Friday, May 20, 2011

National Intelligence...May I Have This Dance?

First, have you ever thought about how many different "Intelligence Agencies" of one form or another exist in the United States?  Allow me to list them, and this is not an all-inclusive list:

I got this list off that authoritative source, Wikipedia, so if the list is not precisely accurate, consider the source for a minute.  I just wanted to get the idea across, ok?

Part of the idea of the CENTRAL Intelligence Agency was to CENTRALIZE intelligence reporting in this country.  The former Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was reformatted to become the Central Intelligence Group (CIG).  The idea was that the CIG was supposed to have "all-source" intelligence access.  The other intelligence agencies in existence at that time, most of them military intelligence agencies, did not communicate what they knew with anyone, so an overall intelligence gathering, all-inclusive agency had to be formed and the CIG was formed, actually, the National Security Authority had oversight over the CIG, but if I get into all the different alphabet soup agencies, I am going to lose the few that have managed to stay awake this long.  The bottom line is that under the terms of the National Intelligence Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council were born. The idea was that everyone was supposed to talk to them.  They were the clearinghouse for all intelligence in this country.

Time passed and pretty soon, no one talked to the CIA.  They were just another intelligence agency and all the other intelligence agencies would not play nice with any of the other intelligence agencies, including the CIA.  Informal organizational theory predicts this because every bureaucracy zealously guards its turf.  The way they do this is to be unique and separate, and therefore, indispensible.  So, they refuse to play well with others.  Unfortunately, we had to wait until 9/11 to figure out this was anything other than bureaucratic in-fighting.  It took a real problem, with real consequences and real dead people on the ground before we treated it seriously, and I would argue that we applied a bureaucratic fix that will not work either.

Today, in recognition that the exact same thing that occurred after World War II has once again occurred, we formed yet another layer of bureaucracy.  I give you the Director of National Intelligence or "Intelligence Czar."  Today, the DNI has almost identically the same job as the Director of Central Intelligence, so rather than getting rid of any layer of bureaucracy, we just added another to deal with too many layers of bureaucracy.  Is anyone seeing a pattern here?  Governmental institutions are immortal and they just keep spawning more and more bureaucracy, at least in intelligence, and I'll bet you that they view the occupants of the White House and The Congress as temporary pains in the butt whom they merely have to placate during their terms in office.  And so it goes that nothing ever really changes.

Finally, a little food for thought... The newly appointed Director of Central Intelligence is retired Army Four-Star General David Petraeus.  The Director of National Intelligence is retired Air Force Three-Star General James R. Clapper, Jr.  The DNI is supposed to supervise and supposedly has authority over the Director of the CIA.  How do you think that is going to work out in practice? Hmmmmm.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Equal Justice Under Law? Stein Defends Strauss-Kahn? A Response...

Ben Stein (You know, the guy with the big glasses and deadpan, monotone voice that tells you how to get the red out with Visine? Okay, he did graduate from Yale Law School, so I have to give him a little credit for that....) he came up with all sorts of perceived problems with Dominique Strauss-Kahn's arrest and treatment.  Allow me to respond...point by point:

If he is such a womanizer and violent guy with women, why didn’t he ever get charged until now?

If a man commits a burglary and does not get caught, is he still a burglar?  Hell, if a person commits a crime and does not get caught, or it is not reported, has a crime still occurred?  Just as the fact that Mr. Strauss-Kahn should be judged by that with which he is charged, so should he NOT be excused because he has not done it in the past, or at least been caught in the past.  That is an issue to be dealt with at a sentencing hearing.  A cynic once told me that there is only one crime in the entire world; that crime is "getting caught."  The thoughts of Mr. Stein seem to accept that as true.

The reverse of the above is the logic that many people use for justifying the conviction of a person where evidence is weak or non-existent, "Oh, he just got caught this time.  He has done it before, he just didn't get caught."  One is as unfair and as unjust as the other.   Just because he has no past record, does not mean he either did or did not do the crime with which he is charged.

