R.P. Barr

Keeping Secret Service Secrets

At the outset, I want to say that I do not know the Secret Service rules for employee conduct.  However, law enforcement officers of all stripes have stressful jobs.  Actual risk may not be as high as in some other occupations, but the potential for sudden danger makes the job stressful.  In addition, Secret Service agents may, on any given day, have to leap in front of a bullet to protect the person in their charge.  All of that means that it is vitally important to know and trust the agents working with you.  Partying is not merely blowing off steam, it is bonding in a way that could save lives on the firing line later.

 I’ve been waiting to hear what terrible thing the Secret Service agents did in Colombia.  Did they compromise the President’s security?  That would be serious, but so far all that has made it into the public arena is speculation. 

 There was an argument over an $800 charge for sexual favors.  I don’t have a clue what the going rate is in Colombia, but that seems high.  The agent should have settled that before bringing the woman to the hotel.  If prostitution is legal in that venue, then he could be charged for theft of services if he refused to pay.  But, we haven’t heard of any charges like that.

 Did they spend government funds or do their carousing on government time?  Apparently not.

 I’m sure that the Secret Service brass has more information than they are releasing, but I have not seen anything so far to get excited about.  They had some free time in the evening.  They drank, probably to excess, and they had sex with strange women who they compensated.  There may be moral issues that need addressing, but those are personal matters.  I do not see a public scandal.  We've got to get over the national--or at least media--obsession with sex.  It's a fact of life.

 

Making a Case

A month ago, in Sanford, Florida, George Zimmerman, 28, shot and killed Trayvon Martin, 17.  There have been a lot accusations flying around, and I’d like to try and sort them out.

 First, there is the matter of race.  Was the killing racially motivated?  Possibly, but it doesn’t matter.  Was race involved in the police decision not to arrest George Zimmerman?  Probably, and that may be the most troubling aspect of this case.

 Yes, that is more troubling than the fact that a young man was cut down in his youth because it is a sad fact that young men die every day.  If the police had held Zimmerman and done a thorough investigation, this case would have had its day in the sun and faded away—except for the Martin family and a few friends for whom the loss would be permanent.

 The case will become an even bigger deal if the Florida Stand Your Ground Law is used to defend Zimmerman. 

 Let’s analyze the case as presented in the media.  Zimmerman was a self-appointed neighborhood watch commando who aggravated his neighbors with complaints about noise and whatnot.  Then, he got a gun.  Neighborhood watch members are usually unarmed for good reason.  They are not supposed to interact with the bad guys.  They watch and call in the professionals to deal with suspicious characters.  Evidently, that was not good enough for this patrolman in a gated community.  Zimmerman is not a policman.  I submit that he did not carry a gun for the protection of himself and his neighbors.  George Zimmerman wanted to validate his self-importance by shooting a miscreant.  Unfortunately he was in the wrong neighborhood.  

 Zimmerman may be a racist, but he didn’t shoot Trayvon Martin because he was black or wearing a hoodie.  Zimmerman shot Martin because he was the only game in town.

 That doesn’t make it murder--yet.

 Zimmerman was in his SUV following a suspicious character.  We may disagree with that conclusion, but Zimmerman was expecting to see a suspicious character sooner or later.  He called the police and that should have ended his involvement.

 If we give him the benefit of his zealousness, he could have followed Martin at a safe distance.  He didn’t.  If we stretch our understanding a bit more, we can see an impatient Zimmerman approaching the young man.

 The conversation should have gone like this: Zimmerman: “Good evening, I’m George Zimmerman of the Neighborhood Watch.  Do you live here?” 

 If Zimmerman’s voice was sufficiently casual, Martin might have volunteered that he was visitng his mother.  If Martin took offence, Zimmerman should have joked with him and asked again.  When Martin finally told Zimmerman what he was doing in the neighborhood, Zimmerman could have offered to walk with him to see that he got there safely.  Then, when Martin was welcomed into his mother’s house, Zimmerman could have wished them all a good evening and gone on his way.

