The Victorious Opposition

The DC Metropolitan Area isn’t exactly known as a seismic hotzone, but we had an earthquake last night. Yes, it was a pissant little earthquake, and I slept through it, but by gosh, we had an earthquake. My Facebook feed is full of “ZOMG an EARTHQUAKE” posts from people claiming to have been woken up by it. Neither my wife nor I felt it. Of course, we’re ~12-15 miles from the epicenter (as the crow flies). It’s basically right on top of where my wife works; I’m guessing it will be all anyone is talking about at work today.

See, you left-coasters? You ain’t so special

The Mehserle trial was put before the jury on Friday and today starts the process of separating the truth from that which is not the truth, good luck with that.

I don’t know if anybody else has been following this trial, but what little coverage I could find in my local papers (given the paucity of actual substance revealed and the inherent biases of the authors in presenting the information) I have found this whole process intriguing. Unlike the OJ trial (I’ll use this this as a basis of comparison for the obvious reasons, high profile case, being tried in L.A., racial implications, and police abuses or alleged abuses against minorities getting center stage) both the prosecution and the defense did pretty admirable jobs, both knew this was a career making (breaking) trial and both actually had the competence to put forth their best effort.

Before the trial I had a pretty good handle on where I thought culpability (if any) applied and what went down, or so I thought. I clearly understood the stress involved in high risk situations like this where a hostile crowd,belligerent suspects, and a volatile situation can result in actions that would not occur under more sedate and calmed circumstances. I thought Mehserle, a young inexperienced officer, a BART cop who does not usually deal with these type of situations, was overwhelmed by circumstances,and just effed up, pulling the wrong apparatus from his belt and was just as surprised as surprised as everyone else when the actual shot rang out. But now, I’m not so sure. Granted, I did not sit in the court room and hear all the evidence, like the jurors.so my basis for any opinion is piecemeal, but the task now presented before the jury comes down to this: Did Mehserle make a tragic mistake, or is he neck deep in a profound lie?

I’ll try to summarize both the prosecution and the defense take, gleaned from what I have read so far:

The prosecution believes that it is unreasonable to assume that Mehserle pulled his Taser by mistake. Prior to the actual shot, he had his Taser out twice before, threatening Grant and his fellow brawlers, each time putting it back in the proper holster, he knew where it was. Police agencies around the country have used the Taser several thousand times, yet no one (except Mehserle) has ever mistakenly pulled and shot his weapon thinking it was a Taser. Mehserle’s weapons were different. The Sig Sauer P226 pistol was black and weighed 2 1/2 pounds. His Taser X26 was smaller and yellow and weighed one-third as much. The holsters are different. The Sig holster is designed so that the weapon must be rocked forward, the X26 holster has a thumb snap and is pulled straight up. His justification for using the Taser was that he thought Grant was going for a weapon, if this was so, then pulling the Taser made no sense, either “body weight” the suspect so that he has no arm freedom, no ability to grab a weapon, or use deadly force to combat deadly force and pull your service weapon. And probably the biggest piece of evidence (as least for me) was that after the shot and days afterwards, he never made a statement to anyone that it was an accident,that he meant to only Taser Grant. This is compelling for me because I was in a similar situation and my reactions, my declaration of intent, was told to everyone.

The defense used the “common sense” argument. Why would Mehserle, a police officer with no reputation for excessive force or aggressiveness, intentionally shoot a man in the back in front of hundreds of witnesses? He did not know Grant, had no animosity for him, why “murder"him in front of the world? BART police just started carrying Tasers a few weeks before the incident, they had one day of training and Mehersle only fired once in that training. Other officers in the past have mistakenly pulled the Taser out (they are both shaped like a gun and are fired by pulling a trigger).Mehserle did not have his own Taser,they were swapped at shift changes so he never had a chance to practice pulling the Taser. And some of the Taser holsters used were “strong hand draw” so each shift was different. Prior to the shot, Mehserle said “I’m going to Taser you”, then struggled to pull out the weapon (his Sig by mistake) never looking at the holster but only at Grant. When he did fire, he only fired once, one shot is the procedure for a Taser shot, when using the Sig his training taught to fire two shots. After the shot rang out, he said ,“Oh shit, I shot him”.

After the incident Mehserle basically shut down, he was the victim of despair and clammed up, that is why he never told anyone that it was an accident and that he pulled the wrong weapon. That,and the simple fact that shortly after he was told by his union rep. to not make any statements.

So there you have it, where does the truth lie?

Many people in the Bay Area have already been on record (which I posted about before) that anything less than a second degree murder conviction will be a miscarriage of justice and the streets will burn. I know nothing about this jury but I hope that much reflection, consideration,and due diligence goes into their efforts. I while abide with whatever choice they make, but if they come back today or if they let the sentiments of some thugs influence the tasks at hand,I will be disappointed.

Any other feelings on this that I missed?

What a thrashing, even Maradona had nothing to say.

The Germans put on a clinic as yet another of the vaunted S.American powerhouses was eliminated. Although Brazil kept it close, the Argentinians got smashed, dashed, and rehashed. going down 4-0 in what got Chancellor Merkel jersey popping and break dancing. The Germans are now the highest scoring team in this W.C. but atrocious refereeing (yep, it is still happening despite the FIFA president assuring the world that they got their act together) will sideline Germany’s top scorer for the next round. Mueller got called for a hand ball (and got a yellow card in the process) which will keep him out of the semi’s. Sight blocked referees are still influenced by whinny players and their theatrics, hence, Mueller got flagged on a deflection that might of hit a pectoral muscle (even instant replay could not confirm it). Unlike that clear and intentional handball by the Uruguayan player in the box that saved them yesterday, this was not only unintentional but unavoidable (if in fact it even happened) so to garner a yellow card and get removed from the next round was just plain awful and provided one more nail in the coffin of burying the current methods of football officiating.

A few words on yesterday’s match. The Dutch beating Brazil was not that big of an upset. They have great players and were the sleeper for this W.C. They should easily handle Uruguay who can thank a bad shooting Ghana team for allowing them to stick around. That missed penalty kick after the hand ball was absolutely killer, leaving them deflated and dejected for the penalty round. I thought Ghana was the much better team yesterday.

And what about these South Americans being whiny cry babies when they either lose fall behind? The petulance of Brazil yesterday, and Argentina today (until the score overwhelmed them resolving them to their fate,and allowing them some semblance of manners) revealed some poor sportsmnaship that was nor flattering.

The Spain/Paraguay match starts in about an hour. Naturally Spain is favored, even with Torres doing his best Ronaldo imitation so far, although, here is one reason to root for Paraguay. You can tell she has a terrible publicist, this should of been crafted much better, like a promise of wearing her underwear to the semi’s,and going topless if they made the finals.

That deserves a Becks.

Well, it was a nice (and short) run while it lasted.

Surrendering an early goal 5 minutes into the match, the US team found themselves down early, yet again. Undaunted, they picked themselves up and played pretty good the rest of the match, several shots on goal (I don’t think Altidore could find his ass with both hands) allowed them to tie it up. But early in the overtime period a brief nap allowed a pucky Ghana team to take (and keep) the lead.

It is disappointing, but to tell you the truth, I don’t think they would of beaten Uruguay anyway, so C’est la vie.

The nice thing about this late stage in the W.C.is that all the remaining games now are big and I will probably watch all of them from here on in.

Tomorrow we get 2 nice match ups, England/Germany and Argentina/Mexico,the last will probably be a much better game than the first, and I’m going with the underdogs in both, such is my nature.

this article places the blame for the loss squarely on the shoulders of Coach Bradley with regards to his poor choice’s in the lineup. I don’t know enough about the team to give it credence, but Clark was badly beaten early in giving up that first goal, that was obvious.

But here is to Ghana, the only African team left, and I will be pulling for them against Uruguay.

Day whatever, and the only BP news lately has to do with some stupid under water robot banging into the exposed pipe exacerbating the problem further, so in other words, we STILL don’t have a handle on it or can verify exactly what the cost will be with regards to clean up and making the Gulf residence whole. And every day that the oil spews (and increases BP’s liability in the matter) increases the odds that BP will decide that it is better to just walk away, better for them and better for the shareholders, think I’m kidding?

There is a reasonably high chance that BP could file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the next few years, or even months, and the result would be an “absolute horror” for the government, according to a bankruptcy expert.

