Barrett Rainey's Second Thoughts

The U.S. Air Force general who would control all this country’s nuclear weapons in wartime has publicly made a claim that should curdle your blood.

In at least two recent public forums, Gen. John Hyten has said he would not necessarily launch nuclear weapons despite being ordered to do so by the President. That statement should get your full attention!

Especially because Hyten is Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, successor of the old Strategic Air Command, dreamed up by Curtis LeMay in the late 1940’s. For decades, the four-star at the top has had responsibility to launch – or not launch – nuclear weapons in all services – not just USAF.

When a general makes public statements that he – and he alone – will decide the legitimacy or legality of a presidential order to launch the forces, it seems in keeping with the political mess we have in the White House. Damned dangerous!

The caveat Hyten offers with his statement is if he feels or believes the order from Trump to be “illegal.”

“If it’s illegal,” he said, “I’m going to say ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And he’s going to say ‘What would be legal?’”

Someone else at the top is saying the same thing. Retired General Robert Kehler, who preceded Hyten at Strategic Command, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month “the U.S. military is obligated to follow legal orders – not illegal ones.”

In neither case did the generals describe which they’d consider “legal” and which would be “illegal.”

My last two years of military service, I sat at a console about six feet from the “red phone” the SAC commander would use to order a nuclear strike – an order for the Army, Navy and any other branch with nukes. The commander and senior staff sat at desks above our heads on the command balcony from where the order would come to pick up the phone – should it be given. The whole place was tense 24/7. Highly professional. But tense.

During my time, we had the Cuban missile crisis. I know intimately how close we came to launching. But the President was John Kennedy and the SAC Commander was General Thomas Power. Despite the danger, we knew orders from the White House and the response would be legal.

Now, we have senior officers creating wiggle room if we get that close again. I have no idea what constitutes an “illegal” order. But I’m damned familiar with Trump and his fits of pique – of childish anger. He does things and says things that show he’s not a stable person when faced with crisis events. Even little bitty “crisis” events.

Military personnel – no matter the branch – are trained from the gitgo to obey lawful orders of anyone a rank or two up the chain. That’s the very backbone of structure that provides the clarity to try to keep people alive in wartime. Or it could kill them.

There have been many changes since my years of service. Personnel are smarter, better trained, work with better equipment and seem to have more leeway in most responsibilities. But the demand to obey a lawful order has not changed. Not one word. It is still the first commandment.

When a general – or two – or three – says he (or they) will decide which order is lawful, that frightens me. Especially when we don’t know what criteria he’d use to make the distinction. During the Cuban crisis, LeMay – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time – wanted to launch a strike on Cuba and promised Kennedy he’d “make a parking lot” out of the small nation. Legal? Yes. Crazy? Certainly!

A lot of political and military types have chewed on this “legal-illegal” business since Trump became Commander-In-Chief. They’ve talked of how to deal with him if he flies off the handle as he does regularly. Suppose that madman in North Korea says or does something crazy and Trump decides to launch. He’s already said publicly the response would be “something the world has never seen” and that “North Korea would be destroyed.”

Is that a “legal?” Or an illegal?”

General Hyten and others in the military are going to have to decide. And I’d like to know what the Hell their criteria is going to be.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on The legal, the illegal – and nukes

Sometimes, tying together two seemingly disparate events/stories can make a good connection to explain an issue larger than either of them. So it is as I look at the national outpouring of deserved condemnation that followed the musings of multi-millionaires Donald Sterling and Mitt Romney some time ago. Talk about disparate!

But they do share one commonality – aside from one disparaging 47% of the citizens of this nation and the other with his racist vehemence involving an entire race of Americans. Both instances involved men who believed they were speaking only to the people in their private presence while the words of each were surreptitiously recorded and later made public.

Whether the principals of either situation engaged in speech that was morally right or wrong is up to any of us who care to decide. But one thing is sure. Both fell victim to expectations of privacy that were violated – a privacy that is gone from our lives. An individual right we were brought up to expect, but which has now been eradicated by our own technology and the immoral use of that technology by those so devoted.

We’ve long been openly or surreptitiously spied upon by microphones and cameras in public – and some not-so-public – places. Banks, grocery stores, parks, street corners, while we’re driving and – if Eric Snowden’s disclosures are accurate – for years while we’ve engaged in written or spoken conversations with the expectation of absolute privacy. We can be outraged. We can be vehement in our opposition. We can demand an end to such activities. But we’ll lose. The genie is out of the bottle. We have become a world where Big Brothers – and Big Sisters – keep an eye and an ear on all we do.

From a legal standpoint, Sterling may have a case that his First Amendment rights were violated. He uttered his now infamous racist and sexist words in a two-way conversation in California where recording any such conversation is illegal unless approved – in advance – by BOTH parties. Seems obvious he didn’t know of the recording and, thus, at least in California, it appears to have been an illegal act.

