The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Afghan Program Adds Local Units to Resist Taliban,” describes a new program pushed through by General Petraeus to create local defense forces to maintain order in remote Afghan villages.

The forces are loosely modeled after the self-policing instituted in Iraq after the Sunni Awakening and are designed to provide order in areas of the country where there are no NATO forces, Afghan Army or national Afghan police.

The new forces will be paid through the Interior Ministry and provided with arms and uniforms. Joining the force is expected to be popular because there are few jobs in the Afghan economy. However, there are a number of concerns.

President Karzai had previously resisted the formation of Afghan local police because he is afraid they will turn into militias with tribal loyalties and little to none for the central Afghan government. He is hoping that payment through the Interior Ministry will obviate this concern.

Secondly, there is the perpetual concern about corruption among police forces. This is a problem throughout Afghan society. And finally, bitter thoughts linger about so-called local forces set up during rule by the Soviet Union.

Still, the article provides hope if only because the idea is the brainchild and will be implemented by General Petraeus. He seemed to have that special touch to rescue us in Iraq and maybe, God willing, he will have so again.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Police Charged in 2005 Killings in New Orleans,” paints a chilling picture of a dysfunctional New Orleans police force during the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In a city widely plagued by lawlessness and desperate human needs, the police often hindered more than helped the situation. Many abandoned their posts and others added to the chaos and danger.

The indictment described in this story accuses four officers, now all in custody, of cold-blooded killing and wounding of members of the same family, the Brisettes, crossing the Danziger Bridge to get food at a nearby supermarket. Two former officers and two current ones stand accused of murder and could face the death penalty as a result. One of the officers is also accused of murdering a 40-year-old man with mental disabilities.

For those who claim oppression at the hands of the police around the country — an oppression most white people have never experienced and can not even imagine — this story provides poignant evidence in support of their views. Two homicide officers covered up the case and even met with the accused in an abandoned office to make sure their stories were consistent. A New Orleans judge dismissed the case before federal authorities became involved.

One wonders why this prosecution was not pursued during the Bush administration, and it took Attorney General Eric Holder, an appointment of President Obama to break open the case.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “In BP’s Record, a History of Boldness and Blunders,” provides a fascinating account of this corporate organization, with much to admire and detest, often at the same time. This company has consistently been at the forefront of technological innovation, pursued political deals noone else would take, often at a considerable risk, and, at the same time, made many costly errors.

The political deals included agreements with the oil oligarchs in the newly formed Russian confederation after the Soviet Union collapsed, and a contract to help Iraq improve its oil well productivity at a shockingly low $2 per barrel, to the dismay of many of its competitors.

The company was also pushing the envelope in technological innovation, pursuing what the industry called “elephants,” big projects with potentially lucrative returns instead of a smaller, safer ventures. But with boldness comes failure, and the article also chronicles a series of setbacks at Texas City, with the Alaska pipeline, and at another rig in the Gulf called Thunder Horse.

Overall, there is much to admire and detest about this company. It encompasses all the glories and ignomies of the capitalist system, a system that has created more wealth for the average person than any other in the history of the world, while simultaneously exploiting many of those same people. As the saying goes about democracy, it is one of the worst systems except for all the rest.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Swap Idea Emerged Early in Case of Russian Agents,” demonstrates some great investigative research in uncovering a full timeline of the arrest and transfer of 10 Russian sleeper agents living in suburban America.

On June 11th, 16 days before their formal arrest, President Obama met with his advisors to discuss what would happen the day after their exposure. The idea of a swap came up then and the administration settled on four imprisoned Russians it wished to free.

After a further meeting with the National Security Council on June 18th, President Obama successfully hosted the President of Russia, Mr. Medvedev on June 24th without mentioning the imminent action.

Meanwhile, prosecutors prepared a detailed 37-page complaint to show the extent of the evidence based on years of surveillance, and the Administration contacted Russia quickly after the arrest to demonstrate the extent of the evidence and preempt any retaliatory spirit.

The head of the CIA and SVR negotiated for two days, and the deal was sealed. Then, a full-court press began to convince the Russian agents to admit their guilt, a likewise successful effort by both the Russian and U.S. governments working in tandem.

The exchange occurred yesterday on a runway in a Vienna airport.

Amazing. I can’t wait to see the movie version — let’s just skip over the books.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “10 Plead Guilty in Spy Ring Case as Swap Unfolds,” describes an event straight out of our old relations with the Soviet Union, a spy versus spy trade based on Russian sleeper units camped out in the United States.

In exchange, Russia will release four prisoners accused of illegal contacts with Western intelligence services — the Russian spies were to be driven to Kennedy Airport in NYC last night after admitting their guilt in court.

Though leaving the rich consumer environment of the United States, the Russian spies will not face a life of hardship. Russia will be supplying them with free housing and a $2,000 per month stipend upon their return. They did, however, agree to turn over any earnings from publication of their stories.

The swap represented another decisive foreign policy action by the Obama administration, coming on the heels of the sacking of General McChrystal for his comments against his civilian bosses. There did not seem to be any downside to the action; the foreign agents had not obtained any classified information nor did they hold any additional information of any value.

