steve matrazzo - columns on national security and civil liberties

Steve Matrazzo

Columns on

national security and

civil liberties

Se

ptem

ber

20, 2

012

T

he D

unda

lk E

agle

, Dun

dalk

, MD

472 The Dundalk Eagle, Dundalk, MD September 20, 2012

7708 GERMAN HILL ROAD

410-282-2085

Testimonial: Steelworker of 37 years, Robert J. Funk, Sr. says: “After another lawyer turned down my Workers’ Compensation claim, Mr. Bacon tried it and I received a six-figure award!’’

(Past success is not a guarantee of future results)

(FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION)

YearPracticing Law35th

William R. Bacon, Jr.WORKERS’ COMPAUTO ACCIDENTS

We guarantee the lowest price!""#$%&'$()#*+,-.#$&&$/0#1-#2322343"56!356622

777.%8'9:+%&&&%+$.;91

60% OFF!"#$%!&'"#'"#(&)&*+'%&(,*--!"#$$%&'()%(*+,%&-,.+&/LIFETIME WARRANTY ON ALL NEW GLASS & TINT INSTALLED

“They hate our freedom” — simple, or simplistic?

The question has been asked count-less times over the last 11 years,

if not longer: Why do they hate us? When confronted with planes crashing into build-ings, people willingly turn-ing themselves into walk-ing bombs, and mobs at-tacking embassies, it’s the most natural thing in the world to wonder, “Why do they hate us?” And it’s equally natu-ral to grasp at the easy answer, as U.S. Senate candidate Daniel Bongino did last week in a visit to Calvary Baptist Church. From Ben Boehl’s ar-ticle in this issue: Bongino told the stu-dents that America was attacked because the ter-rorists didn’t believe in the American way of life .... “We were attacked because we are different .... it was an attack on our set of ideas.” That line of thought is traceable to President George W. Bush, who said in an address before Con-gress shortly after the 9-11 attacks, “They hate our freedoms.” It’s also false. However repugnant we

find their acts, or their goals, to be, we do our-selves no service by sub-scribing to the myth that jihadists give a damn about what we do in our own country — what be-liefs we hold, what free-doms we enjoy. Or that we are nothing more than innocent lambs. What drives jihadist an-ger, and the violence it breeds, is resentment — a pattern of perceived mis-treatment, both historical and recent, by the West-ern world of which the U.S. stands at the head. Every culture views his-tory through its own lens, and in Muslim-majority countries from Morocco to Indonesia, the history of Islamic civilization begins in glory, with the rise of Muhammad from humble merchant to spiritual and political leader of the en-tire Arabian Peninsula. In the centuries after his death, his successors built a vast empire that was, in its time, the most prosper-ous, advanced and power-ful civilization the world had yet seen, and they spread their faith across half the known world. They soon came under attack, from Christians

seeking to recapture the Holy Land, in wars so bit-terly remembered that even today, jihadists can get mileage out of refer-ring to the Western pow-ers as “crusaders.” Fast-forward to the 20th Century; Christian European powers have colonized majority-Muslim lands throughout Africa and Asia, and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War I has left the Middle East under West-ern “trusteeship.” While neither the trust-eeship nor the colonialism lasts long, the result is ar-tificially-imposed borders drawn without regard for ethnic or tribal identity, the imposition of despots and, ultimately, the forc-ible creation of a state full of European immigrants on their land — modern-day Israel. Meanwhile, the West, and the U.S. in particular, are blamed for overthrow-ing legitimately elected governments (see Iran, 1953) and propping up brutal dictators (see Shah of Iran, House of Saud, Hosni Mubarak, Saddam Hussein — yes, Saddam Hussein) as long as they

played for our side and kept the oil flowing. Today, people through-out the Arab and Islamic worlds see ongoing U.S. support of Israel and dis-dain for the Palestinians, they see U.S. troops oc-cupying Islamic lands, haphazardly seizing their men on charges of terror-ism (while only quietly ad-mitting that a substantial number of them are, in fact, innocent), and drop-ping bombs on their people. This is the history they learn, and the history they see. And when they look at the state of their world — through the lens of their culture and their history — it’s not hard to guess who they blame. Worth reading are the comments by Libertarian candidates Leo Dymowski and Dean Ahmad on re-cent Middle East violence elsewhere in this issue.They grasp, even if others – like Bongino – don’t, that it’s not as simple as saying that they hate us for our freedoms.

! ! ! Motive, of course, does not equate with justifica-tion, and understanding

Talk of the Town by Steve Matrazzo

the mindset that drives Muslim resentment does not mean condoning vio-lence. If anything, the protests against the utterly idiotic Islamophobic film Inno-cence of Muslims, violent or otherwise, demonstrate the distance many societ-ies have to go toward un-derstanding the rules of a free society. In most Mus-lim-majority states, noth-ing is published or distrib-uted (at least not openly) without the approval of those who hold power. The state of affairs is not unlike that in me-dieval Europe, in which blasphemies that offended the established church and its believers were of-ten punished by death. Fortunately, we no lon-ger live in the Dark Ages, and we have made ever greater strides toward true freedom of expression. Those protesting have yet to learn – as they someday must, if they hope to join modern civi-lization – that true free-

dom requires respecting the freedom of others to do things that they might find offensive, and that a free nation – and its government – cannot be blamed for the admittedly atrocious output of a few pathetic hatemongers. Of course, we in the West aren’t completely immune. In 1987, it was Christian sensibility that was offended by a work by photographer Andres Ser-rano called “Piss Christ.” Those of a certain age may remember the con-troversy; Serrano’s photo showed a crucifix sub-merged in what was al-leged to be the artist’s own urine. There were protests, death threats, even van-dalism at exhibitions of the photograph. But it’s worth noting that, because we are ulti-mately a free society, the exhibitions went forward, and a quarter-century af-ter “Piss Christ,” Andres Serrano is alive and in one piece.

!"Opinions expressed are those of the writer and do

not represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle or Kim-

bel Publication Inc. You can contact Eagle editor Steve

Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].

2 The Dundalk Eagle December 18, 2014

Does being the “good guys” mean the rules don’t apply?Talk of the Town by Steve Matrazzo

nOpinions expressed are those of the writer and do not represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle or Kimbel Publication Inc. You can contact Eagle editor Steve Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].

