Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts

Thursday, June 11, 2020

WHEN JUSTICE GOES UPSIDE DOWN:


 By Hutch Dubosque / August 20, 2019
PRELUDE
For the past 66 years, or so, our Nation’s judicial system has been experiencing a slow tortuous downward trend. This blog will be dedicated to showing the documentation and proof that this trend has damaged our democracy. I am proposing that this degradation and inversion of American jurisprudence has put all but the very rich in peril of receiving outrageous sentences when found guilty of a crime. Though this has been a known fact for a very long time, the speed at which the gap has widened is frightening.


Sec. I
Starting in the 1950’s post-WWII American socio-economic-political climate saw an enormous increase in International spying.
MAD Magazine was featuring its “SPY vs SPY” series; a popular spoof on the antics of International spying (with a bent toward the Soviet Union).
This increase in spying was due mostly to the advances of nuclear technology. Our government was once reasonably open and transparent on this subject, and the American public was privy to at least the major high-profile cases.

Sec. II
In the 1950’s, the consequences for getting caught spying for a hostile Country was swift and dire.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg -
§  They gave our nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union for six years.
§  They were discovered in late 1940’s
§  They were indicted and tried in 1952
§  And, both were sent to the electric chair in 1953. 

Sec. III
These two were the highest profile spies that were offered up to the public. There were many more. Some were caught; others escaped without detection; and the Soviets learned very well how best to infiltrate our National institutions. At the very same time, the United States was conducting the same spying activities in a number of foreign Countries; the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, Japan. The U.S. also developed a little habit of spying on their Allies, as well. So, MAD Magazine wasn’t far off in its depiction of the International spy game.
Sec. IV







CIA under Truman                                                                                                                                 CIA under Eisenhower                                                                  
Sydney Souers                                                Allen Dulles
“...coordinating all US clandestine                              “...the CIAengineered coup that resulted     
activities abroad...”                                                                in the removal of the Iranian prime                                                                                                                    minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, from                                                                                                             power in August 1953, and Operation                                                                                                                  PBSUCCESS, which brought about the                                                                                                           ousting of Guatemalan president, Jacobo                                                                                                          Arbenz Guzman, in June 1954.”

I offer this history to substantiate that the United States had “skin in the game” also. We ran hundreds of U-2 surveillance flights over other Countries, most notably the USSR, until the Soviets developed a missile that could reach high enough to intercept our U-2’s. The ensuing case of Gary Powers, the U-2 pilot who was shot down, was the first media sensation of our own spying efforts.  Soviet actions in East Germany lead to the Berlin Airlift. There was aggressive spying on both sides. CIA removal of the Iranian Prime Minister, along with our actions in Turkey, made the USSR vary uncomfortable. Plenty of spying here, too; and, these were just the largest hot spots.

Sec. V
It remains a fact that most 1st & 2nd world Countries are involved in espionage to some degree. The Rosenberg’s’ case is but one of many where our Intelligence apparatus was working well. The focus of this is what the consequences were when our justice system has chimed in on the prosecution of foreign “spy’s”.
How swift was the justice after we caught a foreign spy
How quickly did the spy go on trial
Given a guilty verdict, what was the severity of the sentence   
    imposed and how quickly that sentence was carried out

Sec. VI
It has continued through the computer age and into our current tech age.
For the past two years in the U.S., there seems to be an inversion of the rule of law that has been thrown in our faces. Thirty years ago the penalties for a conviction of treason and/or espionage involved minimum jail times of 30 years to life. It didn’t much matter whether you were a U.S. citizen or a foreigner. As the Nation has been “dumbed” down (another blog subject, all together) over this period, so too has the judicial system spirale into a whirlpool.

Our 2016 general election and resultant indictments of political operatives working for foreign governments necessitates seriously questioning. Why does espionage by a Russian citizen receive 18 months in jail, while a shoplifter or pot-smoker receives a 15-20 year sentence?

Our Commanders-In-Chief / last half of the 20th Century
        
 
Here is a sample of American citizens doing business as Russian operatives dating back to the Cold War days. By 1997, the length of prison sentence started dropping remarkably.
§  James W. Hall III - 40-year sentence - 1988
§  Aldrich Ames -life sentence - 1994
§  Harold James Nicholson - 23-year sentence - 1997
Is the drop in sentencing due to diplomatic considerations, the dumbing down of our justice system, or some other nefarious reason?

Our Commanders-In-Chief / first 2 decades of the 21st Century
  


The 21st Century brought fewer foreign spies, and, according to government accounts, they have become much more difficult to uncover and apprehend. As recent events have pointed out, there seems to be more American citizens collaborating with foreign interests than ever before. The ones we know about seem to be receiving a “slap on the wrist” for doing what used to produce lengthy prison sentences. The largest foreign spy ring busted in this Century consisted of 10 families living normal looking lives. After the government decided to round them up, they were “traded” for 4 Americans being detained in Russia.

And, now, in 2019, we see Maria Butina get off with an 18 month sentence after pleading guilty to espionage. She will be credited with the 9 months she has been locked up already, so in early 2020 she will be released and deported.

Have we gone this soft on foreign nations and fellow Americans who wish to see an end to our democracy? Is this shift in our judicial system only applicable to “high profile” cases? The financial crisis of 2008 brought zero jail time for the perpetrators. Is this, as stated above, something more sinister that we should be alarmed? There are plenty of questions, but the trend is undeniable.

