Update from the Heartland
No.341
16.6.08 – 22.6.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.341
16.6.08 – 22.6.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
We recently had a weekend filled with granddaughter activities. I have been very slow in sharing a couple of the images from that weekend. Here are our granddaughters, Aspen Shae and Shalee Lynn. We are so proud of them both . . . oh yeah, and their parents. LOL
We recently had a weekend filled with granddaughter activities. I have been very slow in sharing a couple of the images from that weekend. Here are our granddaughters, Aspen Shae and Shalee Lynn. We are so proud of them both . . . oh yeah, and their parents. LOL
Our futballer
[Our futballer.jpg]
[Our futballer.jpg]
Our dancer
[Our dancer A.jpg]
[Our dancer A.jpg]
The follow-up news items:
-- Another Marine – Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey R. Chessani – had charges against him dropped without prejudice in the aftermath of the so-called Haditha massacre [234, 276, 339], which means the Marine Corps could re-file charges, if they wish. All the nonsense does make me wonder even more what kind of pressure was brought to bear on Lieutenant General James N. Mattis, USMC, to sacrifice not quite a dozen combat Marines to political correctness.
-- The military officer who led the investigation into the Abu Graib prison situation – Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA (Ret.) [126] – resurfaced this week to accuse the President of the United States of war crimes. The plot thickens.
-- A few follow-up thoughts on the Boumediene decision [340]:
I can understand, although I do not accept, crimes of necessity or passion or even mental illness, but war is not one of those. Our enemy in the War on Islamic Fascism chooses to use the intangible bite of terrorism to inflict psychological injury more so than physical killing on those with whom they disagree. To think of terrorism or Islamic fascism in criminal terms, gravely underestimates the seriousness of the threat. We are not talking about bank robbers, serial killers, or even the Mafia or crime gangs. These guys are organized, committed, indiscriminate killers who seek our demoralization and withdrawal, just as the Barbary Pirates sought our capitulation in 1802.
-- Then, with all the internal convulsions of the last few weeks, on the 13th, approximately 30 enemy fighters and suicide bombers attacked Sarposa Prison, Kandahar, Afghanistan. The successful, multi-point attack freed 1,100 bad guys, including 500 Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. At least the Taliban had to work to free their buddies from the Afghan prison. All they have to do is wait for the Americans to do the job for them. Like Kurt Vonnegut so succinctly and eloquently said, “And so it goes.”
-- Then, of course, we have the continuing, Capitol Hill, soap-opera of the Kucinich Resolution [H.Res.1258] – to impeach President Bush [340]. Shortly after reading his 64-page, 35-count, articles of impeachment into the Congressional Record, Kucinich offered a resolution to refer his proposal to the Judiciary Committee. The House promptly voted [House: 251-166-0-16 (2)] to do just that.
Senator Clarence William "Bill" Nelson of Florida introduced a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President of the United States by popular vote [S.J.Res 39]. Of course, this is a more serious attempt to unravel the Constitution than the ill-advised Maryland state law – the Presidential Elections – Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote [279]. This misbegotten Nelson initiative will not affect this year’s election, but it could be placed before the states by the 2012 election. Just like the Marriage Protection Amendment and the Anti-Abortion Amendment efforts, this is a foolish exercise, but that is our system. It must be so satisfying to be in the majority, so much so that they can throw away 220 years of success . . . because they can.
It seems the British are succumbing to similar social afflictions as we colonialists.
"Law creates underclass of child criminals - Britain breaching rights, watchdogs tell UN"
by Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent
The Times [of London]
June 9, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4093218.ece?&EMC-Bltn=IQZF39
The British government’s Children’s Commissioner for England Professor Sir Albert Aynsley-Green and his three colleagues wrote a particularly critical assessment for the United Nations regarding the legal and judicial treatment of children in the United Kingdom. Odd sorta thing to do. Nonetheless, a few points struck me about Sir Albert’s opinion. One, we continue to ignore the root cause. Children are a product of their parents. The children are not the problem; the parents are the problem. And, until we hold parents accountable for the conduct of their children, we will continue to wonder why some kids become criminals. The harsh treatment of the criminal justice system is hardly the cause or even a symptom. Two, the State has an obligation to all citizens for their safety and security, not to the failures of poor parenting. Young folks turn to crime out of frustration, defiance, demonstration, anger, confusion or even necessity. The State cannot be a parent, not even a marginally adequate parent. So, respectfully, Sir Albert, you are wrong. Do not chastise the State for fulfilling its responsibilities; focus your wrath on the parents who neglected or abused that precious child. Juvenile criminals are taught in the home of their parents. We will stop the criminals when society proclaims its commitment to punish the creators of young criminals.
For those who believe the marriage of a homosexual couple will destroy marriage as a family institution in the United States, would you be so kind to describe for me how such destruction will or even can occur? I am having a hard time understanding how some other couple’s private relationship choices is going to affect my marriage or the marriages of our children. Someone please help me understand.
A related article that does not address my question above, but does give us some interesting insight to the issue:
"Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage"
by Tara Parker-Pope
New York Times
Published: June 10, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/10well.html?_r=2&8dpc=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1213100163-7ZE4LRM5DnYwSV4rC42A+A&oref=slogin
Several contributors noted a five-part series of newspaper articles regarding captive battlefield combatants held or being held by the United States, presumably to put the Supreme Court’s Boumediene v. Bush [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1195] decision in proper human perspective. Tom Lasseter wrote the series of articles for the McClatchy Newspapers of which the Wichita Eagle is one. As with so many of these debates, discussions and pronouncements, so much depends upon definition and perspective. If we believe not serving detainees afternoon tea and biscuits on time is abuse, then we have a standard. If we don’t believe breaking bones or losing an eye is abuse, then we have a dramatically different standard. Likewise, if we do not believe we are at war, then the President’s actions and the conduct of U.S. Forces on the battlefield look fundamentally different. Further, if we view various news reports, proclamations by our favorite talking heads, or the instant flash moments of news on the cable news channels without understanding the true nature of warfare, then we often rail at the inhumanity, and withdraw to the comfort of our sphere of social acceptability. So it was with Lasseter’s exposé articles. I must laud his extraordinary effort to acquire information and communicate a view of the battlefield rarely accessible to citizens. Lasseter’s words convey the revulsion most if not a substantial majority of American citizens undoubtedly feel with respect to the ambiguity of the War on Islamic Fascism. I shall leave my opinion here, for the moment. Additional comments are offered below. For your reference, the five installments are:
1. “America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men”
by Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers (Wichita Eagle)
Posted on Sunday, June 15, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html
2. “U.S. abuse of detainees was routine at Afghanistan bases”
by Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers (Wichita Eagle)
Posted on Monday, June 16, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38775.html
3. “Militants found recruits among Guantanamo's wrongly detained”
by Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers (Wichita Eagle)
Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38779.html
4. “Easing of laws that led to detainee abuse hatched in secret”
by Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers (Wichita Eagle)
Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38886.html
5. “Taliban ambassador wielded power within Guantanamo”
by Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers (Wichita Eagle)
Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38888.html
The Supreme Court issued another interesting habeas corpus ruling last week, but it was overshadowed by the Boumediene v. Bush [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1195] decision [340]. The companion case – Munaf v. Geren [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1666] – released the very same day, oddly has not received any Press coverage. As I read through the latter case, I continued to wonder why the Press and talking heads had not ballyhooed the Munaf ruling over Boumediene. After all, Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Omar are both American citizens; Lakhdar Boumediene is a Bosnian Muslim militant. Both cases were habeas corpus appeals seeking relief against the U.S. Government for unreasonable incarceration; both cases involved imprisonment outside the territorial United States. Could it be that the Guantánamo Bay facility is a sexier cause célèbre for the uber-Left than Camp Cropper prison in Iraq? Too bad for Mohammad and Shawqi. These two Americans were captured in Iraq, fighting for the other side, quite like John Walker Lindh was in Afghanistan [16], except they possessed more terrorist material; Lindh only had a gun, tribal attire, and jihadi brethren. Another interesting facet of the Munaf case, after both men were captured separately, they both petitioned the DC Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus and an injunction to prevent the United States from transferring them to Iraqi custody and trial in the Iraqi judicial system. The Court unanimously rejected both appeals. While the two Americans may well meet the same fate in either court system, both of them should be tried for treason by military tribunal and suffer the punishment of traitors. Perhaps they may well feel the weight of American justice for such traitorous conduct, if they survive Iraqi justice.
Two weeks of drought, and then we have a deluge.
Comments and contributions from Update no.340:
“Scalia's opinion was rather legal cite-free, which is interesting, to say the least. One would have expected more from him. Here are the comments of one professor on his dissent:
“But Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent to Boumediene v. Bush yesterday was a little inconsistent with his own jurisprudential ideology, premised as it was on more than a hint of crystal ball gazing. It "will make the war harder on us," he wrote. "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Time will tell, but one would have thought that strict constructionists were more backward-looking in their faithfulness to what the Founders said and intended, and less forward-looking in deploying predicted consequences as a major guide to judicial reasoning.
“Here is the so-called "Suspension Clause" (Article 1, Section 9) of the constitution - "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" - the constitutional point of contention in Boumediene v. Bush. Lawyers and judges will continue to debate the meaning of ‘invasion,’ but it is interesting that the strict constructionists on the Court have had to expand the meaning of ‘invasion’ beyond its normal reach to justify their dissent from the majority opinion.”
My reply:
As you have probably gathered from my writing, I have a love-hate attitude toward Antonin the Impaler. I admire his writing but often strongly disagree with his legal reasoning. Boumediene was not one of his better efforts. He calls himself a strict constructionist. I call him a staunch Federalist. I offered a good chunk of my opinion in last week’s Update [340] and have already added more in this week’s Update [341]. I am not a rigorous constitutional scholar; I would like to think I am a lay aficionado. My reading of Boumediene yields profound puzzlement. I cannot imagine any of the Founders – Jeffersonians to Hamiltonians – accepting or even envisioning extension of the constitutional habeas corpus to enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield and incarcerated beyond our territorial boundaries. Roberts’ dissent articulation gives the best view of the serious constitutional issues wrapped up on the Court’s decision. All in all, Scalia pegged it, “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Just a note on Boumediane-- things may not be so dire as many think. The judge in whose court many of the Gitmo habeas petitions are pending, seems to be getting ready to move out in a workmanlike manner.
“U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth met today with lawyers from the Department of Justice and representatives of the Guantánamo detainees to discuss how the court should proceed in light of last week's Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush. In the off-the-record meeting, lawyers for both sides discussed a number of security and procedural issues that are common to many of the nearly 200 cases pending before the court. ‘We had a constructive meeting today and will have a follow up meeting next Wednesday. I plan to meet soon with the judges of this court to discuss the lawyers' suggestions for how we can move these cases most efficiently and expeditiously,’ said Chief Judge Lamberth.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
As with so many things human, and especially with the flexible and adaptive English language, interpretation is in the mind of the beholder. Good on Judge Lamberth for his enthusiasm in rolling up his sleeves and getting to work. The Court has ruled; we shall do our best to persevere.
I am struggling to appreciate all this yammering about the poor downtrodden detainees like Mohammed Naim Farouq or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Yet, my opinion and my journey to understand does not matter a hoot.
To further our intercourse, let me ask, how many POWs in any war previous to this one, and on any side, were granted the habeas corpus right? Were all those previous war leaders and courts wrong? How many previous POWs found affinity with the captors and antagonists? There were a few in Korea. There were misty stories of a few in Vietnam. I am not aware of any Allied POWs aligning themselves with the Nazis or Imperial Japan. There were more than a few German and Italian POWs who sought U.S. citizenship, and actually achieved their goal. Why was that, I wonder?
My only conclusion . . . those who seek to make nice with our enemies and grant captured battlefield combatants the legal rights of American citizens must believe deep down that we are NOT at war, NEVER have been at war, and thus normal wartime conduct has no relevance.
Apparently, I am in a very small minority who actually believes we are at war. If so, then I concede. We should withdraw our troops and return them to their families. The expenditure of a generation’s blood for the ego-centric, selfish, blind, political ambitions of a demented president is wrong in the worst possible way. I am far more worried about our freedom than I am about the freedom of Iraqis, or Saudis, or Zimbabweans, or Pakistanis, or anyone else out there. Let them kill each other. I don’t care. We fought for our freedom. Let them fight for theirs. Heck, now that I am at it, let’s release all the detainees, give them back their guns they have a right to, and forget all this nastiness. I’m tired.
. . . round three:
“One important point- these people are not POWs- they are detainees. Rumsfeld and company didn't want them to be called POWs.
. . . and my reply to round three:
I am reticent to call them POWs myself. The title POW has some nobility to it. POWs are soldiers of one nation captured by another. So, POW is clearly not the correct term for captured battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism. Yet, POW is closer to being accurate than prisoner or criminal or such. In fact, in wars gone by, fighters on the battlefield without uniforms were treated not much better than spies . . . summarily executed after whatever information that could be sucked from them had been obtained. My point is, these guys are NOT common criminals and they are far below noble warriors. To pretend they are something more than they are does serious disservice to all those who show at least some respect for humanity.
Another contribution:
“The Supreme Court is speeding up the trip to the abyss a bit with this ruling. The leadership void is already surrounding us. I wonder if anyone understands or even reads history anymore. If they did, it would give pause to consider what is coming.”
My response:
I share your sense of foreboding. On the slightly positive side, I have felt this before . . . the decade of the 1970’s . . . racial strife, the anti-war movement, Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, Hanoi Jane, Nixon’s betrayal, Watergate, the Fall of Saigon, Jimmy Carter, Harold Brown, Operation EAGLE CLAW. We overcame all that; we will overcome this.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Good point. I was not as concerned back then and thought we would come to our senses. We did, but this time seems different. We'll see. It will depend upon future leadership.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I was concerned back then, as I am concerned now. Indeed, much will depend upon our future leadership.
A contribution from the Update blog site:
“The narrow SCOTUS decisions supporting human rights shows us how close we are to dictatorship, and how important it is to elect Obama this year.
“If the government says that these people are imprisoned because they are ‘enemy combatants,’ then the very minimum burden of proof is to show publicly the circumstances of their capture that led to that conclusion.
“Pardon me if I don't believe an administration that has lied or been wrong about every aspect of this war.
“Denying the most basic right that has been the core of our justice system for 700 years is a dark step toward dictatorship. Those who oppose it are saying that the United States can capture, imprison and torture anyone on the planet AS LONG AS THEY ARE FOREIGN NATIONALS, and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it. How long would it be before American tourists fell victim to the same philosophy in other countries? If we set a standard of injustice, then others will follow it.
“A politician trading on the fear of terrorism in order to consolidate his own power might as well join al Qaeda and get it over with, because he is doing their work for them.
“These rights were bought with the blood of patriots who knew that liberty is more important than safety, and they proved it by laying down their lives so we could be a free people. Now, cowards and traitors would dishonor those brave men and women by cowering in fear and surrendering those hard won rights.
“Giving habeas corpus rights to EVERY person imprisoned by the United States shows our strength, courage and freedom. Taking away human rights out of fear means we have started a slow decline as a nation.
“I am a United States Army veteran, I swore to defend the Constitution, and I consider that a lifetime obligation.”
My reply:
I, too, am a veteran sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, until I am no longer able. I made a commitment many years ago to stand the line in harm’s way to protect the “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” of every citizen as they freely choose.
As I wrote in Update no.340, I laud the Court’s protection of our habeas corpus rights. Those rights apply to any American citizen, even traitorous Americans. But, in the Boumediene decision, we are not talking about citizens, or even foreigners in the United States.
Where we apparently differ in the interpretation of the Boumediene decision is the extension of our precious habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. Let’s put this in perspective. How many of the 400,000 German, Italian and Japanese POWs held in camps inside the Continental United States were given access to a writ of habeas corpus and criminal courts? When have we ever asked our combat troops to observe criminal justice procedures in capturing an enemy soldier on the battlefield?
I respect your right to hold whatever political opinions and positions you wish, and to support, advocate and vote for any candidate you may choose. Yet, I must respectfully object to the insinuation that the President is a dictator or lied to the American People. I am not a fan of George W. Bush; in fact, we differ on far more that we may agree upon, but he is still the President. We may differ in our opinions of his actions and conduct as Commander-in-Chief; that is our right; but, regardless, he remains the President of the United States of America, and Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution gives him extraordinary power to act on our behalf to protect us. We can debate about the correctness of the execution of his duties, but he remains the sole American citizen vested with those powers; no one else, period.
American citizens have rights guaranteed by the Constitution and our body of laws. Even those citizens who choose to commit crimes against those laws have rights under the Constitution. Enemies of the State captured on the battlefield are at best POWs, not criminals, and most definitely not citizens.
The War on Islamic Fascism is far bigger than political parties, parochial partisanship, or the fractious yammerings of the negativists, and will go on longer that the current administration, and probably the next several administrations. I believe the War on Islamic Fascism began five administrations ago in 1979, and took us 20+ years to recognize reality. So, rather than shouting at each other, we should focus on helping whomever is President win this damnable war.
Another contribution from a different contributor:
“This may not be the most articulate response ever, but Dennis Kucinich is an absolute whackjob. Please tell me where we are imprisoning children? And what's wrong with permanent military bases in Iraq? We have bases in several countries, and if the host country says they don't want us there any more, we leave (i.e., The Philippines with Subic Bay and Clark AB).