It’s hard not to be appalled by details in last week’s report on CIA detention and interrogation practices issued by

the Senate Intelligence Committee. The report presents a litany of treat-ment of detainees ranging from the dis-gusting (rectal hummus? really?) to the nakedly cruel — and sometimes deadly — as well as a picture of lax oversight, obfuscation and outright lies regarding the program. Worse still, it states that nearly a quar-ter of those detained, interrogated and — yes — tortured were actually innocent, and that one of those innocent men — captured in what has since been revealed to be a case of mistaken identity — was chained to a wall and doused with water — and froze to death in CIA custody. Despite calls from here and abroad for prosecutions, the report will, almost cer-tainly, have no meaningful consequences. Because most of us don’t want it to. Most Americans, in fact, are likely to agree with former vice president Dick Cheney, one of the ideological godfathers of “enhanced interrogation,” who said in a Meet the Press interview on Sunday, “I’m more concerned with bad guys ... than I am with a few that in fact were in-nocent .... I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective.” I have more than once on this page quoted Nazi leader Hermann Göring, who famously noted that “voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists

for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” Though he was talking specifically about war, Göring’s words hint at things far deeper: the instinctive craving for security and the consequent willingness to suspend the rules of a civilized society when we feel sufficiently threatened. Whether it’s war, terrorism or more mundane crime, when people are afraid enough, many — perhaps most — will focus only on the ends, with little concern for the means. “I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective,” as Cheney put it. While most of the recent headline-grabbing incidents involving police have a distinct racial component, part of the underlying dynamic — the widespread public predisposition to give police a free hand in their fight against “the bad guys” and thus look askance at calls for limits or accountability — fits the same template. We fetishize the “renegade cop who plays by his own rules,” so long as he’s bringing down the bad guys. And those tasked with protecting our nation? We happily justify — even lion-ize — their every deed, calling them “heroes” and “patriots,” so long as their actions are wrapped in the flag and in the promise of “keeping us safe.” And when anyone dares to question their actions — alleging anything from violations of constitutional rights to out-right war crimes — those critics are ac-cused of “coddling criminals” or “hating

America.” When it comes to the things (or people) we fear and hate, it seems, the rules don’t apply. Unarmed citizens dying at the hands of police? Hey, don’t stop the cops from do-ing their job; they’re the good guys, let’s remember. Civilians being blown up in drone strikes? Mere “collateral damage,” accept-able in the quest to hunt down terrorists. Innocent people detained — and oc-casionally dying — in CIA custody? “I’m more concerned with bad guys ... than I am with a few that in fact were in-nocent,” as Cheney put it. When it comes to fighting the bad guys, the rules don’t apply. But they should. We have rules, and with good reason. Ultimately, everyone thinks they’re one of the “good guys.” Certainly, the people who strap bombs to themselves and board crowded buses — or fly airplanes into skyscrapers — think they are acting in the cause of right, and that those they seek to harm are, in fact, the “bad guys.” The existence of universal standards, uniformly accepted and uniformly ap-plied, is the closest thing to an objective measure by which we can sort good guys from bad. And such rules amount to a statement of what sort of “good guys” we aspire to

be. The Constitution of the United States, the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Convention Against Torture ... they form an agreed-upon definition of human de-cency and moral civilization. If we wish to call ourselves the “good guys,” we are obliged to adhere to such standards, even — especially — when fear tempts us to skirt them. The test of our commitment is not in how we apply the rules when it is easy, but in how we apply them when it is hard. Do we want to be the sort of nation that regards rules of civilized action – whether restrictions on search and seizure, prohibitions against torture, or sanctions against harming civilians in wartime – as unwelcome impediments or as ethics to be embraced and rigorously pursued? Do we regard such standards – which we our-selves have at least nominally adopted – as obstacles to be circumvented by “the good guys,” or as the yardsticks against which “the good guys” are actually measured? Once again, we are presented with a chance to ask ourselves those questions. If history is any guide, however, most of us will brush them aside, as Göring might expect. What we want, after all, is to get the bad guys. And as long as we call ourselves the “good guys,” the rules don’t apply. But they should.

2 The Dundalk Eagle, Dundalk, MD May 29, 2014

After Memorial Day, a look at “defending our freedom”

Make no mis-take; the sac-rifice of those who have

fought this nation’s wars — and particularly those who have given their lives — cannot be overstated, and should at least be rec-ognized with a day of re-membrance. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends,” we are told in John 15:13. There can be no greater sacrifice than to give one’s own life, and no greater cause than to do so in the service of something greater than oneself. In the nearly 240 years of this nation’s history, over 1 million of our coun-trymen have given what Abraham Lincoln called “the last full measure of devotion” on their coun-try’s behalf, for which they deserve every bit of what they are given — our words of gratitude, the right to rest in our most hallowed ground, monu-ments honoring their names, a day devoted to honoring their memory — and more besides. On the other hand, the honor accorded their sacri-fice is easily — and all too often — stretched into jus-

tification for the latest ac-tion taken in the name of the Red, White, and Blue, whether it’s another over-seas military adventure or a new set of powers as-sumed by our government in the name of “security.” After all, we are told, they died for our freedom. In reality, it’s not that simple; the bulk of the combat our military forces have seen across our his-tory — and the bulk of the deaths — have come in conflicts in which that ac-tual “freedom” of the U.S. — our territorial integrity, our government and pub-lic institutions, the rights and liberties we enjoy — were not at all under at-tack. U.S. military personnel have given that “last full measure of devotion” un-der a variety of circum-stances, and in service to a variety of national inter-ests. Some died fighting pi-racy on the high seas — most notably in the Bar-bary Wars of two centuries ago, from which we get the familiar line from the Ma-rines’ Hymn, “the shores of Tripoli.” Some died fighting the indigenous peoples who lived here for millenia before anyone else even

knew this continent ex-isted, but whose presence stood in the way of this country’s westward expan-sion. Some died defending allies, others protecting Americans caught up in international conflicts, still others trying to pre-vent violence in other na-tions from exploding into humanitarian disaster. Some died, quite simply, in the cause of advancing U.S. political and econom-ic interests abroad. In fact, since U.S. inde-pendence was established with the end of the Revo-lutionary War, there have been only two instances in which a foreign power had even a remote goal resem-bling “conquest” within our borders. One was the War of 1812, in which the British, if successful, would have happily re-established co-lonial rule. (Some fellows named Stricker, Armistead, Wells, McComas and Bar-ney, among others, had something to say about that.) The other was World War II, in which the Axis powers did at least enter-tain the “far horizon” goal of conquest on our shores — Japan to complete its

desired encriclement of the Pacific, and Germany to extend the Nazi Reich into the Americas — even if both knew the likelihood of it ever happening was remote, and neither made any serious effort to bring it about. (During World War I, Germany did — in the no-torious Zimmerman tele-gram — propose to Mexico an alliance that would supposedly give Mexico the opportunity to retake the territory it had lost to the U.S. decades earlier, but Mexico — even as it engaged in border conflicts with the U.S. stemming from its own revolution of the period — utterly ig-nored the proposal.) As I noted in this space in 2012, our most recent wars, in Iraq and Af-ghanistan, have nothing to do with any threat to our freedom, despite the claims of some. Certainly, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks required re-sponse (though not against Iraq, as we came to find out), but those attacks, and anti-U.S. terrorism in general, have never rep-resented a threat to our freedom. Our safety? Yes. Our prosperity? Maybe. But


