Bush Terrorizes Padilla Jury

Just how effective has Bush been in terrorizing our nation? How completely has he caused our citizens to conflate 9/11 with every enemy, real or imagined? The jury selection in the Jose Padilla case gives us a glimpse.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times the judge in the Padilla case is having a difficult time impanelling a jury. Of the first 550 questioned by mail a third were disqualified. Of the first 36 questioned in person by the judge more than half have been excused. The numbers though, are not as alarming as what they have told the judge.

Fist, there is the businessman who said

"It would pose some difficulty to me to be open-minded when the subject is terrorism,"

This is not just some abstract view of terrorism. As reported by the L A Times

Prospective jurors, including a Latino highway surveyor, an African American nurse, a Jewish advertising accountant and a divorced white electrician, have repeatedly invoked the images of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as the basis for their inability to judge Muslims fairly.

And, from another,

"Being very honest, in my heart, I don't know that I can" set aside memories of the terrorist attacks, she told Cooke. She was excused after being asked whether she would want someone like her on her own jury. "No," she answered vehemently.

Isn't that frightening. This man is not charged with anything even remotely connected with 9/11 and yet Bush has so effectively constructed an edifice of fear around 9/11 that people view anything involving the mere mention of terrorism as somehow raising the specter of the 9/11 tragedy.

These jurors also illustrate how difficult it is to get people to realize that we have a Constitution for a reason. That just because someone has been charged with something does not make it so.

A department store sales clerk also of Latin American descent was dismissed after repeatedly insisting that the defendants must have done something wrong to have landed in federal court.

That was followed by these prospective jurors,

Two women whom Cooke questioned Tuesday were among the most impassioned in expressing their views that the defendants weren't entitled to the rights they have in U.S. federal court.

We know there are people like this. But to actually here people stand up in court and tear up the Constitution in the interests of some illusory concept of personal safety is truly chilling.

Also in evidence in the trial is how effectively Bush and his cohort have managed to play the Muslin equals terrorist card.

A single mother who works at a medical office was asked whether she considered Muslims disproportionately prone to violence. She replied: "Before Sept. 11, I would have said no. But from what I've heard since then on the news, I'd say yes."

What is so tragic about this sentiment is that we as a nation never learn. We went through this with the internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry during WW II, later to realize it was a blight on our country, a shameful episode that should never be repeated. (When I say "all" I exclude Michelle Malkin, of course). Yet here we are, sixty years later doing the same thing.

And of course it isn't just memories of 9/11 driving these feelings. From all those moronic color code episodes where we were all advised to stay especially vigilant through the parade of highly questionable "terrorism" apprehensions we have been encouraged to see plots all around us.

"From the terrorism here in this country and what I know about the background in this case, I would not be a fair and impartial juror," an advertising accountant said. "It's hard to admit that you're prejudiced and biased, but in this situation I am."

She was dismissed, as was a self-employed Miami Beach businesswoman who said that she regarded the defendants as "radical people" and believed "that they want to destroy us."

That juror mentioned the "background" of this case. Well lest any of us have forgotten, what is that background? Jose Padilla's arrest first hit the National news in June 2002 when Ashcroft announced to the world that a man who planned to attack the U.S. with a dirty bomb had been aprehended. The lies started that day. In reality, padilla had been arrested a month earlier, in May 2002, and held as a material witness. Originally jailed in New York, he was transfered to a Navy Brig in Charleston, S.C in June after Bush declared him to be an enemy combatant. He rotted there for three and a half years without charges. Then, in November 2005, in order to avoid a likely Habeas Corpus hearing by the Supreme Court, Padilla was transferred to Florida and his name was added to a pending indictment against other "alleged" terrorist. No dirty bombs, no activities in this country. Another loser who did some misguided and maybe even criminal things. But certainly not the threat that so many jurors in Florida have been conditioned to fear.

Bush Vows Veto Of Intelligence Bill - Not Enough Secrets

The Congress has not passed an Intelligence Authorization Bill since 2005, and Jay Rockefeller is determined to change that. In January, the Intelligence Committee reported out S. 372, the 2007 Intelligence Authorization Bill and it is up for consideration by the Senate. ( Yes, we are already half way through the fiscal year but Rockefeller only became Chairman in January.) You'd think the White House would be applauding the Senate for its diligence. On the contrary. The President thinks this bill is a threat to national security and has promised to veto it. How could that possibly be? Well, it turns out that the bill would require Bush to tell us what he is doing in our names in those secret prisons and would require him to tell us how much money he is spending on his outrages. Also, he would have to keep Congress informed. That kind of sunshine is beyond the pale for our President and must be squashed.

Bloomberg and Boston Globe are both reporting the President's veto threat which is spelled out in detail in the OMB statement objecting to the bill.

So what is it about this bill that is so objectionable. Well, as summarized by the Boston Globe, the bill would require,

--Yearly disclosure of the total amount spent on intelligence. The administration has long argued that releasing the figures would be a threat to national security.

--When lawmakers with jurisdiction ask for intelligence assessments and other information, the bill requires spy chiefs to turn the materials over within 15 days. The measure "would foster political gamesmanship and elevate routine disagreements to the level of constitutional crises," the administration says.

--A mandate that the White House brief all members of the intelligence committees on extraordinarily sensitive matters -- not just congressional and intelligence committee leaders, as is often the practice now.

--Required reports on interrogation activities and secret prisons, which the administration says would raise "grave constitutional issues" and jeopardize sensitive information that should not be widely distributed.

--Creation of a statutory inspector general for Office of the Director of National Intelligence who would have the power to direct watchdogs in any of the 16 spy agencies. The administration says the existing watchdogs are best suited to do the job without "dysfunctional interference" from the proposed new inspector general.

--A requirement that the heads of the National Security Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and National Reconnaissance Office be subject to Senate confirmation, as well as the CIA's deputy director. The administration calls that unnecessary.

Before getting into those provisions in more detail it is worth noting that this is not a case of only those nasty unpatriotic Democrats gumming up the works. It seems that Senator Bond, the ranking Republican, supports the bill and isn't too keen on Bush's veto threat. As reported by Bloomberg,

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, and Senator Christopher Bond, the panel's senior Republican, earlier today said Bush needed to be more forthcoming to Congress about intelligence operations.

``There may be some officials of the executive branch that prefer a lack of oversight,'' Bond, a Missouri lawmaker, said in a speech today in the Senate chamber. ``That's not how the system works.''

Now Kit is coming to this party a little late, inasmuch as he was the Chairman of the Committee up until this year, but he is still welcome.

Now lets go to the particulars. The OMB statement lays out all of Bush's its principle objections.  First, document disclosure.

Mandatory Provision of Requested Documents in 15 Days Unless the President Claims Constitutional Privilege.

Section 108 provides that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the head of any intelligence agency shall furnish "any intelligence assessment, report, estimate, legal opinion, or other intelligence information" within 15 days upon a request by:  (1) a Congressional intelligence committee, (2) any other congressional committee of jurisdiction, (3) the Chairman of a congressional intelligence committee, or (4) the Vice Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of a congressional intelligence committee.  This section also provides that the DNI or the agency head cannot withhold the requested item "unless the President certifies that such document or information is not being provided because the President is asserting a privilege pursuant to the Constitution of the United States." Such provisions are highly objectionable, because rather than facilitating effective and cooperative interaction between the legislative and executive branches, they would foster political gamesmanship and elevate routine disagreements to the level of constitutional crises. Section 108 also is impractical and would require IC agencies to
direct resources from critical missions to comply with broad information requests within
an artificial deadline.

"Political gamesmanship?" Are you kidding? The most political administration in memory, one that got a free ride from the Congress for six years is now saying that when Congress does its job that is political gamesmanship. And as far as the argument that responding to these requests would be impractical and divert resources from critical missions, if those other critical missions happen to be the running of secret detention facilities, then I would suggest, the more diversion the better.

Next, Bush objects to provisions that would force the Administration to keep all members of the Intelligence Committees informed of critical matters, not just the top two guys. And in the event,

the DNI or the head of an intelligence agency fails to give the full notification to each member of an intelligence activity, the DNI or agency head must notify each member that a determination has been made not to provide information in full to all members of the committees; provide a classified statement of the reasons for such a
determination

This new requirement for notification of all members would also now apply to disclosure regarding covert actions. No more cozy meetings with a few who are then threatened to keep it all secret.

But what may be most objectionable about these new provisions are the teeth that come with them. Again, back to Bush's veto statement

Section 307 makes such notification to each member a condition on use of funds for intelligence activities. These provisions establish an all-or-nothing approach to executive branch notification to the intelligence committees that could delay actions needed to meet urgent national security requirements and would discourage, rather than encourage, the
sharing of extraordinarily sensitive information needed for effective legislative-executive relations with respect to the most sensitive intelligence matters.  This provision, in practice, would seek to compel the disclosure to multiple additional persons of sensitive national security information as to which the President has determined that special protection must be provided.

