The Senate Intelligence Committee released a report today stating that torture and enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, as used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), were not effective in revealing significant intelligence information for US defense purposes. The CIA strongly disputes that conclusion.
We don't know whether the Senate Intelligence Committee or the CIA is right or wrong or whether they are both partially right. Presumably, the objective of the Senate report is to force the CIA to discontinue using torture and waterboarding, if such is still being used.
If a captured terrorist knows the location of a dirty atomic bomb set to go off in two days and kill or maim thousands of people, I want the CIA to use every means at its disposal to determine the location of that bomb, in order to neutralize it. This includes use of torture, waterboarding and anything else anybody can think of, including pulling out fingernails. However, if the CIA wants the location of where a couple of terrorists meet for coffee and discussions, I'm not much for the torture idea. In other words, the seriousness of the situation will dictate the judgment of what kind of interrogation technique will be used. I can't make that judgment, because there's so much flexibility involved. We have to trust the CIA in most aspects of its operations. I believe we're pretty much convinced that the CIA is trying to protect the American public, and I don't believe we are justified in trying to micromanage it, from a point where we have little or no information.
The big issue seems to be the matter of pain, as judged by abuses of compassion. There are some nuts who believe that minimizing pain in an individual is justification for jeopardizing the lives of millions of people. I'm not one of them. Situations must be handled as they occur. That's why we have the CIA. However, even compassion abusers have some rights and their opinions should be considered.
The idea of torture is based upon an exchange principle. If the tortured person will relieve information, the torturer will relieve applied pain. While it has worked from time immemorial, new technology has entered the scene since the beginning of World War II. The Nazis were developing at that time mind control drugs which in effect when used on an individual allowed that individual to happily and painlessly reveal information. I suspect the CIA is presently using that approach, but perhaps it should be encouraged to engage in additional research and development in that area, which will eventually eliminate torture as obsolete, and simultaneously relieve the pain of compassion abusers.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Process for Congressional Voting
The Washington Times says, "Congress fast-tracks bills loaded with special interest projects in year-end rush".
The House of Representatives will shut down on any new legislation passage on December 11. The Senate is scheduled to be operating through the end of the year, except for weekends and holidays. Both houses want to push through some legislation before the end of the year.
For example, there is a massive Defense Policy Bill and various tax breaks bills. Some of these, such as the Defense Policy Bill are important and urgent, but, they are loaded with pork.
Standard procedure in both houses of Congress is to negotiate a bills contents in order to obtain enough votes for the bill's passage. This is usually done by some sort of pork process. For example, if a major bill is intended to supply our military with the latest technology in military equipment, it may be necessary to obtain the vote of a representative or senator to include in the bill an allocation for building a chicken house in his area. This process usually works to the advantage of the chicken house advocate, because of the necessity of passing the major objective of the bill. However in the voting process, there is usually a lot of argument and consternation, which I believe is unnecessary. I suggest that r Epresentatives and Senators rethink their attitudes and concentrate on the importance of the major aspects of a particular bill and basically ignore pork additions other accepting them in order to achieve enough votes for the total bill's passage.
Congress has a later opportunity to go through the details of the law, if passed by both houses and signed by the president, and take out the pork or at least neutralize it by a defunding process. This may seem onerous with respect to other business requirements in Congress, but it need not be so. Congressmen and Senators will easily recognize a pork situation, if presented quickly and clearly to them and vote against its continuance. None of this will take much time. There is a possibility a filibuster from the pork proponent, but the new Congress in January should easily have enough votes to kill any such ridiculous filibuster in support of a pork situation.
The House of Representatives will shut down on any new legislation passage on December 11. The Senate is scheduled to be operating through the end of the year, except for weekends and holidays. Both houses want to push through some legislation before the end of the year.
For example, there is a massive Defense Policy Bill and various tax breaks bills. Some of these, such as the Defense Policy Bill are important and urgent, but, they are loaded with pork.
Standard procedure in both houses of Congress is to negotiate a bills contents in order to obtain enough votes for the bill's passage. This is usually done by some sort of pork process. For example, if a major bill is intended to supply our military with the latest technology in military equipment, it may be necessary to obtain the vote of a representative or senator to include in the bill an allocation for building a chicken house in his area. This process usually works to the advantage of the chicken house advocate, because of the necessity of passing the major objective of the bill. However in the voting process, there is usually a lot of argument and consternation, which I believe is unnecessary. I suggest that r Epresentatives and Senators rethink their attitudes and concentrate on the importance of the major aspects of a particular bill and basically ignore pork additions other accepting them in order to achieve enough votes for the total bill's passage.
Congress has a later opportunity to go through the details of the law, if passed by both houses and signed by the president, and take out the pork or at least neutralize it by a defunding process. This may seem onerous with respect to other business requirements in Congress, but it need not be so. Congressmen and Senators will easily recognize a pork situation, if presented quickly and clearly to them and vote against its continuance. None of this will take much time. There is a possibility a filibuster from the pork proponent, but the new Congress in January should easily have enough votes to kill any such ridiculous filibuster in support of a pork situation.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Protecting US Citizens Abroad
Luke Somers is an American citizen photojournalist. He was working as a translator at a National Dialogue Conference, which was held at Sana'a, Yemen, as part of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2051. It should be noted that Luke Somers was not an employee of the US government.
During Luke's presence in Sana'a, he was captured by Al Qaeda and was being held for ransom/negotiations, with threat of death. The Obama Administration ran a special task force to try to save Somers, but it failed. Al Qaeda has now executed Somers.
The question seems to be what do you do to protect American citizens in dangerous parts of the world? It's not an easy one to answer, but I think I can offer clarity on the subject.
The first thing to consider is whether a particular country is dangerous to American citizens. We can easily pick out a few that are not dangerous, such as Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Some of the clearly dangerous ones are Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Some appear to be marginal, such as Mexico, Cuba, Lebanon, and Israel. However, I don't think that's specific enough.
I believe the United States government should designate which countries of the world are unsafe for Americans to travel and work in. Travel would mean entry to the country for business reasons, family contacts, tourism, missionary and other religious work. Perhaps the best test whether a country is dangerous for Americans is whether the United States maintains a working embassy with minimal security in the country.
If a country is on the dangerous list, the position of the United States should be that Americans are not restricted from entering or operating within the country, but the United States government will take no extraordinary means to protect them or save them from further harm if captured or detained. Persons excluded from that position would be all employees of the United States government, including military personnel, federal representatives and congressmen, State Department officials, spies, or any activity as long as they are on the federal government payroll. Note that this does not include state or local officials, such as governors or mayors. Retired government officials on pension would not be protected, except for US ex-presidents. I'm not sure what to do about the employees of contractors to the US government, but there should be a clear resolution.
Recovering a detained American government employee might occasionally involve payment of ransom or similar monetary negotiation. However, the standard US government action would usually be a declaration of war on the country or group involved in the capture or detention, followed by subsequent strong military action unless there is immediate release. The military action would only be terminated on the unimpeded release of the captured or detained US employee. Assassination of the US employee by the captors would be justification for continuation of the strong military action as a retribution and lesson to others who may be tempted to follow a similar route.
During Luke's presence in Sana'a, he was captured by Al Qaeda and was being held for ransom/negotiations, with threat of death. The Obama Administration ran a special task force to try to save Somers, but it failed. Al Qaeda has now executed Somers.
The question seems to be what do you do to protect American citizens in dangerous parts of the world? It's not an easy one to answer, but I think I can offer clarity on the subject.
The first thing to consider is whether a particular country is dangerous to American citizens. We can easily pick out a few that are not dangerous, such as Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Some of the clearly dangerous ones are Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Some appear to be marginal, such as Mexico, Cuba, Lebanon, and Israel. However, I don't think that's specific enough.
I believe the United States government should designate which countries of the world are unsafe for Americans to travel and work in. Travel would mean entry to the country for business reasons, family contacts, tourism, missionary and other religious work. Perhaps the best test whether a country is dangerous for Americans is whether the United States maintains a working embassy with minimal security in the country.
If a country is on the dangerous list, the position of the United States should be that Americans are not restricted from entering or operating within the country, but the United States government will take no extraordinary means to protect them or save them from further harm if captured or detained. Persons excluded from that position would be all employees of the United States government, including military personnel, federal representatives and congressmen, State Department officials, spies, or any activity as long as they are on the federal government payroll. Note that this does not include state or local officials, such as governors or mayors. Retired government officials on pension would not be protected, except for US ex-presidents. I'm not sure what to do about the employees of contractors to the US government, but there should be a clear resolution.
