Update from the Heartland
No.548
11.6.12 – 17.6.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Another opinion regarding the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST):
“Why The U.N. Shouldn't Own The Seas – The Law of the Sea
Treaty is as harmful today as it was when Reagan and Thatcher first opposed it
in 1982”
by Donald Rumsfeld
Wall Street Journal
Published: June 13, 2012; Pg. 15
“Women Don't Belong in Ranger School – Do individuals serve
the military or does the military serve them?”
by Stephen Kilcullen
Wall Street Journal
Published and updated: June 12, 2012, 7:19 p.m. ET
Kilcullen wrote, “[D]oes changing the fabric of the military
culture to improve the odds of individual achievement make sense for the
military? Do individuals serve the military or does the military serve them?
Remember, this is an all-volunteer force.”
. . . to which
I submitted the following comment:
I
note with interest the latest broadside regarding the integration of women in
the structure and substance of military service.
Stephen
Kilcullen asks (perhaps he intended his query to be rhetorical), “[D]oes
changing the fabric of the military culture to improve the odds of individual
achievement make sense for the military?”
To which I respond, who said anything about changing the culture of
Ranger School, or any other venerable institution of the military.
The
focus should (nay must) be on performance. I respectfully submit that the culture will not change if we
do not alter the standards. Like
Mr. Kilcullen, I am also a graduate of the Army’s vaunted Ranger School. While I never served in the 75th
Rangers, the exceptional training served me well as a Marine reconnaissance
platoon commander and a proud officer of Marines. I am grateful for the opportunity.
Out
of deference to Mr. Kilcullen’s apprehension and concern, the standards of
specialty schools like Ranger School and occupational assignments like infantry
or special operations must be maintained.
Anyone who wishes to serve, regardless of their genitalia, must carry
the same weight, over the same distance, in the same weather, and all the other
things expected of a Ranger, a SEAL, a paratrooper or a Marine. If any candidate does not measure up,
they must find something else that suits their capabilities.
On
25.October.1943, Major Lyudmila Mykhailivna Pavlichenko was awarded Hero of the
Soviet Union – the nation’s highest honor – as the most successful female sniper
in history. She served in the same
cold, in the same mud, with the same death all around her as any man. Is there really anyone among the
warrior class who would not eagerly embrace the service of a woman with Major
Pavlichenko’s skills?
It
is long past time to reject our taught fears and phobias to accept, encourage
and honor the service of any citizen who chooses to endure the rigors of
military service to this Grand Republic.
Let’s mount up and move out smartly.
“That’s
just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Comment posted: Wednesday, 13.June.2012; 11:43 [S] CDT
President Obama announced the administration’s initiative to
stop deporting and to begin giving work permits to younger illegal immigrants
who came to the United States as children and have since led law-abiding lives.
I think there is little
doubt this action is a political effort to garner votes in an election
year. There has been and will be a
lot of gnashing of teeth with accusations of illegal, unconstitutional,
immoral, among many other epithets.
The reality is the Executive branch makes decisions every day, big and
small, to enforce the law or not.
The argument can be made that this current initiative is in the best
interests of American citizens. A
large dry log was just thrown on the fire.
This week, the Michigan House of Representatives debated House
Bill 5711 (2012) – the state’s new, draconian anti-abortion law. On Wednesday, State Representative Lisa
Brown of West Bloomfield took to the house floor to protest HB5711. She said, “I have not asked you to adopt
and adhere to my religious beliefs, why are you asking me to adopt yours? And finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered
that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but no means no.” For that last sentence, the House
leadership prohibited her from participating in the floor debate on an
unrelated bill, as they accused her of being indiscreet and inappropriate. In further protest, Lisa will perform
the “Vagina Monologues” on the steps of the Michigan capital building with
playwright and creator Eve Ensler.
On the political stage, the action of Michigan Speaker of the House
James “Jase” Bolger is so bloody typical of social conservatives – prohibition vice
finding a solution via debate and compromise.
“Canada court says suicide laws unconstitutional”
by Jeremy Hainsworth – Associated Press
Wichita Eagle
Published Friday, June 15, 2012, at 2:10 p.m.; updated
Friday, June 15, 2012, at 8:38 p.m.
British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Lynn Smith declared
the Canadian law banning assisted-suicide unconstitutional. Her ruling is rather lengthy. I did not have the capacity to review
her decision this week; I expect to complete my reading, research and opinion
for next week’s Update.
