Nemo me impune lacessit

No one provokes me with impunity


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of the United States

If this is the law of the land...why in a republic (little r) and as republicans, do we allow mere POLITICIANS to the right to use a "title of office" for the rest of their lives as if it were de facto a patent of nobility. Because, as republicans, this should NOT be the case...just saying...

The Vail Spot's Amazon Store

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

War: Making The Hard Decision.

In the present Great War On Terror (GWOT), there is a certain parallel between Mr. Obama and the man he is often measured against, FDR. During the second world war, FDR often was placed in the position to make difficult decisions, as was his British counterpart, Winston Churchill.

Very early in the conflict, Mr. Churchill was given information that came from Enigma, their code breaking effort against the Germans. Mr. Churchill had the choice to allow the English city of Coventry without defending it...or to defend it and give the enemy notice that they were "reading the mail." Mr. Churchill chose the difficult, if correct path of not defending the city from ariel bombardment. That paid huge dividends later in the war. There are parallels to today...we were reading terrorist emails and intercepting cell phone calls as well as tracking money...until the NY Times decided that this was terrible and published stories that highlighted these tactics. Now we can no longer do any of these things because our enemies have altered the way they do things so we no longer have the ability to track them nearly as well as formerly.

Another difficult decision was made by FDR after German saboteurs were landed by submarines at various points of the east coast from NW Florida to Long Island. All were captured within hours of landing. FDR was notified and chose, as they were not in uniforms, but were wearing civilian clothing, to try them as enemy combatants (i.e. spies) as is permitted under the terms of the Geneva Convention. All were executed...How does this apply to today? Mr. Obama has chosen despite the many precedents to try all enemy combatants in American Courts...

This is a terrible choice, because as many were captured on the battle field they were not "read their rights". Additionally, many were questioned in what I learned as a young Marine "field interrogation techniques" wherein a enemy combatant is somewhat less well than an American criminal suspect. Personally, I think any terrorist should be questioned under any means necessary in order to extract whatever information he may have. The more important he is, the harsher his questioning should be.

George Bush, while president made many mistakes...but at least in this respect he did choose the correct course. He chose to have those who were taken on the battlefield, but not in uniform, to be tried by military tribunals. Mr. Obama on the other hand has chosen to treat enemy combatants as "alleged criminals" and subject to the much, much higher standard of the US Criminal Code. This is disastrous as immediately after apprehending a terrorist, we must "read him his rights." That means we won't be getting any information out of him as his lawyer will tell him to keep his mouth shut. This seems to be the Liberal Left's answer to terrorism, to treat it like a criminal enterprise. Dumb move, Mr. Obama, but as a lawyer, I guess he just can't help himself...

First, President Obama said the following: “As the plane made its final approach to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body, setting off a fire.” (my emphasis) The language is that of courtroom legalese, carefully indicating that a suspect is only “allegedly” guilty of anything, until such time as a jury is convinced by a trial that he was indeed the party responsible for the crime committed.

But as the world knows, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was indeed very guilty, and only because a Dutch filmmaker sitting near him interceded and subdued him, helping put out the fire at the same time, was the plot unsuccessful. Rather than treat the culprit as a foreign national who became converted in London to the doctrines of radical Islam by mullahs at his local mosque, evidently the decision has been made to treat him as a defendant in a criminal case, with a subsequent trial in which his guilt is not to be prejudged. Although he is a foreign national, evidently he will be treated as if he were an American citizen.
I think that treating terrorists as criminals is a horrendous idea...unless they'll be placed in "open population" in prison where our lovely (but nearly universally patriotic) convicted felons will make short work of them.

No comments: