Out to Lunch...

Conservative Prof here, sitting in for the Liberal JAG. He's going to be away from the blog for a while, at an undisclosed (but work-related) location. As you know, he's opposed to the war. However, he is doing his sworn duty despite that fact, and that integrity is one of the reasons I love him (you know, like a Viking!).

So anyway, keep him in your thoughts and prayers, and look forward to when he comes home safely and begin hectoring those of us on the right again. I know I will.

-CP

Jonah Goldberg

Libs, hold your nose, we're going to discuss an article from the National Review, graciously forwarded by Conservative Prof.

Most of it I did have to hold my nose on - say the first 13 paragraphs. But then Goldberg goes on to kinda criticize the president. Not in the, hey your policies were terrible, kind of way, but more in the, well if he'd just played a little nicer with those bad, bad Democrats, things would have been a lot better, kind of way. For instance, rather than saying that warrantless wiretapping is bad, in and of itself, he says

If we are in a generations-long battle against an existential foe, then you can’t define domestic success as merely steamrolling this or that amendment to the FISA law through Congress. You need to define success as making such reforms uncontroversial. Better to have things be a little more difficult for the CIA, have a bit more oversight at the FBI, if in exchange Democrats see this as their war too.

well actually he doesn't really touch on the fact that the administration wiretapped without warrants and when discussions arose early on about changing FISA, the adminstration said we didn't need to change it and also the fact that the president assured the public that wiretaps of Americans did include warrants, when he knew they didn't--but hopefully you get my point.

And then there's this excerpt

This might sound unfair, but if George Bush had been a better president, John Edwards would never have dreamed of calling the war on terror nothing but a bumper sticker. As it stands right now, if any Democratic candidate other than Joe Biden or maybe Hillary Clinton (!) gets elected we will bug out of Iraq so precipitously it will be indistinguishable from abject defeat in the eyes of the world. And under any of them, the war on terror will become a glorified Elliot Spitzer style legal campaign. That is not a sign that President Bush has adequately led the country or prepared it for the struggles ahead.

First, if Bush had been a better president, the fight never would have been put in terms of a war on a tactic, so Edwards definitely would not have needed the bumper sticker quote. Second, memo to Jonah, in the eyes of the world, it's already an abject defeat. They'd view a withdrawal as the first step in our 12 step recovery from neoconaholism.

The curious case of the smuggled underwear

and speedos? More goings on at Guantanamo in this article by the Independent. Here's a little snapshot about one of the detainees

The second detainee accused of wearing the contraband underwear is a juvenile named Mohammed El Gharani, a Chad national, who was just 14 years old when he was seized by the Pakistani authorities and sold to the US military.
Reprieve say there is no evidence that Mohammed ever travelled to Afghanistan, nor that he intended to do so. Nevertheless, he is now one of 20 juveniles Reprieve has identified as being held in Guantanamo Bay. In interviews with his lawyers he claims he has been terribly abused, including having a cigarette stubbed out on his arm by an interrogator. He states that much of the abuse stems from his vocal objection to being called a "nigger" by US military personnel.

Quote of the day

Stolen from Political Wire...

"The President has been allowed to spy on Americans without a warrant, and our U.S. Senate is letting it continue... You know something is wrong when the New England Patriots face stiffer penalties for spying on innocent Americans than Dick Cheney and George Bush."-- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, quoted by NBC News.

Wiretapping only with a warrant, please

So say 64% of Americans anyway. So it's not just us dirty fucking hippies, I guess.

Muslims v. Christians and The Existential Threat

In light of previous posts and comments on these issues, I want to link approvingly to a couple of articles from Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com. He's had 2 posts which talk about the double standard in dealing with christians versus muslims in this country the last couple of days, stemming from the Kathy Griffin incident. As many of you know, Kathy Griffin won an Emmy for some show (I think it's her D-list show, but that doesn't really matter). Her acceptance speech, at least in part was:

"A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus," an exultant Griffin said, holding up her statuette. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now."

So Glenn has had 2 posts on the topic, yesterday's "Selective defenders of free expression" and today's "Jamie Kirchick's fantasies of the grave Muslim threat."

In the first post, Glenn points out the hypocrisy of the right's fighting for not allowing Griffin's statement to be broadcast and then exulting in the fact of their successful fight, as compared to the furor over publication of some cartoons which supposedly insulted Mohammed (when they were indignant that such cartoons absolutely, positively should be published - how could they not be?)

The second post points out Jamine Kirchick's statement

The perpetually-outraged Donohue does have a salient point, though I'm not sure he was conscious of making it: There certainly "would have been a very different reaction" had Griffin said, "Suck it, Muhammad." Not only would the liberal PC police be after her head (figuratively), but she would have a fatwa placed on her head (literally), would be placed under 24-hour armed guard and would have to limit any public appearances, if even make them at all. In other words, the Rushdie treatment.
That a comedian cannot make an innocent joke with the word "Muhammad" in it out of fear of getting killed -- and not a supposed ban on "blasphemy" against Catholics, who don't, as a matter of course, burn effigies, destroy buildings, or murder people when someone says or writes something they don't like -- seems to be the larger outrage.

and then goes on to show the irrationality of her "literal fear" by pointing out the many instances of well-known people taking on or otherwise offending islam, yet somehow not having a fatwa placed on their heads or needing 24-hour guard.

I thought he put a good stamp on the article with the following:

Their need to victimize themselves and demonize some Enemy is impossible to overstate. American Muslims live in isolated enclaves, with their communities far and away the most common targets of all the new surveillance powers Kirchick and his comrades have vested in the federal government. There is a grand total of 1 Muslim member of Congress out of 535.
By contrast, entire television networks and talk radio shows and huge political blogs and our country's dominant political party are devoted to a platform of opposing Islam. Yet in Kirchick's mind, it is Muslims who are the all-powerful, oppressing faction, while he and his friends live in tragic oppression under the tyrannical rule of the "liberal PC police" and violent Islamic armies who punish any anti-Islamic commentary, with stigma if not with beheadings. As his comments yesterday demonstrate, that really is the world he inhabits.
They freely traffic on a daily basis in the most strident anti-Muslim commentary with no consequences of any kind, yet simultaneously insist, with operatic melodrama, that anyone who does so is subject to fatwas and must live in seclusion, fearing for their lives. And, of course, whole new wars -- as well as endless expansions of government power -- are justified, actually compelled, by these imaginary threats.

I realize this post may actually touch on 2 ideas, but since the Kathy Griffin story was the genesis for both, I guess I'll go with it. On the first, I agree with Greenwald, who thinks both the Mohammed cartoons and Griffin's comments should have seen the light of day. It's a matter of free expression for me and both sides ought to see that.

On the second, obviously this is a topic heard before on this blog and I agree with Greenwald's take on the irrational fear that folx on right have for muslims. I'm not sure I'm going to get anywhere by making the point that the so-called "islamofascists" are actually a teeny, tiny subset of all of the practitioners of islam and that the fear ought to be focused more on folx that actually are terrorists, rather than, you know, just adherents of a religion.

Notice how Gen (ret) Colin Powell, in an interview with GQ magazine, refers to the threat in terms of terrorism, not muslims. Also notice how he doesn't even see terrorism as the greatest threat facing us.

Isn’t the new global threat we face even more dangerous?

What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?

I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the great opportunities out there—ones that we can take advantage of? It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists.

Where does the Right Wing draw the line in political debate?

Evidently, somewhere in the realm of Ronald Reagan.

So first there was a diary posted at DailyKos that was bumped to the front page by one of the editors. It offended by stating:

So is Osama bin Laden truly "evil?" Most people who lost family members at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 would probably consider him to be evil. Was President Ronald Reagan evil? Most residents of Beirut who lost family members when the USS New Jersey rained 2,700 pound Mark 7 shells on residential neighborhoods in 1983 during the Lebanese Civil War probably considered Reagan to have been evil. Bottom line? Bin Laden is no more evil than other revolutionary leaders in other times or even than ordinary national leaders who propel their countries to war for "national honor," or to acquire the resources of others, or even to "do good."

One offended person on the right, Bill Hobbs, considered that this post meant

To translate Kos-speak: Osama bin Laden isn't a terrorist, he's a freedom fighter. And Reagan wasn't a freedom fighter - he was a terrorist.

You can also tell he's really mad that Reagan was compared to bin Laden because of the following paragraph:

DailyKos' attempt to assert moral equivalence between a terrorist leader who masterminded the slaughter of thousands of innocents while aiding a regime that slaughtered women for showing an angle or wearing lipstick and a former American president whose tireless efforts lead to the freedom of millions from Soviet oppression is disgusting.

Actually, when I read the whole article, I see someone who sees bin Laden as "a serious and wily adversary who knows how to manipulate the Arab "street." He analyzes bin Laden's statement out of concern that people will underestimate him simply because he is viewed as being "crazy" or "evil." Seeing that and looking back at the offending paragraph, I see an author who is pointing out different perspectives on how a person can be viewed as "evil," even when that person's supporters might view that person as a hero.

I'm not arguing I agree with everything the guy says, but I definitely agree with his overall aim - to examine the statements of someone who might be considered to be an enemy of the U.S. Still, it's interesting how folx on the right allow themselves to make similar comparisons, such as comparing Al Gore to Hitler or calling John Kerry a traitor, but are then so offended when someone criticizes Reagan or General Petraeus.

Maybe the title of this post should be One-sided rules of political debate, as is Glenn Greenwald's. I quite agree with the points he made in that article, like:

The right-wing site "American Thinker" -- proudly included on Fred Thompson's short blogroll, among most other places on the Right -- published an article in 2005 entitled "Is Jack Murtha a Coward and a Traitor?" (answer: "Any American who recommends retreat is injuring his own country and calling his own patriotism into question"). Here is John Hinderaker of Powerline -- Time's 2004 Blog of the Year -- on our country's 39th President (and, unlike the non-serving Hinderaker, a former Naval officer): "Jimmy Carter isn't just misguided or ill-informed. He's on the other side."
When Howard Dean pointed out (presciently) in December of 2005 that the Iraq War cannot be won, Michael Reagan called for Dean to "be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war," and the next day, on Fox News, alongside an approving Sean Hannity, he said: "I have no problem at all, no problem at all, with what this guy is doing, taking him out and arresting him."

He ends with:

But as petty as the story is [referring to the moveon.org ad story], it is also revealing. It has been perfectly fine for decades to impugn the patriotism of those who think the U.S. should stop invading and bombing other countries (how could anyone possibly think such a thing unless they hate America?), while it is strictly forbidden to do anything other than pay homage to the Seriousness and Patriotism of those who advocate wars. Hence, the very people who routinely traffic in "unpatriotic" and even "treason" rhetoric towards the likes of Jack Murtha, John Kerry and war opponents generally feign such pious objection to the MoveOn ad without anyone noticing any contradiction at all.

Appeals Court Vacancies

One of the main reasons I will vote for a Democrat - any Democrat - over a Republican for president is because of how the judicial vacancies have been filled by the current administration and the fact that a future Republican administration would likely do it the same way.

Here's a link to Carpetbagger Report with an article on the most recent incident in this area. Boil it down to the following: Traditionally, a senator from the state where a vacancy is located will get a chance to vet a potential nominee in their state. In this case, the 4th Circuit is located in Virginia. 5 of the 15 seats in the 4th Circuit are vacant. The Republican and Democratic Senators from Virginia, Warner and Webb, agreed on a list of 5 candidates considered qualified and confirmable. Nice bi-partisan solution, right? If you really care about filling the seats with qualified folx, seems easy to choose someone one of your Republican senators has signed off on, eh? Not good enough for the current administration, though. Instead, the president selected 2 guys not on the list, never been judges, both members of the Federalist Society and one was affiliated with the Landmark Legal Foundation, an organization known for nominating Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize.

So rather than actually getting something done, the administration would rather pick a fight in order to be able to play some political games and/or rile up its right wing base.

Does Osama deserve due process of law?

I believe even the worst people deserve this - even Osama. So hat's off to Fred Thompson for saying so as well (via Crooksandliars). I also learned that Fred doesn't really go to church all that much. Maybe I really need to give this sexy guy another look?

A Priceless photo side-by-side on Fred Thompson

It's hilarious. Go check it out.

Military slimes Democratic Members of Congress

Here's a link to the WaPo article. Kinda shameful, but at the same time, the PA folx I've known would never do this kind of thing

Interview with Senator Lindsey Graham

I would not normally link to a war-cheerleader site like the National Review, but Senator Graham is about the most high-profile AF JAG out there, so it's interesting to see some of the things he says. I have to say I'm a little intrigued and a little disturbed by what I read. I admit I don't have first hand info on some of things he says, but I do have a little insight I'd like to share.

First, the interviewer points out

His time spent in-country is hardly “the dog and pony show” suggested by Democrat Sen. (and former Marine officer) James Webb on Meet the Press. Graham has worked in Iraq’s backcountry, and he’s been heavily involved in that country’s fledgling judiciary and penal/reconciliation systems

The interviewer also notes that he met the "uniformed and armed Graham last month while having lunch at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad."

First off, Graham was in Iraq, as I understand, on his 2 week reserve tour. A far cry from the 15 months that soldiers and marines pull over there and not even comparable to the 4 or 6 months that Airmen do. Second, even a regular JAG over there is actually in very little actual danger. Of course it's a war zone, but JAGs are almost always in a support or HQ position which is relatively safe. It ain't convoy duty. Furthermore, we're talking about a senior JAG who also happens to be a U.S. Senator. C'mon dude.

Next take this exchange:

W. THOMAS SMITH JR: How many prisoners do we currently hold in Iraq? SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: We’ve got 21,000 prisoners at Camp Bucca [the detainee facility in southern Iraq near the Kuwaiti border], the theater internment facility. We’ve got another few thousand at Camp Cropper near Baghdad. Three or four years ago, we were projecting to have fewer than 2,000 prisoners. At this rate, we’ll have 30,000 easily by the end of the year.

Two things here: First, holy crap are we holding a lot of prisoners. I'm very disturbed by the numbers we're holding. Second, look at how he projects the numbers to grow. I just don't know a lot about this issue, but I'm going to endeavor to find out.

I'm also very interested in the reasons for the detentions. Senator Graham talks about this a little:

One of my concerns has been — and I’ve been working on this since April — is what kind of process is required to hold someone indefinitely? We’ve got people who have been there for three-and-a-half years. Until recently, they’d never seen a panel. Never had a hearing. It was all done by paper file reviews. They were security detainees, and under the U.N. and article 78 of the Geneva Convention, an occupying force can detain people either in their homes or in an internment facility to protect the population as a whole. A couple years ago, however, we changed our status from being occupiers to allies. Occupation has ended, but we were holding these people as if we were still occupiers.So we needed a process that the U.N. couldn’t undercut — a bilateral process between us and the Iraqis — if we were going to hold these people for years, and some of them we may have to.

Where do I start? So Senator Graham is working on a process to hold someone indefinitely? How exactly is that working to instill the rule of law in a country we're supposedly trying to democratize? And he says that we've been holding people for 42 months as security detainees as an occupying force, but then he also says we stopped being an occupying force about 24 months ago. He makes it sound like we changed something to adjust, but doesn't say exactly what. From reading his remarks, I suspect we did some sort of paperwork transfer to "Iraqi control," but that it's still U.S. soldiers doing the holding. Oh yeah and we only needed to make this change because otherwise the evil U.N. would "undercut" us.

Congressman found dead was a former JAG

Hey, that's the AF Times/AP headline to the article - not mine. Moment of silence for a dearly departed former AF JAG.

Haditha Marine JAG censured by Secretary of Navy

Not much to comment here. Looks like Col. Robert G. Sokoloski, former chief of staff of 2nd Marine Division (Forward) and staff judge advocate general for the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Lejeune, has received a letter of censure from the Secretary of the Navy, Donald Winter. Two other senior officers involved in the incident received such letters, which are

expected to end the military careers of the three officers. When they file for retirement, their request will be reviewed by Winter, who will determine if they will retire at their current ranks or at the last rank at which they served satisfactorily, Marine officials said.

The Republican Credo

Here's a line I heard from Bill Maher that pretty much sums up the Republican Credo in appealling to their base. "We'll kill or deport anyone that scares you." It fits perfectly.

Potemkinskaya Derevnya, aka Potemkin Village

I wanted to highlight a few articles which kind of have a thread running through them. Via Carpetbagger Report, I came across an article from the Washington Post which used the title term in reference to a market in Iraq which is, as a true Potemkinskaya Derevnya (I don't get to show off my russian very often), just a show piece. The article points out

The U.S. military hands out $2,500 grants to shop owners to open or improve their businesses. The military has fixed windows and doors and even helped rebuild shops that had burned down, soldiers and others said...
Some shopkeepers said they would not do business in the market without U.S. support. "The Americans are giving money, so they're opening up stores," said Falah Hassan Fadhil, 27, who sells cosmetics.
1st Lt. Jose Molina, who is in charge of monitoring and disbursing the grant money, said the U.S. military includes barely operating stores in its tally. "Although they sell dust, they are open for business," said Molina, 35, from Dallas. "They intend to sell goods or they may just have a handful of goods. But they are still counted."

Carpetbagger Report notes that before the war this market had 850 shops and now it has 349 (based on the dubious counting referenced above).

