Full Spectrum War

What is Full Spectrum War?

First off it is not Total War.  Total War is that form of war done between Nation States that sees the productive capacity of a combatant Nation as the source of its military power and is a valid target for waging war.  This form of war is one that has seen Sherman's March as part of a Grand Strategy to remove the South's productive capacity to support war as one of its modern forms.  In Ancient time's Hannibal's attack on Rome to remove its capacity to wage war was an earlier form of this.  Similarly by the accounts we have from Homer it is clear that during the Trojan War the Achaean Greeks set upon the trading partners and allies of Troy to denude it of protection and economic support – thus the siege was not one meant to take place in a single year (as soldiers did tend to go home during parts of the siege making it an annual affair at Troy) but to slowly wage a war of attrition on Troy.  Economic attrition is at the heart of Total War and the faster it is done the faster the conflict ends.

Full Spectrum War is not Total War.

Full Spectrum War is not done in the Public War venue alone and is not waged, necessarily, against Public Enemies.  It can be utilized against Public Enemies (ie. Nation States) and has been utilized in multiple conflicts via the use of Privateers.  Privateers are not Mercenaries as they do not work for cash paid for by a Nation State.  Privateers are granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal against enemies named on such letters, and those enemies are targeted to have their goods taken or destroyed by the Letters.  Privateers live by Takings under such Letters and they seek to take the goods of a named enemy (and the conveyance of it is usually included in that, although that can be exempted by the Nation handing out such Letters) and then have them certified via an Admiralty Court so that such Taken goods can then be utilized or reduced to monetary value via the means of auction.  The US has deployed Privateers up to the US Civil War and the US generally announces if it will be seeking to use them during conflicts.  Of course such announcements can be overturned by Congress as it is the holder of the Private War Powers.

Full Spectrum War is thus a form of War done in the Public and/or Private venues.  It is particularly useful against Private Enemies which are non-Nation State in nature, as they live a form of hand to mouth savage existence based on preying upon others via the use of Private War.

What is Private War?

Private War is that form of war conducted by individuals or groups of individuals without the sanction of any Nation State.  Those waging such Private War are a threat to all mankind and the entire Nation State system as they are not accountable to any law but that of Nature by their own actions.  By stepping out from the Nation State system they revert to Natural Law as their means to survive and that makes them predatory and waging opportunistic war as part of their savage nature.  Those waging Private War no longer agree to Civil Law nor Military Law (which is part and parcel of Civil Law as it is administered by Governments), they set their own goals by their own standards which are not amenable to Moral Law as they make that up as they go along.  Thus the only form of law they are accountable to is that of Nature which is common to all Natural Beings.  Private War is waged by such people who have stepped from civilization and those waging it are no longer considered civilized humans.  This was an active decision on their part, forced upon them by no one, and once that step is taken there are very few ways to get back into civilized life.

Full Spectrum War is that form of war that is suitable to such savages who wage war for their own sakes and do not seek the trappings of civilization to do so.  They fight without uniforms, without a civil code that they are accountable to, they do not fly a recognized flag and those that are under their power are not there voluntarily.  Without a government, without a command structure, without a civil code, without a military code, without uniforms and by holding individuals captive under their power and giving them no civil choice or input into what is done, those that wage Private War are savages by their own intent and actions.  As they are not a Nation State, no matter what they call themselves, they are not amenable to international law between Nations as they have stepped from the system of Nation States as well.  Via the Law of Nations as known at the Founding and Framing of the US, these individuals are known to have many names but fall under the general category of Pirates.

What are Pirates?

Pirates are those individuals who wage Private War to their own ends and have stepped away from Civil Law and the Law of Nations to take on humanity for their own purposes.  Pirates are not limited to any geographic region, to any single place and are defined solely by being individuals who wage war on their own.  Pirates are not limited to the sea and have been noted since the beginning of history as being on land as well as at sea.  The sea is a form of transportation for those waging Piracy against mankind, and Pirates have attacked on land, at sea, and in hijacking aircraft they also attack from the skies.  Wherever humans walk away from the restrictions of Civil Law and the Law of Nations to declare themselves independent of all mankind and against the order of Nations is where you will find Pirates.  Anyone has the possibility to revert to being a savage and when done by a civilized human it is conscious act.  There are no trappings to Piracy, no requirement for ships, parrots, peg legs, hooks for hands, rum, eye patches, or even a black flag with some terrifying image on it.  When such savages form into bands they will often take on trappings and Take conveyances, and then Take whatever they want including lives.  Pirates have lived by many means: raiding ships, raiding ports, raiding villages and farms, and raiding Nations which contain all those civilized forms of life.

Terrorists wage Private War and are thusly Pirates.  As has been noted terror is just a tactic in warfare, and it can be used in either the Public or Private venues of War.  Those who take on the tactic but are under no Nation State sanction then fall into the category of Pirate.  Calling them by the tactics they use is trying to sugar coat what those tactics are part of when not done by Nation State sanction, and is a means to try and streamline base savagery into our lives so as to bring down the order of Nations via corrupting our understanding of what is and is not civilized in the realm of War.  Public War has restrictions upon it, and those waging it are to declare it, name their enemies, go through the proper civil means for their Nation to wage it, and then to be accountable to other Nations in their waging of war via the Treaties that Nation has signed for fighting Public War.  When anyone tries to put Pirates into the categories reserved for those fighting Public War, they are seeking to corrupt our civilized understandings of the differences between Public War and Private War: between civilized war and savage war.

Full Spectrum War takes place in multiple venues, not just of War but of Law as well.

The Piracy Codes set up a system of announcing who Pirates are.  That puts other Nations on notice that any individuals or groups considered as Pirates by one Nation are a threat to them, as well.  There are only two sides to Piracy: civilization and savagery.  There is no 'but they want the right thing' with those who are Pirates, as doing the right thing in warfare requires Nation State sanction.  Imagine what the world would look like if anyone could wage war for any reason they wanted without any restriction upon them.  What you get is not a civilized world, but one gone to the red of tooth and claw.  We set aside our Negative Liberties to wage war and utilize the Law of Nations to create means to restrict Negative External War via Civil Law.  The Positive Liberty of War, that of self-defense against those waging War is primal to all living things and cannot be separated from them.  Any mother or father defending their children have the Positive Liberty of War on their side.  If you are confronted by those utilizing aggressive, attacking means against your life, that of your family, your property or against your neighbors, you have the Positive Liberty of War available to you.  Any felon who has served their time may take up arms in defense of themselves and then hold themselves accountable for doing so and no court in any land will convict them for that taking up of arms in purely defensive posture.  Those who step from the fold of civilized life have reclaimed their Negative Liberty of War to themselves, as is their right via Natural Law.  That puts them outside of Civil Law and the Law of Nations, however, and there is nothing good nor admirable about waging war to your own ends as that is savage and uncivilized, both.

