Paying the Price for Women's Rights

October 11, 2012, 10:00 a.m. -- now with continuing updates on her medical condition Oct. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 31

SPECIAL: Malala is being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I've signed the petition; if you would like to join me, click here. About 150,000 have signed so far [Nov. 14].

And you might want to visit Malala's Facebook page.

Malala Yousafzai

Another brave young woman is in the news, Malala Yousafzai, living in northwestern Pakistan and advocating on behalf of girls seeking education. Editorial, "Malala Yousafzai’s Courage," New York Times, October 11, 2012, p. A30 ("If Pakistan has a future, it is embodied in Malala Yousafzai. Yet the Taliban so feared this 14-year-old girl that they tried to assassinate her. Her supposed offense? Her want of an education and her public advocation for it."). Here are links to her Web page and Facebook page.

The United Nations declared November 10 "Malala Day." Here is a photo of children celebrating in Karachi that day. For the video of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's announcement in support of Malala, click here.

[For medical updates [Oct. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] on her condition, see, Mushtaq Yusufzai, "Malala shifted to AFIC Rawalpindi in serious condition," The News (International) [Pakistan], October 12, 2012; "Malala's Condition Satisfactory: ISPR," The News (International) [Pakistan], October 14, 2012 ("The Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) Sunday [Oct. 14] termed Malala Yousafzai's condition 'satisfactory' and that it was witnessing a steady improvement. [She] was taken off the ventilator for some time and was later placed back on it. The . . . option to send her abroad for further treatment was being considered. . . . ISPR Maj Gen Asim Bajwa said that [she] . . . was now being administered a lower dose of sedatives. 'Movement has been witnessed in Malala's hands and legs which is a positive development,' Maj Gen Bajwa said.").

"Schoolgirl Wounded by Taliban Is Airlifted to Britain," New York Times, October 15, 2012 ("Malala . . . [has left] Rawalpindi, . . . in a military hospital, on an air ambulance sent from the United Arab Emirates. [She will] receive immediate treatment for her skull, which was fractured after a bullet passed through her head, as well as 'long-term rehabilitation including intensive neuro rehabilitation' . . . at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham . . . which has specialized in the treatment of troops wounded in Afghanistan . . .."); "2 questioned at U.K hospital treating Pakistani girl," USA Today, October 16, 2012 ("British police have questioned two people who tried to visit [Malala] . . . raising fears about her safety following pledges by the Taliban to make another attempt on her life. . . . Dr. Anders Cohen, chief of neurosurgery at The Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York [said] '. . . we don't know what part of the brain the bullet went through, whether it crossed the midline and hit any vessels, or whether the bullet passed through the right or left side of the brain.' [B]oth physicians say it is extremely unlikely that a full recovery can be made. They could only hope that the bullet took a 'lucky path' — going through a more 'silent,' or less active — part of the brain. 'You don't have a bullet go through your brain and have a full recovery,' [Dr. Jonathan] Fellus [chief scientific officer at the New Jersey-based International Brain Research Foundation] said.").

"Malala will need reconstructive surgery: hospital director," Dawn Newspaper, Urdu Edition, October 17, 2012 ("Malala Yousufzai is making progress in a British hospital, doctors said on Tuesday, as police turned away visitors claiming to be relatives. . . . [She] was in a stable condition on her first full day . . . [and the Birmingham Queen Elizabeth Hospital medical director David Rosser said she] had had a 'comfortable night.' '“We are very pleased with the progress she’s made so far,' . . .. [E]very bit as strong as we’ve been led to believe. Malala will need reconstructive surgery and we have international experts in that field.' . . . 'Her response to treatment so far indicated that she could make a good recovery from her injuries,' the Queen Elizabeth Hospital said in a statement."). "Malala stable in UK hospital as support floods in," AFP/The Express Tribune/International Herald Tribune, October 18, 2012 ("Doctors said Malala Yousafzai spent a second comfortable night . . .. [S]he 'remained in a stable condition and continued to impress doctors by responding well to her care,' a hospital spokesman said.").

John F. Burns and Christine Hauser, "Pakistani Schoolgirl Shot by Taliban Is Showing Progress," New York Times, October 19, 2012 ("[Malala] has recovered to the extent that she is now able to stand with assistance and communicate in writing . . . Dr. David Rosser, the medical director of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, said . . . 'she is doing very well. In fact, she was standing with some help for the first time this morning when I went in to see her.'”) Alan Cowell, "Pakistani Activist, 15, Recovering at ‘Encouraging Speed,’ Father Says," New York Times, October 27, 2012, p. A9 ("Ms. Yousafzai’s father [Ziauddin Yousafzai] and mother, Toorpekai Yousafzai, arrived in Birmingham on Thursday [Oct. 22], accompanied by her two younger brothers, Atal Khan, 8, and Khushal Khan, 12. [T]he family was reunited . . . for the first time since Ms. Yousafzai was flown to Britain, 'there were tears in our eyes out of happiness,' her father told reporters. 'We all cried a little bit.' He added: 'It’s a miracle for us. She was in a very bad condition.' A week ago, a bulletin from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital [reported] 'She’s not out of the woods yet, but we are hopeful she will make a good recovery' . . ..")]