Then there's another article, not about the market, but about another kind of Potemkinskaya Derevnya, the dog and pony show. Carpetbagger links to the video of Wolf Blitzer calling a Republican congressman on his talking points of evidence of how the surge is working. The congressman cites the fact that he could walk down the street in Fallujah, but Wolf points out that he did it with a "platoon of Marines" and "a platoon of Marines is a lot of Marines." Just so you know, here's what a platoon of Marines looks like:

In the United States Marine Corps, platoons are commanded by a platoon commander, usually Second Lieutenant,even though the position is intended for a First Lieutenant. The billet of Platoon Sergeant is a position intended for a Gunnery Sergeant, but it is often is held by a Marine ranking from Corporal to Gunnery Sergeant. In Marine infantry units, referred to as regiments, rifle platoons usually consist of three rifle squads of 13 men each, usually lead by a Sergeant or Corporal, with a Navy corpsman, a Platoon Commander, and a Platoon Sergeant. Each squad is further divided into 3 fireteams. Each fireteam consist of 4 marines lead by a fireteam leader, usually a Corporal or Lance Corporal. Each fireteam consists of a rifleman with M16A4, fireteam leader with M16A4 and M203 grenade launcher attachment, an automatic rifleman with a M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon), and an assistant automatic rifleman that carries a M16A4 and the extra barrels and ammo drums for the automatic rifleman. A weapons platoon replaces the 3 squads with a 60 mm mortar section, an assault section, and a medium machine gun section (using M240G 7.62 mm machine guns).

Due Credit to Mike Huckabee; Fred Thompson shenanigans

Many on the left, including Kos himself, have previously said that Mike Huckabee would be a formidable opponent for Democrats were he to get the GOP nomination. Certainly there's really no chance I'd vote for him over a Democrat. I'd say he's a little too inclined to play to the evangelical right. And he did say at one of the Republican debates that he does not believe in evolution. But to his credit he has recently made some statements which would tend to bolster his credibility. First, although it was a backhanded slap at some of his rivals for the nomination, he gave props to the Clintons for the fact that they made it through their marital difficulties still married. Considering the hypocrisy on the Right to try to stand for something like traditional family values, Huckabee seems to be walking the walk if he can give credit to the Right's Democratic punching bags (the Clintons) for having some of those values.

And then today I saw an article that Huckabee would support giving D.C. a vote in Congress for the very rational reason of

it "doesn't seem right" that citizens should pay taxes without representation and that its political impact on the parties' balance in the House "doesn't change whether it is right or wrong."

Almost makes me scared that he could be on the ticket in '08. But we are talking about the Republicans here, right? The ones holding out hopes that Fred Thompson, who is scared to debate in New Hampshire on September 5 and who is delaying his candidacy announcement until 12:01 a.m. on September 6 so that he can effectively avoid the requirement to be open about his finances until January 31, 2008. Real upstanding.

Based on the juxtaposition of these points, I'm much less worried about going against Thompson (especially with Clinton as the nominee) than I am with Huckabee.

KY ANG recruting JAGs

Here's the story. But when they say,

Positions in the Kentucky Army National Guard are traditional "mobilization day" slots, which requires attending drill two days a month and annual training two weeks a year.

I'd check the fine print to figure out when the next rotation to Iraq is.

Executive Order on torture

This is a very good post talking about the President's recent Executive Order, freeing up the CIA potentially to use "highly coercive, non-Geneva compliant interrogation techniques." If the post and articles referenced therein are correct, then a big bravo zulu should again go out to the senior service JAGs who are working behind the scenes to try and ensure that the U.S. keeps to its international legal obligations.

Of course it says something that the JAG leaders are still appealling to Republicans, rather than Democrats.

It is a good measure of the depth of current concerns that the JAG leaders have turned, yet again, to the three senior Republicans on the Armed Services Committee with an appeal to override a presidential decision. It’s not the first time this happened. And on earlier cases, the White House has responded with ferocious and vindictive attacks on officers involved. But those are stories to be developed at a later date.

Maybe it's because the president is Republican? Or because the military leaders feel more comfortable dealing with their ideological brethren? Hopefully over time those senior JAGs will be able to talk to senior Democrats. And it'll be because both of these things were fixed.

Ban Islamic Chaplains in the Military?

Here's a comment thread that's somewhat interesting on the title topic. The genesis of the comments seems to have been a radio discussion by Don Brown, a former Navy JAG and now, evidently, a christian author.

The basis of his argument seems to be that we are at war with Radical Islam (his capitals, not mine) and, therefore we can't

fund its propaganda ministers in the form of military chaplains to espouse a philosophy that calls for killing Christians and Jews, to stand in the midst of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and not only espouse their anti-American philosophies, but actually recruit service members into it?

He dismisses the "fairness" of his idea by saying

Although that may not seem “fair,” “fair,” is irrelevant in the military.

I think he misses the boat on the fairness argument. It's not about fairness to the military members so much, but rather that an arm of the government would be specifically excluding a major religion from service that all other major religions can participate in. That's an issue of fairness to the country and 1st Amendment, not just the million or so Americans that wear a uniform.

You know, in my experience, chaplains in the military are more counselors than they are propagandists for their actual religion. They are compassionate, well-meaning folx who just try to get young Americans through tough times when they arise. As a defense counsel, chaplains are useful because they have legal privilege for my clients that the base mental health counselors do not. Other than that, my personal need for them is zero and the military could probably work something that would get rid of all of them. But I think it's a bad idea to say we should exclude muslim chaplains as a rule. Stupid ideas like that make me glad Mr. Brown is an Ex-JAG.

Retired Navy and Marine JAG Generals join call to grant detainees access to the U.S. Court System

From an article in the Guardian, they are: Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, the senior legal advisor for the Marine Corps from 1985-88; Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter the Navy's judge advocate general from 2000 to 2002; and Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000.

These retired Generals have joined a number of U.S. and European diplomats urging the Supreme Court grant Guantanamo detainees full access to the U.S. court system.

The article points out that

the 355 detainees have only narrowly structured appeal rights. They are entitled to a single civilian court review of their status as enemy combatants, a designation made by three-member military panels. The detainees have no legal counsel before the military panels, which rely largely on classified information that the detainees are not allowed to see.

