Archive for the 'Politics' Category

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?

From the AP:

“I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a U.N. Observer post in southern Lebanon,” Annan said in the statement.

“I call on the government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident and demand that any further attack on U.N. positions and personnel must stop,” Annan said in the statement.

Kofi, this isn’t hard to understand.  When using a precision-guided weapon, it goes wherever the target is (i.e., at whatever target is “painted” by the laser).  Obviously, someone “painted” the facility that housed the UN observers (for simplicity I am ignoring the possibility of equipment malfunction).

Also obviously, since UN observers hold absolutely no strategic value whatsoever to the Israeli military, the one who targeted the facilty made a mistake.  He either thought that there were enemy strategic assests inside the facility, or he saw a facility that he wanted and in the process of sighting the laser, he targeted the wrong facility.

This is school-child level thinking, and Annan’s lack of ability to engage in it is why he will never be anything more than an inept and impotent stooge on the world stage.

**** UPDATE ****

Michelle Malkin is also tracking Kofi’s antics (“Kofi Talk“).

From the AP:

“I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a U.N. Observer post in southern Lebanon,” Annan said in the statement.

“I call on the government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident and demand that any further attack on U.N. positions and personnel must stop,” Annan said in the statement.

Kofi, this isn’t hard to understand.  When using a precision-guided weapon, it goes wherever the target is (i.e., at whatever target is “painted” by the laser).  Obviously, someone “painted” the facility that housed the UN observers (for simplicity I am ignoring the possibility of equipment malfunction).

Also obviously, since UN observers hold absolutely no strategic value whatsoever to the Israeli military, the one who targeted the facilty made a mistake.  He either thought that there were enemy strategic assests inside the facility, or he saw a facility that he wanted and in the process of sighting the laser, he targeted the wrong facility.

This is school-child level thinking, and Annan’s lack of ability to engage in it is why he will never be anything more than an inept and impotent stooge on the world stage.

**** UPDATE ****

Michelle Malkin is also tracking Kofi’s antics (“Kofi Talk“).

“What a strange title for a post,” you might be thinking.  I am neither a lawyer nor a prophet, so I cannot speak with absolute or infallible authority on the subject of rules of evidence, especially when it comes to the legal requirements.  However, I have followed the Hamdania case with close interest given that (a) I have thought about the issues before during seminary training, and (b) my son will soon deploy to Iraq.

In my last post on this subject, “Premature to Investigate Evidence for Hamdania Marines,” I noted that the prosecution stated that there was no assurance that anyone from Iraq would testify at the trials of the seven Marines and one Navy Corpsman, since there was no protocol or procedure to cause this to occur.  At this point, seminary training kicked in and I began to think about the moral requirements for evidence; after all, these men are on trial for their lives.  As if anyone needed to be reminded, this is a death penalty case. They are on trial for murder.

To begin with I will quote R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law.  After citing Deut 17:6, Deut 19:15, Num. 35:30, Matt. 18:15-16, and 2 Cor. 13:1, Rushdoony says:

As noted previously, we are not under any moral obligation to tell the truth to an enemy seeking to harm or destroy us.  The duty to tell the truth is reserved for normal relationships which are within the framework of law, and to the proceedings of courts of law in church, state, and other institutions.

Even here, however, there are limitations on the power of the court or the demands of other persons.  The Biblical law of testimony does not permit torture or coerced confessions.  Voluntary confession is possible, but two or more witnesses are required for conviction.  More strictly, confession is never cited in the law; its place in a court was apparently only in connection with corroborating evidence.  Thus Achan’s confession required confirming evidence before he was sentenced and executed (Joshua 7:19-26).  The voluntary aspect of Achan’s confession must be noted.  Biblical law preserves the integrity of the individual against forced confession; the right of citizens to be protected from the power of the state to compel their self-incrimination does not appear outside of the Biblical legal tradition.  The Fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution of 1787 embodied this protection: no person can be placed in double jeopardy, “nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself.”

The UK has similar rules regarding confession and evidence, due in no small part to their Christian heritage and tradition.  Biblically, we see that compelling, consistent (two or more), and public witness to the charges against the accused is necessary for conviction.  Further, the penalty for those guilty of perjury is the same punishment as would have been inflicted on the defendant had he been found guilty, thus setting a high bar for testimony (Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, page 556).  Morally speaking, the requirement to testify truthfully in situations of testimony is literally a matter of life and death.  People speaking, and speaking truthfully and consistently, is a requirement for finding the defendant guilty, and the punishment for bearing falsehood is severe.  However, we learn from the prosecutors of the case against the Hamdania Marines that there might be no one appearing on the witness stand to accuse the Marines of anything.

Just as troubling is what might happen if the “witnesses” did show up to testify.  In my “Iraq: Land of Lies and Deceipt,” I cited an article that quoted a U.S. contractor who said:

I’ve been in Iraq for about 18 months now performing construction management. It is simply not possible for me to exaggerate the massive amounts of lies we wade through every single day. There is no way – absolutely none – to determine facts from bulls*** ….

It is not even considered lying to them; it is more akin to being clever – like keeping your cards close to your chest. And they don’t just lie to westerners. They believe that appearances–saving face–are of paramount importance. They lie to each other all the time about anything in order to leverage others on a deal or manipulate an outcome of some sort or cover up some major or minor embarrassment. It’s just how they do things, period.

I’m not trying to disparage them here. I get along great with a lot of them. But even among those that I like, if something happens (on the job) I’ll get 50 wildly different stories, every time. There’s no comparison to it in any other part of the world where I’ve worked. The lying is ubiquitous and constant.

In addition to “saving face,” there are other possible reasons for dishonesty.  Blood money.  It is paid to compensate the families or tribes of people who have been killed, and more specifically, are the victims of collateral damage.  It is custom and standard practice in Iraq, limited to non-combatants by the U.S., and there is little doubt that refusal to pay this blood money to some of the victims of the Haditha incident created the existence of “witnesses” to the “atrocities” in Haditha.  It is possible that money figures into the Hamdania case as well.

As to the fact that this approach (i.e., this high bar for testimony and evidence in the western tradition) means that the job of investigators and prosecutors is more difficult, we have to answer that this is indeed the case, and it is the case by intention.  In fact, the moral rules of evidence that I am discussing contemplate unrewarding outcomes of the application these rules:

Believe it or not, the Bible itself teaches that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. This presumption of innocence is not an artifice of liberal twentieth century jurisprudence. It is biblical. According to biblical justice, if only one witness could testify to the guilt of the accused, the accused walked free. Biblical justice, then, contemplates the chance that a truly guilty criminal might go unpunished. Why? Better that one or more truly guilty men go unpunished than that one innocent man be punished for a crime he didn’t commit. To safeguard against punishing the innocent, the Bible instructs us that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

We live in an increasingly immoral society.  The answer to this immorality is not more severe application of iterrogation techniques or the violation of rights recognized in the U.S. Constitution.  The answer to social immorality is to be found in society’s life with God, not its life with the state.  The state cannot legitimately replace God.

Dan Riehl has outlined a number of troubling things about the alleged event.  A number of things don’t add up about the accounts to date.  Notwithstanding the troublesome accounts of the witnesses, and notwithstanding the moral requirements of two or more witnesses testifying to exactly the same thing, and notwithstanding the deceiptful tradition in which the Iraqis have been raised, and notwithstanding the questionable interrogation techniques used to obtain these “confessions,” the Camp Pendleton eight are still in the brig — and it is possible that no witnesses will show up at the trial, while “confessions” are used where no one was present except the interrogator.

Does anyone else out there find this puzzling and troubling?

Prior:

• Hamdania (Pendleton 8) Update
• Perplexing Lack of Official Cooperation in Hamdania Case
• Camp Pendleton 8 Update
• Jodka’s Lawyer Just Interviewed on O’Reilly
• The Camp Pendleton 8
• My Phone Discussion with Camp Pendleton and Marines in Shackles

The North County Times has a new article out on the Camp Pendleton 8 (i.e., Hamdania incident).