“Kucinich demonstrates he is in the realm of people who believe everything is America's fault. Sure, we've screwed up many times, but what we are trying to do over in Iraq is being done with the best of intentions . . . at least by a majority of the people on the ground. I should introduce Kucinich to a guy in my writer's critique group who believes the fence along the border . . . excuse me, proposed fence of which they've constructed, whaat, about 15 or 20 feet? Anyway, the guy says the fence is being built not to keep out illegal immigrants, but to keep us from leaving the country. ?????????. Where do people come up with these ideas? Worst is, someone like Kucinich is part of the kook fringe and is in a position of power.”
My response:
Dennis the Menace is on the list of congressional space cadets, but that does disservice to our noble astronauts. Personally, I think Dennis is just a parochial political hack who despises everything Republican, or rather non-Democratic, and conservative, or rather non-liberal. Some of his vitriolic rhetoric reminds me of the mindless tripe we hear all too often from those who pander to a narrow segment of our population. I don’t know that folks like Dennis are anti-American so much as they are unthinking consumers of political pabulum. The sad part is, it is hard not to laugh at Kucinich.
Yet, another contribution:
“Please read this two part piece by Jacob Hornberger- it speaks of the importance of habeus corpus and the danger your and Scalia’s arguments are to our democracy.”
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0801a.asp
My response:
I agree. We should be concerned about the Padilla case and our precious right to a writ of habeas corpus. No argument.
However, to understand the other side of the equation, I suggest the following reading:
Ex Parte Quirin [317 U.S. 1 (1942)] [U-170]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=317&page=1
and
Johnson v. Eisentrager [339 U.S. 763 (1950)] [U-312]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=339&page=763
. . . round two:
“This is really interesting, and I am no expert, but I sense a disparity in perception of what has taken place at Gitmo. Your view that these guys were fighters caught on a battlefield is too broad and inaccurate, I think. They were ransomed, kidnapped, grabbed in roundups, etc, and many only vaguely connected to people we consider enemies. Few were captured on the battlefield, I understand. The prison riot where John Walker Lindh was captured has much controversy surrounding it, including his eventual trial. See Jessalyn Radack's story, e.g. You might disagree, and I think that if each individual case of the remaining 270 or so could be openly discussed we might find some serious breaches of human rights, on anybody's scale. The torture put to Sheik Mohammed, and others basically ruins any fair trial or truth-finding about them whether in civil or military tribunal. This has all been a calamity from the start. Criminals pirated planes and destroyed life and property. Remember that Osama denied any involvement originally, the tapes of his admitting it later are highly controversial, and the Taliban were our buddies. There has never been an investigation to find out why we were so negligent and derelict in our reaction on 911- Remember Able Danger? The Northern Alliance were Soviet puppies, weren't they? and yet we went after the whole country of Afghanistan- and then illegally attacked Iraq. This is the worst period in American history and would that there would be some accountability. I'll read the second case as well but I feel I will fall on the side of those who want to protect and exercise the sacred rule of habeus corpus- indefinite retention without charge is not American. It is totalitarian from any angle. Congress has been at fault in giving the Pres the powers he does not have constitutionally- namely the power to disregard the Constitution and the Judges who put this Pretender in power should somehow be held accountable for their unigue ruling. Scalia will probably go down as one of the worst Sup Ct judges in American History- right along side the one who said slavery was OK- Taney. It was not a small thing for that widely diverse, but immensely intelligent and well read group of men to draw up some rules for us to live by and we have at our peril disregarded them- such as habeus corpus and the 4th amendment.”
. . . my response to round two:
Considering how this administration has abused the PATRIOT Act, and other excesses, I would not be surprised if the administration is abusing the Guantánamo Bay detention and rendition processes. Until I have hard, corroborated evidence of such abuse, I choose to give the President the benefit of the doubt. He is charged by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution to protect and defend the United States of America. In deference to that awesome responsibility, I give the President broad latitude to do what he thinks is best to fulfill his responsibilities.
Yes, absolutely, some, perhaps even most, of the detainees were not captured in the classic battlefield scenario of force-on-force, combat operations. Nonetheless, as with the Lakhdar Boumediene case, we are engaged in a global, non-traditional, non-conventional war. The battlefield of which I speak bears no resemblance to the classic battlefields of yesteryear. Thus, captives will be rendered into detention from a myriad of situations and conditions, as Boumediene was. What separates battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism from common criminals is the ideological basis of their aggression, the use of terrorism as their weapon, and their employment of mass injury to innocent people – none of those attributes are common to ordinary criminal conduct.
I find little compassion or mercy for guys like Lindh [U-16], Padilla [U-107], Gadahn [U-253], and the others – American citizens who have freely chosen to fight for the enemy. Their status has been clearly established by Ex Parte Quirin [317 U.S. 1 (1942)] [U-170]. They are lucky they have not been tried for treason and suffered the fate of traitors.
P.S.: And, if I am wrong, and the President has betrayed us and his oath, as Richard Nixon did, then I shall join the chorus of the mob seeking his head on a pike. Until then, he is the President of the United States of America, and I believe he is fulfilling his obligations under Article II, Section 2, as he sees fit, and he has not violated any law I am aware of . . . stretched, yes, but not broken.
. . . round three:
“I'm not sure what you would accept as evidence but there's plenty of it out there that prisoners in our custody have been tortured and murdered. If you are not aware of this, then I will have to question how open minded you are. Do you really want me to bombard you with links to such activity? Just a few quickly:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/carter.torture/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34923prs20080416.html
“I'm not sure where you're coming from in agreeing with Bush that we don't torture.”
. . . and my response to round three:
First, you can think of me as you will. I put my opinions into the public domain to elicit comment, debate and argument.
Second, I know quite well what some folks claim regarding virtually all aspects of the War of Islamic Fascism, including some who truly believe we are not at war, never have been at war, and that Americans are just being bullies.
Third, as I have stated many times, so many of these topics depend upon definitions, points of perspective, and to a certain extent, attitude. If we choose to see the negative, we see the negative. I remain suspicious and attentive to this administration, but at the end of the day, I still believe the President is doing what he believes is necessary to defend this Grand Republic.
No, I do not need you to bombard me with links. I believe I am quite familiar with the contrarian opinions. At the root of our disagreements is . . . I believe absolutely that we are at war, have been and will be at war, with or without a full and proper declaration of war, and that we have a choice to win or lose this war. I am a warrior, or at least I once was, and I think like a warrior, so please use that lens when interpreting my words.
Onto a different contributor regarding another topic from Update no.340:
“I couldn't let this one go.
[Re: my opinion: The impotent foolishness of the war on drugs continues [339].]
“In the dialog there appears to be a stance on taking a different approach to the drug war than what has arguably not worked in the past. There also appears to be a stance for legalization.
“I couldn't agree more on taking a different approach to fighting the drug war. I certainly don't have the answers required for taking on such an offensive. However, the Marine in me supports strongly the use of snipers.
“Now, if I may address the legalization aspect of drugs. Let me just preface my response with the following, and please keep in mind I did not have to search far for the following:
(my brother) - Cocaine induced Stroke: A burden to family and society
(brother of a childhood neighborhood friend) - Dead from overdose
(brother of a close high school friend) - Dead from overdose
(sister of friend) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(childhood neighborhood friend and fellow Boy Scout troop member) - Dead from overdose
(childhood neighborhood friend and swim team member) – Dead from overdose
(sister of friend) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(nephew to former fathering-law) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(former work acquaintance) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(childhood neighborhood friend) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(childhood neighborhood friend) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(former work acquaintance) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(former work acquaintance) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
“The above represent a very small sampling from society, that being my very small world and these were just the examples that readily came to mind. There was/is an obvious cost, emotional and financial, involved until death or departure in these examples. This cost is borne by all of us, some more in familial ways and others in societal ways.
“This leads me to describe, as I remember it described to me, the situation in The Netherlands where drugs have been more-or-less legal for many years. A few years ago I had the privilege of working with a couple of officers from the Royal Netherlands Air Force. Aside from aviation and military talk, my natural inquisitiveness led me to inquire about life in The Netherlands. I learned that The Netherlands has a vast societal problem dealing with the large percentage of their population that has partaken in the use of legalized drugs for much of their lives. This portion of their population has become a burden to their families and to society. In addition to being non-productive members of society, they are an economic drain on both their families and the country's welfare system. So much for personal use.
“The ready argument here is that we have legalized alcohol. I really have no argument here other than an observation. Look at the devastation that has been incurred for many years due to alcohol abuse. Not only do the abusers suffer, but family members and society suffer as well. And need I mention all the innocent lives lost and lives destroyed by legal alcohol abuse. For the record, I do like a drink every now and then.
“Shall we take it a step further to tobacco? Granted, the loss of innocent lives, unless you want to consider whatever damage is caused by second-hand smoke, is non-existent to minimal in relation to the alcohol situation. However, the cost to society is great. Not only does the smoker suffer, but society suffers as well in rising medical costs borne by all of us. And need I mention the annoyance of smoke breaks or the aspect that a majority of smokers consider the world to be their ashtray.
“Taking even another step, what about food abuse? The abuser suffers. Society suffers. And I will readily admit that this is my weakness.
“But what I am trying to get at is where is the line drawn? Do we push the line to the other side of drugs and legalize drugs? What then? What next? Do we have fewer people dying from overdose? Do we have fewer people debilitated by strokes? Do we have fewer people getting overcooked? I am skeptical.
“The argument for legalization of drugs will probably and partially stem from infringement upon personal freedoms. But I ask: just how personal would legal drug indulgence be? If legalized, will the deaths, strokes, and fried brains of the drug users not impact family members or society in any way? Again, I am skeptical and I will leave it at that.”
My response:
We have disagreed on the legalization of drugs, and we shall continue to disagree. We can all cite the damage and destruction of drug abuse. I can cite mine as well if you wish. I am sorry for the loss that has touched your life and family. But, the urge to use the instruments of State to ease our pain is a box canyon with a not-so-pleasant end.
We can extend the destruction argument beyond drugs, alcohol and tobacco to motorcycles, skydiving, flying, downhill skiing, racing of all kinds, ad infinitum. There are probably many reasons that drugs are so destructive with some people, probably not substantially different from alcohol. My interest is not the psychology of abuse, but rather the impact upon our society. In blunt terms, how much of our freedom are we willing to sacrifice to protect individuals from themselves? For me, the bottom line is personal accountability; we are responsible for our actions – no one else, not our neighbor, not our minister, and not the government. The government can NEVER regulate our God-given, natural rights . . . as the Founders so eloquently proclaimed. And, when we turn to the government to control private behavior, we give up slivers or whole slices of our freedom – the very same freedom our ancestors risked their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor to secure for future generations – us! So it is here. For those of us touched by drug use and abuse, reality is all too clear; the addict will never forsake his drugs until he reaches a point that he convinces himself that he must change course. Until that point is reached within his individual soul, there is absolutely nothing the rest of us can do to stop him. Some people reach that point and save themselves; some people don’t. Yes, the personal destruction of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, anonymous unprotected sex, or any other risky behavior is tragic; but, when you stand back and look at the societal destruction wrought in the name of the war on drugs, the scope of this disaster takes on gargantuan proportions. And, now, we have the Supreme Court mutating the Commerce Clause and expanding Federalism at the expense of our precious freedom of choice.
A short, little, distantly related, tragic, local story . . . A week ago, a young man went out and bought a powerful, crotch-rocket, motorcycle and died that same day when he crashed that bike. Who failed that young man? Who is responsible? The government? The motorcycle dealer?
The responsibility rests with parents. When we ignore risky behavior as an educational topic or fail to teach our children to be accountable for the choices they make before they are exposed to risky behavior, then we as parents have failed our children and society. The government can NEVER be a parent, can NEVER teach our children. The government by its very definition is and must be the lowest common denominator. If we want our children to have higher moral standards, then that teaching must come from parents. I take the parental responsibility even farther. When children violate society’s public standards, then the parents must be held accountable to the society they have failed. With freedom comes personal accountability; they are inextricably woven together. Pretending sex does not exist, or drugs do not exist, or tobacco is some distant vice, does not teach our children how to deal with those risks and temptations, or how to decide for themselves and understanding the consequences. Turning to government for that purpose will NEVER be successful and will only erode more of our freedom.
I have offered numerous proposals for dealing with drug abuse. To date, I have received no counter-proposal or even much criticism of my proposals. I truly believe the so-called war on drugs created by Richard Nixon will have only one outcome – less freedom for all Americans.
I mourn the loss of human life for all or any reasons – hunger, drugs, war, STDs, tobacco, ad infinitum. Yet, I do not want anyone else and especially the government to tell me how to live my life, and the private choices I can make. The government has a responsibility to define acceptable public behavior, but it has no right whatsoever to dictate my private conduct (as long as I cause no injury to another citizen).
These are the challenges we face. The government is NOT the answer.
. . . round two:
“I really have no argument against what you have stated. I do not look for government to teach right from wrong. I look first for that to come from parents and then from church, although it could be argued that they are intertwined (our parents having the church upbringing before us).
“I certainly do not want more personal freedoms taken away. God knows how much I despise the TSA.
“You know, there is nowhere that I can go that will not solicit a just and sound argument against. Suffice it to say that those of us who try to do the right thing are doomed to pay for those who do not.”
. . . my reply to round two:
Unfortunately, as I have written [339/40, et al], Congress continues to search for innovative ways to spend money on useless crusades that have no hope of success. Like you, I am not eager to pay more taxes to compensate for the mistakes of others. My proposal would definitely cost precious tax dollars. Yet, my proposal includes diversion of current expenditures into more productive pursuits.
IMHO, one of the myriad of reasons drugs are so destructive is their use is illegal, and thus hidden from public view. We do not know who is supplying, who is using, who is abusing, et cetera. I truly believe that if the use of psychotropic substances were legal and open to public scrutiny, we would have far fewer abusers, reduced levels of destruction and collateral damage, improved ability to help those who truly seek help, and safe segregation of the fraction who are self-destructive. Like prostitution, we have no prayer of overcoming drug abuse as along as we allow it to fester and mutate out of public view, and to be fed by a prosperous blackmarket. The so-called war on drugs, since Nixon’s creation in 1970, has placed us on the direct course toward Oceania and Big Brother. If that is what we seek, then we are on the correct course. If we do not want to relinquish our personal Liberty to the nanny-State and Oceania, then we must change course and abandon these losing strategies that are destined to consume us.
Regardless, a change of course regarding drugs, prostitution, or any of the other sinful pursuits is highly unlikely in our lifetime. Hopefully, our children or their children will have the strength to reject the nanny-State before it becomes Oceania. The sad part for me remains vested in the paucity of any sign or even hint that We, the People, even recognize the threat to our freedoms or even the diminishment that has already taken root. I feel like a very lonely voice shouting into the cyclonic wind.
. . . round three:
“I don't know if legalization helps minimize the abuse and destruction. One has to consider the strain this has had on The Netherlands. The non-users in The Netherlands, the ones bearing the burden of the users, may debate strongly this issue.
“Please pardon my naïveté, but what is Oceania?
“As far as taxes are concerned, you know a sniper doesn't cost much in the overall scope of things such as the war on drugs.
“As far as recognizing the threat to our freedoms and the diminishment that has already taken place, I am with you. I believe many, many people are just plain oblivious.
“So you see, topics such as this get me in a tizzy. I want things to be a certain way but without jeopardizing our freedoms. I mostly feel that the machine, which takes on a life of its own, is moving in the wrong direction and we are powerless to stop it.”
. . . my reply to round three:
My proposal does not include the Netherlands laissez-faire approach. My proposal says basically you can buy drugs like alcohol to be used in private; public intoxication or compromise would be handled like alcohol, i.e., you buy, you use in private, and as long as conduct remains acceptable in public, all is well. Those who can’t buy or violate the public conduct go to drug camps, where they can get as much of any drug they wish for free, as long as they remain no threat to public safety. There is more to it than that, but that’s the gist. It takes a very sober view . . . if you are bent of self-destruction, we’ll help you peacefully along your way. The objectives would be:
1.) stop the black-market and criminal sub-culture,
2,) keep drug abusers from hurting any innocent citizen, and
3.) place drug abuse in public view where it can be monitored and regulated.
Oceania is the fictional country of “1984” infamy.
I know what you mean about the use of snipers. If the drug pushers were forcing people to get hooked to further their biz, they I’m with you. Vigilante justice does have some resonance, but I would rather the law handle the violators – the real criminals. The users are hardly criminals; they are generally confused souls who simply wish to zone-out and not be productive citizens. Trying to stop the tide is far harder than using the tide in a productive manner. The cost to society is far greater trying to stop drug use, than it would be to help those so inclined along their way, beyond public disturbance.
I’m sure our forefathers felt the same way when faced with the enormous reach and power of the Crown, but they persevered and overcame. We can too, if we put our minds to it. The People corrected the nonsense of the 18th Amendment; we can change the law.
. . . round four:
“Oh my, do I feel stupid. I should have known ‘1984.’
“I hope you realize that when I mention the use of snipers I am referring to the upper echelon of the illegal supply chain. I can't help but feel that people in the business may opt for a different profession if they knew their likelihood for longevity in the business would be short-lived and violently ended.
“By the way, I like your plan.”
. . . and my response to round four:
People who do not respect human life like the drug lords don’t deserve more than a 175 grain bullet fired from better than a kilometer.