Thus the Civil Law has Piracy Codes so that those aiding and abetting Piracy can be brought to heel as well as those committing it be brought to civil justice.  Those acquitted are considered to be civilized in nature and the surest way of clearing yourself of any charge of waging Private War, which is to say Piracy and its sub-species of 'terrorist' is to voluntarily give yourself up to civil prosecution under law.  Indeed, to clear one's name you voluntarily step back into the fold and DEMAND that you be prosecuted.  Sadly that is not available to you if you have been caught actually committing Piracy which is to say 'terrorism'.  Then the codes of Military Justice are the recourse, via the Courts Martial, and those have specific items for those who do not wage regular war under such International Agreements as the Hague and Geneva Conventions.  Indeed, waging Private War puts one afoul of multiple parts of both Conventions on how and when to wage war, how to treat Private Property, and how to conduct oneself when at war.  In point of fact the general activities of 'terrorists' or Pirates falls under the 'Spies and Saboteurs' part of the Geneva Convention, which has summary execution as its outcome.  Under the Hague Conventions there are escalating penalties for the abuse and wanton killing of civilians with no National sanctions, taking or destroying private property without due orders of a Nation, and in general conducting war outside of the Nation State sanctioned system runs one afoul of the entire set of Hague Conventions  which can give one a terminal end via a Court Martial.

Another means via the Civil Law and Military Codes is the sanctioned takings from Enemies via those designated via a Nation State with Letters of Marque and Reprisal.  This is the sanctioned means that all Nations have available to them, even if they signed a treaty saying they would not do such things a Nation needing such activities can then indicate via the means within the Treaty that they will no longer be following such parts of those agreements governing such actions.  Treaties are VOLUNTARY in Nature between Nations and can, thus, be stepped away from as well.  Even those forced upon a loser in a war are considered voluntary so that the conflict may end in agreeable manner, but those can be stepped away from as well.  The Occupation of the Rhineland was a sure step that indicated that Germany was no longer bound by the Treaty of Versailles.  The ABM Treaty is considered defunct as well.  So is the Washington Naval Treaty governing the number and types of ships and what armaments they can carry.  All sorts of treaties are stepped away from or just abandoned or considered defunct because all the signatories are violating it and no one wishes to enforce it.  In fact no Nation wishing to enforce a Treaty it signed is a sure indicator that a Treaty is dead.

From this Full Spectrum War can be seen as having multiple components:

1) Public War via Nation State Military means.

2) Civil Law prosecution via the Piracy Codes.

3) International Law prosecution via agreed-upon Treaty language.

4) Civil Law based Military Codes for the granting of individuals or groups with Letters of Marque and Reprisal and granting of Takings and reduction of same so that such individuals and groups can find a means to operate.  This is an economic aspect of war against those waging Private War that has not been deployed.

5) Proactive support of the Positive Liberties of War which is to say the Civil Right of Self-Defense for all civilized humans.

6) Treaty enforcement of wartime obligations upon combatants in war.

7) Utilizing the understood threat of Pirates to all Nations and to seek the extinguishing of those individuals and groups wherever they arise by all civilized means necessary in all venues.

To consider oneself civilized that is what one must support.

There are no favorites to play with savage man seeking to enforce their will upon all mankind.  If they cannot demonstrate that they are seeking to be part of the civil order of Nations, then those who fight on their own for their own reasons to their own ends are a threat to everyone without exception.

Being civilized is more than just leading one's life under civil law.  It has duties, obligations and requirements for individuals to fulfill so that civilization does not get liquidated by our savage nature.   We agree to the limits that come with being civilized, and those limits are a great strength, not a weakness, as they requires us to be creative in our means of addressing savagery and yet remain civilized.  Those who have gone savage are under no such compulsion and their wanton killing, destruction and enslavement of their fellow man is clear to see, but only if one opens one's eyes to actually perceive what is going on.

Being civilized isn't about being nice.  There is a time and place for that, and there is no place for it with those who wantonly wage savage, predatory Private War.  Those who do so must be opposed in all venues, simultaneously.

That is Full Spectrum War.

War the right way and wrong way

Remember how the Left was in an uproar about the 'illegal' war in Iraq?  You know the one with multiple UN Security Council sanctions behind it?  The one with the finding of two Congresses that, in the first instance, Iraq wasn't living up to its cease-fire and Saddam had to go, back in 1999, and the second one in 2002 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force?  And then 7 months of trying to talk Saddam down as we built up our forces?  And don't forget the previous authorization under George HW Bush to go against Iraq, which only got us to a cease-fire that Saddam wouldn't hold to, thus making him untrustworthy in the extreme.  Remember all of that?

No Blood For Oil was the chant?  That, BTW, is known as the Carter Doctrine - Blood for Oil - although fancier 'interests of the US' was used to equivocate about it.

You may not have liked the war against Iraq, but you can't complain about its 'legality' and, no, no one knew the actual status of Saddam's WMD programs.  Not even his top generals.  There is reason to think that even Saddam, himself, may not have kept track of what was going on and how some shells might have gotten misplaced in the inspection shell game that went on.  Mind you there were still poison gas bombs, facilities to produce more with precursor chemicals, yellowcake and the also prohibited SCUD missiles in Iraq, which the cease-fire required Saddam to also dispose of completely.  Lock, stock and barrel - all of it.

Remember the frothing at the mouth about going after an 'innocent' Saddam and how he really, and for true, didn't do a thing to the US?  Save take prisoners he wouldn't then release during the First Gulf War, of course.  Aid members of HAMAS in counterfeiting technology that would then find its way to FARC.  And a few of the guys captured in the First WTC attack also had passports that originated in Iraq.  Then there were the training facilities in Iraq to help terrorist groups out on hijackings and such. Oh, and some of the chemical weapons manuals found in Afghanistan in the hands of al Qaeda before the CAUF?  Yeah, those came from Iraq.  Primers on how to make and test batches of chemical weapons.  Dogs and other animals were used as test subjects, and possibly a spy or three or suspected one along the way by al Qaeda.

I know, the Left has memory blockage problems.

Hysterical amnesia.

Now President Obama has decided on another of the Carter Doctrines for his general foreign policy: dithering.  That is voting 'Present' when world affairs happen.  The other term for this is: 'Isolationist'.  Or, in this case, it is more: 'Nothing interrupts having a round of golf or vacation'.  The term 'dithering' is being kind.

Egypt sees its tyrant losing his grip on power and it is all smiles from Obama.

The previous Tunisia may have gotten a kind word or two.

About Morocco we haven't heard him say a damned thing.

Nor Jordan.

Nor Yemen.

Nor KSA.

Nor Bahrain.

Nor Kuwait.

Nor Syria.

And marchers in Iran, still looking for a smidgen of support from the US under Obama?  They are STILL waiting.

Hell, China has cracked down on freedom and democracy protesters, and those words were disallowed to even be in their spell checkers and dictionaries.  Not a word.  Zilch.

Japan has a major earthquake and tsunami, and Obama has some kind words... right before his round of golf.

Gotta get that golf handicap down!

Libya starts to go under with unrest, rebels on the march, He Who's Name Can't Be Spelled reeling and Obama is Johnny-on-the-spot with 'Kaddafi must go' or words to that effect.  He then implements the Carter Doctrine of 'dither'.  Q'ad'afi then pays off bunches of mercenaries and thugs, orders his air force to deal with the threat and to retake most of the country.  The rebels, they don't gots air power, nor much in the way of armor, so guys in trucks with heavy machineguns (also known as 'Technicals') are wonderful against tribesmen in the desert, not so hot against tanks really much of anywhere.