——-

The specter of Chapter 11 bankruptcy terrifies Gulf residents because it could allow BP to delay, or even avoid, paying billions of dollars to businesses and individuals affected by the Gulf spill. The chapter is specifically for companies in temporary financial trouble who can reemerge as viable if they receive new funding, cancel burdensome contracts and delay, restructure, or wall off repayment obligations.

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while now. Everybody has been focusing on how profitable BP is, and they are extremely profitable, but to think that their liability is unlimited, or that they would ever agree to ponying up a blank check just to “do the right thing”, is really laughable. At one time entities like Enron and Worldcom were “too big to fail”.  Of course, the biggest company failure in history is probably Barings Bank, that same bank that financed the American Revolution and sold us the Louisiana Purchase.

I have heard figures bantied about that the $20 billion shake down fund equals about what they make in a year. So what is BP really worth?

total assets of $240.637 billion, total liabilities of $136.558 billion, and total cash from operations of $7.693 billion

Is would appear that BP is around $100 billion in the black, but are they really? Assets include common stock owned by the company, when word gets out that Chapter 11 is in the mix, what do you think that will be worth? Equipment is also part of “assets”, hard to value accurately,and BP operates in 160 countries, that is a lot of countries to have your assets frozen in their financial institutions while you sort everything out.

I’d advise them to explore the option of bankruptcy. I only know BP from public information. BP has a lot of cash and the ability to generate huge amounts of cash. But remember, just because BP can pay claims doesn’t mean they should, or that they will, given that their primary obligation is to their shareholders.

I think for your average company,this is probably true, but BP has (so far) had the tacit backing of the British government, David Cameron has placed the honor of the English people to the fore front in coming to “an arrangement”, so this will probably inhibit a walking away and a shirking of the obligations unless the bottom line is that money owed is considerably more than what they can make.

Naturally, the feds would make good however they could in the event of a BP bankruptcy, but since we have no money and are already $13 trillion in the hole, would this be the straw that demises the camel?

So far, BP is acting responsible, but the wallet is still buttoned up

Justice Scalia:

“When I first came to the Supreme Court, three of my colleagues had never been a federal judge,” said Scalia who joined the Court in 1986 after being nominated by President Reagan. “William Rehnquist came to the Bench from the Office of Legal Counsel. Byron White was Deputy Attorney General. And Lewis Powell who was a private lawyer in Richmond and had been president of the American Bar Association.”

“Currently, there is nobody on the Court who has not served as a judge—indeed, as a federal judge—all nine of us,” he continued. “...I am happy to see that this latest nominee is not a federal judge – and not a judge at all.”

(emphasis added)

As Jonathan Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy points out, she also doesn’t have much experience as a practicing attorney. But that’s also neither novel nor disqualifying:

Is Kagan qualified to sit on the Court?  I think so.  The strongest experience-related argument against Kagan is that she has relatively little real legal experience of any kind, not simply that she lacks judicial experience.  Other than a very brief stint at Williams & Connolly, her entire professional career prior to 2009 consisted of teaching, deaning, clerking, and working in the White House.  Her scholarly work is also focused on a relatively small range of issues with little relevance for much of the Court’s docket. Don’t get me wrong, administrative law and the First Amendment are very important, but the bread-and-butter of the Court’s docket is more mundane, and is not the sort of thing with which she has much experience.  But much the same could have been said of many others who have served honorably and effectively on the Court.  So in the end, while I understand the criticism of her record, I think it is misplaced.  By all accounts, Kagan has a sharp legal mind, and her academic work is quite strong (much stronger than some of her critics suggest).  Like Justice Scalia, I think she will bring valuable experience to the Court, even if I expect to disagree with her much of the time.

Neither Scalia nor Adler are likely to be particular fans of Kagan’s jurisprudence, should she be confirmed. But the “no judicial experience” meme is noise, as I’ve said since her nomination was first announced. And her scholarship is first-rate, regardless of how various conservative constituencies would like to denigrate it as minimal. So far nothing particularly exceptional has arisen from the document dump, as far as I am aware. The documents from her tenure at the White House Counsel’s office are still trickling out, but at this point, I’d be surprised if there were any astonishing revelations coming (I’d think someone would have leaked them by now if they were really compelling).

