Archive for the 'Politics' Category

I have always looked at the TSA with some degree of loathing, for reasons that would be too many to innumerate here (including but not limited to: (a) it was at one time run by the pitiful Norman Maneta, (b) it is a government agency when it should have been privatized, (c) the times that I have seen them in action them seem to show little regard for true risks and favor busy-work, and (d) anyone who asks a little old Caucasian lady with a walking cane to disrobe or take her shoes off should be whipped and excluded from contributing to the gene pool of the country rather than given a job.  Yes, I have seen a TSA employee search a little old white lady with a walking stick.).

Now I have found the best reason of all of loath the TSA.  Our friend Oak Leaf over at Polipundit has a post on the TSA searching men and women in uniform, and cites a commentary at the Orlando Sentinel:

A little-known fact about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the U.S. military requires soldiers to travel in uniform from theater. An even lesser known fact is that the Transportation Security Administration aggressively targets war veterans as they travel home to their loved ones.

At Baltimore’s airport on my way back to Orlando from Iraq, there were about 50 soldiers in line, waiting to be cleared by TSA. I noticed soldiers taking off clothing, and then they assumed the position so commonly seen in police-chase videos, arms and legs spread wide as a screener passed a wand close to their bodies. Soldiers were asked to remove belts, boots and shirts, and their carry-on bags were ransacked.

“We’re fighting a war. Do you guys think we’re a threat?” I asked as I spread my legs and arms.

The screener replied, “I dunno,” and kept his wand in motion.

There you have it.  Your tax dollars going to perform meaningless and silly busy-work intended to embarrass your men and women in uniform rather than decrease the collective risk to our country.

There it is again ringing in my ears: “I dunno.”  Someone whip that jackass, please?

But Oak Leaf has a solution for it: the registered traveler program.  Go check it out at Polipundit.

Okay, here we go with a prediction.  I have made only a few of those so far, because they are something that:

1. No one remembers if you got it right, and
2. Everyone will remember if you got it wrong.

Nevertheless, I will make one.  This is a prediction with a small “p.”  I have no special knowledge and I am not clairvoyant.  I just have a web site and have a thought to share — for whatever its worth.

Joseph Lieberman will win the Senate race this November.  The democrats in Connecticut committed suicide tonight.  They simply imploded, and let the Daily KOS types ruin their chances of taking the Senate this November (I am a Republican, so this is a good thing if I am right).

My thinking goes like this.  Ken Mehlman won’t give a penny from the RNC coffers to the Republican candidate in Connecticut.  There will be enough Republicans that cross over and vote Independent this November that, together with about half of the democrats in Connecticut (if tonight is any indication), Lieberman’s tally will make him victorious.

Polls will be taken until the “cows come home” or until “pigs fly.”  People will respond in polls what they would like to happen, not what they will do in November.  When Republicans go into the private voting booth, they will (correctly) think: My candidate cannot get elected — he doesn’t have the votes, and my vote will not change that.  Lieberman can get elected, but my vote might make a difference in this case.  If Lieberman gets elected, not only do I have a Senator who is strong on defense, but the democrats lose a seat in the Senate, decreasing their strength by unity (one).  If I vote for Lieberman my candidate loses, but I win.

So, I cast the vote for Lieberman.

Michelle Malkin has a roundup of coverage.

The AP was reporting earlier in the day that:

WASHINGTON – Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

My readers know that I have been closely following the Haditha and Hamdania stories.  Note this little remark in the text of the article:

“… according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.”

I have said it in prior posts and will repeat it here.  “By the mouths of two or more witnesses” is the criteria, and these must be credible, reliable and consistent witnesses.  See my Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules of Evidence (a very well-read commentary across the Globe based on Google Analytics).  Things are not to be done in secret.  Things are discussed openly, confessions are not coerced, and a finding of guilt must rely on sure and certain evidence from two or more witnesses.  Anything else is girlish gossip.  I was very disappointed to see that the Marine Corps Times picked this up and ran with it.

Here it is again: ” … on condition of anonymity.”

So who were these “Pentagon officials?”  Let me be the first out of the gate to call them pusillanimous, cowardly weasels.  They prejudiced the case without there having been a trial where witnesses and evidence could be heard and cross-examined.