Attorneys for accused troops say Marine Corps hampering defenses

By: MARK WALKER – Staff Writer

CAMP PENDLETON —- Attorneys for two of seven Marines charged with premeditated murder in the shooting of an Iraqi civilian in April accused the military Thursday of refusing to provide basic information necessary to prepare their defenses.

They also complained that the Marine Corps has denied a request that they be allowed to hire an independent investigator to travel to the scene of the incident.

“The government had no problem sending my client over there three times in defense of our country’s freedoms and liberties,” said attorney Joseph Low, who represents Cpl. Marshall Magincalda. “Therefore, they should have no objection to sending an investigator over there once in defense of those rights that he risked his life for.”

Lt. Col. Sean Gibson at Camp Pendleton said it would be premature to send an investigator to Iraq before hearings are held later this summer to determine whether the charges against the seven Marines and one Navy corpsman stand.

This is outrageous.  Lt Col. Gibson seems to lay this assertion out there as if it is an objectively verifiable truth.  In reality, the statement could have read: “The United States Marine Corps wants to give full opportunity for discovery and evidence-gathering throughout the duration of the process, and so we have approved several visits for defense counsel.”  It would have made more sense.  The statement taken by itself is nonsensical.  It lacks any backdrop, explanation or substantiation.  It certainly does not appear to be legally required, and if it is not, then for what reason would the request of defense counsel be “premature?”

But as outrageous as this is, there is this stunning little nugget of gold couched in the article:

Attorney Jane Siegel, who represents Pfc. John Jodka III of Encinitas, also said the Marine Corps has told her it does not intend to produce any Iraqi witnesses at the hearings.

This obviously refers to the Article 32 hearing.  But continuing:

Gibson said there is no assurance that any of Awad’s relatives or any other witnesses interviewed in Iraq would come to the U.S. for the hearings or any subsequent trials.  “There is no mechanism in place to compel them to testify,” Gibson said.

If there are no witnesses who can give reliable, substantial, compelling and consistent testimony, then the whole ordeal is over and the Marines (and Corpman) should be set free immediately.

I am no lawyer, and so I cannot speak to the legal rules of evidence.  But I did spend some time studying in seminary, and have done some thinking about the Biblical requirements for evidence.  Yes, the Bible does have quite a lot to say about this.  I will post on this in the near future.  The post will focus on the moral requirements for evidence rather than the legal requirements.  In other words, I will focus on God’s expectations for evidence rather than the expectations of the UCMJ or military protocol (this is after all my web site and I can do what I want).  Stay tuned.  Oh, by the way.  Just as a teaser for this future post, the use of confessions in a trial is a throwback to ancient middle eastern protocol.  In western civilization (i.e., Europe and the U.S.) we have historically disallowed confessions in trials due to the Christian influence on our system of law, and this is unique in the world (although this is changing as we give more weight to confessions).  And the reason?  Confessions can be forced or coerced.

I know this sits hard with many of you; especially police.  But I had to deal with this in seminary when I studied it (in Biblical Ethics), and I intend to post what I believe to be the truth on this subject.

Tighten your belts and stay tuned.

The North County Times has a new article out on the Camp Pendleton 8 (i.e., Hamdania incident).

Attorneys for accused troops say Marine Corps hampering defenses

By: MARK WALKER – Staff Writer

CAMP PENDLETON —- Attorneys for two of seven Marines charged with premeditated murder in the shooting of an Iraqi civilian in April accused the military Thursday of refusing to provide basic information necessary to prepare their defenses.

They also complained that the Marine Corps has denied a request that they be allowed to hire an independent investigator to travel to the scene of the incident.

“The government had no problem sending my client over there three times in defense of our country’s freedoms and liberties,” said attorney Joseph Low, who represents Cpl. Marshall Magincalda. “Therefore, they should have no objection to sending an investigator over there once in defense of those rights that he risked his life for.”

