PRESUMED GUILTY
Re: Ben Stein’s
Presumed Innocent, Anyone?
I love Ben Stein’s work but we part ways on this one. As
the former governor of California attests to, secret lives and
secret unseemly pasts can be kept quiet for a long time. And though
I agree with Mr. Stein that to single this IMFer out for being able
to afford a $3,000 a night hotel room speaks of class envy,
proffering that he should not get the same treatment as a less
affluent person would get charged with a similar crime doesn’t make
sense either.
— Robert Brennan
Presumably, though not certainly, the legal mind of the
greatly-admired Ben Stein will agree that “presumed innocent” has
no application outside the courtroom. We are all free to assume as
we like about anyone — famous or not — accused of a crime.
Perhaps when the “mighty” fall, the American imagination takes
special delight, but the facts as recited by Mr. Stein concerning
DSK’ s treatment do not seem that different from the manner in
which the lowliest crack dealer is treated. As for his “lifetime of
service,” so far, there are no facts to support that contention.
All we know for certain is that an European blow-hard womanizer has
been caught with his pants down and may have criminally assaulted a
chambermaid.
Riker’s Island sound like a terrible place; much like the
Detroit House of Correction where I spent a week-end on a spurious
murder charge. The people who were in the clink with me were from
all over the place. The few things they had in common were that no
one wanted to be there and most of them — probably all of them —
had done something to attract the attention of the arresting
officer.
I’m not saying that DSK should be judged, all I’m saying
is that we are entitled to think that he’s guilty. Unless we are
picked to be jurors in his case.
As for the special treatment Ben want to afford him
(separate quarters, house arrest), I ask: what entitles a bigwig
Eurocrat to such amenities?
— John C. Shea
East Lansing,
Michigan
Ben Stein’s latest article is ridiculous. It assumes that
the NYC cops would proceed with a case absent the type of evidence
required to make the rape accusations stick.
How about you not defend the “innocent until proven
guilty” rapist until the facts come out? And until then, everyone
who’s heard rumors about him being a “sexual primate” can feel free
to talk smack about the guy. After all, we’re not sitting
trial.
If there’s anything these past few years have proven, it’s
that rich white guys don’t need any more protection than they’re
already getting from the elite power structure. Give it a
rest.
— Todd Giles
Phoenix, Arizona
I’m a liberal with nothing positive to say about
The American Spectator’s political views or
guiding ethos. You don’t like me. And I don’t like you.
And yet, even I — sitting here on my ivory tower with
George Soros and Bill Ayers, my French wine in one hand and latte
in the other — even I thought you guys were better than to put
your masthead above Ben Stein’s… whatever the hell that was
supposed to be.
— Andy Barr
Washington, D.C.
I am a fan of Mr. Stein, but argue that DSK deserves no
extra special treatment because he is a person of
breeding.
Mr. Stein in the missive comes off as an elitist. Two
thumbs down.
— Dennis Bausch
Please inform Ben Stein, that I usually enjoy his columns.
His latest one was beyond grotesque. I would be happy to engage him
in a discussion. I promise no bloody bed-sheets. Unless, he chooses
otherwise. I could not be possibly more serious. Ben, have you no
shame whatsoever? Better for you to pray to all the gods. One, will
certainly, not be enough. Shame on you!
— Ray Aube
Ben Stein says this guy is one the most recognizable
people in the world? Recognizable to who? I live in Washington,
have worked in politics and government for 35 years, and am an avid
consumer of news. I never heard of him until his arrest. Ben Stein
seems to live in some alternative economists’ universe. But I did
love him in Ferris Bueller.
— Edwin Davis
Falls
Church, Virginia
Why is Ben Stein so concerned about DSK? He is presumed
innocent, that is why he had a bail hearing. He will very soon be
charged with a crime or released. I hope Ben knows we don’t have
special places for the well-connected public servants, Riker’s
Island is where I would go under similar circumstances. Ben is
shocked that this guy has no known entry level crime? Has he read
the papers? Women are emerging! Did O.J. prick a few with knives
before stepping up to slicing throats! I’m surprised Ben is
surprised. If DSK case follows that of the Duke lacrosse players
then this poor guy will be vindicated, his accuser will be exposed,
and his prosecutor will be shamed and ruined. Or he will just go to
Attica. I believe in the same rules as Ben Stein does, but why
speak up for this particular guy? I’m smelling some elitism.