Cowards.  Who were these “officials?”  These weasels can come do battle with me here at the Captain’s Journal at any time.  Here at TCJ, I am not anonymous.  You see my real name associated with this post.  I am not a weasel.  These “officials” are.

The AP was reporting earlier in the day that:

WASHINGTON – Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

My readers know that I have been closely following the Haditha and Hamdania stories.  Note this little remark in the text of the article:

“… according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.”

I have said it in prior posts and will repeat it here.  “By the mouths of two or more witnesses” is the criteria, and these must be credible, reliable and consistent witnesses.  See my Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules of Evidence (a very well-read commentary across the Globe based on Google Analytics).  Things are not to be done in secret.  Things are discussed openly, confessions are not coerced, and a finding of guilt must rely on sure and certain evidence from two or more witnesses.  Anything else is girlish gossip.  I was very disappointed to see that the Marine Corps Times picked this up and ran with it.

Here it is again: ” … on condition of anonymity.”

So who were these “Pentagon officials?”  Let me be the first out of the gate to call them pusillanimous, cowardly weasels.  They prejudiced the case without there having been a trial where witnesses and evidence could be heard and cross-examined.

Cowards.  Who were these “officials?”  These weasels can come do battle with me here at the Captain’s Journal at any time.  Here at TCJ, I am not anonymous.  You see my real name associated with this post.  I am not a weasel.  These “officials” are.

The North County Times has this update on a case that I have discussed before:

TIKRIT, Iraq — The U.S. Army opened a hearing Tuesday to determine whether four American soldiers must stand trial for allegedly murdering three Iraqis during a raid where they claimed they were under orders to “kill all military-age males.”

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are accused of murder and other offenses in the May 9 shooting deaths near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett are also accused of obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier if he told authorities what happened.

All four are members of the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division and have been jailed in Kuwait since they were arrested in June. They were moved to Tikrit, the division headquarters, for the Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.

The hearing, which is expected to last several days, opened with testimony from two investigators who questioned the soldiers when the allegations surfaced last month. 

Later on down the article there is this little nugget of gold:

The investigator acknowledged that he and his colleagues sometimes resort to “lies, trickery or deceit” to extract confessions.

I have commented before in Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules for Evidence concerning how evidence is obtained and what constitutes admissible evidence, so I won’t rehearse what was said in that post.  However, I will point out that lies, trickery and deceipt is still lies, trickery and deceipt, no matter what the reason or supposed justification.  Here is how it works.  “Son, we have signed confessions from two others at the scene who told us exactly what you did, and this being a death penalty case, you will be executed unless you cooperate with us.  If you confess to this crime, we think we can get you life in prison, parolled at 30 years, rather than the death penalty.”  To which the individual agrees to the confession under counsel from his lawyer.

The only thing is that the statement that they had two other confessions was a lie.  There are people in prisons who are guilty, and who were placed in prison by tactics like this, and who in fact deserve to be in prison.  Then there are people who are in prison, and who confessed to a crime, and who are in fact not guilty — and they were placed in prison using tactics like this.  This is true in civilian cases and military cases.

The practice is immoral.  Period.  It might be legal and ethical.  But there is a difference between something being allowed in the sight of the law and something being good and righteous.

This practice is not good and righteous.  Testimony should be given in front of everyone, without compulsion, and always corroborated by two or more witnesses.  Again, repeating the point in my earlier post on the Hamdania Marines, the value of confessions in the western Judeo-Christian tradition was never to convict.  It was always merely to corroborate.  To use lies, trickery and deceipt to obtain alleged “confessions” is the prosecution playing God.  It is the government deciding that the individual is guilty and then using whatever tactics effect the desired outcome (i.e., conviction).  In the U.S., we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Coerced confessions accomplish nothing towards proving anything.

The North County Times has this update on a case that I have discussed before:

TIKRIT, Iraq — The U.S. Army opened a hearing Tuesday to determine whether four American soldiers must stand trial for allegedly murdering three Iraqis during a raid where they claimed they were under orders to “kill all military-age males.”

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are accused of murder and other offenses in the May 9 shooting deaths near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett are also accused of obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier if he told authorities what happened.

All four are members of the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division and have been jailed in Kuwait since they were arrested in June. They were moved to Tikrit, the division headquarters, for the Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.

