Update from the Heartland
No.305
8.10.07 – 14.10.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.305
8.10.07 – 14.10.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I resisted reading the various judicial rulings in the case of Khaled el-Masri, as everything seemed to point toward yet another attempt to diminish the ability of the President to “wage war successfully.” Even the Supreme Court’s rejection of his appeal to hear his case did not stimulate me to learn more; then came all the yammering of the talking heads, pundits, and the Press declaring the Court’s decision a travesty of justice and an affront to the Constitution. OK! That was enough to focus my attention. What is so special about this case? While traveling in Macedonia on 31.December.2003, Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, was detained by state law enforcement officials. The Macedonians held el-Masri for 23 days before handing him over to the CIA, who then flew him to a detention facility near Kabul, Afghanistan. Khaled was held and interrogated in the Kabul facility until 28.May.2004, when he was transported to Albania, released in a remote area; picked up by Albanian officials, who took him to an airport in Tirana, Albania, from which he flew to his home in Germany. Khaled alleges he was illegally detained and subjected to torture by the CIA, and filed suit against the agents of the government on 6.December.2005. Judge Thomas Selby Ellis, III, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, issued his ruling in the case of El-Masri v. Tenet [USDC EDVA case no. 1:05cv1417] on 12.May.2006, dismissing el-Masri's claim. El-Masri appealed. At this point, the U.S. government injected itself in the case. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case of El-Masri v. United States, [4CCA no. 06-1667 (2007)], and affirmed the ruling of Judge Ellis. By not hearing the subsequent appeal, the Supreme Court chose to let the Appeals Court ruling stand. The case of Khaled el-Masri illuminates the serious challenges faced by the Judiciary in wartime circumstances. Whether el-Masri was an innocent bystander caught up in political currents or a minor player seeking to help follow jihadistanis, we may never know, or we may have to wait until the war concludes to see the evidence against el-Masri. The legal validity of the so-called “extraordinary rendition” program, like so many of the other essential tools in the War on Islamic Fascism, should not be debated in any public forum and especially the courts during a time of war. Given the rightful concerns of some, the proper forum is behind closed doors in either or both of the other branches of government. The public will have its day to debate the current war tools just as we argued over the existence and use of tools utilized in past wars like the Manhattan Project, the Room 20 operations, the Fort Hunt P.O. Box 1142 program, or any of the host of other secret efforts to win a war against a determined enemy. I am for winning this damnable war, and then we can debate the legality and wisdom of “extraordinary rendition.” The Judiciary has acted properly and appropriately, but I doubt that will appease the naysayers; the insanity of these legal challenges will undoubtedly continue unabated. Lastly, while the court has demonstrated generous tolerance of the government’s public acknowledgment of the “extraordinary rendition” program, I am not so tolerant. I think the Federal government made a grave error and had mistaken judgment in even recognizing the term. This is what happens when we weaken a wartime President. Once again, I must say, like it or not, we are at war!
The security services company Blackwater has caused quite a disturbance in the Force. Some may be curious or confused about what the company does? Or, why they are the focus of the conflagration erupting from the intersection incident two weeks ago. Two Strategic Forecasting, Inc. reports offer the best, politically unbiased appraisal of Blackwater and the services they provide.
"The Geopolitical Foundations of Blackwater"
by George Friedman
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
9.October.2007
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071009-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_CONFILTERED=071009-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR
"Security Contractors in Iraq: Tactical -- and Practical -- Considerations"
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Terrorism Intelligence Report
10.October.2007
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/tir.php?utm_source=071010-TIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_CONFILTERED=071010-TIR-header-read&utm_campaign=TIR
Now, my opinion . . . Blackwater supplements the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) [among many other specialized support duties] because Congress has repeatedly failed to properly fund the DSS for the taskings they receive. They provide essential protective services in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. These guys are always out-gunned, out-flanked, and otherwise in really deep kimchi with self-possessed important people depending on them for protection from the bad guys. I am sorry; I just do not get it. Indiscriminate shooting in situations like this rarely achieve their objective. These guys sensed threat(s), and they reacted to the threat(s). And, first, foremost, and above all else, this is war folks. Innocent people die! Get over it! Now, we have all this drivel about restricting the rules of engagement for contractors and even some seeking to cancel the Blackwater contracts. If this nonsense continues, we will add Blackwater and the contractor support, in general, to the growing list of shackles, chains, bindings, constraints, hobbles and other contraptions to keep the armed forces from winning the War on Islamic Fascism.
Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, USA (Ret.), former commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq, spoke at the Military Reporters and Editors Luncheon in Washington D.C., on Friday. He called the Battle for Iraq a “nightmare” and laid blame as a “failure of the national political leadership.” While in general I agree with Ricardo, I read his words with a sensation of revulsion. In many respects, General Sanchez was set up for failure, but that is a lame excuse for his lack of vision and integrity to stand up the national command authority. His words could have borne far more substance and credibility if he had resigned his commission when it became obvious he would not enjoy the support and resources of the political leaders who controlled the throttle. A goodly portion of General Sanchez’ failure can be laid at the feet of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but Rummie wore no stars on his shoulders. I cannot endorse the thin words of General Sanchez.
Comments and contributions from Update no.304:
“I agree with Cap on Bowman. Bowman has the right to say what he wants, but what he suggests is unconstitutional, foolish, and more than a little vane. On this last point, I would like to add one additional observation. Individuals represent only themselves. Bowman’s ideas aren't sanctified because of his military status or service nor are they representative of the military as a whole. If we took a survey of all active officers (and/or enlisted men) about what to do about Iran, I think few if any would suggest that removing OUR President from office is what the situation calls for. If we surveyed those most affected in Iraq (proximity to a situation is always important in terms of quality of information), whose lives are on the line, I suspect that they would offer some interesting suggestions, but I doubt many would agree with Bowman.”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
I resisted reading the various judicial rulings in the case of Khaled el-Masri, as everything seemed to point toward yet another attempt to diminish the ability of the President to “wage war successfully.” Even the Supreme Court’s rejection of his appeal to hear his case did not stimulate me to learn more; then came all the yammering of the talking heads, pundits, and the Press declaring the Court’s decision a travesty of justice and an affront to the Constitution. OK! That was enough to focus my attention. What is so special about this case? While traveling in Macedonia on 31.December.2003, Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, was detained by state law enforcement officials. The Macedonians held el-Masri for 23 days before handing him over to the CIA, who then flew him to a detention facility near Kabul, Afghanistan. Khaled was held and interrogated in the Kabul facility until 28.May.2004, when he was transported to Albania, released in a remote area; picked up by Albanian officials, who took him to an airport in Tirana, Albania, from which he flew to his home in Germany. Khaled alleges he was illegally detained and subjected to torture by the CIA, and filed suit against the agents of the government on 6.December.2005. Judge Thomas Selby Ellis, III, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, issued his ruling in the case of El-Masri v. Tenet [USDC EDVA case no. 1:05cv1417] on 12.May.2006, dismissing el-Masri's claim. El-Masri appealed. At this point, the U.S. government injected itself in the case. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case of El-Masri v. United States, [4CCA no. 06-1667 (2007)], and affirmed the ruling of Judge Ellis. By not hearing the subsequent appeal, the Supreme Court chose to let the Appeals Court ruling stand. The case of Khaled el-Masri illuminates the serious challenges faced by the Judiciary in wartime circumstances. Whether el-Masri was an innocent bystander caught up in political currents or a minor player seeking to help follow jihadistanis, we may never know, or we may have to wait until the war concludes to see the evidence against el-Masri. The legal validity of the so-called “extraordinary rendition” program, like so many of the other essential tools in the War on Islamic Fascism, should not be debated in any public forum and especially the courts during a time of war. Given the rightful concerns of some, the proper forum is behind closed doors in either or both of the other branches of government. The public will have its day to debate the current war tools just as we argued over the existence and use of tools utilized in past wars like the Manhattan Project, the Room 20 operations, the Fort Hunt P.O. Box 1142 program, or any of the host of other secret efforts to win a war against a determined enemy. I am for winning this damnable war, and then we can debate the legality and wisdom of “extraordinary rendition.” The Judiciary has acted properly and appropriately, but I doubt that will appease the naysayers; the insanity of these legal challenges will undoubtedly continue unabated. Lastly, while the court has demonstrated generous tolerance of the government’s public acknowledgment of the “extraordinary rendition” program, I am not so tolerant. I think the Federal government made a grave error and had mistaken judgment in even recognizing the term. This is what happens when we weaken a wartime President. Once again, I must say, like it or not, we are at war!
