Random Observations On 2012

RON PAUL'S supporters are often unfairly accused of disregarding electability. The truth is that electability matters greatly to us, but only if we have multiple candidates to choose from. Many of us are unwilling to support RINOs and known liars who

• have shown a willingness to tailor their message to the audience (and thus cannot be trusted to follow through on anything they claim to believe in),
• have embraced bigger, more intrusive government as the preferred solution to a host of social and economic ills,
• supported a government mandate to force Americans to purchase health insurance,
• eagerly look forward to sending more American soldiers into harm's way while having never served in the military themselves, and
• view the due process protections of the U.S. Constitution as bothersome details to be skirted by fair means or foul.

For us, there is only one choice. Every one of these statements applies to every Republican presidential candidate left in the race, except for Ron Paul.
If electability trumps principle so completely that these facts shouldn't matter, then what is the real purpose of this election? It would seem that Albert Nock was right when he wrote in 1936 that elections had become merely "a contest for control and management" of an ever-expanding bureaucratic apparatus and the power it afforded. Is this election about whose turn it is to run the big government, or is it about limiting the federal government?

ON THAT note, here's a thought for those of you who claim to believe in "small" government as opposed to "big" government. What makes government big: the price tag or the level of involvement in people's affairs? The Tea Party movement has rightly called much attention to the insanity of our government consistently spending more than its revenues. It has also argued effectively for the economic benefits of keeping money in the private sector where it can be used productively rather than destructively. But the election results so far indicate that many conservatives are willing to settle for promises of a more efficient government in lieu of a more limited one.
I submit that government is not made smaller by reducing spending, but by repealing excessive and unjust laws and regulations. A government which more efficiently intrudes itself into the affairs of individuals, families, businesses and foreign nations does not appeal to me.

DONATIONS from active duty military personnel to Ron Paul''s campaign in the last quarter totaled six times the amount given to all other Republican presidential candidates combined. Not bad for the one candidate who isn't afraid to criticize the unjust wars these men and women are being called on to wage. Come to think of it, maybe there's even a connection.



YOUNG VOTERS have overwhelmingly backed Ron Paul in the election thus far. Conventional wisdom (or its modern substitute) looks to youthful rebellion as the explanation. There's probably a bit of that, but as one who has rubbed shoulders with more Ron Paul supporters than most media pundits even know about, I think there's a more relevant explanation. Americans who are thirty and under, for the most part, are skeptical of the federal government's ability to deliver on the absurd promises our grandparents extorted from it. Many of us view entitlement programs as somewhere between a Ponzi scheme and a bad joke, rather than hallowed symbols of the American Way. We tend to be equally skeptical of the idea that the rest of the world longs to be liberated and democratized by an overwhelming application of military force, and perhaps less inclined to oblige even if such a desire exists. This is understandable, considering that we hope to inherit whatever is left of our country when the baby boomers are finished looting it.



DR. PAUL is often criticized for not promising to endorse the eventual nominee, whoever that is. Some GOP elites are on record saying that he should be thrown out of the party for his unwillingness to make such a commitment. Does anyone really think that any of these hypocrites would endorse Dr. Paul if he were the nominee? I didn't think so. Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich, among others , have indicated that they would vote for Obama rather than Paul. Hmmm.



AT THE RISK of sounding a bit conspiratorial, I can't help noting that:

• Ron Paul is the only candidate whose percentages in every caucus and primary, without a single exception, have gone down as the total percentage of votes reported goes up;
• Ron Paul was close to winning Iowa and close to second in Nevada;
• For the first time in history, Iowa's vote count was moved to a secret location;
• Iowa and Nevada both claim to be unable to report a precise count;
• Both caucuses were handled so badly (whether intentionally or not) that the Iowa GOP chair and the Nevada GOP chair both resigned afterward.

I'm just saying.

Ron Paul, Foreign Policy and the Military

Probably the most common objection to Dr. Ron Paul heard from conservative voters is the well-worn line: “I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.” This isn’t because the typical Republican voter agrees with the current Bush-Clinton-Obama foreign policy: a November CBS News poll found nearly three-fourths of Republicans believe “the U.S. should not try to change dictatorships to democracies…” More likely, it is because they hear the same drivel incessantly repeated by people they have been accustomed to respect. A delusional Dick Morris, speaking on the O’Reilly Factor, recently claimed that Ron Paul is a “left-wing radical” who “wants to dismantle the military” and “blame[s] America for 9/11.” Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann called his foreign policy ideas “dangerous,” while Newt Gingrich pompously announced that “Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.”