not our freedom. As I wrote in 2012: “We do ourselves no ser-vice by subscribing to the myth that jihadists give a damn about what we do in our own country — what beliefs we hold, what free-doms we enjoy.” The fact that most of our war dead have died in conflicts in which our free-dom was not at stake does not make their sacrifice somehow less worthy; they gave the ultimate sacrifice in loyal service to their country. End of story. But all too often, the notion that they “died for our freedom” is used to support the broader con-cept of military might (and its use) and the accrual of ever-increasing domestic security power by our gov-ernment — and the idea that dissent is tantamount to dishonoring their mem-ory — and is thus “unpa-triotic.” To the contrary; the no-ble sacrifice of those who have fought and died de-serves more than to be hijacked for propaganda purposes, and we most properly honor that sacri-

fice by making sure that we do not — in the name of “protecting” our free-dom — allow our freedom to be eroded from within. There is talk in Con-gress of revisiting the Au-thorization for Use of Mili-tary Force (AUMF), which was approved by Congress in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks and gave the government sweeping powers that have since included everything from indefinite detention at Guantanamo to drone strikes against terrorist groups that didn’t exist in 2001, in countries most Americans hadn’t heard of then. And yes, boots on the ground — some of which end up empty. Some in Congress seek to roll back those powers, others to expand them. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives has passed changes to domes-tic surveillance laws. Maybe the wake of Me-morial Day is a good time to reflect on how we define our freedom, and what we send our young people off to defend .... nOpinions expressed are those of the writer and do

not represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle or Kim-bel Publication Inc. You can contact Eagle editor Steve Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].

2 The Dundalk Eagle, Dundalk, MD June 14, 2012

Pharmacy FACTSPresented by

Dr. Mark Lichtman in the swim of things

Because getting enough omega-3 fatty acids may be a life-savingmeasure forpeoplewithheartdisease, theAmericanHeartAssociationisincreasingitsrecommendationsfortakingthemeitherthroughdietorsupplements.Peoplewithdocumentedheartdiseasearebestservedbygettingonegramadayoftwoomega-3fattyacids(eicosapentaenicanddocosehexaenoic),whichareplentifulinsuchfishasmackerel, herring, sardines, tuna,andsalmon.A third lesspotent kind, alpha-linoleic acid, found in suchplants as soybeans,walnuts,andflaxseed, isalsorecommended.Researchshowsthatomega-3 fatty acid consumption reduces cardiac deaths amongthosewith heart disease by reducing the likelihood of blood clots,lowering blood pressure, and interferingwith the growth of artery-blockingplaques. Multivitaminsupplementscanbeagoodwaytogetthevitaminsyouneed,especiallyifyourowndietdoesnotgiveyouallthenutri-entsyouneed.Anexcellentdailymultivitaminsupplementdoesnotonly develop your general bodily functions but also improves yourmentalandphysicalconditionandwellbeing.We’rehereforyou!Wespecializeinhardtofindprescriptionsandcancompoundmedicinesforyou.Wecanprovideyouwithhomeopathy,herbs,vitamins,andaromatherapy.Weareproudtobeopeneverydayoftheyear:Mon-Fri8am-10pm;Sat8:30am-10:30pm;Sun9am-9pm.

P.S.Gettingtoomuchomega-3fattyacids(intheneighborhoodofthreegramsdaily)runstheriskofexperiencingexcessivebleeding).Thus,adoctor’ssupervisionishighlyrecommended.

DRUG CITY PHARMACY2805 North Point Road • Baltimore, MD 21222 • 410-284-2424

by Dr. Emma Galvan, D.D.S. & Dr. Grant F. Cylus, D.D.S.

Dentistry by Choice!

Whilewehaveallbeentoldthateatingtoomuchcandyisbadforour teeth, relatively few patients are aware that seemingly healthyandnutritiousfoodssuchasraisinsandwholewheatbreadalsoposepotentialproblems.Thefactisthatallcarbohydratesbreakdownintosimplesugars,which thenareconverted into “plaque”bybacteria inthemouth.Itisthisstickyresiduethatisprimarilyresponsiblefortoothdecay and gum disease. This risk is increased when carbohydrate-based foodssuchas raisinsandwhole-grainbreadsadhere to toothsurfacesandcollectbelowthegumline.At thispoint, theycanposenearlyasmuchofadangertooralhealthascaramelincandybars. Topreventplaquebuildup,pleasebrushyourteethatleasttwiceadaywithasoft,rounded-tipbristledtoothbrushandfluoridetoothpaste,payingparticularcaretothespacewherethegumsandteethmeet.It’salsoimportanttoflossatleastonceadaytoremovefoodparticlesandbacteria.Toscheduleanexam,pleasecall(410)284-1414.Ourofficeisconvenientlylocatedat3001SollersPointRoad. P.S. Toprotectyour teeth fromtheacid insodas,sipwaterorchewsugarlessgumtoactivateacid-neutralizingsaliva,andthenbrushyourteeth.

www.dundalkdentistry.com

FOODS FOR THOUGHT

Come to where you’re not just a customer, but a part of our family!

NEWEST, RELIABLE & HONEST MECHANICS - GRAND OPENING

New Life Auto RepairSpecialists, Inc.

Auto Repair410-285-0222

6404 North Point RoadEdgemere, MD 21219

RESURRECT YOUR EXISTING VEHICLE AT NEW LIFE!

ChristianOwned &Operated

We service all foreign & domestic

brands

Oil Changes$1999

up to 5 qts

7708 GERMAN HILL ROAD

410-282-2085

Testimonial: Steelworker of 37 years, Robert J. Funk, Sr. says: “After another lawyer turned down my Workers’ Compensation claim, Mr. Bacon tried it and I received a six-figure award!’’



YearPracticing Law35th

William R. Bacon, Jr.WORKERS’ COMPAUTO ACCIDENTS

Dutch goes after leaks, but are leaks really bad?

Our own Congress-man C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger doesn’t step into

the national media spotlight often, despite his role as rank-ing Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Last week, however, he joined with the committee’s Republican chairman, Mike Rogers of Michigan, and their Senate counterparts, Dianne Feinstein of Cali-fornia and Saxby Cham-bliss of Georgia, to decry a recent spate of leaks of classified information. Revelations about the as-sassination of Osama bin Laden, the long-suspected U.S. role in cyberattacks against the Iranian nuclear program, the assembly of the so-called “kill list” of perceived international en-emies and the role of a dou-ble agent in the foiling of an apparent airline hijacking plot have raised concerns that leaks from within the U.S. government are en-dangering national security and even lives. In an interview with CNN, Ruppersberger said the leaks are “very serious; it affects our national se-curity, and they’re wrong. [Anyone who leaks] needs to know that they will be held accountable and go to

jail if they do leak.” It’s a notion that’s easy to grasp, and easy to agree with: our government has to keep some things secret, and those who reveal those secrets, in whole or part, are harming the nation. But is it really that straightforward? For one thing, there’s long been a clear double standard when it comes to leaks; those who reveal information that in-conveniences those in pow-er are punished, while those whose revelations serve the interests of the powerful are actually rewarded. (In fact, take a look at the access given to news report-ers — and even Hollywood filmmakers — when their output serves as quasi-pro-paganda; see the 60 Min-utes profile of Leon Panetta and the upcoming film by director Kathryn Bigelow about the bin Laden raid.) The leaks that prompted last week’s demand for ac-tion by Ruppersberger and his colleagues, in fact, seem to be mostly to the benefit of President Obama, highlight-ing claimed national secu-rity strengths in the midst of a re-election campaign. (This is hardly new; Repub-lican Chambliss said as much in his remarks last week, not-ing that “We’ve been through

