The Lie Continues

 Among the innumerable things that I am not, "lawyer" should be pretty prominent.  That said, I do actually have some experience with the law.  Sure that experience is mostly me being accused of violating it but ya takes yer lessons where they are.

Though I am not a lawyer, my life experiences strongly suggest to me that lawsuits are not free.  As a matter of fact, they are generally not even inexpensive.  They cost a LOT relative to my income.

But what if you already employ a bunch of lawyers?  While lawyers fees are a large part of the cost of a lawsuit, they are by no means the only cost.  Filing fees, subject matter experts and other incidental charges accrue no matter how many lawyers you employ.  As a matter of fact, those charges accrue even if you have a full on Department of Justice.

My guess would be that I am not telling a lot of you anything you didn't already know.  What makes it worth pointing out is the gap between the words and actions of certain politicians and political acolytes.  Specifically those individuals who delight in telling the lie about them being "fiscal conservatives".  

When Felon47 and/or the rest of the GOP undertake actions that test the Constitution or are otherwise guaranteed to ensure a lawsuit, they do so with the full knowledge that the lawsuits will cost the taxpayers money.  That will be true regardless of who prevails.  This factoid should be thrown in the face of any politician that claims the mantle of fiscal conservatism.  Any individual that votes for a fiscal profligate simply because they stick an "R" after their name has no moral or ethical right to use the term "fiscal conservative" either and should be reminded of that at every opportunity. 

FTR, I will not be cutting any slack because a given politician or individual inspired or celebrated the thing which caused the expenditure of public funds.  Nor will I entertain arguments that attempt to lay the fiscal blame at the feet of those opposing the law, policy, rule, regulation or change regardless of whether they are negatively affected or are representing those negatively affected.  

Since everything that goes around comes around, it turns out that I had some thoughts on this subject about 10 years ago.  I have no problem mining my body of work so, below I am including that older essay.  Though the original focus was different, with a reasonable bit of extrapolation, I am sure you will see the relevance.

THE BIG LIE

Any number of my friends have described themselves as “Fiscal Conservatives”.  One did so a while back in a Facebook comment.  I answered with the following response.

“I am going to have to take exception to your description of yourself as fiscally                conservative. The problem is that some people are not as smart or given to indepth thinking as are you. As such, they will jump to the conclusion that if someone does not describe themselves as a fiscal conservative, they must be a fiscal liberal. Of course, there is no such thing. Oh sure, there are plenty of folk who indulge in profligate fiscal policies for their personal or business finances but there is no significant group with any power base that could be described as fiscal liberals. That makes the term "fiscal conservative" a variation on Robert Heinlein's best way to lie. He said the best way to lie was to tell the truth so unconvincingly that no one believes you. While you really are fiscally conservative, saying so implies an opposite that simply does not exist.

Now there are plenty of folks who prioritize things over fiscal policy. The Greens prioritize environmental policy and it does make sense that if you can't breathe or if you have no clean water, saving money will not be anywhere near as impressive. Other groups prioritize other things but none of them are proponents of profligate spending for frivolous reasons. The icon of the majority religion of this nation, as told in the sacred book the alleged adherents allegedly revere(the bible), prioritized caring for the poor, sick, children, and helpless over saving or making money. According to said allegedly revered book, the icon went so far as to violently remove those engaged in fiscal operations from the temple. But as I said, an awful lot of people lack the depth of thought necessary to extrapolate and adjust their actions accordingly.”

Of course, the idea continued to percolate in the back of my mind.  It occurs to me that there is always a cost associated with regulations(rules, guidelines, restrictions, etc).  Typically for a code or regulation to mean anything at all there has to be some level of inspection and/or enforcement.  In theory, the goal of the codes or regulations should be to ensure that the cost of an action, product, or process is borne by those who profit from it.  So we have a situation wherein the public, in the form of the government, pays to enforce regulations that prevent the public from being unfairly burdened with the detritus left over from the action, product, or process that profits or benefits an individual or small group.  Now, I am happy to go on at length about risk socialization and profits privatization but that is for a different essay.  For this one, the takeaway is that codes and regulations have a fiscal impact.  

Generally the fiscal impact is negative - it costs money.  I acknowledge there could be situations where that cost is offset but generally, enforcement of regulations involves paying someone to do inspections and making provisions for accurate records keeping or, to put it another way, establishing a bureaucracy.

The leap that realization sponsored is probably not an obvious one for most folks.  It occurred to me that in the political realm, one could not honestly be both fiscally and socially conservative.  The terms are of necessity mutually exclusive, considered from the aspect of codifying behavior into law.  There is no way to ban abortion or control the sexual activities of consenting adults or even to regulate the use of organic recreational substances(psilocybin mushrooms or cannabis etc) without funding those who would enforce the rules made about those behaviors.  In other words, to be willing to regulate social behavior is to be willing to spend common funds in that effort.  (Yes, you could push for turning enforcement over to private entities and allowing them to collect fines or confiscate assets but surely that can’t sound like a good idea to anyone.  If it does, please go elsewhere to discuss it.)

The only way to force compliance or verify compliance is to allocate tax dollars.

Even the tax dollars from those who vehemently disagree with the necessity of those rules, even the tax dollars from those engaged in the very behaviors being regulated, even the tax dollars from those who refuse to follow the teachings of the Christ because it would cost too much in their opinion, those tax dollars will have to be spent on enforcement or, the regulations mean nothing at all.

I do not doubt or argue the existence of people who find both the wasteful expenditure of public funds and certain individual behaviors distasteful.  Politics however, is about setting priorities, about choosing what gets attention first.  That doesn’t mean you don’t think other things are deserving of attention, just that you believe that YOUR THING has to be considered first.  If a person prioritizes restraint in public spending, they could make the claim of being fiscally conservative.  Something HAS to be the primary concern.  However, simply saying it is the primary concern doesn’t make it so.  Actions have to support the words.

Now, the individual “you” can believe anything you like.  You can tell yourself and others that you want to minimize tax dollar spending and that you want to ban abortions and you want to ban Gay sex and you want to ban minorities walking around in public as though they had rights.  It cannot however, be a movement or political organization.  At the governmental or societal level, you cannot want to create new regulations and oppose spending.  You can twist your words and torture your justifications all you like but the basic truth of it will not change.  If you want to regulate what I can smoke or who I can screw, you are simply not even a little bit fiscally conservative.  

If you want the government to spend wantonly on the things you deem deserving of wanton spending, the takeaway is that you want the government to spend wantonly.  A social conservative cannot be a fiscal conservative.  Lying to me, lying to yourself will not make it so.  If you want the government to spend wantonly to save fetuses or to prevent adult citizens from addressing their mental, physical or social issues with a plant that grows wild or to continue the effective subjugation of humans you feel are inferior, the takeaway is that you want the government to spend wantonly.  Regardless of what you call yourself, you are no fiscal conservative.

Your actions and the results of your actions will determine how you are known.  The aforementioned allegedly revered book quotes the allegedly revered religious icon as saying that you will know a tree by the fruit it bears.  It isn’t what you say, it is what you produce or cause to be produced that will identify you.  

So, what is it going to be?

Extenuating Intelligence

 I did a quick PerplexityAI search for a list of US Intel agencies.

The U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) is officially made up of 18 organizations.​

Core independent agencies

• Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).​

• Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).​

Department of Defense elements

• Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).​

• National Security Agency (NSA).​

• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).​

• National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).​

• Army intelligence element (often Army Intelligence and Security Command).​

• Navy intelligence element (Office of Naval Intelligence).​

• Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA).​

• Air Force intelligence element (such as 16th Air Force).​

• Space Force intelligence element (Space Force Intelligence / Space Delta 18).​

Other department and agency elements

• Department of Energy – Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence.​

• Department of Homeland Security – Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A).​

• U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence (under DHS in peacetime).​

• Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) intelligence element.​

• Department of Justice – Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of National Security Intelligence (DEA ONSI).​

• Department of State – Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR).​

• Department of the Treasury – Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA).​

Because of this list, it is my opinion that the Navy members should not be held responsible for the unjust murders of those alleged to be drug traffickers by the Felon47 (mis)administration.  

