Update no.282

Update from the Heartland

No.282

30.4.07 – 6.5.07

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
ERRATUM:
I reported the Senate vote on the war funding bill last week in error. The final Senate vote was 51-46-3 (vice 51-47-2 as previously reported [281]).

As expected, the President vetoed the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007 [H.R. 1591 (S.965)] [277, 281]. The conjecture on remedial action seems to run the gamut from simply removing the offending paragraph [Title I, Chapter 2, Section 1315(b)(2)], or going directly after cutting off the war funding all together, or as some are suggesting, impeach the President and Vice President [281]. The process will be interesting. From my perspective, I want a quick resolution for the sake of the troops on the battlefield; they do not deserve this uncertainty for any reason -- either give the troops all they need to achieve the mission given them by the Commander-in-Chief, or withdraw now; do not leave them in limbo. Too many of my generation lived that nasty no-man’s-land dilemma. The day following the President’s veto, the House failed to override – 222-203-1-7 (291 being required); no need for the Senate to even try. You have to hand it to the House leadership; they knew they did not have the votes to override, and yet, they pressed forward. Gee, I wonder why? Of curious note, the only representative voting "Present but Not Voting" on the override was our good buddy Dennis Kucinich.

In a public speech following his veto of the supplemental spending bill, the President said, “. . . the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence.” Beyond the double negative, the President seems to be attempting to define a better differentiation and qualification of events in Iraq. He concluded, “Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives.” While his inarticulate effort may not make the pages of influential political rhetoric, the President is correct. Several studies allude to a per capita murder rate in Iraq that is lower than in some big cities in the United States; I cannot validate such analyses, but I suspect they are representative. Americans live with violence every day. We cannot find a news program without death of some sort. The key, as I have suggested before, rests in the differentiation of fatalities in Iraq – sectarian versus terrorist (external) violence. Further, by the President’s metric, some portions of Iraq are at or near that “comfortable” state.

Uncorroborated information circulated on Tuesday that Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, AKA Abu Ayyub al-Masri – the man who replaced Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq [236] – had been killed by Sunni tribesmen opposed to al-Qaeda’s meddling with internal Iraqi politics, or rivals inside the Iraq wing of al-Qaeda. We can only hope. In other positive war news, U.S. forces reportedly killed Muharib Abdullah Latif al-Juburi – a senior al-Qaeda operative and so-called minister of information for the imaginary Islamic Republic of Iraq. Al-Juburi has claimed participation in several al-Qaeda actions including the kidnappings of Jill Carroll and Tom Fox, among other obscenities to mankind.

The not-so-loyal opposition majority in Congress continues to search for new and creative ways to obstruct and complicate the President’s ability to “wage war successfully.” The latest serving comes to us from two U.S. senators -- Hillary Clinton of New York [a presidential candidate] and Dianne Feinstein of California. Our dear Hillary is reportedly co-sponsoring, with Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a bill to rescind the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq [PL 107-243]. As of this edition, I have not found the text of the purported legislation, so an opinion will have to wait. On the other hand, Dianne introduced a bill [S.1249] “to require the President to close the Department of Defense detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and for other purposes.” The immediate question is what to do with the detainees? Dianne proposes disposition of these battlefield combatants by one of five methods. Within one year, all Guantánamo detainees shall be:
"(A) transferred to a military or civilian detention facility in the United States and charged with a violation of United States or international law and tried in an Article III court or military legal proceeding before a regularly-constituted court;
"(B) transferred to a military or civilian detention facility in the United States without being charged with a violation of law if the detainee may be held as an enemy combatant or detained pursuant to other legal authority as Congress may authorize;
"(C) transferred to an international tribunal operating under the authority of the United Nations with jurisdiction to hold trials of such individuals;
"(D) transferred to their country of citizenship or a different country for further legal process, provided that such country provides adequate assurances that the individual will not be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; or
"(E) released from any further detention."
Well now, I think that just about covers it all, doesn’t it? Battlefield combatants are NOT criminals; they simply fought for the other side, were captured, and should be detained for the duration of hostilities. The point is, we do not want these jihadistanis back on the battlefield. Some of them do not even have countries that wish to claim them, since they fought for a stateless aggressor. Does Dianne think the war is over? Are we never going to capture another battlefield combatant? The naiveté and myopic political motivation of these folks are staggering. The actions of Hillary, Dianne, Dennis the Menace, Jack the Mack, and all the other naysayer politicians raises considerable doubt regarding our ability to "wage war successfully." Isn't it interesting that Usama bin Ladin so accurately predicted U.S. durability? Nonetheless, this is great sport . . . let's see how many ways and how tightly we can hobble our Commander-in-Chief -- the duly elected chief executive of this Grand Republic and the one person charged by the Constitution to protect all American citizens from harm -- even the ones who hate him. Am I one of only a few citizens who can see the insanity in this nonsense? Are the naysayers really that intent on self-destruction and imploding the United States of America? With that said and asked, I must say that I do not question the patriotism of the naysayers. I truly believe they love this country as much as any of the rest of us, however, I do seriously question their judgment regarding the War on Islamic Fascism, the enemy we face, and the wisdom of political partisanship in wartime.

