My friend sent me an editorial from today's on-line edition of the Detroit News regarding the passage of the Health Care Reform.
I acknowledge that there are individual aspects of the law that are certainly problematic and should be revisited soon. Yet, the diatribe is relentless in projecting the demise of our country, our freedom, our bank accounts. The lead to the editorial states that the new law is "one which the people despise....[passed] against the public will" The "public," in fact, wants most of the changes that are included in this law. They just have been primed to distrust and possibly even "despise" "The Obama Health Care Plan." Polls are grossly flawed indicators of all but how a small group responds to carefully biased wording. Above all else and as I have argued for months, the rhetoric before the public has been dominated by the neo-conservative/Republican, purely political agenda of fear-mongering. From the "death panel" assertion to the "baby killer" accusation during yesterday's session in the House and the rabble rousing from the windows of Congress to a crowd below that had already spat on and personally insulted members of Congress, this, rather than truth, has defined the views of many. The only "will" defied by the passage of this law is the will of a political party unable to extricate itself from the legacy of eight years of failed economic and geo-political policies and substantively redefine itself. The vehement attacks on a law that contained some 200 of the Republican offered amendments from committees and was fundamentally very close to an initiative put forth by the Republican Party in a bill back when they were conservatives in deeds as well as words is grossly disingenuous at best.
ALL intelligent, qualified economic experts, it seems to me, agree first, that in a recession as substantial as this legacy of the Bush years, a reasoned, legitimate and, to many, necessary reaction is for government to step in. The single greatest element, by far, of the dangerously rising deficit and national debt is and will, increasingly, be health care costs. All experts knowledgeable of the existing circumstance's seem to agree. Picking at the system would be meaningless. Isolating specific sub-issues (such as pre-existing conditions) would be impossible without correspondingly modifying other aspects of the system that are dependent and directly impacted. It is a bold but necessary effort to bring the system under control. I hope that each political party fights vigorously and directly on substance in the coming months. The "public" approving, as I believe they do, most of the major elements of the law need to be educated about other aspects of the new law that are directed at overall cost reductions and intended to address the long term deficit/debt crisis.
"The bill also stands as the most impactful legislation ever passed without a single vote from the minority party." Those Democrats voting against the bill, to me, evidence a properly functioning political party within which reasonable individuals with reasoned judgment may differ. The fact that not one Republican could apply and assert individual judgment does not manifest the "evil" of the law as much as it evidences a political party void of substance willing to destroy legislative compromise and integrity for the sake of a pure election strategy. They will continue to fight this not with Reason but to gain a "Waterloo" victory destroying the public will and choice of November 2009.
The referenced editorial may be found at http://www.detnews.com/article/20100322/OPINION01/3220350/Editorial--Unpopular-health-bill-no-win-for-country
Monday, March 22, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Thoughts on Dealing with Terrorism
To begin with, the comments that follow exclude consideration of the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq since I believe there are established rules with which many agree. There is little stretch, in my view, necessary to effectively apply the existing criminal law and procedures in the United States to deal with terrorism directed at Americans outside of these two conflicts. I will discuss some of the relevant elements that seem to be used to define "the threat."
I am not persuaded that the religious identity and religious motivation of the actors affects the consequence of their conduct. The intended or resulting death and destruction are already defined by criminal sanctions in existing law. Religious fervor motivating criminal acts does not necessarily create a substantive category (unless we chose to elevate it so) as much as it may merely indicate the relative intensity of the motivation. We all recognize other motivations in criminal conduct such as greed or revenge. These stimuli also vary in intensity from impulse to the point of rage so intense as to void all reasoning. Nothing about religious motivation or identity suggests to me that existing criminal laws could not or should not be used to punish the offenders. It is not insignificant to continue to ascribe terrorist conduct to a particular religion. We began and continue to hold the concept of religious freedom a core value within our system. “Islam” has become almost a pejorative classification in our conversations. Not that long ago the IRA was simply the IRA and not the Irish Catholic Republican Army. There is no justification to equate Islam as a religion with terrorism. I have pointed out that Mongols, Jews, Muslims, Christians and other groups have committed genocide under direction of their god. We need to back away from generalization of Islam because it is right to do so and because it is in our best interests. I'll address political motivation below.
Nor does the circumstance that acts are committed against selected national identities change my view. Importantly, we are one of so many that there may be little substantive distinction among the targets of terrorism. "Islamic terrorist" attacks have been directed against citizens of Australia as well as European, African and Middle Eastern countries, India and even (broadly defined) China. To my knowledge, each of these other nations has dealt with the terrorists within their own justice systems. Nothing about the fact that Americans are the target of the crimes convinces me that we need to establish a new process to bring them to justice. It is important to remember that Justice is the objective; not revenge; nor solely deterrence; nor solely intelligence gathering; nor gulag confinement. The Soviet State imprisoned Polish, Lithuanian, German and other foreign nationals along with their own citizens by establishing a separate process within which they defined categories of individuals as continuing threats to the Soviet State. Frankly, many were threats to the existing Soviet State. To dismiss the comparison because our motives are self-defensive and “righteous” is to ignore the substantial danger of abuse once the precedent is established. There are too many examples within our own national experience to deny the threat. During past periods of threats to national security our freedoms have been curtailed. To be sure, our national values were "reinstated" at some point. Each of these instances were circumscribed by circumstance and experience to have a defined duration. The "war on terror" has no defined point of termination barring an early "second coming." Most importantly, these past cycles are no evidence that a reestablishment would follow any usurpation of our freedoms.
