Update from the Heartland
No.547
4.6.12 – 10.6.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On Friday, President Obama offered a rather tepid
condemnation of the recent national security leaks to the Press [528, 546]. Later that day, Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
Ronald C. Machen Jr., and U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J.
Rosenstein to lead separate criminal investigations being conducted by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into the recent unauthorized disclosures
of classified information. Holder
said, “The unauthorized disclosure of classified information can compromise the
security of this country and all Americans, and it will not be tolerated.” Investigations into leaks such as these
are rarely successful, but we can always hope.
A U.S. drone strike killed Abu Yahya al-Libi – al-Qa’ida's
No. 2 leader and primary operator – another success on “The List.” The War on Islamic Fascism continues.
“We Will Rue The Cavalier Deployment Of Stuxnet”
by Misha Glenny
Financial Times
Published: June 7, 2012; Pg. 9
In the light of the recent national security leaks, this
opinion seems quite appropriate, rational and justified. The more such cyber-weapons are
utilized, the more likely they will mutate into viruses, worms, and other
contaminants of cyber-space.
However, I see this situation quite differently. I rail against the disclosure of this
capability rather than the actual deployment. Binary code is far more efficient than blood. The efforts of the Islamic Republic of
Iran to develop weapons of mass destruction must be stopped. I do not share Glenny’s opinion. It was not the cavalier deployment but
rather the cavalier exposure of Stuxnet and Flame that threatens our national
security.
I think we all knew this day would come, but I doubt any of
us thought it would be so soon . . . well except for the biological scientists
and science fiction authors among us.
» “DNA Blueprint for Fetus Built Using Tests of Parents”
by Andrew Pollack
New York Times
Published: June 6, 2012
» “Unborn babies could be tested for 3,500 genetic faults – Scientists
could soon be able to routinely screen unborn babies for thousands of genetic
conditions, raising concerns the breakthrough could lead to more abortions”
by Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
The Telegraph [of
London]
Published: 06 June 2012; 10:51PM BST
» “Eugenics, Past and Future”
by Ross Douthat
New York Times
Published: June 9, 2012
Talk about quantum leaps beyond the law . . . wow! We continue our inexorable journey
toward the potential realization of Madame
Blavatsky’s “Secret Doctrine” or the
horrific application of eugenics by the Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. This is one of those instances where
the law must anticipate the boundaries rather than wait for the inevitable
exceedances. While I laud the
science, this technology can go dreadfully wrong in short order. I am not so sure we can afford mistakes
when tinkering with genetic code.
A three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals
declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) [PL 104-199; 110 Stat. 2419; 21.September.1996] unconstitutional – Massachusetts v. HHS
[1CCA no. 10-2204 (2012)] – actually, §3 [110 Stat. 2419]
that defines a “marriage” as “. . . a legal union
between one man and one woman . . . .” Circuit Judge Michael Boudin wrote for the unanimous panel
and affirmed the ruling of District Judge Tauro – Massachusetts v. United States
[USDC MA 1:09-cv-11156-JLT (2010)] [449]. Judge Boudin wrote, “To conclude, many
Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most
Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it
permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as
well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority,
Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in
Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal
interest.” The court acknowledged
the depth of emotions on both sides of this issue. Fortunately, at least for this court, the judges saw the
rights of the individual citizen over the will of the State. The cases for civil rights continue to
mount. While I am convinced the
law must change, including all those state constitutional amendments codifying
discrimination and alienation, I doubt the Supremes will take such a definitive
step to end the denial of equal rights to a portion of our citizenry simply
because of our moral disapproval of their choices in their unique pursuit of
Happiness.
On 16.June.2006, Vice President Richard Cheney visited a
shopping mall in Beaver Creek, Colorado.
A Secret Service protective detail accompanied the Vice President and
included agents Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle and Dan Doyle. Steven Howards was also at the mall
that day, talking on a cell phone, when he noticed the Vice President greeting
members of the public. Agent Doyle
overheard Howards say, “I'm going to ask [the Vice President] how many kids
he's killed today.” Doyle told two
other agents what he had heard, and the three of them began monitoring Howards
more closely. Doyle watched Howards enter the line to meet the Vice President.
When Howards approached the Vice President, he told him that his “policies in
Iraq are disgusting.” The Vice
President simply thanked Howards and moved away. Howards forcefully pushed the Vice President's shoulder, and
then walked away. The Secret
Service arrested Howards, interrogated him, and eventually transferred him to
the custody of the local sheriff's department. Local officials charged Howards with harassment in violation
of state law. The charge was eventually dismissed. Howards filed suit against Doyle and Reichle for retaliatory
arrest in violation of his 1st Amendment free speech rights. The unanimous Supremes decided the
Secret Service agents had qualified immunity from prosecution in the exercise
of their official duties – Reichle v. Howards [565 U.S. ___
(2012); no. 11–262]. Justice
Thomas wrote for the Court, “Qualified immunity shields government officials
from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or
constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged
conduct,” and concluded, “This Court has never recognized a First Amendment
right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by probable cause;
nor was such a right otherwise clearly established at the time of Howards'
arrest.” Justice Ginsburg wrote a concurring
opinion. “Officers assigned to
protect public officials must make singularly swift, on the spot, decisions
whether the safety of the person they are guarding is in jeopardy. In performing
that protective function, they rightly take into account words spoken to, or in
the proximity of, the person whose safety is their charge. Whatever the views
of Secret Service Agents Reichle and Doyle on the administration's policies in
Iraq, they were duty bound to take the content of Howards' statements into
account in determining whether he posed an immediate threat to the Vice
President's physical security. Retaliatory animus cannot be inferred from the
assessment they made in that regard.”
The Reichle ruling adds strength to the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds
Improvement Act of 2011 [PL 112-098; 126 Stat. xxxx; 8.March.2012] [536]. While I think the Court made the correct decision given the
circumstances, we must pay close attention to these laws, for they are ripe for
abuse.
News from
the economic front:
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) left its interest rates
unchanged at 1.0 % for a sixth straight month, resisting pressure to provide
relief from Spain's escalating banking crisis and the growing threat of a Greek
departure from the European Economic Union.
-- China Investment Corporation (CIC) Chairman Lou Jiwei
said, “There is a risk that the euro zone may fall apart and that risk is
rising.” Jiwei announced the
company is scaling back its holdings of stocks and bonds across the Continent. China's giant sovereign-wealth fund sees
mounting risks in Europe and the potential for a global contagion.
-- The People's Bank of China reduced its benchmark interest
rates by 0.25 % as the signs mount regarding a slowdown in the PRC’s growth and
worries about stagnation in the global economy.
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke indicated the U.S.
economic recovery faces significant risks due to an uncertain U.S. fiscal
policy and persistent European sovereign debt crisis, although he stopped short
of signaling Fed action to combat the risks.
-- Fitch Ratings downgraded Spain's credit rating by three
notches to BBB, noting the country's high level of debt, its weak economic
prospects and the likely cost of recapitalizing its struggling banks.
-- Euro-zone finance ministers signaled their willingness to
provide as much as €100B (US$125B) to support Spain's ailing banking sector, although
they did not indicate the exact size, form and timeframe of any bailout.
-- Spain’s Economy Minister Luis de Guindos Jurado announced
that his country will ask for a bank bailout from the euro zone, becoming the
fourth and largest country to seek help since the single currency bloc's debt
crisis erupted, but did not indicate the size or timing of their request. Independent audits of the country's
banking sector will establish the specific amount.
-- These actions and observations are reassuring but are
also ominous signs of what lays ahead for the developed economies.
Comments and contributions from Update no.546:
Comment to the Blog:
“I stand by my prior statement that a war on a concept
(poverty, drugs, terrorism) is not a war but a cover for something else,
usually the removal of civil rights that block the path of someone in power.
“Please remember that those of us who came of age in the
early 1970s learned the phrase ‘national security’ from President Nixon’s abuse
of it. We do not see that in the same way that others apparently do.
“SpaceX has accomplished one mission once, on the second
try. We have a long way to go before we see regular passenger or cargo service
to the moon, or even into geosynchronous orbit, and many hazards await.
“I did not bother reading that dimwitted attack on the
Constitution. While I fear that attitude embodies the opinions of others who
have more power, all the same I do not have the patience to follow the rantings
of such cretins.
“Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to ban large sugar-sweetened
beverages addresses a legitimate issue but in a seriously wrong-headed way.
Prohibition has yet to work, whether its subject is alcohol, some other drug,
or a behavior such as prostitution. I hope he will go back to the drawing board
and find some other approach that has some chance of actually working.
“I could not discern what the Supreme Court found in the in
vitro fertilization case you described. I tend to pay less attention to
possible extremes than you; what I look at is the potential changes new
technology brings to the lives of large numbers of people. Whatever the
decision, your point that the speed of the justice system lags far behind the
rate of change in technology is valid and important. Now all we need is a
workable solution.
“Re your commenter: I doubt that ‘open debate’ is
appropriate on the rights of employees of Roman Catholic Church employees. The
Bill of Rights very appropriately guards certain rights from the ‘tyranny of
the majority,’ and those rights should continue to be protected whether or not
we agree with them. Thus, I support the right of the people at Westboro Baptist
Church to spout their beliefs in any situation not damaging to others even
though I find the people and beliefs ludicrous and disgusting. I see no reason
others should be allowed to stop that so long as it does no harm to others and
I see a real parallel to the Catholic Church’s attitude toward their employees’
use of birth control.
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
war. Fundamentally, I do not
contest your statement regarding “war on a concept.” So, is fascism a concept? If Islamo-fascism or terrorism is a concept, then by
definition, we must not be at war.
If this has not been war, are you suggesting all the fighting, lost and
damaged lives, and extraordinary expenditure of treasure have been subterfuge
to sustain the power trip of some politician(s)? If so, who?
And, how so?
Re:
national security. Nixon had his positives,
but he was hardly the standard of performance for a president.
Re:
SpaceX. Wow, you’re pretty hard on
‘em. They did accomplish what no
other company has been able to do . . . even if it was luck. Interplanetary travel has to start
somewhere.
Re:
dimwitted attack. Spot on,
brother! Yet, it is always
enlightening to maintain awareness of all arguments, even the dimwitted.
Re:
prohibition. Spot on, again! Prohibition on private conduct that
does not involve injury to person or property will never work in a free
society. “Wrong-headed”
indeed! It is a foolish public
relations stunt at our expense.
Re:
Astrue
v. Capato. Perhaps I did
not explain it well. I was more
involved in the question of “posthumously conceived children,” rather than the
findings of the Court. For the
record, the Court rejected the Capato claim. The interesting aspect of the case was the principle behind
the law. To me, the threshold for
public burden must be the death of either biological progenitor. The same threshold should exist for
state intestacy law, except as explicitly provided for in a lawful will (which
is essentially private). Again, to
me, sperm donation should never be totally anonymous for hereditary genetic
reasons, but loses legal rights in either direction for a host of reasons,
i.e., extracorporeal semen is a medical substance rather than a legal entity.
Re:
religious v. individual rights.
This question is quite similar to the secular State v. the
individual. The current Church
position is their right to impose (prohibit) private decisions or conduct
exceeds those of the individual (or the State as surrogate for the
individual). Like you, I defend
the fundamental right of the Phelps clan to spew their vitriol, just as the
neo-Nazi free speech must be protected.
The Catholic Church is no different. Yet, I struggle with where (or how) we should draw the
line. Once again for me, the
criterion is the demarcation between the public and private. Religion occupies a unique position in
that they deal with private morality and conduct. Believers can and should freely choose to abide the dicta of
the church (as long as they do not disobey the law). Birth control is a very private affair – NOT public. Therefore, the State has no direct,
plausible interest beyond the indirect quality & efficacy of the
material. The Church is the same;
they have every right to condemn birth control, but their persuasion must be in
their argument, not in prohibition.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
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.
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 1.June.2012 New York Times article that a public connect 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
Post a Comment