A week later, with the rebels reeling and Gad'dafi's forces, such as they are, on the march and re-taking most of the country, Obama finally comes out and says that 'he can't stand idly by to let this happen'... while he was standing idly by to let this happen.  He wants everyone else to do the heavy lifting for him to get a foreign policy together on this: the UN, Europe, Arab League, Hillary Clinton, that guy in the green uniform wearing a salad.  Really, put it together and he might be able to think about if he supports it.  A hastily convened UN Security Council more of less sanctions a No Fly Zone, and France and Great Britain rush in and the US is there to help along with lots of missile and air craft.  The Arab League?  They have lots and lots of aircraft and missiles and talked big leading up to this... apparently they want Qedifi out, but they reserve their planes, missiles, bombs, and really all of their military machines to do other things.

Well, looking at the list of uprisings, who can blame them, right?

Why, any one of them might be the next in line to be in the Unspellable's position.  Like maybe tomorrow the way things are going.

So with that all done the President jets off for his vacation in lovely Rio, where the poverty level is at 20% and the crony oil company pays off its financiers very nicely, indeed.  The one thing the President forgot to do?  Consult with Congress.

Now many pixels and ink have been spilled on this topic, so I will cut to the chase.

Can the President order this action?

Yes, if it is in the clear and obvious best interests of the United States or Libya is a direct threat to the US.  That is via the Law of Nations, boiled down from thousands of words to a sentence.

So is getting rid of Kadaffy in our best interests?  Be nice if the President said it was, right?  Got lots of words about how the civilian population has to be 'protected' and such, little about why this is necessary for the best interests of the US.

But didn't Libya attack us in Berlin, on the Pan Am 103 bombing and elsewhere, like training fighters to go into Iraq?

You betchya!

Nice if the President cited those, but he didn't.  He chose to vote 'Present' on rationale.

Thus we have the President unable to make clear that getting rid of Gaduffai is in the best interests of the US or that he is a clear and present danger to the US, or that he has taken actions in the past that can only be seen as giving him a clear and present danger status due to unrest in the region and his ability to spread it against US allies.

Of course he could have just consulted with Congress.  That would have been dead easy, but get in the way of his trip to Rio.  Instead he mailed that home, today.

This is the wrong way to do things as it leaves you without a leg to stand on at any turn, no clear and easy to state rationale for what you are doing, and seems pretty petty, given how he didn't really say much of anything about Libya in the run-up to the election or even after it.

Is there a way to have done this 'right' so as to get lots of military capability to help the 'rebels', or at least oppose Qadifi?

Yes, there is.

The President is the Head of State, the guy who makes foreign policy.  You know who we recognize and deal with, and then send Ambassadors and such abroad to keep tabs on things?  That is his power, also, under the Constitution.  His power of the Commander of the Armies and the Navies also gets him the ability to say who is a threat to the US and what kind of threat they are.  That is a potent piece of brew, right there!

So lets take the route of seeing what the rationale would be for going after Gaadaffi using the foreign policy side, before hitting up the military.  What could a President, any President, do?  Well, not recognize the current regime in Libya as a legitimate government.  You can do that as a President, and then take the shit-storm that follows as people realize you are actually serious about this.  If you didn't like that you could say that during this period of unrest there is no 'legitimate' government of Libya in the eyes of the US.  Still nasty, but understandable.  If the rebels were serious about a governing constitution, and presented it to the world, then the President could immediately switch over and say that THIS rebel government is the legitimate government of Libya.

Those are all painful and would really be nice to have some backing for them, no?

To get backing you can then utilize the Commander of the Armies and the Navies, particularly the Admiralty portion of the latter.  The Admiralty portion is that with the oversight on declaring who is and is not a legitimate fighter abroad with respect to the Laws of War.  Normally applied to the Sea, Congress has extended the Sea Powers to the airspace of the planet and down to the core of it, too.  By that any aircraft registered in the US is, while in the air, sovereign US territory.

So with the Berlin Disco Bombing we can cite Libya as using illegitimate war tactics without declaring war against the military of a sovereign Nation.  A big 'no-no' in the world.  It starts to make you look illegitimate.  Ask Saddam about where that gets you.

Next is the Pan Am 103 bombing which is not just an act of terrorism, but one on our sovereign territory while transiting airspace legally and giving no affront to any Nation, nor being a military vehicle of any sort.  It is an attack on our civilian air cargo and passenger service while going about its legal, commercial affairs.  There is a word for those who attack unarmed, legal, commercial vessels while transiting air or sea and they are not a military vessel of any sort: Pirates.

Just as in the days of Barbary, President Obama could cite the government of Libya as being headed by a Pirate and having Piratical ends so as to enforce the dictates of its leader at home and abroad, and that leader uses no distinctions of warfare or, indeed, any civilized code, to do so.  As this is a threat to the order of Nation States, Libya would then be a host to Pirates and be seen as a foe of all Nations who may then dispose with the supporters of the regime as they see fit wherever they are.

You see in the back of their heads, those diplomats who left the foreign service of Libya overseas have a great motivation to do so: they remember history of the Barbary States, and it wasn't a sweet or nice one.  Base survival motivates one to act in a civilized manner and that is to be applauded, while staying in the sway of a Pirate and madman will get you 230 grains of lead going at just under 960 ft/sec to the cranium.  Or a noose.  Traditions vary.

At that point the President could have gone on vacation and now be informing Congress that he really needs some folks armed up to go after Libyan assets and could they draw up some Letters to do so?  This would be drawing the clear and illuminating line of civilized behavior on the map and saying that if you don't respect other Nations and utilize terrorists, pirates, or similar sorts against other Nations without declaring war on them, then you are no longer a legitimate government.

The problem with doing it the right way?

The list of Nations that would then have to be approached like this is unappetizing and includes every terror attack helped, backed or hosted by a foreign power against the US.  Iran and Syria come to mind.  Cuba for training folks like the Weathermen who, themselves, would fit into the 'Pirate' category as having made illegal war on the US and even profiting from it.  Venezuela for hosting FARC which has tried to assassinate at least one US President, that being Clinton in 2000 on a State visit to Colombia.

The fact that the US has done so with other Nations, particularly in the Cold War, also makes the US liable for this sort of thing from other Nations.  Of course we could also use our foreign policy system to apologize... a venue open to Libya, but the apology must be accepted for that to work. 

See how that works? 

Reciprocity?

Order amongst Nations and forgiveness, but not forgetting?

This actually works rather well.  It is when you start to put in 'humanitarian' and other squishy things that you don't wind up with good policy nor good ends.  The Muslim world never thanked the US for its intervention in Kosovo, and would have damned us if we didn't.  In Somalia we tried to help, got soldiers killed and left, thus becoming 'the weak horse'.  In Rwanda it was the UN that ran... the US didn't really have anyone there, to speak of.  Ivory Coast? Liberia?  Niger? The Congo? Burma? 

