OSCAR PISTORIUS - FALLEN ICONS, GUNS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The international cause celebre, at this point in time, is the forthcoming trial of the South African Olympic Star, Oscar Pistorius who is accused of killing his girlfriend, model and TV star, Reeva Steenkamp. To orientate the uninitiated, Pistorius is the first athlete from the Paralympics, for the disabled; to compete in the open Olympics and on top of that he was in contention for the finals at the open Olympics.

PISTORIUS

Pistorius is known as The Blade Runner because of his carbon fiber prosthetic legs. He was born without his lower leg bones called the fibulas and had amputations below the knees at the age of one. To cut a long story very very short he broke all sorts of world records at the Paralympics before participating in the “Open” Olympics having overcome incredible obstacles in the process. On top of that Pistorius was considered a role model. Also very few, if anyone, regarded him as anything but a thorough gentleman. He was highly regarded by famed international athletes who are finding it difficult to “process” the turn of events. Anyone who saw and listened to Piers Morgan’s interview of him on CNN had to be impressed by his humility, his charm and his acceptance of the fact that he had a responsibility to so many constituencies. He was blessed. This was no Lance Armstrong. Or so everyone believed.

In South Africa he was an icon. - a white man in post apartheid South Africa who was everyone’s hero. He was an inspiration to all and then, all of a sudden his world crashed, and he now epitomized so many of the unresolved problems within and without South Africa. Oscar Pistorius had been arrested for the premeditated murder of his girlfriend. The circumstances of the death of Pistorius’s partner were such that the topical issues of gun control, domestic violence, and icons with clay feet were once again going to be ventilated.

THE OUTLINE OF WHAT HAPPENED

That The Blade Runner had shot Ms Steenkamp was not in question. The question was, was it murder or was it a mistake. The investigating detectives and the prosecution had no doubt. You don’t just arrest Oscar Pistorius unless you have a strong prime facie case. There is also no doubt, from a legal point of view, on the basis of the facts available to all, that the irresistible inference is that Pistorius has a compelling case to answer. The Presiding Magistrate said as much at the bail hearing. The most basic question of all was why did he just shoot without as much as enquiring who was in the bathroom. If he feared being shot himself he could have stood out of the door’s pathway.

If the court believes him that he made a “mistake” he might still be guilty of culpable homicide, (manslaughter), as he would have to answer the question, that even under those circumstances, “Would a reasonable South African fire blindly through a closed door?”

There is a ton of other circumstantial evidence that needs an explanation. It is not Jay H Ell’s intention to attempt to litigate this case, as all the evidence must still be subject to cross - examination. Also the ballistic evidence needs to be thoroughly sifted through as this may well lend credence to one side or another versions of what happened that night. The strongest point in Pistorius’s favor is that burglaries and intruders are a common fear in post apartheid South Africa, particularly in certain areas. A survey indicated that 50% of South Africans were afraid of burglaries and intruders.

PUBLIC COMMENT, SENTIMENT AND THE PISTORIUS AURA

In South Africa, strictly speaking, you cannot comment on the merits of a case that is being tried. This certainly was the position prior to the institution of the new post apartheid Constitution. However the latter guarantees Freedom of Speech so the situation is not so clear anymore. It appears that every one is commenting on the merits of the case regardless of the legal position. In the social media, newspapers and in the visual and auditory media all and sundry are having their ten cents worth. Pistorius is openly conducting a campaign for support and there has to be a big machine backing his campaign, as he is among other things a highly valuable commercial entity. He has sent flowers to the Steenkamp family and he held a memorial service for her at his uncle’s home. In addition the social media is abuzz with his side of the story.

The public although divided is leaning towards Pistorius’s account. One fact that seems to be emerging in all these cause celebres is that the public, generally, cannot tolerate the thought of a hero’s image being dented. Pistorius is not only a hero he is an international icon. Even when the evidence is overwhelming the faithful hang in until the bitter end. Once the evidence becomes incontrovertible there is mourning at the loss of a beacon of hope in a world that is becoming more and more chaotic. It is as if one of the few symbols that represent some stability, “goodness”, achievement, and hope has been taken away from them and died.

Jay H. Ell’s guess is by the time of the trial sentiment will be strongly in Pistorius’s favor. In America that outcome would be bound to have an impact on the jury pool. In South Africa there are no jury trials only Bench trials that are decided by a Judge. However, Judges have to be impacted by societal views and values……

GUNS IN SOUTH AFRICA.

Like America there is a vigorous debate on the right to own guns. While there was always a gun culture, not dissimilar to the USA, it has never been easy to own a gun in South Africa even in the apartheid era. Guns were then generally owned by whites and were in much evidence with the army and police. As far as the blacks were concerned they were the objects of oppression. In response the liberation movements coveted them and obtained them.

Claire Taylor the spokesperson of the “Gun Free South Africa” said that with the advent of Mandela there was a tremendous desire to “put guns down”.  In 2000 a strict gun control act was passed by parliament. Since then violence by handguns has dropped steadily, some times by 10% a year. The criteria to own a gun are very strict. You have to be 21 or over, pass a really rigorous medical and criminal background check, do training, pass a shooting test and recertify every 10 years. However, there is an active trade in the black market on guns and several are reported stolen. The number of guns in South Africa is estimated at about 6 million for a population of 50 million. South African police confiscate a large number of “illegal” guns every day.

This episode has once evoked the issue between those who believe it is a right to own a gun versus the “Gun Free Protection Group. The former bemoaning the long wait to obtain a gun and the current backlog for licenses and the latter maintaining that yet another unnecessary death has occurred as a result of gun ownership,

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

 Magistrate Nair made it clear the reasons he was granting Pistorius bail. He was not considered a flight risk nor had it had been shown that he was violent. The fact that Pistorius is not violent is certainly being disputed in the social media and even by the State.  The latter maintained that there was one incidence of assault that was not prosecuted and that he once fired off a gun in a restaurant.

