The Cardinal and the Truth

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/cardinal-mahony-and-the-truth.html?_r=0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:08 AM
Subject: re: The Cardinal and the Truth
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

    The statute of limitations may indeed preclude criminal prosecution of the alleged rapes. But obstruction of Justice is a criminal matter in its own right. The statutory clock on that prosecution only started last week with the revelation of cardinal Mahoney's actions.  The many potential plaintiffs to civil cases may not be U.S. citizens, may be dead, may be unable to pursue civil cases for a hundred reasons. But the State must take care that the law be faithfully executed, on the mighty no less than on the weak.

Barry Haskell Levine

Hagel and McCain Sit Down to Iron Out a Few Differences

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/us/politics/first-test-of-new-term-comes-in-cabinet-hearings.html?_r=0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:39 PM
Subject: re: Hagel and McCain Sit Down to Iron Out a Few Differences
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the the Editor:
   The U.S. senate's advice and consent on president Obama's nominations of senators Hagel and Kerry is necessary and important. But the conclusions can be foregone; each is eminently qualified to be Secretaries of  Defense and of State respectively.  

   What must be dragged into the light of day--and perhaps killed-- is the nomination of John O. Brennan to head the C.I.A. His--as much as anyone's--is the face of an agency amok, whose agents, officers and contractors are answerable to no law  Neither he nor anyone else should be considered for the post of Director/CIA until senator Whyden's request for appropriate congressional oversight is satisfied.

Barry Haskell Levine

Behind Double-Digit Premium Increases

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/opinion/behind-double-digit-premium-increases-for-health-insurance.html?_r=0


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine
Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Subject: re: Behind Double-Digit Premium Increases
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:
    Almost four years ago, president Obama proposed reforming
healthcare in America. Part of his proposal was the "public option"
that would have divorced healthcare (for those who chose it) from the
profits of Insurance Companies.  That was defeated, largely by senator
Joe Lieberman.  In its place, we got the current system which the
Insurance Companies still control, now backed by the coercive power of
federal law.
     Now it's president Obama's second inauguration. It won't be
easy--even with senator Lieberman's departure--but we now get to
legislate the public option that we didn't four years ago. Or quit
feigning surprise that the Insurance Companies are maximizing their
profits rather than the public good.
Barry Haskell Levine

Why we must help save Mali

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/opinion/why-we-must-help-save-mali.html


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine
Date: Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM
Subject: re: Why we must help save Mali
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:
  If, as ambassador Huddleston tells us  the "Tuareg...are culturally,
ethnically and linguistically North African and resist the rule of the
sub-Saharan ethnic groups that run Mali", we should be supporting
their legitimate national aspirations and not rushing to succor their
oppressors. When we ratified the U.N. charter, self-determination of
Peoples became the "supreme law of the land".  Let's try living up to
that treaty obligation before we rush to embrace someone else's policy
of oppression.
Barry  Haskell Levine

Invasion of the Data Snatchers

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/opinion/keller-invasion-of-the-data-snatchers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine
Date: Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:50 AM
Subject: re: Invasion of the Data Snatchers
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:
      YOU are the editor of a national newspaper. A reporter on your
staff comes to you having obtained evidence that one of the candidates
in an upcoming election is engaged in a pattern of criminal activity.
The reporter proposes to publish the evidence  and to make the larger
argument that we, the people can't really be sovereign here if we
don't even know what we're voting on.  You might find that the tricky
part is articulating how many news stories can one quash to buy access
to tomorrow's press conference and tomorrow's and tomorrow's.
    Make no mistake. Eric Lichtblau brought the story of wiretaps in
violation of the FISA statute of 1979 to Bill Keller before the
presidential election of 2004. And Bill Keller chose to quash it
rather than face the wrath of Dick Cheney.  So this newspaper could
continue to get its reporters into White House press conferences. But
we the people engaged in a sham democratic exercise, voting for the
president of the United States without knowing what the incumbent
stood for and what he was doing.
    Secrecy is an important and thorny issue. Because he who gets to
keep secrets gets to rule. That's why in another system, the king and
his privy council got to know what's going on and the subjects didn't.
  If we the people are sovereign here, then we must know on what it is
that we're voting.  A newspaper editor who kowtows when the powerful
want a story suppressed betrays both journalism and democracy. And that's not hypothetical.
Barry Haskell Levine

Choice to Lead C.I.A. Faces a Changed Agency

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/us/politics/counterterror-adviser-to-be-named-chief-of-cia.html?_r=0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Subject: re: Choice to Lead C.I.A. Faces a Changed Agency
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

   John Brennan is an obvious nominee for the next director of our C.I.A. in 2013; he should not be confirmed. Mr. Brennan is deeply involved currently in the running of an agency amok.  So let's swear him in and put him in front of the Senate to answer the questions Americans have not been allowed to ask:

1-Is Pakistan a war zone? If it is, the recruitment of Dr. Shakil Afridi as a spy under the guise of a vaccination campaign is a war crime in violation of the Geneva Conventions. If it is not, what are we to make of our drone strikes there?