 That didn’t happen.  Zimmerman let himself get into an argument with a suspect.  Very unprofessional.  Then, according to him, Zimmerman walked away.  Really?  The cops are on their way, remember?   And, he turns his back on a suspect. 

 Zimmerman claims that Martin punched him in the nose and knocked him down.  Zimmerman was bigger and heavier, he didn’t need his gun to defend against this kid.  And if he did want to brandish it, Martin was not drunk or high.  The sight of a gun should have caused the teenager to back away from the fight.

 Instead, Zimmerman claims that the two wrestled for the gun and it went off.  There goes the Stand Your Ground defence.  He is evidently not claiming self-defence, but an accident.

 Here is where forensics comes in.  The Sanford Police blew part of the investigation by not seizing Zimmerman’s clothes to look for signs of contact with Martin.  They may have blown the rest of the case if they did not preserve the crime scene.  Two people cannot wrestle without an exchange of fibers and DNA.  The position of Martin’s body on the ground would tell part of the story.  The location of the Skittles and can of iced tea would tell even more.  One doesn’t fight while holding onto snacks. 

 Still, if they were fighting over the gun, there should be powder residue on Martin’s clothes.  These are the things that will decide the case. 

 Meanwhile, the police had a shooter and an unarmed victim.  No matter what the opinion of the officers, they should have investigated the case as if it were a homicide, if only to prove self-defence. 

 Apparently things are not done that way in Florida.  This is more than racism that discriminates against one group, this is bad police work and it affects everyone.

 

Putting the Republic at Risk

The first coal in my stocking this Yule was the vote on granting the government power to detain anyone anywhere, including the U.S., on mere suspicion of aiding terrorists.  The first vote on this provision was overwhelmingly in favor.  This bill was the worst threat to the the United States since the British burned Washington in 1814.  It’s been watered down, but hasn’t been killed completely or universally denounced.  

 It is appalling that any Americans would think that our justice system is incapable of dealing with terrorists.  In 1862, the Sioux in Minnesota massacred some 800 settlers.  303 Sioux were arrested, tried and sentenced to hang.  Abraham Lincoln reviewed the sentences and commuted all but 39, which is still the largest mass execution in American history.  Southern sympathizers murdered Lincoln, but the system was trusted to try and condemn 8 conspirators.  In 1920 two men were murdered by anarchist bank robbers. Ferdinando Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were tried and executed.  When communists stole secrets of the atomic bomb, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were arrested, tried, and executed.  I could go on.  Some of the cases are still controversial—and the rules of civilian trials were not always followed--but the point is that none of the suspected terrorists walked away free.  Our record of catching the bad guys is excellent.  We have more people in prison than any other country.  (The pros and cons of executions can be saved for another time.) We don’t need to broaden our detention rules.

 Besides that, we have a reputation (somewhat tarnished now), of being fair.  Our enemies tell their recruits that we are cruel and barbarous.  Reinforcing that prejudice is not helpful to our cause.    Americans like to think of ourselves as the good guys, and our men and women in uniform have proven that to be true in combat zones all over the planet.  The exceptions to that practice have been, in fact, exceptions.  We cannot allow a bunch of millionaire dilettantes in Congress to endanger our troops and diplomats by throwing out the Bill of Rights in an effort to appear tougher than the men and women who actually go into harm’s way.

 Of course it is really less about terrorism than it is an attempt to shut down debate and the free exchange of ideas.  If someone disagrees with a government policy, he is, by definition, an enemy of the state who is giving comfort to the foreign powers who hate us, and should be locked away.  That can be any one of us, depending on who is in office at the time.  And, detention without trial means that you or I don’t even have to disagree with the government.  If I object to the charges on my credit card statement and make a stink about it, the bank manager could make a call, and I disappear.  Take away the matter of credit cards, and that is how some detainees wound up in Guantanamo and spent years trying to fight evidence held in secret.  We must give our enemies benefit of our Constitution in order to protect ourselves.

 

Occupy This

Having left the Occupy Wall Street folks alone until now, their eviction from parks around the country creates an opportunity to reflect that I would like to address.  Squatting in public places is a good attention getter, but alone, it is not going to accomplish anything.

 Not every opinion spouter offers full disclosure, but I do.  Therefore, I admit that I have not attended a demonstration since 1969, although I did march in a union picket line a few years ago.  And, to be honest, in ’69, I was on the other side as a Military Policeman.

 That perspective inspires my first point.  The police are part of the 99%.  Embrace them.  (Not literally, of course, that could get ugly.) I’ve heard several protestors on the news say things to the effect of “Now I’ve seen a police state.”  That is a bad direction to go.  For centuries, the rich and privileged have pitted groups of the oppressed classes against each other.  When the French peasants stormed the Bastille, they could not have succeeded except for the soldiers who were sent to crush them and instead joined them.

That may be a little too dramatic to expect on American streets, but think of staging a day of protest in defense of first responders—police and fire and EMTs—who have seen their numbers cut, their pay and pensions cut, and who still go out every day, often risking their lives for the rest of us.  Tell the cops that “We’re doing this for you.”  Some won’t appreciate the gesture, but some will.

 The thing to remember is that cops don’t like disorder.  In part, that’s why many of them joined the force—to bring order and sanity to a brutal world.  More than that, every cop knows that losing control of a situation can cost him his life.  And, we’re not being hyperbolic as in, “I got killed in the stock market.”  So, tell the nice policeman what you are planning to do.  Apologize for making him arrest you but explain that you need the publicity to fight the bastard bankers who are screwing with his retirement savings.

 And, remember the Bastille!

 The other lesson to take from the French Revolution is what happened after the Bastille fell.  The Committee of Public Safety couldn’t agree on much except that there were always more heads to cut off.  That chaos led to the rise of Napoleon.

So, the movement needs to coalesce around some basic goals and then do what it takes to achieve them.

Allow me to offer a few:  1) Re-instate the Glass-Steagall Act which was instituted after the Great Depression to prevent a recurrence of financial collapse—and it worked right up until it was repealed.  Bring it back. Get the hot dogs out of banking and make that industry dull and reliable once more.  2)  If you or I went into a bank and took one of their chairs we would be arrested.  Bankers have taken entire houses from people who never missed a payment on their mortgages.  Insist that the Attorney General employ the RICO statute to prosecute the conspiracy surrounding those thefts.  Put the offending bankers and their bosses in prison.  3)  The reason Congress is a mess is because financing for campaigns has become more important than votes.  We need some tough campaign finance reform.  Money is inherently corrupting.  Separate the financing from the politicians.  5)  In line with that, let’s have a Constitutional amendment that defines a person as an individual, biological human being.  Corporations are not people.  They do not have the same rights and privileges.

There you have it.  Treat the police as brothers and sisters, and pursue five simple goals.  Getting there won’t be easy, but forming a community in a city park isn’t easy either. 

 

Reasons why

On 60 Minutes this week, the new Jobs Czar, Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric asked why people don’t cheer for the success of big business.  He claimed that people in other countries take great pride in their flagship businesses.

 Jeff, I wish that I had a personal story about GE, but I’m sure  someone does.  We’ve all got stories of encounters with big businesses.  I’d like to tell you about Richmond American Homes.

 About a decade ago, my wife and I were shopping for a townhouse.  There was a construction boom in our area so we found several model homes to review.  The one we liked best was by Richmond American Homes.  Since the home hadn’t been built yet, we got to select the floor plan and a number of options.  It was the American dream, modestly speaking.

 Now, flash forward nine years.  The wood around the front door and garage door was rotting.  That’s not right.  We repainted a few years before.  With a vague memory of a ten-year warranty, I called Richmond American.  That wasn’t as easy as it seems, since they close down and open up offices as they start and complete developments.  Anyway, I tracked them down and was told that Richmond American only handles the first two years of the warranty.  Then, they pass the responsibility along to an insurance company.  They gave me the address. 