Almost a month ago, a three-judge panel of the 2nd
Circuit Court of Appeals rendered their unanimous opinion in an interesting Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) – ACLU v. Department of Justice [2CCA nos. 10–4290–cv(L),
10–4289–cv(CON), 10–4647–cv(XAP), 10–4668–cv(XAP) (2012)]. As you may recall, the Obama
administration released a series of Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memoranda
pertaining to the previous administration’s employment of Enhanced
Interrogation Techniques (EIT) for high-value Islamo-fascist terrorists [381]. The ACLU filed suit as a consequence of the released OLC
memos, seeking to obtain redacted and withheld information in and behind those
documents under the Freedom of Information Act [PL 89-487; 80 Stat.
250; 4.July.1966] [508],
specifically as amended [PL 93-502; 88 Stat. 1561; 21.November.1974] [416], providing statutory exemptions
underlying the law. Circuit Judge
Richard Carl Wesley wrote for the panel, “[The ACLU] argue that because an
illegal activity cannot be said to “fall within the Agency's mandate to conduct
foreign intelligence,” Sims, 471 U.S. at 169, waterboarding
cannot be an ‘intelligence method’ within the meaning of the CIA's withholding
authorities.” Interesting
reasoning by the ACLU. However,
the court rejected the argument and sustained the government’s position. I think the circuit court panel made
precisely the correct judgment according to the law. Being the legal honey badger’s they are, I suspect the ACLU
will appeal for a hearing before the full 2nd Circuit bench, which
should be denied; and, regardless of the circuit court appeal, a challenge to
the Supremes is likely and should likewise be denied.
News from
the economic front:
-- The Wall Street Journal reported the big French bank Crédit
Agricole is making contingency plans to abandon its Greek bank or merge it with
a conglomerate of domestic banks, if Greece exits from the euro zone. This is the first public sign of a
foreign company signaling it could walk away from assets in Greece.
-- Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and Bank of
England Gov. Mervyn King announced plans to add more cheap funds to the banking
sector, in a dual attempt to jump-start lending and to fend off potential
financial problems at big U.K. lenders. The measures are designed to insulate the British financial
system and economy from the euro zone’s deepening crisis.
-- Former Goldman Sachs board director Rajat Gupta was found
guilty on four of six counts of securities fraud, for passing confidential
information to his former friend and hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam. Gupta
could face a decade in prison when sentenced later this year.
The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- U.S. District Judge David Hittner of the Southern
District of Texas sentenced the convicted former high-flying financier Robert
Allen Stanford, 62, to 110 years in federal prison for masterminding and
operating a US$7B Ponzi scheme – a la Bernie Madoff. Stanford’s sentence was 40
years less than the prison term meted out to Madoff, but 100 years more than
his lawyers had asked for. Another
one down and many more to go.
Comments and contributions from Update no.547:
Comment to the Blog:
“I will assume that by ‘recent security leaks’ you refer to
the ‘news’ that President Obama has a list of people he wants killed. I find
the list’s existence and content more interesting than its leakage, and if I
feel up to it will do more research on whether Americans are among the prospective
victims. Classified or secret information is a natural breeding ground for
corruption and/or political maneuvering. Incidents like this have occurred back
to the dawn of time and will continue.
“I did not read the article on the deployment of Stuxnet
because of the warnings about cookie usage. You seem to think that it would
have been possible to keep such a weapon secret. I doubt that very much. Once
someone is aware of such a thing, it’s a matter of time before some hacker
finds a way through the security.
“DNA testing to determine babies’ genetic issues has been
brewing for a long time, not in secret. While I once read a great deal of
science fiction, this particular item has been discussed in its parts on TV
(Discovery Channel or magazine-format shows) over several years. I understand
that opponents of abortion fear that abortion rates will rise. That story, like
most, has other sides. My wife has worked caring for ‘multi-handicapped’
people, some of whom will never be able to do anything more significant than
provide jobs caring for them. Their minds and their bodies fail them
completely, and they can do nothing. Some of those patients were born with
troubles beyond the parenting capacity of anyone, no matter how caring,
intelligent, or wealthy. They live however long medical people can make money
keeping them alive. If those people who totally oppose abortion under any
circumstances could spend a week or two changing adult diapers and feeding the
multi-handicapped people, they might understand better why some will welcome
this testing. Will eugenicists try to ‘purify’ humans? I don’t know, but I know
the issue is a great deal more complex and personal than that for prospective
parents of severely handicapped children.
