A) Rehabilitate the convicted criminal.
B) Punish the convicted criminal.
C) Prevent future crimes by the convicted criminal.
D) Save the system as much money as possible on prosecution and incarceration.
E) Force the criminal to make restitution.
F) Show compassion and understanding for the convicted criminal as well as the victim.
(REARRANGE THE ABOVE IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE)

Before anybody can suggest what to do to improve our criminal justice system, we must decide what the objectives of the system should be. Please comment on the six items randomly listed above by listing them in order of what you think the goals of our criminal justice system should be. The simplest way to do it is to just rearrange the letters. For example, if you answered: “BCDEFA” it would mean that “B” is the most important, and “A” is the least important. Please feel free add any comments afterward.

LHS

Seymour Hersh, the investigative journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal, reported in the April 17th issue of the New Yorker that President Bush has real plans to use bunker busting tactical nuclear weapons on the Iranian underground uranium centrifuge sites. Apparently, Hersh had no trouble verifying his information, citing named and unnamed, active and retired sources. He cited a military planner, a high-ranking diplomat, a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, a former senior intelligence official, a former high-level Defense Department official and many other sources. That, combined with Mr. Hersh’s impeccable reputation, makes his story as credible as it is frightening.

The bunker busting bombs do not work like underground nuclear tests. They create mushroom clouds, long-term radioactive contamination and surface blasts that can kill thousands. The pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons by the United States would change the world’s attitude toward nuclear warfare. Some of the moral barriers would have been removed and some nations might feel justified in following the American example. The result would be an accelerated world nuclear arms race. We would all have to learn to live with really serious fear.

Bush’s plans are not the usual contingency exercises. Serious steps toward implementation have already been taken. Aside from the nuclear sites, targets include airfields, missile sites, submarine ports, chemical plants and more. According to one estimate, the number of targets could exceed 400. All but the underground nuclear facilities would be attacked with conventional bombs. The well-fortified underground facilities, however, appear to be built on the same plan that the Russians use to protect their government in the event of an attack. They cannot be destroyed by conventional bombs.

Mr. Hersh’s Pentagon advisor source says that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and most Bush advisors are against the use of nuclear weapons in Iran. There is great controversy within the Pentagon on the issue because, according to the Pentagon advisor, the civilian neocons who want to use the nukes are a “juggernaut that has to be stopped”. It’s probable that the leak of information to Mr. Hersh is a part of that disagreement. Opponants might feel that the light of publicity would be a good way to halt the progress of this lunatic idea.

The usual propaganda push has started. An Iraq-like spin is in full gear. The Bush Administration is already pounding in the idea that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons and must be stopped. They point out that Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denies the holocaust and threatens Israel with attack. Condoleezza Rice calls him our most serious global challenge. Rummy calls him the leading supporter of global terrorism. So far, and for good reason, this sales spiel is getting little traction with Americans or our allies. Unfortunately, Bush does not need outside support for the bombing assault that he is planning.

The fact is that almost no nation would want to see Iran get nuclear weapons. Bush could get wide support if he worked through the United Nations to dissuade Ahmadinejad, and if he waited until Iran was closer to producing a nuclear weapon before taking action. At this point Iran has been able to enrich Uranium only to about a 4.8% concentration of the fissionable isotope. They would need a 90% purification to be able to make a bomb. Although the estimates vary widely, Iran is at least three years away from success.

The lower Bush falls in the polls, the more incentive he has to attack before the mid-term elections. With his legacy falling apart in Iraq, he imagines that he has one last chance to rally the people behind him and keep his neocon pals in power. We cannot be comforted by the thought that it would be totally reckless for Bush to use nuclear weapons in Iran. Bush has already proven himself to be totally reckless.

Any attack on Iran would unite the world against us. The Shiites in Iraq and Iran would join together to attack American troops. We could see more real acts of terror in this country. Our enemies might disrupt our flow of oil, investors could abandon our treasury bonds, and our economy could go into depression.

