There is No WE in Team

New Rule:  You can no longer refer to a sports team as "we" or "us."  You don't play on the team.  You never did.  You didn't score the game-winning touchdown yesterday.  In fact, you haven't ever even cleaned the team bathrooms.  They don't give a shit about you.

[Shareholders of the Green Bay Packers are exempt]

Bag’em & Tag’em @ Bagram

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled that three detainees, allegedly captured in Afghanistan and held for years at Bagram Air Force, are barred from accessing American courts. (I say allegedly because the detainees claim they were captured outside Afghanistan.) The decision reverses the lower court’s denial of a motion by the Government to dismiss the petitions for lack of jurisdiction under § 7(a) the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The lower court carefully analyzed and relied on the U.S. Supreme Court test articulated in June 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush, which granted Guantanamo Bay detainees access to the U.S. Court system. Basing its opinion on what it calls a middle-ground interpretation of Boumediene, the Court of Appeals dismissed the habeas petitions, asserting that permitting litigation of every detainee in an on-going theater of war would hamper the war effort. To read the U.S. Court of Appeals opinion, click here.

To my surprise, the three-judge panel of the Appeals Court consisted of one conservative and two liberals. Perhaps even stranger, the lower court citing a change in executive administrations, invited the Government to express any change in its position regarding the Commissions Act of 2006 and its effect on the question of jurisdiction in this case. In response, the Government stated that it “adheres to its previously articulated position.” Now that’s change we can believe in.

Admittedly, the Court of Appeals carefully expounded upon the historical case background of habeas corpus rights as applied to non-citizens. Citing from previous case law, the Court states:

“[w]hat is presently at stake is . . . whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive’s potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing.”

In Boumediene, the Supreme Court found it uncontested that the United States maintained sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo). Although Gitmo is located on Cuba’s sovereign soil, the High Court disagreed with the Government, finding that the United States maintained the facility for over a century, in the face of a hostile regime, and outside the theater of war. The Boumediene Court, thus, rejected the Government’s argument that it did not maintain legal sovereignty over Gitmo, but rather it maintained sovereignty over the base de facto.

Here, the Bagram petitioners assert that the of United States lease of Bagram is likewise sufficient to effectuate habeas rights, or at least satisfy the second factor of the three factor test set forth in Boumediene. The Appeals Court, however, rejected this argument as an “extreme understanding.” Understandably, the Appeals Court fears that such an interpretation would create the potential for extending habeas rights to non-citizens held in any United States military facility in the world.

Instead, the Bagram Court holds that “questions of extraterritoriality turn on objective factors and practical concerns, not formalism.” Ok, so far, a logical conclusion.


Central to its decision, the Appeals Court found that the question of extraterritoriality was not determinative. Holding so would render all other points in Boumediene mere dicta and result in the overturning of seminal Supreme Court habeas cases. To maintain consistency, the Appeals Court held that the question of extraterritoriality was one of three factors that needed to be evaluated before granting habeas rights to non-citizen detainees. Those three factors are:

(1) the citizenship and status of the detainee and the
adequacy of the process through which that status determination was made; (2) the nature of the sites where apprehension and then detention took place; and (3) the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner’s entitlement to the writ.

In the Court’s analysis of the first factor, the Court admits that status determination process of the Bagram detainees affords even less protection to the rights of detainees than was the case with Guantanamo detainees or previous historical status determining tribunals. The first factor, thus, heavily favors the petitioners. No gripes here.

The second factor is where the Court’s analysis seems to run somewhat amok. The Court distinguishes Bagram from Gitmo and asserts that the United States has “options as to the duration of the lease agreement” and that “there is no indication of any intent to occupy the base with permanence, nor is there hostility on the part of the ‘host’ country.” Really? At the outset of its opinion, the Court discusses the nature of the agreement. The agreement states that the leasehold created is to continue “until the United States or its successors determine that the premises are no longer required for its use.” Nothing is said of Afghanistan’s right to terminate the lease. It would seem the United States and coalition forces have the right to maintain Bagram indefinitely. As for Bagram not being located in a hostile host territory, it seems to make more sense that the cozy relationship we have with the Afghan government supports the premise that the United States intends to stay, especially since this is concomitant with the discretion afforded the United States by the lease agreement. Despite this, the Court holds that the second factor favors the United States.