Lt. Col. Sean Gibson at Camp Pendleton said it would be premature to send an investigator to Iraq before hearings are held later this summer to determine whether the charges against the seven Marines and one Navy corpsman stand.

This is outrageous.  Lt Col. Gibson seems to lay this assertion out there as if it is an objectively verifiable truth.  In reality, the statement could have read: “The United States Marine Corps wants to give full opportunity for discovery and evidence-gathering throughout the duration of the process, and so we have approved several visits for defense counsel.”  It would have made more sense.  The statement taken by itself is nonsensical.  It lacks any backdrop, explanation or substantiation.  It certainly does not appear to be legally required, and if it is not, then for what reason would the request of defense counsel be “premature?”

But as outrageous as this is, there is this stunning little nugget of gold couched in the article:

Attorney Jane Siegel, who represents Pfc. John Jodka III of Encinitas, also said the Marine Corps has told her it does not intend to produce any Iraqi witnesses at the hearings.

This obviously refers to the Article 32 hearing.  But continuing:

Gibson said there is no assurance that any of Awad’s relatives or any other witnesses interviewed in Iraq would come to the U.S. for the hearings or any subsequent trials.  “There is no mechanism in place to compel them to testify,” Gibson said.

If there are no witnesses who can give reliable, substantial, compelling and consistent testimony, then the whole ordeal is over and the Marines (and Corpman) should be set free immediately.

I am no lawyer, and so I cannot speak to the legal rules of evidence.  But I did spend some time studying in seminary, and have done some thinking about the Biblical requirements for evidence.  Yes, the Bible does have quite a lot to say about this.  I will post on this in the near future.  The post will focus on the moral requirements for evidence rather than the legal requirements.  In other words, I will focus on God’s expectations for evidence rather than the expectations of the UCMJ or military protocol (this is after all my web site and I can do what I want).  Stay tuned.  Oh, by the way.  Just as a teaser for this future post, the use of confessions in a trial is a throwback to ancient middle eastern protocol.  In western civilization (i.e., Europe and the U.S.) we have historically disallowed confessions in trials due to the Christian influence on our system of law, and this is unique in the world (although this is changing as we give more weight to confessions).  And the reason?  Confessions can be forced or coerced.

I know this sits hard with many of you; especially police.  But I had to deal with this in seminary when I studied it (in Biblical Ethics), and I intend to post what I believe to be the truth on this subject.

Tighten your belts and stay tuned.

**** SCROLL FOR UPDATES **** 

The Counterterrorism Blog has a good rundown of Hezbollah activities on U.S. soil (Hizballah Activity in North America).  You will notice after studying the incidents cited in their blog that while some of the activities seem to be rather spurious regarding location (L.A., Charlotte), others are not and seem to point to a center for Hezbollah fundraising and militancy.  The case in point is Dearborn, Michigan.

Courtesy of Jihad Watch, an interesting piece on Imam Elahi comes to us from CBN.com.  In part it says:

Debbie Schlussel, a Detroit-based columnist and attorney, was the first to call attention to Elahi’s ties to Iranian government officials.

“Mr. Elahi, I believe, is an agent of the government in Iran. Not only does he have sympathies for them, but he did work for them. And I believe he’s still working for them,

I have said before that I wanted to write a post on “100 Reasons that McCain will Never be President.”  It would simply be too wearisome to write, but I will give a little primer on this subject as well as a few links that may clear up some things.

First, read a commentary out of the L.A. Times (hat tip to Polipundit) entitled “The hunt for the real McCain.”  Then, go over and look at a Slate commentary entitled “The Closet McCain.”  Then, go read Mark Levin’s “John McCain, Weak on Defense.”  Finally, go read “The Liberal Case for McCain.”

