About Me

Name: mgraves
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Of safety nets and Liberty

Posted by mgraves on Friday, July 03, 2009 5:40:52 PM
The left is fond of invoking the dictum--"Those who would surrender liberty to achieve a temporary security deserve neither"--especially in terms of the USA PATRIOT Act's alleged destruction of our liberty.  What, however, of those who would surrender their liberty for a temporary financial security?

The social safety net of the United States is paid for by limiting one's right to do what one pleases with the fruits of one's labors.  Traditionally, the safety net was paid for by charity--tithes, zakat, and the like.  The idea of government as a charity is not a new idea--and it has become considerably more real this year as the Administration cut the amount of charitable deductions that can deducted from one's tax liability, thereby discouraging charitable giving and encouraging "Big Brother" (the federal government) to step into the breach. 

This is a surrender of a right in order to achieve an end, that though noble, to some extent, is not an end competently served by the government.  Charity, to be effective, must treat people as individuals: to minister to the needs of each.  Government, on the other hand, can only treat people as members of a group.  A large bureaucracy is not capable of meeting individual needs.  A government of laws must treat each person equally under the law; ergo, generalized treatment, not the individualized treatment necessary for effective charity.  Such ineffective charity serves no purpose but the purely selfish purpose of making the giver feel good about himself.  (The preceding does not address the obvious Constitutional problems with a "charitable" government).

It is even worse when those who feel good about themselves are spending others' money for that purpose (Congress).

The Nanny state is a soft despotism.  It limits the individual's rights in order to serve the purpose of making each person a lifelong child, incapable of deciding to do right or wrong--as though the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could be unbitten.  Velvet gloved despotism may be soft--and even comfortable--yet it is still despotism.

The consequences of such despotism are a people unwilling and unable to defend themselves against an intellectually stronger people.  As C.S. Lewis puts it in "The Pilgrim's Regress": "When the cruels meet the clevers, there will not be the ghost of a fight".  This does not even take into account the legal ramifications: if we are all children, we ought not be punished harshly because we are not wholly responsible.  We ought to be treated (a theory of corrections which was demonstrated false during the 1960s and 1970s ).  What is left is a nation unable to defend itself from either internal, or external enemies.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran's democrats

Posted by mgraves on Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:06:39 PM
Does anyone else find it interesting that Mir Hossein Mousavi suffers no consequences for his part in the protests in Iran?

Considering Mousavi would have no power to change anything in Iran--even if he were a responsible statesman, and not an apologist for a terrorist regime--whether or not he were president, it seems interesting that the West holds him up a brave statesman and the protesters seem to look to him for inspiration. 

The most likely scenario is that the mullahs got the president they wanted--an irresponsible madman who makes them seem positively moderate in comparison; the people get to let out some steam (and see the futility of their actions); and the terrorist state gets to identify the non-state-sponsored agitators and kill them or imprison them.

Perhaps it is a touch conspiratorial, but it makes sense.

1) The position of President of Iran is powerless and serves only to put a democratic face on the mullahs' desires.  As the position is powerless, it makes sense for the mullahs to ensure that the person who fills the position is one who puts the best face on them, or their ambitions.  In the 1990's the "moderate" Khatami was president--he started Iran's nuclear program. 

The major powers had go-along-get along leaders who were content with the status quo.  Nothing was done to upset the applecart in Iran and Iran was free to put on a moderate face, while pursuing nuclear weapons and regional hegemony (their traditional adversary, Saddam, was hemmed in by a dying sanctions regime and US/UK fighters patrolling no-fly zones covering 2/3s of Iraq).

Ahmadinejad was sworn in as president of Iran in 2005--after the toppling of the Taliban and Saddam, the cowing of Libya, and the resurgence of Lebanese nationalism--when the mullahs needed a man to make them look rational and moderate.  Boom--a madman coming right up.  Not just any madman either--one credibly alleged to have been involved in the takeover of the U.S. embassy in 1979-1980.

2) Something to the effect of 70% of Iran's population is under 30 years old.  The vast majority of Iranians are too young to remember the revolution, the Shah, or the turmoil of late 1970s Iran.  The unemployment rate of Iran is 12.5% (according to the Iranian government); inflation is 28% annually; and underemployment among the educated is rampant.  Iran is country that is forced to import refined petroleum products, despite being one of the leading producers of petroleum in the world, as an example of Iran's economic inefficiency.