Congress is saying "no play, no pay." Now that kind of provision truly is a threat to national security.

Now we get to what could be the most critical provisions of the bill that have earned Bush's ire. First, those nasty clandestine torture camps.

Detailed Reports to Congress on Any Detention and Interrogation Activities and on Any Clandestine Detention Facilities.

Section 313 requires the DNI to submit a report (by May 1, 2007) to the congressional Intelligence Committees on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The reports are required to include, among other things, "all legal opinions" provided by the Department of Justice regarding the "meaning or application of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 with respect to the detention and interrogation activities" undertaken by any element of the intelligence community. Section 313 includes no exception for applicable legal privileges. Section 314 imposes similarly far-reaching disclosure requirements, obligating the DNI to submit within 60 days a detailed report on any current or former clandestine detention facility. In addition to raising grave constitutional issues, such matters are appropriately left to sensitive handling in the normal course between the intelligence committees and the executive branch and should not be the subject of detailed statutory reporting requirements.

Wow. Bush will have to report the who, what, where, and why for all those clandestine detention facilities. My guess is that they object to this one so strongly because the know that having to report this information effectively means that those facilities will have to be shut down. But I sure do want to read those legal opinions. It might even be possible that the lawyers writing them, knowing they will be scrutinized by outside parties, will be less inclined to write the the type of blank checks we have seen from Yoo and Gonzales.

The last major objection has to do with money. To paraphrase the White House, "if people knew how much we were spending on this they would revolt." Here's Bush's actual language.

Public Disclosure of Amounts Annually Requested, Authorized, and Appropriated for the NIP.

Section 107 would require the President annually to disclose publicly the total amount requested for the NIP and would require Congress annually to disclose publicly the total amounts authorized to be appropriated, and appropriated, for the NIP. The Congress thoroughly examined this issue during its consideration of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), when Congress rejected publication of the NIP funding total. The funding information should continue to be kept classified, because disclosure of changes in funding totals over time could compromise intelligence sources, methods, and activities.

Compromise sources, methods and activities. Balderdash. That is the last refuge on an intelligence scoundrel and this super secret White House. I'm glad that the Committee finally blew the whistle on this issue.

There you have it. A very important bill that, if enacted, will bring some much needed sunshine to our intelligence activities. And, it's even supported by Kit Bond.

Mitt Romney Gives Us A Peek Into His Mind

Every once in a while I like to read the Washington Times. Not because I want to find out whether the Moon is truly made of green cheese, but rather to get some real news, unfiltered by that left wing media bias. Today was precious. I was treated to a lengthy article about Romney firing the "opening shots" in the "defense week" of his presidential campaign.

For all of you who get tired of beating up on our candidates, here is an alternative. Romney's speech provides us with all the ammunition we need to let loose on the Republican Financial Front Runner.

To start out, Mitt gives Bush a full embrace with what has to be one of the most inane comments ever uttered. With metaphorical tears in his eyes Mitt said

We are fortunate today to have a president who loves America

In Mitt's world this is one of the unique qualities of Bush - something that distinguishes him from past Presidents. He is not only different from that Philistine Clinton, but also the likes of Bush 42 and maybe even Saint Ronald.

Mitt goes on to explain that Bush's deep love of the United States is in clear evidence because Bush is a person

who acts solely out of a desire to protect her and to promote liberty around the world

Bush wants to protect the United States so much that he passed up the opportunity to capture the terrorists the caused 9/11 so that he could start an aggressive war in Iraq against a country that did not pose a meaningful threat to us. And while he was at it, he decided to spread liberty by destabilizing the entire region and ridding Iran of its arch enemy, Iraq. Yes, certainly sounds like Bush has our interests at heart.

Mitt then continued to cozy up to Bush by adopting the silly and totally discredited Republican attack on Speaker Pelosi. Reaching heights of absurd hyperboly he declared with grave solemnity that the Speaker's trip to Syria was

one of the most partisan, divisive and ill-considered of any national leader in this decade

Not to be outdone by his own rhetoric he graced the audience with his overarching philosophy of national defense. The audience was undoubtedly spellbound in rapturous awe when he declared that

his own defense philosophy follows from former President Ronald Reagan, who said, "Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."

What in the world does that mean? Does anyone seriously believe we became involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, or Viet Nam because we were too weak? That can't possibly be the explanation, especially not with regard to the first three wars. Our strength relative to our adversaries didn't get us into, nor would it have kept us out of, those wars. As far as Viet Nam is concerned, an argument can be made that if we had not been so militarily dominant and fearful of dominos falling on every corner of the world we might have decided not to engage in that tragic conflict.

Not only was Mitt's statement inane, the history of the lead up to the Iraq war suggests it was wrong. Does anyone think we would have commenced the needless and tragic war in Iraq if we had not been the dominant military power in the world? A power which believed it could reshape the world through military force of arms. A power that could use its military to rewrite thousands of years of history.

So there you have it. Mitt Romney - certified Bush lover, diplomatic guru and military historian. Just think, he could be our next President. If ever there was a time for prayer it is now.

So whenever we debate the merits of our own candidates we should always remember to keep our observations and criticisms in perspective. If we do too good a job of cutting our guys down we could end up with Mitt.

Bamboozlement Hits A Wall - Americans Know Their Security Is Not Tied To Iraq

By almost a two to one margin, 61% to 34%, Americans do not believe that U.S. security is tied to "success" in Iraq. The Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index released by Foreign Affairs shows that the worm has turned. Americans have stopped believing Bush, Cheney and all their dissembling flunkies who try to govern by fear. Yes there still are a few dead enders, those pitiful few who would follow Bush off the nearest cliff. But their numbers are dwindling. More and more people are coming to their senses.

And this poll has more good news. Seventy percent believe we should pull out of Iraq within twelve months. Moreover, nineteen of those seventy percent think we should withdraw immediately. Only 27% think we should "stay for as long as it takes to stabilize the country."

Isn't that interesting. Even though 34% say they believe our security is tied to success in Iraq only 27% think we should stay as long as it takes. Could it be that the 34% number is really pretty soft and that it is going to slip further as the Iraq fustercluck continues to degenerate.

This data seems to clearly indicate that Americans are shedding their sheep's clothing. They are refusing to be bamboozled by nonsensical assertions of the need to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here. They also are understanding something more basic.

The only Iraq war we could have won was finished in April 2003. From that point on there was nothing for us to win. All we could do was become an occupying force, sow the seeds of discontent, and feed the fires of sectarian strife. And boy have we succeeded at that. Of course, everything that transpired after April 2003 was a direct consequence of our having started this boneheaded and illegal war. So a victory of any stripe was never a possibility.

The Air Force Won't Protect Its Own Against Blackwater Employees

You know that outsourcing of the government, AKA "privatization," has gone too far when the military can't even stand up to the contractors who seek retribution against military personnel. As reported by the Virginia-Pilot two Air Force Colonels were reprimanded for ruffling the feathers of Jimmy Bergeron, a Blackwater employee, following a traffic accident involving the Colonels and Bergeron in Kabul, Afghanistan. The two Colonels, Christopher Hall and Gary Brown, were reprimanded even though the officer that investigated the incident and took testimony from the witnesses, ruled that the Colonels followed all the rules of engagement. The investigating officer recommended that all charges be dropped.

How could that be? Well, could it be that Blackwater had something to do with it? The reprimands were issued by Lt Gen. Gary North, Commander of the 9th Air Force. When the Colonels received word of the reprimands,

Brown's civilian attorney has fired back with an angry letter, calling the sanctions a "laugh-out-loud joke" and suggesting that the general bowed to pressure from Blackwater, a private military company based in Moyock, N.C.

There is no doubt that a confrontation occurred. But,

At a hearing in February, Brown and Hall testified that Bergeron behaved aggressively and that they feared he was a suicide bomber.

The investigating officer who heard their testimony concluded that they properly followed the rules of engagement and recommended that the charges be dropped.

In a letter to North on Wednesday, Charles Gittins, Brown's civilian attorney, wrote that the reprimand flies in the face of the investigating officer's findings and "demonstrates your lack of moral courage to admit error and do the right thing:... apologize to two officers who were needlessly and without reason subjected to personal humiliation and torment...."

When an officer receives a reprimand of this sort it can be death to his career. Has the contracting community become so powerful that the military will not even protect its own? It would seem so. But it is also clear that this is not the end of the story. According to one of the Colonels' lawyers

"attempts were made to frame my client." He referred to the investigating officer's report that Afghan security guards who witnessed the confrontation said they were offered bribes to give false testimony about it.

The Air Force is investigating the allegations.

It's bad enough that the taxpayers get robbed when we outsource essential government functions. It is bad enough that the people who work for private contractors are often shortchanged on benefits and basic employee protections. And it is disgusting to see these private contractors pay obscene sums to their senior management. But have they gotten so powerful that even the United States military doesn't have the ability or will to stand up to them? If so, this does not portend well for the future.

Global War On Terror Is Dead - Neocons Weep

The Neocon dreams for a never ending global conflict to replace the Cold War is dying, and in some places it is already dead. The House Armed Services Committee has banished the term "Global War on Terror" from the 2008 Defense Budget, and while they are at it they also banned Mr. GWOT's kissing cousin, the "Long War." As reported by the Army Times

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

. . . . . . . . . .

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.”

Now we all know there is much more to this than a few innocent words. Sure, Committee staff said that there was no political motive behind the move but the Republicans aren't buying it. Duncan Hunter, the ranking Republican and ex-Chairman of the Committee, said he was not consulted and Republican staff see the issue in starkly political terms

“This is a philosophical and political question,” said a Republican aide. “Republicans generally believe that by fighting the war on terror in Iraq, we are preventing terrorists from spreading elsewhere and are keeping them engaged so they are not attacking us at home.”

Of course, as the Army Times points out

. . . . U.S. intelligence officials have been telling Congress that most of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian strife and not directly linked to terrorists, although some foreign insurgents with ties to terrorist groups have been helping to fuel the fighting.

This is one more step toward returning sanity to our country. But the Neocons won't let go without a fight. During the nineties, the Neocons really missed the Cold war. Every great country needs an enemy and the bigger the enemy the better. Heck, if you don't have a big threatening enemy how is anyone going to know how great you are. And more importantly, if you don't have a big enemy to keep the voters in constant fear how can you hope to stay in power and enrich your friends with a continuous feeding frenzy at the public trough.

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote an excellent article in the Washington Post which is a must read on this topic. He speaks about how Bush's War on Terror has been deliberately used to create a culture of fear. While many of us have ridiculed the entire concept of waging war on a tactic, or even worse, a noun, Zbig points out why the phrase is cherished by the Neocons

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."

The House Armed Services Committee, Chaired by a wonderful man from Missouri, Ike Skelton, has taken a step toward returning our country to normalcy. A country where we don't manufacture threats or exaggerate dangers. A country whose leader does not terrorize its citizens but rather comforts and assures them. Removing these four words from our lexicon is a good step toward that goal.

Another Worst Of The Worst Is Freed Without Charges

The Independent reports that Bisher al-Rawi will be released from Guantanamo and returned to England, where he had lived for sixteen years before being interned in America's Shame, also known as Guantanamo.

So why is this man who fled Iraq with his family in the early eighties to escape Saddam's regime finally being released without any charges having been brought against him? Well it appears the British government has finally stopped their foot dragging on his case because they are embarrassed that Mr al-Rawi used to do work for MI-5, the British Intelligence Service, and that MI-5 was responsible for his arrest.

For many years the British Government had refused to help Mr Rawi and the eight other British residents still held by the Americans at the US naval base in Cuba because they did not have the same legal status as UK nationals.
. . . . . . . .

He said he thought the decision to help Mr Rawi was only taken because the Government did not want an embarrassing court case in which Britain's involvement in his capture would have been made public.

The High Court in London has already permitted the disclosure of classified documents linking MI5 to Mr Rawl's arrest.

Mr Katznelson said: "Mr Rawi helped MI5 as an interpreter and acted as a go-between with Abu Qatada [a terror suspect later arrested and detained by the British authorities]. All this would have... been very embarrassing for the government and... MI5."

Isn't that interesting? The British government sits on the sidelines for five years while Mr. al-Rawi rots in Guantanamo and only engineers his release after a court rules that information will be disclosed regarding the involvement of MI-5 in both his capture and in his prior work for the agency. And while the British shame is bad enough, it pales compared to ours. After all, we are the jailers, the torturers and the premier human rights hypocrites in the world.

Now we all know that the Guantanamo detainees are the worst of the worst. We know that with certainty because the President said so. Lets see just how bad Mr. al-Rawi is. We pick up his life after escaping Iraq -

Mr Rawi's lived with his mother, brother and sister in south London for 16 years. He was arrested in the Gambia, along with his brother, Wahab, and business partners, Jamil el-Banna and Abdullah el-Ganudi. Wahab and Mr Ganudi were both released because they were British citizens. Bisher and Mr Banna, who could only claim British residency, were taken by the Americans to Bagram airbase and then Guantanamo Bay.

Bisher and Wahab, 41, moved to Britain in the 1980s after their father fell under the suspicion of Saddam Hussein. They first lived in Cambridge, where they took their O-levels, before continuing their schooling at Millfield School, Somerset, and Concord College, Shropshire. They later attended separate universities.

In 1992 Wahab took British nationality while his brother decided to retain his Iraqi citizenship as he did not want to damage his ties with his home country.

But it was Wahab's business interests that took the two brothers to the Gambia in November 2002.

He told The Independent last year: "I had this business idea for a mobile peanut-oil processing factory. I had done the feasibility study; it was all ready to go. I had my team and we brought Bisher in on the deal towards the end."

Four days after his arrival in Gambia, Wahab went to Banjul airport to meet his brother and the other two men.

As Wahab approached his brother he became aware of a problem with immigration. Gambian officials had confiscated their passports and they were being taken to an interview room.

For the next three to four days the four men were moved around the Gambian National Intelligence Agency (NIA), alternately questioned by Americans and Gambians.

Four days after Wahab had met Bisher at the airport, they were taken from the NIA headquarters to a secret location in the Banjul suburbs. It was here that Bisher begged his brother to co-operate with the Americans because "we have nothing to hide".

Mr Ganudi and Wahab were separated from the other two and taken back to interrogation suites in the NIA building where the Americans began repeating the questions. A few days later they were told they could fly back to Britain. The other two were transferred to Guantanamo Bay.

Their lawyers allege that they have been tortured by guards and deprived of basic necessities during their five-year ordeal.

So here you have a guy who fled Saddam's persecution and started a new life with his family in England. His brother became a British citizen but he decided to keep his Iraqi nationality. He goes on a business trip with his brother to that hotbed of terrorism, Gambia, and ends up spending five years in prison in Guantanamo.

This man is so dangerous that he could not be given the minimal requirements of due process. He was such a threat that if he had been granted rights such as, seeing the charges against him, having a trial before an impartial judge and jury, and being able to confront witnesses, all within, say, three months of his capture, our way of life would have been put at risk.

As time passes it has become indisputable this case is the rule rather than the exception for America's Shame. The only unusual aspect of Mr. al-Rawi's case is that also reveals a stain on the British government.

Torture, What Do You Get - Ask David Hicks

David Hicks is heading back to Australia after more than five years in America's Shame, Guantanamo. The transcript of his truncated judicial proceedings is full of nothing but redactions when it comes to the type of abuse he suffered.

But we now have a little more insight into the the abuse to which he was subjected. The Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) received a copy of an affidavit he filed with his unsuccessful application for British citizenship and some of its contents are discussed here.

In the affidavit, Hicks said he was slapped, kicked, punched and spat on after being arrested by coalition forces in the Central Asian country in 2001.

Hicks also said that he had heard other detainees screaming in pain, had seen evidence of beatings on fellow prisoners and had had a shotgun trained on him during questioning.

"I realised that if I did not cooperate with US interrogators, I might be shot," he said in the document handed to British authorities and obtained by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

Anyone who follows the sordid history of torture knows that its goal is to obtain confessions, NOT information. Hick's experience is further illustration of that undeniable truth.

As reported by the ABC,

In the document, Hicks said that by early 2003 he "felt that I had to ensure that whatever I did pleased the interrogators to keep from being physically abused, placed in isolation and remaining at Guantanamo for the rest of my life", the ABC reported late Monday.

Sadly, this story is not new. We have heard them repeatedly and as reported by the ABC

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, said his claims were credible.

"I know this kind of abuse happened," he told ABC. "I've talked to people who participated in it -- CIA, military and contractor."

Wilkerson said military officers had told him the interrogations at Guantanamo Bay had revealed "virtually nothing" of useful intelligence.

"And that is just damning," he said.

When will this end? When will we ever return to our senses? The day must come soon. The day I am praying for is not just when we shut down Guantanamo, but when we have a full open accounting of what was done in our name. On that day, when we disclose to the world how we let our fears take control of our senses and our morals will be the day we begin to redeem ourselves before the World.