The security services company Blackwater has caused quite a disturbance in the Force. Some may be curious or confused about what the company does? Or, why they are the focus of the conflagration erupting from the intersection incident two weeks ago. Two Strategic Forecasting, Inc. reports offer the best, politically unbiased appraisal of Blackwater and the services they provide.
"The Geopolitical Foundations of Blackwater"
by George Friedman
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
9.October.2007
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071009-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_CONFILTERED=071009-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR
"Security Contractors in Iraq: Tactical -- and Practical -- Considerations"
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Terrorism Intelligence Report
10.October.2007
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/tir.php?utm_source=071010-TIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_CONFILTERED=071010-TIR-header-read&utm_campaign=TIR
Now, my opinion . . . Blackwater supplements the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) [among many other specialized support duties] because Congress has repeatedly failed to properly fund the DSS for the taskings they receive. They provide essential protective services in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. These guys are always out-gunned, out-flanked, and otherwise in really deep kimchi with self-possessed important people depending on them for protection from the bad guys. I am sorry; I just do not get it. Indiscriminate shooting in situations like this rarely achieve their objective. These guys sensed threat(s), and they reacted to the threat(s). And, first, foremost, and above all else, this is war folks. Innocent people die! Get over it! Now, we have all this drivel about restricting the rules of engagement for contractors and even some seeking to cancel the Blackwater contracts. If this nonsense continues, we will add Blackwater and the contractor support, in general, to the growing list of shackles, chains, bindings, constraints, hobbles and other contraptions to keep the armed forces from winning the War on Islamic Fascism.
Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, USA (Ret.), former commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq, spoke at the Military Reporters and Editors Luncheon in Washington D.C., on Friday. He called the Battle for Iraq a “nightmare” and laid blame as a “failure of the national political leadership.” While in general I agree with Ricardo, I read his words with a sensation of revulsion. In many respects, General Sanchez was set up for failure, but that is a lame excuse for his lack of vision and integrity to stand up the national command authority. His words could have borne far more substance and credibility if he had resigned his commission when it became obvious he would not enjoy the support and resources of the political leaders who controlled the throttle. A goodly portion of General Sanchez’ failure can be laid at the feet of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but Rummie wore no stars on his shoulders. I cannot endorse the thin words of General Sanchez.
Comments and contributions from Update no.304:
“I agree with Cap on Bowman. Bowman has the right to say what he wants, but what he suggests is unconstitutional, foolish, and more than a little vane. On this last point, I would like to add one additional observation. Individuals represent only themselves. Bowman’s ideas aren't sanctified because of his military status or service nor are they representative of the military as a whole. If we took a survey of all active officers (and/or enlisted men) about what to do about Iran, I think few if any would suggest that removing OUR President from office is what the situation calls for. If we surveyed those most affected in Iraq (proximity to a situation is always important in terms of quality of information), whose lives are on the line, I suspect that they would offer some interesting suggestions, but I doubt many would agree with Bowman.”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment