Friday, March 18, 2011

Why does the world ever believe leaders experiencing devastation conducted by nature aren't in denial at some level?

I believe the change in reality in Japan regarding the severity of its nuclear reactor problem was marshalled in by the arrival of the IAEA.  It is no coincidence there are changes in the way the Japanese leadership is viewing this on going tragedy since the arrival of the IAEA officials into Japan.

Japan raises nuclear alert to level 5 (click title to entry - thank you)

2011-03-18 19:40:00

Japan has raised the alert level at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant from four to five on a seven-point international scale for atomic incidents.
Level 5 is used to describe an accident with "wider consequences."
The crisis is now two levels below Ukraine's 1986 Chernobyl disaster. It also places the situation there on a par with 1979's Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the US.
The crisis was prompted by last week's 9.0-magnitude earthquake and tsunami, which has left at least 16,000 people dead or missing....

Obama warns Gaddafi

The War Powers Act allows the President to act without any Congressional approval for up to ninty days.

This "No Fly Zone" resolution by the United Nations is different than that of the one enforced by the USA, Britain and France over Iraq. Similar in its design it has different etiologies and different parameters.

The Iraq Resolution occurred after the USA took military action against Iraq after it invaded Kuwait.  There were on going issues surrounding Iraq after Operation Desert Storm.  The Kurds and the Shi'ites were still very vulnerable regardless of securing Kuwait's sovereignty and safety.  The Hussein regime was attacking these ethnic populations.  Over nearly two years following Desert Storm, the then President G. H. W. Bush went before Congress on several occassions with a review of the dynamics following the dangers to the people of Iraq.  It was through this dialogue the Congress would authorize forces to uphold the UN Resolutions surrounding Iraq. 

After President Clinton took office he continued those dynamics with the success that was intended.  We know for a fact that No Fly Zones over Iraq worked.  They allowed a great deal of peace to exist within the Kurdistan area of Iraq and they were secure and able to carry on life fairly uninterrupted.

In Southern Iraq is was very different.  While the No Fly Zone was enforced successfully, the Shi'ites were deprived of water into their wetlands and suffered shortages of food and water.  At one point, in 2002, the tensions with the Shi'ites due to the fact they were dying for lack of food and water, resulted in an uprising whereby Hussein forces killed 50,000 Iraqis.

This UN Resolution is different in that it prohibits a ground war as eventually resulted in Iraq.  We already know Libya is mostly stripped of nuclear weapons so the 'idea' an invasion is necessary at this point is questionable.  A No Fly Zone works.  We know it does.  So, establishing one that will provide relief from attack by Gaddafi forces is reasonable to consider.  Here again, the coalition carrying out these No Fly Zones is also different.  The Arab League is also joining the efforts so the dynamics against Gaddafi is mostly resolved to stop him from further harming his people.

I believe the Congress will back the UN Resolution past the nintey day War Powers Act.  If that doesn't occur that doesn't mean the effort is a scrub as the USA can still support allies of Britain, France and Arab nations that continue to carry out the resolution. 

I appreciate the 'sane tone' of Defense Secretary Gates in regard to Libya.  He has been very verbal about the deployment of USA military in the Middle East as a means of national defense for the USA.  He has been very clear about his dissent regarding entering into war in the Middle East.  I appreciate that and it cannot be overlooked to the brevity his opinion must take in regard to any actions there.

..."This is not a question of whether (click title to entry -thank you) we or our allies can do this. We can do it," Gates told reporters aboard his plane after a visit to Bahrain.

"The question is whether it's a wise thing to do and that's the discussion that's going on at a political level," he said....

It seems all too clear to me this is more a humantarian resolution by the United Nations.  A humanitarian measure that requries a military effort.  That may seem strange, but, it is not unusual.  The No Fly Zones over Iraq worked out to be a humanitarian initiative that worked.  It worked very well and even disarmed Iraq for the untrustworthyness of its leaders.

The international community, with a delicate economic status and an ever increasing awareness of 'human rights' cannot simply stand by and let a dictator kill his own people.  That is especially true when the so called 'rebel' forces started out as peaceful demonstrators.  Those peaceful demonstrators WERE  FORCED into defending themselves and now they are becoming overwhelmed in their own defense by a dictator that cares little about them and rather portray them as dangerous criminals within Libya.  That is not the case, these people were never dangerous so much as helpless.  They were inherently helpless up to this point. 

In all honesty, if Gaddafi does not step back from his blood thirsty directives, it won't be difficult to stop him.  His forces can work against mostly poorly armed PROTESTERS, but, they won't work so well once the United Nations Coalition arrives.  Ninty days will be more than enough time to deal with this maniacal ruler and set up a plan that will isolate his ability to kill the people of Libya.  It will be enforceable and it will work.  It will provide enough breathing space for a new 'democratic government' to form without threat and provide electiosn to the people of Libya to conduct their desire for 'freedom' for the first time in their history.