However, their trial could have proved to be an irritant to the new warmer foreign relations between the United States and Russia. Neither side, however, would say who initially proposed the swap.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. and Russia Discuss a Trade to End Spy Case,” describes an imminent deal for a prisoner exchange after the arrest of 10 individuals by the FBI for spying for Russia in the United States.

The object of the exchange in Moscow is an imprisoned scientist, Igor Sutyagin, accused of divulging secrets about Soviet nuclear submarines to a British organization. The accused spies in the United States appear not to have disclosed any U.S. secrets even though they used very high-tech methods in their spycraft and have resided in the United States for decades.

The events demonstrate that we still live in a very dangerous world and that danger can come from nearly any angle. We should appreciate the jobs the FBI and CIA do to protect us while still trying to rein in some of the recent abuses.

The deal may be announced soon. In Washington, an under secretary of state met with the Soviet ambassador; Mr. Sutyagin was moved to Moscow; and the American spies were collected together and moved to New York City.

Of course, the Republicans weighed in with their usual contrarian position. Conservatives accused the Obama administration of being “soft” on Russia because the spies didn’t serve any jail time, and Mitt Romney weighed in with his opposition to the strategic nuclear arms treaty recently negotiated between the two countries and waiting ratification in the Senate.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “U.S. and Israel Shift Attention to Peace Process,” describes a cordial and downright friendly meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, yesterday at the White House. The one-on-one session at the White House, lasting 79 minutes, seemed to cement a more permanent bond between the two men both personally and on a wide range of substantive issues including the building of settlements on the West Bank and Israel’s undeclared nuclear program.

President Obama seemed much more pliant, suggesting that moving from “proximity” to direct talks would give Prime Minister Netanyahu more political leeway to extend the current moratorium on settlements, instead of trying to force him to do so. And he noted Israel’s special security needs in the region, also suggesting, in fact, directly stating that as a reason for Israel’s nuclear defense needs despite the United States signature on a U.N. document singling out Israel regarding the non-proliferation treaty.

The meeting seemed to signal a new maturation and growth in the President’s on-the-job skills, and even though the article cynically mentioned his need for Jewish votes during the coming election, a change in viewpoint and perspective towards Israel. All in all, it was a refreshing development and one that may bear much fruit.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Tax-Exempt Funds Aiding Settlements in West Bank,” describes the use of funds donated to charitable organizations in the United States for actions contravening official policies of the United States government. The issue, support of illegal outposts in the West Bank, is a thorny one, and many of the funds are donated with a view to supporting educational institutions and community needs, legal under the law.

One of the problems, however, involves the central role of the yeshiva, a religious school, in the establishment of West Bank outposts. The yeshiva attracts students who become the nucleus of the outpost’s future settlers. There are also some clear indications of skirting U.S. law for some of the charities who are not allowed to serve as a direct funnel, even for charitable organizations overseas. The idea of a tax deduction for charitable organizations primarily is focused on domestic charities because they decrease the need for social spending.

The charities often serve at cross-purposes with the United States government who has prohibited the direct use of U.S. funds to support settlement building in the West Bank. Tax rules also prohibit the use of charitable funds for political organizations overseas.

Whether the Jewish people are destined to take control of the full land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria in the West Bank, is a matter for religious debate and beyond the scope of this blog post.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Companies Find Ways to Bypass Earmarks Ban,” describes attempts by a variety of groups to circumvent the new prohibition against earmarks — hidden legislative grants inserted by individual representatives to benefit businesses in their districts.

Apparently, non-profit organizations are exempt from the ban so businesses are creating their own mini-charitable organizations, or using educational institutions, who then pass on the bulk of the grant back to the business. The process comes complete with lobbyists and all the other unsavory elements supposedly outlawed by the ban on earmarks.

The New York Times expose should not come as any surprise to anyone who has followed previous reforms in a variety of areas, including campaign finance. There always seems to be some loophole in the legislation allowing clever lawyers or lobbyists to take advantage of the new situation.

The article provides several examples of the exploitation of the new “non-profit loophole,” focusing on the acquiescensce of a particular representative, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, to a defense contracting firm in her district. The firm has contributed several thousand dollars to Ms. Kaptur’s campaigns and created a non-profit group that manufactures the same product and is located at the same address.

One observer used the phrase in Jurassic Park, “Life will find a way,” to describe the inevitable evasion of reform attempts by Congress. One would hope this “way” is swiftly remedied.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Death Sentence in New York Case is Struck Down,” describes a decision by the U.S. Appeals Court to revoke a death sentence decision against Ronell Wilson who had been convicted for killing two undercover New York detectives by shooting them in back of the head.

The reason involved denial of his constitutional rights because the prosecutors faulted him for not testifying — the Fifth Amendment forbids being forced to incriminate yourself — and his demand for a jury trial (Sixth Amendment right).

The article notes that New York State is the toughest jurisdiction to get a death penalty conviction as it has been denied 19 times prior to Mr. Ronell’s case. And, frankly, this is how it should be. Any modern citizen with a modicum of compassion will realize that in today’s society, the death penalty represents cruel and unusual punishment.

Maybe, a century ago, this wasn’t the case, but “cruel and unusual” needs to be taken in context with the world in which we live. Life without parole remains just as punishing a sentence without forcing the state to take a human life, a moral consideration as well.

And with today’s DNA evidence, we are finding more and more instances of incorrect convictions, and you can’t overturn a death sentence after it has been executed.