In the United States, we judge people based on the evidence against them.  Except under certain circumstances, we do not use the fact that someone committed a crime before to be used to prove he did it this time, especially when the sole purpose is to inflame a jury toward an unjust verdict.  We do allow the prior record to come in where it belongs, in the sentencing phase of a trial.

We have trials by jury in this country and that is what Mr. Strauss-Kahn will get, a trial and an opportunity to determine if the government has proof beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.  Please note, I did not say prove he didn't do it, or prove he is not guilty.  That is not how the system in this country works.   Right now, there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and he is the one that committed it.  A judge ruled to hold him on this standard.

Mr. Stein espouses the idea that because Mr. Strauss-Kahn is of such stellar character that he should be treated differently.  While I have a certain amount of sympathy for this argument, it just seems unfair.  I also believe that, if the system is good enough for the "dirtbags" of society, then it is good enough for the elite.  Mr. Strauss-Kahn, being who he is, and having the support of the world elite, unfortunately has to endure exactly what the "dirtbag" does in a government of laws, not men. 

I cannot help but wonder if this will be an impetus for change in the system.  As long as you don't "have a dog in the hunt" or it is "not your ox being gored," then the system is acceptable because it does not affect you.  It is only when people of power, stature or money become "victims" of the system that change occurs.  I would ask Mr. Stein to ask for change in the system, for everybody, if he does not think it is treating Mr. Strauss-Khan appropriately.

This is a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves, and that’s what it’s all about.

Then it follows that many cases that are brought against lower socio-economic groups and minorities are a case of hatred by the haves of the have-nots.  I do not believe this to be true, but I do believe that the haves tend to stand by and watch as the have-nots go to prison in wholesale lots for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that they cannot afford the kind of legal talent that say, O.J. Simpson could.

So far, he’s innocent, and he’s being treated shamefully. If he’s found guilty, there will be plenty of time to criticize him.

Every single person in this country is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty!!  I do not see anyone screaming and jumping up and down when some unknown person charged with a crime goes to Riker's Island to await trial.  Why is Mr. Strauss-Kahn the exception; because he is a member of the powerful, moneyed elite in the world?  In this country, we are supposed to treat people equally, certainly, based on their unique circumstances, but Mr. Strauss-Kahn is getting the same treatment as anyone else charged with a very serious crime, and a judge, presumably a disinterested third party, has ruled in the case.  I will acknowledge that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is paying, to a degree, for the sins of Roman Polanski and how the French government dealt with his situation,  more on that later.

Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes?

Precisely what does that have to do with the charges against Strauss-Kahn?  As a class of people, are economists less likely to commit crimes?  Are economists intrinsically better than everyone else?  You are asking the question, "Why would he do this?"  The answer may be, "Because he could." but again, this is a matter to be determined in a courtroom, before a jury.

Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.

I am flabbergasted!!  The blatant over-generalization and ignorance of how our criminal justice system operates is mind boggling!!  The first question that must be asked and answered is, "Did he do it?"  This is a factual determination.  A cold, hard, unemotional analysis of the facts to determine that a crime has been committed and that Strauss-Kahn committed the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt.  Then we get to the unique character of the defendant and determine his punishment.  Of course, our elected officials, based on the desire to be "tough on crime" and the dissatisfaction with the treatment of defendants by judges, in that they are not hard enough in their sentences, have eliminated a lot of the discretion the judge has in deciding how to punish a defendant.  Mr. Strauss-Kahn, may be a "victim" of this lack of sentencing discretion.

He is one of the most recognizable people on the planet. Did he really have to be put in Riker’s Island?

First, I would not have recognized this guy if he slapped me in the face.  Second, who cares?  He was put in Riker's Island because he was on a plane headed out of the country and he was determined to be a flight risk by a judge.  Do we really think that he would have come back voluntarily to face charges had he managed to get to France?  As my reference, I use the French handling of Roman Polanski (see below).  We are now certain that he will show up for all court hearings and trial, because they will bring him over, just like every other person remanded into pre-trial custody.

At some point, probably sooner rather than later, Mr. Strauss-Kahn will be brought before a Judge for a reconsideration of his bail.  I am sure that he will be released, minus his passport, with some sort of restrictions on his activities, house arrest, an ankle bracelet tracking device or something akin to this.  Due consideration should be given to his unique circumstances, as the purpose of bail is to insure his appearance in court (a little tough to do when he flees to a foreign country) and to protect society from being further victimized.

A man pays $3,000 a night for a hotel room? He’s got to be guilty of something. Bring out the guillotine.

This is what trials are for, to determine whether he is guilty or not guilty.  The determination of bond is only partly determined by the strength of the case against the defendant.  It is also based on whether he is a threat to the community and whether he is a flight risk.  Given all of the factors, he was determined to be a person that would flee the jurisdiction and bond was set accordingly. 

The presumption underlying the question is that he is not only presumed innocent, but, in fact, that he is wrongly charged.  How, based on the facts, and our criminal justice system, can such a presumption be made?  The logical alternative thinking to this commet is, "He's a rich and famous and politically-connected guy.  He cannot possibly be guilty."  I would argue, again, this is why we have trials.

I keep going back to the fact that the man was seated on an airplane that was preparing to fly out of the country.  I am not prone to presume, as Mr. Stein is apparently willing to do, that this is merely the act of an innocent man in his normal course of business, which it might very well be.  I have to accept that it could also be the actions of a man that believes he may or may not have gotten away with the crime and is now fleeing the jurisdiction, knowing that he will likely not return, and when he does return, it will likely be with a diplomatic passport, or as the President of France. 

Following Mr. Stein's logic, I think it important to note that Roman Polanski managed to remain in France for how many decades without going to prison on sex charges against a minor to which he had already plead guilty.  Mr. Polanski's case shows the unwillingness of the French to extradite their citizens that have been convicted of crimes, much less those merely facing charges.  Mr. Polanski was only a filmmaker, albeit a very talented one, not a candidate for the presidency of the country.

I defy anyone to tell me that a defendant with all sorts of ties to the community that was alleged to have committed the exact same crime would not be in the same situation as Strauss-Kahn, and Ben Stein would not be saying boo about it.

Was Riker’s Island really the place to put him on the allegations of one human being? Hadn’t he earned slightly better treatment than that?

No !  He has not earned better treatment.  He is a man, charged with a serious crime, and exactly how many people of lesser social, political and economic standing are in prison today based on the word of one person?  Again, this is what trials are for.  If, in the long run, Mr. Strauss-Kahn is found not guilty, this could be the basis for reforms in the criminal justice system to give everyone a fair shake.

Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes?

Again, who cares?   I am not sure it is possible to be more unjust.  Presuming, arguendo, that no other person in his particular situation has ever been charged and convicted, exactly what does that have to do with the case against Mr. Strauss-Kahn?  It is not proof of anything.  Multi-millionaires have committed murder; Claus Von Bulow, James Sullivan on Palm Beach, to name a couple.  Do we somehow think that people with altruistic careers and callings do not commit crimes?  Hell, Catholic Priests have been discovered molesting children for decades.  Mr. Strauss-Kahn will be judged on the facts of the case against him, and not based on what anyone else has or has not done in the past.

People accuse other people of crimes all of the time. What do we know about the complainant besides that she is a hotel maid?

Again ~SIGH~, this is the reason we have trials.  Ya know, sometimes, quite often as a matter of fact, crimes occur with only one witness, the victim.  Do we presume that this woman is some sort of whore because she has accused a powerful and well-known man with a crime?  The temerity of such a woman!! [Please note dripping sarcasm].  The argument is specious as it assumes that a whore cannot be raped or molested.  Hell, we even have laws in this country that prevent the background of a woman accuser from being introduced in court to impeach her credibility, based on this fact.  How dare you, Mr. Stein, presume anything about this woman without proof?  You should be ashamed!