It appears that Kagan is a highly qualified Constitutional scholar who is clearly left-leaning in her views, but not extremely so, and someone respected by non-ideologues from all parts of the political spectrum for her skills in and openness to debate.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has the first round of documentation from Elena Kagan. You can check it out here. There’s the formal questionnaire (which has questions submitted from committee members of both parties) with her responses, and a ton of supporting documents. They are still uploading a mess of audio/video materials (the page currently lists twice as many sources as it had last night). There will also be a dump of stuff coming from the Clinton Library, from her stints as Associate White House Counsel and on the Domestic Policy Committee; they are sorting through 160,000 pages of stuff that have Kagan’s name on them.

Update(10:04AM): This is confirmed

A press briefing is scheduled for later this morning, but reports are emerging that current Solicitor General Elena Kagan is to be nominated as Justice Stevens’ replacement on the Supreme Court. This would be an unsurprising choice; Kagan’s name was mentioned when Obama’s first opportunity to nominate a Justice emerged. The thinking in the blogosphere at the time that Obama passed her over so that she could get more time under her belt as Solicitor General, knowing that he likely would get additional opportunities to nominate Justices.

If confirmed, Kagan will be the first Justice in almost 40 years without prior judicial experience (Justices Rehnquist and Powell were both nominated in 1972 without prior judicial experience). This used to be more common in the past; I’m not really sure why it died out. Consensus seems to be that this won’t hurt her case, and in fact, might well help it.

This is going to be a contentious confirmation process (I’ll highlight a few of the issues in a moment), but she’s fairly likely to be confirmed. She garnered a handful of Republican votes in her Solicitor General confirmation (around 10, I believe). Interestingly, she might draw fire from some of the most liberal/progressive in the Democratic party (some on the far left believe she’s actually far too conservative and will shift the Court to the right). While unequivocally liberal on a range of issues, she appears to have garnered a good deal of respect for her openness to alternative points of view, in that, while she may not embrace them, she will engage them seriously, with informed debate, rather than dismissing them out of hand (e.g. as Justice Sotomayor was accused of doing).

Now, there’s definitely going to be some fireworks:

• During her time as Dean of Harvard Law, she supported Harvard’s attempts to bar military recruiters from campus over Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This will probably be the number one conservative talking point, although it is perhaps less important than some of the other issues.
• Conversely, she has been instrumental in the legal arguments for the Obama administration continuations (perhaps extensions) of Bush-era detainee policies. This could be the number of liberal talking point; I wouldn’t be surprised to see some conservatives use this as an excuse to vote for her.
• She spent four years in the White House Counsel’s office during the Clinton administration. This is likely going to lead to Republican demands for records from that office, as Democrats did for Chief Justice Roberts. There could well be quite a fight over this.
• SCOTUS confirmation hearings have been quite the dog-and-pony show for more than a generation now, and a lot of people think they should go away. But Kagan wrote a paper in 1995 advocating for more questioning about not just ideology but opinions on specific controversial issues. Going to be hard to duck out on controversial questioning now. Which means this could into quite a show.

Here are some links to more information:

• SCOTUSblog backgrounder on Elena Kagan
• SCOTUSblog analysis of the potential issues in the confirmation process
• Another SCOTUSblog backgrounder
• A New Republic post on why Kagan has earned the respect of conservatives
• A Volokh Conspiracy post clarifying an anecdote described in the previous link
• Some thoughts from a Volokh Conspiracy author who testified against Justice Sotomayor at her confirmation hearings

I haven’t read through all of this yet; I will, and will post updates as warranted.

Update(11:15AM): A few thoughts on some of the initial feedback I’ve been seeing:

• As expected, her position on military recruiters is being picked up strongly by various conservative pundits. I expect that this will become Kagan’s “wise Latina” meme, unless something more soundbite-worthy shows up.
• It’s hard to tell what the left wingers are going to focus on. I’m seeing repeated objections to her diversity policies as Harvard dean - that she only hired white men. If that’s all they’ve got, they pretty much got nothing. Her views on executive power are what I would expect them to focus on.
• Conservative pundits are also hammering on the “no judicial experience” thing, as if that in and of itself is dispositive. This will come back to bite them, as Justice, later Chief Justice, Rehnquist also came in with no judicial background, and I think he did pretty much OK as far as conservatives are concerned. This needs to be more than a meme; they need substance to make this point stick.
• Not sure if this will be a trend, but I’ve seen a couple of gun rights advocates claim that since she has an unknown position on the 2nd Amendment (she apparently hasn’t written or spoken on gun rights issues), that’s equivalent to opposing gun rights, and hence she should be opposed. That seems rather knee-jerk. Certainly a topic for investigation and questioning, which is what I hope more pundits pick up on, rather than this initial kneejerk.