Do we really want to be on the hook for all the world's problems and blamed when we can't find a solution to them?  If there were a solution, I mean something that everyone liked, then wouldn't the locals have already don it?  And if there isn't, then what makes us so sure we know what the 'right' solution is to a local problem?  Yes humanitarian disasters are horrible as they are brought about by the hand of man as opposed to, say, a subduction fault zone or volcano.  That doesn't mean that a stronger power can make it better.  Intervention is just another word for meddling, and if our local establishment can figure out that we need such things as coal, oil and natural gas, then how can we expect any President to figure out a multi-ethnic, multi-tribal, multi-faction fight that has been going on for generations in fits and starts?

That is why we encouraged Iraqis to make a government that represents everyone: it is better to go via the ballot box than the rebellion as it usually costs less in money and blood.

Libya?

Say if the President had simply said that we no longer recognize the Unspellable's government as legitimate and declared him to be the head of a Piratical Cabal, well that would be fine and dandy!

Meddling in an affair that we won't even recognize the rebels as being the government of a place and supporting them when they can't even figure out what they are fighting for?  Yes, all very well and good to be against a pretty brutal dictator exploiting his people and all, but what do the rebels stand for?  Would backing them be just another long-term losing proposition on the road to yet another despotic regime? 

Makes you wish they had gotten that constitution thingy together, huh?  Know what they are fighting for and all that.

So I do agree the Unspellable must go... I disagree with how it is done and the lack of framework and context for it.  And if you aren't going to declare a government to be illegitimate and without basis for being dealt with, null and void in all respects, then you do have to consult Congress beforehand as you are treating it as a real government.

You don't get to vote 'Present' on that.

Some thoughts on Julian Assange

Just a thought on the NYT report that Assange has gotten the UK courts to get a bail amount set for him.

First off the publication of the information that prompted his detainment is not the first time he has done so against the US government, and prior ones included the names and information about our sources and methods in Afghanistan.

Second the civil law may not hold much of a venue against a mere publisher of such information.

Third, drafting any such ex-post facto law is truly horrific as one could never know what is and is not legal to do at any time. The civil law is not the place of venue for Mr. Assange on such publication matters, quite obviously.

Thus we start with the full documents on the International Humanitarian Law held by the ICRC, and go down to the Methods and Means of Warfare.

From that list I will start with the Lieber Code that was instantiated by President Abraham Lincoln for the Union forces 1863, which continued to be used into the 1890's.  Thus this part is of interest not only about Mr. Assange, but his informants and highlighting is mine throughout:

Art. 88. A spy is a person who secretly, in disguise or under false pretense, seeks information with the intention of communicating it to the enemy.
The spy is punishable with death by hanging by the neck, whether or not he succeed in obtaining the information or in conveying it to the enemy.

Art. 89. If a citizen of the United States obtains information in a legitimate manner, and betrays it to the enemy, be he a military or civil officer, or a private citizen, he shall suffer death.

Art. 90. A traitor under the law of war, or a war-traitor, is a person in a place or district under Martial Law who, unauthorized by the military commander, gives information of any kind to the enemy, or holds intercourse with him.

Art. 91. The war-traitor is always severely punished. If his offense consists in betraying to the enemy anything concerning the condition, safety, operations, or plans of the troops holding or occupying the place or district, his punishment is death.

Well that starts to put a sort of proper perspective on things as the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force is a Declaration of War.  Thus those helping us in Afghanistan are brought into the conflict and the publication of their names is a direct help to the enemies of the US.  Really, you shouldn't do that during wartime.

Now to skip ahead to the Hague Convention II 1899:

CHAPTER II
On spies
Art. 29. An individual can only be considered a spy if, acting clandestinely, or on false pretences, he obtains, or seeks to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

Thus, soldiers not in disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of a hostile army to obtain information are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: soldiers or civilians, carrying out their mission openly, charged with the delivery of despatches destined either for their own army or for that of the enemy. To this class belong likewise individuals sent in balloons to deliver despatches, and generally to maintain communication between the various parts of an army or a territory.

Art. 30. A spy taken in the act cannot be punished without previous trial.

Art. 31. A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts of espionage.

Whoever provided the information to Mr. Assange would be considered a spy in the Hague Conventions.  Would Mr. Assange?  If he was just given the information and went through proper channels at DoD to ask about publication, the answer would be 'no': the information would have been cleared by a power in the war.  As he did not do so and did communicate the information to our enemies in the field, then his activity is that of espionage.  Similarly the 1907 Hague Convention IV has the same verbiage for Spies.

Now onto another part of this with the Hague Convention V 1907 which deals with Neutral countries:

THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS

Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:
(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;
(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

Art. 6. The responsibility of a neutral Power is not engaged by the fact of persons crossing the frontier separately to offer their services to one of the belligerents.

Art. 7. A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

Art. 8. A neutral Power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals.

Art. 9. Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents.

A neutral Power must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus.

I do love the formality of such things!

The Convention covers the countries and Neutral persons:

CHAPTER III

NEUTRAL PERSONS

Art. 16. The nationals of a State which is not taking part in the war are considered as neutrals.

Art. 17 A neutral cannot avail himself of his neutrality
(a) If he commits hostile acts against a belligerent;
(b) If he commits acts in favor of a belligerent, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed force of one of the parties. In such a case, the neutral shall not be more severly treated by the belligerent as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a national of the other belligerent State could be for the same act.

Art. 18. The following acts shall not be considered as committed in favour of one belligerent in the sense of
Article 17, letter (b):
(a) Supplies furnished or loans made to one of the belligerents, provided that the person who furnishes the supplies or who makes the loans lives neither in the territory of the other party nor in the territory occupied by him, and that the supplies do not come from these territories;
(b) Services rendered in matters of police or civil administration.

Well espionage, which includes the transmittal of information is helping out a party to a conflict or, more appropriately, against a party to a conflict.

Now a fascinating addition to the Hague Conventions are the Hague Rules 1923 that cover wireless transmission, as they would also apply to our current mixed-mode internet:

Art. 8. Neutral mobile wireless stations shall abstain from keeping a written copy of wireless messages received from belligerent military wireless stations, unless such messages are destined for the said neutral stations.

The violation of this rule entitles the belligerents to confiscate the texts in question.

Oh, and that would mean Mr. Assange was taking sides in the conflict(s) the US is in, by his own action.

The Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention only covers espionage as it relates to occupied territory, and deals more in the field than things outside of it.  Full trials are to be provided for 'protected persons' (civilians) in the area of occupation for any offenses (military or civil) done there.  Thus as Afghanistan has been liberated but still requires the presence of US forces to maintain its integrity against hostile elements at war with both Nations, that means that either party in the territory (Afghanistan or the US) may utilize the general schema.  Now given that full trial and appeals are available, lets look at what is within its confines:

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Art. 69. In all cases the duration of the period during which a protected person accused of an offence is under arrest awaiting trial or punishment shall be deducted from any period of imprisonment of awarded.

Art. 70. Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.

Nationals of the occupying Power who, before the outbreak of hostilities, have sought refuge in the territory of the occupied State, shall not be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or deported from the occupied territory, except for offences committed after the outbreak of hostilities, or for offences under common law committed before the outbreak of hostilities which, according to the law of the occupied State, would have justified extradition in time of peace.

So it is a multipart thing that allows for trials: espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against military installations, or intentional offenses which caused the death of one or more persons.  For Afghanistan the recourse is to its own civil code to see what the punishments would be, while for the US we could use our military code or the Taliban civil code as that was pre-existing prior to hostilities.  Really you would have a better chance with the current regime than the US.  Perhaps Mr. Assange will give himself up to them?

The US has not signed up to the 1977 Geneva Convetions so they are not considered as part of what is or is not espionage for the US.

Thus we quickly run out of what to do with Mr. Assange: he is performing the act of partisan espionage contrary to his status as Neutral citizen.  He is violating the Neutrality that is garnered him by being a non-combatant civilian and actively working against one of the belligerents in a conflict to supply information to the enemies of that belligerent.  Yes our civil laws may be lacking here, but we are at war and peace has not been declared in either Iraq or Afghanistan, nor have the Congressionally set objectives given to the Executive been met.

The case of Julian Assange and Wikileaks is not one of civil courts, but courts martial, and any Nation involved in Afghanistan can put out that he is a threat to their troops in the field and their allies.

Of course that would be the civilized thing to do: get Mr. Assange a full military trial with defense lawyers to account for his activities of breaking his neutrality and publishing such information injurious to the US and those who have helped it, as well as those we have liberated.  But then we stopped acting civilized when we started trying to treat war as a 'police matter'... instead of as war.

Perhaps we can start to treat civil actions differently from martial actions, and start to recognize those making Private War upon us just as all Nations since the dawn of history have done.  Mind you, that isn't pretty.  But it is civilized, if you have the stomach to be civilized, that is.

Fundamental values priced to go

I am looking at the 'Fundamental Values' speech of President Obama from 20 MAR 2009 at National Journal's Hotline On Call and it may vary from the given speech as these things can be different from the initial copy to final presentation. The speech is given in front of the National Archives building, and I'll excerpt my problem areas as I go along.

First is the very first part:

These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.

The primary duty of the President is Commander of the Armies and the Navy, which is also the seat of the Admiralty power and this the President Commander in Chief of our armed forces. He is not given the spot to remedy economic ills, or other woes of the financial sector - in no place is this given as a Presidential duty. Indeed, that primary responsibility calls for the thing the Left bemoaned over the last few years: sacrifice. Yet this President has decided to fight on the cheap by removing funding for weapons systems that have either been demonstrated as effective (such as Ballistic Missile Defense) or which went into final testing after acceptance (like the Non-Line of Sight Cannon). Such systems are meant to protect the Nation and our soldiers in the battlefield and make them more effective. By cutting back on systems, support and equipment, President Obama is the first President in quite some time to actually cut back on military systems during two Congressionally Authorized wars.

Protecting 'consumers' and homeowners, reforming government contracting, nor trying to provide indulgences... ahhh... sinecures... no... that's not it... ENTITLEMENTS to the American people. none of that is actually carrying out that wartime duty. All of those are a distraction from the primary duty of the President during wartime and are normally relegated off the table when there are ongoing conflicts. Quite the contrary, the massive, historic, and ill-conceived spending to 'bailout' nearly everyone from automobile companies, large banks, homeowners, 'consumers', and the rest of it is taking money from our current and necessary needs of supporting two conflicts and ensuring that they end satisfactorily. Iraq still requires US commitment to ensure that the government can, indeed, stand up on its own and face the local threats of the region. By all estimates that will not be done until sometime around 2015 if all goes well. Afghanistan is now nearly isolated with Pakistan faltering as Islamic radicals move against the government and its institutions. As we move 90% or more of our supplies to Afghanistan through Pakistan, spending money on domestic problems when our war fighters are at the mercy of a decaying situation in Pakistan is not only ill-conceived, but horrific in its possible consequences. As this administration has offered no better means of supplying our troops at the end of one of the longest supply chains on the planet, touting nice things done for the citizenry at home while neglecting his duties abroad is fundamentally an abdication of DUTY he volunteered to take.

The President does recognize the responsibility to keep us safe at home, but:

This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

What steps are we taking to go after the Taliban/al Qaeda/Shadow Army and their helpers from the Mehsud backed organization and Gulbudden Hekmatyar's organization? Cutting the military during active conflicts is NOT investment in fighting.

The 'global non-proliferation regime' hasn't worked. Even at its best companies from advanced Nations, like Japan's Mitutoyo which was done during the wonder years of the Clinton Administration in 1995. That saw 10,000 precision measuring devices that make up nuclear separators go out into the nuclear black market from an above-board firm and no one suspected it for YEARS. Of course no one on the Left wants to bring that up, of other French and German companies that did similar things during that last lovely period of 'non-proliferation' that saw Pakistan, India and now North Korea gain nuclear capability. That concept just didn't work even with our ALLIES helping us.

Beyond that the Left is going to get heartburn with President Obama giving the same reason that President Bush gave to go after Saddam Hussein: "...deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons..." Yup, there it is again, the thing the Leftists have hated for the last 6-7 years or so, which is the reason we finally decided that Saddam's not keeping his cease-fire negotiations had to be called for the sham it was. I'm glad that ONE Leftist has recognized the problem, even though the last solution is a non-solution in actually stopping the problem.

With Mexico fighting a massive criminal insurgency based on the drug trade and some of that spilling over our borders how can any President say we are 'better protecting our border'? Have we closed it to all traffic save ports of entry? No? Then that is a major problem that remains unaddressed to this very day and we will pay for it if that criminal insurgency spreads any further north than it already has into parts of Texas and as far north as Phoenix, AZ.

After insulting the UK, presenting a lackluster performance at the G-20 that no one took seriously, starting a virtual trade war with Mexico over trucking and imports, having a DHS Secretary that has pissed of Canada by imputing that it is a haven for terrorists, and being unable to do anything with Russia to stop hostile acts towards Georgia or helping us in supply our troops overland with the help of Turkmenistan, just what, pray tell, is our diplomacy doing to help us fight al Qaeda or strengthen our ties with our allies? This is not leadership save in the negative sense of appearing weak and feckless. How can anyone take us seriously on nuclear non-proliferation if we can't even figure out basic diplomatic protocol and so as to not insult our allies?

So far I am less than impressed with President Obama trying to tell me that weakness is strength, that not building up defenses are building them up, and no protection is protection. Plus all this wanting to do jobs that the government isn't given to do and abdicating his duty on a job he DOES get to do.

The next piece is priceless:

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

Now about that hall, the National Archives, is that the same place that Sand 'Big Socks' Berger took historical documents on the decision of the Clinton Administration not to go after Osama bin Laden? Say, why did that guy get off so lightly, anyways? That is destroying historical documents of a historical Presidency, and those are priceless as no duplicates exist of them. And just a couple of days ago a hard drive from the Clinton Administration went missing. Luckily it was backed up, but it is still saying something that an item kept in that very hall with such enshrined documents went walkabout. Now that very same building has had problems with folks filching signatures from historic documents, stamps and other bits and pieces from the archives... so you just might want to check and see just why these things we value so highly as a Nation are given such poor security.

