Fighting Non-Existent Crimes in Oklahoma

Oklahoma lawmakers have just passed a new law providing a maximum penalty of life in prison for the “felony” of making hashish from marijuana. That puts this “crime” on a par with murder in the first degree, forcible aggravated rape of a child, or committing violent acts of terror against the United States.

Think of it. An innocent socially productive weekend pot connoisseur, (there are many millions of them in the US), suffering the misfortune of residing in the state of Oklahoma, is considered almost as guilty as Osama bin Laden if he scrapes the resin off a few of his choice buds into the form of a brick. That’s all hashish is. It’s the sticky stuff concentrated on the crushed female flowers of cannabis plants made into a brick.

Making hashish is like turning wheat into flour to get at the part of the plant you want to eat. It’s similar to processing corn into cornstarch, or cabbage into coleslaw. Separating the resin from the plant does not increase potency; it merely eliminates all the bulky chaff. Consequently, hashish is nothing more than concentrated pot, much like concentrated orange juice, and arguably just as harmless for human consumption.

Oklahoma, it seems, has been plagued with about a dozen or less of these hash making cases over the past decade. So the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs thought it necessary to request this tough new law as a "preventative" move, according to one straight faced bureau spokesman, who also admitted that: "It may be two or three years before we see another”.

So we have to wonder what these lawmakers and agency hacks were thinking when they determined that making hash from pot plants alone in a basement is worse than rape, armed robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon combined. There are convicted murderers in Oklahoma that don’t get life in prison. You could gouge someone’s eyes out on purpose in that state and not get life in prison.

Oklahoma Drug War bureaucrats need to justify their existence; that’s what’s going on, and Oklahoma politicians don’t want to be seen by their rabidly social conservative constituents as soft on criminals. "It's just the mindset up here, and it’s been beaten into these new senators and representatives that you cannot be soft on crime," state Sen. Richard Lerblance, a Democrat, told The Associated Press. "It was the same way when Democrats were in control."

Yes, it is this stubbornly obtuse mindset on the part of the political collective, left and right, which puts Oklahoma's state incarceration rate perpetually in the top five among states nationally. The numbers of prisoners and prison budgets have increased exponentially during the last decade in Oklahoma. More than half of Oklahoma's prisoners are nonviolent “offenders.”

We’re talking about stuffing good people, innocent people, who otherwise contribute much to society while harming no one, into prison and throwing away the key.

Dead or Alive

I suppose it was inevitable that there would be cries of illegality after the surprise commando raid by American Navy SEALS which took the life of Osama bin Laden at his hideout compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Now, ABC News reports that the sons of the late terrorist are accusing the United States government of blatantly violating international law by assassinating their father, an unarmed man, and dumping his body at sea, without so much as affording him the presumption of innocence and a fair trial.

They point out that both Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein were arrested and tried in courts of law, and demand an inquiry into to why their dad was summarily executed without arrest or trial under the circumstances.

That’s quite true, they were arrested and tried, but neither of those two criminals declared holy war on the United States or promised to continue killing innocent Americans wherever they could be found.

U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, pronounced the killing of the terrorist legal. I won’t argue with that from my American point of view. The Pakistani government, on the other hand, would most likely brand the entire mission an unlawful violation of international law. After all, we did violate the territory of a sovereign nation without permission. So maybe the bin Laden boys have a point.

If four state of the art Pakistani military helicopters touched down suddenly in Crawford, Texas, loaded with Taliban warriors on a similar commando mission, would that be considered legal from an Al Qaeda perspective?

Whether gunning down the unarmed bin Laden was the best thing to do, rather than arresting him and taking him into custody, is debatable in my mind, but both options were acceptable for many reasons.

By all accounts, bin Laden was unarmed, dazed, confused, and probably willing to surrender without resistance. He could have been arrested and restrained. There was room in the helicopter for him. If there was room for his dead body there was room for him. He might have been worth far more to us alive than dead.

Killing the beast was way too good for Osama bin Laden, I think. I would much rather have him rotting in an American prison – a fate worse than death -- eating American prison food, and listening to American prison sounds while his fellow American prisoners ridicule and vilify him constantly for the rest of his miserable life.

But, I have to admit, gunning him down like a rabid dog, dragging him off to a Navy ship, and dumping his body who knows where in the ocean, is probably the best way to prevent this monster from becoming a martyr.

Terrorist Homes & Gardens

Did you ever wonder what $1 million dollars will buy in the Abbottabad Pakistan residential real estate market? I didn’t think so. To satisfy your curiosity and mine, I did a Google search on the question and here’s what I found:

A recently abandoned terrorist hunting lodge and hideout, situated within a tranquil gated and high walled compound, located in lovely suburban Abbottabad, fully furnished, and featuring all the latest modern amenities, has just come on the Abbottabad market at only $1 million, after the previous owner suffered an acute reversal of personal fortune, according to the Pakistani High End Real Estate Association.