The Religious Right is also glomming onto the rumors that Kagan is a closeted lesbian. The White House has explicitly said that she is not (this came up during her Solicitor General confirmation process, I believe). And if she’s lying, that’s an issue. But what’s perturbing to me is stuff like this from the American Family Association:

Speculation continues to swirl about the sexual preference of likely Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. She is apparently out to her friends and others in her academic and social circles, but not out to the public at large.

The White House has flatly stated that she is not gay, which could prove a tad embarrassing if the open secret of her lesbianism is confirmed at some point. If she’s a lesbian, it is going to become public knowledge, and the White House will simply have some more egg on its already yoke-splattered face.

...

The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?

That’s a complete load of crap. I wonder if that isn’t a “no religious test” issue.

(and yes, the original says “yoke-splattered”, not “yolk-splattered” - interesting visual of some serious violence there )

Update(2:30PM): SCOTUSblog has a page where they are linking to various formal statements that they have received. They’re continually updating it. Check it out.

Interesting to note that the “Judicial Confirmation Network”, which was opposed to judicial filibusters until it was for them, is now the “Judicial Crisis Network”. Their sole purpose in existence now seems to be to ensure that there are no judicial confirmations until there’s a GOP President again. I don’t see why they needed to change their name…

And so, it ends,

The disgraceful prosecution of Navy Seals for allegedly abusing a detained terror suspect has ended with not guilty verdicts for all 3 Seals on all counts. Navy SEAL Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe was found not guilty after an hour and forty minutes of jury deliberation.

——-

Upon hearing the verdict, McCabe’s mother gasped in jubilation, covering her mouth with her hands, while his father and sister smiled. McCabe and his counsel shared a few hugs and pats on the back.

Last month in courts martial in Baghdad, Petty Officers Julio Huertas and Jonathan Keefe, also Navy SEALs, were acquitted of charges that they failed to safeguard Abed. McCabe was the only SEAL charged with actual assault.

After the tone and outcome of the first trial, I felt pretty confident about the results of this trial. I think this whole episode reflects the degree to which political correctness is so entrenched in all the workings of the military, with Major Hasan reinforcing this. Civilian prosecutors would of got the message the first time, realized they were dealt a bad hand, and would not of thrown good money after bad pursuing an untenable course of action. Not only would cooler heads have prevailed, but the people’s representative would of been hard pressed to even get the D.A.s permission to continue, civilian jurisprudence is more driven by costs and the bottom line. But the military has no such encumbrances, can pursue red herrings all day long and allows perception and appearances to steer the bus.

I never understood (and never read any explanation) on how a punch in the stomach could result in a bloody lip, another mystery of life goes unanswered.

I was impressed by the demeanor and upbeat attitude of Officer second class McCabe. Some might feel a bitterness and rancor, being put through such a humiliating ordeal, allowing yourself to be placed in harm’s was repeatedly in the defense of a nation, only to have that nation question your actions in it’s defense. No lawsuits will be pending, no malicious prosecution proceedings, no damages awarded in remuneration for tarnished reputations, stressed nerves, and emotional distress, that’s the military.

But McCabe is cut from that cloth that manufactures real warriors, those essential for our protections, he will put this all behind him, move on, and pursue his career providing all of us with that blanket of freedom. In times when I shake my head at the narrowness of the vision at the top, this simple fact always come back to me, that those on the front lines are men of honor, courage and dedication, they do battle in my place. and a grateful nation is appreciative.

I must say, I read a little about the Nashville flooding, from what scarce news coverage there was, but I had no idea, and feel like a damn fool about it.

Yeah, its like somebody just kicked me in the stomach.

I realize this is not Katrina or even Haiti, but for the grace of God, this could happen to any one of our own neighborhoods.

Parts of Nashville that could never even conceivably be underwater were underwater. Some of them still are.

Having never been to Nashville, I had to look at a map, yes, there is a major river that runs right through it. But this is not the Napa River, where every year it crests causing the locals some discomfort and print coverage, what Nashville went through has never ever happened before.

And yet, it was much a passing fad with regards to wetting the appetites of the MSM.

But let’s look at the other side of the coin for a moment. A large part of the reason that we are being ignored is because of who we are. Think about that for just a second. Did you hear about looting? Did you hear about crime sprees? No…you didn’t. You heard about people pulling their neighbors off of rooftops. You saw a group of people trying to move two horses to higher ground. No…we didn’t loot. Our biggest warning was, “Don’t play in the floodwater.” When you think about it…that speaks a lot for our city. A large portion of why we were being ignored was that we weren’t doing anything to draw attention to ourselves. We were handling it on our own.

I guess this proves the old adage that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, in reverse. 

Americans are and have always been generous and caring towards those truly in need, I’d say the people of Nashville qualify. Many have lost everything, and without flood insurance (in an area not prone to flooding, this was probably the norm) those effected will find little satisfaction from their insurance providers. So, it is up to us, their neighbors.

A relief telethon  is in the works, I hope it is aired nation wide.

For those not close enough to physically help out (I wonder if Sean Penn will be making an appearance in his row boat?) the local chapter of The Red Cross is always a good standby.

Does it really matter? Eventually, it will…as I mentioned, there are billions of dollars in damage. It seems bizarre that no one seems to be aware that we just experienced what is quite possibly the costliest non-hurricane disaster in American history. The funds to rebuild will have to come from somewhere, which is why people need to know. It’s hard to believe that we will receive much relief if there isn’t a perception that we need it.

Not to worry, even in these economically troubled times,the American people will stand up and be counted, we take care of our own.

Oh, and I’m sure the president will make it down there to Nashville eventually.

This is not meant to be death penalty post, although if the heart moves you that way, have at it, but I’m struck by the practice in Utah of allowing convicted death row inmates the manner in which their sentence will be carried out, i.e. picking from column “A” the methods of execution that is allowable. Of course, none of these champions of virtue have the stones go with any of these, but since any acceptable method is as shocking to the senses as that of the Army Field Manual’s allowable methods of extracting information from jihadists, if given the choice, they will invariably choose something that provides notoriety. So, we have a guy in Utah that has decided to go with a firing squad.

Utah is set to execute a convicted killer by firing squad in June after a judge agreed Friday to the inmate’s request for the method, renewing a debate over what critics see as an antiquated, Old West-style of justice.

Ronnie Lee Gardner, 49, was given the choice of being killed by lethal injection or shot by a five-man team of executioners firing from a set of matched rifles.

“I would like the firing squad, please,” Gardner told state court Judge Robin Reese on Friday.

Funny that the debate is over “old style justice”, my beef is over the practice of giving these guys a choice in the first place. A quick primer over the death penalty in America can be found here. I don’t understand why states have different methods of execution, considering the fact that lethal injection works on everybody.

My objections here cover different areas. Clearly this is a ploy at notoriety, why indulge him? And why are death row inmates given the choice, on anything? They don’t get to decide where or when, why “how”?, they had their day in court so now all of their freedoms and liberties have been removed, stay consistent. And any execution that requires the participation of an independent third party should be removed immediately. This is not a military execution so the shooters would have to be prison officials, don’t put any of them in that position. No matter how strident of an advocate you are for the death penalty, pulling the trigger, actively participating in the death of another human being effects people, plain and simple. I see no benefits (even in the military) for the continued use of firing squads.

Gardner was sentenced to death for killing an attorney 25 years ago during a failed escape attempt and shootout.

And therein lies my number one beef for the use of the death penalty (at least as it is practiced today). Given the mockery of justice, the endless appeal process, the costs involved, and the anguish foisted on the families of the victims, I would rather the death penalty be abolished altogether and give capital offenders all life without the possibility of parole, then put them in Pelican Bay type cells for 23 hours a day.

But back to the actual methods, I never understood why hanging went so out of favor, I like to keep things simple (and cheap). A piece of rope (that you can used over and over) and a sour apple tree in the prison court yard, viola, justice served. All these fancy execution rooms with expensive chemicals (even Old Sparky could power surge the locals) I just don’t think it sends the proper message of cost austerity.

Of course, if Ringling Brothers is in town:

Dwex sent me this today:

Formal court martial charges have been brought against Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army doctor who believes President Obama may not be a natural born citizen, for failing to follow orders, the military said today.