Then there’s the part of the story in which someone with knowledge of that recorded conversation leaked it. His then-girl friend – the second party in this instance – denied it was her. A little shakier in the legal department but certainly a moral issue.

Big box stores – grocery and otherwise – often advise you are being recorded “for your own safety.” Pure B.S.. You’re being recorded as a shoplifting tool, a video record of robbery attempts and at the advice of insurance carriers to catch people falsely claiming injury on the property. Your “protection” figures into none of it.

Banks, convenience stores, gas stations, traffic enforcement, parking lots, city parks, toll road, pizza parlors, airports, casinos, cruise ships, theaters, museums, court houses, city halls and other public buildings, bars, merchants of all sizes – all are represented in the official “people spying” industry. Some even use sonic or ultrasonic signals to notify local police of illegal entries or other after-hours interruptions. It matters not how small a community you live in – you are under surveillance.

Cell phones have made amateur “reporters” of all of us. Think of videos or pictures you’ve chuckled about in your emails or social media. Much of the time, what amused you was the subject of the missive was unaware of his/her situation. So, innocently someone passed it to you and – innocently, of course – you saw it, laughed and – innocently again – sent it along.

I’ve seen cameras disguised as buttons. Medicine now uses “live” cameras in pills! Swallow one and the Doc can watch your innards at work. More and more cops are wearing cameras to protect themselves from false charges of brutality or other inappropriate actions. Bail bondsmen, process servers, cab drivers – even postal delivery workers – are following suit.

Awhile back, I decided to count cameras I could see in one day’s travels. The total was eight readily identifiable with another six “could be’s” in cop cars, two stores and on the highway. And I lived in a town of only 1,400 folks. Of course, the whole idea is you shouldn’t be able to spot surveillance cameras in some cases, but you can figure they’re there. In addition to those you’re told about – for your own “protection,” of course.

Privacy – personal privacy – as we’ve known it is gone. Has been for some time. Even in our most unguarded moments, we’re apt to be spied on by someone. It matters not where you live – what you do – where you go. We’ve either gotten so used to it we don’t think about it or – as in the case of those big stores – we’re told of the spying and we accept it.

Used to be old political hands warned newcomers “If you don’t want to see it in the morning headlines, don’t say it.” Not so anymore. They’ve just gotten more defensive. Check out the number of “public” meetings where professional media is turned away. Outsiders only know what went on if someone inside leaks pictures or audio recordings. Which happens often.

I can think of no defense against this invasion in our lives. Not one that works, anyway. As citizens, we can’t afford to hire security people to daily check our homes and other places of expected personal privacy for recording devices. If the professionals can’t do it, the rest of us don’t stand a chance.

As the old joke goes, “even paranoids can have real enemies.” The unblinking official eyes and unofficial ears most of us are caught by each day may not be enemies. But, no matter whose hands operate them, they’ve changed our lives forever. And not for the better.

R-I-P, privacy.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on The death of privacy

It’s normal. It’s natural. Happens all the time. Always has. And it will always be so.

Those claims can be used to describe the election of people to public office who are ignorant, dishonest, unscrupulous, racist, immoral, have questionable character or – in some cases – should be locked up.

As an old Oregonian – and a former Republican – I’ve cast a ballot or two for someone who had one or more of those characteristics. One of the reasons I say “former” is because my political party, at the time, was putting forth candidates I couldn’t accept – candidates I didn’t believe should be in any elected office. After a period of non-participation, I turned independent.

But, in 60 years of voting, I’ve never seen a candidate more vile and unfit as in the case of Roy Moore in Alabama. Making a bad situation even worse, is the acceptance by the hierarchy of the state Republican leadership – and most Republicans in the U.S. Senate – who’ve not renounced him and are continuing to support him.

And don’t give me that “innocent-until-proven-guilty” B.S.. We’re not talking legal matters here. We’re talking immorality and deviant behavior in society and public office. Heavily researched, cross checked and corroborated in depth.

Look at what’s happening in the entertainment and business worlds. When more than a few victims come forward and details of the assaults against them can be substantiated, the perpetrators are fired, shunned or are otherwise forced from public view. In Moore’s case, more than 30 people have supported the multiple victim’s claims. On the record.

Aside from this latest mess he’s created, his public life is one of repeated proof he can’t be trusted. He’s exhibited terrible judgement time after time. He’s proven he lacks the moral turpitude expected of the high positions of responsibility he’s been elected to. Look no further than being forced off the Alabama Supreme Court – not once, but twice – for defiance of the law and bad judgement.

Some of his defenders crazily claim Moore’s behavior can be backed up by the Bible. “Joseph was in his 30’s and Mary was a teenager,” they say. “And that relationship brought us Jesus Christ.”

How twisted is that? Hey, Bible-thumpers. Christ’s birth was the immaculate conception. Joseph had nothing to do with it! Zealotry, ignorance and stupidity wrapped up in one foul-smelling package.