2-Are the officers, agents and contractors of the C.I.A. members of our uniformed armed forces? If not, are they what the Geneva Conventions call "unlawful combatants"?

3-Are the officers, agents and contractors of our C.I.A. above the law? I don't mean internal disciplinary matters like that of John Kiriakou. I mean the laws to which all U.S. citizens are supposed to answer, in peace and in war. Will we extradite them to our allies when they break the laws there?

     So let's put John Brennan under oath and let's get some answers and let's reject him. And let's rein in an agency that has forgotten whom it serves.

Barry Haskell Levine

Boehner, American Hero

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/douthat-boehner-american-hero.html?_r=0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 7:59 AM
Subject: re: Boehner, American Hero
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

   Eighty years after the American people rejected Herbert Hoover, Mr. Douthat is still advocating for his failed policies. The election of '32 was a political contest, not a scientific verdict. But it rested on a mountain of evidence that has only grown more solid in the interim. Austerity is counterproductive in a recession. To protect the paper wealth of creditors/bankers/donors, Boehner is sacrificing the futures of workers/debtors/citizens.

   Keynesian economics is a subtle matter that may never be understood by the whole electorate. But that doesn't make it any less correct than e.g. quantum physics. Mr. Douthat is entitled to his ignorance. But to pay him for such nonsense besmirches this newspapers good name.

Barry Haskell Levine

More Battles Ahead

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/dereliction-of-duty-more-fiscal-battles-ahead.html


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine
Date: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Subject: re: More Battles Ahead
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:
     One must seriously misread our constitution to conclude that
"[l]etting the Treasury run out of borrowing authority would mean a
default on the nation’s credit".  Our constitution grants congress the
sole power not only to borrow money but to coin money. Although the
big bankers--who were accustomed to turning a profit on war
financing--didn't like it, the Union paid for our Civil War by
printing paper money and we can do so again. Rather it is the current
arrangement, in which the U.S. mint prints money, gives it the the Fed
and then borrows it back that requires an explanation.
Barry Haskell Levine

Secrecy of Memo on Drone Killing Is Upheld

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/judge-rules-memo-on-targeted-killing-can-remain-secret.html?_r=0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM
Subject: re: Secrecy of Memo on Drone Killing Is Upheld
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

   Judge Colleen McMahon has been drawn willy-nilly into the great question of our republic in the 21st century. Who's in charge here?  Our forefathers fought and died to give us a republic, in which our executive was answerable to the sovereign people. Many in that generation hoped that they were establishing a  government that would endure through the ages. Thomas Jefferson dissented; he foresaw that those with power and wealth at any instant would corrupt the system to retain power and wealth in the future. Hence, a new revolution would be needed in each generation.  

   Now in 2013, our Executive not only claims the power to kill U.S. citizens far from any recognized battlefield but also claims the sole power to review that ruling.  Where is "government of the People, by the People and for the People" in all this? Have we incrementally installed a new monarch over ourselves in place of the British monarch we fought so hard to reject?

Barry Haskell Levine

1991 Victory Over Iraq Was Swift, but Hardly Flawless

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/world/middleeast/victory-over-iraq-in-1991-was-swift-but-flawed.html?_r=0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:22 AM
Subject: re: 1991 Victory Over Iraq Was Swift, but Hardly Flawless
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

     Certainty is an unobtainable luxury in the fog of war. Thus it is absolutely natural that--when Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard ran for their lives rather than stand and get crushed as we preferred--there would be differing opinions of how far to pursue them. Once we had driven the Iraqis out of Kuwait, should we risk any further American lives? General Powell argued that our mission was accomplished and we should declare victory. Others argued that the status quo ante was unacceptable and that we should take the opportunity to reshape the Middle East in our own image. 

    The decision rested ultimately with the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, president George H.W. Bush. In addition to all the considerations the others weighed, he brought perspective as a former Director of our CIA. If we had weakened Saddam Hussein enough that he would be toppled by groups inside Iraq, he thought it better that we should leave no fingerprints on it. That way, the new government wouldn't carry the stigma of being installed by a foreign power.

    In the event, Saddam had not been weakened enough. He retained the resources to crush the Shiite uprising in the South (although we quietly blocked him from crushing the Kurds in the North), and the region returned very much to the status quo ante. President Bush got little credit for a little war and lost his bid for re-election. And that's the way it will always be. Civilian oversight of the military (embodied in the president as Commander in Chief) means that the military strategy will never be disentangled from the political.

Barry Haskell Levine