 I wrote a letter to the insurance company and included photographs.  They asked me to read my policy.  The only document with their name on it was a “Sample” policy.  The word “Sample” was stamped on every page.  But, apparently this was also their actual policy, and it clearly stated that the warranty did not apply to water damage.  I asked what possible defect on the exterior of a house would not involve water damage?  They simply reiterated that rotting wood was a sign of water damage and they didn’t cover water damage.

 I looked around the neighborhood and found that virtually every home had damage similar to mine.  I decided to put together a class action law suit.  My damages were only a few thousand dollars, hardly enough to interest an attorney, but everyone together—well, that would get the juices flowing.  I went door to door with the goal of gather 20 names of people willing to be part of the class.  Once I found a willing lawyer, then I could go after the hundred or so others. 

One home owner declined to join the suit.  He said that the houses were built according to code and so we didn’t have a leg to stand on.  That got me thinking.  How did he know they were built according to code?  I contacted the county and learned that all wood used on the exterior of homes had to be weatherproof.  The wood on our homes clearly wasn’t.

 I called around.  Several local attorneys were not interested in suing a big company with deep pockets.  Then, I found someone who would talk to me.  I brought him my information, and he agreed to look into our chances.

 Three days later, he got back to me.  Home builders had convinced the legislature years ago to pass a law that said code violations could only be enforced within two years of the completion of construction.  Home owners only had two years from date of original purchase to sue the builders over faulty construction.

 In other words, home builders in the state of Virginia—and probably other states as well—could commit any violations that they could paint over and were immune to customer complaints.

 Repairs cost me $7,000 from my retirement fund.  I could have done it cheaper.  Some of my neighbors simply calked over the rotting holes and repainted.  But, I wanted the job done the way it should have been done in the first place.

So, when Jeffrey Immelt wants to know why Americans don’t trust or cheer big business, he needs to be reminded of how big business legalizes fraud, and makes themselves immune to redress.

 

 

The Timing of Alerts

In the aftermath of 9/11/2001, I was assigned to direct a training program to re-orient agency personnel to the mission of anti-terrorism.  As a result, I was pulled into a few brainstorming sessions to guess the next threat.  I was rather good at that game and gained a small reputation for scary scenarios.  One of these concerned me so much that I conducted a private campaign to take preventive measures.  Of course, all of these schemes were kept within agency walls.

Of course, if I could think of these things, so could the bad guys.  The secrecy was intended to make them work for it.  Then, in August, 2009, al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia tried out a version of one of my ideas, i.e. plant the bomb inside the bomber’s body.  It would be undetectable.  The bomber was an al-Qaeda fugitive who offered to give himself up, but only to Prince Mohammed bin Nayef in person.  Apparently, the structure of the human body combined with the strength of this particular explosive caused the blast to focus downward.  The bottom half of the bomber was blown to smithereens, there was a crater in the floor, and nobody else suffered more than minor injuries.  Clearly there are some bugs in the bomb design that need to be worked out.  I knew there would have to be practical trials when I came up with the idea seven years earlier.  It's just tough to find volunteers for those experiments.

It wouldn’t be worth mentioning except for Slate's article today [http://www.slate.com/id/2298657/] that reported the Department of Homeland Security had issued an alert for surgically implanted or other internally installed explosive devices.  Why are they alerting us now?

Did someone discover my idea in some archived folder?  Highly doubtful.  Did the upper management committees finally decide that the 2009 Saudi bombing deserved some official comment?  It’s only been two years, give them time.

I think the answer is at the bottom of the article.  Three security hardware companies claim to have the technology for scanners that see all the way through a person’s body.  But, they can’t sell this cutting-edge technology unless they have us scared enough to buy it.  So, DHS is beating the drum.  Who said that the private sector doesn’t need government?