As for the third factor, the Court found that it overwhelmingly favored the United States. The Court held that it is undisputed that Bagram is located in a theater of war, where Gitmo was not so located. The Court stated:

“In ruling for the extension of the writ to Guantanamo, the Supreme Court expressly noted that “[s]imilar threats are not apparent here.” 128 S. Ct. at 2261. In the case before us, similar, if not greater, threats are indeed apparent. The United States asserts, and petitioners cannot credibly dispute, that all of the attributes of a facility exposed to the vagaries of war are present in Bagram.”

While I find this assertion sound on its face, I cannot help but feel the Court missed an important nuance here. The Court makes an important analogy to a World War II case:

“Not only does this suggest that the detention at Bagram is more like the detention at Landsberg than Guantanamo, the position of the United States is even stronger in this case than it was in Eisentrager. As the Supreme Court recognized in Boumediene, even though active hostilities in the European theater had come to an end, at the time of the Eisentrager decision, many of the problems of a theater of war remained:

‘In addition to supervising massive reconstruction and aid efforts the American forces stationed in Germany faced potential security threats from a defeated enemy. In retrospect the post-War occupation may seem uneventful. But at the time Eisentrager was decided, the Court was right to be concerned about judicial interference with the military’s efforts to contain enemy elements, guerilla fighters, and were-wolves.’

128 S. Ct. at 2261 (quoting Eisentrager, 339 U.S. at 784).”

Indeed, we are in a very different world than the one that existed at the time of Eisentrager. While World War II was fought on many fronts, the front lines were relatively well known and articulable. Today, we are fast approaching the decade mark of the War on Terror. Our enemy has many faces, pledges no allegiance to any particular flag, and hides amongst a myriad of civilian populations, including that of Afghanistan. This dynamic theater of conflict is what the Court’s analysis of the third factor fails to grasp. It is precisely because this dynamic exists that the Bagram detainee situation offers only slight differences to Gitmo.

To be perfectly clear, affording habeas rights to every non-citizen detainee in any and every United States facility abroad is not the proper solution. Certainly I do not, nor would any court, find a logical or legalistic basis to do so. However, some of the Bagram detainees have been held in confinement for as long as eight years. The War on Terror has seen its ups and downs in that stretch, yet it is a mission that does not purport to conclude in the foreseeable future. Even more likely, the Government must have some inkling as to whether it has legitimate cases against these detainees. If the Government cannot act on the information it has accumulated in this stretch, then it is high time for the U.S. courts to step in and determine whether or not it is appropriate to continue detention.

Even more telling, the Court acknowledges that the three Boumediene factors are not exhaustive. It notes the potential for the Executive to manipulate the Constitution as an additional factor, but stops short of setting up a preventative precedent based on mere speculation. It goes so far as to say that such illegal action is improbable.

Additionally, a point of contention in these cases is not only where the detention is located, but also where the detainees were captured. The detainee petitions contradict statements by their capturers. Yet the Court skims over this point, perhaps finding the sworn declaration from Colonel James W. Gray, Commander of Detention Operations more credible. While, by no means is the honor and integrity of the commanders of our armed forces called into question, our system of justice is not based on “he-said, she-said”, but rather on hard evidence. Our commanders and soldiers do commit Constitutional mistakes from time to time:

I believe it is of vital importanance that there is some form of check and balance to the detainee process so that it does not appear to the rest of the world that our armed forces have the unfettered discretion to kidnap and imprison any human being anywhere, anytime. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the best way to achieve this goal is by providing long-term detainees habeas corpus rights. I conclude with a quote from the Supreme Court opinion in Rasul v. Butler:

"There was 'no doubt' as to the court's power to issue writs of habeas corpus if the territory was 'under the subjection of the Crown.'"

On Cartoons

Nigger.

Freedom of speech allows me to say it. But that doesn't mean I should. Freedom of speech doesn't mitigate the hurt. It doesn't heal the wounds. 40 years of civil rights, 150 years of freedom and a black president haven't, and likely nothing ever will. Most of our society has removed that word; ostracized it from our vocabularies. Its use is punishable by death of career and reputation.

