First You Say You Do, And Then You Don't

Then you say you will, and then you won't. You're undecided now, so what are you gonna do? So asked the Ames Brothers, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald in song. None of them had met Waffler-in-Chief Barack Obama. Obama promised hope and change, and what we got was dopes with the mange. This is not only the weakest administration since Carter's, but it is also the least decisive.

Among the many barbarities of the Bush administration that the Obamassiah saw and promised to change was the horror of detaining enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. We should be coddling mass murderers at home, in our civilian social welfare courts, not holding them indefinitely outside the mainland United States, he said. One of his prime planks was that as soon as he finished the first three days of his administration stopping the polar ice caps from melting and giving everyone free medical care, he would close the Guantanamo facility forthwith.

Well, here we are, over three years later and Guantanamo remains open. First Obama's genius attorney general decided he would start bringing the terrorists into civilian courts in our major cities, starting with New York and mass murderer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. That didn't go over well with New Yorkers. So the next tack was to buy off a few legislators in Illinois and a couple of other states where the terrorists could be moved so they would at least have HBO while suffering their false imprisonment. That was not a notable success, either.

After releasing a few dozen detainees who had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certitude to have specifically murdered specific civilians and US military on specific battlefields in specific locations, Obama decided to "go with what we know." Guantanamo remains open, and we'll soon be seeing the released terrorists back there since the vast majority are re-offending. It's almost possible to give Mr. Harvard Law Review credit for recognizing reality and practical necessity. But I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and I suspect every single thing Waffles does. There's always a hidden agenda or blind ignorance built into everything he does--often both.

Using his stooge, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama announced that detention would continue as in the past, but (and this is a big one) "out of a sense of legal obligation (to whom?), the United States will adhere to the set of norms in Article 75 of Protocol I in international armed conflicts." Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? Well, don't bet the farm on it. This is another unilateral surrender of American sovereignty and rule of law, by executive fiat, to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

You see, Protocol I has been brought before the Senate (it's part of a treaty, after all) twice, and soundly rejected by both Republicans and Democrats. Presidents from Reagan through Bush II, including Bill Clinton, have rejected the concept of implementing Protocol I. Obama has used the cover of reinstating military tribunals at Guantanamo (a popular favorite) to hide his gutting of the process with executive concessions to the enemy.

What is Protocol I? I'm glad you asked. Article 75 of Protocol I is a 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions. Unlike its predecessors, this Protocol does not directly address humane treatment of prisoners of war, but rather goes off on flights of fancy and typical UN new age blather about "human dignity" and other vague and ambiguous philosophizing. Its feel-good wording forbids "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Getting caught murdering civilians and shooting American service men and women while in civilian garb (a violation of the Geneva Conventions in itself) is pretty humiliating all right. Being jailed for it at Guantanamo is not exactly an ego boost either. That's going to make prosecution by military tribunal a form of humiliation for these gentle followers of the religion of peace, and could pull the ground right out from under the prosecutors. Which, I suspect, is exactly what Obama wants.

The language of the Protocol seems to echo fundamental American constitutional law as well, but don't be fooled there either. The Bush administration conducted military tribunals which allowed for testimony of witnesses under oath being taped or live-fed to the court at Guantanamo. The Protocol is much more like a civilian stricture favoring criminals in non-war trials. The wording is so vague and ambiguous as to allow for it to mean that "confrontation of witnesses" requires physical presence, thus unnecessarily taking military personnel and foreign civilian witnesses away from active battlefields to attend a trial thousands of miles away. The logistics of such a thing are a nightmare. And God forbid that we should attempt to try a terrorist who has been subjected to the ultra-humiliating ordeal of enhanced interrogation.

None of these restraints have ever been required by the Constitution, precedent or a decision of the United States Supreme Court in matters of trials of prisoners of war. Such restraints have been consistently rejected by the executive branch, and have never even come close to acceptance when presented to the United States Senate for treaty ratification. Since detention is by its very definition "humiliating," indefinite detention and/or trial by military tribunal must be doubly or triply humiliating.

The Waffler-in-Chief doesn't have the courage or the honesty to bring this matter before the Senate for ratification. Its defeat is a foregone conclusion. What's a poor boy from Chicago to do when confronted with such odds? Simple. Ignore the political and legal realities and do an end-run around the Constitution requiring Senate ratification of treaties and treaty amendments. Rather than face an overwhelmingly hostile Senate on the issue of national security, Obama has simply ordered that the authorities "voluntarily abide by it." Isn't that cute?

In the event that a terrorist detainee has been humiliated by the sight of an American soldier walking past his cell eating a ham sandwich, the ACLU, CAIR, and the heavenly hosts of "civil rights" lawyers will go into high gear. They will invoke Protocol I, and the Obama administration will order the convening authority to "voluntarily" comply and drop the prosecution.

When Protocol I was originally added to the Geneva Conventions, it was designed to protect native independence rebels from murderous oppression by colonial powers. It was not designed to protect international terrorists caught out of uniform on a field of battle carrying AK-47s and a few RPGs. But that's just a detail, isn't it? The Obama administration doesn't like details that interfere with its international social justice agenda. If implementation of the Protocol interferes with the conduct of a war, gets American military personnel and innocent civilians killed while releasing the murderers via very technical technicalities, well, that's just too damned bad.