Our own Founders, however, point to a lot of documents that they used to get to our documents, as they valued the tradition of civilization and wanted to ensure that our views in the Declaration fit with our overall understanding of the role of Earthly law as opposed to the Law of Nature and Nature's God, plus keep up the fine tradition of being part of the Great Peace of Westphalia and ensure that we kept continuity with our understanding of the Common Law as a Nation under the Law of Nations. Plus the Black Book of the Admiralty. But we don't teach those things any more so it is not surprising that the effort to make us forget them has gone apace to the point where those historic foundations and views are lost on the current President.

Saying that you understand the necessity of needing to form a more perfect Union and then push on things not given to any President to do represents a gross inability to actually understand the actual Constitution. That is not surprising as President Obama has proven unable to understand why a negative rights document, like the Constitution, is fundamental to ensuring that government does not become despotic or tyrannical. In fact in pressing for 'bailouts' that have little to no 'oversight' and that rewards political backers can be SEEN as despotic heading towards tyrannical demonstrates how deeply he misunderstands the duties laid out for the President as they are a subset of duties under the Law of Nations and divided up particularly by the Constitution so as to ensure that no single President ever gains such power to thwart the law and reduce the say of the people over expenditures of their money by the government.

Somehow that is not keeping up with the enduring principles of that the Constitution engenders, but actually defying them.

This speech, so far, is: do one thing, say another, mean a third.

After that section President Obama goes on a values rampage and there are a couple of peculiarities that show up.

First is this one:

It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's armed forces than from their own government.

The Imperial Japanese forces didn't recognize this, nor did the Moro's during their insurrection, and KSM has derided us for our values and has only sought to use them against us up to and including telling us that we really must do our duty to him via what our own Nation stands for. You see we draw a distinction, and always have, between professional soldiers and those fighting in Private war venues. In fact one of our greatest Presidents ensured that the differences were made clear, succinct and that summary justice on the battlefield was done to those who fought in Private war against us. We do that not because we are horrific, but because it is lawful and civilized and has been to as far as ALL history we have knowledge of that records those fighting like this. To be a 'student of the Constitution' one must understand the power outlay and how that fits within the understood framework of the Law of Nations. We do provide greatly for those enemies that fight in a civilized venue, that adhere to the known standards of conduct of wars between Nations. For those that don't, as our forefathers tell us going back to the Founding and to the documents they used to gain insight into how Nations work, there is no mercy and swift justice with prejudice involved.

Battlefield justice.

I suspect, however, that he has something else in mind that is NOT in keeping with our history, our values and our understanding of why those fighting Private war deserve only the Terrible Swift Sword of the Republic wielded without Mercy and with Prejudice.

From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.

Terrorists are not offering 'injustice' and 'disorder and destruction' are but means and methodologies, and they are hallmarks of the way they have chosen. They do still follow a set of laws, but it is not Earthly law, but that of Nature and Nature's God, red in tooth and claw. It is man turned to savage animal, with a facade of thought so as to carry out cruelty in a wanton manner and attack all societies so as to return mankind to the Law of Nature where the weak are ruled by the strong. Chaos is a means to an end, not the end entire, as there is a logic behind the Law of Nature as we all well know. A horrific logic that recognizes justice only of domination and of subjugating others, of killing as you please to get your way. Thus they fight in Private war as enemies of all mankind to dissolve societies and institute the brutal rule of savage man once more. To us that seems as injustice, but we must recognize that it is the older order of justice which we defend against by creating societies with internal laws and compliance to them to gain the protection of such laws.

We call them outlaws by the conception that they are outside the law and cannot be protected by it as that takes personal adherence and submission to the law to form civil society. Yes, there I go bringing up the understood tradition of such a thing, and looking to see that it has great importance over how we approach those who have disdained all civil law, refuse to submit to it and who take up Private war against us all. Thus these outlaws hate us not because we have such lovely values and institutions, but because we will not submit to those waging war against us. It isn't a question of 'disorder and destruction' those are means to an end, not the end in and of itself. They do offer something: rule under the Law of Nature. It is that which we find an abomination.

Now for this passage:

After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era - that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us - Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens - fell silent.

It is interesting that since we opened Guantanamo, went after Saddam and robustly went after terror cells wherever we could find them by whatever means were at hand, that there have not been successful attacks upon the US since 9/11 that hit our soil.

Now when he talks about government making hasty decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, he is talking about the 'bailouts', TARP and such, right?

No?

But those were sold completely with fear mongering, scare tactics, and pushing through legislation that folks in Congress didn't even READ because it was so 'urgent' that President Obama could spend a few days on vacation after it passed before he signed it... and we have completely set aside the power of having to follow the law on bankruptcies and the President has usurped the power of Congress in that area to craft things that do not follow any legal stricture of guidelines. He must be fessing up to making horrific decisions and is about to apologize to us, no? I mean all that spreading of economic doom and gloom and fear, that has got to be it, right?

Unfortunately, no:

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach - one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Close an effective institution that your own Attorney General categorized as efficient, well managed and operating under proper legal guidelines? One that, since its opening, has protected us and only 1 in 7 of those let out have returned to their horrific ways... well, no institution is perfect.

So when will this President recognize the extra-legal activities he has taken with regards to bankruptcy laws set by Congress? Really a President that so adores the Constitution and the law ought to be able to use the instruments of the law and not go 'winging it' in areas already well defined by the Constitution as an area given to Congress to set up the law.

What's up with that?

And why have so many fallen silent about these extra-legal methods being deployed in the area of bankruptcy? They are well known...

Now President Obama wants to go on this 'Fundamental Values' bit with terrorists:

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable - a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

He hasn't been clear on much of anything so far, is he sure that we are at war with al Qaeda?

Just asking, given his opaqueness on bankruptcy law.

About this updating institutions bit: why?

No, really!

Look a prior President that I cited above, set out exactly, plainly what to do with those that use the concept we call 'terrorism' as a means to their end. Pretty damned blunt on the institution, being the military, and what to do, namely summary justice on the battlefield. And the Geneva Conventions has these 'terrorists' actually fall outside of the Convention as they adhere to no Nation, and that is one of the Fundamental Values we have since the Founding in military sorties done by Presidents Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln. So what, exactly, needs updating? THEY understood what they had to do, as did Presidents McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt against the Moros. If these fine stewards of the Nation knew and utilized their powers via all known laws of war as they are understood even under the later Geneva Conventions, and pre-existing systems like the Hague Convention, then what is it that needs to be updated?

These previous occupants understood their Oaths, their Duty, the rule of law and the due process of military law.

All of them.

Once set and approved those methodologies require no further checks: Congress had their say in how the armed forces are to be run.