The Generals, in their filing to the high court, said:

The panels, called Combatant Status Review Tribunals, have been tainted by the permissible use of evidence obtained by torture...If the United States holds prisoners indefinitely - potentially lifetime imprisonment - based on sham CSRT proceedings and without providing meaningful judicial review of their imprisonment, enemies in current or future conflicts may use that as an excuse to mete out similar treatment to captured American military forces.

I echo the sentiment, but wish some senior former JAGs from the AF and Army had joined the fight.

Judge Michael Mukasey speaks on Jose Padilla

Conservative Prof sent me a link to an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal that I felt the need to make a few comments on.

I'm on record as being in favor of full up criminal trials for all the alleged terrorists, rather than just for American citizens. But in a discussion such as this, it's probably important to make a distinction between the two. But throughout this article, Judge Mukasey conflates the status of the American citizen Jose Padilla, with that of the rest of the detainees who are facing trial (assumedly by Military Commission). In fact, he barely mentions it.

The title of his piece is "Jose Padilla Makes Bad Law." And it's an axiom that, in our system of common law where a judge's precedent can bind future judges on the same or similar facts, that "bad facts make bad law." Therefore, it's kind of ironic that the only mention of the fact that Jose Padilla is an American citizen is found in this brief section:

The unlawful combatant designation affixed to Padilla certainly was not unprecedented. In June 1942, German saboteurs landed from submarines off the coasts of Florida and Long Island and were eventually apprehended. Because they were not acting as ordinary soldiers fighting in uniform and carrying arms openly, they were in violation of the laws of war and not entitled to Geneva Conventions protections.
Indeed, at the direction of President Roosevelt they were not only not held as prisoners of war but were tried before a military court in Washington, D.C., convicted, and--except for two who had cooperated--executed, notwithstanding the contention by one of them that he was an American citizen, as is Padilla, and thus entitled to constitutional protections. The Supreme Court dismissed that contention as irrelevant.

This seems to me to be a perfect example of the axiom at work. To say that this 1942 Supreme Court case somehow is the standard that we should use for all terrorism-related decisions for American citizens truly is "bad facts make bad law."

And even if you can draw a parallel between the Commissions from 1942 to the present day Commissions and argue that the American citizen, Padilla, could/should be dealt with under that system, that doesn't justify his nearly 4 years of isolation, being kept from access to an attorney and the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on him.

It also bears pointing out that Judge Mukasey might have a bit of an interest in the outcome of this case. He was after all:

...the district judge who signed the material witness warrant authorizing Jose Padilla's arrest in 2002, and who handled the case while it remained in the Southern District of New York. He was also the trial judge in United States v. Abdel Rahman et al. Retired from the bench, he is now a partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler in New York.

Let's see where this one goes

Michael Weinstein of Military Religious Freedom Foundation looks set to be suing the Department of Defense "to make sure Defense treats religion neutrally, and that religious proselytizing is barred at all levels of the chain of command." He evidently sued before, but the suit was thrown out "on a technicality" according to Mr. Weinstein.

Anyway, this article features an odd quote from the AF TJAG...

We believe academy officials performed properly and that this litigation is one important step in the direction in judicial recognition of that," said Maj. Gen. Jack Rives, Air Force judge advocate general.

Odd because the quote purports to be the military "lauding" the dismissal of Mr. Weinstein's case.

Whatever. I'm in favor of his stated purpose, but not sure the suit will get any traction.

Iraq is just like Vietnam

To hear some tell it, we must look to the lessons of the war in Vietnam to guide us in Iraq. So I take this new rhetoric to mean 2 things.

1. We really left Vietnam too early. See #2 for why.

2. "The price of America's withdrawal" from Iraq will be "paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields." See #1 for how we know this will happen.

So, in other words (as some politician frequently says -- see about 3:45 mark until youtube takes it down) we can't leave unless we know no civilians will die when we're gone. Or in other words, never.

Update on the Daily Show conspiracy

Just wanted to give you, the loyal reader, an update on the AFN conspiracy to censor the Daily Show over here in Japan. Sorry to say, for you conspiratorial buffs, that there have been no further "accidental" interuptions of the Daily Show in any way. Sorry to disappoint.

Religion in the military

Here's an interesting opinion piece from the LA Times. Its author, Michael Weinstein, is the guy behind the investigation of the AF Academy for being a hot-bed of evangelical christian "hazing."

Some of the allegations included:

The report said that during basic training, cadets who declined to go to chapel after dinner were organized into a "Heathen Flight" and marched back to their dormitories. It said the Air Force's "Chaplain of the Year" urged cadets to proselytize among their classmates or "burn in the fires of hell"; that mandatory cadet meetings often began with explicitly Christian prayers; and that numerous faculty members introduced themselves to their classes as born-again Christians and encouraged students to become born again during the term.

I generally support this guy, who's a former Academy grad and who's had sons attend there, although I'm not sure of the conspiratorial bent of this latest piece. He intimates that it was a big behind the scenes plot to sneak these "...Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces..." to the soldiers in Iraq. More likely, this group "Operation Straight Up" just blended into the many groups that are part of DoD's "America Supports You" program. It probably just slipped through the cracks.

Still, Mr. Weinstein's crusade (nice touch, right?) does help point out the hyper-religiosity in the military. I've learned to just live with it, but you really can't avoid the Christian faith on any military base. Very nearly every military ceremony will begin with a chaplain (always christian) offering prayer. Everyone is asked to bow their heads and listen as "we pray in Jesus' name. Amen." At the wing staff meeting where I'm located, fortunately the wing chaplain offers an inspirational quote, mostly secular, rather than a prayer. I've heard, though, that some wing staff meetings across the Air Force where a prayer is offered every time. And you know those staff meetings aren't optional.

Economist: Leftward turn in U.S.

I used to read the Economist cover to cover. For like 10 years. It's great for coverage of international affairs that you just can't get from U.S. periodicals. The mag (they call it a newspaper) is pretty socially liberal and economically conservative. Whatever vestiges of conservatism I have left in my body (admittedly not much), comes from the time I read the Economist. Huge part of my life - I still have a lot of affection for the mag despite its conservative leanings. So it was great to see a couple of articles on the progressive/liberal take over of America. Or the collapse of the Republican/Conservative power machine. Go read them here and here.

Why I'll vote for the Democrat no matter what

I've been thinking about doing something like this post for a while. I sense there may be some push back against Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama if either of them becomes the Democratic candidate for President. I think especially with Hilary and especially in the military. In 2006, I heard dozens of otherwise conservative, I always vote Republican folx comment that it wouldn't be that bad if the Democrats took over Congress or that they would be voting Democratic for the first time in a long time. Unfortunately, if Hilary is the candidate for President, I doubt we'll see as much of that in 2008. The funny thing is, I'm not sure those people can even articulate why they'd vote against her, other than that they just don't like her. In fact, I've already had one conversation which went essentially like that. A claim to be independent, but I'll never vote for Hilary. Why? I don't know, just something about her.

So, as for me - my preferred candidate right now is Edwards. And I'm hoping it won't be Hilary because I see some down-ticket negatives with her as the candidate. But Edwards, Obama, Clinton or even Gravel, I'm voting for the Democrat. Here's why:

1. War in Iraq - While the number of troops left in there will differ between candidates, all Democratic candidates will work to get us out of Iraq. All Republicans (except Paul) will continue the war.
2. Judges - Not just the supreme court, but the entire federal judiciary has taken a significant turn toward the conservative. This means more pro-business/anti-consumer rulings, more death penalty cases, more pro-prosecutor holdings. I view this as a bad thing (obviously - Liberal JAG, hello?). A democratic congress is not enough to stop this erosion. We need 8 years of Democrats at the executive and legislative controls to set this right. I'm sure Republicans won't see anything wrong with filibustering judicial nominations then (upperdown vote anyone?), but that's a discussion for another day.
3. Science - Democrats are much less likely to try and let religion dictate the scientific choices we need to make in this country. Global warming won't be discounted because it'll cost business too much. People will actually be able to get and use birth control, as opposed to being lectured about having sex only when they're married. The scientists in a Democratic administration will actually be able to talk about the science, rather than be ordered to mention President Edwards name 10 times per page in a speech. Stem cell research.
4. Civil Rights (warrantless wiretapping, torture, Guantanamo) - With the possible exception of McCain and Paul, the Republicans pretty much stand for everything Bush has done in this arena -- and then some. Romney says triple Guantanamo. Democrats would close it. Democrats would use warrants to wiretap U.S. citizens. Democrats don't think torture (even when euphemistically referred to as enhanced interrogation techniques) is O.K.

These are the main things that come to mind and which drive my vote in the next election. I'll keep some of the other issues for other posts.

Daily Show in Iraq

Over here in Japan on the Armed Forces Network (AFN), the Daily Show, followed by Colbert Report is on Tuesday through Friday nights from 6:00 - 7:00 p.m. I make it a point to catch it if I can. This week, the Daily Show will have daily bits from one of its correspondents who is in Iraq on a USO tour. So I was watching the show tonight and right in the middle of the bit they were doing, AFN cut away to something called a 1 minute update. This particular filler really did last just 1 minute - I know this 'cause I went to the Comedy Central site to check out the full clip. It cut away at about the 2:40 mark and came back around 3:42. I sat through the story about our wing king's commander's call to see when they cut back.

So in my conspiratorial mind of VRWC censorship, there are 2 options for what happened. One - some flunkie at AFN saw that Daily Show was really in Iraq and panicked. They grabbed the first bit of tape they could get their hands on (taking them a few precious seconds to get it cued up). Unfortunately, they got their hands on the 1 minute update, which didn't last long enough. Hence the late start and early end. Or two, it was a brilliant move to get the casual channel surfer to change channels. Knowing no one wants to watch those news clips if they can avoid it, they plan a quick 1 minute interruption to get people off the Daily Show and over to CSI or Access Hollywood. Karl Rove brilliant!

Of course, it's always possible it was just a big coincidence. But that idea's not as much fun. Considering the lack of planning the military is known for, I'm going to go with option one.

Never fear, though, dear reader. Your intrepid reporter will be staked out in front of the TV tomorrow to see what else the devils at AFN can come up with. Remember, it's not paranoia if there really is a VRWC.

Another Black Eye for the AF JAG Corps

First there was the issue with our former TJAG, now Col (r) Thomas Fiscus, who stepped down from the job for allegations of unprofessional relationships and fraternization.

Then there was Col Michael Murphy, a JAG on the rise who was relieved of command and now faces court-martial charges for being a JAG for 20 years despite having been disbarred very early in his career.

Now another black eye, although this one is minor by comparison. Nevertheless, the guy's facing ethics charges and made the AF Times. That can't be good.

Senator Biden's son to deploy to Iraq

While not huge news, I felt the need to post on this because Joe Biden is running to be the Democratic candidate for president and because his son's a captain in the Deleware National Guard and a JAG.

Biden's not my first (or fourth) favorite for the nomination, but that still puts him above all the potential GOP candidates. Biden has staked out a "responsible" position on ending the war.

"I don't want him going," said the elder Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate. "But I tell you what, I don't want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years, and so how we leave makes a big difference."

Since everyone knows that we on the lunatic fringe of the left don't cotton to no responsible positions on the war, he has no chance to be nominated. Still the fact that his son's serving in the military bumps his credibility way up in my book. Many in the political elite can't say the same.

Yeah what she said...

A little echo chamber in this post...from daily kos.

Just on the politics of things, sometimes it strikes a chord with me.

Giuliani expects people to leave his family and his faith private. It's a reasonable position, but imagine if a Democrat tried for that. Do you think it would be respected?

JAG Senator Censured

Lindsey Graham, a U.S. Senator from the Palmetto state (and reserve AF JAG) is up for election in 2008. Not much of a chance a Democratic candidate (pun intended) wins this contest. Still, word is that Graham will get a primary challenge from the right, so there's always hope. Republicans don't seem to care for Graham's stance on immigration.