Dawn is a newspaper in Pakistan that I have found over the last few years to be one of the best sources of information not only about Pakistan, but also about Afghanistan. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis deplore the Taliban's effort to assassinate Malala. But some among its religious right have recently made an effort to compare that attempt to the American use of drones that end up killing innocent civilians. Dawn has risen to the occasion with an editorial today [Oct. 16] headlined "Skewed Narrative," Dawn Newspaper, Urdu Edition, October 16, 2012. Here is an excerpt: "Let's get one thing straight about the attack on Malala Yousufzai. It is not comparable to drone strikes . . . [or] other incidents the religious right might use to try to divert attention from the particular evil of this one. . . . [T]his incident was: a deliberate attack on a specific teenage girl in retaliation for her activism for girls’ education . . .. Drone strikes may be unacceptable in their current form and end up killing innocent children, but doing so is not their intent. . . . And yet moves are afoot to position these events as comparisons in an attempt to dampen the widespread recognition of the Malala incident for what it was — the targeting of an innocent girl by an outfit that does not believe in the most basic of human rights and is prepared to attack even children to promote its regressive ideas."

I used the word "another" in the opening paragraph not only because there are today, as there have been throughout the years, a great many young women and girls -- as well as men and boys, but primarily women -- who have often paid a heavy price, up to and including death, fighting for what are often even minimal rights for women.

But I also say "another" because of what I wrote earlier about a brave young woman who played a major role in the "Arab spring" in Egypt, Asmaa Mahfouz. "Asmaa Mahfouz: Democracy's Heroine," October 27, 2011. And see, "The Natural Superiority of Women; And Why Men Fail," September 11, 2012.

There's good news and bad news regarding the role of religion in women's rights -- one of the major civil rights challenges during my lifetime. The liberal, reformist, and moderate elements of many of the world's major religions view women's struggle as possessed of moral, ethical, and religious rights as well. Sadly, however, often in violation of their own sacred texts, many religions' more extreme elements -- including those in this country -- seek to find support for their suppression of women's rights from within their religion.

So it was in northwest Pakistan this week.

The balance of my blog entry this morning is simply a reproduction of yesterday's [Oct. 10] entry on a blog maintained by "Rosh," a UCL (University College London?) student: Lashings of Gingerale -- because she so well states my own thoughts there's little to be gained by my composing an equivalent.

Malala Yousafzai started her blog about being a girl trying to get an education in the Swat Valley when she was 11 years old. On Tuesday [Oct. 9] at the age of 14 she was shot in the head by the Taliban because she "promoted secularism."

She is currently in hospital, alive and recovering after surgery. This girl is the bravest girl I know because she stood up for education for girls. And do you know what makes this story even more disgusting? That she has to do this at all in 2012.

My thoughts and prayers are with her and her family.

# # #

Republicans Converting America Into Pakistan

June 5, 2011, 12:05 p.m.

And the Democrats Aren't That Much Better
A week ago, I was writing about the rising share of costs born by college students, "Paying for College; Allocating Costs, Setting the Price," May 30, 2011, and commenting on Robert Reich's column, Robert Reich, "How Our Prosperity Became Stagnation," Des Moines Register, May 29, 2011, p. OP1.

That blog entry concluded, "Had we been hell-bent on deliberately evolving into a third world country's population, with a statistically insignificant percentage of super-wealthy at one extreme, and 90 percent or more struggling just to get by, we would have adopted almost precisely the policies we have. That's not to say that it was deliberate. Others can explore the conspiracy theories. But that is the result."

This morning [Sunday, June 5], the New York Times's Nicholas Kristof elaborated on that theme in such a powerful and well written way that I'm going to reproduce more excerpts from his column than I would usually reproduce. Nicholas Kristof, "Our Fantasy Nation?" New York Times June 5, 2011, p. WK9. (If he, or anyone at the Times, objects to this Fair Use of the material, simply email me and I'll remove it from this blog. If they do not object, I will recommend my readers subscribe to the Times, as I do, by going to this site.)

With Tea Party conservatives and many Republicans balking at raising the debt ceiling, let me offer them an example of a nation that lives up to their ideals.

It has among the lowest tax burdens of any major country: fewer than 2 percent of the people pay any taxes. Government is limited, so that burdensome regulations never kill jobs.

This society embraces traditional religious values and a conservative sensibility. Nobody minds school prayer, same-sex marriage isn’t imaginable, and criminals are never coddled.

The budget priority is a strong military, the nation’s most respected institution. When generals decide on a policy for, say, Afghanistan, politicians defer to them. Citizens are deeply patriotic, and nobody burns flags.

So what is this Republican Eden, this Utopia? Why, it’s Pakistan. . . .

[A]s America has become more unequal, as we cut off government lifelines to the neediest Americans, as half of states plan to cut spending on higher education this year, let’s be clear about our direction — and about the turnaround that a Republican budget victory would represent. . . .

[D]eveloping countries, from Congo to Colombia [are] characterized by minimal taxes, high levels of inequality, free-wheeling businesses and high military expenditures. Any of that ring a bell?

In Latin American, African or Asian countries, I sometimes see shiny tanks and fighter aircraft — but schools that have trouble paying teachers. Sound familiar? And the upshot is societies that are quasi-feudal, stratified by social class, held back by a limited sense of common purpose. . . .

The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans already have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent, based on Federal Reserve data. Yet two-thirds of the proposed Republican budget cuts would harm low- and moderate-income families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

For a country that prides itself on social mobility, where higher education has been a traditional escalator to a better life, cutbacks in access to college are a scandal. G. Jeremiah Ryan, the president of Bergen Community College in New Jersey, tells me that when the college was set up in 1965, two-thirds of the cost of running it was supposed to be covered by state and local governments, and one-third by students. The reality today, Dr. Ryan says, is that students bear 78 percent of the cost.

In fairness to Pakistan and Congo, wealthy people in such countries manage to live surprisingly comfortably. Instead of financing education with taxes, these feudal elites send their children to elite private schools. Instead of financing a reliable police force, they hire bodyguards. Instead of supporting a modern health care system for their nation, they fly to hospitals in London.

You can tell the extreme cases by the hum of diesel generators at night. Instead of paying taxes for a reliable electrical grid, each wealthy family installs its own powerful generator to run the lights and air-conditioning. It’s noisy and stinks, but at least you don’t have to pay for the poor.

I’ve always made fun of these countries, but now I see echoes of that pattern of privatization of public services in America. Police budgets are being cut, but the wealthy take refuge in gated communities with private security guards. Their children are spared the impact of budget cuts at public schools and state universities because they attend private institutions.

Mass transit is underfinanced; after all, Mercedes-Benzes and private jets are much more practical, no? And maybe the most striking push for reversal of historical trends is the Republican plan to dismantle Medicare as a universal health care program for the elderly.

There’s even an echo of the electrical generator problem. More and more affluent homes in the suburbs are buying electrical generators to use when the power fails.

So in this season’s political debates, let’s remember that we’re arguing not only over debt ceilings and budgets, but about larger questions of our vision for our country. Do we really aspire to take a step in the direction of a low-tax laissez-faire Eden ...like Pakistan?

Nicholas Kristof, "Our Fantasy Nation?" New York Times June 5, 2011, p. WK9.

So long as we continue to ride in the back seat and say nothing to the driver, we can't really complain about where we're headed or our destination once we get there.

# # #

Justice Was Done

May 9, 2011, 4:45 p.m.
And see, "Bin Laden Killed -- Significance? The Two-Trilion-Dollar Assassination" May 1, 2011; and the additional points made in Gregory Johnson, "The Impact and Consequences of Osama Bin Laden's Assassination," May 1, 6, 7, 10, 2011.

Examining Heads

Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that [Osama Bin Laden] the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.

-- President Barack Obama, CBS "60 Minutes," May 8, 2011

Bin Laden is dead. Many Americans seem to believe that the only appropriate thing to say on such an occasion is "USA! USA!" or "We're Number One!" They may even be right about that. At a minimum, for anyone to sit back and reflect on what we did and how and why we did it risks an accusation of "un-American" at best. That makes this blog entry one of the most difficult to write.

No matter how precisely it is conditioned and qualified, given the emotional subject matter the odds are good that at least some readers will come away with the impression that I (a) do not fully and appropriately appreciate the accomplishment of the Navy SEALS who killed Ben Ladin, (b) the daring and skill of President Obama and his advisers, or, worst of all, (c) am somewhat ambivalent about the desirability of eliminating Bin Laden.

All those assertions would be false.

Clearly, the world -- not just the United States -- is better off without Bin Laden; and the intelligence gathering, planning, training, and professional execution of those plans by the Obama Team and Navy SEALS qualifies as one of America's greatest intelligence and special operations accomplishments ever.

OK?

Moreover, there are no claims here of either expertise, or the knowledge supported by research, regarding international law or criminal law. These are just some random thoughts about the events of a week ago.

1. Justice. What does the President mean by "Justice was done"? "Bringing someone to justice," or saying "He got justice," carries at least two possible meanings. (a) It can mean "revenge," or "retribution" -- "an eye for an eye." This was the meaning in America's "lawless" wild west -- where the advice to "shoot first, ask questions later" enabled anyone carrying a gun to play all the parts: legislature, complainant, investigator, arresting officer, county attorney, grand jury, judge, jury, warden and executioner, and to play all of them within a fraction of a second. It was what enabled the KKK to carry out lynchings without the bother of troublesome "legal technicalities." It's the mafia's approach to settling scores, the urban gangs' protection of their territory, and the cause of the tens of thousands of dead Mexicans who got in the way of the drug cartels.

(b) But bringing someone to justice can also mean that someone believed to be guilty is put through the judicial system, and process -- and provided its protections -- before they are killed or otherwise punished. Some of those involved in terrorist plots in the U.S., including that on 9/11, have been "brought to justice" in this sense. Clearly, had Bin Laden, like the others, been brought to justice in this sense, and a judge and jury concluded that Bin Laden was in fact, as Obama asserted, the "perpetrator of mass murder on American soil," the President could then accurately assert (if one accepts that a jury verdict is the definition of "legal truth") that Bin Laden did "deserve what he got." (Although, even then, were he given the death penalty, he would probably have died by lethal injection under medical supervision rather than a shot to the head in a bedroom in the middle of the night.)

Thus, we must conclude that our President was using the word "justice" in the American wild west sense.

2. Killing in Context. Not all killing is "murder." A reasonable apprehension that one is under attack and at risk of being killed may turn the killing of the attacker from "murder" into "self defense." Reckless, though sober, driving at excessive speed, with absolutely no intention of killing anyone, may turn a pedestrian's death from "murder" into "manslaughter." The insanity of the defendant may protect him. And, of course, the debate continues in state legislatures and elsewhere regarding the circumstances under which "assisted suicide," or the aborting of a fetus, should be punished as murder.