this before with the Bush Ad-ministration.”) While there are calls for a special prosecutor and crim-inal punishment for those behind the recent leaks, his-tory suggests that little, if anything, will be done. Case in point: Bush Ad-ministration official Rich-ard Armitage leaked the identity of a covert CIA op-erative in order to discredit arguments against the Iraq War; not only did he not face prosecution, he’s rak-ing in millions sitting on corporate boards today. On the other hand, those who dare to release infor-mation that doesn’t serve the ends of power find themselves in far different circumstances. The most famous of re-cent alleged offenders, of course, is U.S. Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, accused of providing an enormous trove of classified material to the website Wikileaks. Accusations of “treason” were immediate, and Man-ning has been jailed for over two years awaiting trial. What gets little attention is that fact that, for all the claims that Manning and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had “blood on their

hands,” then-Defense Secre-tary Robert Gates said after the release of the Wikileaks documents that an internal review “has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure,” and oth-er defense officials said no deaths of U.S. or allied per-sonnel could be traced to the leaked documents. What did happen, mostly, was that lies to the public about the “War on Terror,” examples of illegality and incompetence, and other embarrassments were ex-posed to public view. And that is one thing those in power will not tolerate, especially in this administration, which has launched twice as many prosecutions under the Es-pionage Act of 1917 dur-ing its three-plus years in power than were carried out in the laws more than 90 years before the Obama presidency. And like Manning, most of the government’s tar-gets in the war on leaks are accused of revealing in-formation that did little or nothing to damage national security, but plenty to em-barrass the government: • NSA official Thomas


Drake, who revealed illegal domestic spying; •JeffreySterling,aCIAofficer who revealed a failed attempt to derail the Ira-nian nuclear program — which may instead have helped the Iranians; • John Kiriakou, a CIAofficer who revealed the agency’s use of torture in violation of U.S. and inter-national law. All were accused of vio-lating national security, but there’s something worth thinking about: Spies reveal information they want an enemy to have; whistleblowers reveal infor-mation they want you to have. We need to know what is being done in our name, by those to whom we give pow-er. In 1945, we knew that our government had used atomic weapons, and we could freely consider what the future implications of that decision were. Today, our leaders are introducing new weapons — drones and computer viruses — conducting se-cret wars and claiming new

powers, and unless we are aware of what they’re do-ing, decisions that will af-fect generations yet to come will be made for us, not by us — in the dark — and we will have no voice. The fact is that secrecy al-ways benefits those in pow-er, and openness threatens that power. While it’s hard to argue that there aren’t certain things that must be held in secret, the burden should always be on those in power to prove the need for secrecy, not on us to take their word for it. And if we err, let us err on the side of openness, even if that occasionally breaches legitimate secrecy. We should never ignore the principles of a free society — especially the notion of open and transparent gov-ernment — in the inter-est of security, as Benjamin Franklin noted more than two centuries ago: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

nOpinions expressed are those of the writer and do not represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle or Kim-bel Publication Inc. You can contact Eagle editor Steve Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].


Some get knowledge – and power – and some give it away“Congress shall make no law ... abridging the free-dom of speech, or of the press ....”

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

“The right of the people to be secure in their per-sons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreason-able searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affir-mation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The batter steps to the plate. The pitcher stares in as the catcher

flashes the sign. The catcher’s intention, of course, is to tell his batterymate what sort of pitch to throw, and where to throw it, without the hitter having any idea what to expect. Meanwhile, out at sec-ond base, a runner tries to pick up the same signs and relay them to his teammate in the batter’s box, hoping that, armed with foreknowledge of the coming pitch, he’ll be able to knock it out of the park (or at least off the wall for an RBI double). In those same moments, the team in the field won-ders if the batter may try to bunt the runner over to third; thus, the pitcher, the catcher and the mid-dle infielders may well be planning a pickoff attempt

at second base — a plan of which the baserunner would like to know. They may even know the plans of the batter and the runner — if they can decipher the signals the third-base coach is giving. At the same time, a Wall Street investor is hoping to find out whether or not the aerospace company she has been watching will be awarded a major defense contract, while trying to keep secret her plans for a run at the com-pany’s stock, so the rest of the market doesn’t rush in and drive up prices. Meanwhile, in Bikini Bottom, Plankton is about to make another attempt to steal the Krabby Patty secret formula .... “Scientia potentia est,” Thomas Hobbes (perhaps inspired by his association with Francis Bacon) wrote in De Homine. Knowledge is power.

t t t That’s the notion under-lying (at least in part) the two components of the Bill of Rights cited at the start of this column. The First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of the press are fundamental to our de-mocracy. The right to vote means nothing without proper information upon which to base an informed vote. Proper information, of course, requires that our government practice the greatest possible degree of openness about its ac-tivities, while allowing the people the widest possible dissemination of that in-

formation, as well as the greatest possible freedom to debate its meanings. Knowledge is power, and the more the public knows, the more power it has in the face of its gov-ernment. On the other hand, gov-ernment, by its nature, is given to seeking ever-ex-panding power, and thus to seeking control over what information is avail-able to the public. Thus were our forebears driven to provide the guar-antees of the First Amend-ment. And unsurprisingly, our government more or less constantly tests the lim-its of those guarantees, sometimes simply keeping its actions secret without compelling reason, some-times attempting to actu-ally outlaw certain speech or penalize the publication of certain types of informa-tion. There have been recent actions against members of the press — the ag-gressive monitoring of the activities of a team of As-sociated Press reporters, and the attempt to label a Fox News reporter as a possible criminal — and, as we have found out over the last few weeks, a level of information-gathering about everyone — cell-phone use, Internet activ-ity — that, beyond their mere creepiness, have the clear potential to intimi-date the most vigorous pursuit of public informa-tion and debate. We’ve already seen whis-tleblowers prosecuted, and now reporters have been targeted for investigation

and have been listed in court documents as poten-tial “co-conspirators.” Punishing, or threaten-ing to punish, journalists for reporting things just because the government doesn’t want those things reported undermines one of the fundamental ingre-dients of democracy — an informed public. And what about the non-journalistic communi-cations of every single one of us? We’ve always un-derstood that some degree of monitoring was going on, but — as per the guar-antees provided by the Fourth Amendment — we have always assumed that such exercises of govern-ment power were limited to those of whom some resonable cause for suspi-cion could be shown. No more; recent revela-tions make it clear that we must all assume that our government — while doing its best to keep a wide range of information to itself — wants to have all the information about us that it can get, whether we merit scrutiny as indi-viduals or not. Every citizen should be disturbed that our govern-ment claims any author-ity to conduct such wide-spread — and unreviewed — information gathering, rather than the constitu-tionally-mandated sort of investigation — directed at an individual for whom reasonable suspicion can be demonstrated suffi-ciently to convince a judge to issue a warrant. Such powers are, as usu-al justified by those who want them as being neces-


sary to “keep us safe.” However, we’re essen-tially asked to take their word for it. Are such pro-grams necessary, rather than merely convenient, to the mission of fighting ter-rorism? Have the recently-revealed general surveil-lance programs actually prevented any terrorist attacks in the U.S.? The government says yes, but aren’t they the ones who want to keep that power? “Trust us,” they say ....