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Liberty, True Believers and How We Give Up Our Rights

Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  We have become a country in which that is happening every day, and the recent Supreme Court Decision regarding permissible warrantless entries into private residences is an example of the slippery slope to which Franklin would have almost certainly, and most strenuously, objected.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday, in an 8-to-1 decision, that the police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana, knock loudly, announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed.  I am not sure that the uninitiated, unsuspecting citizenry has any idea what the Supreme Court did with the stroke of 8 pens on Monday.  They opened your front door to the police who need only tell a relatively minor untruth (we call it a lie where I come from) and they can kick down your door.  You don’t think they will do it?  You have no idea what these true believers will do.  Follow the logical argument and the best you will ever be able to tell me is, “Oh, they wouldn’t do a thing like that.”  I for one, do not place my faith in that kind of blind trust.
As I indicated in a previous post, we have a group of unseen and unsuspected true believers that walk amongst us and prey on a group that is held in disdain in our society.  They prey on a group that has no real political power, nor in fact, any power at all, not even public support.  The true believers to whom I refer are the few members of police departments in our country that have developed an “us versus them” mentality.  The “us”, is cops; the “them”, is anyone that ain’t cops, but in particular, it is anyone defined by the cops as a “bad guy”.
Now before I get hate mail, and I will get hate mail, allow me to explain.  Much like the Muslims of the world who are a peaceful and tolerant group of persons, most police officers are a fine group of individuals that serve us well and are true public servants.  I refer to the dangerous “true believers” among the police that I believe are a true threat to our society, and I will explain how.  I also want to point out that, at one time, I was a police officer, so my knowledge comes from first-hand knowledge and personal experience.  Since I was once the Police Officer of the Year in the County in which I worked; I must have done something right and been halfway decent at my job as well.  Okay, moving right along…
Police officers develop a three-premise logic; premise one, “I don’t make bad arrests.”  I do not believe any but the most evil of police officers would ever deliberately, with malice and aforethought, arrest a person they know did not commit the crime for which they were being arrested.  Yes, I know it has been done, the Duke Lacrosse Team comes to mind, but I believe this to be an exception and, quite frankly, tehre is a special level of Hell resereved for those that do this.  I will not split hairs regarding those that will make a bad arrest, absolutely convinced that the bad guy may not have done this one, but he has gotten away with so many times, it is okay to make a false arrest on him this time.  This premise, “I don’t make bad arrests,” is what starts the progression and it is a relatively innocent assumption in itself, but it is what starts the ball rolling, so to speak.
The second premise is, “I only arrest dirtbags.”  Police have all sorts of cutesy phrases for persons with whom they deal; mopes, dirtbags, perps.  Use of these terms is the unfortunate, seemingly natural, psychiatric process of dehumanizing people to whom you may need to do something bad.  The most prevalent use of the process of dehumanization is in the military.  Of course, it is understandable that decent human beings, placed in a situation where they need to do inhumane things, do things that allow them to deal with what they have to do. 
