actual results from Columbia,
Spain, the Netherlands, and other places before we decide on the best way to go
about changing our failed ‘prohibition’ policy.
“Mr. Justice Harlan seemed to think the political parties
who make redistricting decisions would somehow operate in the interests of the
people rather than of the political party. I have no idea where he got that
notion; history had already proven him wrong over and over by the time he said
that.
“The other reason you should study addiction is to take
yourself away from the concept that people are “rational actors,” making
decisions in their own self-interest based on all of the available facts. You
could also study history, sociology, psychology, or political science to
disprove that notion.”
My response to the
Blog:
A
blink of the eye . . . indeed!
Re:
Secret Service. Their agency title
is the primary reason. They were
on a mission. Exposure is an
automatic detractor; in that sense, they failed. Aside from the compromised mission, too many Americans are
offended by prostitution, which adds the titillating and prurient spices to the
story. The reason I raised the
point was the immaturity of our righteous indignation. The Press / public outrage is the
prostitution aspect. My
disapproval is their poor judgment in risking the mission. They should have recognized the
potential for their activities to go sideways on them.
Re:
childhood sex education. The point
of including both opinions was simply the consequences of inadequate
education. There are many reasons
teenage girls become pregnant or get sucked into the sex trade. One of those reasons is little if any
knowledge of sex and sexual relations, or recognizing the precursor signs. I believe many of these little
tragedies could be avoided if teenage girls and boys understood.
Re:
commercial sex. Agreed.
Re:
prostitution (I suppose we can differentiate it from the larger commercial sex
arena). I am not so sure Colombia,
Spain, or the Netherlands are good examples as I see them as more legalization
without regulation . . . that may well be a different kind of worse. At least they have tried to make things
better, and for that we should study what works and what doesn’t work. There must be regulation to protect the
providers as well as the customers, and prosecute those who violate the
regulations or cause injury to others.
To me, prohibition against private conduct is never going to be
successful, if we expect to have a free society.
Re:
Harlan. Precisely the point. His logic assumes good will by those in
power, and we know all too well, flawed men are not always noble in their
actions.
Re:
addiction. I have never claimed
addicts are “rational actors.” In
fact, if I was asked, I would say addiction tends to be highly irrational. I believe my approach is to assume the
worst case. The addict may not be
able to make rational decisions regarding his course of action. Ultimately, if the addict is unable to
make the correct choices, then he will most likely quickly progress to prison
so that he cannot harm innocent people.
Our compassion should give him choices until he convinces himself to
seek treatment. Let’s get things
out in the open where we can see them and deal with them properly. We must break the cycle with the
criminal sub-culture. I want to
respect the addict and allow him the freedom to do as he wishes, to respect his
choices whether rational or irrational.
Our only primary objective is to prevent the addict from harming other
people or property. Once the
primary objective is met AND the addict finally convinces himself he must
change, then we can help him; failing the first, he does not reach the
second. We should respect the
process of making private decisions by any citizen, including addicts; our
responsibility is to protect the public domain and innocent citizens. I hope all this makes some semblance of
sense.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