The rules of war and their codification in the Geneva Conventions have always posited that those who do not honor the rules of warfare are not entitled to the protection of the Conventions. Protocol I interferes with that position, which is why all former Presidents and Senates have rejected it out-of-hand. But now that we have elected a President for whom the skies have opened and who has walked on water, everything is about to change. Good-bye common sense. Good-bye rules of war. Good-bye centuries of precedent. Good-bye American exceptionalism. Good-bye Constitutional restraints on executive power. Hello, Barack Hussein Obama.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Irony Is Alive And Well In Berkeley

Remember those signs? The City Council of the People's Republic of Berkeley passed a series of ordinances designed to drive Marine Corps recruiters out of the hallowed haunts of radical wretchedness. While America is at war with a vile mass-murdering terrorist enemy disguised as a religion, Berkeley decided that it was no place for the Marine Corps that had put its first overseas action into its hymn: "To the shores of Tripoli." Same enemy, different century, different location.

OK, that's typical of Berkeley, but not ironic. The irony comes a couple years after the height of the Marine Corps brouhaha. Berkeley has a dandy little leftist governmental entity called, believe it or not, the Peace and Justice Commission. The Marine Corps is in charge of the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay on the island of Cuba. An American city chooses to insult, demean and ban a branch of the US military during a time of war. In order to complete its disloyal slap at America, the Berkeley City Council, acting on the recommendation of the Peace and Justice Commission, has decided to be the premier welcomer of "one or two Guantanamo Bay detainees and use city funds to assist them in resettling in Berkeley." Terrorists, yes. Marines, no.

Now settle down. As Al Jolson famously said, "you ain't seen nothin' yet." To make sure that nobody could mistake the intentions of the Commission and the Council, Commissioner Rita Maran says: "The idea is to invite to Berkeley the kind of people you'd like to have living next door to you, or dating your cousin." Maybe, if you like neighbors such as Jeffrey Dahmer or potential relatives like the Hillside Strangler. The Islamic terrorists likely to become the new mayor and chief of police of Berkeley are one Russian and one Algerian. The weasel-word of the feds is "cleared" and the weasel-words of the Commission are "they pose no threat to the United States." True enough, if they had been kept at Guantanamo.

"Cleared" means that the terrorists might not be convicted by a jury if they had been charged with civilian murders, committed on American soil, in a court using the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. It's another example of the left, and particularly the Obama administration, not understanding the rules of war, the Geneva Conventions, and the difference between civilian criminal charges and enemy combatants captured in a theater of war. And then there's that small detail of a Supreme Court gone mad allowing the right of habeas corpus for wartime detainees captured outside the United States who are not American citizens. A number of warriors for Allah have been "cleared" using habeas corpus, a procedure never even seriously considered by any previous Supreme Court.

What did the weak-spined Commander-in-Chief's own task force have to say about the 240 detainees at Guantanamo? Couched in words more elegant than mine, they determined that while some detainees may be deserving of transfer or conditional release outside the United States, none of them are innocent wandering clerics or schoolmarms. A prime example of a "cleared" detainee is Ahmed Ghailani, charged with being an active conspirator and agent of Al Qaeda in the 1998 US Embassy bombing. By the time the clever leftist legal eagles got done, he had been demoted from co-conspirator to "Osama bin Laden's cook."

That one worked so well that one of the future Berkeley residents went from being an enemy combatant to being a bookworm and a chef, who learned his high culinary art in Kabul, Afghanistan. The other has gone from being a terrorist trained at the Al Farouq terrorist training camp to being a Russian ballet dancer who experienced anti-Muslim sentiment, moved to a Muslim country, and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only people crazier than these guys are the fools in Berkeley who want to welcome them with open arms.

The Director of National Intelligence reported last December that 25% of released ("cleared") detainees have been subsequently confirmed to be back in the terrorism business (whether as chefs or ballet dancers is unclear). The Berkeley City Council may be gamblers, but I'm not. I am not going to be in charge of the welcome wagon for neighbors who have a 25% chance of slitting my throat as I'm heading out for church on Sunday.

And so I close with a quote from my favorite UC Berkeley law professor and former adviser to President Bush, John Yoo: "It's the perfect combination of futility and stupidity. It is futile because what happens to Gitmo detainees is up to the federal government. It is stupid because only Berkeley would want to be a magnet for resettlement of Gitmo detainees." I agree with Professor Yoo in principle, but I do want to point out that there is such a place as Ann Arbor, Michigan.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Revisiting the DOJ Guantanamo Lawyers

A few posts back, we reviewed some of the Obama appointees in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. There has also been a public debate about some of the DOJ appointees in the Division which will be charged with making the decisions about detainees at the Guantanamo facilities. There's little to be done about those already in place, but why is the Holder Justice Department so reticent to release information about those lawyers?

We've discussed the concept that the President ought to be allowed to have his appointees confirmed, but that there are limits to that political rule of thumb. As a conservative and retired attorney, I also explained why a lawyer generally ought not to be judged by the makeup of his clients. Several of the DOJ lawyers previously represented Guantanamo detainees, and I argued that this alone should not be a reason for delving into the past of those lawyers who are now in the DOJ. Having said all that, I have altered my opinion of the alleged "witch-hunt" against these DOJ lawyers. If their prior representation of the Gitmo detainees was mere advocacy, why is the Justice Department stonewalling on questions being asked about them?