The law on the military side is its own balance once its course is set, and there is ACCOUNTABILITY up the chain of command to the very top from the very bottom. There is nothing 'ad hoc' save having a President unwilling to cut the orders to make sure that we didn't capture ANY 'terrorists'. Those that we needed information from we could offer life internment at a lovely place, say Guantanamo... or just utilize the battlefield justice to give them what they are due, which would probably have made them shut up and accept a bullet. ANY information garnered from Guantanamo is a success of expediency: in return for information we let you live out your days in exile from mankind so as to keep all Nations safe from you. That is leeway we give the CinC as the head of the Admiralty: to protect us and use means that may not fulfill immediate duties so as to carry out the duty of protecting all societies from those fighting under the Law of Nature.

As for the 'ad hoc' framework, I do agree: our terrorism laws are complex, and never get to the point of what terrorism is and how to deal with it. I suggest using the absolutely understood legal framework of the Piracy code as it is the best system ever devised by man to go after those fighting Private war on land and at sea. Even by the strictest interpretation of the Priacy code, al Qaeda has staged piratical attacks not only on the US, via the USS Cole attack, but upon other merchant ships of other Nations. Similarly Hezbollah is due for that after performing a missile attack on a merchant vessel, HAMAS for staging sea based landings of Israel, and the Islamic radical organizations that cooperated on the Mumbai attacks as they took over a ship at sea to do their work. Those are ALL open and shut cases that then get all those organizations the lovely 'Pirate' label and all those in such organizations can then be tossed away for life on simple finding that they are part of the organization in any way, shape or form. Those aiding and abetting get ten years in the pokey, which lets you go after merchant support of Pirates. The code is very clear, easy to read and succinct in what to do and how to determine who is and is not a Pirate.

This requires no 'new' framework, just to enforce the DAMNED LAWS as they stand.

You know, what President 'Mr. Expert on the Constitution' Obama is supposed to do? Constitutional and legal scholar and all that?

Enforce the EXISTING laws?

Now on to tortured reasoning, and the reasoning is tortured:

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts - they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us." And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his Administration - including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community - that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. We must leave these methods where they belong - in the past. They are not who we are. They are not America.

And I reject the assertion otherwise on water-boarding. We have multiple heads of the CIA and members of the INTEL Community that have told us otherwise, that attacks in Los Angeles and Brooklyn have been thwarted due to information gathered via water-boarding. Thus we have evidence that it IS effective. Safe, too, compared to how it is done in SERE training. So the contrary assertion needs firm, strong and definitive backing, which is lacking.

We are not the ones undermining the rule of law: terrorists do that by refusing to submit to civil law. At any point up to their capture they can submit to civil law and be held accountable to it. They do not. That is their action, not ours, and it places them outside of all law venues save the harshest: battlefield justice. When captured by civil means they get civil justice, and then the law needs to be harsh to remove these people from ever being a threat to any society ever again.

Could the President please cite those we have alienated due to these methods? Name the Nations, Mr. President, and tell us exactly what they disagree with... we would like to send them a whole lot of terrorists to take care of! Really, if any other Nation is morally superior in this venue, then lets hand THEM the problem to figure out as it is one for all of mankind. We get the shitty end of the stick because we happen to have a bit more military might and wherewithal to bring such people down and in. So lets ship the terrorists off to the complainers so they can DEMONSTRATE how to safely get such information and then make sure these terrorists never, ever become a threat to mankind AGAIN.

They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists? I can see it now: 'Join al Qaeda so when the US captures you, you can be water-boarded! It is far better than what will happen to you in EGYPT or SYRIA!!!'

Yup, makes sense.

No? The President is trying to make another case? Really? Just what sort of a rube is this guy, anyway?

And on 'increasing their will...', I always thought that it was cartoons that did that and flushing of Korans. The militants seem to go on about those a whole lot more than getting water-boarded or having to listen to Black Sabbath for a few weeks... cranked to 11.

Decreasing the will of others to work with us? Only when the NY Times lets National Secrets out... I'm sure President Obama can figure out how to stop that, no?

Now here is a sticking point: where are the al Qaeda and Taliban prison camps?

Really! Where are they?

These are the guys that don't go in for that, remember? Beheadings are their deal, usually with a dull pen knife but a hatchet that hasn't been sharpened in a decade will do, too. THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW. It is kill, kill, kill and kill a bit more, plus some rape, pillage and don't follow your own religious code when you get a chance. So what are we seeking? Sharper hatchets and swords in beheadings? What, exactly, will we gain from TERRORISTS by being NICE TO THEM?

Please, tell me! A bit less abuse before they kill those they capture? And how about that killing civilians as a way of doing business which NO MILITARY in their RIGHT MIND would do... which points up the problem of the Imperial Japanese forces, doesn't it? What the hell is this 'moral equivalency' BS?

Oh, and thank you, Senator McCain, for giving this bozo President cover for trying to get more of our troops killed by being nice to terrorists and then trying to get them into civil jurisdiction where they DON'T BELONG. Presidents must have this ability to be harsh as those they are fighting are not civilized and seek to tear civilization down. Yes, we don't torture. No I don't see how using water-boarding on terrorists is 'torture'. No definitions don't help you as the thing I DO like is a few grams of lead deposited at high velocity with a terminal impact going inside a terrorist. Anything else done to them that is not wanton cruelty to animals isn't torture.

After that the President goes on to Guantanamo, and as I've already hit that let me point out that with Guantanamo we have:

1. Not suffered another attack on the US,
2. Gotten high value targets that orchestrated the operations of 9/11 put away there and out of circulation,
3. Stopped attacks on the US that were in planning stages when you would really LIKE to stop them,
4. It is a place where the MAIN conviction is being found to be an illegal combatant under the laws of war, which has been done to a number of prisoners,
5. 1 out of 7 prisoners released has returned to terrorism which is a damned sight better than how our civil system works for normal criminals,
6. Had a zero percent escape rate plus a near zero percent outside contact rate, unlike civilian prisons,
7. Has had the current AG plus numerous other international organizations deem Guantanamo as well run and humane, plus being thoroughly legal.

By these effects it is not only legal but effective in what it is doing.

Plus no one has offered a better solution.

President Obama is trying to make a problem where NONE exists:

Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall - when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won't permit it. Our courts won't allow it. And neither should our conscience.

My conscience isn't bothered by Guantanamo. Quite the opposite, I know it is being run in method that is far too civilized for those that deserve battlefield justice. I only get qualms about why we are keeping individuals there in the first place when they deserve the lead solution on the battlefield. The Uighars are TERRORISTS they not only fight China... remember this, this standard applies to China as well... but they fight against all civilization by aligning themselves with al Qaeda. In that alignment they deserve not to be let loose under some strange idea of 'justice' but recognized as the mortal threat to a brother Nation, and if we are too queasy about doing the right thing we can let CHINA do its form of justice on them. They will be... persecuted? Terrorists? Nuh-uh, that doesn't wash no matter how much soap you use. We may find these people 'innocent' of being involved in active hostilities: then we are to send them HOME.