Really?

Perhaps we should clarify that “Ron Paul’s views” aren’t just random gleanings from the Huffington Post. Unlike Santorum, whose chief foreign policy adviser might as well be Toby Keith, Ron Paul is one of the most well-informed people in the beltway when it comes to the Middle East, its history and America’s involvement there. Even if you don’t agree with his conclusions, you can’t help noticing the depth of his knowledge when he warms up to this subject. His thorough historical studies and his own observations over the last 35 years form a solid basis for understanding world events. His advisers have included Michael Scheuer, a 22 year CIA veteran who spent over 17 years focused exclusively on Bin Laden- and Al Qaeda-related intelligence analysis, and who for some time headed the “Bin Laden desk” at the CIA, and Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and contributing editor for The American Conservative. His foreign policy views are more or less those of George Washington, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Sen. Robert Taft, Russell Kirk – even William F. Buckley’s views on foreign policy come closer to Ron Paul’s than those of any other current presidential candidate. With that said, let’s take a closer look at these “extreme” views.

Ron Paul’s budget calls for cutting defense spending back to 2006 levels. That’s right, the same spending levels we had four years into the so-called War on Terror and three years into the Iraq War. If that were done, our defense budget would only amount to 35-40% of the entire world’s military spending, approximately equal to the next ten countries combined (Russia, China, UK, France, etc.). It is beyond difficult to imagine that Dick Morris is unaware of this fact, so he must be either nuts or disingenuous.

On “blaming America for 9/11,” Paul has merely pointed out that our policies and actions in the Middle East have – predictably - caused an extreme backlash among Muslims, of which 9/11 was a result. To the neocon hawks who measure the strength of America’s defenses by the number of bombs we drop in a given week, this view may sound extreme and radical. It is shared, however, by the previously mentioned left-wing radicals – sorry, I meant intelligence experts - Scheuer and Giraldi. It is also the view expressed by the 9-11 Commission and by many of the counter-terrorism experts who testified during its investigation. Even more relevant to the absurd claims of Dick Morris is the prediction conservative icon Russell Kirk delivered back in 1991 in a speech to the Heritage Foundation. Speaking of the Gulf War and the policies pursued by the first President Bush, Kirk warned that “We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States — even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary …”

Those of us who have admired Ron Paul for years were entirely unsurprised to hear him say that 9/11 reflected a backlash to American policies. After all, he had called for President Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 after the Sudan and Iraq bombings, noting that “our national security is jeopardized by allowing this to happen… We’re liable to have more attacks … by terrorists. ” Many Republicans agreed with him at the time. Prior to September 2001, Dr. Paul had repeatedly predicted that the arrogant course we pursued since the 1950s in the Middle East would lead to increasingly deadly terrorist attacks. His warnings were largely ignored, but given the accuracy of his predictions, those who ignored them should not be astonished that he still maintains the same views.

Speaking to Sean Hannity back in October, Rick Santorum credited Ron Paul with extensive experience and a “deep” understanding of foreign policy issues; and, while noting that he and Paul had “different viewpoints,” added that “when the phone rings at three in the morning” Paul would likely know the history and the characters and have a plan to handle the situation. But last week he called Paul “dangerous,” falsely accusing him of saying that a nuclear Iran is not a threat to Israel. Actually, Paul has said that a nuclear Iran does not pose a credible threat to America, and that Israel has both the right and the capability to respond should they determine that Iran poses a risk to them.

A little known fact bears mentioning here: when Israel bombed two Iraqi nuclear reactors in 1981, the United States Congress passed an almost unanimous resolution condemning Israel’s actions as reckless and unjustified. I said almost unanimous – Ron Paul was the only vote against the resolution. He opposed it on the grounds that Israel had a right to defend itself and that America should stay out of their affairs unless our involvement was requested.

Santorum also recently attacked Paul’s assertion that military aid to Pakistan is not in America’s best interest, arguing that because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, America has no choice but to buy Pakistan’s allegiance, whatever it takes. There is a lesson here if one can get past the embarrassment of a presidential candidate making such a cowardly argument in public. Maybe Rick doesn’t realize this, but if he is smart enough to make the connection between Pakistan’s nukes and the billions of dollars their political and military leaders siphon away from American workers, you can bet the Iranians are too. As Dr. Paul has pointed out before, we talked Gaddafi out of his nuclear ambitions and then turned on him. Bomb = aid; no bomb = lots of bombs dumped on you; what possible motivation have we left Iran for abandoning a nuclear weapons program, if indeed they have one?