“I too doubt the Supreme Court will overturn state laws
forbidding same-gender marriages, and I cannot guess whether they will take a
step in that direction. The Supremes have a very mixed track record in recent
times. The Federal level, however, has begun to show positive signs on this
particular front.
“While I never thought well of Vice-President Cheney, I
certainly agree that protecting high officials from potential killers takes
precedence over the particular kind of free speech that appears to be a threat
to a person who is present in the same space.
“I will respond belatedly to our discussion of last week.
“It takes no thought to state that ‘fascism’ and ‘terrorism’
are indeed concepts, not concrete enemies. Any dictionary will give you a
definition that names no specific nation, movement, or person. The US has taken
license to attack anyone, anywhere, not merely to respond to a specific attack
by a specific enemy. The initial and correct response to the 9-1-1 attack,
which is the focus of all this, was a law enforcement effort. Since then,
rather than enforce US and international law, we have offended or amused nearly
every nation of the world by what is indeed an ego trip. We had no such
response to the Oklahoma City bombing, which was every bit as much a terrorist
attack.
“I never said Nixon set a high standard for Presidents, or
any standard. I said that people my age learned the phrase ‘national security’
from his abuse of it. What does the one thing have to do with the other? If you
imply that his successors have had stronger ethics and not merely better
advisors, I would like to see proof.
“Your discussions of the legal case and of the Roman
Catholic Church’s control issue are both above my reading level.”
My response to the Blog:
Calvin,
Re:
security leaks. Sure, classified
information is by its nature ripe for abuse; however, national security,
especially in time of war, trumps many things in the short term.
Re:
Stuxnet. The first acknowledgment
of Stuxnet came from the Islamic Republic of Iran in June’2010. There was lots of speculation about who
produced the worm code. It was not
until the 1.June.2012 New York Times article that a public connection was made
between the United States and the cyber-weapon. Such exposure did not improve national security. As I contend, computer code is far less
expensive than the blood of patriots.
We did not need to know about Stuxnet until the War on Islamic Fascism
is won, quite like it was 30 years after the end of World War II before Magic
(Enigma) were acknowledged publicly.
Re:
genetic manipulation. I have been
an advocate for and writing about embryonic stem cell research [146] including genetic manipulation [The
Phoenix Seduction, 1996].
The technology I wrote about in last week’s Update [547] is as inevitable as inter-planetary and inter-stellar
travel. The law must catch up and
keep up as genetic technology evolves.
It is a very short step from this technology back to the Heredity Laws
of 1935. I understand the human
state you described, but it is a very slippery slope and the steps are so
short.
Re:
same-sex marriage. There are a
variety of aspects to the law.
SCOTUS will take the conservative path and I doubt they will leap; I
expect them to at least hop . . . a little forward.
Re:
Reichle
[547]. We are agreed . . . regardless of the principal under
protection.
Re:
War on Islamic Fascism. I do not
think the United States or our Allies have been as indiscriminate as you
suggest. We have used the full
reach and power of this Grand Republic to avenge the innocent lives lost on
9/11; we have also unleashed the dogs of war after trying desperately to ignore
the threat that has been building for at least 40 years prior to 9/11.
Re:
OKC. The forces that led to OKC
did not get the visibility of al-Qa’ida, but I think it a safe bet the FBI gave
those forces the attention they deserved.
Re:
Nixon. I do not think I suggested
you thought Tricky Dick was the standard . . . quite the contrary. I just took the opportunity to comment. None of Dick’s successors were saints
by any definition; they were/are all flawed men. However, I will argue that none of the successor mistakes
were as grievous and enduring as Nixon’s transgressions.
Re:
Catholic Church. It is all about
control and domination of other human beings.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
. . . round two:
“I find it difficult to see the public revelation about the
origin of that software (Stuxnet) as being a revelation or even an important
confirmation to its target or to any interested national security apparatus.
It’s a reasonable bet that Iran, Russia, China, France, the UK, and assorted
other parties knew very well where that worm originated before the Times
revealed it to the civilian world. And waiting for the ‘War on Islamic Fascism’
to be won or lost is waiting for Godot.
“I have noted the pace and variety of genetic research, but
I see no way for the law to keep up with it. No doubt a wide variety of
unpredictable outcomes will eventually shape the legal response.