We all recognize that our speech is not less free without that word. In fact, our speech is more free. The oppression empowered and symbolized by its use silenced more than any FCC regulation ever could. Removing it from discourse was liberating--even to those who previously said it. No longer can they live in the darkness of having to use expletives to engage in political expression. Now they can come out of the woods, take off their hoods and appear as guests on The O'Reilly Factor. The word is almost gone and we're all winners for it.

However, today much of the American left lives in some parallel kindergarten playground universe, where sticks and stones and car-bombs may break their bones but cartoons can never hurt them, or anyone else. Nowhere does wisdom or sensibility enter their analysis of the "Everyone Draw Mohammed" controversy (or the seemingly dozens of nauseatingly repetitious cartoon "controversies" that preceded it). Nowhere is there concern to empower Muslim voices across the world. Or at least to force bigotry against Muslims out into the open. Rather, the only concern is that bigots continue to feel safe in their bigotry.

Hogwash. The bigots face the threat of physical violence. That's terrible. They're jerks, but they don't deserve to die for it. Still, risking your life and limb to be a bigot is not courageous. It's about as courageous as being a terrorist. Sure, you could die, but why would you want to die for that? We need a word for people who take risks to do reprehensible things. I can't think of one. Courage certainly doesn't fit.

Two words fit: diabolical maniacs.

From OED:

Diabolical: adj. Of or pertaining to the devil.

Maniac: n. A person who has an obsession with or excessive enthusiasm for something.

That's what terrorists are. They are obsessive devils, who pervert legitimate points of opposition into irrational and unconscionable acts of violence.

The provocateurs behind the cartoons, and every permutation of making deliberately offensive statements about Islam under the guise of "free speech," are also diabolical maniacs. Under the vice-grip of their own xenophobia, and in many cases disdain for religion in the abstract, they go to great lengths to organize around the irritation and provocation of the other, in hope that their own myopic views of Muslims will be proven right by an (understandably) angry and (inexplicably) violent response.

Then the American left interjects itself, not in the way it should by accurately the describing the situation as two sets of diabolical maniacs bring each other to heightened mutual arousal, but rather by standing by one set of maniacs in opposition to the other. Yes, the left should stand for free speech. But it never should stand by needlessly offensive and intentionally provocative free speech without reservation or disclaimer.

I am a former student of free speech scholar Lee Bollinger. While I don't believe he's been an ardent supporter of student speech in his capacity as President of Columbia University, Bollinger taught what I believe to be the best argument for free speech. Freedom of speech allows us the opportunity to counter bad words with better words. In the Qur'an, God implies that humanity was made fallible so that we could exemplify His Glory by overcoming our fallacies. Bollinger's argument for free speech frames the marketplace of ideas in that inherently Muslim context.

When defending the free speech of right wing provocateurs, the left must condemn the content of the speech they seek to protect. Absent any condemnation, the American left will come to serve as part of the defense for continued bigotry.

Like Royalty

A sad day today--marking the passing of epic rap legend Guru of Gangstarr. The 43 year old Guru aka Keith Elam succumbed to cancer.  Here is a sample of his work.

9 Lives

Have You Any Wool?

If the Wall of Death didn't get you interested in what goes on in the nation that is home to 1.14 billion people, perhaps this will.  Baa Baa Black Sheep is a rhyme of historic proportions--a tune that has given rise to both Twinkle Twinkle Little Star and the Alphabet song.  These songs are all excitedly recited by millions of toddlers and grade schoolers across the world.  But it is quite unlikely, that the originators of this melody in 1700s England, had this particular rendition in mind.

WMC 2010

Deadmau5 - Strobe

Ernesto

"I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man."

--Che Guevara

Made in India

Ancient Rome had the Circus Maximus.

America created Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey.

Canada is home to Cirque du Soleil. 

Australia boasts the Circus Oz.

None of them hold a candle to India. The Diamond Maruti Car Circus in Delhi is a sight to behold.  The most interesting event is the Wall of Death.  Watch and enjoy.

The Road to Indianapolis Goes Through Tehran

The two biggest stars in the 2010 NCAA College Basketball Tournament are sons of Middle Eastern immigrants.  These unlikely heroes have put the Madness into March this year.  They are leading little known colleges from Moraga, Califronia and Cedar Falls, Iowa into the second weekend of play. Building a nationwide following and winning over America's heart on the way. Davids slaying Goliath.