Rallying the people in opposition to the "Great Satan", et cetera can only go so far.  External scapegoats when internal problems are evident and obvious do not have the same ability to direct revolutionary passions outward, as do external scapegoats where news flow is tightly controlled (as North Korea or in the former Soviet Union). 

In order to control a youthful citizenry under such circumstances a villian is needed; an outlet is needed to burn off passions.  Ergo, an obviously fraudulent election.  An opposition candidate who faces no repercussions for his agitation. 

3) Lastly, what terrorist state would not like her opposition and potential domestic adversaries to identify themselves publicly?  The brutality of the Iranian response eliminates the next generation of leaders, as well as demoralizes the "b" squad, who might otherwise step up to replace those murdered by the regime.

This entire fiasco is exactly what the mullahs' ordered.  The feckless and incoherent response of the leader of the "Great Satan" is merely icing on the cake.
Tags: U.S.A.   Iran  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iranian electoral violence

Posted by mgraves on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:11:57 PM
Obviously, this is why the oppressed of the world look to the United States for inspiration.

Eleven days later, President Obama issues a statement condemning the "unjust violence" in the aftermath of the elections in Iran.  Surely you jest (I never, and don't call me Shirley...)

Is this supposed to pass as President Obama's "Mr Gorbechev, tear down this wall" moment?

Iran is, and has been since 1979, a brutal dictatorship run by the mullahs.  This is a country that stones women for the crime of being raped.  This is a country that has differing penalties for murder depending on the religion of the victim.  This is a country that seeks the means to destroy Israel.  To say Iran and unjust in the same sentence is to repeat oneself.

The Islamic Republic was founded on an act of war against the United States.  Since that time, Iran has sponsored, supported, and trained terrorists who have targeted the United States and her allies.  Iran has kidnapped British service members and members of foreign media, including a former Miss North Dakota (released this year), and other foreign citizens.

The Islamic Republic is a nation without any legitimacy.  It is a terrorist state. 

The best that our President can come up with is "...strongly condemn..." eleven days after the violence began?  There is a line between discretion and wanting to avoid inflaming the situation, and unmitigated cowardice.  Our Administration has fallen on the wrong side of that divide.

1) The man defeated by Ahmadinejad is no different than Ahmadinejad, merely more outwardly palatable.
2) Either way, the President of Iran does not wipe his arse without the approval of the mullahs.
3) The Administration has spent far too much time in a pointless attempt to placate the mullahs, and in so doing has legitimated the heinous regime.  This has led to the current feeble attempt to behave as though "unjust violence" was unforeseeable.

The Islamic Republic is an enemy state.  The Islamic Republic is illegitimate and irresponsible.  It is not the United States that needs to change in order for relations to improve with Iran; it is Iran.  It is long past time that the Administration recognizes this.

Tags: U.S.A.   Iran  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Somali "gov't" requests Ethiopian aid

Posted by mgraves on Monday, June 22, 2009 2:21:32 PM
This is just odd. 

A couple years ago Ethiopia invaded Somalia--and brought fleeting security improvements to the lawless nation.  Now, Somalia's "government" is requesting Ethiopian military aid in pushing back the "insurgents".  Ethiopia has rejected the request.

1) Somalia does not really have a functioning government, so it is understandable that Ethiopia is unwilling to aid a "government" with no constituency.  What is strange, however, is Ethiopia's insistence that such aid would require an "international" mandate.

2) How does one tell who the insurgents in Somalia are?  With no functioning government and no professional security forces, it would be nigh impossible to pick an establishment.  The only functioning security forces in the country are the African Union troops, currently at 4,300, and it is doubtful that those forces are professional enough--even assuming command and control could be managed--to fight back an insurgency, when there is no one for the insurgents to be fighting against (and, therefore, no one for the AU troops to be supporting).

Withdrawal in 1993 not only left UBL with the impression that the U.S. was a weak horse that could be attacked with impunity, but also left the heinous suffering and chaotic, terrorist breeding ground that is Somalia today.

Sometimes, when there is no obvious U.S. interest in a region, it is necessary to look outside the box.  Somalia's lack of security threatens international shipping and provides a terrorist training ground.  AQ operated out of East Africa before being chased to Afghanistan, it can do so again.
Tags: Somalia  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Terrorism, Iran, and North Korea

Posted by mgraves on Friday, June 19, 2009 11:23:45 AM
Euskadi ta Askatasuna (Basque Fatherland and Liberty) detonated a car bomb in Bilbao, killing one policeman, according to the Basque regional government.