t t t Many people seem per-fectly willing to not only accept but embrace the massive expansion of government authority — much of it secret — and the compromise of indi-vidual liberty, as long as it promises to “keep us safe.” It’s worth remember-ing that, in this case, the government is claiming not only the right to poke around in the personal business of terrorists, but in the personal lives of you. Once we willingly give that power to our govern-ment, it is not easily taken back — and the precedent for its use is always ex-panded past the “limits” we were promised at the start.

t t t I’ve been asked by more than one person the same question others are ask-ing elsewhere: is Edward

Snowden a hero or a trai-tor? The same question has been asked of others over the years, from Daniel Ellsberg to Mark Felt to Bradley Manning, and my answer is always the same: It’s not about him. What’s important is the information he revealed about the U.S. govern-ment’s actions, and any-one’s evaluation of him as a person is a secondary is-sue at best, and a distrac-tion at worst.

t t t I close with two more quotes; the first should be familiar to regular readers of this column, as I’ve used it before:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

The other is new to this space, but is certainly food for thought:

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being at-tacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of pa-triotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any coun-try.”

Hermann Göring

nOpinions expressed are those of the writer and do not represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle or Kim-bel Publication Inc. You can contact Eagle editor Steve Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].

2 The Dundalk Eagle August 14, 2014

The Butterfly Effect — or, Nothing Happens in a VacuumTalk of the Town by Steve Matrazzo


In 1961, the story goes, mathematician Edward Lorenz, a pioneer of chaos theory, was running numbers through

a computerized weather prediction model and took a tiny short cut, dropping a digit past the decimal point from one value he was entering — representing a mere one four-thousandth of the full value of the number. The result was an enormous difference in the final outcome of the simulation, prompting Lorenz to the realization that even small changes in a highly sensitive system could have huge and unpredictable effects. Sources disagree as to how he chose the term, but Lorenz is credited with coining the term “butterfly effect” to describe what he had observed. (My own preferred version is that the term was inspired by Ray Bradbury’s 1952 short story “A Sound of Thunder,” in which the killing of a single butterfly in the age of the dinosaurs significantly af-

fects modern human civilzation. But then, I’m a Bradbury fan.) Those historical details aside, there’s little dispute that events and choices of one time have real and meaningful — and of-ten unpredictable — effects on things that happen much later. That is, nothing happens in a vacuum. As we saw nearly a year ago in Syria, the ability of the U.S. and its allies to respond to a genuine humanitarian crisis is ham-strung by shortsighted choices made years earlier. While the Syrian crisis continues, large-ly absent from today’s headlines, the spot-light has shifted to Iraq and the emergence of the “Islamic State” movement (also known as ISIS), which not only seeks to establish an Islamic state in Iraq (and in Syria, for that matter) but appears to pose a threat of genocide against religious and ethnic minorities in the area. Like the Syrian situation, the crisis in Iraq cries out for intervention. And, as in

Syria, we are going to try to resolve it with bombs. (With the same success as in Syria, where we have achieved ... well, nothing.) We cannot, of course, use actual troops to protect the threatened populations, be-cause there’s no desire among the Ameri-can people for another round of combat in the Mideast — not to mention no inter-national support and no one in the region who would welcome our presence. Because this isn’t happening in a vacu-um. When and if ISIS does its worst, there will likely be much gnashing of teeth about President Obama’s missteps (and he has certainly proven himself no deft hand at foreign affairs), but the bulk of the blame should rightly be spread more wide-ly — to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis that wasted the world’s goodwill and the

nation’s patience in an ill-chosen and false-pretenced war (and cleared the ground for groups like ISIS to fill the power vacuum that war created); to Presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush the Elder, who propped up Saddam Hussein because he was at war with Iran, setting the stage for all that followed; to a generation of leaders who installed and aided the Shah of Iran, ultimately creating the enemy in today’s Tehran. One of these days, perhaps we’ll take a hard look at our history and realize that the beat of a butterfly’s wing — in this case, the achievement of the seemingly desirable short-term goal of enhancing and projecting “American power” — has left us paralyzed when a real and meaningful threat arises. Like genocide in the Mideast, for in-stance.

2 The Dundalk Eagle October 2, 2014

n Opinions expressed are those of the writer and do not represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle or Kimbel Publication Inc. You can contact Eagle editor Steve Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].

Rise of ISIS exposes flaws in our leaders and institutionsTalk of the Town by Steve Matrazzo

Islamic State, ISIL, ISIS ... call it what you like, I guess — though I imagine that somewhere, there’s a very ticked-off ancient Egyptian goddess, not to mention the namesake DC Comics heroine.

The rising specter of the jihad-ist group known by those vari-ous shorthands (and others) has

exposed more than a few flaws in the people and institutions we entrust with our national security.

As previously noted in this space, the ill-wisdom of our previous actions in the Middle East — and the underlying geo-political gamesmanship that animates our ongoing foreign policy — has essentially tied our hands, limiting what both the public and the world will support in the way of U.S. response to the very real bar-barity ISIS has unleashed.

(Not to mention the fact that our previ-ous actions in Iraq made the rise of ISIS possible; we cleared the ground, removing Saddam Hussein with no eye toward the aftermath.)

Then, of course, there’s the distinct-ly non-Churchillian unwillingness of President Obama to buck prevailing opin-ion and take real action against a clear threat of unbridled aggression and likely genocide.

(Air strikes and arming unreliable alleged allies will probably not do the job.)

Further, the rise of ISIS — and the obvious unpreparedness of our leaders to address it — makes plain that, more than a decade after we began granting our government ever more far-reaching and consequential power in the name of “security,” our intelligence institutions are missing big things — like the emergence of a group sufficiently large and well-armed to achieve what ISIS has achieved so quickly.

(Of course, it has been previously argued here that part of the problem is the insistence on near-universal infor-mation-gathering that overloads intelli-gence agencies with more material than can be effectively processed. They know your e-mail password, but apparently they didn’t know ISIS even existed until it was already grabbing territory and beheading Yazidis.)

At least as disturbing is the utter inac-tion of Congress — where the real, if usu-ally unexercised, power rests.

The Constitution, after all, vests in Congress the power to declare war — and nothing in the Constitution requires that such a move be at the president’s request.

(That’s right; strictly speaking, Congress could declare war tomorrow —

whether the president likes it or not.)Usually, however, Congress not only

waits for the president to ask for authori-zation, it usually rubber-stamps presiden-tial requests for such authority, and often doesn’t even raise a meaningful objection when a president acts unilaterally.

In this case, it seems, Congress is pre-pared to give us the worst of both worlds.

Democrats in Congress are, as one might expect, doing their best to stand with their fellow-partisan in the White House, while hoping to avoid anything that might hurt their chances in the upcoming elections.

