Update no.340

Update from the Heartland
No.340
9.6.08 – 15.6.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
In recent years, the end of the Supreme Court term has seemed to be quite frenetic, and this terminus is no less so. Add in the feverish pace of Congress trying to wedge in all their porky-pork, largesse earmarks before the summer break and the fall election season and we have a plethora of topics that demand attention. So, let’s get it on!

The follow-up news items:
-- The biggest news this week was the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the appeal of Boumediene v. Bush [DC CCA no. 05-5062 (2007)] – a Guantánamo detainee habeas corpus petition [273, 278, 313]. By a narrow 5-4 majority, the Supremes threw a major obstacle in the path of our ability to wage war successfully. More on this case is offered below.
-- As an interesting and appropriate follow-up to last week's firing of the top Air Force leaders [339], I suggest reading this article:
"The U.S. Air Force and the Next War"
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting Inc.
Published: June 11, 2008; 17:06 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/geopolitical_weekly_u_s_air_force_and_next_war
-- The impotent foolishness of the war on drugs continues [339]. The latest effort to pour money down a bottomless rat hole offered up by Representative Howard Lawrence Berman of California is titled: the Merida Initiative to Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce Organized Crime Authorization Act of 2008. [H.R. 6028]. The House passed the bill [311-106-0-16 (2)] and sent it to the Senate, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee. The bill directs the President to:
"(1) address U.S. demand-related aspects of the drug-trafficking phenomenon;
"(2) combat the southbound flow of illegal precursor chemicals and bulk cash transfers into Mexico; and
"(3) implement and measure the success of activities taken under this Act."
There is one surefire way to eliminate drug-trafficking . . . legalize and regulate it like alcohol (1933). Someday we will learn that trying to regulate private behavior in a free society is not possible; we either allow people to live their lives as they choose or we forfeit our freedom. Laws like H.R. 6028 continue us on the inexorable march toward the latter condition. And, we remain blind to reality. Nonetheless, in true Quixote-esque fashion, I shall continue my lonely quest.
-- Zimbabwe has scheduled a runoff election in two weeks. Dictator Robert Mugabe has unleashed his goons in a manner not unlike (to allow the double negative) the heyday of Germany’s National Socialist Workers Party (AKA Nazis) and the Night of the Long Knives (29/30.June.1934) and the infamous Night of Broken Glass (9.November.1938; AKA Kristallnacht). The evidence against Mugabe continues to pile up, and the World does virtually nothing.
-- The Space Shuttle Discovery successfully returned to Earth, ending an accomplished STS-124 mission to the International Space Station. The NASA Educational Channel provided exceptional coverage from the reentry burn to the safe-ing of the vehicle on the runway at Kennedy Space Center. Well done, lads!

Former presidential candidate, Representative Dennis John Kucinich of Ohio introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush, taking 64 pages to describe his rationale. The list is probably the most descriptive and thus provided below.
http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org.nyud.net:8080/amomentoftruth.pdf
This follows his two attempts to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney last year. In such instances, I cannot resist offering my opinion. So, here it is. Articles that have sufficient merit to justify congressional inquiry are in blue. The articles in black are pretty iffy, and the ones in red only demonstrate how ludicrous the whole foolish initiative by the diminutive, marginal, Ohio representative really is. Speaker of the House Pelosi has indicated this action will go nowhere, and rightly so.
Article I -- Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II -- Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, with Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Article III -- Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV -- Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
Article V -- Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI -- Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII -- Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII -- Invading Iraq, a Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX -- Failing to Provide Troops with Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X -- Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI -- Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII -- Initiating a War against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII -- Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
Article XIV -- Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information and Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV -- Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI -- Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII -- Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely and Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII -- Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX -- Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX -- Imprisoning Children
Article XXI -- Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII -- Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII -- Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV -- Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV -- Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI -- Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII -- Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII -- Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX -- Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX -- Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI -- Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII -- Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Article XXXIII -- Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV -- Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV -- Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
One little closing comment . . . if we are going to impeach the President every time some faction or another disagrees with his decisions, we shall have to endure a very bumpy road on the way to the abyss. Our choice entirely.