No more pussy footin’ around, the Col. will get his day in court, for what good it will do him.

We discussed his conundrum here and I really don’t have much to add. For someone with such a distinguished career, aside from a predominant birther organization dangling massive quantities of cash his direction to “take one for the team” and become the poster boy for military disaffection, I can’t figure out why such a grounded individual would up and go batshit in front of everyone.

Lakin was charged Thursday “with one specification of a violation of Article 87, Missing Movement and four specifications of a violation of Article 92 (three specifications of Failure to Obey a Lawful Order, and one Specification of Dereliction of Duty),” said Chuck Dasey, spokesman at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, where Lakin is assigned.

I think I get what he is going after, “For you to say that I disobeyed an order, you have to prove that it is a lawful order”, yada yada yada. But even a non trained rube like myself can see the treachery of such a position. His deployment orders probably had either his commanding officer’s signature on it, or some other higher ranking officer, an officer BTW that is clearly within his purview to issue orders of deployment, so the Colonel is going to be hard pressed to challenge these orders on the basis of the CIC not providing sufficient enough proof, as least to him, of his citizenship. And as a military man, he has to ask himself, “is this the hill I want to die on?”. Something else is afoot here.

Lakin and his attorney, Paul Jensen, have been making the rounds on right-wing radio shows in recent days. On the G. Gordon Liddy show last week, Jensen hinted that he would try to use discovery to compel Obama to produce a birth certificate.

Good luck with that, but the issue at hand is did he miss his deployment intentionally? He can’t get around the fact that if he did in fact disobey a lawful order (given to him by any member of the military) then he is in breach.

I did a few posts, here and here, concerning the US military putting 3 SEALS on trial for roughing up a prisoner, actually, the 3 accused requested a Court Martial as opposed to what the Navy had in mind, a rolling over by admitting guilt in the form of a written reprimand-non judicial punishment- (the kiss of death to any military man who aspires to greater rank, recognition, and responsibility).

Going after the least culpable first (the non puncher) the NAVY wanted an early momentum build, fail:

A U.S. military jury cleared a Navy SEAL Thursday of failing to prevent the beating of an Iraqi prisoner suspected of masterminding a 2004 attack that killed four American security contractors.

———-

A six-man jury found Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas, 29, of Blue Island, Illinois, not guilty of charges of dereliction of duty and attempting to influence the testimony of another service member. The jury spent two hours deliberating the verdict.

Good news, indeed. But to those that will prematurely label this as another example of the “code of silence” that has been casted towards the ranks of the police but could randomly be thrown the military’s way:

After the verdict, Lombardi said the jurors told her they had made their ruling because there were too many inconsistencies in the case and that they did not believe the prisoner.

As with all trials, the veracity and credibility of witnesses goes a long way in determining guilt and in this case, the prosecution’s primary witness was not credible.

I would liked a better insight into the actual court proceedings, why was he not credible (supposedly there was a navy personnel witness to the beating- how did the jury view his testimony?), was he caught in lies, was any of his testimony rebutted by other witnesses and was there other evidence that casted doubt on his testimony. Considering that this was only of the first of 3 trails in the mix, I understand the need for confidentiality and TBH, it does not sit well with me that the persecution gets 3 bites at the apple (we screwed big time here, so in the next two trials lets change this, this, and this) but since there is a permanent record here of what all the witnesses testified to (under oath) the prosecution will be on a short leash with regards to “improving ” or improvising their witnesses testimony for future proceedings.

But if the Huertas trial was the preliminary event, the cartoon before the main feature, then the Matthew McCabe trial will prime time. McCabe is the actual alleged puncher, the precursor to the whole chain of events, and will be next up to bat. McCabe will have competent representation. The thing I like is that his defender will be another warrior, not some garden variety Johhny Cochran, who for the right fee would defend Jeffrey Dahmer with a very clever defense of diet deficiencies, another accomplished and decorated military man will present his case and make an argument.

From my first post:

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

I would like to know what happened to these guys, if cooler heads prevailed or whether the military is going “all in”.

The skeptic in me, the guy who concedes that it is impossible to remove politics from anything that originates in Washington, wonders if any of this would of been an issue under the watch of the last guy.