The hearing, which is expected to last several days, opened with testimony from two investigators who questioned the soldiers when the allegations surfaced last month. 

Later on down the article there is this little nugget of gold:

The investigator acknowledged that he and his colleagues sometimes resort to “lies, trickery or deceit” to extract confessions.

I have commented before in Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules for Evidence concerning how evidence is obtained and what constitutes admissible evidence, so I won’t rehearse what was said in that post.  However, I will point out that lies, trickery and deceipt is still lies, trickery and deceipt, no matter what the reason or supposed justification.  Here is how it works.  “Son, we have signed confessions from two others at the scene who told us exactly what you did, and this being a death penalty case, you will be executed unless you cooperate with us.  If you confess to this crime, we think we can get you life in prison, parolled at 30 years, rather than the death penalty.”  To which the individual agrees to the confession under counsel from his lawyer.

The only thing is that the statement that they had two other confessions was a lie.  There are people in prisons who are guilty, and who were placed in prison by tactics like this, and who in fact deserve to be in prison.  Then there are people who are in prison, and who confessed to a crime, and who are in fact not guilty — and they were placed in prison using tactics like this.  This is true in civilian cases and military cases.

The practice is immoral.  Period.  It might be legal and ethical.  But there is a difference between something being allowed in the sight of the law and something being good and righteous.

This practice is not good and righteous.  Testimony should be given in front of everyone, without compulsion, and always corroborated by two or more witnesses.  Again, repeating the point in my earlier post on the Hamdania Marines, the value of confessions in the western Judeo-Christian tradition was never to convict.  It was always merely to corroborate.  To use lies, trickery and deceipt to obtain alleged “confessions” is the prosecution playing God.  It is the government deciding that the individual is guilty and then using whatever tactics effect the desired outcome (i.e., conviction).  In the U.S., we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Coerced confessions accomplish nothing towards proving anything.

From CSM:

TAIPEI, TAIWAN – As Asia grapples with the fallout from North Korea’s projectile posturing, another military flashpoint in the region – the Taiwan Strait – is in the midst of missile tensions as well.

A private TV station reported earlier this month that Taiwan’s military was preparing to test-fire a tactical missile in September capable of striking targets in China. While the details were sketchy and the claim was swiftly denied by the Ministry of National Defense, they struck a chord with analysts who have heeded the frustration among hawks in Taiwan over the island’s vulnerability in the face of China’s military might, including its expanding missile arsenal.

May I go on record as saying that this is a highly, extremely, very bad idea … until, that is, Taiwan can give proof of its already having gone nuclear.  If Taiwan goes nuclear, they have protection against Chinese bully tactics.  If they don’t, this missile will be seen as nothing more than an instigation to conflict — a conflict that Taiwan will lose.

Ed Peck, Chief of U.S. mission to Iraq under Jimmy Carter, was interviewed on Fox News Channel today, and said some remarkable things (over at HotAir.com).  Here is the conversation I transcribed a few minutes ago.  Ed Peck is EP, and the Fox News Channel commentators are FN.  After being pressed on how to prevent World War III, Ed Peck begins:

EP: Maám, it’s a good question.  I’m a diplomat.  I believe very sincerely on the basis of my experience and whatever knowledge I have of history, that if there’s a problem between two groups, and they sit down to see if they can eliminate or reduce the problem — they talk about it — there’s a chance that they can achieve that objective.  But if they do not talk, there’s no chance.

FN: But Mr. Ambassador, Hezbollah is bent on … you know … sort of wiping Israel off the map.  So what is there more to say?

EP: Well, and Israel is bent on destroying everybody in Hezbollah, so what is there to say?  There is a middle ground, almost always.  But you’ve got to talk, just like we did to the Russians during the cold war, although we knew they could blast us off the face of the earth — at cost.

FN: But Mr. Ambassador, do you believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?

EP: Well, a terrorist organization is in the eye of the beholder.

FN: I’m asking you.

EP: Okay.  You have to understand, now, we parachuted people into Europe in World War II.  You’re too young to remember that.  Their job was to kill Germans.  Now.  Were they terrorists or heros?

FN: Well, let’s go back to Hezbollah.  Do you think its a terrorist organization?