ETA has been around for decades attempting to facilitate the creation of a Basque state in the Basque regions of Spain and France.  They were quiet under the dictatorship of General Franco, but began to launch more attacks as the dictatorship fell and Basque regions were granted more freedom and autonomy.  The lesson, apparently, is that the way to eliminate the terrorism of the ETA is to oppress the Basque people.  I'd be willing to guess that that is not the lesson that the ETA would like people to take away, but that lesson seems simplest.

Iran's mullahs have weighed in in favor of Ahmadinejad.  Not that it matters.  The president of Iran is a figure-head with actual authority vested in the mullahs and the supreme judicial council.  What the mullahs' support means is that they view their interests best served by an apparent madman serving as their "president", rather than the "moderate".  Likely this is an indication that their assessment of the "international community" is that the "community" is more likely to maintain a hands-off approach to Iran's nuclear ambitions if Iran is "led" by a holocaust denying/promising terrorist.

The pygmy kingdom continues to see just what they have to do to provoke a reaction.  North Korea now intends to launch a missile in the "direction" of Hawai'i.  This missile will also pass over Japan.

I hate to say it, but VP Biden was right.  Irresponsible members of the "international community" are testing their boundaries with a neophyte at the helm of the most powerful force for freedom in the world.  The thing is, Pres Obama is not responding to it.  Iran beats protesters with impunity--nothing.  The PRC buzzes U.S. naval vessels--nothing.  North Korea goes nuts on nuclear and missile tests--nothing.

I realize that the Administration is intent upon turning the United States into the United Socialist States of America, so his completely ignoring events having a direct impact on U.S. national security is, to some extent, understandable.  I believe this is why Biden was placed on the ticket, however.  Isn't VP Biden supposed to be the one dealing with distasteful national security issues?

The image best representing this administration is likely two-fold: fiddling while Rome burns and burying one's head in the sand.fiddling-while-rome-burns.jpghttp://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/ostrich_head_sand2.gif
The Administration is so intent on enacting its social engineering schemes that it fails to see that the debt being racked up will have to be paid for by someone; the debt of America will not be purchased indefinitely (we'll reach junk bond status if we keep on the road we're on); and the U.S. dollar is going to be seeing some massive inflationary pressures (when the government response to needing funds is simply printing more funds, we'll be using wheel-barrows to purchase loaves of bread before you know it).

Additionally, the Administration is operating under the delusion that "talking" is always the answer.  It is not.  Europe would not have been freed from the Nazis without force of arms.  There are so many other examples it is pointless to list them.  The point remains: military force and the threat thereof, is a vital tool of international diplomacy.  Without a valid threat of military force, diplomacy is a non-starter the vast majority of the time.  Diplomacy is a way of talking a nation around to a different definition of its national interests; persuasive arguments will not get the job done.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Justice is Blind?

Posted by mgraves on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 4:41:20 PM
http://www.sculpturegallery.com/brass/justice_is_blind.jpg
There is, I suppose, a reason that Justice is blind-folded.  President Obama and Supreme Court appointee Sotomayor do not appear to understand why that is. 

A justice that is empathetic is justice that is not blind.  A justice that is not blind is no justice at all.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

News and Notes

Posted by mgraves on Sunday, May 31, 2009 11:57:17 AM
Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai (Zimbabwe, or perhaps better as, Carter's Folly--one of many) provided a bleak assessment of Zimbabwe, and claims that he has thus far failed to "restore democratic freedoms and the rule of law to Zimbabwe".  The deck, however, has been stacked against him.

Not only has Tsvangirai suffered personal tragedy (his wife was killed in a car accident, and one of his grandsons drowned), but Mugabe has continued his intimidation and economically destructive policies.  Mugabe arrested one of Tsvangirai's ministerial candidates on charges of terrorism and continues to seize land to hand out to his hanger's-on.  Mugabe has also maintained control of the security services.

All told, Zimbabwe is a failure, but it is not Tsvangirai's fault.  Mugabe's yes.  President Carter's yes.

Six Palestinians have been killed in fighting on the West Bank.  Fatah faithful policement engaged in a shootout with two member of Hamas that they had gone to arrest, killing the two Hamas members, three policemen, and the owner of the home that the Hamas members were living in.