Are these new scanners necessary?  Not if TSA does proper screening of passengers.  Al-Qaeda is not going to send one of their hardened cadre on a suicide mission.  They can’t afford the loss, and their best people are on our no-fly lists.  Just like with the shoe and underwear bombers, al-Qaeda will send a green recruit.  Such a person will have a difficult time acting casual with a bomb inside his body.  A trained observer might spot him by the way he walks.  A good interviewer will pick him up after a few seconds of questioning.  This is not rocket science.  It only takes enough trained, motivated people to do the job.

Government needs to spend its money on human resources.  Machines can always be beaten. 

That reminds me of another one of my ideas—the one that turned me into an internal lobbyist.  But--Shhhh.  It’s still a secret.

 

The Reality of Song

The last few weeks have had a number of juicy stories that I wish I had the time to get into.  Someday soon, I hope to be back on track.  For the moment, though, I am going for low hanging fruit.

 Today’s mango is the flap over the video by Rihanna.  I will begin by saying that I have never watched more than 30 seconds of any Rihanna video, and that is not a comment on her talents.  I simply do not care for that genre of music.  (It's okay, Rihanna probably doesn’t care for bluegrass.  Has she ever used a banjo or harmonica in one of her songs?)  Anyway, CNN showed the opening—pre-music—seconds of the video.  The singer is sober looking and watching a man walk away from her.  Then, her hand lifts a lady-size revolver and fires a shot.  From the angles shown in the video it is unclear how she was able to hit him, but blood spurts from his back, and the man topples over.  Presumably the music starts then.  

 Two groups: the Parents Television Council and Industry Ears  have condemned the video.  No matter that the shooting seems to be the resolution of an abusive situation.  Pastor Delman Coates—whoever he is—has joined in the condemnation.

 They should know that songs about murder have a long history.  Is there anyone who can’t warble a chorus of Frankie and Johnnie?  Her gun went rootie-toot-toot because Johnnie done her wrong.  That’s where the controversy should stay.  Murders, real and imaginary, have always been the inspiration for songs.

 Rihanna has been the victim of very public physical abuse by her boyfriend, Chris Brown.  She certainly deserves to work out her demons in a video if she wishes.  God bless her.

Where I do have a criticism is with her defence of the video.  She said or tweeted, "U can't hide your kids from society, or they'll never learn how to adapt! This is the REAL WORLD!"  What she says is true enough, but she is talking about a music video.  Music videos are not society, and they sure ain’t the “real world.”  Rihanna, please, defend your right to artistic expression and I will be right beside you—figuratively speaking.  (I have no interest in traveling to California--which I recall as being a very nice state, but I’ve been there already.)  But, to continue my point, please do not defend a music video—any music video—as being true to life.  I have yet to see one that comes within driving distance.

 Meanwhile, for the groups making claims on the high moral ground, why no comment on the plight of Eman al-Obeidy?  She’s the woman who said she was gang-raped by Moammar Gadhafi’s security forces, and was then arrested as she appealed to Western reporters for help.  She finally escaped from Libya and went to Qatar.  Now, she has been deported back to Libya, allegedly after Qatari police beat and handcuffed her.  Why doesn’t Pastor Coates offer to sponsor her immigration, so she can find haven in a country so safe that we even protect her from the theatrical violence of music videos?

 

Reaping the Whirlwind

Osama bin Laden is dead.  Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.  There are plenty of other bloggers and people to talk about how long it took to catch him and whether the Pakistanis were protecting him.  I would just like to deplore the people who were celebrating in the streets.

To be sure, the man had earned a brutal end, and I think a bullet in the head was too good for him.  I would much have preferred seeing him humilated by capture and trial.  Yes, I said trial.  I am disgusted by those who seem to think that a fair trial is a free walk.  The justice system grinds down the spirit.  And, it works remarkably well.  Show me a terrorist who has ever walked free from a trial. 

How can someone call himself a patriot or a good American if he doesn’t have faith in our basic institutions?   Maybe someone who is trying to buy off and subvert those institutions.  Beware of the checkbook terrorists.  They walk among us.  Well, not exactly walk—they glide past in limosines with tinted windows.  And, they don’t even do that in my neighborhood—too downscale.  Anyway, they’ve done more damage to America than bin Laden ever dreamed of.