But Newt Gingrich stands out in the lineup of Paul bashers. His sweeping, all-inclusive, and arrogant attacks are earning him the disrespect of many, if not most, Americans. Imagine that you are a soldier in Afghanistan, or a sailor in the Persian Gulf, and a Ron Paul supporter. You’ve gone beyond merely supporting him; you’ve given a chunk of your shamefully low combat pay to his campaign. You’ve made this sacrifice, along with thousands of your fellow fighting men and women, precisely because of Paul’s views on foreign policy. You know why active duty military personnel are far and away the largest group (by employer) among his supporters. You know why he has received more in donations from military men and women than all the other GOP candidates combined. You are living the war on terror; your life is on the line every day; you’ve seen firsthand how the effort to win hearts and minds in the Middle East really works; and you believe Ron Paul is right when he says we are less safe because of our military adventurism. Now a narcissistic career politician and lobbyist who studiously avoided military service in Viet Nam declares those views - your views – to be “totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.” How exactly does that feel?

Which brings to mind one thing I really don’t like about Ron Paul: he is way too kind to Gingrich and his ilk. He tends to stick to his own argument even when seemingly irresistible opportunities present themselves for showing up windbags like Newt. He did finally call Newt out as a chickenhawk last Saturday night, which brought an angry reaction from the former Speaker: he denied using college deferments to avoid the draft, claiming that he was married with a child and thus wouldn’t have been eligible anyway. To which Paul responded icily, “When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went.”

And one more thing for the record, Newt: he’s still married.

_______________________________________________

Here's a great article by John Nichols on why Ron Paul isn’t just a conservative, he’s the only conservative running for President this election cycle:

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/22/144122913/the-nation-why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Guantanamo, Torture and Due Process

Of all the political positions that tend to be arbitrarily labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" by the mindless mainstream these days, support for "Club Gitmo" (and the detention and intelligence gathering systems it has come to represent) is surely one of the most inexplicable, not to say inexcusable. While many self described libertarians (including those of us in the GOP) are well aware that there is anything but unanimity in the military and intelligence communities on the Guantanamo issue, most rank and file conservative Republicans view opposition to this government's handling of terror "suspects" as disloyalty bordering on treason.

Even on the issue of torture (now euphemistically called "enhanced interrogation techniques), those relatively few conservatives who do not embrace its alleged usefulness still tend to rely on arguments that skirt the real problem. I recently heard a sermon delivered by a PCA minister for whom I have great respect to a group of military personnel and their families, in which he objected to torture on the grounds that it dehumanizes those who engage in it and lowers "us" to "their" level - they, of course, meaning terrorists. Essentially, he argued that torture is immoral and "isn't us" - therefore we should not rely on it.

This is true, of course: torture, like indefinite detention and war in general, brings out and fosters the worst in human nature. But rejecting torture solely on such grounds fails to address the other fundamental problems with coercive interrogation. One of those problems is that torture and other forms of coercive interrogation have been extremely effective throughout history at producing false confessions, but not accurate intelligence. There is an important difference between inducing a suspect to talk and inducing him to be honest, and the more intense the pressure to talk becomes, the more likely the suspect is to say what he thinks will relieve the pressure.

Significantly, many of the torture methods employed by this and the last administrations in the "war on terror" were borrowed from the military's SERE training program. SERE was developed during the Cold War to prepare American aviators for the treatment they would likely suffer if captured by a Communist military. The interrogation techniques used during SERE training, including waterboarding, smoke inhalation, sleep deprivation, prolonged stress positions, and other cruel and humiliating treatments, were all known methods of interrogation used by the Soviets and their allies. What should be painfully obvious to anyone familiar with the interrogation of captured Americans during the Korean and Vietnam wars is that these methods were used primarily for the purpose of extorting false confessions. While pilots like Red McDaniel and John McCain were also questioned regarding intelligence and technology, the primary focus of their interrogations was to get them to admit to war crimes. And while little useful intelligence was ever gained by the torture of American pilots in Vietnam, many false confessions were obtained and circulated around the world.