The “dumbing of America” and the inversion of “jurisprudence” seem to be running neck and neck in an effort to allow the owners of the Nation’s wealth to further stretch the divide between themselves and the rest of the citizenry. What is even more troubling than that is the apparent “I don’t care” attitude of our local and national governments. Does corporate America have such a death grip on the Federal and State governments that elected officials are no longer allowed to actually govern the Country? If this does not get straightened out, we will be celebrating our Nation’s 250th birthday in 2026 as something other than a democracy.



Wednesday, January 22, 2014

ABORTION

- Another side of the coin.
 When, in the course of a Society, the element of change is introduced, there seems to be an appropriate, opposite, and equal knee-jerk reaction from one, or another, group in that Society. So it has been with our Nation’s struggle on the issue of abortion, and it may be interesting to note that modern society in the United States has wrestled with the question since its inception.
If we were living in Church-State, all this would have been settled long ago, but we don’t. Our style of democracy has been crafted in such a manner as to dictate a “separation of Church and State”. The founding Fathers of this Country wrote a Constitution that greatly reflected the reasons for rebelling and forming a sovereign Nation which were exactly that; a true separation of two strong entities that mix about as well as oil and water: Church and State.
The best of my research points to the fact that the U.S. Government has never actually paid for a woman to have an abortion with exceptions under three very precise conditions. Being criminally involved, or medically compromised are the only areas our government has a constitutional mandate to step in and protect women.
This, from “factcheck.org.”
Q: Will all legal abortions be covered by federally subsidized health insurance policies in state "high-risk pools"?
A: No. The Department of Health and Human Services says the only abortions covered will be those in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is endangered.

Statement of HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus on the Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan Policy
As is the case with FEHB plans currently, and with the Affordable Care Act and the President’s related Executive Order more generally, in Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.
Our policy is the same for both state and federally-run PCIP programs. We will reiterate this policy in guidance to those running the Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan at both the state and federal levels. The contracts to operate the Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan include a requirement to follow all federal laws and guidance.

The U.S. Constitution does stipulate that the Government is responsible for protecting its citizens form enemies both foreign and domestic. Domestic law enforcement enables our Government to protect us inside our borders.
**Footnote: Seeing Though the Smoke
It would be easy to miss the fact that Pennsylvania’s official solicitation called for coverage of all state-legal abortions. The press release issued by the state insurance department on June 28, announcing the new program, made no mention of abortion at all. Intrepid readers could click through to find the official solicitation document describing the program more fully, but it contained phrasing the casual reader could interpret as restricting abortion coverage rather than permitting it.
At one point the document states: "Elective abortions are not covered" (page 14). But the term "elective" isn’t defined, and so isn’t very meaningful.
The operative language starts on page 12, where it says: "The benefit package will include the following core of specific services …" followed by a long list that includes, on page 14, "only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3204-3206 and 35 P.S. §§10101, 10103-10105." Those are the sections of Pennsylvania law that cover abortion. So — when all the verbal smoke is cleared away — the solicitation states that the program "will" cover "only" abortions that are legal. That doesn’t leave out much.
The first section cited, for instance (Section 3204), allows abortions that a physician deems "necessary … in the light of all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age) relevant to the well-being of the woman." The only abortions that the state law forbids a doctor from finding "necessary" are those "sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child." [1]
We asked the state insurance department how that official document can be squared with its July 15 press release saying women would have to pay for abortions out of their own pocket. Department spokeswoman Melissa Fox told us this, in a July 21 e-mail message:
Pennsylvania Insurance Department’s Fox: Due to the aggressive time-frame to submit proposals Pennsylvania, as well as other states, I’m sure, needed to insert "placeholder" language absent specific guidance from the federal government on the benefit package. That was the case not just for the abortion issue, but also mental health benefits. Once the clarifying guidelines are issued, the language in the proposal will be adjusted accordingly.
So the story now is that in the haste to meet a deadline, "placeholder" language was inserted, to be adjusted later. But whatever Pennsylvania officials intended, the stated federal policy is now clear: No abortions will be covered by the temporary risk pools except for those in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.
– Brooks Jackson
Source:
Via other means, the Government has made it safer and more readily available for those women who make the choice of aborting an unborn fetus/child. Making the abortion process safer and more available, a long standing problem of “collateral” medical damage has been avoided. In the same way we don’t condemn men for getting vasectomies, or using condoms, a women’s right to choose should run as true to our National Heritage of democratic rule. If indeed any religion or church should feel that women must regard a fertilized egg in the womb to be the point at which life begins, then that postulate is their Constitutional right within the confines of their congregation. That, then, becomes an issue between the woman and her church.
The one guarantee that our Constitution does afford is the right to practice religion as one sees fit. The question of allowing women their right to choose on this issue boils down to a moral and religious question. The United States Government is not in the business of legislating morality or religion, and that is as it should be in a democratic system of governance.
In conclusion, I would ask that the Federal and State governments get on the same page and revisit any and all “laws” regarding abortion, so the public has an absolutely clear definition of a woman’s protection under the law. [1] I would also make one small suggestion that law regarding abortion should, most definitely, be written by women, not men. I am, obviously, taking the position that a woman has every right to make her own decision about abortion and any other uniquely female issue.

[1]: Rewriting vague and obtuse laws to be exacting in their intent and content.