Which is to say, they are signing on to the hastily cobbled-together strategy of air strikes and arming unreliable allies.

Republicans, on the other hand, are staying as far away from taking an actual policy position as they can.

Most Republicans, that is; John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both of whom have never met an annoyance they didn’t want to nuke, are calling for more aggressive action.

It was GOP Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia, however, who enunciated his party’s more broadly-held position in early September, when he graced the New York

Times with a moment of unusual candor:

A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later.’ It’s an elec-tion year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change any-thing. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took [the president] so long.

In other words, most members of Congress are content to abdicate their responsibilities in this matter.

Of course, if the current strategy actu-ally works, everyone comes out smelling like a rose.

That outcome is unlikely, however. We’re too burdened by history to want to act meaningfully, our leaders and institu-tions are too incompetent and too short-sighted to act effectively ... and by the time that enough people realize that ISIS is a threat far different from the ephemeral jihadist bogeymen we’ve been spoon-fed in the past, the Islamic State will be an actual state.


PharmacyFACTS

Presented by

Dr. Mark Lichtman

THANKS FOR THE MEMORYA study involving vitamin E intake in mice indicates that a

daily dose of the vitamin may help protect the brain and itsmemories from being depleted by age. The study, which wasreported in Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, found that those middle-aged and older micewhich were treated to supplemental vitamin E experiencedless damage to crucial brain-tissue proteins than did micenot fed vitamin E as they aged. From this finding, researchersextrapolated that humans may derive the same beneficialeffect by consuming 400 International Units of vitamin E perday, which is about thirteen times the recommended level.Vitamin E naturally occurs in sunflower and safflower oils,wheat germ and mayonnaise, but most people would not findit feasible to get sufficient amounts of the vitamin in their dietswithout resorting to supplementation.

Today’s column is brought to you by our entire staff. Weencourage you to come to our location and discuss anyquestions you have. We’re here for you! Call us if you haveany pharmaceutical needs. We are proud to be open everyday of the year: Mon-Fri 8am-10:30pm, Sat 8:30am-10:30pm, Sun 9am-9pm. We can provide you with homeopa-thy, herbs, vitamins and aromatherapy.

P.S. Supplemental doses of vitamin E have also been linkedto reduced risk for heart disease and cancer.


WORKERS’ COMP?LEARN YOUR RIGHTS

410-282-208533 + yrs.

Exp.:Workers’

Comp;Auto

Accidents

William R. Bacon, Jr.ATTORNEY AT LAW

7708 GERMAN HILL ROADTestimonial: Steelworker of 37 years, Robert J. Funk, Sr.says: “After another lawyer turned down my Workers’Compensation claim, Mr. Bacon tried it and I received asix-figure award!’’





While fluoridated drinking water has helped ensure that peopleunder age 50 have an excellent chance of keeping all their teeth, olderindividuals may not be so fortunate. In fact, the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention reports that one-quarter of American adultsover the age of 65 have lost all their teeth; the National Institute ofDental and Craniofacial Research indicates that 58% of Americansover age 50 have fewer than 21 of the normal 32 teeth. Missing teethlead to poor nutrition as well as a possible collapse of the verticaldimension of the lower face. To avert these potential problems, den-tal implants provide the best functioning, and most natural-looking,replacements.

Replacing missing teeth is critical to your general health and to thehealth of your other teeth. Unreplaced teeth can cause chewing diffi-culties and result in other teeth becoming lost, tipped or crowded,which can create subsequent problems. Your dentist can determine ifyou are a candidate for dental implants after a careful evaluation ofyour dental and medical history. To schedule an appointment, pleasecall (410) 284-1414. Our office is conveniently located at 3001Sollers Point Road.

P.S. Dental implants are rooted inside the jawbone, which preventsthe bone resorption that causes the bone underlying lost teeth toshrink.


CHOOSING SUITABLE REPLACEMENTS

YOUR LIFE !!!STOP SMOKING HYPNOSIS

$95Dr. Alan Glick 410-285-2244

A FREE second session if needed!PRIVATE SESSIONS only — groups rarely work

Call for appointment & brochureWeight Loss $75 • Personal Problems $75

now available in Dundalk!

B. ERIC JONES, MD, PARetina Specialist, Board Certified

1005 North Point Blvd.Suite 707410-288-2853

MACULAR DEGENERATIONDIABETIC RETINOPATHY

Avastin Therapy

Ruppersberger says Libya action is within the law

The use of militaryforce is arguablythe most momen-tous decision a

government can make.War – or whatever label

we may slap on a particu-lar military expedition –represents a commitmentof money resources and,inevitably, human lives.

And, as any combat vet-eran will tell you, it cre-ates the certainty thatugly things will happen.Men have to kill or bekilled, and innocent peopleoften end up gettingcaught in the crossfire.Worse still, the hellish cir-cumstances of war occa-sionally cause decent mento do horrible things.

(In our own history,when I look at incidentslike those at My Lai orAbu Graib, I fix blame notjust on the individuals –although they do rightlybear personal responsibili-ty – but on the horrors ofwar that separate suchotherwise decent peoplefrom their normal, betterselves.)

We are today engaged inmilitary action of somesort in (at least) four dif-ferent countries: Iraq,Afghanistan, Yemen andLibya. In Afghanistanalone, the war effort is

costing over $100 billionper year (about what thefederal governmentspends on education, orwelfare, or unemploymentassistance – and twice thecurrent Social Securityshortfall), and war spend-ing has totaled over $1.3trillion in the 10 yearssince the 9/11 attacks(about 10 percent of thenational debt).

The number of U.S. wardead in that time isapproaching 6,000 – twicethe number killed on 9/11.

And as for the deaths ofinnocents? Just last weekwe heard of a missile raidin Libya – intended for amilitary target – thatkilled civilians in what aNATO spokesman called a“weapons systems failure.”

These are the things weget ourselves into when weget into war, and they arethe reason that the deci-sion to go to war should betaken only with theutmost consideration.

Article I, Section 8 of theConstitution gives Con-gress the authority todeclare war, as theFramers wisely decidedthat so grave and momen-tous a decision should notbe in the hands of one manalone, but should insteadbe so clearly right that

Congress should be per-suaded as well.

There was, of course, theunderstanding that thepresident, as Commander-in-Chief, may use the mili-tary in the short term torepel an attack, but anyother commitment ofAmerican military forcerequired clearing the hur-dle of congressional ap-proval.

In the years since WorldWar II, there have beennumerous cases of U.S.forces being sent intoharm’s way without a dec-laration of war. In 1973,after our involvement inVietnam, Congress passedthe War Powers Act,requiring the president tonotify Congress within 48hours of committingarmed forces to action andforbidding forces fromremaining in action for

more than 60 days (withan additional 30-day with-drawal period) withoutauthorization from Con-gress.

Congress had to over-ride a veto by RichardNixon to pass the law, andpresidents ever since havechafed under its restric-tions – including BarackObama.