Similarly, during the Iranian hostage crisis, some of the American hostages were subjected to much milder forms of coercive interrogation, and while their treatment was not nearly as harsh as the standards adopted by the Bush administration and continued under Obama, it nevertheless resulted in several false confessions. One hostage famously confessed to being "in charge of wheat mold," leading the gullible students questioning him to announce to the world details of an American plot to starve Iranian families by molding the bread in their cupboards.

The problem of false confessions leads us to what I believe is the central problem with our entire approach to the detention and interrogation of terror suspects. When libertarians argue that terrorists should be tried in the criminal court system like other criminals, the usual objection is that as foreign "enemy combatants," they aren't entitled to the legal protections and due process of the American judicial system. The idea seems to be that, unlike rapists, murderers, mob hit men and other privileged persons, the terrorist doesn't deserve due process. He's evil, so we should just take him out with a drone, but sometimes we capture him so we can talk to him first. In either case, he has no rights, so it doesn't matter what we do with him.

As any thinking person will observe, this line of argument takes for granted that the detainee is a terrorist. There is not the slightest allowance for the possibility that he may be an innocent individual. He was picked up on the battlefield, right? No chance of a mistake there. One is left to wonder why there should be any trial at all?

This is the fundamental misunderstanding of most conservatives. The legal protections we call due process are not there because criminals of any sort deserve them; they are there because innocent people deserve them. They are not designed to clog the legal system and to slow the wheels of justice; they are designed to make sure that justice is indeed served. The tragedy of Guantanamo is not that would-be terrorists are locked up there, but that we have absolutely no reason to believe that the majority of our fellow creatures who are locked up there really are would-be terrorists.

Why I Am Not A "Truther"

Three years ago I started to delve into the so-called "9-11 truth movement" and the subject of conspiracy theories in general on this blog. I never followed through, partly due to a lack of time, but also because I decided there was little to gain and much to lose by the attempt. Several recent developments have reopened the topic, however, and a series of discussions over the Memorial Day weekend convinced me, with some trepidation, to run the risk of putting a few more observations in writing. With trepidation, because I will almost certainly offend some who I respect by denying the credibility of claims they find convincing, and others by noticing claims they find utterly ridiculous.

In that earlier post, I noted that it often seems as though there are only two camps when it comes to political conspiracy theories. One chooses to accept the "official" government explanation in every instance; the other sees masterful deception, sinister motives, and almost divine omnipotence behind every news-worthy event. Considered calmly and in the light of history, both these extremes are nonsensical. Governments are made up of men; generally speaking, unscrupulous and dishonest men, but men none the less.

To consider the first: the idea that official pronouncements on any topic should carry much weight is silly on its face. The dishonesty of politicians and the incompetence of career bureaucrats are both matters of common knowledge. Particularly in regard to foreign policy, official statements are usually meaningless and frequently intended to deceive. Diplomacy has been defined, with good reason, as the art of lying for one's government. The entire history of international relations, from ancient Israel to the present, is a history of deception on a grand scale. In my view, far from lending extra weight to any version of events, the fact that a story is the official line goes in the scales against it.

The other extreme, however, is equally silly. It is beyond reason to assume that every major event is part of a vast human plan. Human plans don't generally work out as they are supposed to, and the bigger and more complex they are, the less likely they are to succeed. Moreover, there is a vast difference between recognizing dishonesty in the official story line and uncovering the real truth of the matter. Decades or even centuries later, with the benefit of hindsight, it often remains impossible to know with certainty the truth about many major events. I am continually frustrated when "truthers" present the most mind-boggling explanations for the events of 9-11, and when asked to state the evidence, immediately begin to cite problems or inconsistencies in the 9-11 Commission report, evidence of official cover-ups, or examples of how the powers that be have benefited from those events as "evidence" for their wild hypothesis. Often they seem sincerely unable to comprehend why such "evidence" does nothing to prove their own explanation.

The fact is that while there are many holes in the official account of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, most of the various alternatives floating around under the umbrella of the "truth movement" have no credible evidence at all to support them. They seem generally to be developed without any substantive investigation of the actual facts while suspiciously well adapted to make exciting documentary material. Most treat the airplanes as a distraction and claim that the twin towers were brought down by internally placed explosives. Some claim that no airliners were involved at all. Either way, these "alternatives" assume intricate conspiracies of incredible magnitude, requiring the knowledge and complicity of hundreds or thousands of eye-witnesses, emergency responders, construction workers, police and military personnel, airline employees, news media, demolition and recovery workers, stock brokers, high-ranking government officials, petty bureaucrats, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Such conspiracies are the stuff of science fiction, not reality.