To put the West Bank and Gaza into perspective: Taiwan was a dictatorship for decades before transitioning to democracy.  The Philippines struggled along for 70 years or so, before being given the opportunity for a meaningful vote.  South Korea had several decades of struggles before transitioning to democracy.  For some reason, western leaders are under the delusion that democracy can form where there are no democratic institutions and no security. 

The life cycle of democracy requires, firstly, security; secondly, democratic institutions; thirdly, competitive elections.  Western leaders seem to be under the impression that the first two steps can be skipped, merely because they wish it so.

North Korea continues to present that international testing that VP Biden warned the American people would occur.  President Obama has stumbled on a unique way of dealing with the testing: by pretending it doesn't exist.  I half think the Administration is so intent of changing the greatest nation in the world (and this was a campaign promise, remember) that it does not notice anything going on outside the borders of the United States.

SecDef Gates is expressing exasperation at North Korea's intrasigence.  Gates claims that painful sanctions may be necessary.  Perhaps sanctions similar to those that were in effect for a decade?

These people have their heads so far up their rectums they'll never see daylight.  There are two options for dealing with North Korea: all other options have been taken off the table by inept (and possibly well meaning) bureaucrats.  Those two options are accepting a nuclear North Korea having the capability of striking U.S. interests, allies, and territory; or conducting operations to remove North Korea as a threat. 

Sanctions have lost their teeth because they have never been enforced.  The Clinton and Bush Administrations never followed through on sanctions.  Whether it was incompetent Albright or the exceptionally inept Chris Hill (current Ambassador to Iraq), the U.S. always provided an out for the mad midget of North Korea (Manchuria would be more alliterative, but unfortunately, it is not geographically correct).

The worst part of the U.S.'s inept attempts to halt North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons is that our incompetence has provided a blueprint for any other regime intent on pursuing nuclear weapons.  I'm fairly certain Libya regrets its interpretation of the U.S.'s resolve in 2003.  Libya's weapons programs were not even known about.  If Libya had kept working on their nuclear weapons program in secret, they could be unveiling a nuclear bomb in five or 10 years.  No other irresponsible actor will ever again make the mistake of assuming the U.S. is capable of looking after its own interests.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

As the ICC turns...

Posted by mgraves on Monday, May 25, 2009 5:37:59 PM
The circus that is "international justice" continues at the International Criminal Court in the Hague.  Attorneys for Radovan Karadzic have filed a brief alleging that US envoy Richard Holbrooke offered Karadzic immunity from prosecution if he [Karadzic] gave up politics.

This offer of immunity allegedly occurred July 1996.  Karadzic does not claim to have been at the meeting in Belgrade, but claims that the offers was reported to him by two former Bosnian Serb officials, and that those two individuals could testify to veracity of Karadzic's claim (I won't attempt the names of the officials because there aren't any vowels in their names, and I'm pretty sure that that is morally wrong--I jest, I'm just lazy).

The ICC states that it will proceed with the prosecution whether or not there was an offer of immunity.  That is "international" justice for you--ad hoc and ex post facto.  Throw on top of that that the U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC, and it is easy to see that Karadzic does not have a leg to stand on.  My guess is that he's trying to run out the clock and die while on trial like Milosovic.

Anyway, Mr Holbrooke, now the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, denies the offer and calls the claim "laughable".  Not surprising.

Karadzic stands trial for genocide, among other things.  The court had to enter a plea of "not guilty" for him because he claimed that the ICC had no jurisdiction.  He is correct, of course.  A court established by treaty has no jurisdiction over non-signatory nations, especially when that court is charged with enforcing "international law" (and my opinions on that chimera are fairly well set).  That said, hang him and be done with it, or turn him over to Bosnia and Herzegovinia for trial.  The farce that the ICC is does no good and some bad.  End it.
Tags: ICC  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I wonder what the retirement is?

Posted by mgraves on Monday, May 25, 2009 5:17:51 PM
Some 200 Somali pirates have given up the life.  They are also urging other pirates to do the same.  Apparently the pirates of Somalia are corrupting their communities.

One such pirate, Mr Abdullah, who formerly operated out of the semi-autonomous region of Somalia called Puntland (considering there is no government, isn't everything autonomous?) has been offered amnesty in exchange for his retirement, ""I understand the wrong things that I was involved in and I'm aware now these acts are wrong in Islamic teachings.""