There are stories, even in the Press, that there had been reports of domestic abuse of the selfsame Ms Steenkamp. A police spokesperson, Denise Beukes, stated that there had been reports from that house that amounted to domestic violence. How much of this is true will be certainly sassed out by the time of the trial. There are neighbors that reported hearing a quarrel that preceded the shooting; there have to be cell phone records and all else that might emerge in the interim. A previous girlfriend made allegations in the press and then withdrew from the public scene.

Notwithstanding the merits of Pistorius case, social advocates in South Africa have used the trial to focus on the fact that not nearly enough has been done about domestic violence in the country.

UPSHOT

Oscar Pistorius’s aura will never be the same. He is pinned down to a story that on its face has holes in it. At the end of the day he was the agent in the death of an innocent woman. Jeffrey Toobin, the renowned legal commentator believes that the case may end in a plea bargain, where Pistorius pleads guilty to culpable homicide. His sponsors, who are worth $2 million to him annually, are without sentiment and have either suspended their sponsorship or called it quits. Several national and international appearances have been canceled. Whatever the outcome of the trial, his wholesome image has been shattered. The biggest losers, outside of the grieving Steenkamp family, are the public that have lost yet another icon that they could look up to and sigh that the world could not be such a bad place if it had an Oscar Pistorius

LANCE ARMSTRONG - THE MYTHTAKE?

The CEO of the United States Anti - Doping Agency, (USADA), Travia Tygart, in an interview on Sixty Minutes on January 27, 2012, stated that Armstrong lied in the recent Oprah - Armstrong interview. In that Oprah interview Armstrong supposedly told all and confessed to his all his “sins”. Predictably Armstrong refused the USADA offer to testify under oath by February 20, 2012.  Armstrong now faces a life long ban in every sport. This is the latest chapter in an ongoing saga that has lasted 15 years. Armstrong responded to the USADA offer by beginning to put himself in the victim role.

Tygart’s allegations and ultimatum makes one wonder, yet again, what was the point of the Lance – Oprah “confessional”.

THE MYTHTAKE

Lance Armstrong was an icon, a beacon, a giant and the most remarkable sportsman of the past two decades.  He also elevated a little known sport, cycling, into the subject of daily discussion and a whole channel was devoted to watching The Tour de France - the equivalent in cycling of the Super bowl in American Football, The World Cup in Soccer, Wimbledon in Tennis, The Masters in Golf. Except who cared about cycling till Lance came along.

The Tour De France is a spectacle over 23 days. It is also considered sports most demanding test of stamina with a route that varies, but essentially traverses the whole of France. It includes passages over two mountain chains, the Pyrenees and the Alps. The experience is considered the equivalent of climbing the highest mountains. The winner usually is the rider who performs best in the mountain stages and here “our man” Lance always came out tops. Believe it or not cycling is a team sport. Each team consists of 9 riders. The latter ride according to a plan whose objective is to see to it that their man, i.e. Lance, has the most favorable chance of winning.

Lance won The Tour for seven consecutive years between 1999 and 2005. These feats being achieved after having being diagnosed and treated for testicular cancer with metastases in the brain and lung in 1996.The successful treatment included chemotherapy as well as surgery to the brain. Armstrong then started his own Cancer Foundation that has grown and grown. His Foundation has literally raised hundreds of millions of dollars. Armstrong also has actively encouraged other celebrities to be involved in charitable causes. All this is the stuff that legends are made of. 

So where did it all go wrong?

ALLEGATIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS OF DOPING UP TO 2009

Allegations of doping have dogged Armstrong from the beginning of his career. The first accusation in 1995 and then followed the first major documented expose that was published in a book, “La Confidential- Les secrets de Lance Armstrong”. Excerpts were published in the UK Sunday Times. Armstrong responded aggressively as he had done previously - with righteous indignation, denials, smears and litigation. The court ruled in Armstrong favor and apologies and damages followed. This was a pattern that would follow again and again. He would successfully sue close associates, colleagues and employees, who under oath revealed his doping and the organization of large scale doping of his team members. Where there were positive doping tests, as there was in 2005 his successful legal challenges won the day. Where there were accusations of bribery these were vigorously denied. He donated $100,000 to the International Cycling Agency, who graciously accepted and who allegedly was covering up for him. He also attempted to donate $100,000 to USADA who unceremoniously refused the “donation” and who ultimately nailed him.

Armstrong intimidated those who testified against him and threatened them with elimination from the sport, according to the USADA report. The CEO of USADA maintained that he, personally, had been threatened with death.

The initial USADA report gave graphic first person details of the doping and Lance’s organization of doping the whole team. Those that resisted were axed from the team. His fellow cyclists were terrified of him as he controlled the whole show. If you crossed him that was the end of your cycling career.

However, up to 2012 a defiant Armstrong extracted apologies and money from those who accused him. He unashamedly humiliated and even sued his closest associates whether they were team members or masseuses.

USADA INVESTGATION AND FINDINGS 2011 - 2012

However evidence was beginning to become overwhelming. A 2010 to 2012 Federal Criminal investigation was surprisingly dropped with no charges. Armstrong was not as fortunate with a United States Anti–Doping Agency, (USADA), who started their investigation in 2011. The USADA investigated allegations from 1995.

Armstrong did all in his power to get the Courts to intervene to stop the USDA but to no avail. He labeled the charges “heinous and outlandish. He continued,” There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.'" He would not appeal anything. Everyone knew that this was a witch-hunt. Everyone knew that he won his races fair and square”.

But the USADA findings, were far reaching, unequivocal and copiously documented. Several of his teammates and other cyclists also gave sworn testimony against him. All other cycling and athletic bodies stripped him of his titles. He was unable to ever compete again in anything. Defiant to the end he appeared in photographs with 9 Tour de France yellow jerseys in the background.

The USADA placed bans on others also involved in what they categorized as, “The most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport had ever seen”. The doping of the US Postal Team was subsidized by millions of taxpayer dollars.

OPRAH INTERVIEW – WHY?

And along came Oprah. All of a sudden he would ‘fess up after his lawyer had called the USADA investigation a “hatchet job”. Why Armstrong would confess the Lord and he only knew and not necessarily in that order. His lawyers would have told him to shut up. He stood on the cusp of endless civil and possible criminal charges. But Jay H. Ell’s guess is that Armstrong is a man who doesn’t listen to too many people.

So “confess”, after a fashion, he did but the old arrogance, the old coldness, the old callousness and indifference were still there. There was no remorse. He could not remember how many people he sued, how many lives he had wrecked. He admitted he was a bully. He was a serial liar… There was often an incongruent smirk on his face as he replied to Oprah.

There was one piece of evidence in mitigation. Doping was the culture at the time and he had evened the playing field. He almost negated his only exculpatory evidence by saying he would not have won all those jerseys without all that systematic doping.

THE POINT OF ALL?

So what purpose did this “confession” serve?

Well there was plenty in it for Oprah and her failing network. She was her usual polished self and reminded one why she was able to dominate the talk show circuit for all those years. Her interview was seen by well over 30 million worldwide.

The victims could have gained some vindication from their experience of crossing this colossus. The devastation that he had caused and the years of misery that had resulted could not really be compensated but this was far better than nothing.

The cycling and athletic bodies as well as the anti doping bodies would get a chance to clean up their acts. Maybe they will create some type of level playing field.

Society gained plenty in that, however, powerful one might be, and on the odd occasion there is accountability and exposure. Jay H. Ell would like to believe that the explosive information revolution especially in the form of the Internet makes it harder to escape the glare of the cold reality and truth.

BUT LANCE?

But there was naught for Lance’s comfort even if he did not have the insight to realize it. His sociopathic behavior was there for all to see. He should have got the message in 1995 when he first got away with it. However, consistent with sociopathic behavior he did not learn from the past. He carried on and on.

Omnipotent from the word go maybe he feels, that now that he has told everyone what he or she already knew, he could start again. This giant ego believes he can conquer new fields and bowl everybody over again.

However, he has not really got past the first step of the equivalent of Alcoholic Anonymous. Lance has got a long, long way to go. But notwithstanding the circumstances of his confession it is certainly better than nothing or his endless denials and destruction of others.

Most importantly for Lance is that the USADA are singularly unimpressed with his performance on the Oprah show. They believe it just adds to his ongoing charade of deceit and lies.

So rather than bring closure Lance has merely added to his indictment sheet and kept the momentum going to expose and litigate against him. There was no way that he would have appeared before the USADA, under oath, with that volume of testimony against him. He must wish that he had given Oprah a miss and rather faded away. But that would not be consistent with the sociopathic behavior that got him to this mess to start with. One wonders where all this will end. The civil litigation and Whistleblowers’ actions will keep Lance in the news forever. Jay H. Ell believes that Lance has chosen a path that will not allow for redemption. His end is the same of O. J, Simpson’s – lifelong ignominy.

Hopefully what has happened to Lance will deter others, who, whatever their evil inclinations are, must realize they still have choice. Jay H. Ell knows that that is a fat hope but if it deters just one person then the effort of exposing him will have been worth it.

At least Lance’s Cancer Foundation is continuing – even without him.

CATHOLICISM IN CRISIS - CAN THE VATICAN CHANGE?

The world, particularly the Catholic world, has been jolted by the unexpected resignation of Pope Benedict XV1. Popes just don’t resign, as we have been told ad nauseam – the last one being Pope Gregory in the 14 hundreds. The latter resigned at a time of great upheaval in the Church known as the Great Schism where two contenders were claiming the papacy.

Pope Benedict did nothing to lessen the gravitas of his decision. He stated that he was communicating a matter of, “… great importance to the church.” He then stated that he was doing so as “his strengths were no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine Ministry.” He also was, “well aware of the seriousness of this act”. The context of the resignation was “… today's world, (was), subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith”.

So it is fair to paraphrase that this resignation was of tremendous significance at a time that some have said that the church was in “crisis” or at least at a “crossroad”.

It is also fair to say that the Catholic Church is one of the most important institutions in the world. One in 6 people are Catholics – that is approximately 1.2 billion people. The Church itself is tremendously wealthy and influential.  It is almost trite to say that the Church exhibits an all-embracing influence at the grass roots level, not only on personal behavior, but also in social and community activities such as charity and hospitals and even politically in various countries. The Church is potentially the most important agent for change in the world.

WHAT ARE THE “RAPID CHANGES” AND WHAT QUESTIONS HAVE “SHAKEN THE FAITH”?

The issues and challenges that that the papacy is facing in the future and those the outgoing Pope faced are many.

Pope Benedict XV1 was extremely unfortunate to be caught slap bang in the middle of resolving the festering problem of sexual abuse and its cover up in the Church. He worked hard at healing the havoc it wreaked. But like everything too late the efforts were considered too little and the issue is still lingering on.

“When forced to, he talks about the crimes but ignores the cover-ups, uses the past tense as if to suggest it's not still happening," maintained David Clohessy, the executive director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. "He has vast powers and he's done very little to make a difference." Others however have appreciated his efforts particularly in meeting with some of the victims.

Then there was the failure to resolve the ever-present banking scandals that the Vatican has been faced with over decades. The Vatican Bank is currently being investigated by the European bank for not having enough safeguards against money laundering. In addition his own butler was convicted in stealing confidential documents.

But the social issues challenging church doctrine have to be the most threatening of the “rapid changes” and the most "relevant"  that are” shaking….. the life of the faith”.

SOCIAL PROBLEMS

 There are the social “problems” that his successor will inherit that have been exacerbated by a “changing” world. These include contraception, abortion, homosexuality, feminism and even masturbation. Societal opinion is moving more and more in the opposite direction of the Church’s teaching in these areas.

Besides these general social issues there are those directly facing the church, such as communion and remarriage for the divorced. Ordination of women into the priesthood is also a hot button issue that is becoming more and more prominent. Celibacy of the priesthood is an age-old controversy that will never die. There is support within the church to allow men with AIDS to use condoms to prevent its spread.

There is an incredible shortage of nuns and priests that many maintain are related directly or indirectly to the social issues. In 1970 there were 420, 000 priests and while the number of Catholics grew to 1.2 billion in 2010, a growth of 83% in 40 years, the number of priests declined to 412,000. (Figures from CARA Georgetown University).

TURMOIL IN US CHURCH

While Europe has become more and more secular and has just quietly voted with it’s feet, the USA has been a hotbed of revolt. Catholicism is the largest religion in the United States where 25%, (80,000,000) of the population is Catholic. Most of the fuss and publicity with the church itself has been related to the sex abuse scandals where to date there have been 6,100 accused priests, 16,000 victims and 3 billion dollars paid out in sex abuse claims. In fact the whole subject will not go away. The Washington Post in an editorial as recently as February 14 complained that the “disgraced” Cardinal Mahoney, who was deeply involved in the cover up of abusers, is entitled to vote for the next Pope.

Contraception is not even an issue with Catholic women and 98% of them have used the latter at one or other stage of their lives.

With the high percentage of Catholics in the USA it is inevitable that several are in prominent political positions where their stance on social issues is of public interest such as gay marriage, gays in the military and in scouts, abortion, contraception and feminism generally, is in the public arena. It is accepted that the majority of the electorate, that includes those of catholic persuasion, to a lesser or greater extent are in not in favor of the current church doctrines on these issues.

The most public display of opposition to the status quo to the Church has come from the Leadership Conference of Women Religions. This group has 80% of the 57,000 nuns in the US as members. They have been outspoken on social issues and believe that women should be in all ministries. The Group has been roundly criticized by the Vatican as being more focused on social justice than the church doctrines. They are now to be supervised by three bishops. A particular target has been Sister Margaret Farley who has written a book entitled “Just Love”. It includes discussion on homosexuality, feminism and masturbation.

LIKELYHOOD OF DOCTRINAL CHANGE

The hype surrounding this resignation would lead one to believe that the Church could go either way on adapting to the “rapid changes”. Examination of the facts however rate the chances slim to none that there will be any major shift in doctrinal policy.  The reasons for this are many and include:

* “Smaller and Cohesive Church”.

 Pope Benedict has stated his preference for a “smaller and cohesive Church”. Implicit is his belief that the church will not change to become more inclusive of those who support this “rapid change”.  Even more significantly he appointed 67 of the 118 Cardinals. Between Pope Benedict and his very close associate Pope John Paul 11 they have appointed nearly every Cardinal in the conclave. Some have suggested that the Pontiff took this momentous decision to be a presence when the next Holy See was chosen. Although he is forbidden to be involved in the process there is no doubt that his very existence must have an influence on the outcome. In support of this theory is his statement the next day that his decision was,”…..  for the benefit of the church”.

* Candidates for the Next Holy See

Ostensibly the nationality of the next Pope will be a pointer as to whether the Church might respond to societal pressures of many of its flock. Intuitively one might believe that an African or Latin American Pontiff candidate or at least a non-Italian or non-European candidate might be a pointer to change. Examination of the leading candidates’ positions, regardless of their country of origin, however, will show that their philosophies are virtually ad idem.

The leading candidate is Cardinal Peter Turksen of Ghana. He has a prestigious position in having been appointed President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. He, is, if anyone is, the “progressive” candidate. However his credentials for this honor are pretty thin. He has half supported the idea that husbands with AIDS use condoms so as not to infect their spouses and that is that. The other African candidate with a chance is Cardinal Francis Arize of Nigeria who is the eldest of the candidates, barely qualifying for the Conclave. He is extremely conservative epitomizing the Church’s attitude on homosexuality. He might be a long shot as a compromise candidate as a result of his age.

There are two possible Latin American candidates. Cardinals De Aviz of Brazil and Leonardo Sadri of Argentine. Latin America has 42% of the Catholics in the world. Recently the Church in South America has been challenged in their proselytizing by other religions including Anglicans. Both of these candidates are within the conservative mould.

The Italians and Europeans Cardinals have as their strongest candidate the Milanese Cardinal Scala. He represents the traditional line. Europe has now only 25% of the world Catholic population. Many of these are nominally Catholics and it is acknowledged that the Church is out of sync with their needs and opinions.

The New York Times report that the Canadian Cardinal Quelet is the favorite of Pope Benedict XV1. He believes that Vatican 11 was interpreted too liberally. He heads the extremely powerful position of the Pope’s Office of Bishops. He thus appoints all the Bishops throughout the world of 1,2 billion Catholics. He is relatively young not yet being 70 years. In Jay H Ell’s opinion he has to be the favorite. He also fits the bill as not being Italian or European and this gives the impression that the Church is becoming more inclusive.

There are several other long shots such as Cardinal Dolan of the USA but that is what they are – long shots.  The one characteristic, all those that are serious contenders have, is that they are not going to change the status quo.

* National Origins of the Cardinals.

In the 8 years that Pope Benedict XV1, and in the 27 years of his predecessor’s reign for that matter, no real attempts has been made to meaningfully increase the Cardinal representation to approximate the number of Catholics in each respective country or continent. Italy with 53 million Catholics has 28 Cardinals, South America with 492 million have 19 Cardinals and Europe including Italy with a total of 300, 000 million have 64 Cardinals. So it is hard to imagine any candidate for the Papacy not needing a big chunk of the Conservative European Cardinal vote.

*The Vatican Bureaucracy.

The Vatican has a labyrinthine bureaucracy that is crucial to the working of the Church and the Papacy. Most of the major contenders have knowledge and have worked with it making an “outsider’s” election and ability to change the culture that much more difficult.

CONCLUSION

Everything thus points to the election of a Conservative candidate who wishes to maintain the status quo in the Catholic Church. Whatever the reason for Pope Benedict’s historic decision his very presence increases this possibility. The impact on the world will be felt whatever the decision because, regardless of the Church doctrine, the Church has a long tradition of serving the poor and pursuing justice. The big struggle for the hearts and minds of souls will be in Africa where Muslims are making inroads.

Rightly or wrongly the Vatican are concentrating on doctrine rather than meeting the needs of the modern world. They are ignoring the words of the nuns in the USA for example. Communities have literally had to abandon parishes, as they are not recruiting Priests. They have not recruited any more priests to account for a growth of nearly double the Catholics between 1970 and 2010. The average age of the priests in 1970 was 35 and in 2010 it was 63 years old. All this points to inability to recruit those who articulate church doctrine and those whom they need to serve the communities. The situation is potentially explosive. What happens if all those nuns will not listen to the three male supervising Bishops will nearly all the nuns in the USA be excommunicated?

Where it will all end no one knows but there are several possibilities including breakaway churches. In this day and age, to quote Pope Benedict XV1, of “rapid change”, coupled with the tools for continuous communication that has provided empowerment to the masses, anything can happen.

OBAMA KILLING AMERICANS - MOANS ON DRONES

The release of a secret Justice Department memorandum on criteria used to eliminate Al Qaeda members, via drones, if they are a “senior operational leaders” of that group, even if they are not actively engaged in a plot to attack America, has aroused major criticism from well -intentioned liberal groups and Republicans. The opposition to these drone attacks is far more vociferous if the Al Qaeda members involved are American citizens.

This release of this document has resulted in many questions that one would hope would arise in any open society. The most glaring query is why on earth was this document secret and not in the public domain a long time ago? Also it precipitates the examining of the changing world threats and what the response there should be to these threats. In the American political context, the release comes at a time when Obama’s nomination for CIA Director, John Brennan, is up for confirmation. John Brennan is the architect for Obama’s drone policy and well meaning Democrats and cynical Republicans did not feel uncomfortable about making him uncomfortable in his confirmation hearings. However, nothing vented in the lengthy hearings changed any of the facts.

There appear to be two issues that need to be examined:

• Are drone attacks, wherever and on whom they are sanctioned, legally, morally and politically defensible? This assessment should be made whether the targets are American citizens on anyone else. Also are they the best way to ensure the USA’s security.
• If, on balance, drone attacks are the way to go, are the present criteria as to when, and whether they should be affected appropriate. Also what reviews should be put in place.

THE THREATS FACING THE STABILITY OF THE WORLD AND THE USA IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY.

Before looking at the drone issue let us look at look at the world situation.

The future ain’t what it used to be. The Cold War is over. However, there is instability in a number of areas.

 * The major threat, to the USA specifically and other nations generally, is the emergence of Jihadist, totalitarian fundamentalist groups lead by Al Qaeda that threaten USA and world stability.

* The Arab spring has created uncertainty. While the general feeling is positive as these are generally movements supporting individual freedoms, women’s rights and against totalitarianism generally, there are fears. These fears generally relate to the danger of the totalitarian Jihadist groups seizing control of some of the States. The major instability at present is Syria but there is also uncertainty all round that even extends to North Africa.

* The Middle East impasse. This is complicated by the Arab spring but more so by Iran. Iran is a supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist groups in the Middle East. These are akin to the Jihadist Al Qaeda groups. Hezbollah have been found to be extremely active in Europe. As one of his first actions US Secretary of State Kerry has called upon the European Union to declare Hezbollah, as the USA have done have, a terrorist organization.

* There are nuclear rogue nations, specifically Iran and North Korea that have to be threatening the world order. North Korea is generally off the charts and the only hope to contain them is via China. Iran and its nuclear potential, coupled with its desire to become a world power, its terrorist surrogates and its pathological hatred of Israel is probably potentially the most imminent threat to world stability.

OBAMA RESPONSE TO ASSYMETRY IS ASSYMETRY

The Obama administration has taken a number of discernable policy changes in relation to defense. They have taken the position that most of the threats that the world and the USA face are “asymmetrical”. These threats emanate from terrorist groups that are numerically small but can cause disproportionate damage. Many of the threats to world order listed above have terrorist organizations potentially or directly involved.

The key change in policy is the escalation of drone attacks and the withdrawal of forces from conventional wars. Asymmetry was to be met by asymmetry in the form of unmanned drones that were able to attack specific targets. While the majority of the drone attacks have been directed at Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan the program has been expanding to other areas including notably Yemen.

The success of the program was even noted before the US Navy Seals eliminated Osama Bin Laden. Osama’s documents indicated that the drone program was doing so much damage that he wanted to relocate all Al Qaeda operatives to the mountainous area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The argument for this approach is irresistible. Large numbers of soldiers need not be deployed in dangerous territory to eliminate a few terrorists and potentially fewer civilians get killed in the crossfire. So for the moment let us examine the validity of this form of warfare whether the terrorist is American born or not.

FACTS AND ATTACKS ON DRONE ATTACKS

* Drone attacks cause collateral damage. The debate is how many and why? The percentage and number of civilians vary according to studies and where they come from. While the CIA has argued there have been no civilian casualties since 2010. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated that approximately 400 to 800 civilian deaths have occurred of which a 150 were children. The Bureau believes that these casualties occurred out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 deaths. 

(Compare these numbers to deaths associated with the Iraqi war, for example, that are most conservatively estimated at 100,000 and more broadly estimated as over a million. Nearly, 5,000 Americans died in this war. This war was not waged on the basis of an “imminent” threat but on the basis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that they could use against the West).

* The local Pakistani sentiment is anger over these civilian deaths and increased animosity towards the USA. However, the biggest furor occurred when in November 2011, 24 Pakistani soldiers were accidentally targeted. This did not stop Drone attacks that restarted 2 months later. Jay H. Ell also has to ask what the responsibility a country has that harbors these terrorists.

 * The Rand corporation found that the drone attacks decreased suicide bombings, both the frequency and militancy of terrorist attacks and the placement of IEDs.

* Since 2008 The UNO Human Rights Council have been critical of the United States drone attacks maintaining that they are “indiscriminate”. Also the failure to provide information on them and particularly the collateral damage they cause has been criticized by the Council. More recently the Council have called upon the Obama administration to attempt to capture Al Qaeda and Taliban suspects rather than assassinate them.

THE MERITS OF THE OPPOSITION TO DRONE ATTACKS.

* None of the criticisms of drone attacks differ from those of any warfare activity. There is collateral damage, friendly fire death, anger from the civilian population and criticism of war in general and the rationale for it in the first place.

* Conventional warfare is supposed to be conducted by the Geneva and Hague Conventions and this makes it easier to shout the odds at someone who isn’t “fighting fair”. These conventions discuss humanitarian considerations for combatants, behavior towards noncombatants and what weapons of war should not be used. The latter include poisonous gasses and biological warfare.

* It is very hard to stick to Geneva and Hague conventions when the other side is not remotely interested. Jay H. Ell is sure that the conventions would not sanction flying airplanes into buildings where there are only civilians, shooting rockets indiscriminately into civilians and sending young people to their death in suicide missions expressly to kill civilians. The perpetrators are not wearing uniforms so that you can engage in combat with them and “fight fair”. Nor are they occupying any definable state rather they hide themselves among civilians and when attacked they wail that civilians they were hiding among were targeted!

DANGER OF DRONE ATTACKS THAT WERE “NOT JUSTIFIED”

Once there is war there is always criticism of the “tactics”. If one looks at the Second World War the allies were blamed for the attacks on German cities towards the end, not bombing the train lines to Auschwitz and dropping the Atomic bombs to end the war. In the Vietnam War the Americans were attacked for using napalm when they did and on and on.

So attacking the criteria as whether an Al Qaeda operative was “bad” enough to be eliminated does not seem to make any more sense than blaming a combatant country for firing on all the enemy soldiers when some were not so bad!

To expect the protagonists in a war to sit around and wait for the “terrorist” to be ready for the attack rather than to “get” him when they can, also makes no sense.

COMES DOWN TO REALITY

So there is a new reality and a new paradigm of war. The other side takes no notice of the Conventions and has as their objective to cause chaos, disruption, fear and death to civilians. This they have already done and have changed the way we live our lives. It stands to reason that it would be ridiculous to do as has been done up to now – send in the marines who as they march are blown up by IED’s, whose barracks are attacked by suicide bombers and then tell them to capture terrorists rather than kill them. Rather send in unmanned drones and rely on intelligence, human and gained by satellite, to locate the enemies. Not only will this save blood it will save treasure.

So why the abhorrence at it all?

As we have seen, unhappily, mistakes are made in any type of warfare so why the disgust when it happens with drones? This especially when the numbers killed are of a far smaller order than conventional war.

WHY THE ABHORRENCE?

The answer lies in the fact that person or persons or agencies are making the actual decision to execute an individual. In conventional warfare the killing is so impersonal. The thought of those designated to make the life or death decision making a mistake is against every tenet that we cling too. Psychologically, in our ordered society, we are not attuned to perpetrate or legitimize, what amounts to murder or assassination.

In any civilized society if an individual is to be sentenced to death he or she must have due process. After all there were the Nuremberg trials. We never just strung up the perpetrators of unspeakable crimes against humanity. But the Nuremberg trials were after the war was over. Those criminals would have got short shrift if they were still a danger. So killing someone who has declared war and has made it quite clear how they are going to kill you or your loved ones is probably an appropriate response.

All war is abhorrent and this type, as much as it offends our sensibilities, is no more abhorrent than the rest.

AMERICAN AL QAEDA

There are those that make the distinction between American born Al Qaeda and those who are not. The reason for this is that all Americans are entitled to due process before being sentenced to death. The fact that these “Americans” have sworn allegiance to an enemy that is at war with America and participate in atrocities that kill Americans surely means that they have forgone their rights as American citizens? So why they should be protected heavens only knows?

In fairness many of the civil right activists who oppose the drone program, especially towards citizens, believe that this is giving the government too much power.  The Government has immense power anyway when it comes to war. Again it comes down to the belief if you take a decision kill someone who is anonymous, and could well be an American, it is ok but if you name him or her it is murder.

THE SOLUTION

The Government and whoever is in charge need to spell out the parameters whereby these attacks can take place. They need to brief Congress, secretly if necessary, as they so often do, about the process. The onus is on them to at least inform a group, that are disconnected with the decision making, with what is going on. Obama never slow to take a point is handing all the classified documents on the drone policy to the respective Intelligence Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives.

 If Congress is not happy there should be a mechanism whereby they should have access to the decision makers. However, Congress or anyone else really have as much right to second guess the decisions as they had to second guess Eisenhower as to his D Day operations. There is a war on in case anyone has forgotten. Maybe they can remember it every time they have to take their shoes off in the endless security lines at the airport.

The Government should lose their own distaste at what they are doing and be upfront as to their response to the asymmetrical warfare they are fighting. They need to legitimize what they are doing as not doing so lends credence to the fact that they are hiding something because it is wrong. They need have no fear at loss of public support as 90% support the drone program. However, they do owe an explanation to those who hold civil liberties dear.

A final thought, it is not going to be long before other entities obtain drones, so hopefully, the powers that be are working on counters to defend against enemy drones.

.

BYE BYE SARAH (PALIN)

Eighteen months ago the word Palin in this blog heading would have been superfluous. But Sarah has been out of the limelight for such a long time – 12 months is such a long time in politics - that she has almost been forgotten. Two short years ago she was center stage calling the shots. There is little doubt that she called all the Republican shots in the 2010 mid term elections. In that election the Democrats, to quote President Obama received a “shellacking”. An endorsement from Sarah Palin meant Republican Primary success. She was the Tea Party and the Tea Party had the same approval ratings as the GOP. Sarah was the keynote speaker at all their major meetings including massive gatherings in Washington. As a result in 2010 the Republicans took over the House of Representatives but lost Senate seats that they felt they could have won were it not for Sarah’s unelectable Tea Party Republican candidates. (Blogs: GOP, Presidency and Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, The New Congress and Palin).