I would venture the opinion that the real 9-11 conspiracy is much less exciting. I suspect that it involves an obscenely long wish list of expanded powers sitting in a file cabinet at the Justice Department, under the absurdly patronizing title of The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. I suspect that it stayed in that file cabinet because, while both Republican and Democrat administrations would have dearly loved such an expansion of executive power, both also knew that, in ordinary times, bringing it forward would inspire jealousy in the evil hearts of opposition legislators. So there it languished, waiting for an appropriate time of crisis and the brief moment of bipartisanship that a good crisis always brings. As I noted in the earlier post, such a crisis was bound to occur sooner or later, given the volatile combination of military occupations, tyrannical regimes propped up with American foreign aid, and the constant, petty, manipulative meddling that former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer calls "imperial hubris" - again on the part of both Republican and Democrat administrations.

No doubt Sept. 11, 2001 will go down in history as a Reichstag moment, and rightly so. But to conclude from this that it must have been an "inside job" is unwarranted and unnecessary. The Thompson killings in 1846, the sinking of the Lusitania, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident were all similarly anticipated, provoked, and used to manipulate the American public into support for otherwise unpopular wars. The official story behind each of these events is full of holes. None of them, however, was an "inside job." In each case, the enemy was baited into an act of war that justified a military response, and the problems with the official account stems from the difficulty of leaving the bait out of the story.

(For those who take issue with the idea that the U.S. provoked the 9-11 attacks, I again quote the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer: "Bin Laden has been precise in telling Americans the reason he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.")

While the standard template for discussing the 9-11 attacks (a benevolent and peaceful America blindsided by a "sucker punch ... from somewhere in the back") is somewhere between a bad joke and a pack of lies, there is overwhelming evidence available regarding the actual events themselves. Even the collapse of WTC 7 is easily explained without resorting to alternative theories, if one takes the time to examine the structural issues and the eyewitness testimony relating to it.

What bothers me about all of this is not that conspiracy theorists don't trust their government, but that they don't invest the time and effort to scrutinize each others' claims. Most conspiracy theories have a grain of truth somewhere, buried in mountains of conjecture and fiction. Rumors of secret experiments with cloud seeding and weather manipulation magically grow into fantastic stories of "chemtrails" and population reduction efforts. Radio telescopes and ionospheric research become mind-control projects that can also cause massive earthquakes. Secret and exclusive clubs where powerful elites and their mistresses drink, party and discuss how to dig deeper into our pockets morphe into pagan temples where birds, rodents and worse are sacrificed to Satan himself. These claims serve only one purpose: to discredit those who buy into them. Unfortunately, many conspiracy afficionados seem to think it is everyone else's responsibility to disprove their ideas, and are content to dismiss any skeptic with the question, "Have you researched it yourself?"

In the mean time, policies and actions that truly threaten everything we hold dear are pushed forward right under our noses. While President Obama's birthplace was the subject of useless but frantic scrutiny, litigation, and alternative media attention, his political and economic policies have done incalculable damage to our nation and our freedoms. Just as the 9-11 "truth" movement was unfairly but effectively used to discredit Ron Paul in 2008, so the "birther" issue has more recently been used to discredit Tea Party activists, even those who paid no attention to it. The 2012 election will be either a tremendous opportunity or another blow to individual liberty. We would all do well to select carefully the issues to which we will devote our time and efforts.

This Was A Battle?

This recently leaked video provides the context for an excellent piece of advice from one of America's finest: Don't bring your kids to a battle. It also explains just what qualifies for "a battle" to video-game addicts turned loose on the real world, with formidable weapons and technology and the arrogance of the world's only superpower behind them. Don't let kids watch the video, either.

I don't for a minute believe that the actions of this crew are representative of most American soldiers. Nor do I believe, on the other hand, that this was a unique, isolated incident. Here are two examples from my own personal experience:

A friend of mine currently serving as an infantryman in Iraq told me personally that one of his superiors, during a routine patrol in southern Baghdad, fired a missile at random into a civilian dwelling to demonstrate the weapon to a new member of the unit, then justified his actions to his furious fellow-soldiers by reminding them that the US would compensate the homeowner (assuming he survived to file a claim) for the damage.

A former Blackwater medic who was teaching a tactical EMS class I took last year told us: "Blackwater isn't running around over there killing innocent Iraqis, mainly because there are no innocent Iraqis." I know, this wasn't an American soldier, but the attitude is common to many in uniform as well as out.

What I do believe is that some American soldiers are simply violent individuals who enjoy the opportunity to kill and destroy (case #1 above); that some are decent Americans who lose their moral compass in the violence and confusion of alternately fighting and supporting various elements of an insurgency created by their own leaders (case #2 above); and that the large majority are just too cowardly to expose the actions of the first two groups.

By the way, my apologies to the anonymous posters who occasionally post relevant comments here: I've been so inundated with spam comments that I've had to limit comments to registered users.

Dictatorship (almost)

A few days ago I forwarded an email received from _____ claiming that the defense appropriations bill signed by George the Third on Oct. 17 revised the Insurrection Act to expand the power of the Executive to impose martial law without State cooperation. (Read article here: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/1732834.php ) I looked through the ponderous "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" to confirm the information in that article. Here is a summary of the changes I found.

A) 10 USC Chapter 15, previously titled "Insurrections," is retitled "Enforcement of Laws to Restore Public Order."

B) 10 USC 333, "Interference with State and Federal Law," previously authorized the President to use "the militia or armed forces ... to supress ... any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy," if it hinders or obstructs the execution of the law so far that the citizens are "denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution." Under the new law Sec. 333 is retitled "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law." Under the revised law, the President may also use the armed forces or the National Guard (militia is not mentioned) to restore public order and enforce federal laws following "a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" which results in the breakdown of public order.

C) 10 USC 334, "Proclamation to disperse," requires the President, when using the armed forces in a law enforcement capacity under Chapter 15, to issue a "proclamation ... order[ing] the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time." The new law reads "... the insurgents, or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws, to disperse..."

While the author of the previously mentioned article reverts to hyperbole in his claim that Bush has, in effect, declared himself dictator, there is certainly a significant pattern of consolidation of power in these changes. It is worth noting that 10 USC Chapter 15 has already been widely abused by previous administrations without judicial or legislative interference. And while the sincerity of Senator Leahy is worthy of doubt, his statements are undoubtedly correct and should make all of us take a realistic look at how we have allowed the current climate of fear to excuse the discarding of our liberties.

Echoooooes

Military Commisions Act of 2006

Warning: material contained in this post may be detrimental to your state of denial.

I’ve just finished reading the final compromise version of Senate Bill 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which establishes military commissions for trial of “unlawful enemy combatants” under Chapter 47A of title 10 U.S.C. A close study of the bill reveals a power grab of astonishing proportions. To detail even the most important points would be an extensive task, but a few key concerns are presented here. Please take the time to read the legislation for yourself to verify these statements. A link is provided here.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c109fZSPZH:e0:

(If it doesn’t work go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type “Military Commissions Act of 2006” into the text search box. Select the version enrolled as agreed to or passed by both House and Senate.)

The most prominent concern on a first reading of this legislation is the sheer magnitude of the powers given to the President and Secretary of Defense. They include:

Unlimited authority to arbitrarily determine whether any person is an unlawful enemy combatant … - Sec. 948a(1)(ii) and Sec. 948d( c)
Sole authority to convene military commissions … - Sec. 948h
Sole authority to limit the unprecedented blanket power of Chapter 47A military commissions to “adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter…” - Sec. 948d(d)
Sole authority to prescribe all “procedures and rules of evidence … including elements and modes of proof, for cases triable by military commission…” as long as they are consistent with Chapter 47A U.S.C. - Sec. 949a
These are only a few of the powers reserved exclusively to the Executive branch under this legislation. Lest there should be any misunderstanding of the unlimited nature of the authority granted, SEC. 3 (950j) prohibits any court from hearing any challenge to the lawfulness of Chapter 47A military commissions generally, or to any of their proceedings, no exceptions. SEC.7 prohibits any court from hearing any action “relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement” of any alien who has been or may be determined to be an enemy combatant. The only exceptions to the Sec. 7 prohibition are the provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the appeals process under this Act. In addition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the only court which may hear appeals from Chapter 47A commissions,) may only consider whether the military commission followed its own rules and procedures, not questions of fact or evidence. - Sec. 950g

While the final version of this Act does prohibit torture and bans statements or confessions obtained by torture, it permits hearsay evidence and “coerced evidence” to be admitted at the discretion of the military judge. - Sec. 948r Combined with the limitations on the scope of review by the appellate court, this provision all but guarantees the conviction of any person the prosecution wants convicted.