Note especially, the sturdy, angular, naturally finished concrete block fortification construction technique done in contemporary modern minimalist Middle Eastern shoebox style, complete with barbed wire accents, manicured Fred Sanford inspired gardens, and austere third world prison motifs:  

This beautiful estate and grounds is nestled within the most exclusive subdivision of luscious Abbottabad valley, with spectacular mountain vistas in the background, amid picturesque native Pakistani landscapes and architecture:

 

The property comes with a personal front doorman, butler, and all around general gofer terrorist lackey cadet in training:

Art Deco style fixtures and impeccable furnishings adorn the main residence:

A 5 star live-in maid staff keeps the interior rooms of the main residence sparkling clean at all times:

The latest technology in home entertainment theater hardware is included, featuring remote control, flat wide screen LED TV, and another terrorist lackey who looks exactly like Osama bin Laden to change the channels for you:

I know, I know, this dump could be bought in inner city Detroit for 50 grand, things being as they are in America today, but the real estate market is positively skyrocketing in Abbottabad Pakistan right now, thanks to all the help from good hearted Americans who keep the local economy flush with foreign aid cash.

Consequently, $1 million doesn’t go very far in Abbottabad anymore.

Tortured Logic

Bill O’Reilly was bellowing long and loud from his Fox News bully pulpit last week about the many wonders of torture as he sees it. “Torture works!” “Only three terrorists were water boarded!” he smugly proclaimed. “Torture led directly to bin Laden’s demise!” “Torture saves American lives!”

“The president should have the power to authorize torture on terror suspects for the purpose of inducing cooperation with authorities,” declared O’Reilly. He’s convinced we would never have found the criminal bin Laden without using torture.

At least Mr. Bill admits that we’re talking about torture here. Water-boarding is torture. To his credit, most other torture advocates would rather call it “enhanced interrogation,” because the euphemism makes them feel better about it. That’s because they know deep in their hearts and minds that torture is immoral, unethical, abnormal, and wrong.

“I’m against torture 99% of the time,” Bernie Goldberg, another conservative Fox News commentator, confessed. He was quick to add, though, that “torture is neither wrong nor immoral.” The “fact that torture is illegal presents no problem” since “laws can be changed.” Congress can simply pass a law authorizing “only the president” to torture suspects “only in ticking time bomb” situations, “where it might save lives,” he reasons. 

But if torture were so effective in the War on Terror as these advocates insist, why then, did it take almost 10 years to locate the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden? Why has this War on Terror been going on for so long? Torture doesn’t seem to be getting us anywhere fast. Remember, the Gitmo detainees were tortured methodically during all that time.

It’s not just three suspects who were tortured by water boarding, as O’Reilly and others like to claim. That falsehood has been soundly debunked with evidence of fractures, bruises, lacerations, and other obvious symptoms of physical torture displayed by many Gitmo prisoners. Torture is common practice at Gitmo and the prison doctors are covering it up.

How do we know that it was torture that led to bin Laden’s discovery and demise? We’ll never know. We know only what we are told. How many false leads did the torture produce? There must have been plenty over 9 ½ long years. That’s because torture too often yields unreliable information.

Sure, we can get lots of information by means of torture. Sometimes the guilty will even confess. The innocent usually confess too when they are tortured. They’ll say anything to make it stop. I know I would. Some poor slob who knows nothing will give it all up and start making up all kinds of stories about what they think their torturer wants to hear. Guilty people do exactly the same. That’s why the result of torture is so unreliable. When it comes to getting good information, torture is mostly counterproductive.

How do we know we wouldn’t have found the criminal quicker had the suspects not been tortured? Cesar Millan, the internationally famous Dog Whisperer, has demonstrated conclusively, again and again, that torture doesn’t work very well as a means of getting animals to do what we want. He shows us on each episode of his TV show what positively motivates dogs almost immediately to behave exactly as we like.

His technique works equally well on human beings far away better than torture. It’s called positive reinforcement psychology. You find out what positively motivates your captive subject; give them reasons to talk; rewards for positive behavior; separate them from their peers; lie to them; manipulate them; treat them with calm and assertive kindness as the primary  motivation tool and they will more likely eventually cooperate.

If the practice of torture is not self evidently wrong and immoral, then why are Bernie Goldberg, and most other reasonable American people, against it 99% of the time? Why is it that your average hard core conservative Christian, like Bill O’Reilly, is most likely the one to condone torture?

Surely they don’t get their instructions from Jesus. Would Jesus condone torture? I suppose the Spanish Inquisitor’s and the Pope thought so, so why shouldn’t Bill O’Reilly? To Hell with the Gospel in matters of expediency, you might say with a shrug.