Nor am I persuaded by contentions that existing procedures for interdiction, seizure and prosecution are inadequate. Existing U. S. law provides and allows for relatively efficient mechanisms to extradite or return by other methods those who have committed terrorist acts, conspire to do so or direct their conduct. The coordination of all nations in intelligence gathering, interdiction and seizure is, of course, essential. This coordination also tracks the ongoing parallel efforts in coordination to effectively deal with growing international fraud, drugs, extortion, etc., that is, criminal conduct.
The highest levels of any, including “Islamist,” terrorist organizations are driven by political motivation. However, the makeup of cannon fodder has not changed through human history. Whether running at the opposing cavalry or running with sword into the guns or pressing a self-destructing button, the political objectives are not paramount in the actor's mind. Certainly, the upper echelons recognize and utilize the coercion explicit in the act toward political objectives against us as a sovereign power. However, it is the “act” and the resultant death and destruction and not the political cause that constitutes the harm. If we acknowledge a need for a new process to deal with “Islamic terrorism” we inject their “political cause” into the process. Once we accept cause as a qualifying element we open current and future situations to subjective qualification. Let’s assume that American students housed in a hotel in Gaza City are killed by a bomb set by a group of radical Israeli settlers who had targeted a Hamas leader in the hotel. The act is clearly one of terrorism but many, I suggest, when hearing the facts would begin to distinguish their “political cause.” Even were we to discard the “Islamic” qualification it would be manifest in the conduct of the new process, the targets and our manifest objectives that we were out for the Islamic terrorists: a distinction with no difference.
I am not persuaded that the religious identity and religious motivation of the actors affects the consequence of their conduct. The intended or resulting death and destruction are already defined by criminal sanctions in existing law. Religious fervor motivating criminal acts does not necessarily create a substantive category (unless we chose to elevate it so) as much as it may merely indicate the relative intensity of the motivation. We all recognize other motivations in criminal conduct such as greed or revenge. These stimuli also vary in intensity from impulse to the point of rage so intense as to void all reasoning. Nothing about religious motivation or identity suggests to me that existing criminal laws could not or should not be used to punish the offenders. It is not insignificant to continue to ascribe terrorist conduct to a particular religion. We began and continue to hold the concept of religious freedom a core value within our system. “Islam” has become almost a pejorative classification in our conversations. Not that long ago the IRA was simply the IRA and not the Irish Catholic Republican Army. There is no justification to equate Islam as a religion with terrorism. I have pointed out that Mongols, Jews, Muslims, Christians and other groups have committed genocide under direction of their god. We need to back away from generalization of Islam because it is right to do so and because it is in our best interests. I'll address political motivation below.
Nor does the circumstance that acts are committed against selected national identities change my view. Importantly, we are one of so many that there may be little substantive distinction among the targets of terrorism. "Islamic terrorist" attacks have been directed against citizens of Australia as well as European, African and Middle Eastern countries, India and even (broadly defined) China. To my knowledge, each of these other nations has dealt with the terrorists within their own justice systems. Nothing about the fact that Americans are the target of the crimes convinces me that we need to establish a new process to bring them to justice. It is important to remember that Justice is the objective; not revenge; nor solely deterrence; nor solely intelligence gathering; nor gulag confinement. The Soviet State imprisoned Polish, Lithuanian, German and other foreign nationals along with their own citizens by establishing a separate process within which they defined categories of individuals as continuing threats to the Soviet State. Frankly, many were threats to the existing Soviet State. To dismiss the comparison because our motives are self-defensive and “righteous” is to ignore the substantial danger of abuse once the precedent is established. There are too many examples within our own national experience to deny the threat. During past periods of threats to national security our freedoms have been curtailed. To be sure, our national values were "reinstated" at some point. Each of these instances were circumscribed by circumstance and experience to have a defined duration. The "war on terror" has no defined point of termination barring an early "second coming." Most importantly, these past cycles are no evidence that a reestablishment would follow any usurpation of our freedoms.
Nor am I persuaded by contentions that existing procedures for interdiction, seizure and prosecution are inadequate. Existing U. S. law provides and allows for relatively efficient mechanisms to extradite or return by other methods those who have committed terrorist acts, conspire to do so or direct their conduct. The coordination of all nations in intelligence gathering, interdiction and seizure is, of course, essential. This coordination also tracks the ongoing parallel efforts in coordination to effectively deal with growing international fraud, drugs, extortion, etc., that is, criminal conduct.
The highest levels of any, including “Islamist,” terrorist organizations are driven by political motivation. However, the makeup of cannon fodder has not changed through human history. Whether running at the opposing cavalry or running with sword into the guns or pressing a self-destructing button, the political objectives are not paramount in the actor's mind. Certainly, the upper echelons recognize and utilize the coercion explicit in the act toward political objectives against us as a sovereign power. However, it is the “act” and the resultant death and destruction and not the political cause that constitutes the harm. If we acknowledge a need for a new process to deal with “Islamic terrorism” we inject their “political cause” into the process. Once we accept cause as a qualifying element we open current and future situations to subjective qualification. Let’s assume that American students housed in a hotel in Gaza City are killed by a bomb set by a group of radical Israeli settlers who had targeted a Hamas leader in the hotel. The act is clearly one of terrorism but many, I suggest, when hearing the facts would begin to distinguish their “political cause.” Even were we to discard the “Islamic” qualification it would be manifest in the conduct of the new process, the targets and our manifest objectives that we were out for the Islamic terrorists: a distinction with no difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)