But the most frightening aspect of this legislation is the apparently intentional failure to define the phrase “any person subject to this chapter …” as it occurs in Subchapter VII, Punitive Matters. While the stated purpose of the Act is to provide for the trial of “alien unlawful enemy combatants,” there are three clauses that call that purpose into question.

Sec. 948a - Definitions: Combatant Status Review Tribunals are not restricted by this Act to consideration of aliens.
Sec. 950q – Principals: In specifying persons punishable under this chapter, no mention is made of alien, national or citizenship status.
"Sec. 950v(b)(26) – WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.” (emphasis added)

It is difficult to understand how an alien could be guilty of “breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States,” which clearly indicates that American Citizens may indeed be subjected to trial by military commission. If that is the case, an examination of Sec. 950v suggests that any common criminal could potentially be charged with terrorism, thereby losing his constitutional rights. Which, of course, means that the bill is unconstitutional. Don't let it shock you.

All in all, the bill is dangerously vague even if applied only to alien combatants, and could easily be interpreted to include foreigners engaged in the defense of their own country against the U.S. or its allies. While the injustice of such an interpretation is evident, it is worth noting that when this administration prematurely declared victory in Iraq, they endeavored to cover up their mistake by labeling as terrorists the indigenous Iraqi insurgency rather than admit that the demise of the Hussein regime was not equivalent to the restoration of peace. I make no objection to the label as applied to the Islamic jihadists who have selected Iraq as a battleground against the west, but a native Iraqi engaging in guerilla warfare against the invaders of his homeland hardly deserves to be accused of terrorism, regardless of the good intentions of the invading forces. I mention this only to highlight the fact that this law, through its extreme lack of clarity, lends a color of legality to such unjust sophistry.

The bottom line: get ready for the Brave New World, coming soon to a city near you. But remember:

“He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh.”

Operation Valiant Shield

Well, with all the din created by the news media reassuring us that the FBI just made our lives a little safer by shutting down a group of Islamic “online martyrs,” I wonder how many folks missed the little blurb about Operation Valiant Shield. An annual joint exercise of the US military in the Pacific ocean, this year’s Valiant Shield pitted Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force elements in the Pacific against a fictional enemy capable of air, sea, undersea and nuclear warfare. While it was a great opportunity to stick a not-so-diplomatic elbow in Kim Jong Il’s padded ribs, I couldn’t keep the word “idiocy” out of my mind at the cordial invitation extended to Communist China to sit in on such a pointed dress rehearsal. Less difficult to understand was the smiling, almost smug, acceptance of the offer by the keepers of the dragon. “Sure, yoo geev us all technology, why no queek show us how use? Throw in week of wining and dining too, yes?”

Sure, we’ll be there.

Check it out here:
www.pacom.mil/exercises/vs2006/

Politics by Murder

It seems the Republicrats in Washington D.C. have proven capable of outdoing themselves. They are unquestionably the epitome of dishonesty in a proverbiably dishonest capitol city. Rather than allow a vote on Rep. Murtha's proposal for a somewhat controlled withdrawal from Iraq, they chose to play the dirtiest of political games, defame an honorable and patriotic veteran, and offer an entirely unacceptable solution so that they could claim "victory." Their idea of victory in this instance may perhaps shed some light on their hopes for a victory in Iraq.

It is time to ask the real questions, people. Is withdrawal from Iraq necessarily "cutting and running?" What exactly is "staying the course" supposed to imply?

Vice President Cheney says, "The terrorists . . . have contempt for our values, they doubt our strength and they believe that America will lose its nerve and let down our guard. But this nation's made a decision: We will not retreat in the face of brutality, and we will never live at the mercy of tyrants or terrorists."

Did you hear that? The terrorists have contempt for our values? Imagine that! Perhaps if we had some values left they would respect them a little more. Not only that, but ... horror of horrors ... they doubt our strength! Why? Because our soldiers aren't allowed to win, that's why. Even worse, they believe we will lose our nerve and let down our guard! Impossible! Look at our borders, please? We have no guard left to let down. We are a nation of ostriches with our heads in the sand. But we will not retreat, no siree! We will never live at the mercy of tyrants. That is for the folks at Guatanamo, not us. We couldn't afford to have a tyrant over us, the economy might go south! (Or east ... waay east ... all-the-way-to-China east!)

