Thoughts on the military and military activities of a diverse nature. Free-ranging and eclectic.

Friday, June 17, 2005

J.R. VIII - - Mental.

This is coolbert:

Extracts taken from the original article of J.R. found here.

With regard to political leaders having the mental fitness to have their finger on the nuclear trigger:

"as candidates for such positions are not usually screened for signs of mental illness, nor even their past records of behavior necessarily scrutinized before they take power."

Again, here I would disagree with J.R. 100 %.

It is a fact that the record of Bill Clinton with regard to the ladies was well known to the American public even before his first election. This COULD and SHOULD have been noted as a sign of a mental problem, which it very well might be in the case of Bill. A psychiatrist was quoted as saying that THIS IS a clear cut case of mental instability. Furthermore, as the U.S. President, Clinton WAS the commander of all the nuclear equipped units. By regulation, a member of the military cannot command a nuclear equipped unit if there is even the appearance of wrong doing, even if totally unfounded. And in the case of Bill, it was not just appearance, it was fact. There WAS wrong doing. I know that the military reg standard DOES NOT apply to an elected President. But from a moral and from a mental stability standpoint, Clinton WAS NOT fit to hold office.

Even more egregious was the conduct of John F. Kennedy [JFK] during his Presidency. Kennedy spoke of Fremantle as being a model he wanted to emulate. Run the affairs of the British Empire during the day, and party hard at night. This JFK did with relish and abandon. Portraying himself as a devoted family man with a beautiful wife and adoring children all the while conducting himself as a "tomcat", and doing so to the extreme, might also very well be an indication of a mental imbalance that should have precluded him from office. And this AT THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR. THE MAN WHO HAD HIS FINGER ON THE NUCLEAR TRIGGER PLACED HIMSELF IN A POSITION OF BEING EXTREMELY SUSCEPTIBLE TO BLACKMAIL. OR EVEN MANIPULATION BY A FOREIGN POWER.

It may be very well that persons such as Kennedy and Clinton did and do have a mental illness that DID and DOES make them exceedingly susceptible to manipulation. Think of the semen stained dress!!


"Believe it or not, the President of the USA's annual medical examination does not currently, and never has, included even a routine psychiatric examination. Virtually all other personnel expected to endure unusual stresses-- such as FBI and CIA agents, and professional pilots-- must at minimum pass a single such exam to begin their jobs. Not so the Presidency circa 2002, even though psychiatric problems there could literally bring on the end of the world."

Well, the American electorate through voting has the final say on this matter. Supposedly. The President can still be removed from office by impeachment if he IS found to be mentally unstable. That WAS NOT an accusation leveled against Bill Clinton however.

"minimizing the power of the elite to use secrecy or censorship to shield the actions of themselves or others."

NOT merely secrecy or censorship. Obfuscation and intimidation, spin, and human attack dogs are also used to "shield" the elite. Any hint of criticism and the accuser becomes the target. Place you the accuser on the defensive. It is not so much the accused but the accuser that goes on trial. Again, in the case of JFK, the press WAS aware of his many indiscretions, but took the stance that, "JFK WAS DOING MORE GOOD THAN BAD", so don't report it [Ben Bradlee, Washington Post]. Ben was the brother of the late Mary Meyer, who JFK was especially fond of. OH, MY!!

"Run the typed or transcribed statements of a suspect through special analysis software which looks for changes in writing or speaking presentation which indicates possible falsehoods or confusion"

J.R. is speaking here about means that are available right now to determine if an elite is telling the truth or not. This may or may not help in the quest for "truth". I would also disagree with J.R. here. If I say the Iraqi has weapons of mass destruction, and believe it to be true at the time I am saying it, and later this is proven to be not true [the Iraqi does NOT have such weapons], I have NOT told a lie. I was mistaken, but I have not told a lie as a lie is ordinarily understood. Means of detecting falsehoods and lies would not work here!

People [elites] in the public arena are also excellent at speaking in grey tones, and not merely in shades of black and white. Such analysis software in all probability would be defeated in these cases where elites speak in chiaroscuro [shades of light and grey].


"The old conventional lie detection apparatus (polygraph) may be used to gather certain types of information, but is not itself necessarily an infallible detection device."

NO one suggests in the first place that the polygraph is infallible. Even the most ardent supporters do not maintain this assertion. It IS valuable as a tool. Does produce results when the questions are asked in the proper manner by a skilled polygraph operator. But should be looked upon as merely a tool,
one tool in an arsenal of tools for the investigator.


coolbert.

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home