3. Examining Heads. President Obama says, "anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined."

(a) As mentioned above, such a statement totally ignores with a verbal leapfrog the matter of process. Of anyone found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of "mass murder" it can fairly be said that he did "deserve what he got," up to and including the death penalty. However, under our legal system of "justice" we make a distinction between a before-trial assertion and a post-conviction verdict.

(b) To say of someone that he "needs to have their head examined" is to close off any possibility of civil and rational discussion and exploration of issues.

This runs totally counter to what the President asserts is his approach to the exploration of issues and decision making:

[O]ne of the things that we've done here is to build a team . . . where everybody speaks their mind. . . . [W]hat I've tried to do is make sure that every time I sit down in the situation room, every one of my advisors around there knows I expect them to give me their best assessments.

And so the fact that there were some who voiced doubts about this approach was invaluable, because it meant the plan was sharper, it meant that we had thought through all of our options, it meant that when I finally did make the decision, I was making it based on the very best information.

(c) The fact is that not everyone agrees regarding the virtue of wild west assassinations. Of the 193 countries in the United Nations, 49% have abolished the death penalty. "Use of Capital Punishment by Nation," wikipedia.org. Sixteen U.S. states have banned the death penalty. Many of the world's great religions look askance at killing. When the U.S. military did its "recruiting" with a mandatory draft, even the military recognized the rights of "conscientious objectors" to refuse to serve in positions potentially requiring killing in war.

(d) Among those "some who voiced doubts about this approach" among the President's advisers, we cannot know the nature of their objections. But it does seem to me not totally unreasonable for someone to hold the view that we would have better served our national security by capturing and interrogating Bin Laden than by assassinating him.

For these and other reasons it does seem to me a bit out of line for the President to suggest that all who disagree with him do so as a result of mental deficiency or psychiatric disability.

4. War and Other International Law. Of course, a major exception to the prohibition of murder is "war." (a) For example, suppose it was the Pakistan Army rather than the Taliban that was running things in Afghanistan, and Bin Laden was the commanding general in charge inside the Pakistan Army Afghanistan headquarters, and, at the request of the Afghanistan government, the U.S. Congress had passed a declaration of war against Pakistan that included driving them out of Afghanistan (which they had invaded; as with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War). Under these circumstances, I believe that killing Bin Laden -- whether by bombing the headquarters where he was, or by making it a special ops mission -- would be justified under the rules of war and not considered murder.

But an analysis of the rationale for Bin Laden's assassination a week ago is not this clear cut.

Whatever it is we are doing, it is not a nation vs. nation war in the old World War II, or Gulf War I, sense. The U.S. military are the only combatants wearing uniforms. We are not fighting a nation, we are fighting an "ism" -- terrorism, "the war on terrorism."

It is apparently our theory that it is a "war," subject to the rules of war, because we say it is a war, rather than, say, an international police crime-fighting effort.

Because this is not a war against any one nation, does this mean that we can, in the name of "war," enter any and all nations, without their invitation or permission, whenever we want to so long as we can offer a credible claim that there are "terrorists" in that country? Apparently so. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq as "wars of choice," fly drones over Yemen (also on assassination missions) -- and now Pakistan.

President Obama acknowledged as much:

Obviously, we're going into the sovereign territory of another country [Pakistan] and landing helicopters and conducting a military operation. And so if it turns out that it's a wealthy, you know, prince from Dubai who's in this compound, and, you know, we've spent Special Forces in -- we've got problems. So there were risks involved geopolitically in making the decision.

Insofar as we were "conducting a military operation" in "the sovereign territory of another country," doesn't that raise the same issues whether it turns out to be Bin Laden or that Dubai prince?

The facts regarding the potential capture, but ultimate assassination, of Bin Laden remain unclear, at least to me. However, my understanding of international law (which may be wrong), is that those facts make a difference: If this were a conventional war, and our enemy wore uniforms, and we were in a position to kill one of them, but it was clear that they were off-guard, unarmed and wished to surrender, it is then not OK to assassinate them. Indeed, there have been instances in which American military have killed either enemy combatants, or what seem to have been innocent civilians, in such situations and been court martialed for doing so.

No, to be clear, I am in no way suggesting our brave SEALS should be court martialed. Of course not. It may very well be that, regardless of the circumstances, it was appropriate and legal to kill him. But it does seem to me the distinctions are worth noting and reflecting upon anyway.

This was not shooting at someone in a uniform, who was shooting at us, on a battlefield in a country to which we had been invited to conduct military operations. This was entering the territory of a sovereign nation with a military operation, not only without invitation or permission, but with advance notice of repeated objections to our conducting military operations there. Although located in a town with Pakistani military installations, the home in which Bin Laden was shot was in a suburban residential neighborhood. It was the middle of the night, in a private home with some 20 residents, in the bedroom where he was with his wife. Best as I can tell from newspaper reports, although he was "resisting" (after all, who wouldn't), he was unarmed and represented no physical danger to the SEALS.

Not incidentally, not only was there some question as to whether this operation was going to work, there was some question as to whether the man they found there was, in fact, Bin Laden.

President Obama:

This was a very difficult decision, in part because the evidence that we had was not absolutely conclusive. This was circumstantial evidence that he was gonna be there. . . . But we didn't have a photograph of bin Laden in that building. There was no direct evidence of his presence. . . . And there are a lot of things that could go wrong. I mean there're a lot of moving parts here. . . . as outstanding a job as our intelligence teams did -- and I cannot praise them enough they did an extraordinary job with just the slenderest of bits of information to piece this all together -- at the end of the day, this was still a 55/45 situation. I mean, we could not say definitively that bin Laden was there. Had he not been there, then there would have been significant consequences. . . .