EP: No, I think it has objectives to which we object very strongly, and some of them are bloody, but other people are doing things quite similar to that, and they’re not called terrorists, because they’re on our side.

Permit be a bit of commentary since I went to the trouble of transcribing this juvenile conversation.  Here is a remarkable testimonial to a foreign policy that has been completely unhinged from any value system except, or course, relativism.

The sole criteria that Mr. Peck sees being used to define the word “terrorist” is whether we agree with them or not.  He is incapable of judging any further than that as to means, tactics, purposes or causes.  It represents the impotent Carter administration exactly, and it is again remarkable that Mr. Peck even brought up the examples that he did.  Let’s look at them for a moment.

He brings up the cold war and the talky-talk with Russia.  But Carter accomplished nothing during his administration except the strengthening of communism and terror around the world (well, he did bring us 16% inflation).  It was the Reagan administration that won the cold war, and Peck’s mentioning of it only highlights the abject failure that defined the Carter administration during these years.  That Peck defines this as a success is incredible but informative.

Peck brings up the airborne troops that were dropped into Europe during WWII, asking rhetorically if they were terrorists?  FN failed to give the answer.  Let me supply it.  No.  The U.S. showed incredible restraint in the years leading up to our involvement in WWII.  In the years 1939-1943, German U-Boats sank approximately 4700 U.S. merchant ships, sinking them at a greater rate than the U.S. could manufacture ships.  One merchant ship, in fact, was sunk at the mouth of the Mississippi River on May 12, 1942.

All pathologies bent on world domination (communism, Islamic facism, Nazism, etc.) use times of talking to re-arm, rest, strategize and re-group.  These times of talking have always occurred at strategically beneficial points for those bent on world domination.  Why wouldn’t they?  If all we are willing to do is talk, the enemy waits until he is ready.  We will always be ready.

But this strategic use of timing to re-arm is irrelevant if there is no good and no evil.  If there is no side of right and side of wrong, it really doesn’t matter who is strongest now.  Only under a system that is hopelessly incapable of ascertaining good and evil does one compare the American G.I. in WWII with Hezbollah terrorists who drag non-combatants in front of them to die in their stead — and then celebrate the death of those same non-combatants.

No, the talking that Ed Peck and Jimmy Carter did on their watch caused, at least in part, the situation we now face.

Jimmy and Ed should be ashamed.  But their value system will not allow it.

As a dedicated long-time follower of the antics of the State Department, I have noted for years how they have continually undermined conservative Presidents from Reagan to Bush.  For example, the State Department wanted nothing to do with “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”  What is now one of the great defining moments in the twentieth century for freedom in the world, was at the time an embarrassment to the State Department.

Enter Condoleezza Rice.  Her intent was to reform the State Department into the instrument of U.S. policy it was supposed to be all along.  But has Condi been co-opted by the State Department rather than the other way around?  An interesting piece has been posted in Insight Magazine (select link for whole article):

A major problem, critics said, is Miss Rice’s ignorance of the Middle East. They said the secretary relies completely on Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who is largely regarded as the architect of U.S. foreign policy. Miss Rice also consults regularly with her supporters on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Richard Lugar and the No. 2 Republican, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

The critics said Miss Rice has adopted the approach of Mr. Burns and the State Department bureaucracy that most—if not all—problems in the Middle East can be eased by applying pressure on Israel. They said even as Hezbollah was raining rockets on Israeli cities and communities, Miss Rice was on the phone nearly every day demanding that the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert exercise restraint.

“Rice attempted to increase pressure on Israel to stand down and to demonstrate restraint,” said Stephen Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. “The rumor is that she was told flatly by the prime minister’s office to back off.”

There are calls for Rice’s removal from conservative quarters.  Is it time for her to go?  Time will tell, but time is something we really don’t have with North Korea and Iran.

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D – NY) was just on O’Reilly, and Bill was forcing the question of his recent visit to Israel and lack of condemnation of Israeli interrogation tactics (which are far rougher than ours are, and far rougher than Rep. Ackerman would himself allow, or does seem to allow the Bush administration to engage in).  When pushed, Rep. Ackerman said, “I don’t think torture should be allowed on anyone who doesn’t need it.”

To which we can collectively respond — conservative and liberal alike, young and old, male and female, Jew and Gentile  — what?