As more information keeps leaking out, the story begins to change from mere representation to active pursuit of terrorist defendants chosen by some of those DOJ lawyers back when they were in private practice. When I first went into practice, an attorney could be disciplined for seeking out the particular business of a particular client, no matter how lofty the alleged cause or how noble the defendant. Bar rules have been relaxed so much over the years that such solicitation is not only allowed, but actively encouraged. Standing alone, then, the solicitation of terrorist clients at Guantanamo might raise a few patriotic eyebrows, but it's not forbidden.

Therefore, if it is valid to look into the credentials of lawyers in the DOJ who have represented terrorists in the past, it is more important to find out why they did it, and under what circumstances. As a followup question, there is the issue of just how ethical they were during the time they represented the detainees. Those questions are being raised, and some DOJ lawyers are coming up seriously wanting.

It's not unfair to look first at the potential defendants. Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and currently a writer for National Review describes them as follows: "They are anti-American, anti-Western, anti-capitalist, anti-individual liberty, pro-totalitarian, pro-collectivist and hold that American interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere, especially our military interventions, are exploitations of the Muslim world aimed at robbing its natural resources and spreading Western principles that are anathema to the indigenous culture." Anyone assigned to represent such people is doing a job (for most of us, an unpleasant job). But that doesn't explain lawyers who actively seek out such clients. Nor does it include leftist cause-chasers who represented domestic terrorists such as William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn (pals of Obama's).

Historically, America hasn't had much experience with radical lawyers representing foreign terrorists. But there is a similar pattern unrelated to terrorists which we have known about for many decades. We call them "mob lawyers." They don't just represent major criminal enterprises. They profit heavily from them, and in many instances are part of the very criminal enterprise they purport to be "merely defending." There seems to be a parallel emerging among the DOJ Obama/Holder appointees as to terrorists. Several of the lawyers (and some of their firms) said "Aha! There's a cause after our own hearts. Let's pack up those bags, grab our briefcases, and demand to be allowed to enter Guantanamo forthwith to represent those helpless freedom fighters against the persecution of the Bush administration lawyers." That's more than mere advocacy.

Before moving on to specifics, it's important to point out a couple of relevant facts. First, in all of American history, until we were greeted by the post-911 terrorists, nobody in the legal profession believed that persons captured on a battlefield had any rights beyond humane treatment as prisoners of war--until the war was over. In a strange lapse of judgment, the Supreme Court held for the very first time that such prisoners had the uniquely Anglo-American right to habeas corpus. Still, it only allowed for the detainees to demand a simple statement of the reason for their detention. If the government could show that the detainee was an armed combatant or allied with armed combatants on a foreign battlefield, that was that. Have a nice stay, we'll leave the lights on.

Which leads to the second point. If the government was unable to establish such a basis for the detention, or more importantly, if the detainee was charged as a terrorist, he was immediately entitled to defense counsel, as determined by the detaining authority, in a military tribunal. In other words, we don't allow people charged with crimes against humanity to go unrepresented in court. But to listen to the leftists, best represented by some of the lawyers now safely ensconced in the Obama/Holder Justice Department, those mass murderers would have been charged, tried and convicted without the assistance of able and competent counsel. Aw, hooey.

Those, like Liz Cheney, who are raising the alarm about some of the DOJ lawyers may or may not have purely political motives for questioning the bona fides of the DOJ lawyers who formerly represented terrorist detainees. But a cursory view of some of those attorneys has caused me to stop worrying about her motives and start worrying a lot more about the lawyers who will theoretically be prosecuting terrorists in the future.

Let's start with the leftist Center for Constitutional Rights. This group seeks out the most radical of lawyers in the big, well-funded liberal law firms to take on cases which stand peculiarly for changing America's long-established and long agree-upon rule of law and turn the Constitution on its head. The pickings were very good. Meet current Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal. As chief counsel for Al Qaeda kingpin Salim Hamdan, Katyal pulled out all the stops to convince the court that Hamdan was a low-ranking nonentity who was merely caught up in an overzealous military action. Never mind that Katyal knew (or had reason to know) that Hamdan was Osama bin Laden's personal driver and close confidant, and that Hamdan had surface-to-air missiles and anti-personnel IEDs under his personal control when captured.

The result was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 548 U.S. 557 (2006). For the first time ever, a prisoner of war was granted habeas corpus to challenge the basis of his incarceration. It didn't set Hamdan free, and after ruling that the Rumsfeld/Bush military tribunals had no Congressional authorization, the Court determined that sufficient grounds were found for his incarceration, but that until Congress passed enabling legislation, he could not be tried by the then-constituted military tribunals. Congress promptly passed the enabling legislation.

Still, Katyal is no bomb-throwing radical. He is actually largely pro-American, and though he is proposing special treatment for the Al Qaeda terrorists, what he has proposed is not at all outrageous. He wishes to establish a comprehensive system of preventive detention under the auspices of a national security court. I consider it to be another unneeded category of "prisoner of war," but the idea isn't entirely crazy. My objection to Katyal is that his rush to Guantanamo was unseemly, particularly since Hamdan was provided with able and competent counsel already. More importantly, I think Katyal's fairness is not consistent with his support for many of his fellows in DOJ who don't take such a favorable view of America and its courts. He was also far too enthusiastic about A.G. Holder's decision to start trying terrorists in civilian courts as if they were common criminals.