If you like my plan, then all we need to do is convince 150 million of citizens and we can reclaim our freedom and put the government back in its proper place.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
-- Another Marine – Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey R. Chessani – had charges against him dropped without prejudice in the aftermath of the so-called Haditha massacre [234, 276, 339], which means the Marine Corps could re-file charges, if they wish. All the nonsense does make me wonder even more what kind of pressure was brought to bear on Lieutenant General James N. Mattis, USMC, to sacrifice not quite a dozen combat Marines to political correctness.
-- The military officer who led the investigation into the Abu Graib prison situation – Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA (Ret.) [126] – resurfaced this week to accuse the President of the United States of war crimes. The plot thickens.
-- A few follow-up thoughts on the Boumediene decision [340]:
I can understand, although I do not accept, crimes of necessity or passion or even mental illness, but war is not one of those. Our enemy in the War on Islamic Fascism chooses to use the intangible bite of terrorism to inflict psychological injury more so than physical killing on those with whom they disagree. To think of terrorism or Islamic fascism in criminal terms, gravely underestimates the seriousness of the threat. We are not talking about bank robbers, serial killers, or even the Mafia or crime gangs. These guys are organized, committed, indiscriminate killers who seek our demoralization and withdrawal, just as the Barbary Pirates sought our capitulation in 1802.
-- Then, with all the internal convulsions of the last few weeks, on the 13th, approximately 30 enemy fighters and suicide bombers attacked Sarposa Prison, Kandahar, Afghanistan. The successful, multi-point attack freed 1,100 bad guys, including 500 Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. At least the Taliban had to work to free their buddies from the Afghan prison. All they have to do is wait for the Americans to do the job for them. Like Kurt Vonnegut so succinctly and eloquently said, “And so it goes.”
-- Then, of course, we have the continuing, Capitol Hill, soap-opera of the Kucinich Resolution [H.Res.1258] – to impeach President Bush [340]. Shortly after reading his 64-page, 35-count, articles of impeachment into the Congressional Record, Kucinich offered a resolution to refer his proposal to the Judiciary Committee. The House promptly voted [House: 251-166-0-16 (2)] to do just that.
Senator Clarence William "Bill" Nelson of Florida introduced a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College and elect the President of the United States by popular vote [S.J.Res 39]. Of course, this is a more serious attempt to unravel the Constitution than the ill-advised Maryland state law – the Presidential Elections – Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote [279]. This misbegotten Nelson initiative will not affect this year’s election, but it could be placed before the states by the 2012 election. Just like the Marriage Protection Amendment and the Anti-Abortion Amendment efforts, this is a foolish exercise, but that is our system. It must be so satisfying to be in the majority, so much so that they can throw away 220 years of success . . . because they can.
It seems the British are succumbing to similar social afflictions as we colonialists.
"Law creates underclass of child criminals - Britain breaching rights, watchdogs tell UN"
by Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent
The Times [of London]
June 9, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4093218.ece?&EMC-Bltn=IQZF39
The British government’s Children’s Commissioner for England Professor Sir Albert Aynsley-Green and his three colleagues wrote a particularly critical assessment for the United Nations regarding the legal and judicial treatment of children in the United Kingdom. Odd sorta thing to do. Nonetheless, a few points struck me about Sir Albert’s opinion. One, we continue to ignore the root cause. Children are a product of their parents. The children are not the problem; the parents are the problem. And, until we hold parents accountable for the conduct of their children, we will continue to wonder why some kids become criminals. The harsh treatment of the criminal justice system is hardly the cause or even a symptom. Two, the State has an obligation to all citizens for their safety and security, not to the failures of poor parenting. Young folks turn to crime out of frustration, defiance, demonstration, anger, confusion or even necessity. The State cannot be a parent, not even a marginally adequate parent. So, respectfully, Sir Albert, you are wrong. Do not chastise the State for fulfilling its responsibilities; focus your wrath on the parents who neglected or abused that precious child. Juvenile criminals are taught in the home of their parents. We will stop the criminals when society proclaims its commitment to punish the creators of young criminals.
For those who believe the marriage of a homosexual couple will destroy marriage as a family institution in the United States, would you be so kind to describe for me how such destruction will or even can occur? I am having a hard time understanding how some other couple’s private relationship choices is going to affect my marriage or the marriages of our children. Someone please help me understand.
A related article that does not address my question above, but does give us some interesting insight to the issue:
"Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage"
by Tara Parker-Pope
New York Times
Published: June 10, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/10well.html?_r=2&8dpc=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1213100163-7ZE4LRM5DnYwSV4rC42A+A&oref=slogin
Several contributors noted a five-part series of newspaper articles regarding captive battlefield combatants held or being held by the United States, presumably to put the Supreme Court’s Boumediene v. Bush [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1195] decision in proper human perspective. Tom Lasseter wrote the series of articles for the McClatchy Newspapers of which the Wichita Eagle is one. As with so many of these debates, discussions and pronouncements, so much depends upon definition and perspective. If we believe not serving detainees afternoon tea and biscuits on time is abuse, then we have a standard. If we don’t believe breaking bones or losing an eye is abuse, then we have a dramatically different standard. Likewise, if we do not believe we are at war, then the President’s actions and the conduct of U.S. Forces on the battlefield look fundamentally different. Further, if we view various news reports, proclamations by our favorite talking heads, or the instant flash moments of news on the cable news channels without understanding the true nature of warfare, then we often rail at the inhumanity, and withdraw to the comfort of our sphere of social acceptability. So it was with Lasseter’s exposé articles. I must laud his extraordinary effort to acquire information and communicate a view of the battlefield rarely accessible to citizens. Lasseter’s words convey the revulsion most if not a substantial majority of American citizens undoubtedly feel with respect to the ambiguity of the War on Islamic Fascism. I shall leave my opinion here, for the moment. Additional comments are offered below. For your reference, the five installments are:
1. “America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men”
by Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers (Wichita Eagle)
Posted on Sunday, June 15, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html
2. “U.S. abuse of detainees was routine at Afghanistan bases”
by Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers (Wichita Eagle)
Posted on Monday, June 16, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38775.html
3. “Militants found recruits among Guantanamo's wrongly detained”
by Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers (Wichita Eagle)
Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38779.html
4. “Easing of laws that led to detainee abuse hatched in secret”
by Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers (Wichita Eagle)
Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38886.html
5. “Taliban ambassador wielded power within Guantanamo”
by Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers (Wichita Eagle)
Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38888.html
The Supreme Court issued another interesting habeas corpus ruling last week, but it was overshadowed by the Boumediene v. Bush [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1195] decision [340]. The companion case – Munaf v. Geren [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1666] – released the very same day, oddly has not received any Press coverage. As I read through the latter case, I continued to wonder why the Press and talking heads had not ballyhooed the Munaf ruling over Boumediene. After all, Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Omar are both American citizens; Lakhdar Boumediene is a Bosnian Muslim militant. Both cases were habeas corpus appeals seeking relief against the U.S. Government for unreasonable incarceration; both cases involved imprisonment outside the territorial United States. Could it be that the Guantánamo Bay facility is a sexier cause célèbre for the uber-Left than Camp Cropper prison in Iraq? Too bad for Mohammad and Shawqi. These two Americans were captured in Iraq, fighting for the other side, quite like John Walker Lindh was in Afghanistan [16], except they possessed more terrorist material; Lindh only had a gun, tribal attire, and jihadi brethren. Another interesting facet of the Munaf case, after both men were captured separately, they both petitioned the DC Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus and an injunction to prevent the United States from transferring them to Iraqi custody and trial in the Iraqi judicial system. The Court unanimously rejected both appeals. While the two Americans may well meet the same fate in either court system, both of them should be tried for treason by military tribunal and suffer the punishment of traitors. Perhaps they may well feel the weight of American justice for such traitorous conduct, if they survive Iraqi justice.
Two weeks of drought, and then we have a deluge.
Comments and contributions from Update no.340:
“Scalia's opinion was rather legal cite-free, which is interesting, to say the least. One would have expected more from him. Here are the comments of one professor on his dissent:
“But Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent to Boumediene v. Bush yesterday was a little inconsistent with his own jurisprudential ideology, premised as it was on more than a hint of crystal ball gazing. It "will make the war harder on us," he wrote. "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Time will tell, but one would have thought that strict constructionists were more backward-looking in their faithfulness to what the Founders said and intended, and less forward-looking in deploying predicted consequences as a major guide to judicial reasoning.
“Here is the so-called "Suspension Clause" (Article 1, Section 9) of the constitution - "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" - the constitutional point of contention in Boumediene v. Bush. Lawyers and judges will continue to debate the meaning of ‘invasion,’ but it is interesting that the strict constructionists on the Court have had to expand the meaning of ‘invasion’ beyond its normal reach to justify their dissent from the majority opinion.”
My reply:
As you have probably gathered from my writing, I have a love-hate attitude toward Antonin the Impaler. I admire his writing but often strongly disagree with his legal reasoning. Boumediene was not one of his better efforts. He calls himself a strict constructionist. I call him a staunch Federalist. I offered a good chunk of my opinion in last week’s Update [340] and have already added more in this week’s Update [341]. I am not a rigorous constitutional scholar; I would like to think I am a lay aficionado. My reading of Boumediene yields profound puzzlement. I cannot imagine any of the Founders – Jeffersonians to Hamiltonians – accepting or even envisioning extension of the constitutional habeas corpus to enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield and incarcerated beyond our territorial boundaries. Roberts’ dissent articulation gives the best view of the serious constitutional issues wrapped up on the Court’s decision. All in all, Scalia pegged it, “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Just a note on Boumediane-- things may not be so dire as many think. The judge in whose court many of the Gitmo habeas petitions are pending, seems to be getting ready to move out in a workmanlike manner.
“U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth met today with lawyers from the Department of Justice and representatives of the Guantánamo detainees to discuss how the court should proceed in light of last week's Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush. In the off-the-record meeting, lawyers for both sides discussed a number of security and procedural issues that are common to many of the nearly 200 cases pending before the court. ‘We had a constructive meeting today and will have a follow up meeting next Wednesday. I plan to meet soon with the judges of this court to discuss the lawyers' suggestions for how we can move these cases most efficiently and expeditiously,’ said Chief Judge Lamberth.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
As with so many things human, and especially with the flexible and adaptive English language, interpretation is in the mind of the beholder. Good on Judge Lamberth for his enthusiasm in rolling up his sleeves and getting to work. The Court has ruled; we shall do our best to persevere.
I am struggling to appreciate all this yammering about the poor downtrodden detainees like Mohammed Naim Farouq or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Yet, my opinion and my journey to understand does not matter a hoot.
To further our intercourse, let me ask, how many POWs in any war previous to this one, and on any side, were granted the habeas corpus right? Were all those previous war leaders and courts wrong? How many previous POWs found affinity with the captors and antagonists? There were a few in Korea. There were misty stories of a few in Vietnam. I am not aware of any Allied POWs aligning themselves with the Nazis or Imperial Japan. There were more than a few German and Italian POWs who sought U.S. citizenship, and actually achieved their goal. Why was that, I wonder?
My only conclusion . . . those who seek to make nice with our enemies and grant captured battlefield combatants the legal rights of American citizens must believe deep down that we are NOT at war, NEVER have been at war, and thus normal wartime conduct has no relevance.
Apparently, I am in a very small minority who actually believes we are at war. If so, then I concede. We should withdraw our troops and return them to their families. The expenditure of a generation’s blood for the ego-centric, selfish, blind, political ambitions of a demented president is wrong in the worst possible way. I am far more worried about our freedom than I am about the freedom of Iraqis, or Saudis, or Zimbabweans, or Pakistanis, or anyone else out there. Let them kill each other. I don’t care. We fought for our freedom. Let them fight for theirs. Heck, now that I am at it, let’s release all the detainees, give them back their guns they have a right to, and forget all this nastiness. I’m tired.
. . . round three:
“One important point- these people are not POWs- they are detainees. Rumsfeld and company didn't want them to be called POWs.
. . . and my reply to round three:
I am reticent to call them POWs myself. The title POW has some nobility to it. POWs are soldiers of one nation captured by another. So, POW is clearly not the correct term for captured battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism. Yet, POW is closer to being accurate than prisoner or criminal or such. In fact, in wars gone by, fighters on the battlefield without uniforms were treated not much better than spies . . . summarily executed after whatever information that could be sucked from them had been obtained. My point is, these guys are NOT common criminals and they are far below noble warriors. To pretend they are something more than they are does serious disservice to all those who show at least some respect for humanity.
Another contribution:
“The Supreme Court is speeding up the trip to the abyss a bit with this ruling. The leadership void is already surrounding us. I wonder if anyone understands or even reads history anymore. If they did, it would give pause to consider what is coming.”
My response:
I share your sense of foreboding. On the slightly positive side, I have felt this before . . . the decade of the 1970’s . . . racial strife, the anti-war movement, Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, Hanoi Jane, Nixon’s betrayal, Watergate, the Fall of Saigon, Jimmy Carter, Harold Brown, Operation EAGLE CLAW. We overcame all that; we will overcome this.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Good point. I was not as concerned back then and thought we would come to our senses. We did, but this time seems different. We'll see. It will depend upon future leadership.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I was concerned back then, as I am concerned now. Indeed, much will depend upon our future leadership.
A contribution from the Update blog site:
“The narrow SCOTUS decisions supporting human rights shows us how close we are to dictatorship, and how important it is to elect Obama this year.
“If the government says that these people are imprisoned because they are ‘enemy combatants,’ then the very minimum burden of proof is to show publicly the circumstances of their capture that led to that conclusion.
“Pardon me if I don't believe an administration that has lied or been wrong about every aspect of this war.
“Denying the most basic right that has been the core of our justice system for 700 years is a dark step toward dictatorship. Those who oppose it are saying that the United States can capture, imprison and torture anyone on the planet AS LONG AS THEY ARE FOREIGN NATIONALS, and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it. How long would it be before American tourists fell victim to the same philosophy in other countries? If we set a standard of injustice, then others will follow it.
“A politician trading on the fear of terrorism in order to consolidate his own power might as well join al Qaeda and get it over with, because he is doing their work for them.
“These rights were bought with the blood of patriots who knew that liberty is more important than safety, and they proved it by laying down their lives so we could be a free people. Now, cowards and traitors would dishonor those brave men and women by cowering in fear and surrendering those hard won rights.
“Giving habeas corpus rights to EVERY person imprisoned by the United States shows our strength, courage and freedom. Taking away human rights out of fear means we have started a slow decline as a nation.
“I am a United States Army veteran, I swore to defend the Constitution, and I consider that a lifetime obligation.”
My reply:
I, too, am a veteran sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, until I am no longer able. I made a commitment many years ago to stand the line in harm’s way to protect the “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” of every citizen as they freely choose.
As I wrote in Update no.340, I laud the Court’s protection of our habeas corpus rights. Those rights apply to any American citizen, even traitorous Americans. But, in the Boumediene decision, we are not talking about citizens, or even foreigners in the United States.
Where we apparently differ in the interpretation of the Boumediene decision is the extension of our precious habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. Let’s put this in perspective. How many of the 400,000 German, Italian and Japanese POWs held in camps inside the Continental United States were given access to a writ of habeas corpus and criminal courts? When have we ever asked our combat troops to observe criminal justice procedures in capturing an enemy soldier on the battlefield?
I respect your right to hold whatever political opinions and positions you wish, and to support, advocate and vote for any candidate you may choose. Yet, I must respectfully object to the insinuation that the President is a dictator or lied to the American People. I am not a fan of George W. Bush; in fact, we differ on far more that we may agree upon, but he is still the President. We may differ in our opinions of his actions and conduct as Commander-in-Chief; that is our right; but, regardless, he remains the President of the United States of America, and Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution gives him extraordinary power to act on our behalf to protect us. We can debate about the correctness of the execution of his duties, but he remains the sole American citizen vested with those powers; no one else, period.
American citizens have rights guaranteed by the Constitution and our body of laws. Even those citizens who choose to commit crimes against those laws have rights under the Constitution. Enemies of the State captured on the battlefield are at best POWs, not criminals, and most definitely not citizens.
The War on Islamic Fascism is far bigger than political parties, parochial partisanship, or the fractious yammerings of the negativists, and will go on longer that the current administration, and probably the next several administrations. I believe the War on Islamic Fascism began five administrations ago in 1979, and took us 20+ years to recognize reality. So, rather than shouting at each other, we should focus on helping whomever is President win this damnable war.
Another contribution from a different contributor:
“This may not be the most articulate response ever, but Dennis Kucinich is an absolute whackjob. Please tell me where we are imprisoning children? And what's wrong with permanent military bases in Iraq? We have bases in several countries, and if the host country says they don't want us there any more, we leave (i.e., The Philippines with Subic Bay and Clark AB).
“Kucinich demonstrates he is in the realm of people who believe everything is America's fault. Sure, we've screwed up many times, but what we are trying to do over in Iraq is being done with the best of intentions . . . at least by a majority of the people on the ground. I should introduce Kucinich to a guy in my writer's critique group who believes the fence along the border . . . excuse me, proposed fence of which they've constructed, whaat, about 15 or 20 feet? Anyway, the guy says the fence is being built not to keep out illegal immigrants, but to keep us from leaving the country. ?????????. Where do people come up with these ideas? Worst is, someone like Kucinich is part of the kook fringe and is in a position of power.”
My response:
Dennis the Menace is on the list of congressional space cadets, but that does disservice to our noble astronauts. Personally, I think Dennis is just a parochial political hack who despises everything Republican, or rather non-Democratic, and conservative, or rather non-liberal. Some of his vitriolic rhetoric reminds me of the mindless tripe we hear all too often from those who pander to a narrow segment of our population. I don’t know that folks like Dennis are anti-American so much as they are unthinking consumers of political pabulum. The sad part is, it is hard not to laugh at Kucinich.
Yet, another contribution:
“Please read this two part piece by Jacob Hornberger- it speaks of the importance of habeus corpus and the danger your and Scalia’s arguments are to our democracy.”
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0801a.asp
My response:
I agree. We should be concerned about the Padilla case and our precious right to a writ of habeas corpus. No argument.
However, to understand the other side of the equation, I suggest the following reading:
Ex Parte Quirin [317 U.S. 1 (1942)] [U-170]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=317&page=1
and
Johnson v. Eisentrager [339 U.S. 763 (1950)] [U-312]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=339&page=763
. . . round two:
“This is really interesting, and I am no expert, but I sense a disparity in perception of what has taken place at Gitmo. Your view that these guys were fighters caught on a battlefield is too broad and inaccurate, I think. They were ransomed, kidnapped, grabbed in roundups, etc, and many only vaguely connected to people we consider enemies. Few were captured on the battlefield, I understand. The prison riot where John Walker Lindh was captured has much controversy surrounding it, including his eventual trial. See Jessalyn Radack's story, e.g. You might disagree, and I think that if each individual case of the remaining 270 or so could be openly discussed we might find some serious breaches of human rights, on anybody's scale. The torture put to Sheik Mohammed, and others basically ruins any fair trial or truth-finding about them whether in civil or military tribunal. This has all been a calamity from the start. Criminals pirated planes and destroyed life and property. Remember that Osama denied any involvement originally, the tapes of his admitting it later are highly controversial, and the Taliban were our buddies. There has never been an investigation to find out why we were so negligent and derelict in our reaction on 911- Remember Able Danger? The Northern Alliance were Soviet puppies, weren't they? and yet we went after the whole country of Afghanistan- and then illegally attacked Iraq. This is the worst period in American history and would that there would be some accountability. I'll read the second case as well but I feel I will fall on the side of those who want to protect and exercise the sacred rule of habeus corpus- indefinite retention without charge is not American. It is totalitarian from any angle. Congress has been at fault in giving the Pres the powers he does not have constitutionally- namely the power to disregard the Constitution and the Judges who put this Pretender in power should somehow be held accountable for their unigue ruling. Scalia will probably go down as one of the worst Sup Ct judges in American History- right along side the one who said slavery was OK- Taney. It was not a small thing for that widely diverse, but immensely intelligent and well read group of men to draw up some rules for us to live by and we have at our peril disregarded them- such as habeus corpus and the 4th amendment.”
. . . my response to round two:
Considering how this administration has abused the PATRIOT Act, and other excesses, I would not be surprised if the administration is abusing the Guantánamo Bay detention and rendition processes. Until I have hard, corroborated evidence of such abuse, I choose to give the President the benefit of the doubt. He is charged by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution to protect and defend the United States of America. In deference to that awesome responsibility, I give the President broad latitude to do what he thinks is best to fulfill his responsibilities.
Yes, absolutely, some, perhaps even most, of the detainees were not captured in the classic battlefield scenario of force-on-force, combat operations. Nonetheless, as with the Lakhdar Boumediene case, we are engaged in a global, non-traditional, non-conventional war. The battlefield of which I speak bears no resemblance to the classic battlefields of yesteryear. Thus, captives will be rendered into detention from a myriad of situations and conditions, as Boumediene was. What separates battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism from common criminals is the ideological basis of their aggression, the use of terrorism as their weapon, and their employment of mass injury to innocent people – none of those attributes are common to ordinary criminal conduct.
I find little compassion or mercy for guys like Lindh [U-16], Padilla [U-107], Gadahn [U-253], and the others – American citizens who have freely chosen to fight for the enemy. Their status has been clearly established by Ex Parte Quirin [317 U.S. 1 (1942)] [U-170]. They are lucky they have not been tried for treason and suffered the fate of traitors.
P.S.: And, if I am wrong, and the President has betrayed us and his oath, as Richard Nixon did, then I shall join the chorus of the mob seeking his head on a pike. Until then, he is the President of the United States of America, and I believe he is fulfilling his obligations under Article II, Section 2, as he sees fit, and he has not violated any law I am aware of . . . stretched, yes, but not broken.
. . . round three:
“I'm not sure what you would accept as evidence but there's plenty of it out there that prisoners in our custody have been tortured and murdered. If you are not aware of this, then I will have to question how open minded you are. Do you really want me to bombard you with links to such activity? Just a few quickly:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/carter.torture/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34923prs20080416.html
“I'm not sure where you're coming from in agreeing with Bush that we don't torture.”
. . . and my response to round three:
First, you can think of me as you will. I put my opinions into the public domain to elicit comment, debate and argument.
Second, I know quite well what some folks claim regarding virtually all aspects of the War of Islamic Fascism, including some who truly believe we are not at war, never have been at war, and that Americans are just being bullies.
Third, as I have stated many times, so many of these topics depend upon definitions, points of perspective, and to a certain extent, attitude. If we choose to see the negative, we see the negative. I remain suspicious and attentive to this administration, but at the end of the day, I still believe the President is doing what he believes is necessary to defend this Grand Republic.
No, I do not need you to bombard me with links. I believe I am quite familiar with the contrarian opinions. At the root of our disagreements is . . . I believe absolutely that we are at war, have been and will be at war, with or without a full and proper declaration of war, and that we have a choice to win or lose this war. I am a warrior, or at least I once was, and I think like a warrior, so please use that lens when interpreting my words.
Onto a different contributor regarding another topic from Update no.340:
“I couldn't let this one go.
[Re: my opinion: The impotent foolishness of the war on drugs continues [339].]
“In the dialog there appears to be a stance on taking a different approach to the drug war than what has arguably not worked in the past. There also appears to be a stance for legalization.
“I couldn't agree more on taking a different approach to fighting the drug war. I certainly don't have the answers required for taking on such an offensive. However, the Marine in me supports strongly the use of snipers.
“Now, if I may address the legalization aspect of drugs. Let me just preface my response with the following, and please keep in mind I did not have to search far for the following:
(my brother) - Cocaine induced Stroke: A burden to family and society
(brother of a childhood neighborhood friend) - Dead from overdose
(brother of a close high school friend) - Dead from overdose
(sister of friend) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(childhood neighborhood friend and fellow Boy Scout troop member) - Dead from overdose
(childhood neighborhood friend and swim team member) – Dead from overdose
(sister of friend) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(nephew to former fathering-law) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(former work acquaintance) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(childhood neighborhood friend) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(childhood neighborhood friend) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(former work acquaintance) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
(former work acquaintance) - Overcooked: A burden to family and society
“The above represent a very small sampling from society, that being my very small world and these were just the examples that readily came to mind. There was/is an obvious cost, emotional and financial, involved until death or departure in these examples. This cost is borne by all of us, some more in familial ways and others in societal ways.
“This leads me to describe, as I remember it described to me, the situation in The Netherlands where drugs have been more-or-less legal for many years. A few years ago I had the privilege of working with a couple of officers from the Royal Netherlands Air Force. Aside from aviation and military talk, my natural inquisitiveness led me to inquire about life in The Netherlands. I learned that The Netherlands has a vast societal problem dealing with the large percentage of their population that has partaken in the use of legalized drugs for much of their lives. This portion of their population has become a burden to their families and to society. In addition to being non-productive members of society, they are an economic drain on both their families and the country's welfare system. So much for personal use.
“The ready argument here is that we have legalized alcohol. I really have no argument here other than an observation. Look at the devastation that has been incurred for many years due to alcohol abuse. Not only do the abusers suffer, but family members and society suffer as well. And need I mention all the innocent lives lost and lives destroyed by legal alcohol abuse. For the record, I do like a drink every now and then.
“Shall we take it a step further to tobacco? Granted, the loss of innocent lives, unless you want to consider whatever damage is caused by second-hand smoke, is non-existent to minimal in relation to the alcohol situation. However, the cost to society is great. Not only does the smoker suffer, but society suffers as well in rising medical costs borne by all of us. And need I mention the annoyance of smoke breaks or the aspect that a majority of smokers consider the world to be their ashtray.
“Taking even another step, what about food abuse? The abuser suffers. Society suffers. And I will readily admit that this is my weakness.
“But what I am trying to get at is where is the line drawn? Do we push the line to the other side of drugs and legalize drugs? What then? What next? Do we have fewer people dying from overdose? Do we have fewer people debilitated by strokes? Do we have fewer people getting overcooked? I am skeptical.
“The argument for legalization of drugs will probably and partially stem from infringement upon personal freedoms. But I ask: just how personal would legal drug indulgence be? If legalized, will the deaths, strokes, and fried brains of the drug users not impact family members or society in any way? Again, I am skeptical and I will leave it at that.”
My response:
We have disagreed on the legalization of drugs, and we shall continue to disagree. We can all cite the damage and destruction of drug abuse. I can cite mine as well if you wish. I am sorry for the loss that has touched your life and family. But, the urge to use the instruments of State to ease our pain is a box canyon with a not-so-pleasant end.
We can extend the destruction argument beyond drugs, alcohol and tobacco to motorcycles, skydiving, flying, downhill skiing, racing of all kinds, ad infinitum. There are probably many reasons that drugs are so destructive with some people, probably not substantially different from alcohol. My interest is not the psychology of abuse, but rather the impact upon our society. In blunt terms, how much of our freedom are we willing to sacrifice to protect individuals from themselves? For me, the bottom line is personal accountability; we are responsible for our actions – no one else, not our neighbor, not our minister, and not the government. The government can NEVER regulate our God-given, natural rights . . . as the Founders so eloquently proclaimed. And, when we turn to the government to control private behavior, we give up slivers or whole slices of our freedom – the very same freedom our ancestors risked their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor to secure for future generations – us! So it is here. For those of us touched by drug use and abuse, reality is all too clear; the addict will never forsake his drugs until he reaches a point that he convinces himself that he must change course. Until that point is reached within his individual soul, there is absolutely nothing the rest of us can do to stop him. Some people reach that point and save themselves; some people don’t. Yes, the personal destruction of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, anonymous unprotected sex, or any other risky behavior is tragic; but, when you stand back and look at the societal destruction wrought in the name of the war on drugs, the scope of this disaster takes on gargantuan proportions. And, now, we have the Supreme Court mutating the Commerce Clause and expanding Federalism at the expense of our precious freedom of choice.
A short, little, distantly related, tragic, local story . . . A week ago, a young man went out and bought a powerful, crotch-rocket, motorcycle and died that same day when he crashed that bike. Who failed that young man? Who is responsible? The government? The motorcycle dealer?
The responsibility rests with parents. When we ignore risky behavior as an educational topic or fail to teach our children to be accountable for the choices they make before they are exposed to risky behavior, then we as parents have failed our children and society. The government can NEVER be a parent, can NEVER teach our children. The government by its very definition is and must be the lowest common denominator. If we want our children to have higher moral standards, then that teaching must come from parents. I take the parental responsibility even farther. When children violate society’s public standards, then the parents must be held accountable to the society they have failed. With freedom comes personal accountability; they are inextricably woven together. Pretending sex does not exist, or drugs do not exist, or tobacco is some distant vice, does not teach our children how to deal with those risks and temptations, or how to decide for themselves and understanding the consequences. Turning to government for that purpose will NEVER be successful and will only erode more of our freedom.
I have offered numerous proposals for dealing with drug abuse. To date, I have received no counter-proposal or even much criticism of my proposals. I truly believe the so-called war on drugs created by Richard Nixon will have only one outcome – less freedom for all Americans.
I mourn the loss of human life for all or any reasons – hunger, drugs, war, STDs, tobacco, ad infinitum. Yet, I do not want anyone else and especially the government to tell me how to live my life, and the private choices I can make. The government has a responsibility to define acceptable public behavior, but it has no right whatsoever to dictate my private conduct (as long as I cause no injury to another citizen).
These are the challenges we face. The government is NOT the answer.
. . . round two:
“I really have no argument against what you have stated. I do not look for government to teach right from wrong. I look first for that to come from parents and then from church, although it could be argued that they are intertwined (our parents having the church upbringing before us).
“I certainly do not want more personal freedoms taken away. God knows how much I despise the TSA.
“You know, there is nowhere that I can go that will not solicit a just and sound argument against. Suffice it to say that those of us who try to do the right thing are doomed to pay for those who do not.”
. . . my reply to round two:
Unfortunately, as I have written [339/40, et al], Congress continues to search for innovative ways to spend money on useless crusades that have no hope of success. Like you, I am not eager to pay more taxes to compensate for the mistakes of others. My proposal would definitely cost precious tax dollars. Yet, my proposal includes diversion of current expenditures into more productive pursuits.
IMHO, one of the myriad of reasons drugs are so destructive is their use is illegal, and thus hidden from public view. We do not know who is supplying, who is using, who is abusing, et cetera. I truly believe that if the use of psychotropic substances were legal and open to public scrutiny, we would have far fewer abusers, reduced levels of destruction and collateral damage, improved ability to help those who truly seek help, and safe segregation of the fraction who are self-destructive. Like prostitution, we have no prayer of overcoming drug abuse as along as we allow it to fester and mutate out of public view, and to be fed by a prosperous blackmarket. The so-called war on drugs, since Nixon’s creation in 1970, has placed us on the direct course toward Oceania and Big Brother. If that is what we seek, then we are on the correct course. If we do not want to relinquish our personal Liberty to the nanny-State and Oceania, then we must change course and abandon these losing strategies that are destined to consume us.
Regardless, a change of course regarding drugs, prostitution, or any of the other sinful pursuits is highly unlikely in our lifetime. Hopefully, our children or their children will have the strength to reject the nanny-State before it becomes Oceania. The sad part for me remains vested in the paucity of any sign or even hint that We, the People, even recognize the threat to our freedoms or even the diminishment that has already taken root. I feel like a very lonely voice shouting into the cyclonic wind.
. . . round three:
“I don't know if legalization helps minimize the abuse and destruction. One has to consider the strain this has had on The Netherlands. The non-users in The Netherlands, the ones bearing the burden of the users, may debate strongly this issue.
“Please pardon my naïveté, but what is Oceania?
“As far as taxes are concerned, you know a sniper doesn't cost much in the overall scope of things such as the war on drugs.
“As far as recognizing the threat to our freedoms and the diminishment that has already taken place, I am with you. I believe many, many people are just plain oblivious.
“So you see, topics such as this get me in a tizzy. I want things to be a certain way but without jeopardizing our freedoms. I mostly feel that the machine, which takes on a life of its own, is moving in the wrong direction and we are powerless to stop it.”
. . . my reply to round three:
My proposal does not include the Netherlands laissez-faire approach. My proposal says basically you can buy drugs like alcohol to be used in private; public intoxication or compromise would be handled like alcohol, i.e., you buy, you use in private, and as long as conduct remains acceptable in public, all is well. Those who can’t buy or violate the public conduct go to drug camps, where they can get as much of any drug they wish for free, as long as they remain no threat to public safety. There is more to it than that, but that’s the gist. It takes a very sober view . . . if you are bent of self-destruction, we’ll help you peacefully along your way. The objectives would be:
1.) stop the black-market and criminal sub-culture,
2,) keep drug abusers from hurting any innocent citizen, and
3.) place drug abuse in public view where it can be monitored and regulated.
Oceania is the fictional country of “1984” infamy.
I know what you mean about the use of snipers. If the drug pushers were forcing people to get hooked to further their biz, they I’m with you. Vigilante justice does have some resonance, but I would rather the law handle the violators – the real criminals. The users are hardly criminals; they are generally confused souls who simply wish to zone-out and not be productive citizens. Trying to stop the tide is far harder than using the tide in a productive manner. The cost to society is far greater trying to stop drug use, than it would be to help those so inclined along their way, beyond public disturbance.
I’m sure our forefathers felt the same way when faced with the enormous reach and power of the Crown, but they persevered and overcame. We can too, if we put our minds to it. The People corrected the nonsense of the 18th Amendment; we can change the law.
. . . round four:
“Oh my, do I feel stupid. I should have known ‘1984.’
“I hope you realize that when I mention the use of snipers I am referring to the upper echelon of the illegal supply chain. I can't help but feel that people in the business may opt for a different profession if they knew their likelihood for longevity in the business would be short-lived and violently ended.
“By the way, I like your plan.”
. . . and my response to round four:
People who do not respect human life like the drug lords don’t deserve more than a 175 grain bullet fired from better than a kilometer.
If you like my plan, then all we need to do is convince 150 million of citizens and we can reclaim our freedom and put the government back in its proper place.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
The present system of electing the President does not "work well" because the winner-take-all rule (currently used by 48 of 50 states) awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state. Because of these 48 state laws, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of states that they cannot possibly win or lose. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of "battleground" states. 88% of the money is focused onto just 9 closely divided battleground states, and 99% is concentrated in just 16 states. Two thirds of the states, are effectively disenfranchised in presidential elections. Another effect of the winner-take-all rule is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide – something that happens in 1 in 14 elections (1 in 7 non-landslide elections).
The Constitution would not be unraveled by the National Popular Vote bill.
While the Electoral College is in the Constitution, people are frequently surprised to learn that the current "winner-take-all" rule of awarding electors in each state is not in the Constitution. It is a matter of state laws. In the Constitution, how states award electoral votes, is left to each state to decide. So there is no need to amend the Constitution. The founders left the question of how to award the electoral votes to the states.
Read up at www.NationalPopularVote.com
Post a Comment