And, as if that is not enough, the Democratic Party of California approved a specific resolution at their state convention last week that claims Bush and Cheney acted in a manner “subversive of the Constitution” by. . .
1) using false information to justify the invasion of Iraq,
2) authorizing “the torture of prisoners of war,”
3) “authorizing wiretaps on U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant,”
4) “disclosing the name of an undercover CIA operative,”
5) suspending “the historic Writ of Habeas Corpus by ordering the indefinite detention of so-called enemy combatants,”
6) “signing statements used to ignore or circumvent portions of over 750 Congressional statutes.”
The resolution recommends congressional action up to and including impeachment of the President and Vice President. This initiative is so bloody naïve, ignorant, ill-informed, and otherwise juvenile as to render it laughable. Unfortunately, these folks are deathly serious. As this initiative so brightly illuminates, the strangeness factor will undoubtedly continue to escalate for at least the next 18 months as the silly season takes on more grotesque proportions and precious American troops continue to sacrifice at the altar of political expediency.

Perhaps a little history reminder might be useful. Franklin Roosevelt -- the nominee of the Democratic Party in 1932 -- won election on the hope that he would halt the economic disintegration of the country and return the nation to prosperity. He also promised to keep the United States out of the political intrigues simmering in Europe and the Far East. He held, espoused and supported the isolationist mentality of the nation's citizenry at the time. Roosevelt signed the Neutrality Act of 1935 into law on 31.August.1935. And yet, circa 1936 or so, the President felt the serious threat coming to a boil in Germany and Japan, and what that threat portended for the United States. Gradually, secretly, quietly, over the next five years, Roosevelt directly and repeatedly violated Federal law and did his best (given the serious constraints) to prepare the country for the war he saw as inevitable. When war finally came to the United States, we had some momentum toward readiness thanks in good measure to Roosevelt's courage, vision, insightfulness and ability to risk it all for our national security. Furthermore, I truly believe there were members of the political opposition who wanted Roosevelt out of the White House, knew or suspected what he was doing regarding war preparations, and chose to keep their opposition confined to a very private venue. My point being, those who most directly opposed the President and had the ammunition to damage him politically, chose to wisely place the security of this Grand Republic over their political aspirations. If this portrayal is accurate, how did we lose our will to do the correct thing for the good of the country?

The President has proposed legislation amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511] [211] after the New York Times ill-advised revelations in 2006 [232]. I have not seen the text or details of his proposed changes, as yet. However, given the political mood in Congress, the debate on the President's proposal will surely be in the most contentious category. Sadly, this debate should have been conducted five years ago, but better late than never, I suppose.

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, AKA Antonin the Impaler, wrote the Court’s opinion in an 8-1 ruling in the case of Scott v. Harris [548 U.S. ___ (2007)] [no. 05-1631] – the police pursuit case. There are larger lessons in this decision, beyond the explicit law. To set the stage, let us review . . . in March 2001, Georgia Coweta County Deputy Sheriff Timothy Scott heard the radio call about a fleeing vehicle, intercepted the suspect automobile, and gave chase to a speeding and reckless Cadillac driven by Victor Harris, then 19 years old. Deputy Scott used a Precision Intervention Technique (PIT) maneuver to stop Harris, causing him to leave the road, crash, and as a result left him a quadriplegic. Harris sued the deputy for excessive use of force and violating his constitutional right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The Court clearly found that the risk of Harris’ actions significantly exceeded those of Deputy Scott, thus the government’s interest of public safety exceeded Harris’ Fourth Amendment rights. In Scalia’s conclusion, he noted the potential adverse contrary consequence –
“Every fleeing motorist would know that escape is within his grasp, if only he accelerates to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times, and runs a few red lights. The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by-recklessness.”
The lesson for me . . . if you run from police, you give them probable cause. Our actions define consequences. I laud the courage of Deputy Timothy Scott, and I have no sympathy for Victor Harris.

We had NO comments or contributions from Update no.281.

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