Here are some points to ponder for anyone who truly considers themselves to be conservative:

1. He is in favor of government-funded embryonic stem-cell research.
2. He has said, “certainly in the short term or even in the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe vs. Wade.”
3. With Joe Lieberman he co-sponsored legislation to close the gun-show loophole and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with Kyoto accords.
4. He was one of only six Republican Senators to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
5. He betrayed his party to join the so-called “gang of fourteen” to end the filibuster threat of judicial nominees.
6. He supported the Dubai port deal.
7. He was the father of the manifestly unconstitutional campaign finance reform.
8. He is an open-border advocate (i.e., he favors the amnesty program and increased legal immigration, legal immigration that in the end would make illegal immigration unnecessary, another way of saying that he supports the Senate immigration bill).
9. He has led an effort to diminish the traditional war-power authority of the President.
10. He is no friend of religious conservatives, having said that he would kick the religious-right leaders “right in the ass.”

Well, this is only ten reasons John McCain will never be President (i.e., he will not get the Republican nomination — ever).  I’m winded now, so I will catalogue the other 90 reasons for a later time.

On July 11 I posted a press release by Joseph Casas (along with a little editorial commentary), attorney to John Jodka, detailing the difficulty in defending a case in which they have not even been able to get experts to the alleged scene of the crime.  But just prior to this press release came another article I should have picked up on, published in the North County Times – The Californian.  We learn, among other things that:

Civilian attorneys for eight Camp Pendleton men accused of murdering an Iraqi civilian in April said Tuesday that military lawyers assigned to assist their clients have been too busy to provide much help on the cases.

The seven Marines and one Navy corpsman have hired civilian attorneys in addition to being assigned military counsel, the latter of whom are said to be bogged down with large caseloads.

“(It’s) the issue of the moment, one which prompted a scream from me this weekend,” Carlsbad-based attorney David Brahms, a retired Marine general hired to represent Lance Cpl. Robert Pennington, said Tuesday. “The government proudly proclaims that they have given each of the eight (accused men) two military counsel.

“It’s a bit illusory because neither of the counsel offered to me have the time to do anything.”

Brahms said the two military defense attorneys are well-qualified and eager to assist. But one of the men, Brahms said, is a Miramar-based Marine with about 30 other cases on his plate. The other is based in Rhode Island and is in the middle of moving his family to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

Jane Siegel, one of two private attorneys hired to represent Pfc. John Jodka III, an Encinitas native, said the lack of help thus far could affect their ability to defend the men against a team of what she said were top-flight military prosecutors.

“It is ridiculous to say that there is equity in counsel,” Siegel said. “There are five experienced prosecutors with nothing else to do, sitting in offices and working these cases, and we are still in the starting blocks waiting (for the assigned attorneys to be made available).”

…..

Siegel, a retired Marine colonel, said that one of the military attorneys assigned to assist in Jodka’s case is a reservist who is not slated to return to duty until Aug. 1.

No firm date for the Article 32 hearings has been set, Gibson said, adding that he was uncertain how the sessions would be sequenced. The hearings will determine if their clients will face trial.

Attorney Victor Kelley, representing Thomas, said he believed that about half of the hearings could get pushed back to September because of the defense work that remains to be done.

Siegel also said that she and her co-counsel, Joseph Casas, would like to delay the hearings until they can speak with witnesses from the men’s battalion.

Among the things we learn is that the press release by Joseph Casas was on point.  It didn’t turn to the left or the right or exaggerate in the least — it was straight and true.  Also among the things we learn is that the civilian lawyers cannot get even the most basic of help from the Marines in order to prepare the defense of the Pendleton 8, to wit, the lawyers defending the Pendleton 8 have not even been able to debrief the witnesses, and their clients are in a death penalty case.

The whole time, the Pendleton 8 are sitting in the brig while their case might be suffering irreparable prejudicial harm.  I said it in the last post … I’ll say it in this post.  I don’t know what happened in Hamdania.  But I do know one thing.  This just isn’t right.

You might notice that I am posting this in two categories: war and politics.  I will continue posting in both categories until the end of the case.  If the Pendleton 8 are found guilty and the case seems to me to have been straight and true, I will leave all posts concerning the Pendleton 8 alone.  The posts belong in both categories.  But if they are found innocent, I will go back and delete the “war” category and ensure that all posts are in only the “politics” category.  Why?  Because this whole thing will have been entirely political.