The number of deaths by “friendly fire” in Iraq will never really be known. One website, the Readers Companion to Military History, estimates the number to be on the high side of 10%-15%. Another website, The American War Library, includes both fatal and non-fatal accidents and comes up with numbers on previous wars that seem a little high, althought they claim that they are conservative:

World War II = 21%
Korea = 18%
Viet Nam = 39%
Persian Gulf = 49%

One of the unfortunate truths about war is that deaths and injuries due to friendly fire will never be eliminated. War is a deadly mixture of chaos, confusion, terror and death. Leaders in the field are forced to make life-or-death decisions under extreme pressure, and often without enough experience and without adequate information. It is possible that deaths and injuries by friendly fire can never be reduced below 10%. These deaths will occur whether the war is warranted, or unwarranted. They are simply a part of war.

The Defence Department inspector general has told the Army to open a criminal investigation into the friendly fire death in Afghanistan of Cpl. Pat Tillman. This will be the fourth inquiry into the death of the promising football star. Unfortunately, the only reason it is being ordered is to put on another layer of whitewash. The extra scrubbing is needed in this case only because Tillman’s parents have been dissatisfied with the previous investigations and, more importantly, the media carries their complaints.

Like all other friendly fire casualties, Tillman’s must, by definition, have been caused by somebody’s negligence or bad decision. Expending the time and energy to punish those responsible will make it more difficult for America to defend itself against countries that do not have a similar regard for human life. In war, deaths by negligence, ignorance, bad decisions, or just plain stupidity can never be fully addressed either civilly or criminally. These tragedies are an inseparable part of war. That is not to say that best efforts should not be made to reduce these occurrences. Most importantly, the true picture of what is happening should never be hidden from the public.

The answer to the problem of friendly fire casualties is that there is no answer. Whether it is by friendly fire, unfriendly fire, or stray fire, in a war lots of people will die. And that is why the United Stares should only get into a war if it is absolutely necessary. That is why all alternatives must be exhausted before a single shot is fired.

When a war happens for bogus reasons, as in Iraq, then those who got us into the war are responsible for all of the deaths that result, not just those from friendly fire. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove et. al. are responsible for the deaths of 2400 Americans, and tens of thousands of others, just as if they pulled the triggers themselves. They must be held accountable.

George Bush, who claims to be fighting for nuclear nonproliferation, has just agreed to share nuclear energy technology with India, a nation that is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This is a deal that all American Presidents since Richard Nixon have refused to make. With Bush’s aid, India can now double or triple its nuclear arsenal. Now how do you think the leaders of Pakistan feel about that?

The problem, however, goes much deeper than what Bush did in India. America has never allowed international inspection of its own nuclear facilities, peaceful or military. Why should only some countries have to have their power plants inspected?

Time out for a little science lesson: Natural Uranium contains only about 0.72% of the fissionable Uranium isotope, U-235. The Uranium that goes into nuclear power plants has only about a 20% concentration. You would need about a 90% concentration to make a nuclear bomb. However the Plutonium, produced by Uranium fission in a reactor, can be separated out by chemical means, and that Plutonium can be used to make a bomb. Plutonium is not a naturally occurring element, and can only be acquired through the fission of Uranium.

Shouldn’t we wonder how America can demand that other countries not develop nuclear weapons, while we have an arsenal of 10,000 bombs that we are continually maintaining and modernizing? How can any nation say that, yes we have them, but no, you cannot?

The Republicans and the military/industrial complex are good at picking words. If we were fighting for nuclear disarmament, then that would imply that we would have to disarm also. If we are fighting for “nonproliferation” then we can keep ours, and they cannot have theirs.

As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, how can the United States tell other countries not to build nuclear arsenals while we build (improve, modernize, maintain-whatever) ours? If we want to have at least a temporary, inspected (of course) freeze on the construction of nuclear weapons, don’t we have to participate? How can we even get the world to take this first step if the freeze would be for some nations and not others?

As far as nuclear power plants are concerned, if some countries are entitled to have them, then why aren’t all countries entitled? The Russian solution is very workable in that regard. The fissionable material is supplied by an outside country, and made in a plant that is inspected by the United Nations. The nuclear waste is then brought back to an outside country and disposed of, also under United Nations supervision. In that way, all nations can have nuclear power plants just like us. Why not?