As noted above, the big news this week was the Supreme Court’s Boumediene v. Bush [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1195] ruling in a long string of court attempts to resolve the ambiguity of the Guantánamo Bay detainees. Under challenge, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 [PL 109-148] and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [PL 109-366] [251, 254] defined the legal process available to stateless, battlefield combatants captured and detained by the Allies. The single, last sentence from Antonin Scalia’s incisive dissent best describes the importance of this decision – “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.” Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court and concluded, “In considering both the procedural and substantive standards used to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, the courts must accord proper deference to the political branches. However, security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles, chief among them being freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers” – a contrast of extremes. The title petitioner in this complex case is Lakhdar Boumediene, a Bosnian Muslim militant, who was picked up by American forces in Bosnia along with five other colleagues, when they were released from a Bosnian prison. The majority’s opinion cites nothing of Boumediene’s circumstances of incarceration and hangs upon the indefinite duration of the present war and the importance of the writ of habeas corpus to the freedoms we enjoy. I laud the Court’s concern for the strength of our precious habeas corpus right, but the unprecedented extension of that right to enemy battlefield combatants portends dramatic unintended consequences. Again, as is so often the case, the dissenting opinions give us more insight into the issues and reasoning of the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts opened his dissenting opinion, “Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.” This week’s Boumediene ruling significantly extends the reach of the Constitution and the writ of habeas corpus rights beyond our territorial limits and our citizenry. By doing so, the Court goes beyond the precedent basis of contemporary constitutional law as embodied by Johnson v. Eisentrager [339 U.S. 763 (1950)] [312]. The Court failed to recognize the state of war and thus chose to treat the detained battlefield combatants not as products of war, but rather as simple criminals and under criminal judicial processes. The lack of a full declaration of war and the associated legal instruments commensurate with such a congressional declaration created a condition of considerable ambiguity. The President did what he felt had to be done to protect this Grand Republic, and now some members of Congress and five Supreme Court justices condemn his choices. The reality is and should have been in this case that criminal law simply cannot apply on the battlefield. Such protections as unreasonable search and seizure, against self incrimination, Miranda rights, witnesses, rules of evidence, chain of custody, et cetera, ad infinitum, cannot be maintained; and, to do so, will get good men killed. The dissenting justices note the historic import of the Boumediene ruling. I understand and appreciate the extraordinary challenge faced by the Court. The War of Islamic Fascism will soon become the longest, combat war in American history; and as a result, the war presents unprecedented challenges to our sense of justice, fairness, and constitutional legality. Yet, my understanding of the rules of warfare in any chosen epoch has nothing to do with time. As von Clausewitz so succinctly stated, “war is simply diplomacy by other means.” The admixture of warfare and criminal jurisprudence cannot have a positive consequence. The fact that the Court’s slim majority in this case frets about the indefinite timeframe of the present war offers up an implicitly troubling notion that stateless transnational killers may well cripple and mortally wound this Grand Republic not on the battlefield but in the very judicial provisions intended to protect us. Giving detainees and lawyers access to related classified material during wartime is beyond idiocy, and yet now that is what has been opening to the enemy. Attempting to turn the battlefield into a criminal court room adds yet more obstacles to our ability to wage war successfully and defend the American People. We can add the Boumediene decision to political correctness, the Church Committee, and all the other ‘do-good-er’ nonsensical initiatives, attempting to make nice with our enemies on the battlefield. What a foolish, foolish thing to do. Can you imagine a conventional war like World War II, where we held 400,000 POW’s, and each of those captives petitioning the court for a writ of habeas corpus against wrongful detention? The fact that there were only a few hundred at Guantánamo Bay does not alter the significance. Scalia noted that 30 of those released so far have returned to the battlefield and were killed or recaptured. We did not choose this war. Yet, having the U.S. Supreme Court aiding and abetting the enemy hardly seems the intention of the Founders who framed the Constitution. I did not find the Court’s argument either compelling or even convincing; in fact, quite the contrary, the Boumediene decision leaves me profoundly saddened for the additional burdensome consequences our warriors will be asked to endure. As Kennedy noted, the Constitution and the American Republic will survive; in that, I agree. My worry remains . . . at what inordinate and unnecessary cost? Of course, the Court would not be happy with a ‘take no prisoners’ order, but that is indeed the de facto dilemma they have presented to our line combat forces. As with other poor, misguided decisions by the Supremes, this too, we shall overcome. The Boumediene ruling illuminates the enormous conflict and tension within a democratic system when half measures are used – ambiguity – and, the Executive, by that ambiguity, does not possess the unequivocal authorities he chooses to employ, even in times of war, invasion, insurrection or rebellion. The two (2) Authorization(s) for Use of Military Force [PLs 107-40 & 107-243] provide broad additional authority to the Executive, but it is hardly unequivocal as we once again bear witness. The foundation of the Boumediene majority’s opinion rests upon the sanctity of the writ of habeas corpus and the interpretation that the writ applies beyond the borders of the United States to those activities involving American citizens. I am thankful for the Court’s concern, but in this instance, the Court has gone too far for what appears to be political reasons. Scalia was spot on; we shall rue the day.

As a consequence to this forum, resultant from the Boumediene decision, numerous news items and topics had to be postponed to following weeks. The length and breadth of the Boumediene ruling exceeded my capacity to absorb and form an opinion.

We received no comments and contributions from Update no.339, this week, again!

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)