Tag Archives: enemy combatants

Politicking the Drones

Predator Drone

“I spent a couple years training soldiers to go and die in Vietnam. I know more names on the wall than ones that didn’t end up in granite from those classrooms. Now, I build things to keep soldiers alive.”

My father said those words more than a few times during my life, when explaining why he worked where he did – he was a systems analyst for a company that made safety equipment. His major projects for the military toward the end of his career involved detecting chemical and biological weapons in the field, and were built for installation on primarily Naval aircraft.

Predator Drone

NOAA imagery: Predator Drone

I knew what my dad did for a living because we would often joke that he had never been introduced to a textbook on basic English Grammar. His writing was atrocious, and it was obvious very early on that I was the absolute opposite. So, he’d write his reports, and hand them to me to cover with red pencil lines and notations. While a great deal of the technical information was way over my head, I did understand that my dad’s work was saving lives of not only Naval personnel, but also many troops on the ground. That was definitely a good thing.

When this whole issue of drones being used to kill Americans overseas came up, I couldn’t help but think of what my father would have said. Of course, being an old Army man, I know he would have been furious at anyone that was suggesting that there is a problem with this. I can almost hear him saying that the real problem isn’t the drones, but the fact that people are granting the title “American” to people that have chosen to engage in terrorist activities against the U.S. He would be furious with our government for not immediately stripping citizenship rights and privileges from Americans that choose to become enemy combatants, by joining terrorist organizations.

And that is what this all boils down to – it is a matter of semantics. It is a misguided notion to consider these people as U.S. citizens anymore. And if they officially weren’t, there wouldn’t be a single word of protest against killing them. So it begs the question, why hasn’t our government set a hard and fast rule that once a U.S. citizen has been identified as a willing participant in a terrorist organization, that person is no longer considered a U.S. citizen? Argue about rights to due process, or whatever you like, but before speaking, consider what would be said if the person in question didn’t happen to be a U.S. citizen at some point.

There is an uncomfortable reality here. First, there is the political situation, and the fact that this policy would have been attacked severely by the left if it had been a Republican president setting it. It’s unfair, but true. However, while it might feel nice to point this out, that righteous indignation is hollow, because as conservatives, we would have been defending this policy on behalf of a president from our side of the aisle. For those that are a little slow on the uptake, that means the problem isn’t with the policy, but with the party affiliation of the president that created it. That doesn’t cut it.

Second, there is a huge contextual issue on the horizon here. Obviously, the use of drones by the U.S. military overseas is something that the people should be able to agree is a good thing. Unmanned aircraft make it possible to save the lives of our military personnel, and no matter which side of the aisle one is on, that should be considered a major asset. The real argument lies in the use of these aircraft over U.S. soil, and rightfully so. With the noted exception of use of drones by our Border Patrol, their use should be highly limited – primarily using them for search and rescue, and perhaps for apprehending a fleeing criminal. Drones should not become “Big Brother’s eye in the sky.” But, in spite of some states and localities choosing to make laws governing the use of drones now, that isn’t the issue at hand. And straight military use over foreign soil should not be a bone of contention.

Bottom line is, fight the fight that’s worth fighting. Stop arguing over the merits (or demerits) of using drones to attack enemy combatants, regardless of their citizenship status. Focus on preventing the misuse of them over U.S. soil – that’s where the real battle will be.

House Defense Bill Will Fund DNC for Decades to Come

In a recent very informative article by Jeff Viral titled, House Votes to Approve Defense Bill, we see the following paragraph:

[Speaking about the defense bill that recently passed in the House] Specifically, the White House took issue with the detainee detention provision. The bill requires the military take custody of a suspect considered to be a member of Al Qaeda or its affiliates and those who are involved in planning or performing terror attacks on the United States. Legislators changed the language of the provision providing assurances nothing would impede the ability of civilian law enforcement to carry out terrorism investigations and interrogations in the United States. The bill does contain an exemption for U.S. citizens.”

A huge number of concerned citizens,Libertarians,s and assorted political activists are up in arms about the possible usage of certain provisions in the defense bill that could be used to imprison Americans without a fair trial on the simple basis of their political activities in demanding a limited, transparent and accountable, constitutional government. These concerns are not without merit, especially when looking at past world history. Hugo Chavez comes to mind here, as does the now six-feet under oppressive, murdering tyrant, Saddam Hussein. While taking into consideration the possibility of the American government using these newly granted powers that were given to the executive branch by the seemingly paralyzed-by-ignorance legislative branch in the recently House-passed defense bill that could result in the illegal detention of political dissenters, there is also the always-present hidden agenda behind Obama’s demand for certain provisions in this bill. Behind Obama’s demands for terrorists to be transferred to civilian custody is a semi-hidden agenda that is rarely being recognized today. The current much-discussed dangers of illegally locking up American citizens for 10 years without proven charges is a smokescreen being used to distract from the real agenda here. In Jeff’s above-linked article, we see that Senator John McCain (R-Rino-ville)made the following statement regarding the recently passed Defense bill:

“Sen. John McCain of Arizona said the legislation includes a “national security waiver” allowing the president to transfer suspects from military to civilian custody if he so decides.” When you start putting military war-prisoners under civilian custody, it comes with it a whole new set of rules that are not, in fact designed to deal with foreign enemy combatants. So why would the Obama administration demand these provisions be inserted into the Defense bill?