Arguably, since John F. Kennedy, the United States has never been serious about nuclear disarmament. Now we know that Bush is not even serious about nuclear nonproliferation.

Larry Shaw

You don’t open a McDonald’s franchise unless there is a big demand for hamburgers in your neighborhood. For the same reason, you don’t start a terror organization unless there are a lot of people willing to pay you to commit acts of terror. George Bush has created a huge population of people who would like to see harm come the the United States. These people are willing to give money to anyone who will commit those acts for them. Therefore, terror organizations spring up like franchises to ask for that money. To put it more succinctly: “It’s the money, stupid”.

A McDonald’s will not give you a Big Mac with Cheese, if you only pay for a Big Mac. Likewise, terror organizations will not give donors more than they pay for, and since it will increase their profit, they will be happy to give them less than they pay for. After all, why spend money, or risk (their own) lives, or risk arrest, or get the CIA annoyed, if they don’t have to? That’s one reason why more than one terror organization may claim responsibility for a single event. “It’s the money, stupid.”

Planting a bomb and setting it off with a cell phone is not high tech. Regardless of what Bush says, all of the precautions that we can muster cannot stop this kind of simple-minded attack. We haven’t seen these attacks in the United States because there is an expense to commit them. Expenses subtract from profits. “It’s the money, stupid”.

Another reason why we haven’t seen terror attacks in the United States recently is that a terrorist organization must have a way to prove that they committed the act, and a way for potential donors to get the money to them without the money trail exposing the organization.

The only conclusion that I can come to is that the way to decrease the threat of terrorism is to cool the level of Muslim hostility toward the United States. What do you think?

LHS

This headline, believe it or not, refers to the author, and this article is being written in the hope that it will draw some comment or discussion.

The moral dilemma is that, in order to expose George Bush for what he is, I find myself hoping for more instability in Iraq and for a deteriorating American economy. These are not patriotic thoughts, but I don’t seem to be able to expunge them from my mind. Are you having these thoughts too? Is it okay if we just admit these thoughts and pray for forgiveness?

Part of the good news is that George Orwell was a little ahead of himself when he postulated the Thought Police. We still can’t be punished for what we are thinking.

Part of the excuse is that the neocons are also hoping for bad things to to happen when a Democrat occupies the White House. But, is all that good enough? Are we on a slippery slope toward neocon morality? Do we need an excuse, or can we just chalk up these bad thoughts as the consequences of being human?
Larry Shaw

The question most prominent in the news lately is: Where are we going to get the money to pay for Katrina?

The Bush people seem to forget that we are throwing almost $6 billion a month into the Iraq garbage pit. Some neocons even go out of their way to specifically exclude Iraq and the military budget as a prelude to answering the question. When they do answer, they talk about taking benefits away from the poor and the elderly, but not the rich and the powerful.

Iraq is, of course, a total failure. The war has separated us from our friends and united our enemies against us. It has caused the needless death of 2000 American soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqis. It has created a recruiting bonanza for al Qaeda, and a civil war in Iraq. It has exacerbated the oil shortage, raised the price of gasoline, and weakened the American economy. Finally, it threatens to unite the Shiites in Iraq and Iran into an anti-American coalition that will be a danger to us for decades.

The military budget, even without Iraq, is already bloated beyond belief. It is tainted by theft and inefficiency and full of weapons and overseas bases that we do not need. At this time there are American military bases in 100 countries throughout the world. In addition, there would be plenty of money to rebuild New Orleans if the Bush administration did not think it was more important to rebuild Baghdad and to conduct an exaggerated “war on terror”. Meanwhile, Bush seems to have totally forgotten about the “war on drugs” which is very real and anything but exaggerated.

Alternative sources of funds could come from rescinding the tax cuts for the wealthy or cutting back on the huge pork package recently passed. There is no real shortage of funds for New Orleans. Unfortunately, there is no real shortage of greed either.
Larry Shaw