KROFT: When did you start to feel comfortable that bin Laden had been killed?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: When they landed [presumably this is a reference to landing back in Afghanistan] we had very strong confirmation at that point that it was him. Photographs had been taken. Facial analysis indicated that in fact it was him. We hadn't yet done DNA testing, but at that point we were 95 percent sure. . . .

5. Concluding Comments.

The entire "60 Minutes" interview is available in video, below, followed by textual excerpts that I found relevant to the discussion above.

As this blog entry began, "Clearly, the world -- not just the United States -- is better off without Bin Laden; and the intelligence gathering, planning, training, and professional execution of those plans by the Obama Team and Navy SEALS qualifies as one of America's greatest intelligence and special operations accomplishments ever."

I'm as pleased as anyone that Bin Laden is no longer walking the earth. I do not think that anyone needs be prosecuted for war crimes. But the President is invoking "who we are":

But we don't need to spike the football. . . . [W]e don't trot out this stuff [photos of Bin Laden's wounds] as trophies. . . . [T]hat's not who we are. . . .

We thought it was important to think through ahead of time how we would dispose of the body . . . consulting with experts in Islamic law and ritual, to find something that was appropriate that was respectful of the body. . . . [T]hat, again, is somethin' that makes us different.

And so I ask, "who are we?" Because the answer to that question, our occupation of the world's moral high ground, is going to involve a little more than the sophistication of a Grade B Hollywood western in which we all cheer when the white hats kill off the black hats in the final scene.
_______________
"Obama on Bin Laden: The Full '60 Minutes' Interview," CBS, May 8, 2011 -- the video, followed by relevant textual excerpts:

This was a very difficult decision, in part because the evidence that we had was not absolutely conclusive. This was circumstantial evidence that he was gonna be there. . . . But we didn't have a photograph of bin Laden in that building. There was no direct evidence of his presence. . . . And there are a lot of things that could go wrong. I mean there're a lot of moving parts here. . . . as outstanding a job as our intelligence teams did -- and I cannot praise them enough they did an extraordinary job with just the slenderest of bits of information to piece this all together -- at the end of the day, this was still a 55/45 situation. I mean, we could not say definitively that bin Laden was there. Had he not been there, then there would have been significant consequences.

Obviously, we're going into the sovereign territory of another country and landing helicopters and conducting a military operation. And so if it turns out that it's a wealthy, you know, prince from Dubai who's in this compound, and, you know, we've spent Special Forces in -- we've got problems. So there were risks involved geopolitically in making the decision. . . .

[O]ne of the things that we've done here is to build a team that is collegial and where everybody speaks their mind. And there's not a lot of snipin' or back-biting after the fact. And what I've tried to do is make sure that every time I sit down in the situation room, every one of my advisors around there knows I expect them to give me their best assessments.

And so the fact that there were some who voiced doubts about this approach was invaluable, because it meant the plan was sharper, it meant that we had thought through all of our options, it meant that when I finally did make the decision, I was making it based on the very best information. . . . [T]here were sufficient risks involved where it wasn't as if any of the folks who were voicing doubts were voicing somethin' that I wasn't already runnin' through in my own head. You know, we understood that there were some significant risks involved in this. . . .

KROFT: When did you start to feel comfortable that bin Laden had been killed?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: When they landed we had very strong confirmation at that point that it was him. Photographs had been taken. Facial analysis indicated that in fact it was him. We hadn't yet done DNA testing, but at that point we were 95 percent sure. . . .

KROFT: Why haven't you released them [photos of Bin Laden]?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: . . . It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence. As a propaganda tool.

You know, that's not who we are. You know, we don't trot out this stuff as trophies. You know, the fact of the matter is this was somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received. And I think Americans and people around the world are glad that he's gone. But we don't need to spike the football. . . .

KROFT: Was it your decision to bury him at sea?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It was a joint decision. We thought it was important to think through ahead of time how we would dispose of the body if he were killed in the compound. And I think that what we tried to do was, consulting with experts in Islamic law and ritual, to find something that was appropriate that was respectful of the body.

Frankly we took more care on this than, obviously, bin Laden took when he killed 3,000 people. He didn't have much regard for how they were treated and desecrated. But that, again, is somethin' that makes us different. And I think we handled it appropriately.

Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.

# # #

Bin Laden Killed -- Significance?

May 1, 2011, 9:30 p.m.

The Two-Trillion-Dollar Assassination
[See Amy Belasco, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2011.]

Media started reporting this evening [May 1] that American military have killed Bin Laden in Pakistan.

Of course, it's a big story, a major development in the "War on Terror," and clearly a courageous and competently executed major military accomplishment.

However, the remarkable thing, it seems to me, is not just that the American military, CIA and its allies have succeeded in killing him, it is that it has taken us nearly 10 years to track him down and do so.

Especially is this so when we discover that he was found, not on the run, moving from cave-to-cave in northwestern Pakistan, but inside a million-dollar compound with 12-18-foot walls, a few blocks from a military academy (the Pakistan version of West Point), 40 (or 75?) miles from the national capital. (Photo credit: T. Mughal/European Pressphoto Agency and New York Times.)

The White House, having learned its lessons regarding the limitations on the persuasive capacity of birth certificates, reports that our military apparently has not only the paperwork and photos, but is prepared to show the world Bin Laden's DNA and body.

Oh, they're not? They "buried" his body at sea? They're now saying, "Trust us. We've matched his DNA. Sorry about the body"? Oh, well, never mind. Maybe the White House didn't master the birth certificate lessons as well as first thought. Maybe they will soon be making public Bin Laden's long-form death certificate.

But the story is being hyped by the media I've been reading and watching as the virtual end of our "War on Terrorism" -- a "Mission Accomplished!" as it were, and a cause for jubilation.

That part is not clear to me, at least not at this point.

(1) Al Qaeda is not a hierarchical organization, like the U.S. Department of Defense, or a major corporation with a single CEO. Bin Laden has not been "running" the day-to-day operations of Al Qaeda. Nor will his replacements do so. Think a U.S. presidential campaign, or the "environmental movement" -- thousands of people sharing a belief, an ideology, a goal, who are otherwise pretty much on their own in coming up with activities they think will advance that end. Bin Laden has been a symbol, an icon, "the founder," a way to increase tee shirt sales by displaying his photo. This role was not buried at sea; it will, if anything, increase following his death. Think Elvis, and how much more money he earns in death than he did in life. ("The King's earnings after death topped what he made while alive by 1988." "Richest Dead Celebrities," Feb. 23, 2011.)

We need to pay attention to the statement by Ehsanullah Ehsan, spokesperson for the Pakistani Taliban: "If he [Bin Laden] has been martyred, we will avenge his death and launch attacks against American and Pakistani governments and their security forces. If he has become a martyr, it is a great victory for us because martyrdom is the aim of all of us." Issam Ahmed and Owais Tohid, Osama bin Laden killed near Pakistan's West Point. Was he really hidden?; The world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden, was not hiding in a cave along the lawless border with Afghanistan, as many believed. Instead, US forces killed him 75 miles north of Pakistan's capital, Islamabad," Christian Science Monitor, May 2, 2011.

So much for the blow we've struck against Al Qaeda; a loss, for sure, but one that provides advantages to Al Qaeda as well, and increased risks to us.

(2) To the extent the movement needs a leader, there lots of "second in command" to fill that role.

(3) Indeed, there is as great a likelihood -- if not more -- that his having been killed will increase terrorist recruitment and intensify terrorist attacks against America and its allies, rather than reduce them. To the extent there are both moderate and extremist elements in that part of the world who express objection to Americans' values, our military presence, their civilian deaths from our unmanned but well-armed drone planes, what they view as our offenses against Islam (e.g., the minister's burning of the Koran), there is no reason to believe their hostility toward us will change for the better.

That does not diminish the courage, extraordinary skill and accomplishment of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), including Navy Seals, or the congratulations, awe and appreciation they are owed.



But it may mean that we should moderate our celebration and postpone the jubilation until we get a firmer fix on what Bin Laden's death means for our future.

We're still awaiting the President's promised remarks at this point in time. Presumably he'll cover many of these points -- and possibly move me to have more to say.

[May 2, 2011, 9:25 a.m.: The text of his remarks is now available, "Remarks by the President on Osama Bin Laden," Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, May 2, 2011. Apparently he felt that was not the time or occasion to address some of the issues raised above.]

# # #

Personal Note and Update

October 22, 2008, 7:25 a.m.

Personal Note and Update
For the past couple weeks, in addition to my regular teaching at the University of Iowa College of Law, I've been involved with preparation for and presentation at the "Carterfone and Open Access in the Digital Era" conference put on by the High Technology Law Institute of the Santa Clara University School of Law in California.

It's amazing how well the world was able to keep on turning without my daily blog entries during that time. Also rewarding is the extent to which the 500-plus entries in this blog have apparently now become a reference source for users with or without daily additions; the daily hits remained pretty solid.

And at least some progress can be reported with regard to a number of the issues we track that is at least consistent with this blog's recommendations.

Here, then, are mostly mini-entry updates about a range of subjects: Global economic collapse; Afghanistan/Pakistan; Bars, Booze and Binge Drinking; Corporate Welfare; Sexual Assaults; Carterfone; and the Dysfunctional Airline Industry.

Global economic collapse. Since first making the suggestions that the first Paulson plan (approved by Congress) was flawed, and that the taxpayers should be getting an equity interest for their money (following the Swedish example from 1992), both the U.S. and Brits have moved in that direction. Similarly, more attention has been given to helping mortgage-struggling homeowners rather than just greedy bankers, holding down the personal compensation paid to the CEOs of bailed banks, the need to get a jobs program ready to roll out (which could do double duty in the repair and building of the long-ignored infrastructure featured on PBS last evening), the need for more prosecutions of those responsible for our current plight, some long term fixes, and an awareness that we're heading into an unprecedented and unknowable global recession/depression involving far more than the financial sector.

No; I suffer no illusion that any of these movements have been affected in the slightest by anything I wrote. But it is always reassuring to see one's early instincts and writings sort of confirmed by subsequent events, or the comments of those who really do know what they're talking about.

Afghanistan/Pakistan. Similarly, the evidence continues to mount, as I have earlier written, that there is no "military solution" to the problems we confront in Afghanistan/Pakistan (or Iraq for that matter). Indeed, the presence of our troops is in many ways counter productive -- angering local civilians, turning off both "hearts and minds," destroying rather than building a sustainable local economy, and contributing to the recruitment of terrorists. Most recently, yesterday, over the protests of the Kabul government, our continued bombing resulted in the killing of nine more Afghans -- this time soldiers fighting alongside Americans. Meanwhile, our relations with Pakistan, and our military activities there, have contributed to the disintegration of Pakistan's government and economy -- to the point that Pakistan (a nation with nuclear weapons) is probably now, potentially, the single most dangerous country in the world so far as America's national security is concerned. Not because it's leadership is "anti-American," but because it is a country where joblessness and chaos means starvation, and eventually uncontrollable revolution.

Bars, Booze and Binge Drinking. The City Council is taking another look at the social and economic costs of alcohol abuse that its policies, and those of the University, have permitted to increase over the years. It remains to be seen how effective any ultimate proposals may be -- the Council refuses to even consider a proposal that those who cannot legally buy alcohol should be required to leave the bars at 10 p.m. (erroneously called "21-only") -- but I'd rather the Council at least be addressing the problems than continue the "see-no-evil-hear-no-evil" approach.

Corporate Welfare. Surprise, surprise, the Sheraton has just been given -- for free, so far as I can gather from the papers -- a 13-foot swath of formerly public street and land. This was described as a "license." That sounds an awful lot like Senator Ted Stevens' effort to draw a distinction between a "loan" and a "gift" of property (e.g., a $2500 chair, a generator) he received, and didn't report on the ethics forms. Iowa City's taxpayers, who once owned Dubuque Street, had retained a 25-foot swath of it under the Sheraton for a public walkway. The City Council has just told the hotel it can capture 13 feet of it to expand its lobby. And while I'm on this subject, what's the deal about turning over public sidewalks to restaurants to expand their seating capacity? Do they pay to use that public property, or is that more of the Council's generosity with our land?

Sexual Assaults. The Regents and their universities are moving ahead with the effort to come up with new organizational arrangements and procedures for handling sexual assaults. It remains to be seen what they'll come up with -- beyond the Stolar Report recommendations. One of the toughest issues involves respect for the alleged victim's wishes. If she ends up deciding not to file a complaint with the police the university (especially if athletes are involved as alleged perpetrators) is open to speculation that it played a role in encouraging her to do so. If they don't report it on their own they can be charged with a "cover up." If they do report it on their own they can be charged with interfering with the alleged victim's rights of privacy.

Carterfone. As an FCC commissioner, most of the some 400 opinions I personally wrote were dissents or concurrences, explaining why I thought some or all of what my fellow commissioners were doing was wrong. One of the most significant opinions I wrote, however, was a unanimous opinion for the majority -- much more far reaching in its effect than anyone could have known at the time, myself included. Sufficiently so that a conference was held at Santa Clara University last Friday to celebrate its 40th birthday. Sometime early next year there will be a book-length collection of the papers presented, so I can't summarize all of the issues here in a blog paragraph -- even those addressed in my own keynote address.

It was decided at a time when AT&T had as close to a complete monopoly as any company in America. It both manufactured and owned all the telephone handsets, the cable, the switching stations, the long distance lines -- all of it. And it had an FCC tariff to insure it stayed that way. Nothing could be attached to the telephone network that was not AT&T's -- up to and including even a plastic cover on a telephone book, also called a "foreign attachment."

Tom Carter, a Texas cattle rancher, wanted to be able to take and place phone calls while out riding fences. He invented a device that enabled him to do it. The Carterphone could receive radio communication from his transceiver, hold a telephone handset, and switch back and forth as the parties spoke.

AT&T fought it as a violation of its tariff. The FCC, through the opinion I wrote, found the tariff illegal. It took another 10 years to implement the decision (with "Part 68" regulations), but ultimately Americans could buy telephones in drug stores, and almost unnoticed began using "modems" resembling Tom Carter's device, with "acoustic cups" for a telephone handset, to connect their early desktop computers to what became "the Internet."

Among the issues we confront today, some 40 years later, are whether the principles (or even precedent) of the Carterfone decision are relevant to resolving some of the bottlenecks and impediments the major cell phone carriers are imposing on their customers, and the suppliers of new devices (that sometimes take the form of computer "software" rather than "hardware"), in an age when cell phone ("wireless") carriers are rapidly becoming the primary on ramps to the Internet.

You'll have to wait for the book (or movie) to get the whole story, but that will give you some idea of what I've been up to while away from the blog.

Dysfunctional airline industry. Meanwhile, getting to California and back was just a further reminder of how dysfunctional our airline industry has become. This is not a new observation for me, nor I suspect for you. So much so that when Mary and I were going to Denver last August we opted for the train.

What a treat! We actually had a roomette, but I'm not sure I'd bother next time. The coach seats on a train are better than the first class seats on a plane. They go back further, and with foot rests make sleeping possible. They and tray tables don't have to be "put in their full upright position" every time you enter a station. Large picture windows in every car -- not to mention the lovely "observation cars" -- let you see (rather than merely imagine) what the countryside looks like. You can walk around whenever you please (the full length of the train if you wish), rather than be buckled in. Get food whenever you want at reasonable prices. Read, write on your laptop, make cell phone calls, nap.

Airline travel never was a big thrill for me, but I never experienced any fear of flying, and found it generally pleasant enough during the latter half of the Twentieth Century. Going to Japan with some regularity, it was often possible to find six empty seats where you could stretch out. On domestic flights there were enough flight attendants on board to bring you food and drink and be otherwise pleasant and attentive without being stressed. The seats, and space between rows, were wider and more comfortable -- with often an empty seat beside you where you could spread out papers and such. My memory is the seats went back further, too. Flights were usually on time; baggage usually came through safely. There were few delays for last minute "maintenance" or otherwise cancelled flights. There was little concern about hijacking or terrorists. A flight was a time to relax, away from phones and other interruptions. On the rare occasions when a canceled flight required an overnight stay, the airlines would pay for your hotel and meals until you could leave the next day.

There was a time when I represented American Airlines as a lawyer. And I later became almost a United Airlines groupie -- buying a lifetime Red Carpet Club membership (during a very narrow window of time when it was an incredible bargain -- never then imagining that my own lifetime might end up lasting longer than that of United), carrying a United Visa card, piling up my Mileage Plus miles, and usually travelling often enough to build a nearly complete collection of each month's issue of Hemispheres magazine. I even bought a little stock (which rose rapidly in value and then, of course, became virtually worthless).

What a difference "deregulation" and a few bankruptcies can make.

Air travel never did make a lot of sense as a transportation system. (Can you imagine how Bob Newhart might have played the banker being pitched by the world's first airline for a loan?)

o Moving a multi-ton container off the Earth, into the atmosphere, takes an enormous amount of fuel -- not to mention the harm done to the ozone layer and greenhouse effect from the exhaust.

o Any transportation system that depends on favorable weather conditions is inherently unreliable -- especially when its marketed "advantage" is the "speed" represented by an on-time arrival that can so easily be affected by snow, sleet, ice storms, fog, dangerous winds, and other conditions that are mere inconveniences for travel by train, bus or automobile.

o Aside from the fact that "your seat cushion becomes a flotation device" when your plane falls into the drink, the container does not "become a boat" when that happens, nor is there any other "fail safe" option (as with a car simply going into a ditch) if the system fails.

o Part of the reason I pushed containerization when Maritime Administrator is that I early on discovered 90% of the cost of moving cargo was incurred within 10 miles of the port; the trip across the Pacific was virtually free. So it is with air travel. You need to allow a margin of error for (a) the time it takes to pack the car and leave the drive (or wait for the shuttle) and get within the vicinity of the airport (allowing for the possibility of traffic congestion, accidents, or a train parked on a railroad crossing), (b) find a place to park and drag your bag to the bag check, (c) the line at the check-in counter which can take anything between 2 and 45 minutes, (d) ditto for the security check that requires you to remove all metal along with your shoes and laptop, and then dress and repack, and (e) the walk to the gate. (f) This is on the assumption there is actually a plane at the gate. For any one of a long list of reasons it may not yet have arrived. Or, if it's arrived, there may not be a crew. (g) Then there's the sitting on the tarmac waiting for clearance to take off. (h) The delay, and possible cancellation, because of maintenance needs. (i) Any possible delays during the flight due to weather or other factors, and (j) congestion at the destination airport, or (k) the fact there is no gate to park at, or jet walkway at the gate. At which point there's a similar routine regarding (l) your connecting flight, or if your destination, (m) waiting for your bag (which may not have arrived), (n) getting ground transportation, and (o) the time of the trip to your ultimate destination. Not to mention the high prices for tickets, and the nickle-and-dime extra charges for checking a bag ($15), or avoiding starvation.

o On my flight to California there were four legs: a flight from the Eastern Iowa Airport (CID) to a regional hub, the flight to San Jose, the flight from San Jose to a regional hub, and the flight back to CID. On three of those four flights there were cancellations or delays (in one case the necessity of transferring to another airline) because of the last-minute discovery of necessary repairs. One involved a defective switch that controls the part of the plane that provides the lift necessary to get it off the runway. Another involved a defective brake -- necessary to keep the plane from going off the runway. And the third was something I've never encountered before: (a) the need to remove fuel because there was too much on board and (b) the necessity to balance up the fuel in the tanks because it was so much out of balance that the plane couldn't fly. Now I ask you, could none of these problems have been anticipated or discovered prior to the moment of take off?

o While I'm on this rant, here's one more. If you buy 100 head of cattle and only get 87, or a dozen bagels and there are only 10 in the bag, you -- and the person who sold them to you -- expect that you will ask for, and receive, either a refund or the additional goods. What are you buying with an airline ticket? Speed of travel; arrival at a fixed time. As a result of the maintenance work, and necessary change of airlines, I missed an event in California I was scheduled to attend -- and for which I had allowed plenty of extra time in the travel schedule. When you do not arrive at your destination at the scheduled time -- for whatever reason -- you are not getting what you purchased. There is a "loss" associated with that delay -- for everyone on the plane. We can argue about how we should go about calculating the economic value of that loss, but that there has been a loss is clear. The question is, how should it fall; who should bear it?

If it is important to you to have something constructed by a particular time you can build into a construction contract provision for a bonus if it is finished on time, or a penalty if it is not. But we don't have such a provision in our contracts with the airlines -- nor do we have the bargaining power to negotiate for it. So the entire loss falls on us, the customers, those who have the least responsibility for the delay.

In sum: The airlines have become dysfunctional. Just one more reason why, while we're about the business of rebuilding our disintegrating early-Twentieth Century infrastructure we need to give really serious consideration, and funding, to rebuilding our passenger rail transportation system.

# # #