Holder tapped one of those radicals for a post at DOJ. Jennifer Daskal is now a prosecutor in the DOJ National Security Division. The idea of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse comes immediately to mind. Aside from her total lack of experience as a prosecutor at any level, Daskal earlier campaigned actively for the United Nations Human Rights Committee to condemn America for its waging of what she called "the so-called war on terrorism." She has written multiple treatises on how our "cloak of federalism" allegedly allows states to skirt international treaties by prosecuting terrorists on state or local charges which are sustainable on grounds other than the war on terrorism. She puts all terrorists and domestic violent criminals in the same category as "oppressed victims of an unfair legal system which puts them in 'supermax' prisons."

Daskal actively advocated for Al Qaeda agent Omar Khadr, who at age sixteen murdered an American soldier on the battlefield while the soldier was attempting to assist civilians in the area. Needless to say, Daskal's heart bled for the poor youthful offender. She also attempted to become an intervener in the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed case, claiming that the very-talkative terrorist was coerced into his confession by torture. After joining the DOJ, Daskal continued to advocate Mohammed's cause, and were it not for the angry outcry from the citizens of New York City, might have succeeded in getting him tried in a civilian court while suppressing all evidence obtained in the confession.

We've also had some close calls, and it may not be over yet. One attorney whose name was bandied about at DOJ for a post in the anti-terrorism unit is Julia Tarver Mason, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Early in the gold rush to Guantanamo, Mason and the firm represented eight separate Guantanamo detainees. The eight, plus four more detainees, had received attorney/client confidential legal mail from the firm. Such correspondence must contain only exchanges between the detainees and their lawyers regarding their legal cases, and must not discuss any details of the cases of any other detainees. Many of the detainees are not very bright, so at least one of them left the Paul, Weiss envelopes and contents out in his cell in plain view.

And what was in those mailings? A brochure prepared by Amnesty International, written in Arabic (which Mason doesn't speak or read), showing America as waging a campaign of torture against Muslims around the globe. It said: "One thread that runs through many of the testimonies from prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, and from Guantanamo is that of anti-Arab, anti-Islamic, and other racist abuse." Not exactly related to the specific detainees in question, nor particularly related to anything having to do with attorney/client privilege. Detainee Majeed Abdullah Al Joudi wasn't even coy when asked where the brochure came from. "I got it in the mail from my lawyer."

The action resulted in an investigation after which Guantanamo Major General Jay W. Hood expelled the attorneys from Guantanamo. That produced more habeas corpus petitions than anyone could have previously imagined. But the ultimate rule became that attorneys representing terrorists in the future must be carefully screened for national security purposes, and their activities monitored (not their conversations with the detainees).

During Paul, Weiss's massive legal attack on the Bush DOJ and America, suspicious activity did not cease. One lawyer was caught hand-drawing a map of a detention camp's layout, complete with guard towers and how to avoid them, and another attorney sending messages of support for their cause to detainees who were not his clients. Some lawyers were taking daily updated reports from the internet and passing them on to their clients and non-client detainees on IED attacks in Iraq while American soldiers were being blown up on a daily basis by just such IEDs.

When the tough rules for lawyers were relaxed in 2006, Mason and her team resumed their field trips to Guantanamo. At that time, three lawyers representing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators showed them photos of covert CIA officers, allegedly to find out if any of them were the operatives who had obtained information from them. The photos were then passed about willy-nilly to any defense attorney for detainees who wanted to see them. None of the names of these lawyers have been released, but it is not too hard to see why many reasonable people would want to know if any of the current DOJ lawyers or potential attorneys are among them.

The unnamed attorneys have come to be known as the "Al Qaeda 7" (some have even suggested there ought to be a "Notorious 9,") and A.G. Holder has absolutely refused to acknowledge if any of his DOJ attorneys are on that list, and if so, why he won't simply clear their names by answering "yes" or "no," and naming those for whom the answer is "yes." This could all end up being a tempest in a teapot. But once again, the Obama/Holder arrogant belief in their own righteousness, and dismissal of the legitimate concerns of the American people create a situation of extreme distrust. And right now, I want to know that my federal prosecutors are dedicated to serious pursuit of convictions for terrorist murderers.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guantanamo North?

There has been considerable buzz for months now over the idea of closing the Guantanamo Detention Facility and moving its dangerous inmates to the mainland, thereby giving them all the protections of a common American criminal, and then some. Opinions vary widely, and range from outright hatred of the idea to grudging acceptance. But one thing that was somewhat unexpected is the idea that an American city would openly embrace the idea of housing the terrorists and possible terrorists caught on foreign battlefields.

Meet Standish, Michigan. Michigan is known for having some of the largest Muslim enclaves in America, and therefore the largest potential for sleeper cells and radical mosques. But that plays next to no part in Standish's enthusiastic support for bringing the inmates to their hometown. Standish is a town of 1,500 people and is the county seat of a county with an unemployment rate of twenty-five percent. The county is, to be generous, impoverished. To add insult to injury, Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm recently announced that the only economic success in Standish is about to be closed, namely the Standish Maximum Correctional Facility. The facility funds nearly one-quarter of the city's budget and is the county's largest employer.

But in keeping with his promise of hope, the Obama administration announced on August 2 that Standish might yet be saved. Standish Maximum Security was one of two prisons under consideration for a transfer of inmates from Gitmo. The county's Republican state representative Tim Moore said: "First and foremost, our goal is to keep the prison open." The mayor of Standish as well as the maverick city manager, Michael Moran, are enthusiastic supporters of the idea. Moran said "If anybody did escape they'd have a surprise. We're a community of hunters." Moran was formerly an Air Force policeman. Even the Democratic representative in Congress supports the idea, as do both Michigan U.S. Senators. In the best tradition of making a bad situation feasibly successful, it seemed like the perfect solution--a president in search of a place to send terrorists and suspected terrorists (foreign combatants all) and a town willing to take them.

Now you know there has to be a spoiler here, don't you? And that spoiler appears in the form of one Pete Hoekstra, Republican Congressman from Michigan's 2nd District. Hoekstra is a walking gaffe. Hoekstra was a very public champion of a website which published highly scientific instructions on how to construct a nuclear weapon. He was the first to openly announce that large caches of nuclear and biological weapons had been found in Iraq during the invasion phase of the second Iraq war. On a "fact-finding" mission to Iraq this year, he endangered his fellows and the military by announcing the mission's whereabouts in a Twitter tweet.

Hoekstra has no concept of the difference between opposing an idea and sabotaging policy for the sake of headlines. His proposed "Keep Terrorists Out of American Act" has the support of many thinking Americans. "Nobody wants 240 of the world's most dangerous captured terrorists brought into their neighborhoods" he said. Apparently he forgot to check with the citizens of Standish and the surrounding county. He is incapable of understanding that once the decision has been made to transfer the prisoners to the mainland (if indeed it ever is made), then the right move is to make sure that they at least be detained in the optimum location.

In other words, sensible opposition to the prisoner relocation has become intransigence about where to place them if that decision to move them becomes final. The Hoekstra opposition seems to be more political than sensible. In office long after his pledge to term-limit himself had expired, Hoekstra has declared that he was giving up his seat in Congress in order to run for governor of Michigan. Granholm, a Democrat in a Democratic state, is legally term-limited. Granholm's likely successor for the Democratic nomination, Lieutenant Governor John Cherry, is considered to be Granholm's ideological soul-mate. Since her approval ratings are in the low 30s, his chances are far slimmer than would ordinarily be expected.

To gain support statewide, Hoekstra has demagogued the issue at Standish's expense. He argues that putting the facility in the existing Standish Maximum Security prison would "hurt Michigan economically (as if further damage were even possible) by dissuading businesses and tourists from coming to the state." And to really stir up the pot, he adds that a transfer would bring into the state "committed, hard-core radical jihadists who have sworn a religious oath to kill as many Americans as possible." That's pure fear-mongering. Everyone knows what these prisoners are, but how does that relate to the idea that once the decision has been made, they have to go somewhere, and Standish seems to be the best answer to an unpleasant question?

Hoekstra has managed to convince one of the locals. For no reason known by anyone in the area, Hoekstra held a private meeting with Standish tavern owner Dave Munson. Munson had gone to Washington to lobby for the facility, but after a meeting following a cocktail party during which Hoekstra "told him things that are very scary, and Hoekstra is privy to private information," Munson organized a rally to oppose the facility. Although it was intended to be local, the rally which was held on Wednesday drew about 200 people, almost all from areas outside of Standish.

Hoekstra spoke at the rally, declaring in his frequent gaffe-mode that "taking the prisoners would be like accepting the 40 pieces of silver Roman authorities gave Judas to betray Jesus (those of you who read your Bible know that it's 30 pieces of silver)." Other speakers invoked horror stories "invoking scenes of terrorists hurling bodily fluids, taking schoolchildren hostage, and detonating a bomb in the church where the rally was being held" as reported by staff editor Chris Bodenner of the Atlantic.com.

Statewide, the arguments against the facility will probably serve Hoekstra well. In the abstract, nobody in his right mind wants these fanatics anywhere in the United States. But the Standish solution seems viable and a way of providing a facility that may be inevitable by placing it in a location which badly needs it. And if Fox News is correct, this is turning into pure political grandstanding. In an unverified report, Fox news on September 28 cited an administration official claiming that Standish Max was no longer being considered. Though several administration officials have denied the report, Hoekstra told the Detroit News that he was 95% convinced it was true based on conversations his staffer had with Pentagon officials. The word we're getting through back channels is that it's unlikely that these folks are gonna come to Standish."

If the report is true, Hoekstra will claim credit for keeping them out, and his bid for the governor's chair will be enhanced, everywhere except in impoverished Standish. The citizens are so desperate, that they show up to donate blood largely in order to get the $20 gambling coupons offered to them by the Saginaw Chippewa Indian casino. As reported in The New Republic, "an older gentleman says that he only comes once or twice a year, 'just when I'm trying to help pay the light bill.'" Hoekstra seems determined to make that the last hope in Standish. "Maybe I'll win at the casino." Hoekstra seems to have learned his concept of "hope" from another famous politician.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Barack Doctrine: Status Quo, Status Quo Ante

Teddy Roosevelt walked softly and carried a big stick. James Monroe declared that the United States would not interfere in Europe, and warned Europe to stay out of the Americas. Harry Truman believed in containment, Jimmy Carter in human rights, and Ronald Reagan in engagement. . . trust but verify.

Is there a Barack Doctrine? Indeed there is. President Obama has shown repeatedly that he desires to vote “present” in foreign policy, and that his administration will toss aside all of their principles to maintain the status quo (as things are) or, where the status quo has been shattered, to return to the status quo ante (as things were).

Status Quo

During the campaign, candidate Obama spoke of engaging the world in dialog. He promised to improve America’s image and to defend human rights. He criticized modern soft-dictators like Chavez, who were elected as democrats, but ruled as tyrants, and he talked of breaking with the past. But that was then.
Observe that in each of the following instances, Obama subsumed his principles to maintain the status quo. . .

• China. . .

The first test for the young administration was China. Candidate Obama criticized China for its human rights, for their failure to fight intellectual piracy, for their suppression of Tibet, for the safety of their products, and for their currency manipulation. He swore he would hold their feet to the fire and might even ban some of their products.

But President Obama wants China to buy his debt. So his first official act was to send Hillary Clinton to bow and scrape and to assure China that he would never pressure them. When this was not enough, and China threatened to stop buying U.S. debt, Obama sent Tim Geithner to plead for the status quo.

• Russia. . .

Next came the Russians, who had invaded Georgia, cut off natural gas supplies to Europe, worked tirelessly to help Iran develop nuclear power, and threatened several NATO allies. Candidate Obama boldly proclaimed that he wouldn’t “shy away from pushing democracy, transparency, and accountability.”

His efforts to date? Obama sent Hillary Clinton with a gag gift (a reset button) and otherwise refrained from any actions that might upset Russia. End result: status quo maintained.

• India. . .

George Bush was roundly criticized by the left for allowing India to make a mockery of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under that Treaty, all signatories must withhold civilian nuclear technology from any regime that has not ratified the Treaty. Even though India refuses to sign the Treaty, Bush negotiated a deal with India, whereby the United States would transfer nuclear technology to India. Obama’s party called this despicable and said that it sends the wrong message to countries like Iran and North Korean.

President Obama claims that non-proliferation is a primary focus of his foreign policy. Yet, not only did he publicly state that he is “fully committed” to implementing the Bush deal, but Hillary Clinton even voiced the hope that this arrangement (which violates the Treaty) can “serve as the foundation of a productive partnership on non-proliferation.” Again, the status quo is preserved.

• North Korea . . .

Candidate Obama promised “sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy” to handle North Korea. He called for the strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the imposition of “strong international sanctions” against North Korea for any violation of United Nations resolutions. He even stated his belief that the United States needs a missile defense system to counter North Korea’s threat.

President Obama has warned that North Korea is a “grave threat” and said that he would “not tolerate” North Korea’s strategy of extracting rewards with belligerent behavior.

But beyond that, no amount of nuclear tests, missile tests, threats to rain a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation” on South Korea, or seized journalists has resulted in anything approaching a “strong sanction” or “sustained, direct, or aggressive diplomacy.” Again, Obama avoids disturbing the status quo.

• The Arab World. . .

The Arab world is a mess. The “good” countries are run by tyrannical dictators. The poorly run ones are run by the theologically insane. They support terrorism world wide and hate America for things we have never done and never will, and they use their hatred of America and claims of victimhood at our hands as a crutch to justify their own failures.

Candidate Obama told us that he was uniquely suited to travel to the Arab world and change this. Unlike honkus maximus, he could gain Arab sympathy. He was a fresh start, and that would let him set the record straight -- America has no interest in a crusade, he would proclaim, and all would be good.

President Obama traveled to Egypt, birth place of the Muslim Brotherhood (an old guard member of the terrorism fraternity) and home to a repressive Egyptian regime, and from his mouth did come the words: (and I paraphrase) “it’s not you. . . it’s us. We need to change. Give us time. Don’t do anything until I get back to you.” And thus, the status quo was preserved.

• Guantanamo Bay. . .

Candidate Obama promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and restore habeas corpus for the detainees before his rear hit the Oval chair. When President Obama learned this would cause problems, he opted for the status quo.

• Iraq. . .

Candidate Obama promised to “responsibly end the war in Iraq,” and to remove all U.S. troops by the end of 2009. President Obama plans to remove only “combat” troops, by the end of August 2010, though this will leave “30,000-50,000 troops in advisory roles.” Once again, he opts for the status quo.

Status Quo Ante

But what will Obama do when the genie has left the bottle and shattered the status quo? In that event, Obama’s policy becomes one of status quo ante -- the quest for the peace before. Thus, if you want to know which party Obama will support in any conflict, do not look for his stated principles, look to see who caused the issue to become of international interest, he will oppose that party.

• Iran. . .

Candidate Obama promised “tough, direct presidential diplomacy” with the Iranian regime to solve the misunderstanding that had vexed Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. He extended his open hand, and Iran spit in it. Obama quietly slunk off.
Then in 2009, after a rigged election, the people of Iran flooded their streets in a budding revolution akin to those that crushed the tyrants of Eastern Europe. Obama, the human rights candidate, the man who thought he could solve everything with words, found himself strangely silent. Indeed, he barely raised a peep as the regime shielded the eyes of the outside world and crushed their own people.

Why did he not even speak out for the protection of these people? After all of his talk about human rights and supporting democracy around the world, would it not seem to make sense that he would support the people of Iran? I would, except that it was the people attempting to overturn their government that were disturbing the status quo. It was their actions, not the rigged elections, which brought this issue to a head as an international issues, rather than just an intranational issue. Thus, he remained silent in the hopes of restoring the comfort of the status quo ante.

• Honduras. . .

The final piece of the puzzle came last week. Obama sided with the repressive regimes in China and Iran, so giving a quick nod to a “military junta” should be no big deal. But it was. Why? What was different? This “junta” was disrupting the status quo.

By arresting Zelaya and throwing him out of the country, the Honduras Supreme Court and military elevated their dispute with President Zelaya from an intranational issue to an international issue. It did not matter that Zelaya acted illegally or that he provoked the incident, or that the Honduran government acted in accordance with the rule of law. . . they forced the issue to rise to the level where Obama had to become involved. Thus, he chose the side of Zelaya, in the hopes of restoring the status quo ante, so that he could return to ignoring the country.

Whether you call Obama’s policy supporting the current world order or the policy of hope for no change, it is clearly guided by a strong desire to avoid anything that disrupts the status quo. And as this becomes more and more obvious, look for foreign governments to learn that they can exploit his desire to vote present to extract amazing concessions.

Indeed, this week, India and Russia both proposed ending the dollar’s status as a reserve currency. Neither country is likely serious because the effects would be disastrous on the vast reserves of dollars they hold, but it will get concessions from Obama.

Russia is demanding the scrapping of the Eastern Europe missile defense system and the abandonment by NATO of Georgia and the Ukraine. North Korea wants money. And everybody else is getting their wish lists ready. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

For Your Consideration

This appeared in the New York Post this morning. Maybe our legal eagles (or Hawks) can shed some light on the last paragraph. Is this as ominous as it appears to be? Let's discuss...

Bam's new Gitmo flip

- Washington- The White House is considering issuing an executive order to indefinitely imprison a small number of current Guantanamo Bay detainees considered too dangerous to prosecute or release, two administration officials said yesterday.

No final decision has been made about the order, which would be the fourth major mandate by President Barack Obama to deal with how the United States treats and prosecutes terror suspects and foreign fighters.

One of the the officials said the order, if issued, would not take effect until
Oct. 1.

Congress has blocked the administration for spending money this year to imprison the detainees in the United States.

The administration also is considering asking Congress to pass new laws that would allow the indefinite detentions, the officials said. - AP

-New York Post 6/25/2009 Page 14

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bums Away--Obama Clears Gitmo

With the rebellion going on in Iran, North Korea going nuclear and threatening to launch a missile toward Hawaii, a possible confrontation on the high seas, and narco-war on our southern borders, let's concentrate on something truly important. We have to get those innocent victims of American oppression out of the Guantanamo Detention Center. For those with small screens, the legend on the cartoon reads "Releasing the Gitmo Inmates."

In attempting to keep one of his campaign promises, President Obama has sought out places to distribute the detritus of the battlefields of Jihadistan. So far, he has bribed the island of Palau to take some of the prisoners at a cost that could get you and your entire extended family a nice stay in the best hotels in the world for a couple of decades or so. And now, he is giving some more innocents a stay on the island of Bermuda. Bermuda is a member of the British Commonwealth, so naturally we used our finest diplomacy in informing our ally of the proposed move and gaining their consent before jetting the detainees to a favorite vacation site for New Yorkers, right? Wrong.

These detainees were not Arabs, nor did they expect to get 72 virgins for their efforts. They were "victims of Chinese oppression." And they claim they weren't making war on America, so why not release them to a beautiful resort in the Atlantic? There are a couple of small problems with that concept. These fine upstanding gentlemen are "Uighurs." China may have a small interest in "oppressing" them, since they are both Muslim and jihadist, and have been stirring up a little fun within China. They were captured on the battlefield as they were leaving their al Qaeda terrorist training camps in the section of Afghanistan still controlled by the resurgent Taliban. The whole "terrorist relocation program" is expected to run as much as $1 billion dollars (which is an administration estimate, and no doubt low by a factor of 2). That should help out with the economic crisis.

Since there has been absolutely no MSM negative reaction to the program, the administration sees no problem with moving forward on a program that could have waited, oh--say, five years. In fact, the MSM has been touting the Uighurs as harmless high-spirited gentlemen who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. We all know that foreign nationals frequently happen to wander into war zones by sheer happenstance. And since they are from China, it's somewhat of a mystery why the Chinese would not accept them back on their soil. Yeah, right. Basically, as usual, the MSM is simply parroting the talking points coming out of the White House. And after their arrival in Bermuda, the fun-loving Uighurs were pictured by the press body-surfing, fishing and generally having a grand time in the warm waters.