Our involvement inLibya is now over threemonths old, and there hasbeen no request for con-gressional authorization.What began as the imposi-tion of a UN-authorizedno-fly zone under NATOauspices, meant to protectcivilians, has become apublicly acknowledgedmission to remove the cur-rent Libyan government.

And both Democratsand Republicans are cry-ing foul.

The president hasrejected the counsel of hisown attorney general, thehead of the Office of LegalCounsel and the DefenseDepartment’s generalcounsel, who all said thathe was violating the WarPowers act, according to aNew York Times report.

Meanwhile, a group of10 members of Congress


So grave and momentous adecision [as going to war]should not be inthe hands of oneman alone.

including such diverse per-sonages as Democrat Den-nis Kucinich and Mary-land’s own conservativeRepublican Roscoe Bart-lett has filed a lawsuitalleging that Obama hasviolated the War PowersAct.

Our own Rep. C.A.Dutch Ruppersberger isnot among them.

In an interview lastweek, Ruppersbergeressentially defended theWhite House position thatthe War Powers Act does-n’t apply to the Libya oper-ation because “there are noboots on the ground” inwhat is so far an air-onlyoperation, and because“the War Powers Act was-n’t intended to restrict ourparticipation in NATOoperations.

“I believe every presi-dent should communicatewith Congress [on the useof military force],” he said,noting that “in my role on[the House IntelligenceCommittee, where Rup-persberger is the rankingDemocrat], I was

informed. I was broughtinto the [White House] sit-uation room and shownwhat we were doing andwhy we were going in. Itwas to stop the killing ofcivilians, and we are doingit with NATO.”

He acknowledged thatthe ongoing conflict overthe War Powers Act, espe-cially with the apparentexpansion of the missionto include regime change,might require resolutionin the courts.

“Since [the act] waspassed, almost every pres-ident has disagreed withit,” he said, “but that’s forthe courts to decide.”

While federal courtshave, in recent years,shown tremendous defer-ence to executive authori-ty, here’s hoping that, on amatter as important as thedecision to go to war, thecourts decide to keep thebar set high.

In fact, since war is themost serious thing anation can do, shouldn’tthat bar be the highest ofall?

■ Opinions expressed are those of the writer and donot represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle orKimbel Publication Inc.You can contact Eagle editorSteve Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].

2 The Dundalk Eagle, Dundalk, MD September 8, 2011

PharmacyFACTS

Presented by

Dr. Mark Lichtman

ARE YOU TAKING YOUR VITAMINS?Years ago, only “health nuts” were concerned about taking

nutritional supplements, getting daily exercise, and watchingwhat they ate. Today, in this age when scientific study isincreasingly giving credence to the healthful benefits of vita-mins/minerals, exercise, and diet, one-quarter to one-third ofAmericans now take daily vitamin supplements. Seventy per-cent take nutritional supplements at least occasionally, andone in three people with chronic disease look to herbal reme-dies for help. These numbers certainly suggest that a signifi-cant portion of the American population believes that theseproducts will help them better maintain their health. Are youone of them? If not, investigate the benefits of nutritional sup-plements.

We have accurate and up-to-date vitamin information. Weare experts, and guarantee your satisfaction with any serviceprovided. Call us today. We specialize in hard to find prescrip-tions and can compound medicines for you. We can provideyou with homeopathy, herbs, vitamins, and aromatherapy. Weare proud to be open every day of the year: Mon-Fri 8am-10:30pm, Sat 8:30am-10:30pm, Sun 9am-9pm.

P.S. Together, vitamins and minerals are called micronutrients.


now available in Dundalk!

B. ERIC JONES, MD, PARetina Specialist, Board Certified

1005 North Point Blvd.Suite 707410-288-2853

MACULAR DEGENERATIONDIABETIC RETINOPATHY

Avastin Therapy



While the introduction of fluoride into drinking water is general-ly credited with lowering the incidence of tooth decay, there can betoo much of a good thing. In fact, the U.S. Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention reports that about 40% of adolescentshave tooth streaking or spottiness caused by too much fluorideconsumption. The splotchy tooth condition known as “fluorosis”is especially common among children between the ages of 12 and15 years, and seems to have become more prevalent since the1980s. Changing drinking habits, toothpastes containing fluoride,and fluoride supplements seem to be primary causes of fluorosis.To address the potential problem, the federal government intendsto lower the recommended limit for fluoride in water supplies.

NOW ACCEPTING BLUE CROSS/ BLUE SHIELD DENTAL PLANS.

To schedule an appointment, please call 410-284-1414. Our office is conveniently located at 3001Sollers Point Road.

P.S. Parents with concerns about their children’s fluoride con-sumption should schedule a dental examination to look for signsof the condition.


SPOT CHECK

WORKERS’ COMP?LEARN YOUR RIGHTS

410-282-208533 + yrs.

Exp.:Workers’

Comp;Auto

Accidents

William R. Bacon, Jr.ATTORNEY AT LAW

7708 GERMAN HILL ROADTestimonial: Steelworker of 37 years, Robert J. Funk, Sr.says: “After another lawyer turned down my Workers’Compensation claim, Mr. Bacon tried it and I received asix-figure award!’’



A good time to pause for some serious reflection

The anniversary isupon us. It’s been10 years since theawful September

morning that compelled usto witness a crime of thesort we had never beforeimagined.

Here in Dundalk (the lo-cal ceremony is on Sept.10, actually) and aroundthe country, we will pauseto reflect upon the eventsof that day, and upon allthat has happened in theirwake.

We will remember theinnocent victims, the lovedones left behind to mourn,the heroes who rushed to-ward the scene even ascommon folk wisely ranaway, the men and womenin uniform who’ve servedtheir nation since — someat the cost of their lives.

It is altogether fittingand proper that we shoulddo this.

We will also note, asSen. Benjamin Cardindoes in his op-ed on page11, how the events of thatterrible day “foreverchanged our nation.”

Our nation did change,and I hope that when wereflect upon that fact, wewon’t do so uncritically.

As I’ve noted before,there is no more serious

decision a nation makesthan the choice to go towar. Our best young peopleare sent away from thelives they should be lead-ing and placed into themost hellish of circum-stances. Most come backdeeply changed. Many re-turn permanently dam-aged. Some don’t return atall.

Moreover, war invari-ably has a moral cost.When people are put intosituations where theymust kill or be killed, uglythings happen; bad deci-sions are made out of fearand confusion, innocentsdie, and otherwise goodyoung people are saddledwith the burden of havingdone bad things.

And while human livescertainly outrank meremoney, there’s no avoidingthe fact that war diverts fi-nancial resources as well,especially when we arespending billions of dollarsper month fighting warsabroad. That expenditurehas what economists call“opportunity cost” — thatwhich is lost because mon-ey and resources are di-verted.

More subtle is thechange in the role of ourgovernment. Even as the

tide of public opinion inthis country is growingever more skeptical of gov-ernmental authority, weare, bit by bit, giving — orallowing our governmentto take — increasing pow-er in the name of KeepingUs Safe.

New precedents are be-ing set on a regular basis— that the governmentcan, without a judicialwarrant, conduct far-reaching search and sur-veillance activities un-known to previous genera-tions; that people — even

American citizens — canbe incarcerated indefinite-ly, without trial and evenwithout being charged;and that, in at least onecase, the government canissue an assassination or-der against an Americancitizen who has never beenformally charged with acrime.

All of these things, weare told, are justified be-case we are at war.

And because our naturalinstinct is to rally ‘roundthe flag, and because wejustifiably fear the enemy,


Our nation didchange, and Ihope that whenwe reflect on thatfact, we won’t doso uncritically.

we don’t ask too manyquestions.

The problem is that, giv-en the definition of thewar, it is one that shows nosigns of ending. Thesweeping — and ever-in-creasing — powers beingassumed by our govern-ment are likely to becomeset in stone.

And while they are cur-rently being justified bythe need to fight terror-ism, who is to say whatpurposes those powersmay be turned to in the fu-ture?

We hear again andagain that those who at-tack us hate our freedomand want to destroy ourway of life.

(Actually, it’s probablynot as simple as that, butthat’s another topic.)

The real danger, howev-er, is that it won’t be themdestroying our freedomand our way of life; it willbe us giving it away in thename of “security.”

And therein lies thequestion: if we are, as weclaim to be, a different sortof nation, one defined notby our borders (whichhave changed over time) orby a common heritage (wecome, after all, from every-where), but by the princi-ples embodied in our Con-stitution — ideals of liber-ty and human dignity —then how far can we go insacrificing our principlesin the name of safety be-fore we stop being who weclaim to be?

The questions aren’teasy, but they do need tobe asked. Somewhere inthe midst of all of the oth-er appropriate reflectionswe undertake this week-end, I hope more of us willask.

■ Opinions expressed are those of the writer and donot represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle orKimbel Publication Inc.You can contact Eagle editorSteve Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].

2 The Dundalk Eagle December 24, 2014

We started it, and it’s long past time to finish itTalk of the Town by Steve Matrazzo


In March 1952, a few months before presidential and parliamentary elec-tions in Cuba, Fulgencio Batista, a for-

mer army officer and previous president, staged a coup, ousting the sitting president and canceling the elections — in which Batista had been running third in the polls behind leftist-reformist Partido Ortodoxo candidate Roberto Agramonte. It wasn’t the first time arms had inter-rupted Cuba’s attempts at democracy, nor was it Batista’s first coup; he had a leading role in the “Revolt of the Sergeants” in 1933 — starting the path that would take him from sergeant-stenographer to colonel to president. The 1952 coup inaugurated an era of repression and corruption that stands out even by the sad standards of 20th-Century Latin American political history. Under Batista, the Cuban government became a handmaiden of U.S. business interests, which by 1959 owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar-producing lands, as well as the bulk of the country’s cattle ranches, mines and oil industry — not to mention 80 percent of the utilities, most famously symbolized by the “Gold-en Telephone” presented to Batista by U.S. telecom giant ITT in 1957. Moreover, Batista made Cuba a haven for American Mafia activity, especially gambling. (In its day, Havana was a gam-bling and resort destination that competed favorably with Las Vegas.) From both corporations and gangsters, money — that is, bribes and kickbacks — flowed into Batista’s pockets, eventually totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Faced with significant domestic opposi-tion, Batista turned to the usual menu of

repressive measures — including assassi-nations and public executions — resulting in the deaths of an estimated 20,000 civil-ians over a six-year period. All of this, of course, took place with the blessing of the U.S. government, which was happy to support Batista and similarly venal and repressive dictators elsewhere so long as they toed the geopolitical line in the Cold War. One of the candidates in the canceled 1952 parliamentary elections, supporting Ortodoxo and Agramonte, was a young at-torney regarded as having a bright future in Cuban politics. In the wake of the coup, however, he gave up on the corrupt Cuban “democ-racy” and, a year later, led a guerilla attack on a military post known as the Moncada Barracks. The attack was easily defeated by the army, and its leaders imprisoned. However, opposition to Batista contin-ued to grow, and the despot fled the coun-try in the early hours of New Year’s Day 1959. Opposition forces rode into Havana a week later, led by the young attorney-turned-revolutionary — Fidel Castro. The U.S. has wished ever since to get rid of Castro, trying everything from an armed overthrow attempt at the Bay of Pigs to sometimes-comical assassination attempts — an exploding conch shell targeting the known scuba enthusiast, for example. We’ve aimed broadcast signals at the island, allowed — encouraged, real-ly — provocative acts by Florida-based anti-Castro exiles, and, most importantly, maintained a broad economic embargo. Still, in spite of the bad things Fidel Castro has done in his own country — no one accuses him of Batistaesque corrup-

tion, but there’s plenty of brutal repression on his résumé, not to mention serious economic mismanagement — and the best efforts of the U.S. to remove him, he has hung on — and even moved into quiet retirement in his 80s. The embargo was never about freedom in Cuba; we kept it up even as we actively supported despots far worse than Castro, even as we have embraced trade with Communist regimes in China, Vietnam and elsewhere, and long after it was clear that the embargo was not achieving its stated goal of change. In fact, it was never about anything but placating exiles in Miami and domestic anti-Communist zealotry. In short, it was all politics. If anything, the embargo helped Castro by giving him an enemy to rail against, and one on which he could blame his country’s woes. He became the hero who stood up to the U.S. bogeyman. However uninspiring President Obama has been in foreign policy matters (yes, “uninspiring.” Let’s be kind; it’s Christ-mas), he made the right call this time. We paved the way for Castro by our support of the corrupt and brutal Batista, and our unrelenting attempts to bring him down only strengthened his popularity in Cuba and around the world. A half-century of rejectionist policy has long since failed. Will engagement work any better? Who knows? But it’s worth a shot, and it’s long past time to try.

• • •

Most of my pre-jour-nalism work experience was decidedly blue-collar in nature, but it includes a stint as a tobacconist with Baltimore’s famed A. Fader & Son. It has been illegal to import cigars from Cuba for more than 50 years, but cigars keep for decades if properly cared for, so plenty of pre-embargo cigars were still around in the 1980s. (As were a few that came in “under the radar,” of course .... ) As such, I had in those days more than a few chances to sample a range of the “true Havanas” over which so much fuss is made. And I dare say I had acquired a fair palate. Yes, a quality hand-made Cuban cigar is a rich delight. But I suspect that many who look forward to the reappearance of Cuban cigars on the U.S. market are in for a letdown. They’re exquisite, but I never regarded them as better than top-quality cigars from Jamaica, Honduras or the Do-minican Republic. (Just as French wines are wonderful, but not actually better than the finest that Italy, Spain and Germany, among others, have to offer. Not to mention upstate New York or California’s Napa Valley.) Someday, Cuban cigars will be as read-ily available as the others. Will the mys-tique fade in the face of familiarity? Or will the allure continue on reputation alone? Only time will tell. Same with baseball players. But I’ll let Eagle associate editor Bill Gates deal with that facet; he is, after all, the sports guy ....

steve matrazzo - columns on national security and civil liberties

Documents