Tag Archives: Military

Senate votes to support violation of the Constitution

from the ‘conservative’ Washington Times

Senate defies veto threat in terrorist custody vote

Defying a veto threat by President Obama, the Senate voted Tuesday to give the U.S. military first crack at holding al Qaeda operatives, even if they are captured in the U.S. and are American citizens, and also reaffirmed the policy of indefinite detention.

“We’re no longer going to have an absurd result that if we capture you overseas where you’re planning an attack on the United States, we can blow you up or put you in a military prison indefinitely, but if you make it to America, all of a sudden you get Miranda rights and you go to federal court,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has fought the Bush and Obama administrations on treatment of suspected terrorist detainees.

Tuesday’s 61-37 vote to buck Mr. Obama and grant the military dibs exposed a deep rift within the Democratic Party. Sixteen Democrats and one independent who caucuses with them defied the veto threat and joined 44 Republicans.

Sounds good, right?  Well, Senator Ron Paul (R-KY) doesn’t think so

Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely

“I’m very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate’s most conservative members.

Paul’s top complaint is that a terrorism suspect would get just one hearing where the military could assert that the person is a suspected terrorist — and then they could be locked up for life, without ever formally being charged. The only safety valve is a waiver from the secretary of defense.

“It’s not enough just to be alleged to be a terrorist,” Paul said, echoing the views of the American Civil Liberties Union. “That’s part of what due process is — deciding, are you a terrorist? I think it’s important that we not allow U.S. citizens to be taken.”

Bet you never thought you would see Rand Paul agreeing with the ACLU, did ya?

This should make for some interesting discussion, not only here but also in the media and on the campaign trail.

Do you believe in the rule of law?

OR

Do you think threats to your safety and security call for negation of basic rights conveyed upon us by the Constitution?

What happens the day an American citizen resists an attempted arrest by US military personnel?  Well, that citizen would probably end up dead but his family might be able to use the argument laid out in Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52 in which the Court ruled

When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable.

Or maybe the argument in John Bad Elk v. U.S. (1900) 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729 would be more relevant

Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.

Ceding Liberty to Terror: Senate Votes Against Due-Process Rights

Advertisements

Israel Preparing ‘Christmas Surprise’ for Iran?

Israel Preparing ‘Christmas Surprise’ for Iran

First Published: 11/10/2011, 10:24 AM

With an International Atomic Energy Agency report to be issued this week that will state, officials said Wednesday, that Iran is clearly working towards developing a nuclear weapons program, speculation has turned to possible military actions by Israel or other western countries to prevent Tehran from getting “the bomb.” On Thursday, the British Daily Mail newspaper said that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could come as soon as December 25, the day the Christian world celebrates Christmas.

Image

the only feasible route is the direct one over Iraq. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have well-equipped air forces and though neither nation is a big fan of Iran, I don’t think their governments could allow Israel to fly unimpeded thru their airspace – too many repercussions within their own populations. Allowing the Israelis to fly over Iraq would tell the world that the US approved the attack on a Muslim nation with untold potential consequences for any US troops still in Iraq at the time, never mind other US interests in that nation – you know – oil. That could be one reason for Israel to wait until all US forces have withdrawn from Iraq.

The fear-mongering begins, although not for the first time as one will note when they read the date the map posted here, was published.

Israel Preparing to Strike Iran
Posted on 4 December 2008

Oil price to hit $175-$200 if Israel attacks Iran: analysts
Please note the contrast between the headline, the first paragraph and the second paragraph

Oil prices could surge to $175-200 per barrel if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, leading to the closure of an important oil route, according to market observers. Tensions between the two arch foes have escalated after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported it had ‘credible’ evidence of Tehran’s nuclear weapons plan.In a survey of oil traders, Washington D.C.-based Rapidan Group said that participants expected an $11 rise in the price of a barrel in the immediate aftermath of an Israeli attack.
(…)
“Iran is the most important latent threat in the oil market,” Robert McNally, head of the Rapidan Group, told Platts Energy last week, partly because previous threats against Iran over the years have not materialised, and also as Arab Spring has stolen the limelight from Iran during the past ten months.

McNally noted that oil traders would not have ignored the alleged-Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador had there been a Republican U.S. President, rather than Democrat Barack Obama, despite his hawkish stance on Iran.

Interesting comment about oil-traders ‘ignoring’ the alleged Iranian plot because the President is Barack Obama. One might read that as saying the oil traders are ignoring it because they know Obama is more competent and more capable of handling the situation than any Republican – otherwise, why ignore it? There could be other reasons as a Forbes article notes

At least for the time being, viewing higher oil prices through the prism of armed conflict with Iran is incorrect.

The reason for the rise in oil price is not the geography of Iran but the geography of Cushing, Oklahoma.
(…)
Cushing is the price settlement point for West Texas Intermediate Sweet Crude Oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). This price benchmark is used for oil in the United States.

As the production for Canadian oil sands has increased, Cushing has become a major choke point. Cushing has turned out to be a colossal error in oil infrastructure planning.

Will speculators drive up the price of oil in anticipation of an Israeli attack? Probably

Map came from one of those THE END TIMES ARE APPROACHING!!! websites of the type so loved by folks like preacher John Hagee and his ilk.

Charles Pierce thinks Mitt Romney is a “dumbass”

and so do I

Go and read Mr Pierce’s exquisite disembowelment of the Republican contender’s ‘take’ on foreign policy

My problem is not that Mitt Romney is a Mormon who wants to be commander-in-chief. My problem is that Mitt Romney is a chronic dumbass on military matters who wants to be commander-in-chief. It is a considerable difference.

Read more: Mitt’s Knocking on the Free World, and Not Like a President

“Ultra Libs” attack Vice President Cheney

from The Miami Herald, Sept 11, 2009

Fear was no excuse to condone torture
BY CHARLES C. KRULAK and JOSEPH P. HOAR

In the fear that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Americans were told that defeating Al Qaeda would require us to “take off the gloves.”

… we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas — and his scare tactics.

We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America’s disastrous trip to “the dark side” continue to assert — against all evidence — that torture “worked” and that our country is better off for having gone there.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Cheney applauded the “enhanced interrogation techniques” — what we used to call “war crimes” because they violated the Geneva Conventions, which the United States instigated and has followed for 60 years. Cheney insisted the abusive techniques were “absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States.” He claimed they were “directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States. It was good policy . . . It worked very, very well.”

Repeating these assertions doesn’t make them true.

Krulak and Hoar must be some kind of leftie wackos to be attacking Cheney in this manner – right?

Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.

Just another case of the knowledgeable attempting to teach the obstinately ignorant.