Padilla Loses - Five Years is "Speedy" Enough

Just because he has been incarcerated almost five years doesn't mean Jose Padilla is not getting a speedy trial. At least that's what the District Court in Miami ruled on March 23, 2007. The judge bought the Government's argument that the 3 1/2 years he was held without charges should not count against the Speedy Trial requirement contained in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Unfortunately for Padilla, and any of the rest of us who may find ourselves in the same situation, that quaint Constitutional provision doesn't mean you can't be held for one, two, three years, heck, indefinitely, without trial. It only means that if the Government ever decides to charge you with something, then at that point they have to start obeying the rules. As reported by AP,

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke agreed with prosecutors that Padilla's years in isolation at a Navy brig did not count because he had not yet been charged.

The criminal charges came when Padilla, a U.S. citizen accused of being an al-Qaida operative, was added to an existing Miami terrorism support indictment in November 2005. Only then did the clock start for the Sixth Amendment's right to a "speedy and public trial," Cooke said.

"I agree that the law in this case is that a criminal trial proceeding begins with the filing of the criminal process," Cooke said. "Mr. Padilla has been promptly brought to court in that matter."

(I have not found a link to the decision yet, but will update when I do.)

This is not a really unexpected decision since the Court of Appeals had issued an opinion in September, 2005 that his detention without charges was legal. But this latest opinion is another sharp stick in the eye of American Justice and Constitutional rights.

I should explain my real problem with this decision. I suspect that the judge was slavishly following the precedents which say that the right to speedy trial attaches only after charges are filed. Fine. But this case is different from the usual ones and those precedents could be distinguished.

Here we have a man who was arrested and detained for 3 1/2 years without any charges having been filed against him. All during this time he is portrayed as this highly dangerous individual who was on the verge of killing thousands. After 3 1/2 years he was finally transferred from military detention and charged, but only after it became likely that he was about to get a Habeas Corpus hearing. To make matters worse, when the charges against him were actually filed, no mention was made of the alleged reasons for his initial incarceration. Lastly, during much of this period he has been held in solitary confinement and possibly tortured.

Sure a judge can just look at the precedents and tell him he is out of luck. Or, the judge could simply blow the whistle on this outrageous conduct and say that enough is enough. The Government will not be allowed to treat basic principles of justice as if they are written on an etch a sketch board which can be erased and rewritten at the whim of his jailers.

Where is an "activist" judge when we need one?

Bush Doesn't Have A Leg To Stand On Regarding The Testimony Of White House Officials

There is so much discussion about subpoenas these days, and whether Bush White House officials will be forced to, or will "voluntarily," testify before Congress. The misinformation from the right has gone to absurd extremes topped by Snow's ridiculous statement that the Congress has no oversight authority over the White House. Whoop! Guess he forgot about Congress' impeachment power.

To help us sort through the silliness from Bush flacks Congressman Waxman wrote a letter to Leahy and Conyers with an attached report detailing just how often Clinton White House officials testified before Congress, either with or without subpoenas. The letter fully debunks the White House claim that their offer of unsworn, private, unrecorded conversations would provide "unprecedented" access to White House officials

It contains good reference material for "water cooler" discussions and letters to the editor. Here are a few big points.

First, we have Clinton White House Counsels testifying -

ln 1994, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum testified before the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs regarding the "Whitewater" matter. In l996,he was deposed under oath on two separate days by the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight as part of the White Travel Office investigation.

In 1994, White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler testified before the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs regarding the "'Whitewater" matter.

ln 1997, White House Counsel Jack Quinn was deposed under oath by the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight as part of an investigation into campaign finance activities.

In 1997, White House Counsel Charles Ruff testified before the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight as part of an investigation into campaign finance activities. Mr. Ruff testified again before the Committee in 2000 as part of an investigation into the White House email system. Mr. Ruff also testified before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs as part of the Committee's 1997-1998 investigation into campaign finance activities.

In 2000, White House Counsel Beth Nolan testified before the House Committee on Government Reform as part of an investigation into the White House email system. Ms. Nolan testified again before the Committee in 2001 as part of an investigation into President Clinton's pardon decisions.

Next we have Clinton's Chiefs of Staff -

In 1997 ,White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. Mclarty was deposed by the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight as part of an investigation into campaign finance activities.

In 1998, White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles was deposed by the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight as part of an investigation into the use of the President's holiday card list.

In 2001, White House Chief of Staff John Podesta testified before the House Committee on Government Reform as part of an investigation into President Clinton's pardon decisions.

And lest anyone try to obfuscate the significance of these examples by saying they involved "criminal' matters, baloney. In most of these cases there were no credible allegations of underlying crimes and in some, such as the exercise of the President's pardon power, it involved a matter committed to the President's absolute discretion.

The letter goes on to discuss the voluminous record of documents that the Clinton Administration provided to the Congress.

Attached to the letter is a report with all the gory details. Here are some highlights. On the question of subpoenas,

Before the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, congressional authority to issue subpoenas was viewed as a serious power to be exercised judiciously. From at least as far back as the McCarthy era in the 1950s to the Republican takeover in 1995, no Democratic committee chairman issued a subpoena without either consent from the minority or a committee vote. This long-standing tradition of restraint was abandoned, however, during the congressional investigations of the Clinton Administration.

The Government Reform Committee is the primary investigative committee in the House of Representatives. During the Clinton Administration, the chairman of this Committee unilaterally issued over 1,000 subpoenas to investigate allegations of misconduct involving the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Party. The Committee issued 1,089 subpoenas during the six years that Dan Burton served as chairman from 1997 through 2002. During this period, 1,052 of the Committee's subpoenas - 97% - targeted officials of the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Party; only l l subpoenas related to allegations of Republican abuses.

Regarding the production of documents,

The Government Accountability Office examined White House efforts to provide documents to Congress over an 18-month period from October 1996 to March 1998. GAO found that during this period alone, White House staff spent over 55,000 hours responding to over 300 congressional requests, producing hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and hundreds of video and audio tapes to Congress.

And here are just three examples of the types of information provided to Congress.

Discussions Between the President and His Advisors. President Clinton waived executive privilege to allow his advisors to testify before the Committee about their discussions with him regarding the exercise of the presidential pardon power. Attorney General Janet Reno informed the Committee about her discussions with the President during the confrontation at Waco.

Internal White House E-Mails. The White House spent over $12 million to reconstruct internal White House e-mails for Committee review. Thousands of pages of these White House emails were provided to the Committee, including e-mails between the Vice President and his staff.

Confidential Communications from the White House Counsel's Office. The White House Counsel's Office turned over to the Committee many documents containing sensitive legal advice or communications, In a private-sector context, these documents would be covered by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product privilege. For example, during its campaign finance investigation, the Committee received notes taken by White House counsel reflecting attorney-client communications, and during its investigation into the White House email system, the Committee received a memorandum containing legal advice from the Vice President's counsel to the Vice President.

Though most of us lived through all this it still boggles the mind. But what's done is done. This White House has no standing now to deny Congress access to the information and testimony currently being sought. They know history is not on their side. And If they persist by fighting this in court, they will be hoisted on their own petards.

El Masri Looses - State Secret Privelage Run Amuck

On March 2, 2007, the Fourth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a law suit that had been filed against the government by Khaled El Masri, the German who was an innocent victim of the shameful and illegal U.S. extraordinary rendition program. The case was dismissed because the Court accepted the Government's argument that if the case were allowed to proceed there would be a risk of exposing "State secrets." ACLU Executive Director Romero summed it up well,

“Regrettably, today’s decision allows CIA officials to disregard the law with impunity by making it virtually impossible to challenge their actions in court,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “With today’s ruling, the state secrets doctrine has become a shield that covers even the most blatant abuses of power.”

You can download the decision here or go to this link for the case.

You probably remember El Masri from his 60 Minutes appearance or countless news articles detailing the months of abuse to which he was subjected, all because the CIA didn't check its facts.

The ACLU lawsuit charges former CIA director George Tenet, other CIA officials and U.S.-based aviation corporations with violations of United States and universal human rights laws. El-Masri was on vacation in Macedonia when he was kidnapped, abused and rendered to a CIA-run “black site” in Afghanistan. After several months of confinement in squalid conditions, he was flown from Afghanistan and abandoned on a hill in Albania with no explanation, never having been charged with a crime.

He has been a free man ever since but one tormented by his experience. And he can't get justice because that would supposedly harm national security. What a joke. As his attorneys point out

To date, El-Masri’s case has been described in literally hundreds of newspaper articles and television news programs – many of them relying on sources within the U.S. government. It has been the subject of numerous investigations and reports by intergovernmental bodies, including the European Parliament. Most recently, prosecutors in El-Masri’s adopted country of Germany formally requested indictments against 13 CIA agents and contractors for their role in his kidnapping, abuse, and detention.

. . . . . . . . . . .

“Today the appeals court gave the CIA complete immunity for even its most shameful conduct," said ACLU attorney Ben Wizner, who argued El-Masri’s case before the Fourth Circuit last November. "Depriving Khaled El-Masri of his day in court on the ground that the government cannot disclose facts that the whole world already knows only compounds the brutal treatment he endured."