I'm not entirely certain that that is re-assuring, considering what the Taliban, AQI, and others have claimed is permissible, under Islam.  (I'm fairly certain that Mohammed's career in Medina was initially financed by raiding the land trade routes, and if Mohammed is a model for Muslims, is not raiding/piracy not only permissible, but required?  But, heck, I'm no scholar).

Perhaps a more likely explanation is that the NATO warships in the area have made piracy too high risk of a proposition. 

Two more vessels suspected of carrying pirates were boarded, after being stopped by a Canadian Frigate, and the weapons were confiscated.  That is correct.  The tools of the trade--"firearms and rocket-propelled grenades, as well as equipment such as hook ladders"--were confiscated, and the alleged pirates were released.

Weren't pirates hanged back in the day?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Law and Mr Iqbal

Posted by mgraves on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:05:11 PM
What is sad is that four justices felt he had a case. 

Mr Iqbal attempt to sue Atty General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller for alleged misconduct, including ethnic and religious discrimination, during his detention in late 2001 and 2002.  Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority stated, ""The complaint does not show or even intimate that petitioners purposefully housed detainees" in prison "due to their race, religion or national origin, ...""

Mr Iqbal was deported in January 2003 after pleading guilty to fraud.

To prove his case, Mr Iqbal would have had to demonstrate that either he was singled out for discriminatory treatment and that such mistreatment occurred at the direction of Mr Ashcroft and Mr Mueller, or that there was a pervasive policy implemented by Mr Ashcroft and Mr Mueller to discriminate against certain persons and that he (Mr Iqbal) fell within that class of discriminated against individuals.  The latter seems more likely than the former (kind of a slim and none thing), but even so, it seems unlikely.

According to the BBC, "dozens" of Muslim men were detained after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and that of those "dozens", many of those held at the detention center that Mr Iqbal was held at suffered "abuse" (according to the DOJ inspector general).

Let us parse that claim.  The fact that there were "dozens" of Muslim men detained after September 11 seems to imply that there may have been some sort of arbitrarily discriminatory policy.  Until, of course, one looks beyond the mere implication.

The story does not put the detention of "dozens" of Muslim men in any kind of context.  There is no discussion of what these men were detained for, how many Muslim men were detained prior to September 11 (to provide a control group), or anything of the sort.  There is merely an unchallenged assertion of a discriminatory policy and an implication of an unusual number of persons of a particular identifiable group being detained.
Tags: gwot  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

News Shorts

Posted by mgraves on Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:51:00 PM
Iran is sending warships to the East African coast to confront the pirates there.  The two ships will safeguard Iranian commercial shipping and Iranian oil tankers.  There is no word on whether or not the Iranian vessels will be kidnapping any westerners to embarrass weak-willed western governments.

Rwandan Hutu rebels in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo have gone on a killing spree.  This comes just several months after a joint Rwandan-DRC military operation to crack down on the militias.

The Rwandan rebels, Forces démocratiques pour la liberation du Rwanda (FDLR), are led by many of the same people behind the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The FDLR are engaging in many of the same atrocities of the genocide of 1994.  The UN is responding with a peacekeeping force, which will likely engage in many of the same atrocities as those committed by the FDLR.

Oil companies must leave the Niger Delta region, or face attack, according to the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND).  A Nigerian military spokesman, Colonel Rabe Abubakar, has told the companies to go about their business without fear of attack.

Eritrea is allegedly supplying arms to foreign fighters and Islamist hardliners in Somalia.  Lovely.

Pakistan is continuing its fight against Taliban fighters in Pakistan.  Tens of thousands of people have fled the conflict areas, which is spreading the Salafist/Wahabbi/Deobandi teachings to wherever the displaced persons camps are: "...we believe in purdah for women and stopping singing and music -- that's good because that's our way of Islam".

The Taliban continues to hold sway in most of the areas bordering Afghanistan.

The Congress party has retained power after a vote by the people of India.  Security for the elections was successful, although 60 people lost their lives to violence, mostly committed by Maoists.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Workers of the world...

Posted by mgraves on Monday, May 11, 2009 5:31:43 PM
Venezuelan unions provide a foretaste of what is in store for American workers if our political leaders insist on continuing down the road to nationalization and the "end of capitalism".  22,000 oil contractors stand to lose their jobs after Chavez seized the assets of 60 firms.  Only 8,000 of 35,000 employees have guarantees (I'm pretty sure that adds up to 27,000 who stand to lose their jobs, but that is what the story says--maybe Chavez is going to have the extra 5,000 killed).

I believe that it was Newsweek that made the promise: "We are all socialists now".  I hope not: a sclerotic economy, high rates of unemployment, social disruptions that come from having young unemployed citizens, and an entrenched bureaucracy immune from the ballot box (oh wait, we've already got the last one).

Chavez stated that, "we are liberating the homeland, building socialism with workers".  Unfortunately, those workers do not actually have jobs.  Why is it that socialists speak volumes of their respect for the proletariat, but their policies never benefit anyone but the leaders of the "revolution"?

Rhetorical question, of course.  Socialists like the proletariat in theory, but individually, the workers never measure up to the theoretical vision of them. 

To finish the title's thought: Workers of the world...get screwed (under socialism).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

News and Notes

Posted by mgraves on Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:51:38 PM
As NATO kicks off exercises in Georgia, Russia expels two Canadian diplomats.  Just last week NATO expelled two Russian envoys, allegedly for spying.  Russia's move was part retaliation, and partly to express Russian displeasure with NATO military exercises in Georgia.

The exercises were formerly to have had four additional non-NATO participants--and Russia was granted permission to send observers--but the four nations (Serbia, Armenia, Moldova, and Khazakstan) have close ties to Russia and pulled out of the exercises.

The tit for tat with the Russians continues.  We've fallen a ways since an American President looked into Putin's eyes, and saw his soul.  Never fear, however, despite Russian interference in the internal politics of her near abroad, Russian energy blackmail of Europe, and Russian refusal to play ball on Iran (Russia is playing ball on re-supply NATO troops in Afghanistan), the current U.S. administration is seeking closer ties with Russia. 

The two nations are looking to narrow their differences, according to Pres Obama.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov raised the bar in meaningless diplomatic talk: ""It is important to implement the positive agenda of Russian-American relations, normalise them, rid ourselves of the negative legacy of the past and raise relations to a new level.""

That statement is an entirely new level in almost communicating.

Pakistan's PM Yusuf Raza Gilani promises to eliminate terrorists and militants.  Perhaps he should not feed the extremism by surrendering to militant demands by setting up a parallel Shari'a appellate court.  He's likely going to have to clean house in his government also.  Pakistan's ISI created the Taliban to fill the power vacuum in Afghanistan left by the departing Soviets; the ISI still supports terrorists in Indian Kashmir and elsewhere in India.

Pakistan's fall to the Taliban, or related extremists, is merely a matter of time.  Future Minister in Charge of Nuclear Proliferation, AQ Khan awaits.

South Africa stays with the African National Congress, electing Jacob Zuma her next president.  Mr Zuma has a "colorful" history, including allegations of rape and corruption, as well as being a polygamist.

A bomb in a market in Southern Baghdad ended a bloody month for Iraqis, bringing the total for April to 355.  The most recent bombing killed 10 and wounded 30 in a vegetable market.

The spike in violence is coming just before the 30June deadline for the withdrawal of Coalition Forces troops from Iraq's cities.  Looks like the insurgents are trying to look like they drove out the Americans.  The bombs, however, are cruder than in the past, according to U.S. military sources.

And the Vatican may begin recruiting women for the Swiss Guard.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GWOT News and Notes

Posted by mgraves on Monday, May 04, 2009 8:31:45 PM
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is touring the Near-East assuring the assorted Arab despots that America's fantastical "rapprochement" with Iran is not a threat to them. 

Assuming that better relations with Iran are desirable--such as resulting in Iran abandoning its support for terrorism, particularly its support of AQ, AQI, Hezb'Allah, Hamas, etc, Iran abandoning its pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran making restitution for its kidnapping of U.S. citizens (1979-present), Iran starting to respect some sort of human rights...

Okay, none of that will happen.  Ahmadinejad may not be the actual leader of Iran, but he is no more extreme than the mullahs, who hide their extremism behind Ahmadinejad's much more visible extremism.  Nothing good will be gained from "getting Iran to like us".  Iran's interests do not align with U.S. interests, ergo, Iran will remain an adversary.  Iran is not (yet) a regional hegemon along the lines of the former Soviet Union, which the U.S. dealt with because the USSR was in a position to "force" contacts.  Iran is a third world basketcase, that, despite being a major producer of oil, must import refined petroleum products.  Why give them the legitimacy that comes from dealing with them?

Secondly, I did not like the appointment of Sec'y Gates, when he was Pres Bush's guy.  Gates was an Iraq Study Group guy--that collection of so-called neo-realists who recommended engagement with Iran over Iraq, based on assumptions of shared interests.  The thing is, Iran has never had interests parallel to those of the U.S. in Iraq.  Iran is Persian, but more importantly, Iran is a terrorist state, which thrives in conditions of chaos.  The more chaotic Iraq was, the better able Iran was able to exert its influence into Iraq through al-Sadr.  The neo-realists refused to see that obvious truth because they dwell in a world where everything is predictable and follows patterns.

Pakistan, despite attempts to crack down on the Taliban, surrenders more ground to the Taliban.  Pakistan has agreed to set up a shari'a appellate court.  Taliban fighters refused to lay down their arms on the grounds that the AK-47s are "ornaments of Muslims".  I'm not certain what that means either, but it seems to mean that they are not giving up their guns regardless of how much ground Pakistan surrenders to them.

The Taliban stands, I believe, 60 miles from Islamabad.  If Pakistanis do not regret forming the Taliban, then they must have an odd view of unintended consequences.

In the land of the UN, "one man, one vote, one time" has taken on a new meaning.  The UN is encouraging the Taliban to stand for election in Afghanistan.  Yeah, that's a good idea.  Political parties with militias are always a good for democracy.  That idea worked so well in Zimbabwe (ZANU-PF).

And, off the beaten path of the GWOT, but Zimbabwe was just mentioned so I'll have to mention the ongoing disputes with in the unity government.  The ZANU-PF continues to disrupt white run farms in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe continues to spiral downward.  The only thing that has been accomplished by the unity government is the temporary legitimization of a heinous regime.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Criminal Procedure

Posted by mgraves on Monday, May 04, 2009 5:17:13 PM
I've recently come across a couple stories that just irritate me.  This being a blog (rarely visited), I can explain my reasons.

Firstly, is the article that I referenced a couple posts back where a former member of the Scotland Yard denigrated the prosecution's evidence as "circumstantial".  Secondly, is a Breitbart essay on Shepard and hate crimes laws.

To address the first, I'll rehash my point from previously.  Circumstantial evidence is evidence that tend to prove one or more elements of the offense, or demonstrates some degree of likelihood that the subject could have committed the offense in question.  Most criminal cases rest on circumstantial evidence. 

Some evidence is gathered demonstrating that the offense was committed at a certain time of day, with a certain weapon, with certain ingress and egress points, and by one (or more) person(s).  Perhaps a broken window is discovered in a house, objects from the house are stolen, and police patrols put the offense occurring within a certain time-frame.  Then, evidence is gathered that a certain person was in possession of certain items missing from the home, and this person's fingerprints matched prints found at the scene.

All of the preceding is circumstantial evidence and it is likely to result in a plea deal.

Direct evidence, which the media seems to prefer, is less reliable than is circumstantial evidence.  Eyewitness testimony is direct testimony, but eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate.  Confessions (complete admission of offense) and admissions (acknowledging elements of the offense) are also direct evidence.  These, while solid, are not always obtainable, and can sometimes (rarely) be thrown out by an aggressive defense counsel.

The best case scenario is, obviously, a solid case built on circumstantial evidence, that causes a subject to make a confession, but best case scenarios do not always happen.

Secondly, Breitbart discusses Shepard in view of hate crimes legislation and political correctness run amok.  Hate crimes legislation is legislation that uses motive as an aggravating circumstance in criminal behavior.  Aggravating elements, such as the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime, are recognized and part and parcel of our justice system. 

Hate crimes laws, however, unnecessarily complicate court cases by forcing the prosecutor to attempt to prove a motive.  Mens rea (criminal mind: essentially, did the subject have the necessary level of culpability, i.e. intentional, reckless, negligently, with malice aforethought) and actus rea (criminal act) are typically all that is required for a conviction.  Hate crimes legislation, however, (in political terms) force a prosecutor to follow an unprovable line of inquiry in the attempt to satisfy society's moral sense of justice.

This is unnecessary.  It also prioritizes some motives as having a greater culpability than others.  Does killing someone because I don't like him somehow make him less dead than if I'd killed him because I didn't like the color of his skin?  The victim is still a victim, regardless of the reason for the offense.

Hate crimes legislation merely introduces unnecessary complications into the process to allow Congress or a State legislature to feel good about itself (and that is something that should be avoided at all costs).
Tags: law  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…2728Next »