A post about Fred Thompson

Someone I know is a backer of Fred. I'm not sure I have a strong feeling about the former Senator beyond the strong feeling I have against any of the Republican candidates.
But in the event he ends up the nominee, I think it'll be a good idea to get the full picture about him out there. Here's a couple of points about him I've run across lately.

First, seems that Red Truck story about him looks to be so much political theater. Excerpt from The Carpetbagger Report and Washington Monthly:

True story: it is a warm evening in the summer of 1995. A crowd has gathered in the auditorium of a suburban high school in Knoxville, Tennessee. Seated in the audience is a childhood friend of mine who now teaches at the school. On stage is Republican Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson, the lawyer/actor elected in 1994 to serve out the remainder of Vice President Al Gore’s Senate term (when Gore’s appointed successor retired after just two years). The local TV stations are on hand as Thompson wraps up his presentation on tax reform, in the plain-spoken, down-to-earth style so familiar to those who have seen him in any of his numerous film and television performances. Finishing his talk, Thompson shakes a few hands, then walks out with the rest of the crowd to the red pickup truck he made famous during his 1994 Senate campaign. My friend stands talking with her colleagues as the senator is driven away by a blond, all-American staffer. A few minutes later, my friend gets into her car to head home. As she pulls up to the stop sign at the parking lot exit, rolling up to the intersection is Senator Thompson, now behind the wheel of a sweet silver luxury sedan. He gives my friend a slight nod as he drives past. Turning onto the main road, my friend passes the school’s small, side parking area. Lo and behold: There sits the abandoned red pickup, along with the all-American staffer.

Second, it appears that the future presidential candidate is skirting, if not violating the law on campaign fund disclosure. Here is a Daily Kos post on the topic with lots of links.

Prison reform

Probably no surprise that I'm in favor of some reform to our prison system, how long we incarcerate and the aim of incarceration. I'm also dead set against the death penalty, but a discussion of that and other such issues will need to wait until another post.

I wanted to share a small bit I found in an article entitled, "Why Are So Many Americans in Prison?" by Glenn Loury. You can find it here.

Here's the amazing excerpt:

According to a 2005 report of the International Centre for Prison Studies in London, the United States—with five percent of the world’s population—houses 25 percent of the world’s inmates. Our incarceration rate (714 per 100,000 residents) is almost 40 percent greater than those of our nearest competitors (the Bahamas, Belarus, and Russia). Other industrial democracies, even those with significant crime problems of their own, are much less punitive: our incarceration rate is 6.2 times that of Canada, 7.8 times that of France, and 12.3 times that of Japan. We have a corrections sector that employs more Americans than the combined work forces of General Motors, Ford, and Wal-Mart, the three largest corporate employers in the country, and we are spending some $200 billion annually on law enforcement and corrections at all levels of government, a fourfold increase (in constant dollars) over the past quarter century.

Logic

While I owe a response to my only current reader on another issue, there are a couple of posts I've got backed up in my queue.

Here's a post from Anonymous Liberal that I really enjoyed. There are any number of major issues I have with the tactics the Bush administration has used in prosecuting the so-called Global War on Terror (hmm, tactics used in a war on tactics). The Guantanamo debacle and its accompanying "enhanced interrogation techniques" is very bad, but at least it's not aimed at U.S. citizens. Warrantless wiretapping is awful and a violation of the 4th amendment IMHO, but it's sometimes hard to get worked up over because it's kind of depersonalized with No Such Agency sifting through EVERY communication we make. But the case of Jose Padilla is just scary. Under the theory of this presidential administration, they can grab you off the street and lock you up. You can't contest your imprisonment, probably can't see the evidence against you, and can't talk to a lawyer. They use those dreaded enhanced interrogation techniques against you. And, oh, yeah and this goes on for over 4 years and you're a U.S. citizen.

And we're told that we should trust this administration that they'll do the right thing. They're trying to protect us. Right.

Another AF JAG into private practice

I don't know her - the article says she was in for 10 years, but maybe some of that was guard/reserve. But I have to say I'm glad she's made the move into the private sector. We've got way too many of those Regent University School of Law grads in the federal government as it is ;-).

Existential threat

So a couple of thoughts on the nature of the threat that we as Americans face from...what do we call them? radical islamists...islamic fundamentalists...terrorists of the islamic global supremacy (TIGS)?

I read a blog entry somewhere, but don't have the link at hand. The essence of the argument, with which I agree naturally, is that the folx on the right believe there is a realistic danger of us being taken over, conquered or some other such nonsense because the TIGS would like nothing better than to establish a worldwide islamic caliphate. Hogwash! Really? Take us over? Conquer us? I might accept that there is some danger from terrorist bombings in the states. But physically conquer us. Please. As far as existential threats go, the existences that are threatened are the potential victims of such attacks. But that's not really the idea that comes to my mind when someone uses the term existential threat. That sounds like the end of American society and all its people. Or the subjugation of Americans to another way of life. I don't see that ever happening. There's like no chance.

And this whole, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. It seems pretty likely that these TIGS aren't all of sudden forgetting about us over here just because we're stuck in a civil war in Iraq. I'd argue they're more likely to be mad at us and want to come here. Even if it's the same, we could be using that 10 billion dollars a month we're spending over there in other ways to make this country bigger, better, stronger and faster (not to mention safer).

But then, what if it is a huge, ginormous (tm) existential threat to our very existence, or even something somewhat approximating that? Folx on the right want to pull out the WWII analogy when it suits them. Well how about, if it truly is such a dire situation for our country, instead of urging people to shop and trying to get yet another tax cut for the rich, maybe we should work to get a sense of shared sacrifice in the country to defend ourselves against this threat. Maybe this is a critical time in the lives of Americans, but shouldn't we also recognize that such times cost, not only in lives but also dollars. It's costing 10 billion dollars a month to have that war. It'll cost a lot more to the American people over the years and decades if we don't start paying as we go, rather than putting that on credit.