The ACLU has not yet announced whether it will appeal the case to the Supreme Court. I hope they do and bring an end to this type of ridiculous use of a State Secrets privilege.

These state secret cases go way back in our history. In analyzing them the courts make the Government jump through some minor hoops but when all is said and done they revolve around deference.

A court is obliged to honor the Executive’s assertion of the privilege if it is satisfied "from all the circumstances of the case, that there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged." Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 10. In assessing the risk that such a disclosure might pose to national security, a court is obliged to accord the "utmost deference" to the responsibilities of the executive branch. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 710. Such deference is appropriate not only for constitutional reasons, but also practical ones: the Executive and the intelligence agencies under his control occupy a position superior to that of the courts in evaluating the consequences of a release of sensitive information. In the related context of confidentiality classification decisions, we have observed that "[t]he courts, of course, are ill-equipped to become sufficiently steeped in foreign intelligence matters to serve effectively in the review of secrecy classifications in that area." United States v. Marchetti, 466 F.2d 1309, 1318 (4th Cir. 1972).

Applying those principles and precedents from similar cases to El Masri the court concluded

In light of these decisions, we must reject El-Masri’s view that the existence of public reports concerning his alleged rendition (and the CIA’s rendition program in general) should have saved his Complaint from dismissal. Even if we assume, arguendo, that the state secrets privilege does not apply to the information that media outlets have published concerning those topics, dismissal of his Complaint would nonetheless be proper because the public information does not include the facts that are central to litigating his action. Rather, those central facts — the CIA means and methods that form the subject matter of El-Masri’s claim — remain state secrets. Consequently, pursuant to the standards that El-Masri has acknowledged as controlling, the district court did not err in dismissing his Complaint at the pleading stage.

These are real tough cases for any plaintiff and I would not venture a guess on how the Supreme Court would rule. But the injustice here is so great it might be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to reconsider this area of the law and rein in what appear to be clear Executive branch abuses. Unfortunately El Masri's challenge is made all the more difficult because the trial and appellate courts saw fit to defer to the government's state secret claims. Why any court would give this government the benefit of the doubt on any national security type argument in a case involving abuses of human rights and basic standards of decency is beyond me.

(As an aside, I was only ever involved in one case before the 4th Circuit. I was working for a Federal agency and the question was, as in Masri's case, the appropriate degree of deference the court should grant to an Agency. In our case it involved the interpretation of our organic act. Although we had won in the District Court we lost on appeal. I sure wish we had been given the same deference given in the Masri case. Of course, my case didn't involve state secrets.)

Boumediene And Habeas - It's Time For The Supreme Court To Answer Two Questions

The recent D. C. Circuit decision continued a fairly long line of habeas corpus/ suspension cases that fail to address, often explicitly, two fundamental questions regarding the privelage of habeas corpus and when it can be constitutionally suspended: 1) to what extent has the right of habeas corpus developed to include circumstances beyond those that existed in the common law in 1789; and 2) does the Constitution, through the Suspension Clause or one or more of the Fifth, Sixth, or Fourteenth Amendments, provide an affirmative right of habeas corpus beyond that which exists by statute or the common law. Boumediene v. Bush highlights the need for a Supreme Court ruling addressing these questions and will hopefully provide the vehicle.

Boumediene v. Bush is the most recent Court of Appeals case regarding Guantanamo detainee Habeas Corpus rights. In a two to one decision the Court held that the Military Commissions Act withdrew jurisdiction to hear the case and that there was no improper suspension of HC because Boumedienne would not have been entitled to Habeas Corpus under the common law as it existed in 1789.

Since there has been ample discussion of the confusing and, in my opinion, incorrect, majority opinion that ignores Supreme Court precedent and convolutes centuries old English decisions I am not going to comment on it further. However I do want to comment on what the decision does not address, and point out why these omissions make this area of the law more confusing than it need be. I would also point out that these omissions can also be found in most Supreme Court decisions on this topic.

The dissent in Boumedienne, which is also guilty on this score, highlights the problem. Judge Roberts, in her dissent starts out well by saying

As for the MCA, I concur in the court’s conclusion that, notwithstanding the requirements that Congress speak clearly when it intends its action to apply retroactively, see Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 265-73 (1994), and when withdrawing habeas jurisdiction from the courts, see INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 299 (2001); Ex parte Yerger, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 85, 102 (1869), Congress sought in the MCA to revoke all federal jurisdiction retroactively as to the habeas petitions of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. See Op. at 9-12.

But then she begins to slip. Characterizing the detainees' complaint, she writes

The detainees do not here contend that the Constitution accords them a positive right to the writ but rather that the Suspension Clause restricts Congress’s power to eliminate a preexisting statutory right. To answer that question does not entail looking to the extent of the detainees’ ties to the United States but rather requires understanding the scope of the writ of habeas corpus at common law in 1789.

See what happened. We went from the detainees' claim that their Statutory Rights, which existed under 28 USC 2241 were violated into a discussion of whether they were entitled to Habeas Corpus under the common law as it existed prior to 1789. She does this sidestep even though she acknowledges that prior to the MCA they had statutory Habeas Corpus rights. She does so by saying

A review of the text and operation of the Suspension Clause shows that, by nature, it operates to constrain the powers of Congress. Prior to the enactment of the MCA, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the detainees held at Guantanamo had a statutory right to habeas corpus. Rasul, 542 U.S. at 483-84. The MCA purports to withdraw that right but does so in a manner that offends the constitutional constraint on suspension. The Suspension Clause limits the removal of habeas corpus, at least as the writ was understood at common law, to times of rebellion or invasion unless Congress provides an adequate alternative remedy. The writ would have reached the detainees at common law, and Congress has neither provided an adequate alternative remedy, through the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-148, Div. A, tit. X, 119 Stat. 2680, 2739(“DTA”),nor invoked the exception to the Clause by making the required findings to suspend the writ. The MCA is therefore void and does not deprive this court or the district courts of jurisdiction.

The question of whether a statutory Habeas Corpus right exists is wrapped up, in part, in the question of whether the evolved and expanded Habeas Corpus rights contained in the Federal statutes that have been enacted since the Judiciary Act of 1879 are now subject to the Constitutional limitations of the Suspension Clause, ie., they cannot be suspended except on occasion of invasion or rebellion. She avoids the issue by saying her 1789 analysis makes it unnecessary

Given my conclusion, see infra Part C.1, it is also unnecessary to resolve the question of whether the Suspension Clause protects the writ of habeas corpus as it has developed since 1789. Compare St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 304-05,
and LaGuerre v. Reno, 164 F.3d 1035, 1038 (7th Cir. 1998), with Felker, 518 U.S. at 663-64, and Gerald L. Neuman, Habeas Corpus, Executive Detention, and the Removal of Aliens, 98 COLUM. L. REV. 961, 970 (1998). The court oddly chooses to ignore the issue by truncating its reference to St. Cyr, without comment, and omitting the qualifier “at the absolute minimum.” See Op. at 14.

And for the same reason she avoids discussing, let alone deciding, whether there is an affirmative Habeas Corpus right in the Constitution

It is unnecessary to resolve the question of whether the Constitution provides for an affirmative right to habeas corpus —
either through the Suspension Clause, the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, or the Sixth Amendment — or presumed the continued vitality of this “writ antecedent to statute,” Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 484 n.2 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the Supreme Court in Rasul held that the writ existed in 2004 and that there was, therefore, something to suspend, it is sufficient to assess whether the writ sought here existed 1789.

Because she didn't rule on whether Habeas Corpus has evolved beyond the Eighteenth Century or whether it is embodied as affirmative law in the Constitution, she summarizes her decision by saying

Therefore, because Congress in enacting the MCA has revoked the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus where it
would have issued under the common law in 1789, without providing an adequate alternative, the MCA is void unless Congress’s action fits within the exception in the Suspension Clause: Congress may suspend the writ “when in Cases of
Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 2. However, Congress has not invoked
this power.

Don't get me wrong. I think she reached the right result and that her reasoning, for the most part, is sound. But I think that she and most other judges continue to ignore the elephants in the bedroom. And by doing so they involve themselves in increasingly convoluted discussions of Colonial era British law. Yes, I know there are reasons why this is done and especially in lower court cases But it is time for the Supreme Court to step up to the plate. The Bush Administration has forced their hand with the MCA and the Detainee Treatment Act before it.

And my little tip to the Court is - there is an Affirmative Habeas Corpus right in the Constitution and the Suspension clause also applies to the revocation of the evolved Habeas Corpus rights now contained in Federal Statutes.

Is Don Young a Saboteur Who Should Be Exiled or Hanged? He Seems to Think So.