Recovering a detained American government employee might occasionally involve payment of ransom or similar monetary negotiation. However, the standard US government action would usually be a declaration of war on the country or group involved in the capture or detention, followed by subsequent strong military action unless there is immediate release. The military action would only be terminated on the unimpeded release of the captured or detained US employee. Assassination of the US employee by the captors would be justification for continuation of the strong military action as a retribution and lesson to others who may be tempted to follow a similar route.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Rioting in Black Communities
Open email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Lawbreaking in Black Communities
Hillary Clinton says that police officers are more apt to stop and interrogate black persons than white persons. This is true. In making her statement, Hillary is implying that there is racial discrimination. If she is implying this, it is untrue. Fact is that more black persons than white persons have broken laws and are candidates for interrogation.
This could be easily resolved by the black community acknowledging that this is a country of laws and that black people should not break laws anymore than white people. If black people have grievances, there are other means of resolution rather than resorting to violence, which in many cases involves destruction of property or stealing of same. Positive programs are becoming involved in law enforcement groups, such as police officers or higher levels such as district attorneys or prosecutors. Black activities should never involve rabble rousing, which is only a recipe for lawbreaking
This could be easily resolved by the black community acknowledging that this is a country of laws and that black people should not break laws anymore than white people. If black people have grievances, there are other means of resolution rather than resorting to violence, which in many cases involves destruction of property or stealing of same. Positive programs are becoming involved in law enforcement groups, such as police officers or higher levels such as district attorneys or prosecutors. Black activities should never involve rabble rousing, which is only a recipe for lawbreaking
Federal Control of State Lands
The Washington Times says that the state of Utah plans to take over from the federal government 31.2 million acres of Utah land now under federal government control. Before you get excited, this does not include national parks and national monuments, such as Arches, Bryce, and Zion.
Utah's land size is 54.3 million acres and the federal government controls more than half of it.
The federal government controls more than 50 percent of all land west of Kansas — in Utah’s case, it’s 64.5 percent. This means that this large amount of land is unavailable for private ownership and development.
Utah state officials will proceed with a program of education, negotiation, legislation and litigation. It will not involve use of military or police force.
This will also hopefully serve as a model for other Western states to similarly join in reducing federal control of state lands.
It should be noted that moving federal control of land to state control will not automatically make land available to the public for private development, but it is at least a step in the right direction of reducing the onerous controls of the federal government departments, such as the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service.
Let's remember that is the intended passage of the Keystone pipeline through federal government controlled lands that has held up the construction of this pipeline for the last several years.
Utah's land size is 54.3 million acres and the federal government controls more than half of it.
The federal government controls more than 50 percent of all land west of Kansas — in Utah’s case, it’s 64.5 percent. This means that this large amount of land is unavailable for private ownership and development.
Utah state officials will proceed with a program of education, negotiation, legislation and litigation. It will not involve use of military or police force.
This will also hopefully serve as a model for other Western states to similarly join in reducing federal control of state lands.
It should be noted that moving federal control of land to state control will not automatically make land available to the public for private development, but it is at least a step in the right direction of reducing the onerous controls of the federal government departments, such as the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service.
Let's remember that is the intended passage of the Keystone pipeline through federal government controlled lands that has held up the construction of this pipeline for the last several years.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Reducing Black Rioting
Open email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
You have said many times one of your prime interests is "jobs".
The Washington Times had a recent article entitled, "How Ferguson and amnesty are connected". The title is a little misleading, as I will explain.
The writer was Roy Beck is the Executive Director of NumbersUSA. His message was simple. He said that the Ferguson riots and others by black groups around the country were primarily based upon the fact that they have no jobs and the unemployment rate in the black community has continued to increase. In other words, riots are caused by people who feel underprivileged, as the Blacks presently do, and with time on their hands to demonstrate their grievances in the form of riots, which is the only thing they seem to know.
From that point of view, your interest in providing jobs is favorable not only from a humanitarian point of view but also from an economic point of view, to avoid destruction of property. I believe you know how to improve the job market for the black community. It is primarily to reduce red tape and restrictions on potential employers, including minimum wages, which will encourage those employers to hire. Corrective action will involve your looking in detail at OSHA, EPA, and various other restrictive departments of the present US federal government.
To get down to what the Washington Times was trying to say is that with the creation of amnesty by Pres. Obama, millions of jobseekers are automatically added to the market, which further reduces opportunities for US citizens, especially Blacks. From that point of view and with the continuance of amnesty, Roy Beck is indirectly saying we can look forward to an increase in black rioting to the total disadvantage of the US economy through property destruction. Since most of the rioters will not be prosecuted, this also automatically reduces the average citizen's believe that this is a country of laws. Carried to an extreme, we will then have a country of complete anarchy.
Two things to do to avoid the problem; revoke amnesty and eliminate hiring red tape for US citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