Now, let’s take the torture advocates logic to the end of the twisted philosophical path. If torture works so quickly and so well; if it results in consistently reliable information; if it is not immoral, unethical, and wrong to torture human beings, then why not torture common criminal suspects as the best means to get their cooperation? Bernie says congress could just pass a law.

Why should criminal suspects have the right to remain silent? Why can’t we force them to incriminate themselves and others? Why shouldn’t we subject them to cruel and unusual punishments to get them to talk? Think of all the lives we could save by just inflicting a little pain on the bad guys. Why let the Constitution get in the way of expediency and a good idea?

And, while we're at it, why not allow teachers to torture student suspects in missing property investigations? You know; when no one wants to talk. Nothing serious, just some arm twisting perhaps; a little choking maybe. That’s not immoral, is it, Bernie?

Suppose an 8-year-old says he’s planted a time bomb in the cafeteria that will explode in 10 minutes, and only he knows the code to stop it. Let’s torture him for it, right?

Let’s also permit parents to torture naughty kids who lie. That’s how it used to be in America in the good old days. Torture was common as dirt back then, just as it was in all of antiquity. Only recently, after reflection upon all the horrible inhumane atrocities in history, have civilized people come to recognize the insidious evils of torture.

Torture is wrong; torture is immoral; torture is unethical; torture is abnormal, abhorrent, sadistic, cruel, abominable and inhuman. While it may be argued as practically justified in response to extremely rare circumstances of social necessity, it never-the-less is not morally justified under any circumstances.

The path of torture leads expediently down a slippery slope to horror and tyranny, and no tortured logic can alter it.

Public School Proselytizing

Imagine a public school district in the heartland of America where a majority of students, parents and teachers happen to practice the Islamic faith, and want to use the public schools as an instrument to endorse, promote, and proselytize their Muslim faith to all the students at every school in the district before, during, and after regular school hours.

Imagine the teachers in this public school district distributing copies of the Koran to all the kids; displaying Islamic iconography on classroom walls; delivering Islamic prayers over the loudspeaker during class and at other school events; and holding graduation ceremonies at a local mosque.

Imagine a Muslim youth cleric in this public school district having regular access to school lunchrooms; visiting every table (whether invited or not); speaking to the captive students about his mosque, his Islamic youth mission, and faith in the prophet Muhammad.

Finally, imagine the local mosque promoting a celebration of an annual public school related event and the public school district allowing students to be bussed over to the mosque during regular school hours, using county school buses, to spend the day there watching movies, eating treats, and playing games, while the minority kids choosing not to attend are obliged to remain at school to complete additional work assignments.

We don’t have to think very long or hard to conclude what the evangelical Christian minority, and other religious and non-religious minorities in the district, would do about that. They’d be dialing the ACLU on their cell phones before you could say “amen.”

They’d complain to Hell and High Heaven that their public school district is deliberately violating the First Amendment Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution – you know, that legal principle which provides for separation between government and religion.

I can hear them all now, shouting their legal outrage in chorus: “A public school district cannot promote religion.” “They can’t use the schools to proselytize a religious faith.” “They can’t distribute religious literature at public schools; display religious symbols on classroom walls; give religious prayers on the public address system; and hold graduation ceremonies at religious houses of worship.”

“Surely, public schools can’t allow religious cleric’s preaching to our kids in the cafeteria during lunch; and busing students from the school to a place of worship to enjoy playtime and favored treatment while the rest of the kids remain at school working.” “That’s unconstitutional,” they’d cry.

And, of course, they’d be right; right on all counts. A public school shouldn’t be doing any of those things. The constitutional principle is so easy to understand when the other fellow is violating it, but so difficult for the violator’s to accept.

Public school districts in America have been flouting the Constitution in this fashion for many decades. School prayer in public classrooms was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1940’s; school administrator’s know that, but continue to lead students in prayer anyway every day at many schools all across the country. 

Even now, certain public school board members from Sumner County Tennessee simply can’t understand why the American Civil Liberties Union is complaining on behalf of a few minority families that the district is unlawfully promoting Christianity to students in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

In Sumner County, Tennessee, the public schools endorse Christianity. Christian Bibles are distributed to kids at school; Christian crosses hang on classroom walls; sectarian prayers are delivered over the loudspeaker during class and at school events; and graduation is held at Long Hollow Baptist Church.

In Sumner County, Tennessee, a youth minister from Long Hollow Baptist Church is given access to the school lunchrooms to visit each table (whether invited or not), while the kids are eating their lunch, to speak to them about his church, his ministry, and faith in Jesus.

In Sumner County, Tennessee, the Long Hollow Baptist Church holds an annual event called “TCAP’aloosa to celebrate the end of Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment (TCAP) testing. Students are bussed over to the church in Sumner County school buses, to spend the day watching movies, eating treats, and playing games, while students who refuse to attend must stay at school doing extra work assignments.