Before we begin, lets make sure that we keep the comments on point. I did not want this to be a “birther” post, at this point, the course has been run and we have reached flogging a dead horse stage, no more traction can be gotten from pursuing this any further. Although, it is interesting the degree of history that has been removed from public pervue that which relates to our president. A buddy of mine sent me an email the other week listing like 15 different things in Obama’s past, things like college records, law records, things that would take seconds to bring up and verify if it was anybody else, but which a concerted effort has been made to obfuscate and hide.

But back to the Col., does he seriously think that this issue can be resurrected ?

Last week, I entered Walter Reed Army Hospital to notify the Department of Defense that I would refuse to obey any orders from my commanding officers—including President Obama—until the president produces his original birth certificate. After nearly eighteen years of wearing the military uniform of the country I have proudly served, including overseas assignments in imminent danger/combat areas in Bosnia and Afghanistan, I felt compelled to take this step.

I made this decision from much deliberation, after lengthy consultations with many friends, family members, and colleagues, and I firmly believe that all servicemen and women, and the American public, have the right to know the truth about President Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

This guy does not seem like a nutter, why is he cutting his own throat?

Some possibilities readily come to mind. Maybe it was time to cash out and go the civilian route and he is wrapping himself around the American Flag for political expediency. Maybe some birther group reached out to him and convinced him to be their poster boy,with the requisite compensation attached.

From the first “Principled” post, it should be gleaned that I approve of standing up for a cause, especially when that cause can personally cost you, both in remuneration and standing within your community, but I’m not getting that vibe from this guy. He is not some Galileo, risking prison and death for failing to promote some scientific myth ( the geocentric view that the Earth is at the center of the universe), he is risking his career on a premise that can not be proven.

Since Nuremberg, My Lai, and even Abu Ghraib more recently, the military has been taught the hard lessons of following illegal orders. Any reasonable person looking critically at the information and evidence currently in the public domain about Obama’s birthplace would have questions about President Obama’s claim to be a natural born citizen. I made the decision to disobey all military orders, including my deployment order to Afghanistan, in pursuit of the truth of whether President Obama can legally occupy the high post that he holds today and which entitles him to send servicemembers into harm’s way.

Sorry, but I’m not convinced. His superiors (going all the way up to the J.C.O.S.) have accepted the validity of the presidency and his credentials as C.I.C., whether they personally agree that he has provided valid proof or that any legal challenge has been sufficiently bitch slapped in court, the bottom line is that there is no legal recourse for the Col. to be pursuing this course of action.

It’s nice that there is a website where you can go and contribute to his legal defense funds, he is going to need it.

I hope the military comes down hard on the Col., although he has a history of service which should be accounted for. I don’t see any difference between refusing to serve over this stance and one who says that the war is illegal and refuses to serve over it’s morality. We have said this before, the military is not a college campus, you sign up voluntarily, and when you do you agree to go the Halls of Montezuma, or the Shores of Tripoli, regardless of who the president is.

I thought we could all use a diversion,  a change of tone post.

I have pretty much avoided Tiger Woods’ stuff here, despite the clear guffaw factor. Any man can understand the motivation for getting some strange and the temptation for rich and powerful men to think they can get away with it, but this in no way dismisses his weakness or his culpability in abandoning his vows or ruining his family.

But this is more of a tort post. Ms. Decker is claiming that an injury has ensued, that she is suffering from migraine headaches, elevated blood pressure, and colitis attacks, and that the direct cause of this injury is Tiger’s lies about a past racial abuse under her watch. Suspiciously, these ailments apparently only surfaced once Tiger went from savior of the sports world to cheating scoundrel who’s very presence is an affront to all womanhood. Funny that when the book claiming these assertions first came out in 2005, that her health was not affected then, so now, that sound you hear is Tiger’s check book coming out yet again.

Maureen Decker wants an apology, both a public and a private one, that first one might be a little tough. No one could expect Ms. Decker to have this prominently displayed on her coffee table, but it restores my faith in the lawyer business when the staff of slimy lawyers can scour the records and find a 30 year old incident that can be monetarily exploited.

I know there is a need for these type of lawyers (John Edwards types) but I can still find the sight of Gloria Alred repulsing and nausea inducing.

Alright all you VO lawyers, does this woman have a case? I know she is not asking for money, but please, something has to make those headaches go away and a stack of Benjamins will work as good as anything else.