Back to the crowds waving the flags and chanting U-S-A.  Do you remember how we felt when we saw videos of people cheering the attacks on 9/11?  We should be better than that.  Do you remember anyone cheering when we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  No, the celebrations waited until the end of the war.

A man was killed.  We do not celebrate that.  Period.  The images of our bad mannered oafs will play in the Middle East for years to come inspiring a new generation of terrorists. 

 It’s good that he’s gone.  It would have been better if it had happened eight years ago, but Bush was distracted with trying to one up his father. 

 The death of Osama bin Laden brings closure of a sort to many who lost relatives to his violence, but no death should inspire cheering in the streets. 

 

FLASHBACK – The Assasination of Charles the Good

Back in the time when royalty meant something, when Europe was littered with kings and counts, at the dawning of the 12^th Century, King Canute IV of Denmark was murdered.  The king had married Adela of Flanders.  The new widow took her son Charles and returned to Flanders.

 Why does this matter?  Well, history was about to be changed, and like every time history made a turning point, it contributed to who we are and the situation in which we find ourselves today.

Young Charles grew up and through the twists and turns of life found himself Count of Flanders at the age of 32, only a year after his own marriage.  He managed to uphold existing treaties and maintain the peace.  He reformed the laws to make them more fair and walked barefoot to mass each day to demonstrate his humility.  When the economy took a dive and there was widespread famine, Charles I distributed bread to the poor.  He also discovered that some wealthy landowners were hoarding grain in order to sell it later at exhorbitant prices. The most notable of these speculators was the Erembald family.  Charles the Good, as he came to be known, turned his official wrath on them and broke the wealthy family down to the status of serfs.

The rich do not go down easy, however, and a priest in the family concocted a conspriacy to murder the good count.  On the morning of March 2, 1127, a group of knights beholden to the Erembalds caught Charles at prayer in Fr. Erembald’s church and hacked him to pieces with their broadswords.  (In those days, they had to make do with swords because they did not have the internet and Fox News, but they may have charged the count with being born outside the country to a foreign father.)

 The citizenry was outraged, and the Erembald family was tortured and exterminated.  King Louis VI of France had supported the revolt and then appointed his own man as the next Count of Flanders.

 The Church later beatified the slain count and made him St. Charles.

 What can we learn from this medieval tragedy? That the greedy and powerful will employ terrible weapons to stop charity and justice.  Also, that hoarders and speculators are never remembered as “--the Good.”

 

An ounce of prevention is not enough to warrant consideration

I don't like using the names of murderers because many of them are motivated by a desire for attention, so we will just call him "the Tucson killer."  

A shooting like this gets people excited.  Why they wait for blood on the ground before getting excited is one of the weaknesses of democracy.  Some have called for more gun control.  Personally, I would like to see the gun show loophole closed.  All gun purchases should involve a background check--not just the ones in gun stores.  Beyond that--  Well, I don't think that anyone who buys 10 or a hundred guns at a time is doing holiday shopping.  There should be limits--perhaps including follow up visits to see if the guns are still in the possession of the buyer a month or a year later.

Meanwhile, I recommend the following blog about the pro-gun vs anti-gun cultures.  http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/the_anti-gun_culture_irrespons.php#more

In this particular case, I would like to learn more about the Tucson killer himself.  Some of his former associates, like his former girl friend, have said that he was quiet, but otherwise normal until 6 years ago.  Then, he began acting out in bizarre ways.  That leads me to believe that his problem is more physical than psychological.  I haven't read that he was into heavy drug use, so what does that leave?  A brain tumor?  Has anyone done a brain scan in the past year or so?  There is not even any mention of psychological counseling.  He wouldn't have sought it out because he thought everyone else was at fault.  Still,  I suspect that there is something wrong with this young man that could have been fixed if anybody had looked for it.  But, of course, forcing him into treatment would have been a violation of his rights.  And, when discussing human rights, the potential for mass murder is not to be considered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/the_anti-gun_culture_irrespons.php#more