So watching that on our TVs is a little annoying for most of us, but at least the Brits have joined in the fun, haven't they? Well, the British, to put it mildly, are ticked. No diplomatic avenues were opened. No consent was asked or given. Neither the crown nor the governor of Bermuda was informed of the arrival of the guests until just before the plane touched down. There was also the American promise to the Uighurs of British citizenship, of which the British government knew nothing. The Brits are thrilled by the idea of British Muslim terrorists being free to move about the Commonwealth. After all, London doesn't have nearly enough fun-loving Muslims. Republicans are regularly accused by liberals of thinking they can buy their way out of anything. But even cowboy W. wouldn't have made the mistake of thinking that the only thing to come out of this arrogant act would be a large hotel bill.

Andrew Price did an excellent article on this a few days back. More information has come to us since that time, but the real story is the complete lack of interest the MSM has shown in another major diplomatic misfire by the Obama administration. Obama has lied and waffled on multiple promises to the American people, but he decided he would keep this promise to satisfy his leftist base, and to hell with national security or our relations with our oldest ally. And the MSM just keeps on pumping out cute photo stories about how much fun the Uighurs are having in the Bermuda surf.

This administration has spent countless hours, countless miles, and countless sums of money to assure that every diplomatic channel is opened and enhanced in the Muslim world. The MSM has hailed that as the arrival of the new Pax Americana headed by the greatest American since, well, ever. Bowing to the Saudi King is good diplomacy. Apparently, so is slapping the British Queen in the face--at least three times in less than a month.

And now the MSM is praising Obama for his finger-wagging "naughty naughty" message to the Iranian imams and the loathsome Ahmadenijad. But the MSM is also praising the President for his brilliant and forward-looking message being sent via Twitter. The glorification of form over substance has mesmerized the press and TV. At least now we'll get the Presidential propaganda hot off the presses since ABC has moved into the White House.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bermuda Love Triangle Gone Wrong

President Obama is man of few skills. But there is one skill in which he truly excels. . . angering the British. He’s done it again.

As you may recall, there are currently 17 Uyghurs residing at Guantanamo Bay. . . that is to say, there were.

Earlier this month, the United States obtained the agreement of the president of Palau, Mr. Johnson Toibiong, to take thirteen of these gentlemen off our hands for the minor sum of $200 million. Why he could not take all seventeen is not known. Perhaps the Palau Hilton was full? Perhaps Palauan President Toibiong didn’t like the fruit basket? We don’t know. But we do know that this left Team Obama with the little problem of four unwanted Uyghurs.

The brain trust charged with handling this delicate situation are named Greg Craig and Daniel Fried, two senior level Obama advisors who have been assigned the task of dispersing the inmate at Gitmo, giving new meaning to the barman’s call: “You don’t have to go home. . . but you can’t stay here.”

So what did Team Obama come up with? No, they didn’t just drive them to a rest stop in Cuba and shove them out the door. They flew them to Bermuda, and set them free.

Now, don’t think for a moment that they did this without the permission of Bermuda’s Premier, Ewart Brown. No, they weren’t that crass.

And don’t worry, there was no dirty deal. Bermuda was simply “playing the Good Samaritan in recognition of its 400 year friendship with the United States,” said Brown. The fact that 78% of the island’s income comes from financial services, an industry now owned by Mr. Obama, or that 90% of Bermuda’s tourist industry is dependent on the United States had nothing to with this, or so we are assured.

Nevertheless, Fried and Craig got them quite a good deal. Premier Brown not only agreed to let them settle in Bermuda, but he agreed to let these Uyghurs become naturalized citizens -- a right not even held by many persons born on the island itself.

So why would this upset Britain? Well, there seems to be some vague relationship between Britain and Bermuda. Indeed, Bermuda is considered a British Overseas Territory. Thus, Bermuda’s head of state is the Queen of England, and all matters related to foreign policy and/or security, which includes immigration, fall under the purview of the Governor of Bermuda, Sir Richard Gozney.

And here’s the kicker. . . Team Obama never told anyone in the British Government they were doing this until it happened. Read that again.

This is a major diplomatic slight, equivalent to Britain negotiating a secret treaty with the Mayor of Kansas City. Naturally, the British are quite upset. Whitehall officials are privately accusing Team Obama of treating Britain “with barely disguised contempt.” Said one senior British official:

"The Americans were fully aware of the foreign-policy understanding we have with Bermuda and they deliberately chose to ignore it. This is not the kind of behavior one expects from an ally."

Moreover, the British now face a very real problem. Remember that promise of citizenship? That will give these Uyghurs the right to travel to the UK and to apply for British citizenship. Thus, while they can still be denied entry to the United States, they cannot be denied entry to the United Kingdom. Take that you dirty Brits.

But wait, there’s more. After the British became upset, Team Obama lied about informing the British. Indeed, Team Obama trotted out zombified-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to claim that she discussed the transfer with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in what she described as “an uneasy conversation.” Really? “Guess what we’re about to do to you!” I wonder how that conversation ended?

Britain, however, denies this, as does Bermuda Governor Gozney who stated, “We were only told this morning.”

United States official, speaking off the record, seemed to concede this point with their defense: “We did talk to them before the Uyghurs got on the plane.” As does Premier Ewart Brown, who himself described the talks that led to this as “private and somewhat restricted.”

And like that, the love between America and Britain vanishes without a trace. . . another victim of the Bermuda Love Triangle.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...