“The threat to the US from ‘Islamic Fascism’ has increased
greatly since Bush the Younger attacked Iraq and Afghanistan rather than pursue
the perpetrators of 9-1-1 by legal means. Whoever was behind him made major
players out of bush league crazies.
“Whatever you say about Nixon, he forever changed the
perception of the phrase ‘national security,’ which was my original point. One
result of that was the ongoing mistrust of politicians of any level or party by
many of us. You have yet to show me that his successors were more ethical. I
concede that they or their advisors had/have better sense, but that is not the
same.”
. . . my response to round two:
Calvin,
Re:
Stuxnet. There are several
fundamental principles involved.
First, citizens do NOT have the right to divulge classified
material. Second, if the
government wants the information public, a well-established process allows the
government to declassify the data and release it. Third, we do not know whether other elements remain
operable. Lastly, likewise,
release of such information in wartime only serves our enemies, not our need
for transparency in government.
Re:
law & genetic research. As I
have argued previously, one very big reason for the Federal government to
sponsor such research is to evolve safety / control regulations with the
research and allow the law to move faster. We are not talking about money or votes; this is the very
genetic code of life as we know it.
Re:
threat. First, to pretend the
threat of Islamic Fascism did not exist prior to 9/11 or POTUS43 ignores
history. The Homeland was attacked
on 26.February.1993; we lobbed a few cruise missiles. We captured, tried and convicted the operatives, but not the
planners and leaders. Our
sovereign territory was attacked on 7.August.1998; we launched a few more
cruise missiles. I could argue
many other events both prior and subsequent to these events. Without a footprint, our spec ops folks
would have been at far greater risk.
I still believe 43 did what had to be done. History shall tell the tale.
Re:
Nixon & national security.
Agreed! However, Nixon’s
transgressions do not alter the reality of national security in a world with
bad men intending us harm. We must
find a stable balance between action and abuse.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
. . . round three:
“I lack the energy and time to really research Stuxnet. The
tension between freedom of speech and various other concerns benefits all of us
by bringing the issue to general attention and by helping us to define the
limits of free speech.
“You make an excellent point about the Federal government
having a stronger hand in research it sponsors. Getting them to sponsor
anything not of direct military use has become very difficult.
“The threat from Islamic militants (and Japanese radicals,
American militias, and various others) existed before 9-1-1. While I do not
recall the incidents for which you give only dates, I’ll take your word that
they happened. So did others, including Oklahoma City. My point was and is that
Bush 43 suddenly and very publicly made the Islamic radicals appear correct to
many others in the Muslim and Arabic worlds in their attacks on US intentions
and character. That put their membership and contributions into overdrive,
which is how they have been able to continue the conflict this long.
“What Nixon did was to permanently blur the old distinction
between the ‘bad’ people and ‘our’ people. Much of our discussion centers on
that willingness or unwillingness to believe what government officials claim is
‘national security’ or ‘in the national interest.’ I remain far more skeptical
than you.”
. . . my response to round three:
Calvin,
Re:
free speech v. secrecy. There will
always be inherent conflict and tension between our collective 1st Amendment
rights and the USG’s need for secrecy in national security affairs. Our task remains finding balance
between those conflicting forces.
Re:
USG research sponsorship. You
would be surprised how much has been undertaken. Unfortunately, Bush 43 seriously setback embryonic stem cell
research with his dictum. Obama
has tried to help us recover.
Re:
Islamo-Fascist attacks. The first
date (1993) was the first WTC bombing – they came dreadfully close to
success. The second date (1998)
was the embassy bombing in Africa.
I cannot refute your hypothesis, but I do not believe it to be true.
Re:
Nixon. Well said, however I would
add that blur of which you speak mounted rapidly with the gross mismanagement
of the Vietnam War under Johnson-McNamara. Nixon cemented the distrust.
Cheers,
Cap
. . . round
four:
“I can only add one point to this. Vietnam was a mistake all
the way back to Truman.”
. . . my response to round four:
Calvin,
You
are entitled to your opinion, as each of us has a right. Going to war or committing military
forces to combat is a political decision.
We could argue that Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy were rather tentative
in their commitment of “advisors” to Vietnam. Johnson engaged combat forces after the Gulf of Tonkin
incident, but tried to seriously and fatally constrain U.S. operations; IMHO,
he wanted to defend South Vietnam, but did not want to fight a war. I do not believe Vietnam was a mistake
“all the way” around; I do agree there were many mistakes and a lot of American
and Allied citizens died for those mistakes.
Cheers,
Cap
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