This is all just one more problem with public schools. When it comes to cultural values, they’d sooner proselytize than educate your child.

Congratulations, Mr. President

It’s easy for me to sit back in my soft easy chair criticizing government and politicians for their never-ending folly. After this post, I intend to get right back to that, because it’s all so well deserved.

But sometimes government does something right. The President of the United States, commander in chief of U.S. armed forces, and consummate politician, Barack Obama, deserves ultimate credit for executing the plan which eventually found and brought Osama bin Laden to justice.

Congratulations, Mr. President, and well done, sir.

Surely, there are many more who deserve substantial credit for bringing about bin Laden’s demise, especially the brave and competent soldiers who carried out the task, but had the mission failed, no one would have been more a target of blame than Barrack Obama. He therefore richly deserves his triumph. Osama bin Laden, chief architect of the 9/11 disaster, is dead. The nation expels a huge collective sigh of relief, thanks to the President.

That is not to say that this death of a criminal is a time for jubilation. The blood thirsty whooping and hollering mob demonstrations at the White House and Times Square were disgusting. There’s no dignity or class in that. That’s what our enemy, the fanatics always do. That’s how foreigners view Americans. Much better, I think, to quietly savor the moment of justice while fully recognizing the cruel insanity of this war. Bin Laden’s death probably won’t bring an end to the War on Terror; might even intensify it.

After all, it was our nation’s constant meddling in Middle East politics which spawned the monster, Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda in the first place.  

Sanctioned Sociopaths

We have a word to describe the common individual human personality disorder characterized by abnormal behavior and a seeming absence of a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience: sociopath.

Torturers are sociopaths. Torture, although a common practice among human beings, is not normal human behavior. Torture is sadistic behavior. Torture is abhorrent behavior. Normal people don’t torture other people. Normal people have a sense of moral shame.

Individuals who torture lack normal empathy for their fellow human beings. People with a normal conscience and sense of morality cannot bring themselves to torture others, whether physically, emotionally, or psychologically. Torture is morally and ethically wrong. The very idea of inflicting pain on another human being for whatever reason is unthinkable to most of us.

Modern times have brought laws and solemn conventions among civilized nations against the barbarous practice of torture. Information acquired by means of torture has been scientifically proven to be no more reliable than that obtained by less aggressive means of interrogation. Our judicial system has long recognized that confessions obtained through torture are inadmissible because they are unreliable as evidence.

Before September 11, 2001, the government of the United States of America, as far as I know, recognized international conventions against the practice of torture. After 9/11, the Bush administration began to secretly sanction torture methods of interrogation against “War on Terror” detainees, and when the secret policy became public, attempted to justify the practice as legally and morally permissible.

The Bush administration sanctioned water boarding, forced nudity, sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, stress position and prolonged isolation as "safe, legal, ethical, and effective" enhanced interrogation techniques which were previously considered torture and forbidden by the United Nations Committee Against Torture.

Now, according to ABC News and a study conducted by Physicians for Human Rights, torture is not only common practice on Guantanamo prison detainees, the prison doctors are going along with and covering it up -- so much for basic medical ethics and the Hippocratic Oath in service to the United States government.

"What was so striking in our investigation," said Dr. Vincent Iacopino, co-author on the study, "was that it's clear the Department of Defense clinicians provided medical care in the way you'd expect at any hospital or clinic, except that whenever an injury implied the possibility of intentional harm or psychological symptoms suggesting torture, the cause of those symptoms were completely ignored."

Doctors at Gitmo, the study found, didn’t record in the medical records or follow up with their detainee patients on obvious symptoms of torture, including bone fractures, lacerations, and symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder. Claims by detainees of severe beatings were supported by evidence of fractures on X-ray but were not investigated, or if investigated, not reported in their medical records.

Government medical professionals failed to inquire about or document the cause of physical and mental symptoms of detainees that suggested the possibility of torture. One of many detainee’s who displayed classic symptoms of severe post traumatic stress disorder upon physical examination was given antidepressants and told that he needed "to relax when guards are being more aggressive," his medical records show.

"I don't think these doctors were bad people,” said Dr. Iacopino. “It's a mindset of a military base and the system doesn't support their independence as physicians. But it is our oath, as doctors, to treat, irrespective of who we are treating."

"When you're an insider, the group think can take over and you begin seeing things as others do. In a sense, that's more of a process of denial, that you yourself don't see the truth," adds Dr. Stevan Hobfoll, chair of behavioral sciences at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, IL.

This study describes perfectly a statist government political system, in this case a military system, devoid of ethics and conscience at the top and in the rank and file.

They explain the social mechanics of how entire countries can become nations of sociopaths.