I was in the corner of the USN that reported strategically to NSA.  I electronically interacted with several of the other agencies.  There is no good way for the enlisted personnel or even the junior officers to know which agency a given bit of intel came from.  Most of them would not have sufficient clearance to be given access to the raw reports.  The initial orders to bomb the boats could well have been based on Intel from any of those agencies for all they knew or, any of the foreign agencies still willing to share with us.  The junior personnel simply cannot verify the information or where it came from.  They have to trust and obey the senior members of their chain of command.

So though it seems obvious that dropping bombs on what appear to be civilian watercraft is sketchy as shit, the truth is that a lot of decisions got made waaaaaaaaay over my head based on information to which I was not privy.  I assure you that the vast majority of the guys in a CIC are not in possession of clearances anywhere near as high as the one I held.  The whole time I was in, approximately 10years, I do not recall ever seeing an active pilot in our spaces.  They did not have the clearance (or the need but that is a different conversation).  Those pilots had to trust leadership and follow orders just like the rest of us.

As a result of that, the initial strike, if it (they) is murder, is murder committed by senior personnel.  The 2nd strike on that first boat is a different matter.  Even junior personnel are taught that killing survivors is not kosher.  That said, I absolutely understand their reluctance to push back and honesty requires me to admit that I am miles away from sure that I would have done "the right thing" had I been there.  I was pretty reactively subservient to authority back then.  Most likely, I would have obeyed orders.  

I am happy to let JAG and the judiciary decide whether the 2nd strike was premeditated murder or a war crime.  I am certain that it was one of those things.  I am certain that at a minimum, the civilian leadership created an environment wherein the military thought murder was acceptable behavior.  For that, they should absolutely be held accountable.  If they exceeded the minimum, if they actually issued orders that could be interpreted as "no survivors", then we should be happy to pay for their transportation non-stop to The Hague.

Lessons Not Learned

 See, here's the thing.  It took a while to conclude investigations and such but, the admiral in charge of the 7th fleet was relieved of duty because of the Navy ship colliding with a civilian vessel off of Japan. The admiral was several thousands of miles away when the incident happened.  The admiral had not given an order to attack or scare or ignore civilian vessels.  However, the admiral also had not seen the issues with the Navy vessel's captain and relieved them of duty.

That is how the U.S. military works.  No one does anything by themselves.  The person physically steering the ship was probably a 19yo who barely escaped high school.  The person on the bridge telling the 19yo what to do was probably a 25yo lieutenant who paid for college with ROTC.  But they had to be trained and approved for that duty.  Those who trained and approved them were in trouble even though they were not on the bridge when the incident occurred just as the admiral was thousands of miles away.  

That is the lens through which I must view the war crime(s) off the coast of South America.  Piss Drunk Pete and Felon47 did not have to actually be there or speak the words.  They created an atmosphere that led their subordinates to believe killing survivors was acceptable behavior even though standard military teaching says otherwise in no uncertain terms.  The question is whether it was a hard order from them or a soft order.  They have culpability either way.  

Below I am including an essay I wrote a couple of decades or more ago in its entirety.  It was written well prior to the event off of Japan.  While the military has the mechanisms in place to discipline the chain of command for leadership lapses, unless the populace does our job and holds the civilian leadership accountable, they will let the military take the blame.  They are already setting things up to do so.  If the military means anything at all to you, you will try to make sure they do not get away with it.

