A great way to get nuked

The Boston Globe has an interesting story today on the Pentagon's plan to use conventionally armed ICBMs against terrorists.

In a clear call against proliferation, Rumsfeld said it's a great idea for the United States but not a big deal for other countries, because only a few countries can shoot back at the United States. Rumsfeld just wants to let the Russians know about the conversion process, but not actually tell them when an ICBM is being launched.

Besides, he added, ``everyone in the world would know" that the US missile was not nuclear ``after it hit within 30 minutes" of launch.

``Or 10 minutes," interjected Sergei Ivanov, the Russian defense minister who discussed the subject at a joint news conference with Rumsfeld. ... By noting that a long-range missile might hit its target in as little as 10 minutes from launch, Ivanov appeared to be emphasizing the short time frame in which a decision on retaliating would have to be made.

Yeah, it's sure a good thing that, you know, nobody's gotten nervous with nuclear weapons, you know. I mean, it's not as if a Russian colonel dodged his orders to prevent a nuclear war by accident, because he was afraid of an itchy trigger finger and wasn't even sure what was going on himself, or maybe the American lieutenant that effectively hotwired his nuclear missile during the Cuban Missile Crisis(*) so he wouldn't be snagged by any pesky delays. Or, just in those crazy couple of weeks, where were the times when a bear -- the animal, not the Russian -- effectively ordered nuclear-armed planes into the air, some American numbnuts went ahead with a test launch without warning anybody, and the test launch even scared American radar operators, several stations were put on DEFCON-2 without the commanders' knowledge, a training exercise nearly started a nuclear war, ...

So, clearly, it's not as if flinging about ICBMs would cause any additional worries. And if anyone does get nervous -- why, just wait to see if a nuclear weapon goes off before you make any hasty decisions! In the meantime, why not stock up on some SPF 4500 to avoid those pesky sunburns?



* I searched and searched through my old files for the source, but failed miserably. Sorry.

Lessons for Iraq

One of my buddies is working a short job in Fort Leavenworth, home of the Center for Army Lessons Learned. One of the documents hosted at CALL is found elsewhere online, which led me to another site, which led me to this:

You will enter Iraq both as a soldier and as an individual, because on our side a man can be both a soldier and an individual. That is our strength -- if we are smart enough to use it. It can be our weakness if we aren't. As a soldier your duties are laid out for you. As an individual, it is what you do on your own that counts -- and it may count for a lot more than you think.

American success or failure in Iraq may well depend on whether the Iraqis (as the people are called) like American soldiers or not. It may not be quite that simple. But then again it could.

Great, timely advice from the Pentagon, eh?

Curiously, the opening line from this document might create a different context: "You have been ordered to Iraq (i-RAHK) as part of the world-wide offensive to beat Hitler." Looks like it could be interesting and still-relevant reading.

Law enforcement, Part 2

The British on Tuesday:

UK transport officials are said to be considering introducing passenger profiling on grounds including ethnic origin and religion. ... But [former Metropolitan police chief Lord Stevens'] comment that "young Muslim men" should be a focus of security attention was attacked as "an extreme form of stereotyping" by the Muslim Council of Britain.

British law enforcement cleared this woman on Wednesday:

A 59-year-old Vermont woman's behavior aboard a trans-Atlantic flight triggered a massive security response yesterday, with Air Force F-15 jets escorting the plane to Logan Airport, where federal agents seized the woman, authorities interrogated passengers, and police dogs sniffed through luggage for explosives.

It must be easier to think that everything in the world is black and white, but it must really suck when reality begins to suggest few things in life are simple. But, as Stephen Colbert has suggested, reality has a liberal bias.

Edit: I just saw this gem, also brought to us by the British police:

LONDON - A 12-year-old boy managed to get around stepped-up security and board a jetliner at an airport outside London without a passport or a boarding pass.

The boy was discovered by cabin crew and turned over to airport police. Officials said they could not explain how he got aboard the plane, especially in light of security checks imposed last week after authorities foiled an alleged plot to bomb jetliners leaving Britain.

So much for profiling.

Law enforcement

FBI statement on Friday:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Leaders of the American Arab, Muslim, Sikh and South Asian communities participated in a nationwide conference call today with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other government officials in which both sides pledged to work together to protect our country and safeguard the civil rights of the various ethnic and religious communities. The conference call demonstrated that the American Arab, Muslim, Sikh and South Asian communities are actively involved in helping to secure the country, and that the government is actively engaged with these communities. The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties led the call.

FBI on Saturday:

F-B-I officials say the men were cooperative, upfront and not hiding anything.
They are being charged with collecting or providing materials for terrorist acts and surveillance of a vulnerable target for terrorist purposes.

The FBI's boss on Sunday:

WASHINGTON -- Homeland security chief Michael Chertoff called [Sunday] for a review of domestic antiterrorism laws, saying the United States might benefit from the more aggressive surveillance and arrest powers used by British authorities last week to thwart an alleged plot to bomb airliners.

Chertoff said no American links to the London plot have been uncovered, but added that the top priority for US counterterrorism officials is to identify any possible connection between the suspects in Britain and Pakistan and individuals in the United States.

FBI on Monday:

The credibility of an alleged terrorist plot targeting Michigan's landmark Mackinac Bridge was undermined today when the FBI said there is no evidence linking the arrested men with terrorism.

Were the agents from the Friday conference calls all picking up their skirts at the dry cleaners' over the weekend?

Moving away from monarchy

Up front: This post isn't about Bush. This is about moving our country farther from monarchy, back toward balanced democracy, and reversing dumb decisions made by many presidents.

The Boston Globe reports that a strong majority of the American Bar Association's delegates opposed growing efforts that allow the president to overrule Congress and the Supreme Court, effectively overturning the three-pillared government that this nation is supposed to have.

``We're not saying a president doesn't have the right to express his opinion about what is constitutional," [ABA President Michael] Greco said. ``But what he doesn't have is the awesome power of declaring something unconstitutional and not enforcing it -- of accruing under himself the powers of all three branches."

The article makes it clear that signing statements have been used for centuries, but the (ab)use has greatly increased in recent decades. The current president has signed a single veto, yet effectively used hundreds of signing statements to veto portions of bills. In some cases, the signing statements trumped the clear direction of the Supreme Court and Congress.

The Senate is delaying activity on a bill backed by its Judiciary Committee chairman, who wants this basic threat slowed:

"If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like," said [Arlen] Specter, "he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers."

The effort would at least begin to allow some court supervision.

Curiously, the bill does not go far enough. In essense, it allows the courts to review the signing statements, but it still allows the president to continue offering signing statements that restrict the executive branch departments regardless of Congress' intent with the law. This is akin to saying the President can do whatever the hell he wants, but Congress wants to reserve the right to ask the courts to look it over. A much better idea would be to strip all signing statements of any interpretive power. As we remember from civics classes:
-- Congress creates and passes the law
-- The president follows the law
-- The courts interpret the law

Even if Specter's bill passes, this system still isn't restored.

In introducing the bill, Specter said he was trying to restore the system of checks-and-balances with the separation of powers:

The Founders had good reason for constructing the legislative process as it is: by creating a bicameral legislature and then granting the President the veto power. According to The Records of the Constitutional Convention, the veto power was designed by our Framers to protect citizens from a particular Congress that might enact oppressive legislation. However, the Framers did not want the veto power to be unchecked, and so, in article I, section 7, they balanced it by allowing Congress to override a veto by two-thirds vote.
As you can see, this is a finely structured constitutional procedure that goes straight to the heart of our system of check and balances. Any action by the President that circumvents this finely structured procedure is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority. If the President is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our Framers.

Hear, hear.

Lost in translation

However you feel about Cindy Sheehan, MeTheSheeple would hope you have a view of the First Amendment different than this:

Sheehan told the group "our hearts are connected," regardless of people's races, countries or religions.

As she spoke, a man disrupted the service with loud questions and shouts of "This is unpatriotic!" before he was asked to leave.

"I believe Bush is doing what he should be doing," said the man, William McGlothlin of Marked Tree, Ark. "Freedom of speech is good until it gets out of whack."

Is this guy actually arguing that freedom of speech is great until it involves life-and-death matters? Isn't that the time it's needed the most?

One of America's finest patriots argued that patriotism requires dissent. He actually argues it's treasonous to shut up at important times; witness those who say it's treasonous to talk during important times:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

The author, Patrick Henry, fought to have the Bill of Rights passed.

Never again?

MeTheSheeple lives in a town with a number of Armenians, who have spent the last 90 years trying to get Turkey to admit it committed genocide when it wiped out maybe a million Armenians.

Last night, MeTheSheeple watched the stunning film "Conspiracy," a superbly acted movie. It looks a lot like a company board meeting, with the principals talking about making tweaks to their products. Instead, they're talking about best way to dispose of millions of people, in this case, Jews.

"Never again!" cry those who want to mark the Holocaust, which killed some 6 million Jewish people. Often lost in the debate is the idea that the Holocaust also killed some 6 million other people deemed "undesirable." Ignored, too, are the millions who perished under equally barbaric-but-organized efforts by the Japanese that killed 9 million civilians in China alone. "Never again!" the cry grew.

Yet even as the Jewish Holocaust of World War II is marked as something that can never be repeated, and has been unprecedented in its scope, the cry of "Never again!" rings more and more falsely.

Just a few minutes ago, MeTheSheeple walked past a sign advertising a "Dollars for Darfur" campaign at a local grocery store. "Never again!" In Darfur, it's three years and counting.

Surely after things quiet down in Darfur -- or, simply and sadly, die out -- someone will make a movie about it. Likely, it'll involve an outsider, possibly white, through whom we can interpret the events.

"Never again!" Just like the time a Nazi traveled east, hung out with the Dalai Lama, and witnessed the start of another crackdown that at least hints of genocide. It's a good thing we had the white guy to help us tell the story, regretable as it was. Maybe people came out of the movie theaters thinking "Never again!"

Not so many years after that movie, the world witnessed another genocide, but all-but-failed to act to stop it. Then, too, we got a movie with an outsider to tell us what it was like. At that point, of course, a million people were dead, many killed by machete or fire.

"Never again!" came the belated cry. And yet, just the next year, thousands of people were slaughtered.

"Never again!" rose the cry.

You guys ever hear that joke about languages? The great linguist is up at the lectern and says that, in every language a single negative makes the sentence negative. In most languages, two negatives make the sentence a positive. In a few languages, such as Russian, two negatives leave the sentence as a negative. But, he says carefully, in no language does a double positive ever make a negative. Then, from the back of the room, a kid piped up: "Yeah. Right."



"Never again!" Yeah, right.