Jay H. Ell confidently felt that should she run in the Republican Primaries in 2012 she would get the nod. In fact he wrongly predicted that she would run. She controlled the base of the Republican Party and also told mommy Bush and Karl Rove to jump in the lake. Why she didn’t run is really the big mystery and in retrospect was the beginning of the end of Sarah, at least for now.

BIG BUCKS

All her newly found fame resulted in record-breaking earnings. Her book “Going Rogue” sold 2 million copies, her TV series on Alaska had record breaking viewership, and her honoraria for speaking were up there with former Presidents. She landed massive TV contracts with Fox earning an estimated $158 per word she spoke over three years - three million dollars for almost saying nothing both literally and figuratively. Nobody had combined politics and entertainment as effectively and successfully as Sarah had.

So why did it come as no surprise that Fox terminated her lucrative contract and offered her a token, by her standards, salary that she refused? Why is she leaving the stage with barely a whimper?

THE DOWNFALL

• Simplistically, pundits are correlating her fall from grace with the loss of support of the Tea Party. The Tea Party approval ratings have dropped to about 25% and only 8% of the electorate claim to be Tea Party members. However, the Tea Party still has a stranglehold on the base in a large number of GOP constituencies. On the National scene nothing has changed in Presidential politics. This can be exemplified by the fact that Christie is the only GOP candidate that could win a Presidential election yet he has no chance of getting the Republican nomination, at present, against the likes of the right wingers Ryan, Jindal and Paul. So in the real politick situation Sarah still could be a mover and shaker.
• However, Sarah called it quits the moment she decided not to run in the 2012 Presidential election. She took this decision relatively early and seemed to lose interest. She backed a real loser in the GOP Primaries, Newt Gingrich, Even though Newt like several others took the lead in the Republican Primaries as the Republican faithful were looking to anyone but Romney. Had she herself been a candidate, she, Jay H Ell believes, would have been the Republican nominee. If one looks at the other nonentities that, at one stage or another gave Romney a run for his money – Santorum, Cain, Perry, Trump, does anyone even remember who they are, besides Trump. (BLOGS: Still Anyone But Romney?, For Sale: Republican Nomination and Romney – The Grand Old Party’s last Hoorah).
• As the Republican candidate Sarah would have still been a somebody even though Obama would have also easily beaten her. She would have been de facto leader of the Republican Party with massive base support. Now she is opting to be a nobody.

SO WHY DID SHE CALL IT QUITS?

So why did Sarah call it quits after her short meteoric political career?  Jay H. Ell simply believes she simpy got bored.

If one looks at her resume it shows brief flirtations in several positions, each a short space of time. In 1992 she was elected to the Wasilla City Council. In 1996 she won the Wasilla Mayoral Contest. In 2003, after an unsuccessful bid for Lieutenant Governorship, she became Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Three years later in 2006 she won the Alaskan Governorship. She was nominated in 2008 as McCain’s Vice Presidential nominee and sapped all the oxygen on the Republican side of the campaign. After loosing to Obama and Biden she had had enough of being Alaskan Governor and resigned in 2009.

Between 2009 and 2011 was her most productive period. She made all that money, by book writing, lecturing and TV productions and FOX. She also coped with her daughter, Bristol’s celebrity status, out of wedlock child, dancing contests, controversial book writing attacking her and the like. She was THE central focus around which the Tea Party formed. She was the kingmaker in the 2010 Republican Party election and a top contender for the 2012 Republican nomination.

There is an argument that she moved as quickly from “job” to “job”, as she did, as a result of her political ambition rather than boredom or being unable focus on any project for any length of time. This is really counterintuitive as why would she call it quits when after less than two decades of political activity she was in a position to go for the top job in politics.

No the talented Sarah was bored and had had enough. (There is no doubt that having all that money must have played some part in her decision). It will be interesting to see what she does now. She has managed to do nothing for about a year. She was hardly in evidence in the 2012 campaign and has done nothing since. She is not yet 50 years old and three years younger than Barack Obama so she has a way to go. It is also remotely possible she saw the way the country was going and did not want to be on the wrong side of history. Still one wonders what she will do next after she is tired of being bored?

Your guess is good as Jay H. Ell’s. However, hold onto your seats as there is no way they are going to keep Sarah down in Wasilla after she has seen Washington.

GOP CAVE ON IMMIGRATION

BACKGROUND

It is understandable that the next GOP acceptance of reality, after withdrawing their threat to shut down the economy, (BLOG: The GOP – A Mad Hatters’ Tea Party), of the results of the recent Presidential Election, is adoption of Obama’s Immigration Policy. Obama mobilized the Latino vote and turned it into a key winning demographic. If the Republicans do not address that fact, they can forever end their Presidential electoral hopes. Up till Bush 43’s election the Latinos aspirations were largely ignored and their support was just taken for granted. Bush, the second, or the lesser as he has been uncharitably called, got 44% of the Latino vote just for being there.

* Obama

Obama offered recognition to the minority group and in the election there was far greater participation of the Latinos,  slashing the Republican support too less than 30%. The Latinos had turned the swing states of Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico States into Democratic strongholds and threatened further inroads in the South – even Texas in a decade or less would not be safe.

Obama had appointed a Latino to the Supreme Court and three others to his Cabinet. Obama appointed nearly 50 Latinos to key administrative positions. He also granted brief “amnesty” to Latino youth that had been brought to America as children and now sought legitimization - a small gesture to the real victims of the system.

 However, all this was enough to empower those originating from South America to realize that they were a force to be reckoned with. Even without the 11 million “illegals” their numbers were growing to be the decisive force in American politics.

 *Republicans

It was no surprise that the Republicans hit rock bottom with the Latinos in the last election. Their standard bearer Mitt Romney’s solution to the immigration problem was that they should “self deport”. The rest of the policy wonks were largely silent and thus allowed what was going on Southern Republican States to become the Republican policy on immigration policy for the “illegals”.

The State of Arizona led the way in 2010 with her controversial law whereby anyone could be apprehended if there was “reasonable suspicion” that he or she was an undocumented immigrant. There did not have to be suspicion of a crime or even a parking violation. There was an indecent rush by Republican controlled States to follow suit and Utah, Indiana, South Carolina. Georgia and Alabama followed with similar or even stricter Immigration legislation.