It might also be nice if more of the people who declare this such a dire situation and existential threat were willing to give themselves and their children to fight this war to end all bumper sticker wars.

AF Deputy Judge Advocate General makes waves

A few links here. It appears that our Deputy Judge Advocate General or DJAG is writing an article on the use of airpower in Counter-insurgency operations. Looks pretty straight forward from what I can tell from the pre-publication push piece I found here.

Then I also found some blog entries, here , here and here, referencing DJAG's comments in a Defense News article about striking Iranian oil refineries. The Defense News article itself if a subscription only site, so I haven't been able to see the whole article. It sounds like he's advocating the neocon position of attacking Iran. One, that seems a pretty political position for a military member to be taking. I suspect I'd get smacked down pretty hard if I was trying to get anti-war articles published. And two, probably needless to say I don't agree with that idea. But hey, maybe that's not what the article actually says and it's just some of those looney lefties taking things out of context the way they always do.

Future Army JAG wins big appellate decision

It's in the very conservative 4th Circuit. They overturned a felony conviction. Great story for this blog--it's got a pro-defense outcome and a JAG angle! Go read the story here.

criminal system or military system for Guantanamo detainees

A good friend of mine (who also happens to be a flaming conservative) sent me a link to this article by Jonah Goldberg from National Review. He and I disagree on many things political. Our running joke is the irony of the fact that I'm an extreme liberal in the hard right conservative military, while he's an extreme conservative in the hard left world of academia. Yet we're the best of friends and don't let our differences affect that fact.

Anyway, many of the articles he forwards I read and just sort of file away. I rarely agree with the point, but I can (most of the time) at least see the point. This time, though, I felt the need to respond. A quick summary of Goldberg's thesis, seems to be that we should not consider bringing the Guantanamo detainees into a regular criminal system, because they didn't blow up the towers to make a profit, but are actually trying to take over the world. Throw in some mocking of Democrats and liberals for making such a suggestion and that about sums up the article.

Well, since I'm a liberal and a Democrat, I consider myself mocked. Not sure if I have a counter, per se, to his thesis, but I figure I can give my view on why I disagree with him.

At one point, he says: “criminal” is the most advantageous designation a terrorist can get. It comes with all sorts of rights and rules terrorists can exploit: Miranda, speedy trials, the right to see classified evidence, the benefit of a reasonable doubt, the right to remain silent, etc.

It occurs to me this is just another way of saying -- I know they're guilty. You know they're guilty. Bush says they're guilty. What the heck do we need a trial for? Those guys would just use those sneaky lawyer tricks to get off somehow (and what an injustice that would be 'cause we all know they're guilty, right?). And then where would we be. ... it should almost go without saying why I disagree with this line of thought.

Another quote from Goldberg: Under current treaty obligations, if we viewed al Qaeda as actual soldiers, they would be entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions even though they reject those conventions themselves.

So he's saying, rights? they don't need no stinking rights! Yeah, see above, that's what he's saying there too. I guess I see a theme. Makes me wonder under what circumstances he might acknowledge that there are people improperly imprisoned down there and how it would be that they should try and prove that mistake.

Anyway. I do advocate that the criminal system should be used for all of the detainees. Independent of other facts, the system works and we shouldn't be afraid to use it for these guys. Most Democrats would be quite happy, by the way, with the use of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, rather than the federal system. I know very well that the UCMJ is a very pro-government/prosecution system that would still allow some rights to the detainees. Oh yeah, and it's not just Democrats who say that sort of thing. Some Republicans have said it too.

But also dependent on the facts that we have today (alleged use of torture, lack of standing around the world, loss of trust of a large majority of the American people), bringing these trials into a criminal system (federal or UCMJ) would be a good step toward fixing these facts. A little more openness in the system can only be a good thing for this country.

There's actually a lot more that could be said about this, but my hands are tired of typing and it's getting late. I'll leave the rest for another day.

I don't know what this guy's talking about

It's from JAG Hunter, but he seems to be generally against the UCMJ. His discussion of attainder just confuses me, but that might also be because I don't know the history of what he's talking about -- he cites an Army TJAG from 1917 as support for his idea. My bottom line is that he has no practical or realistic view on how the military justice system works today.

General dismisses charges against Haditha JAG

Here's a link where you can read Lt. Gen. James Mattis' statement on his decision to drop all charges against Capt. Randy Stone in the Haditha murder case.

"It is clear to me that any error of omission or commission by Captain Stone does not warrant action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice... Captain Stone was in his first assignment serving as a Marine judge advocate under difficult circumstances as a staff member of an infantry battalion engaged in combat operations. "

Army JAG story

Here's a story about an Army JAG. Says he's a big supporter of the war, but it's a nice story anyway.

New JAG appointed in Hamdan case

Now that CDR Swift is off in civilian practice, they needed to appoint another JAG as his military counsel. Swift will still lead the defense team in his civilian capacity.

Barack on JAGs

Here's one I blogged on my MySpace, but figured it's worth cross-posting over here...

Obama's not my #1 right now, but with comments like this

I also will reject a legal framework that does not work. There has been only one conviction at Guantanamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act. I have faith in America’s courts, and I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.

he's moving up the charts.

See the whole speech, which I recommend, here.

Southwick's a former JAG...

...doesn't make me like the move here. I'm pretty much against any judicial nominee now on principle.

Deputy Judge Advocate General Story

Here's a story about the Air Force's DJAG.

GQ JAG Article

One of the things I'd like to highlight is the role of JAGs in the military...and elsewhere. So anytime I find an article focusing on JAGs, I'll try and bring it to you.

Some of the leading lights of JAG-dom have found their way into the Guantanamo/Commissions scene. Former LCDR Swift, who represents Hamdan is the most famous of the lot. Here's a couple more in a GQ article...

Starting Off

I've been posting on personal things at my MySpace blog, but wanted to try and branch out into some JAG, legal and political themes. I'll start out just doing this for myself and then, if I like it, go a bit farther.