The new Libyan government is already taking shape and there is emerging leadership.  While this appears to be 'another Iraq' in some 'characteristic' ways, there is every reason to believe it won't even come close.  The USA is not needed 'on the ground' once the new Libyan government has the soverign right to defend itself from even internal threats.  There will not be a wider war in Libya.  It won't be another Iraq.  Safe routes for humanitarian assistance will be established and the creation of a peaceful and benevolent government can commence once there aren't tanks rolling through the streets.

Did the Wisconsin Legislators sneak around in order to legislate and obstruct the public from attending an Open Meeting?

According to the complaint at the title to this entry, that might be the case.

Judge Maryann Sumi listens to arguments at a hearing in Dane County Circuit Court in Madison, Wis., on a request to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the Secretary of State from publishing the controversial budget repair bill. (Mark Hoffman/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

Procedurally, what is happening is a 'stay' of the bill.  Judge Sumi is being painted as an activist judge by the Right Wing media.  She is a prudent judge.  She ordered the temporary restraining order because there is no reason not to.  She is obligated to provide a hearing for such complaints.  Whether that temporary restraining order turns into a permanent restraining order until a full hearing is conducted is a good question.  For now, Judge Sumi is saying she has to review the particulars of the case before she can rule on the new law. 

The State of Wisconsin wants to appeal the decision, but, in all honesty there isn't anything to appeal yet.  This is only a temporary restraining order.  It is almost obligatory for the case to proceed.

...Secretary of State (click here) Doug La Follette planned to publish the law on March 25, but the judge's order will prevent that from happening, at least for now....

On this alone there is an obvious violation of the public trust.  The judge has to obtain the information regarding the people that wanted to attend and could not and to determine if the room chosen for the Special Session was an OBSTRUCTION to the proceedings.  It seems obvious they manipulated the environment of the meeting room and obstructed public attendance.  That is serious stuff.  No legislation is allowed to simply carry on as if they are not in service to the public which elected them.  They cannot simply 'fix' the way a vote or hearing is conducted to have a SPECIFIC outcome.  I think this is impeachable stuff. 
The Special Session notice. 

Seating for the public and legislative staff will be limited.  Access for the public will be available by contacting the Sergeant-at-Arms staff outside the 2nd floor entrance of the Senate Chamber 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting.

LIMITED does not mean impossible to attend.  The notice to the public only needed to be announced to the people outside the door.  There were plenty of people that would have notified the Sergeant-at-Arms they wanted to attend.  It sounds like a lot of manipulation. 
The complaint
20.  That the meeting was held in the Seante Parlor, which is a small room with very limited space for the public, and was not reasonably accessible to members of the public or all citizens, in violation of Wis. Stat. %%1981(2) and 19.82(3);
I stand corrected, there were no public around to attend at all.  It was very, very manipulated.
21.  That the Capitol was locked before the meeting and that citizens who wishded to attend the meeting could not enter the building to attend the meeting, in violation of Wis. Stat. %%19.81(2), 1982(3), and 19.96:

That is only the beginning of the notice.  The notice goes on.  This is just one aspect of the complaint.  It sounds like the public trust was violated.

The proceedings violated the "3 member" provision of the notice.  There were suppose to be three members of the House and Senate.  There were only two State Senators and three House members, so the rules were violated.  This is not a minor complaint.  The public trust was violated.  There is suppose to be AT LEAST one minority member of the three representatives.  There were two State Senators because the Democratic Senators were not in state at the time.  They proceeded in violation of their own rules.  Of course, there was no Democratic Senator.

The bottom line here is that the Wisconsin Republicans VIOLATED the public trust and the procedure of the Special Session.  The law has to be struck down for it was a rush to legislate, because, their Governor was having a hissy fit.

There is nothing 'activist' about this judge.  She is upholding the law as it was written by the Repubican Senate and House.  She doesn't want to lose her job.  The best the State can do is appeal it after there is a permanent Restraining Order as it is set for hearing and HOPE there is some higher law that overrides their OWN Special Session rules.  Somehow, I don't believe the Republicans are at all realistic about this law or its integrity or its ability to be restrained by judicial review.

The Senate Democrats should still be in Illinois.

As far as I am concerned, this Special Session was simply a stunt to fool the Wisconsin Democratic Senators to return to the legislature so the Republicans can have their way about everything.  Walker puts on a lot of 'legislative drama' but very little sustance.  One has to wonder how valid ANY legislation is now that the Democratic Senators have returned UNDER  DECEPTION  AND  DURESS.   I am of the opinion that any legislation coming out of this session of the Wisconsin Legislature, including the budget, is highly litigable considering the 'circumstances' of its origins.  I also believe it can be litigated until Walker and adverse Senators and House members can be repealed.

The public outcry was significant and it is all documented both in newspapers and multi-media including video and social networking sites.  I really believe Walker and his Republicans have created a monumetal mess and they need to be removed from office.  I don't believe the problems from this session will be over soon for the people of Wisconsin.  I don't even see the concessions by the unions as valid and members need to sue for their benefits and pensions as they existed before all this happened.

I see this temporary restraining order as a beginning to restraining orders on nearly every aspect of this Wisconsin legislative session.  There are huge ethical violations and a lot impacts on the 'integrity' of the legislation.