Northern Iowa's Ali Farokhmanesh whose father, Mashallah is an Axis of Evil/Iranian immigrant, hit the biggest shot of this season, knocking off top-ranked Kansas.  With ice in his veins, Farokhmanesh pulled up for an unlikely 3-point shot ending Kansas's dreams of a National Championship.  And in the process amazingly, raising similar aspirations in Cedar Falls, Iowa.  The 6 foot tall in thick-soled sneakers, senior has raised his scoring average to 16.5ppg (from 9.7ppg) in the post season, and his hit 9 key three pointers.  Northern Iowa's victory over Kansas has been the story of the tournament--the biggest upset thus far.  Defeating Michigan State to get to the Elite 8 would only add to a legacy, already established.



Farokhmanesh was lightly recruited out of Iowa City, and even his own journey to Northern Iowa came via playing at junior colleges.  He was considered too small and too slow, and not offered any Division I or even Division II scholarships.  But now it's a different story for the big-shot maker, who's father was on the 1980 Iranian Olympic volleyball team.  Of note, there is currently only one Irani in the NBA--7'2" center Hamed Haddadi of the Memphis Grizzlies.  But the Persian everybody is talking about hails from the heartland.

Omar Samhan of Saint Mary's is averaging 30.5ppg, 9.5rpg on an incredible 75% shooting--by far the best individual performer of the tournament thus far.  The 6'11" center from San Roman, California also known as "The Beast" has taken the little known Gaels into the Sweet 16. And they still have upset on their minds against Baylor this Friday.  Samhan's father is from Egypt, not commonly known for developing basketball products.  In fact, you have go back to the late 80s to find Duke star Alaa Abdelnaby, who was from Cairo and went on to play five seasons in the NBA, after being selected as a first round draft pick with the Portland Trailblazers.  Unlike Abdelnaby, Samhan started out with little fanfare despite being a dominant player in his conference.  With continued play like this, Samhan may be knocking on the doors of the Association this June.

Samhan and the Gaels knocked off  #2 seeded Villanova, 75-68 in the second biggest upset of this tournament.  Samhan's fan base is widely expanding with a rapid number of new Twitter followers and Facebook friends.  His trash talking has kept the media very interested:

“Hey, you impressed me tonight,” Samhan said to (Villanova's Corey) Stokes. “Did I impress you?”

I get it,” he said. “I’m a slow white guy, and I’m overweight. So maybe you don’t respect me because I have good numbers. But after I kill you the first half, what are you waiting for. I don’t know what he wanted. Did he want me to have 40?"

“We’re so old school,” Samhan said. “I’m in low tops. Our star point guard is named Mickey. Enough said.

“You’re supposed to be diplomatic with questions like this,” he said, smiling. “No. 1. Best win ever. Quote it, Omar Samhan said best win ever.”
 
He even has his own blog.
 

Needless to say, the NCAA tournament has a very interesting flavor this year. Of koubideh and kibbeh. The nation is watching these young stars of Arab and Irani heritage doing something special on the basketball court this spring.

 
No word yet from Newt Gingrich or the Tea Baggers on how the terrorists are taking over their most beloved sporting event. If they do speak, Samhan may have something to say about that.
 
Stay tuned.

Spooky Good

Deadmau5 featuring Rob Swire - Ghosts N Stuff

The Comfort of Conformity

Adults push herd-mentality; the need to fit in; to fall into line.  Children of unusual and unique talents and abilities are often the primary victims of this crime. Bertrand Russell says it the best.

Bertrand Russell: Co-operation, The Beginning and End of Virtue

In these days, under the influence of democracy, the virtue of co-operation has taken the place formerly held by obedience. The old-fashioned schoolmaster would say of a boy that he was disobedient; the modern schoolmistress says of a child that he is non-co-operative. It means the same thing: the child, in either case, fails to do what the teacher wishes, but in the first case the teacher acts as the government and in the second as the representative of the People, i.e. of the other children.

The result of the new language, as of the old, is to encourage docility, suggestibility, herd-instinct and conventionality, thereby necessarily discouraging originality, initiative and unusual intelligence. Adults who achieve anything of value have seldom been "co-operative'' children. As a rule, they have liked solitude: they have tried to slink into a corner with a book and been happiest when they could escape the notice of their barbarian contemporaries. Almost all men who have been distinguished as artists, writers or men of science have in boyhood been objects of derision and contempt to their schoolfellows; and only too often the teachers have sided with the herd, because it annoyed them that a boy should be odd.

It ought to be part of the training of all teachers to be taught to recognise the marks of unusual intelligence in children and to restrain the irritation caused in themselves by anything so unusual. Until this is done, a large proportion of the best talent in America will be persecuted out of existence before the age of fifteen. Co-operativeness, as an ideal, is defective: it is right to live with reference to the community and not for oneself alone, but living for the community does not mean doing what it does. Suppose you are in a theatre which catches fire, and there is a stampede: the person who has learnt no higher morality than what is called "co-operation'' will join in the stampede since he will possess no inner force that would enable him to stand up against the herd. The psychology of a nation embarking on a war is at all points identical.

Serene

Andy Duguid featuring Leah - Wasted

DSM-IV

Martin Scorsese is back with a vengeance in Shutter Island.  The eerie sounds of a ship foghorn in the early moments, sets an appropriate creepy backdrop in this thinking man's film.  I must admit that my experience was enhanced by watching the movie late at night, as the only person in the theater.  In fact, the only person in an entire six auditorium cinema.  Had it developed into the horror that I was expecting, things would have gotten just a bit dicey.

There are excellent individual performances by Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Kingsley.  Kingsley lacks the screen time that his talent surely deserves.  An interesting tidbit about Kingsley, one of the best actors in the industry, is that he was born as Krishna Pandit Bhanji.  His father is of Indian heritage from Kenya.  Mark Ruffalo also does a decent job as DiCaprio's special agent sidekick.

The plot is developed well, and smoothly accelerates ahead with a mix of turns and flashbacks.  Cinematography and character development are excellent, on par with plot and acting.  The dark, brooding atmosphere that Scorsese desires is adequately achieved.  And even though you may figure out what direction the movie is headed, there are enough twists and thinking to keep you guessing until the very end.  And beyond.  It is the kind of movie that will surely generate discussion after it is finished, adding an extra element that makes the film quite intriguing,  In fact, this is at the same time the most satisfying and annoying part of the experience.

Definitely worth watching.  Get some popcorn and check it out, if you haven't already.

Rating:  8 out of 10

We Come In Peace

Pursuit of the Soulless

“War is not about victory or defeat. It is about the total failure of human spirit."

--Robert Fisk

The Pac-Man Cometh

Nobody has been as dominating in the sport of boxing over the past four years as Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao aka Manny Pacquiao.  The Pac-Man has been absolutely steamrolling his opponents with a wicked combination of speed and power.  His record at 50-3-2 consists of 38 knockouts, most of them later in his career.  He has had 4 straight KO's--the last three coming against well-regarded opponents:  Miguel Cotto, Ricky Hatton and Oscar de la Hoya.  And after watching these fights, one can easily argue that he is out of their leagues.  It is not his fault that he is in a different stratosphere.  The most worthy opponent is undoubtedly, the undefeated Floyd Mayweather Jr.--but we all know about the meltdown of that would-be megafight.

Pacquiao's last loss was almost five years ago to Erik Morales--a fight he later avenged with an eight round KO in 2006. 

All of this brings us to tonight's match against Ghana's Joshua Clottey (35-3, 1 NC, 20 KOs).  Clottey has seen the tough life in the slums of Bokum--growing up wtih 10 people in 1 room with 1 bed, sleeping in shifts.  He has made his way from the concrete rings and torn gloves of West Africa to the relatively easy streets of the Bronx. 

Clottey is no slouch.

There is some reason for hope that he will put up better resistance than the previous big names who met the canvas at the fists of Pacquiao.  Clottey's last fight against Miguel Cotto was scored a loss, by decision.  But if you watched that bout, it could easily be argued that he won, or at least that it was a draw.  Dethroning a champ like Cotto without a knockout is risky business, and it did not pay off for Clottey.  Notably, Pac-Man did KO Cotto when they met.