No matter that the legislation was impacted upon by court challenges this was the face of the Republican Party on “illegal” immigrants.

It must be pointed out that these “illegals” are in multiple of differing situations. There are workers that have been here for decades, there are relatives that have joined “legals” including parents and children and of course there are the gang members and criminals. (Obama incidentally has deported more “criminals” than any of his predecessors). However, the main reason these peoples are in the USA is that they have work. Their employers are “illegally” employing them on occasion exploiting their status.

With the above in mind the Republican policy was a total non-sequitur in relation to the reality of the situation and some ways one wonders how they even got thirty percent of Latino vote.

They have to be many who are now saying, “What were we thinking?”

OBAMA AND BIPARTISAN SENATE IMMIGRATION PROPOSALS.

Both a Senate Bipartisan Committee and the President announced proposals to rectify this bizarre situation. The plans were very similar. Both Obama and the Senate group have been working on these proposals for some time The President, as one might expect, presented his in front of an adoring throng in Las Vegas, Nevada where the Latinos had turned a marginal state into a comfortable win for Obama.

The ad hoc Senate Committee used a conventional Press Conference to outline their principles. The group included heavy weights on both sides of the aisle – Durbin, Menendez and Schumer, (Democrats) and Rubio, McCain and Lindsay Graham, (Republicans).

Both the proposals were very similar and can be looked at under certain rubrics:

* Citizenship

Both the Senate and the POTUS gave paths to citizenship. They allowed for provisional registration and then set a pathway to attain a green card and finally naturalization. Everyone has to pay back taxes and so forth and so on.

Both proposals supported a faster track for first-degree relatives, young brought here by parents and the very skilled and educated.  As might be expected Obama would afford same sex couples the same rights, i.e. e if a non citizen gay married a citizen gay the partner would be granted a green card just like a "straight" marriage.

The essential difference between the two is that the path to citizenship in the Senate proposal only starts when Border Security is tightened up. Obama says border security is good enough now not to hold up anything.

* Border Security

Both plans also recognize without proper border security the problem will never be solved as once the new proposal was in place there would be a mad rush to cross the border. Border Security of course would be beefed up in both proposals.

* Employer Verification.

Many have argued that the problem really lies with the employers who presently escape unscathed. Nobody blames them for employing undocumented workers and by all accounts exploit them. Both proposals seek to rectify this situation with registration and fines for noncompliance. The employers cannot have it both ways – if they need the labor then they have to take the responsibility of ensuring that their employees are documented and then pay them appropriate wages.

RESPONSE  - LIMBAUGH WAYS IN AND SUPPORTS CANDIDATE RUBIO

There were responses from the usual suspects. The hard right maintained that this was “amnesty” – a sell out to the “illegals” that were stealing jobs from the Americans.  The hard left was not so sold on Obama’s reassurance that the time for immigration reform was now. After all he had promised this in his first term.

At the end of the day it depends on the legislature, particularly the House of Representatives, who are to a large extent guided by their moneyed sponsors and or their unelected megalomaniac policymakers.

The Republican media megalomaniac deluxe is Rush Limbaugh. His behavior of late has been decidedly practical. Limbaugh successfully counseled the House Republicans not to hold the country to ransom on debt ceilings and the like. He recognized the negative impact the Republicans were having by ransoming the country’s credit ratings by their childish behavior. It is fair to say, outside the really, really big money donors, Rush is the most powerful force in the leaderless Republican Party. That is what makes his discussion with Republican Latino Mark Rubio and member of the Senate bipartisan group and potential Presidential candidate so significant.

Mark Rubio, presidential hopeful, ostensibly put Limbaugh on the spot. He called in to Limbaugh’s radio show and Limbaugh supported him. In order to do so he created a straw man. Limbaugh maintained that the problem was that the President was not prepared to support border security. Obvious garbage but leaves Limbaugh room to support immigration reform, when the POTUS, ostensibly caves in on border security. Also Limbaugh gave Rubio the go ahead and anointed him tell him what he was doing was necessary and “noteworthy”.

If it needs repeating Limbaugh is THE chief unelected media guru of the GOP. Rubio did not stop there he appeared on the other Conservative media shows including Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee and Mark Levin. He has been hailed as the Republican’s hope of garnering Latino vote. He has changed his mind on immigration as he was initially against this plan. He joins McCain who for the election also opposed this type of pathway to citizenship after originally supporting it. So McCain has done the full circle. (McCain unhappily is bereft of credibility. The only way one can interpret his behavior at present is that he is nothing but an angry and embittered man. So who knows he could change his mind again).

Rubio is taking a calculated risk. He will offend the Conservatives and put distance between himself and Rand Paul. However he has to realize that if the Republicans do not make inroads into the growing Latino vote the nomination for Presidency is useless anyway. He is also gambling that the Republicans are going to support this change anyway and he is right. This they will do even if it splits the Republican caucus.

Rubio with the other Republicans in the bipartisan group have started the bandwagon rolling. May as well be seen to be driving the wagon rather than jumping on under pressure.

SO WHAT NEXT

It all has a long way to go but the support of Immigration Reform leading to Citizenship is a major cave of the present day Republicans and their acceptance of the new reality of American politics.

Rubio’s clout with the Latinos is limited. He is of Cuban origin. The latter have always supported the Republicans as they have backed that group’s desire never to recognize Castro or lift sanctions on Cuba. One of these days the time will come to reverse this antiquated policy. Maybe we can use the Russians to mediate a truce and convince the Cuban refugees and their brethren that the Cold War is over. Also they can point out that even though the US has more Russian refugees than Cuban, they have not insisted that we boycott Russia.

As a postscript John Avalon of “The Daily Beast” has noted the similarities between Obama’s immigration plan and the one introduced by George W. Bush, 43, in 2006. This serves to emphasize two points: how far right the Party has gone in such a short space of time and that politics is all about timing. If you don’t believe Jay H. Ell ask Lincoln.