In World War II, our soldiers killed Krauts, Jerries, Heinies and Rhine Monkeys, and all other names for German soldiers.  The Japanese were called Zipperheads, Nips, Slant-eyes (many of these derogatory terms were also applied to the Oriental enemies during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, along with Slope, Gook and a variety of other terms).  Anyway, we use these terms to make these people, to whom we may need to do bad things, such as kill them, different from ourselves.  We reduce their value and it is somehow more palatable to do what we must do.  In police work this would be, arrest them.
The final premise of the police logic goes, “Dirtbags don’t have rights.”  This is what allows a police officer, prone to do so, to blatantly disregard their duty and responsibility.  If you look at 90% of the police identifications and/or oaths of office, you will find that their first obligation is not, contrary to the belief of most, to arrest as many people as possible.  It is to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and The Constitution of The State of [whatever state they are sworn in]…”  Now this would seem to mean that the police have a responsibility to protect those rights granted under the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, in addition to all the other things, in The Constitution.  However, the police often view the Constitution of the United States to be an impediment to them doing their jobs.  They are absolutely right, it is an impediment and that is the way it was meant to be.  It is a protection against the overreaching authority of the government, but that is a civics lesson for another time.
The problem with” Dirtbags don’t have rights” is it allows the police to do anything to anybody.  Let us say that you are the one in this logical trick bag.  A police officer stops you and decides you need to be arrested.  Let us say that you are driving a rental car, you are new to an area and you run a stop sign or, having rented the car at the airport where you have just arrived, you have made a wrong turn into a “high crime” neighborhood (police code for drug sales area – generally populated by working class African-Americans).  You are pulled over and at some point the police officer asks, “Can I search your car?”  You have the choice to say, “Sure go ahead,” or “No, I think I will invoke my Right under the Fourth Amendment and tell you to get a Search Warrant.”  Regardless of what you say, the police officer asks you to step out of the car and begins to search your car, with or without your consent. 
Unfortunately, you do not know that the last renter of the car left one of their crack rocks in the ashtray.  The eagle-eyed officer sees the rock, field tests it and says the magic words,”You’re under arrest.”  The police officer makes a decision to not believe you when you say the crack isn’t yours (he hears that each and every time, by the way).  He is not making a bad arrest in his mind; he just chooses to believe that the stuff is yours.  Congratulations, you have been demoted to “dirtbag” status, and now the real fun begins.
As a new member of the dirtbag class, you now have no rights.  The police officer can do anything he wants to “get” you.  This translates to whatever is necessary to make the arrest legally valid.  If he does not like your attitude, and he won’t, because you failed to acquiesce to his authority and told him he could not search your car, he will merely write in his report that you gave him permission.  Remember, you are the bad guy accused of a crime and he is the good guy in the white hat that is arresting the bad guy.  Later you will hear the refrain, “Why would he lie?” until you cannot stand it anymore.  The reason he will lie is because he can and he believes he is allowed to do anything to you, because you are a dirtbag with no rights.  The Constitution is an impediment to him doing his job and he knows that all he has to do is lie, under oath by the way, and with the simple phrase, “Mr. so and so gave consent to search.”, he has avoided all the legal niceties regarding search warrants and such, making the drugs admissible in your felony possession of narcotics trial.
He does not think he made a bad arrest, he thinks he is doing a good thing, when, in fact, he is putting an innocent man in jail for a crime he did not commit.  I know the response of many, “This would never happen to me.”  Well, it doesn’t happen to you until it happens to you.  Let me give you another example.

Think about your absolute honor student with a heart of gold and a great future , out with a group of friends for the evening, one of whom is the bad boy or girl.  When the traffic stop occurs, the drug stash goes under your honor student’s seat and he/she gets popped with the rest of these kids for felony possession of drugs.  Cop lies, your kid’s future is ruined and for something they didn’t do.  Of course, maybe the kid actually did give consent to search and poof, future gone?
Folks, I watched this happen, that’s one of the reasons I left law enforcement.  I learned all of the tricks, all of the lies and how to prove they were just that.  I went into the private sector with these skills and learned an incredibly valuable lesson; the bad guys will pay you three times as much to keep them out of jail as the good guys will pay you to put them in jail.  Oh, you don’t have to wear a bulletproof vest and a gun to work every day, and you have reverse on your car to get out of trouble as fast as you got into it.  Yes, there are police officers that do heroic things and they are the ones running toward danger while others run away.  I salute them, but they are also sometimes the same men and women that tell that subtle lie that no one wants to say is a lie because of who they are and because we have become so scared that we are willing to give up essential liberty for temporary safety.

Sometimes, It Just Can't Be Said Better....Wisdom From Weird Places

I am often stunned at the insightfulness of movie writers and the things they have characters say.  I probably shouldn't be surprised, because they get to set up the situation that requires the perfect thing to be said, then they write the perfect thing and have a character say it.  However, there are things that are said, in of all places the movies, that are applicable to real-life situations and often the real-life situation mirrors what occurs in the movies.  A situation like this occurred in the movie "The American President."  While the overall plot of the movie was a romantic comedy of sorts, there are kernels of wisdom applicable directly to the politics of today.

I address the words of the fictional character, President Andrew Sheppard, to my favorite group, the Right Wing, Neo-conservative, fascists... the so-called "Teabaggers" and the Right Wing of the Republican Party.

“We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you the [Republicans are] not the least bit interested in solving it. [They are] interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character ... and you scream about patriotism. You tell them who's to blame for their lot in life...”

I remember another group that did this.  I learned about it in my high school history class.  I later learned more about it in a course I took in college entitled, “Propaganda.” It was exactly the same technique of propaganda that is being used today, while we watch.  It was called the "big lie." The expression was coined, appropriately enough, by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf (Chapter 10), for a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

History is, in part, repeating itself, and at the risk of being totally politically incorrect, it was the Nazi Party in Germany that did exactly this.  They pointed the finger of blame and guilt at the Jews.  It was the Jews this and the Jews that.  They blamed the Jews for all the woes of the German Public; the loss of World War I, high unemployment, declining standard of living and the German Depression.  This game culminated in the rounding up of over 6 million Jews who were ultimately exterminated, at best under the noses of the German public, at worst, while they watched and allowed it to occur.

I do not in any way suggest that the Republican Party or the Teabaggers would ever exterminate a race of people, but if a propaganda technique is so effective that you can manage to convince an entire people that you have the right to do so, it must be an incredibly effective technique.  The Right-Wing, neo-conservative fascists have certainly learned a lesson from that history and they are using it today. 

I do not trust anyone that can do what they are doing, even if they believe themselves to have a worthy goal.  It really is how you play the game that counts in a lot of things, and politics is one of them and this is an ends-justify-the-means kind of thinking, which is unacceptable.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Donald Trump Not Running for President… Who’da Thunk?

"The Donald" announced today that he was no longer running for President.  Well, I guess that statement assumes he was ever really was running for President.  Hopefully, with his dropping out at this early stage, he has damaged his creditability to the point of being a Pat Paulson candidate in the future.  You remember, he was that Sad Sack-type character from the Smother’s Brothers television show, whose presidential runs were perennial for 30 years beginning in 1966.  (He died of Cancer in 1997, and I, for one, miss him). 

Ron Paul’s campaigns have also been compared to Paulson’s.  Personally, I think they look a lot alike and that is part of the reason for the comparison.

After due deliberation, and hindsight being 20/20, I am not sure, given the tumult of the late 60’s and Watergate, that we would not have been better off electing Paulson than Richard Nixon.  He would have at least been fun to watch.  I look back on that time with some fond memories and I still have about half a dozen "Nixon" campaign buttons that my parents collected.  Dad is spinning in his grave at my Liberal leanings of today, but as usual, I digress, again.

Donald Trump is, to give credit where credit is due, a master of self-promotion.  He will, no doubt, write a book, produce a television show and/or take his “experiences” on the road, claiming to have been forced out of the race by some deep, dark conspiracy or some other reason that will absolve him of any responsibility for the decision. 

Mark my words, it will be a, “I didn’t quit, I was forced out.” sort of thing.  He will also, having given up, make the incessant claim that, of course, he would have won.   Being “The Donald”, I doubt he will ever acknowledge having “quit” as “The Donald” would never acknowledge being a quitter, of anything, for any reason.  No matter how laughable, it will be impossible to prove him wrong.

In any case, Trump will turn this “event” into some sort of income stream for himself.  That is what “The Donald” does, and he does it very well.

I look forward to watching the tortuous revisionist history in which he will engage to achieve his personal goals.  It should be a very interesting show to say the least.