Responsibility & Accountability

Let’s say you are the Captain of a U.S. Navy ship. You are educated, decorated, motivated, and dedicated. Your competence has been proven time and time again in countless maneuverings of this ship and those you operated as a junior officer. Your ship has passed all inspections. You have successfully participated in training exercises. Your star is bright, you are the "fair-haired lad".

So one night, just like hundreds of other nights, you leave a junior officer in charge of the bridge while you address some unavoidable paper work, make some plans, and get some well deserved rest. Sometime late in the night/early in the morning, in a comedy of unlikely errors by officer and enlisted bridge personnel and an improbable mechanical failure, your ship runs aground. You know from the second you wake up from your learned, light sleep, which happens at the first shudder of the ship, you know who is responsible. You are. Such is the mien of command. What happens under your command is your responsibility. An inquiry will be held. You know that if the physical aspects of the situation line up on the side of minimalism, if damage is slight, your career is “only” badly damaged. You will likely never be promoted again and will retire at your current rank. You also know that if the damage involves loss of life and/or severe damage to your ship, retirement will not be an option for you, at best, resignation. Whatever the actual outcome, if the damage is severe, your career is over. At the moment of the incident however, these thoughts pass fleetingly through your mind. Your primary concerns are the welfare of your crew and the "fightability" of your vessel. Above all, your job is to fight your ship or, be ready to fight your ship immediately upon the need.

The fact that the CO (commanding officer) will be held accountable gives no comfort to the other officers and enlisteds involved. They know that they too will have to answer for whatever failings of theirs it is determined contributed to the incident. According to the severity of the incident, the subordinate individual's career(s) may recover and even thrive but, there is no doubt that said career(s) will be negatively affected. In such a situation, neither heights nor depths of rank can effectively insulate one from accountability for their actions.

For many youngsters, the military is where one learns the large lessons of responsibility. Yes, mothers and fathers might have initialized those lessons but the military is where they are writ large upon one's psyche.

Obviously, for some unfathomable (to me at least) reason, the civilians in charge of the military, (branch secretaries, SECDEF, and POTUS) are exempted from any level of, or even, expectation of, responsibility. When the invasion of Iraq was not met with flowers and the cheering of thousands upon thousands of child like Iraqis, those who incorrectly claimed that would be the case received raises, promotions, and accolades. When the WMDs, WMD programs, and/or WMD program related activities failed to be located after an extensive search of the areas where we were assured they were, as well as the rest of the Iraq, by a bunch of dedicated military experts who believed they were doing so in defense of this nation, those who had made unqualified, and fallacious, claims about the existence and location of the WMDs (programs and related activities) received raises, promotions, and accolades. When it was predicted, several different times, that the completion of a seminal event in the establishment of the new nation of Iraq would blunt the “rapidly weakening insurgency”, those making the predictions, regardless of being proven horribly wrong by increasing rates of death for U.S. Military members(whoops, I meant coalition forces) and Iraqi and international civilians, and graphic demonstrations of the ability of the insurgency to kill at will, received raises, promotions, and accolades. (not to mention extended vacations.)

Regardless of the cost in human lives, money, or international respect for the nation, no one in this (mis)administration has been held accountable in any discernible way for their tragic miscalculations. Certainly, no one is held to the standard that we routinely expect our military to adhere. Why? The title of Commander-in-Chief is one of the more important aspects of being POTUS. There is an awesome amount of destructive power available to the CinC. There are fiercely dedicated men and women who will follow even orders that mean certain death. This is simply not a power to be pettily abused. The military is deserving of civilian leaders that they can look upon as one them in spirit. This (mis)administration has demonstrated that they have no concept of the spirit of responsibility that is the foundation of military command. They have nothing in common with the fighting men and women and are incredibly undeserving of the loyalty they abuse.

Here is something for you to ponder. Why shouldn't the CinC be as responsible as those he commands? Why shouldn't the captain of the "Ship of State" be held at least to the standards of the captain of a naval vessel? I think he should.