— Harold Moyers
Has Ben Stein been dropped on his head, because it seems
he’s defending a man who’s a rapist and, well, even if the guy is
innocent Ben is coming across as though this woman is a liar
because a man like this wouldn’t dare do what he’s being
accused of and well that’s pretty sad.
— Craig
Did Mr. Stein write a similar article in support of Julian
Assange, or Bradley Manning? Of course not. I call false outrage in
support of the monied class, Mr. Stein.
— K.C. Corcoran
San Diego, California
This reminds me of the Duke lacrosse team. The fact that
this guy was staying in a $3000.00 hotel room identifies him as a
mark for a potential set-up.
— Steve Smith
Damn, Ben; could you possibly write a similar article on
the confinement of Pfc. Bradley Manning?
— Gene
Manon
Hagerstown, Maryland
Regarding the opinion of Ben Stein, please see mine
at http://bit.ly/j024Pn.
— Dimi Chakalov
Sofia, Bulgaria
Dear American Spectator,
The worst article I’ve ever read.
— Brian Oseredzuk
THE HELOS OF
ABBOTTABAD
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s
The Mystery of the Second Helicopter:
The administration may have had a higher degree of
confidence that bin Laden was in the Abbottabad complex, but they
did not get it from satellite photos. Our current generation
satellites have a resolution of about 0.3 meters (1 foot) for
monochromatic (black-and-white) images and 1 meter for color
images. In black and white, a human being would be a blob of 6
pixels by 2 pixels — if he was stretched out on the ground.
Overhead, he’s be about 2 x 1 pixels — though his shadow could be
used to estimate his height.
Persistent observation of the compound probably involved
high altitude unmanned air vehicles such as Predator or Global
Hawk, combined with human intelligence sources that could check out
the compound by eye.
As to the number of helicopters, I believe there must have
been a minimum of four involved: one for the team that assaulted
the compound; one or two to insert teams in blocking positions
around the compound to ensure nobody got out, or that a relief
force could not interfere; and one spare to be used either in the
event of a helo being lost (as happened) or to extract prisoners
and casualties.
This is pretty much standard operating procedure. To
engage in a raid of this sort with just one helicopter is asking
for failure. Helos are nowhere near as reliable as fixed wing
aircraft, and one must always provide a margin of error. Given the
low speed of helicopters, having a spare bird on the ground in
Afghanistan would be unacceptable — it would take the better part
of an hour to get to the compound, at a time when seconds
count.
I will say this: our special operations capabilities have
improved immeasurably since Operation Eagle Claw, Jimmy Carter’s
debacle in the desert — which was, by the way, the subject of my
first article for The American Spectator more than three
decades ago.
— Stuart Koehl
R. Emmett Tyrrell’s “The Mystery of the Second Helicopter”
is almost incomprehensibly obtuse. It should seem clear that the
SEALs needed a second helicopter for the precise reason it became
indispensable to the mission: it would provide egress in the event
the other was taken out.
There is an expression which has saved the lives of many
pilots: “One is none.” The wisdom of the statement should be
obvious: if you need a knife to survive and you lose it, you’re
screwed. If you have two you may significantly increase your
chances of survival.
More perplexing still, is Mr. Tyrrell’s contention that
the mission while being “a great success” was not “perfect.” Has
this guy ever been in air or ground combat? Missions are not
designed to be “perfect.” The end game is simple: did you
accomplish the goals of your mission within the mandated
requirements with minimal casualties or did you not? Perfection
does not enter into it. This is why in 1996 Defense Secretary
William Perry declared, “[A zero-defects mentality] creates
conditions that lead inevitably towards failure.”
There is no “mystery” of a second helicopter and in this
case the Freudian maxim has it right: sometimes a cigar is just a
cigar. Two were needed because of the substantial risk of losing
one.
— John Carpenter
Another, simpler reason for the second helicopter is
redundancy. Having your raiding party stuck in a (very probably)
hostile city with no transport out sort of sucks, don’t you know.
Not to deny that had both ‘copters been operable, that the mission
might have been different — and I suspect that the boots on the
ground had (or would assume) a fair amount of command
independence.
— Brooks Lyman