Ahhh... there's the rub, no? Their home countries don't want them because they will most likely be seen as terrorists... and our problem with that is? We are not talking about persecution for religious beliefs or political views, we are looking at individuals who understand that where they are at is the most lenient treatment they will get on Planet Earth because they are viewed as terrorists and willing to take up Private war against their fellow man at home. Believe it or not, closing Guantanamo will not help this: they will not be seen as any less a threat just because WE SAY SO. To think otherwise is extremely authoritarian and trying to tell other Nations how to run their own internal affairs for the prime decisive factor of who is and is not a part of civil society. We have zero business telling other Nations who to accept in their civil society especially when those individuals have expressed views AND taken actions against such societies. When members are persecuted for purely civil differences of conscience, be it religion, politics or whatnot, then we have a major problem as it is civil society that needs to allow such things as freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of political conscience. For those willing to take up Private war against their society?

Are you nuts?

After that President Obama goes back to the fear mongering bit. Say, stop doing it on the economy FIRST and maybe we will see if what YOU are doing is legal and Constitutional, ok?

From there President Obama tries to bring up the 'where the hell should we put them?' idea:

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: "The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational."

For those who are a threat to National Security and can't be placed anywhere they can endanger Americans: supermax? Do they get phone privileges? See their lawyer once a month? Any means to communicate with the outside world? Because ALL of those ARE a threat to National Security. Including sending letters. Convicted terrorists do not need to leave a supermax if they have any form of contact with the outside world. Neither do mafioso. Plus they then get all the civil law venues that they wish, and that means contact with the outside world.

This is supposed to be a 'smart' President?

Now we might try my idea of closing Alcatraz as a park, depositing all the detainees there and dropping off a month of supplies at a time. No need for guards on-site, only for patrol boats and keeping a few helicopters ready for intercepts. Then set up a live round shooting gallery from the wharfs at San Francisco and invite some of the best long-range rifle companies to show off their wares. Charge a fee per round! Why I'm sure we would get a whole civilian marksmanship thing going just for that alone... might even pay for itself if we limit it to those still learning...

Ah, not to be, of course. President Obama is set to try and wrench the clock back to 9/10 as he sets up how he wants things to go. Pity that:

First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts - courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center - he was convicted in our courts, and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. Zaccarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker - he was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

Awww... letting those waging Private war go into the civil system where they can get their 'civil rights' which they don't want! And the moment they get let off the hook because, you know, military folks can't be pulled out of battle to testify in court because they are doing this thing known as 'fighting for the Nation'? The President does know that the 'Blind Sheikh' moderated a dispute in HAMAS from his cell in the US, right? [Actually a factional dispute between the Muslim Brotherhood/HAMAS and the Sheikh's own GIA] Exercised authority over terrorists? With his lawyer's help? Remember this is supposed to make things 'better'! We can try and even convict them, but that doesn't seem to stop them from helping their comrades and directing them...

Then there is this:

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.

Terrorists ARE fighting a war with us! President Obama, way up at the top, SAYS SO. Therefore their FIRST venue is the military not the SECOND. He has gotten the order exactly wrong by his OWN ESTIMATION OF THINGS. This is not the SECOND CATEGORY but the FIRST: he has said as much at the start.

This is one of those deals where he is stating a fantasy: these are not civil problems first, they are military problems first. And if they are not judged to be illegal combatants, that is they do not take part in or support terrorism, then there is NO civil venue that can be used on them for those charges as that is double jeopardy. The primary determination of their being terrorists is MILITARY. Period. If they aren't then the can be brought up for other actions, but not for those involving the terrorist determination. By stating at the start that members of al Qaeda are at war with us, then the first venue is military justice.

The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts. Let me repeat what I said earlier: this has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Twenty of these findings took place before I came into office. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings.

US Courts only have say on US soil.

That is why we have military justice, but also why we have Admiralty law that extends US soil to our ships at sea and extra-territorial enclaves known as Embassies. That said if the military has ruled that they are not terrorists, then SEND THEM HOME.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved fifty detainees for transfer. And my Administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

That should be done with all that we find not to be terrorists. Period. Send them home.

Reading through the intervening verbiage on the points and I do wish that President Obama would stop harping on the 7-years thing as his party was the cause of dragging things out when a well understood process was stood up after CONSULTING the members of his party. It is the perfect worlders that have held up military tribunals to determine the status of detainees, and that system has only gotten it wrong 1 in 7 times so far. Of course that means 1 in 7 released were and remained terrorists...

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Welcome to the real world, President Obama.

I notice you are lacking an answer on this, the #1 thing that you harped about for the last two years.

Remember, he has been touted as the 'adult' by a lot of sympathetic Leftists... yet he has not thought up a solution to a problem that has vexed mankind for... ohh... 6,000 years or so. Did anyone really expect this bozo to think one up in a couple of years?

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

I hate to tell President Obama this: but the determination of being an illegal combatant is enough to hold them forever.

Of course a much greater President of years past had the actual solution. We could try battlefield justice. In fact if the troops see too many terrorists cycled through the civilian system to be let loose, that will become the operative mode no matter what the President orders.

Now President Obama goes on at length on things, makes some of my articles look small in comparison. In the 'transparency' arena and 'National Security' concept we get this:

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and held accountable. There is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong, and nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment - informed by my national security team - that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war.

No, Mr. President, you are not a passive actor: you had to ORDER that they not be released, not 'opposed' their release. Get your powers straight, please, and tell it like it is. No one else gets a say on National Security like that.

But this one, a bit further down is a bellyflop:

I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued - and never will - that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon - and I will vigorously defend - the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.

No, sir, we have not seen 'transparency' in a number of venues and I can start with the non-military ones of TARP, bailouts and strong-arming creditors for those companies going under, plus helping out banks and forcing one to take on a bad business deal it would normally have refused... where is the transparency on these things? Being all open and above-board going outside the bankruptcy channels, forcing creditors to take LESS than they could get through court settlements, and putting Union participation above that of people actually owed money and who should get first dibs as creditors? Our economy is a part of our National Security, too, and you are messing it up to a fare-thee-well by going outside the courts, acting outside the law and generally acting as a one-man show in determining economic winners and losers.

But this is an outright misinforming of the public:

The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights - through World War and Cold War - because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn't always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America's safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today. But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.

Not only the Framers and Founders, but the Anti-Federalists: they all cast their eyes to the future and looked at how past events challenged previous systems and did their best to ensure that this system wouldn't be screwed up by petty politicians seeking personal power and authority. They did, indeed, know about Pirates, roving bands of marauders, and other outlaws and clearly and succinctly gave that those violating the Law of Nations were to be punished. Says so right there in the US Constitution Article I, Section 8:

[..]

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[..]

Offenses against the Law of Nations is a second category with its own, well understood framework.

One that President Obama is overlooking.

It describes the Offenses and what may be done about them... and we give the final writing of those laws to Congress. Also note that it is not up to President Obama to make the rules for the governing of the land and naval forces, that is left up to Congress. He gets to run them, and any problems are decided by the courts. Just like Abraham Lincoln did with the rules authorized by him: they followed the governing of Congress.

We don't need a President to set up new 'frameworks': we need Congress to do that when necessary. Executive fiat not required, unless you are Chrysler.

Which brings up that damned transparency thing again....

When do we get to see that, Mr. President?