Big-Money Civilian Terrorist Trials Will Empower the Liberal Party U.S.A. For Decades to Come. They Will Also Enable the Massive Wealth Redistribution Inherent in Barack Obama’s Liberal/Socialist Ideology.

Photo: Michelle Malkin

In the early days of Obama’s administration, DOJ Chief Eric Holder was trying to force the civilian terror trials of GITMO enemy combatants to be held in NYC like a rabid dog furiously digging for a bone he had misplaced. The reason[s] Holder was so determined to put Gitmo detainees on trial in NYC is directly related to the recent Obama administration demands of military prisoners being transferred to civilian custody. Back in March of this year the reason behind Holder’s vigorous pursuit of civilian trials for Gitmo detainees was well documented in an article titled, Gitmo Military Trials to Start Back Up.

Mr. Holder was exposed as being a former Senior Partner in a law firm that was representing several Gitmo detainees by Michelle Malkin in an article back in Nov., 2009* In it she points out that:

“If you’ve been paying attention, you already know all about AG Eric Holder and his DOJ staff’s national security conflict of interest as senior partner with Covington & Burling — the prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo.
After a quarter-century as a government lawyer, Holder joined the prestigious Covington & Burling business and corporate law firm.His salary jumped from under $200,000 as deputy U.S. Attorney General for the Clinton administration to more than $2 million a year as a Covington & Burling senior partner. During 2008, Holder spent countless hours away from his corporate office working for the Obama campaign—raising money, fielding calls, making speeches. “I hope the management committee is going to be real understanding when they see my billable hours this year,” Holder joked to The American Lawyer. It’s an investment, of course, and the law firm will get its political dividends later.”

This explains exactly why many Americans have been left scratching their heads since March in wondering why in the world the Gitmo terrorists/enemy combatants haven’t been put on military trial yet. Simply put, because this is the Liberal-fake Democratic Party U.S.A.’s endless supply of cash and wealth redistribution that is critical towards advancing their agenda. Money is power, especially in politics. Crony-capitalists posing as lawyers play a huge part in the DNC pay-to-play schemes. The Gitmo detainees will now represent an even bigger chunk of the DNC’s cash cow, thanks to the defense bill. Holder’s former lawfirm is set to rake in billions of dollars in lawyers fees, some of which will be used to fund the DNC as payback for Holder and Obama making sure these terrorist get huge, very expensive taxpayer-funded show-trials. The amount of kick-backs and play-for-pay cash inherent in Obama’s civilian terrorist trials makes the Solyndra $500 million dollar theft of taxpayer dollars to Obama-donors and campaign donation bundlers look like small potatoes here. This is the real reason behind the fake Democrat’s demands for civilian terrorist trials, and it has nothing to do with any semblance of justice. It’s all about the money, and the power derived from it.

How do civilian terror trials enable Liberal wealth redistribution? Simply by making sure these civilian terror trials are put on in Liberal states and cities. Look at past civilian terror trials. Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, NYC. These trials are very expensive compared to military tribunals, and more often than not, do not result in complete justice, as we see here, in the case of Ahmed Ghaliani, who was acquitted on all but 1 of 244 counts of terrorism-related charges, and in which it was proven fact that he helped an al-Qaeda cell buy a truck and components for explosives used in a suicide bombing in his native Tanzania on Aug. 7, 1998. The attack in Dar es Salaam and a nearly simultaneous bombing in Nairobi, Kenya, killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. Big-named DNC donors posing as lawyers love a long drawn out civilian terrorist trial where they have carte-blanche to bill thousands of hours to be paid by the taxpayers. The venue of these trials also enables back-door federal funding of bankrupt Liberal cities in funding the extra police and security needed for these trials. Holding federal trials in NYC and assorted Liberal bastions of irresponsibility in budgeting as mentioned above, will allow the so-called Justice Dept. to dole out truckloads of cash to assorted friends of the DNC for decades to come, thanks to the new provisions in the recently-passed House defense bill. It’s all about the money.

Now the word is that this defense bill, that has been redrawn on Obama’s wish-list criteria of holding civilian trails for enemy combatants and terrorists, will zoom through the U.S. Senate without any problems. Of course it will. Liberal Democrat Harry Reid runs the Senate these days. Now, thanks to Speaker Boehner and company bending over to Obama’s fund-the-DNC-through-civilian-terrorist-trials scheme, crony-capitalists posing as lawyers just might be more apt to help Obama get to that one billion dollar campaign fund they have been bragging about for the past year or so. Also strangely missing from this equation is the ACLU, as many Americans interpret parts of this bill as allowing the U.S. government to detain citizens without any proof or even a fair trial. Maybe, just maybe, if they weren’t doing Obama and Holder’s bidding today they would have gotten involved.

2012 just can’t get here fast enough.