Clottey's other losses have come with a valid explanation--disqualification after an intentional head butt versus Carlos Baldomir (he was winning) and the other to Antonio Margarito, when he broke his hand. 

This sets up potential for an exciting match at the new $1.3B dollar Cowboys Stadium in Dallas.  The exciting, flamboyant power of Manny P against the defensive "not enough respect" attitude of Clottey.  The smart money is Pacquiao--evasive, quick and always gunning for the knockout.  Simply put, there is not currently a more impressive boxer, in any weight class (especially given the pseudo-retirement of Mayweather).  But do not be surprised if the fearless 33 year-old from Bokum puts up one of the best defenses the Pac-Man has ever seen.

The prediction here--the Pac-Man cometh.  And the Pac-Man taketh. 

Manny Pacquiao by 9th round KO.

More on the 1971 Genocide of East Pakistan

It is important to note that the genocide committed in East Pakistan, now known as Bangladesh was conducted by the central government on its own people.  Armed forces are supposed to defend and protect.  Not attack, rape and kill its own population.  In 1971, those of Bengali ethnicity were Pakistanis--they just happened to speak a different language than their Western counterparts.  When your own military, that is in place to preserve order and safety, turns their guns upon you--then what do you do?  It is perhaps, one of the worst security scenarios imaginable. 

Here are a few short videos worth watching that shed more perspective circa 1971, supplementing the earlier post on this topic.

Die Zukunft

BMW Vision

All Aboard

Aside from commuters in large cities such as New York, Philadelphia and Chicago, few Americans travel by train.  Railroad service has been largely obviated by the airplane--which is able to move people more quickly and efficiently across the country.  The lack of a true high-speed rail system puts it at a distinct competitive disadvantage.  Time is scarcer, schedules are fuller and lives are busier than ever before.  People want and need to get to their endpoints faster.  Simply put, nobody has time to enjoy the ride.

Given the decline of the locomotive, not many know about Amtrak's Auto Train, a hidden gem in the national transport system.  The Auto Train is a unique train that transports both passengers and their automobiles along the Eastern seaboard for 855 miles.  The route extends from Sanford, Florida which is north of Orlando to a station in Lorton, Virginia, half an hour south of Washington DC.  The train travels in both north and south directions, not so far from the busy Interstate Route 95.

Passengers bring their automobiles or SUVs (and can stuff them to the brim with their belongings) to the Amtrak station at either terminus, where they are  loaded into dedicated auto carrier cars.  Passengers then proceed to their roomy coach seats that recline quite nicely, or if desired, private first-class sleeping compartments.  The train departs at 4PM and arrives the next morning at 930AM at the opposite station.  Average speed is 49mph with a single stop in South Carolina for refueling.

Advantages are plenty--avoiding the long, and often boring drive on I-95 and potentially affiliated speeding tickets; ability to bring a large amount of luggage that would be impossible by air; a relaxing train ride; and a very different perspective on seeing the country.  Most importantly, you have your car at your final destination.  Hassles of rental cars are eliminated and this is can be quite cost-effective if the trip is long-term. In addition, if moving from Florida to the Northeast or vice versa, it is a dependable of way of transporting your vehicle.  Much more so than a shipping company--most of whom lack credibility and have more complaints than you can count, on the Better Business Bureau.  So the next time you are headed for the Magic Kingdom or the serenity of the Keys, hop on to the Auto Train, have the conductor punch your ticket, sit back, and savor the journey.

Interesting facts about the Auto Train:

Original service under Auto-Train Corporation opened in 1971
Bankrupted in 1981
Acquired by Amtrak in 1983
Current service re-opened in 1983
52 trains Northbound
53 trains Southbound
18 passenger cars
33 auto carriers
2 engines
Lone stop in Florence, South Carolina
200,000 passengers annually
$50 million revenue annually
Amtrak's most profitable service
Longest passenger train in the world--3/4 mile in length*
Track owned by CSX Transportation
Maintenance and mechanics performed in Sanford, FL
Capacity of 370 vehicles per train
Significant reduction in greenhouse gases--equivalent to taking off 3478 cars off the road for a full year

*Mix of passengers and auto cars