But, the disgusting, deviant behavior doesn’t end with Moore. It includes all those Republicans who – knowing his background and behavior and the depth of the accusations against him – lack the guts to denounce him.

It appears Senate leadership is ready to accept Moore into the fold if he’s elected. And, when you get right down to it, all they want is his vote for a tax bill that should be aborted before it even gets to the floor for debate. It’s as simple as that. They even brought him up to Capitol Hill to discuss how they could help his candidacy.

Republican leadership at large – and Congressional “leadership” in particular – have become enablers for Moore. Rather than condemn him and his well-documented deviant behavior, they seem willing to accept someone who’s repeatedly proven himself unfit for trust and responsibility for his one vote. More like 30 pieces of silver.

The world of politics is large enough for many opinions, differing approaches to common problems and strenuous debate about any issue. But, that world has become contaminated in recent years with an overwhelming desire on the part of officeholders to perpetuate themselves in office rather than to do what’s right – what’s required. The cancer of money has replaced the healthy dignity of achieving the common good.

Moore – for all his proven failings and repeated deviant behavior – is the poster boy for the emergence of zealotry in politics – a calling of honorable service inhabited by honorable people. To our shame, he may be an aberration but he’s not the only one.

No Moore!

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on No Moore

So there’s no misunderstanding, let’s get a few facts on-the-record so what you’re about to read is clear.

I am opposed to sexual harassment in ALL its forms. Period. Those who’ve been victims of it – both women AND men – deserve our support and help in any way called upon. Period. I have absolutely nothing but contempt for anyone – woman OR man – who has perpetrated any sort of sexual or mental damage to another Period.

Are we clear? “Crystal,” you say. Good. Let’s proceed.

We’re being bombarded daily with seemingly endless claims someone sexually harassed someone. Entertainment. Political. Business. Educational. Seems somebody in almost any employment or social activity has been an S-O-B. The claims are exploding everywhere.

Good! It’s time – way past time – our society recognized the issue and how large it has become in our permissive environment. There can be no excuses, no more sweeping it under the rug, no more victims suffering silently – afraid to make legitimate accusations against the abuser. Period.

But…..

What about the public condemnation and shaming of the “abuser” when those accusations aren’t legitimate? Who suffers then? Whose career, social and public images are needlessly ruined?

It happens. I had a room mate in the military from Louisiana who was loudly and publicly accused of stalking and rape. Clear descriptions to her superiors. Against my friend – a noncom with many years of good service.

He was called before the squadron commander and told of his expected punishment which included being stripped of his rank and dishonorably discharged. He was confined to barracks.

Rumors circulated. While awaiting formal action, he was shunned by nearly everyone. He was called every name in the book. On several occasions, he was physically attacked. Those weeks were Hell.

He finally went to the commander and demanded an open hearing in front of a board of officers. He also asked the accuser be ordered to appear and testify. The commander agreed.

When the hearing was over, he was cleared of all charges. When faced with a lot of brass and in a formal setting, the woman recanted. Opening her own military records, it was clear she was deeply troubled, had been arrested for stalking and had been under psychiatric care.

And my room mate? He was militarily cleared of all charges, the recorded accusation was stricken from his personnel files. He was restored to his former rank with reimbursement for all pay lost.

But…..

As he continued his career, he constantly ran into someone at a new base that had been on the same one he had at the time of the accusations. He was often confronted by other personnel who hadn’t heard of the positive disposition of his case years ago. He never got away from it as long as he was on active duty. He also never received a promotion from the rank he held when being accused..

As we see more and more people hit with similar public charges, I can’t help but think of my old friend and the absolute Hell he went through for the rest of his career. I lost track of him years ago but I’ve often wondered if those phony charges followed him into retirement.

And that’s my concern now. It’s likely that most of the new accusations reported daily are accurate. That’s good. Bless those who’ve found the strength within themselves to step up and finally face their abusers and expose them for what they are. And, given the media herd mentality to uniformly traipse after the sensational or lurid, accusers will continue to have a national platform.

But …

What if the accusations are false? What it they’re baseless? What if those named are as innocent as my friend? Will careers be similarly destroyed? Will legal bills to defend themselves bankrupt them? And, if found innocent, what will their lives be like from then on?

I’ve seen a lot of accusers being publicized without anyone seeking evidence or corroboration. Just throw out the name of a celebrity and you’ll make the evening news and the front page.

My friend’s life-changing experience has made me more cautious when it comes to anyone – woman or man – who simply makes a claim. I’m happy to see many accused fess up and some to take action to deal with their problem. But what about those – woman OR man – who may be dragged innocently into the media maelstrom?

It’s great this sensitive issue is being treated openly. But charges are just that – charges. They are not proof.

Posted in Column | | Comments Off on The other side