Can we cut the politics for a moment? Mr. Veep, just what do you call the current situation in Iraq? Can anyone say Viet Nam? If we are really committed to defeating the threat of Islamic terrorism, for God's sake do it! Let's have a declaration of war on a tangible threat, let's commit our entire national resources to the elimination of that threat, let's get the job done and move on!

There is no way to occupy or even stabilize a nation the size of Iraq with the forces we have committed. We are not on unfamiliar ground here, people. We've been through this more times in the last 50 years than I care to think about. We've seen what happens when our military is throttled by international red tape, when our soldiers are sent into a foreign country without the resources or the permission to win, when their lives are wasted for the reprehensible purpose of "imposing the will of the international community" on some third world country. Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, Somalia, does anyone see a pattern? We have no business sending Americans to die for the United Nations and their twisted plans for the world.

The men who landed in the Ia Drang valley in Viet Nam on Nov. 14, 1965 were fighting for the freedom of the South Vietnamese people. Or so they thought. Only in hindsight, thousands of dead buddies later, would it become apparent that no sacrifice on their part would be sufficient, that they were never supposed to win, that they were there solely to die on the altar of the "brave new world" that was to emerge from their ashes. Our soldiers are being sacrificed just as cruelly today. I believe we have no business in Iraq. They have never posed a legitimate threat to this country, and their personal problems have only been exacerbated by our invasion and continued presence. Be that as it may, the continued refusal of our leaders to end the conflict, either by committing a sufficient force to do so on our terms, or by acknowledging our error and withdrawing, leaves only one conclusion: they have something to gain by the continued bloodshed of our boys.

To the leaders of our nation and representatives of the American people: the course we are on is clear. You say a withdrawal would destabilize the region. Hello? The region is currently destabilized. You say the threat of terrorism is one we must stop. Hello again? It is unquestionably thriving as a direct result of the Shiite Islamic State your laughable imposition of "democracy" has instituted. You say we must not retreat. That leaves us two choices. We can "stay the course" or we can win. The course we are on does not involve any perceptible success. To vow your intention to stay that course is proof of your utter disregard for the lives of the men you so lightly jeapordize.

If the American people do not begin seriously asking themselves what the international power brokers have to gain by a state of perpetual war, they will find themselves in a totalitarian society without ever knowing how they got there. Time is running out.

God Bless Michael New

As veterans day approaches, it is inspiring to reflect on the sacrifices made by the courageous men and women through the years who have given whatever they could and risked everything for our freedoms. But for me, today, those feelings are mixed with sadness at the unprincipled efforts to purge the military of true Americans who love their God and country and take their oaths of military service seriously. So as Veterans Day '05 rolls around, I offer a tribute to an uncommonly courageous soldier who most of our country has never heard of, and who will not be officially honored tomorrow.

On October 10, 1995, at an American base in Germany, a U.S. Army infantry battalion drew up in formation, ready for deployment to Macedonia. It was a familiar scene. American troops had been operating as UN peacekeepers in Macedonia for 27 months already. But this time, something was new. Instead of the historic Army green Battle Dress Uniform, the troops wore the immature baby blue of the most corrupt organization in the modern world: the United Nations.

While the blue uniform was the most notable difference, it was not the only one. The troops reporting for the formation would be serving under a Flemish commander and carry UN identification, rather than U.S. These changes were patently illegal under current Army regulations, and were a first in the history of the U.S. Army.

Out of the entire battalion standing in formation that morning, only one man had the courage to appear as an American soldier instead of a U.N. "peacekeeper." Specialist Michael G. New took the stand that no other man dared to take. He reperesented then, and still does today, the same kind of American soldier that dared to risk his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor for the freedoms he received from his Creator. He stood for the right, alone, but not alone, as he knew by faith that his Father would stand by him and approve his faithfulness.

Michael New was dishonorably discharged by an ungrateful Army, but in this American's heart he is honored, and in this American's eyes he is a hundred times more worthy of that honor than those who kowtowed to peer pressure and violated their sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Thank you, Specialist New.

And to Sgt. Ed Rasor and the other men who placed duty and honor above their careers and supported Spc. New in his stand, Thank you too. You are heroes to us, if not to others. May God bless you.