We all know that Rep. Don Young put words in President Lincoln's mouth on the floor of the House during the debate on the "Surge," AKA "Escalation," Resolution. He quoted Lincoln as saying

"Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged,"

The lie in Mr. Young's statement has been exposed by many sources, including the washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn... But even after having been exposed, Young's spokesman said

"Now that he's been informed these are not the actual words of Lincoln, he will discontinue attributing the words to Lincoln. However, he continues to totally agree with the message of the statement," Kenny said. "Americans, especially America's elected leaders, should not take actions during a time of war that damage the morale of our soldiers and military -- and that is exactly what this nonbinding resolution does."

Really. Well if that's the case, then based on what the Esteemed Gentlemen from Alaska said while our troops were fighting in Kosovo, his arrest followed by exile or hanging are long overdue. From Mr. Young's web site, http://donyoung.house.gov/PressRelease.aspx?NewsID=1271 this is what he had to say about Kosovo.

First, U.S. involvement in Kosovo was illegal because a President cannot take the country to war without Congressional authorization

“Today’s votes provide a constitutional backdrop for the debate over the war in Kosovo. The Administration is waging war without the authority of Congress. The Administration has taken actions to place U.S. troops into combat without Congressional authorization. Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war, not the president,” said Alaska Congressman Don Young.

Furthermore, just because troops have already been committed to the fight did not mean that a person like Mr. Young should stay quiet in order to not undermine the morale of the troops. On the contrary,

Congressman Young said “We continue to place our young persons in direct harm, I think about those in Alaska who are serving their country like those who are flying F-15's and tanker crews who are supporting our fighting team. Yet, these patriots are serving there country without knowing what the end-game mission will be in bombing Kosovo. The president has failed to address what the mission is and what the exit strategy will be to bring our men and women home.”

And lest there be any doubt that his view applied only to the Kosovo situation Mr. Young made clear that the principles upon which he stood applied to all such cases -

“I have been a proponent for Congressional authority to declare war. I believe the president must consult, and receive approval by Congress before sending our sons and daughters into dangerous countries such as Kosovo.”

So there you have it. While U.S. troops were in combat in Kosovo, Mr. Young subverted the President and damaged the morale of the troops by charging that the mission was illegal. Not only that, he undermined the military and the morale of the troops by saying that their mission was unclear and that they were locked in a never ending battle with no exit strategy.

While some years have passed since Mr. Young's treasonous conduct there can be no statute of limitations for a crime as heinous as his. It is time for the U.S. Marshals to come calling.

Is Iran Is Our Enemy?

A few days ago, in discussing the perils of our policy towards Iran, Wes Clark was asked what is arguably the most fundamental question in the current excitement about Iran: "Is Iran our enemy?" His response was -

An enemy? I wouldn't want to be branding people as enemies too soon. That was one of Bush's many mistakes. Iran is a nation we have many disagreements with...and that's why we should be discussing, not sabre rattling

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/200...

This is the question we should be looking at, not whether Iran wants to get nuclear weapons or whether it is providing military and other assistance to one or more factions in the Iraq civil war. And not just any enemy. But rather an enemy with whom our differences are so grave as to justify going to war.

Before discussing the history of our relations with Iran lets look at why the issues of nuclear weapons and military support to adversaries is never by itself grounds for war. I hate to belabor what should be obvious, but feel the need to do so because this Administration uses these issues to create anger and fear as a substitute for a rationale approach to our relations with Iran.

It goes without saying that having a nuclear weapon does not an enemy make. We have no problem with our friends and allies having nuclear weapons. We have had past "enemies" such as Russia and China with nuclear weapons who are, if not friends, at least partners. Conversely, all of our wars, except the Cold War, were with countries that did not have nuclear weapons. We encouraged many countries to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and all, with two or three exceptions, did not use that technology to build bombs. (I say "two or three" because India and Pakistan are open nuclear powers whereas Israel has kept its bombs under a bushel basket.) None of these countries became our enemies when they acquired nuclear weapons and the same would be true with Iran.

What about providing weapons to our adversaries? Does that make someone our enemy and provide a basis for going to war against them? There are many historical examples of why the answer is "no" and here are three.

During the Korean war the USSR provided military and other support to the North Koreans, including jet fighters and the pilots who flew them. While the Soviets were clearly our Cold War enemy we did not use this as a basis to attack them. Similarly, while the Chinese sent hundreds of thousand of troops into Korea to battle the U.N. forces we did not use that as a pretext to attack China. Over the objections of MacArthur we did everything we could to contain the conflict.

From this standpoint Viet Nam was a repeat of Korea. The Soviets supported the North Vietnamese with arms and other material. We not only did not use that support as a basis for attacking the Soviets but were concerned, on and off, about sinking Soviet supply ships entering Haiphong harbor. As in Korea we sought to not escalate the war though we would have had ample provocation.

The tables were turned in the Afghan war to expel the soviets. We supplied the Afghan troops with everything from bullets to Stinger missiles for years and the Soviets knew it. But as with us in the prior two conflicts they did not use our actions as a pretext for going to war.

So what is it with Iran? What is our beef against them and their beef against us. Here is a brief chronology of some of the most significant events of the last fifty years involving the U.S and Iran.

* We deposed Mohammed Mossadegh their elected Prime Minister in 1953 and installed the Shah;

* We armed the Shah to the teeth as a bulwark against the USSR and friend of Israel

* We sided with the Shah in suppressing the Iranian Kurds

* The people revolted under the Ayatollah

* Our hostages were illegally imprisoned in violation of international law

* Diplomatic relations between our countries ceased

* Iran were invaded by Iraq, who we supported

* Iran gave refuge to anti-Saddam Shia

* Iran helped Iraqi Shia train anti-Saddam militias

* Iran continued to be anti-Soviet but were now anti-Israel

* Iran supported palestinian and Lebanese groups and militias, particularly Hezbollah

* We shot down an Iranian passenger plane by accident killing over a hundred people

* Iran was found by a Federal Judge to have been responsible for Khobar Towers bombing

* Iran opposed the Soviets in Afghanistan

* When the Taliban came to power Iran, unlike Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, did not recognize them

* Iran provided material and logistical support to overthrow the
Taliban/Qaeda until Bush declared them the Axis of Evil

* We deposed Sadaam, their worst enemy, and put the Shia, their best Iraqi friends, in power

* Iran is probably giving arms and other support to their Iraqi allies

* Iran continues to arrest and detain al Qaeda operatives

* Iran is a signatory to the NNPT unlike India, Pakistan and Israel

* Iran may be able to build nuclear weapons years from now

* Iran has never waged war against us

* Iran is still seeking reparations from Iraq for the 1980 war

* We continue to hold assets seized after the hostage crisis.


It seems clear that we have some issues with them and they with us. If the roles were reversed and they had begun interfering in our internal affairs in 1953 and engineered a coup ousting Eisenhower I wonder how we would feel. It also seems clear that we have no irreconcilable differences with the Iranians. All we need to do is start dealing with them as adults. Yes, the hostage taking in 1979 was an outrage. But time has passed. In fact more time has passed than it took us to establish diplomatic relations with the Vietnamese after the war. We and they need to move on. And now is the time.

A Small But Important Habeas Victory

The District Of Columbia Circuit ruled on February 9th that Habeas Corpus is still alive. In Omar v Harvey the Court upheld the right of Omar, an American citizen being held by the U.S. in Iraq to challenge his transfer to Iraqi authorities. This is an important decision for two main reasons. First it continues a line of cases striking down the Administrations expansive views of its "wartime" powers. Second, it confirms that Habeas Corpus is still alive.

Before discussing the law, here are the facts of the case. Omar is a dual American/Jordanian citizen, with an American wife, who said he traveled back to Iraq to seek construction related work and had intended on returning to the U.S. but for his arrest. The U.S. said he was captured in a raid on alleged Zarqawi associates and that he facilitated terrorist acts inside and outside Iraq. There was a status hearing before three U.S. officers and he was declared "a security internee under the law of war" and an "'enemy combatant' in the war on terrorism."

In December, 2005, his wife filed a Habeas petition as his "next friends" in the D.C. District Court. The petition asks that the government release him or that it be required to bring him before a U.S. court to show cause for his continued detention. The suit also sought an injunction to prevent him from being turned over to Iraqi authorities. Two months later Omar's attorney was advised that in August, 2005 it was decided to transfer him to the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. (The Court notes that there is no record of who made the decision or the grounds on which it was made.)

The District Court issued a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting Omar's transfer until a full adjudication of all issues. The Government appealed and the Circuit Court upheld the lower court decision.

The Government argued that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. And then, incredibly, they argue that they propose to give him everything he asks for under Habeas, ie., transfer out of U.S. custody. Of course he would then be in Iraqi custody, but they figured it was worth a shot.

The Court dealt with the government's primary jurisdiction argument easily by saying the one case relied on, Hirota v MacArthur 338 U.S. 197 (1947), was not controlling for two reasons. First, by its terms, Hirota was only applicable to its unique facts, which are totally different than here. Second, as made clear by Flick v. Johnson, 174 F.2d 983 (D.C. Cir. 1949), Hirota concerned an attack on the judgment of an international tribunal, which was also not the case in Omar.

The Court then moved on to the Habeas issue and with sweeping language stated

At its historical core, the Supreme Court has explained, the
writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the
legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its
protections have been strongest. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S.
289, 301 (2001); see also Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 533
(1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in the judgment) (The
historic purpose of the writ has been to relieve detention by
executive authorities without judicial trial.). Acting in
tandem with its partners-in-libertythe Due Process Clauses
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments the great writ is
the instrument by which due process [can] be insisted upon
by a citizen illegally imprisoned. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 555-56.

The Government also tried to argue that this case falls under the political question doctrine, in that it

raise[s] quintessential political questions beyond the
authority or competence of the judiciary to answer.
Appellants Br. 41. The political question doctrine puts
beyond judicial cognizance political decisions that are by
their nature committed to the political branches. Schneider
v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation mark omitted). For example, and relevant to this
case, the doctrine bars courts from considering claims whose
adjudication would require judicial wading into foreign policy
or military waters. Thus, in Schneider we invoked the
political question doctrine to dismiss a claim that would have required us to second-guess U.S. policy towards Chile.

And here is where the decision gets even better. First, noting that the doctrine of "political questions" is not a doctrine of "political case," the Court cited Hamdi -

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Hamdi makes
abundantly clear that Omar's challenge to his detention is
justiciable. In Hamdi, as here, the petitioner challenged his
detention by U.S. military authorities pursuant to an enemy
combatant determination. Although the government never
directly invoked the political question doctrine, it argued that
separation of powers concernsthe very concerns underlying
the political question doctrinepreclude courts from
inquiring into the factual basis of an enemy combatant
designation. A commanders wartime determination that an
individual is an enemy combatant, the government urged, is
a quintessentially military judgment representing a core
exercise of the Commander-in-Chief authority. Br. for the
Respts at 25, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (No.
03-6696). Unequivocally rejecting this contention, the Hamdi
plurality explained that it does not infringe on the core role
of the military for the courts to exercise their own time-
honored and constitutionally mandated roles of reviewing and
resolving claims like those presented here. Hamdi, 542 U.S.
at 535.

The Court moved on to the Government's final claim, that theysoughted to give Omar what he wated, release from U.S. custody. It would either be a direct transfer to the Iraqis or as discussed in the dissent, a wink and a nod release with Iraqui authorities waiting at the gate to arrest him. The court responded that a transfer to someone else's custody was not a release, and with respect to possible subtrefuge stated,

If the district court ultimately rules that the U.S. military lacks authority to transfer Omar, the military will be unable to transfer him
either directly through a formal handoff or indirectly by
releasing him with a wink-and-a-nod to the Iraqis. The
United States may certainly share information with other
sovereigns, see id. at 6-7, but it may not do so in a way that
converts Omar's release into a transfer that violates a court
order.

There are other important points in the decision but these are some of the main ones. There also is a dissent which I will not discuss now except to say that its points were week and handily disposed of by the majority.

In sum, this is a great case. Not only for the holding and the broad grounds relied on but also because of the Court itself. This is the D.C. Circuit, arguably the most influntial one in the Country. Rejoice! The Courts are alive and kicking.

Saddam Was not a Threat - And Not Because of WMD

Senator Gordon Smith (R. Or) is late to the game in saying the Iraq war is a disaster. But at least he finally did. Unfortunately he continues to say that the war would have been justified if Saddam had possessed WMD's. Speaking of Bush, Smith said

"He is not guilty of perfidy, but I do believe he is guilty of believing bad intelligence and giving us the same. . . I can't tell you how devastated I was to learn that in fact we were not going to find weapons of mass destruction."

Many commenters, such as Josh Marshall, and politicians, such as Sen. Smith, continue, to this day, to say that if there had been WMD the war would have justified because Sadaam would have been a threat. As long as they continue to think that, they will never understand how truly unjustified this war was, putting aside of course that it was always an unwinnable ahistorical tragedy.

Even if Saddam had chemical weapons in 2003 (nuclear was never even a remote possibility) he was not a threat to us. To be a threat, a country must have more than weapons that can be used to attack another country. It must have a reason and commitment to begin a war. Many countries, such as Russia, China, France and India, which have large conventional forces as well as chemical, biological and radiological weapons are not considered by us to be a threat. For that matter, Saddam had and used chemical artillery shells throughout the 1980s and was not considered by us to be a threat at that time.

Since his ascent to power in the mid Seventies, Saddam had never threatened us or any of our interests. Prior to the Gulf War he had never attacked us or threatened to attack us and was not allied with any countries or groups that sought to attack us. Yes, he was a bit player in fomenting conflict between the Palestinian and Israelis, but his financial support for the Palestinians was a fraction of that provided by the Saudis. From 1980 to 1990 he was a threat to two of his neighbors - Iran and Kuwait. But after having waged and lost two disastrous wars his dreams of a greater Iraq came to an end in 1991. After the Gulf War his saber had stopped rattling and frankly, was growing rusty in its scabbard. His military was a wreck, his chemical weapons had been dismantled, and with the Kurds controlling Northern Iraq and U.S. over-flights in the North and South he was a paper kitten. At that point he was interested in only two things - lifting of the sanctions and the preservation of his power.

And yet this Administration convinced the American people that he was not only a threat to the United States, but our foremost threat in the world. A petty despot with no military power who had fought a war against Iraq with our support and who was viscerally opposed to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and all other radical Islamic fundamentalists was made out to be Hirohito, Stalin, and Hitler combined. A threat to our very nationhood that could not be allowed to stand a minute more. Not since the Germans justified their invasion of Poland on totally fabricated claims of Polish cross border incursions has a more duplicitous justification for war been foisted on a country.

Bush Doesn't Remember His Oath Of Office

How many times have you heard President Bush say that his most important job or his first responsibility is to protect the American people. Another variant is when Bush says it is his "most solemn duty to protect the American people." It sounds good and it certainly is important but it is NOT his first priority and is NOT his most solemn duty.

When Bush was sworn into office his duty, his solemn duty, was told to him by the Chief Justice of the United States and he repeated it as he took the oath -

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's right - execute the Office of the President and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." This oath is contained in Article II, section 1. (There is a more general requirement in Article VI for all other civilian and military personnel to take an "oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.")

In order to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution one must know what exactly the purposes, goals and objectives of the Constitution are. They are succinctly set forth in the Preamble -

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The first two purposes of the Constitution are to "form a more perfect union" and "establish justice." Next, the Constitution seeks to "insure domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defense." Lastly, the Constitution was created to "promote the general welfare" and "secure the blessings of liberty" for ourselves and future generations.

Yes, national defense is part of it but only within the context of establishing justice and ensuring the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our children. If our founders had thought personal security was the paramount concern there never would have been a revolution and the United States would never have been born. But that is not how they thought. In fact they believed that personal safety was secondary to liberty. Perhaps it was said best by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 who, when addressing the Virginia House of Burgesses, concluded by saying "give me liberty or give me death."

The sentiment embodied in those words, which were a call to war against Britain, is the same sentiment that lead the Founders twelve years later to require the President and all other Federal officials to swear an oath to the Constitution. It was the recognition that liberty - freedom from the tyranny of government - is more important than life itself and is worth fighting for. The Founders recognized that only by strict adherence to the principles embodied in the Constitution, maintenance of the checks and balances in the government created by the Constitution, and vigilant oversight to ensure that the government did not breach the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution would liberty be preserved and tyranny kept at bay.

There is profound significance in the fact that the President is sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution rather than the State, its geographic territory, or its inhabitants. Of course the physical security of our nation and its people is important and must be safeguarded, but the people and the country cannot be protected at the expense of protecting the principles of the Constitution itself.

So when you hear Bush or his apologists say that you will have no freedoms if you are dead, remember that our forefathers thought there were worse things than death. They created a Constitution designed first and foremost to protect our liberty - to protect us from tyranny. To ensure that the President and all other persons entrusted with the solemn privelage of exercising the powers of the government, each of those persons must take an oath to preserve, protect and defend that Constitution.

That is the President's most solemn duty - and it is a duty he has payed scant regard to during his term of office. He has imprisoned people without the most basic rights afforded in the Constitution. He has engaged in unlawful searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution. And he has pushed through the Congress a law that abolishes the Writ of Habeas Corpus in direct contradiction to the clear language of the Constitution.

President Bush would do well to reread his Oath of Office and read the Constitution.

Swiftboat Victim - A Marine's Story

When the swiftboaters attack a public servant their lies and slander attack other heroes as well. This is the story of of one of those other heroes who was also a swiftboat victim. Many of you probably remember the 2004 anti-Kerry advertisement featuring a veteran throwing his medals over a fence. ( You can see it here, click on the piece entitled "Medals".) The soldier featured in the advertisement is Frank D. Norton, Cpl. U.S.M.C., who was wounded twice, received the Bronze Star for saving his unit from annihilation, and was permanently disabled. He is my brother and this is his story.

The swiftboaters say that Frank "turned his back on his brothers." Nothing could be further from the truth. He is a true American hero who voluntarily shed his blood for his country, grieved at having left his men behind, and finally did the only thing he could to help them - try to bring an end to the war so that all could come home.

Frank enlisted in the Corps right out of High School. It was a three year enlistment in the Summer of 1965, just as the war was getting into high gear. The Corps had become a family tradition. Our Father and Mother both served as Marine Corps officers in WWII. Mom served in Washington during the war and was immensely proud of her service. She was discharged as a Captain, outranking my father much to her glee, and is interred in Arlington. Dad served in the Pacific and China. Like most veterans of his generation he did not talk about the war or his experiences while we were growing up. It wasn't until decades later, near the end of his life, that he opened up about his wartime experiences, especially on Iwo Jima, and I came to realize the profound impact they had on him.

Frank entered the Corps on a delayed enlistment before graduating and was off to Parris Island in early Summer for Boot Camp. He then received training as a mortar man.

After serving stateside a while he was sent on the Med Cruise. For those of you who are not familiar with the cruise, the Corps maintained a presence in the Mediterranean during the Cold War as part of a large U.S. military presence in Europe. The Med Cruise was months of tedious steaming up and down the European and African coasts of the Mediterranean Sea in a hot crowded transport ship, punctuated by periodic training exercises and a few port calls. The only notable event on that trip was that one of their amphibious assault exercises in North Africa was filmed as part of a John Lennon movie, "How I Won The War." Also, he was snookered by a French sailor who traded a butane lighter for Frank's Zippo. Disposable butane lighters had not yet come to the States and it wasn't till a few weeks later that Frank realized he had been had.

Not long after Frank returned from the cruise he was sent to Camp Pendleton to prepare for shipment to Nam. After the training was over and one final leave he shipped out in June, 1967. His unit in Nam was Gulf Co, 2d Bn., 1st Marines, which was initially stationed near Hill 55 about twelve miles South of Danang. Frank was assigned to a line squad and was no longer a mortar man. In August, after barely two months in country, he was wounded for the first time. While on patrol the grunt ahead of him tripped a booby trap and Frank was hit with several pieces of shrapnel in the neck and arms. Compared to what would happen months later the injuries were minor and he returned to duty in a week.

In October the Battalion moved to Quang Tri where they stayed until December, at which time they moved to Con Thien. Many of you may be familiar with the lengthy siege of Khe San but few remember the equally violent struggle for control of the country East of there at Con Thien. The Marines held that ground for month after month while subject to constant bombardment, perimeter attacks and patrol ambushes.

Con Thien was referred to as the "Hill of Angels" by the missionaries and by other names, such as "the meat grinder," by others who were there because of the many who died during the battle. It was at the end of the so-called "McNamara Line" which stretched along the DMZ from the ocean to the Laotian border and was considered vital to preventing unrestricted NVA movement to the South. The base was manned by a battalion of Marines, which was usually rotated with a new unit on a monthly basis because of the horrific conditions to which they were subjected. The base was under constant bombardment, averaging about 200 rounds a day. During one especially violent period between September 19th and 27th they received 3000 rounds. When not on patrol, the Marines lived under ground in a hellish existence of mud, noise, terror and death.

Because of heavy activity that culminated in the Tet offensive of 1968, 2d Battalion was not rotated like its predecessors and was still there in March. The Battalion Commander, having grown tired of his patrols being ambushed by the NVA, decided that it was time to turn the tables on the enemy. He came up with the idea of "Killer Squads." The plan was to send out a full Company which would set up and hold a perimeter for a while. Then, most of the Company would head back to base leaving the concealed Killer Squad to spend the night and hopefully ambush the NVA.

Frank was the squad leader of one killer squad and a second squad was selected from another company. Because each squad was at half of its normal strength, seven instead of 15 members, every man would be trained on every job. All needed to be able to operate the machine gun and LAW, spot artillery, and tend to the wounded in the event any one of them was killed.

Before the plan was made operational two squads were sent out by themselves on a training mission. This was very unusual. Normally the Marines never left the base in less than company strength. But on March 4th, 1968 both squads, operating as a single unit, left the base accompanied by the Company XO, Lt. Cummings, and his radio man.

They arrived at a spot within view of an abandoned village where they set up a 360 degree perimeter. Then, unexpectedly, on Frank’s side of the perimeter NVA troops were spotted behind the next tree line. Thirty yards separated that side of the Marine perimeter and the NVA with an abandoned rice paddy in between. The Marines didn't know there was a Company of NVA in the trees. And the NVA, who were familiar with the Marines’ tactics, could not have had any idea that they were battling only 16 Marines.

Frank yelled “open up and move out” as the NVA began turning a machine gun around to fire in their direction. He ran to a lone tree in the open area, took cover and began firing. There were Marines in a line on both sides of him firing from positions about fifteen yards apart.

As all hell broke loose the machine gunner was the first to get hit. Then Frank began to see, hear and feel the tree being chewed up around him - and then, he was hit. The impact of the bullet flipped him onto his back. The bullet did cruel work, shattering his femur and mangling his intestines before exiting his butt. The Marine to his left, who was in a small depression, started to move towards Frank’s position to render aid. Frank ordered him to stay where he was and keep firing.

LCpl Vernon Pendergrass was on Frank’s right firing the M-79 Grenade Launcher. It was a weapon that he had recently begun to train on to replace a Marine who was a real short timer. Pendergrass got off a few rounds before he was killed.

By this time the Marine perimeter had collapsed so that all of them could engage the enemy. One of the Marines who had been on the other side ran up to Frank to render aid was ordered to get back. Frank knew his position was exposed and a field dressing wouldn’t do him much good.

A fire started in the empty field and the NVA began to use the smoke for cover to advance on the Marines. Things were looking grim until the wind changed and the NVA were forced to retreat.

Lt. Cummings ran to Frank's position, grabbed his M-16 and began firing. As Frank yelled for him to get down the Lieutenant took a round in the chest that flipped him in a somersault. Frank thought he was dead for sure but then, amazingly, the Lieutenant got up a few minutes later, handed Frank the weapon, and ran back. The bullet had hit his chest but somehow not penetrated anything vital.

Frank and most of the Marines were lucky that day. His Bronze Star Commendation said that if he had not ordered the attack those 16 Marines would probably have been overwhelmed by the vastly superior numerical force of the enemy. The wind blew in their favor. And most importantly, the Company was able to reinforce them in time and repel the enemy. Luck is relative of course. Marines were wounded and killed and Frank lost the only member of his squad to die.

It was three hours before Frank was to Medivaced to Dong Ha for initial surgery. From there he was sent to Phu Bai for more surgery and finally to Danang, where he stayed a week, undergoing even more treatment. When he was stable enough he was flown to Japan, where he stayed in traction till early June. Finally, in a full body cast, he was sent to Chelsea naval Hospital in Boston Massachusetts.

While at Chelsea he was awarded his Bronze Star With "V" Device in a ceremony attended by the press. A picture of the award ceremony was actually printed as a full page cover on the next days edition of one of the Boston papers. The medal was presented by a Navy Captain in full Dress Uniform and Frank was sitting up in his bed in a brand new hospital shirt that had been given to him that morning just for the occasion. The ward was filled with over a dozen marines recovering from their injuries, a few other Marines, hospital staff and some family and friends.

All soldiers who receive awards such as this have mixed emotions. You don't really feel you deserve it because you didn't do anything that any other man in your unit wouldn't have done, and in fact hadn't done countless times. You feel that the true heroes are not those who survive, but rather those left behind. Your sense is that the award is really for your men, your brothers, your unit, not just you. But you also feel a small sense of satisfaction in the recognition of your service that the medal represents. Frank had those same feelings.

That Summer as Frank recuperated we did not talk often of what happened on March 4th. In fact we only talked about it once, late at night, after he had recovered enough to leave the hospital for a visit to town. As we drank, he opened up with the story, but mostly with his tears. He cried for Vernon Pendergrass and how he would never see his daughter. (Decades later Frank made a trip to Alabama to meet and console that daughter and share with her his fond memories of her father.) He cried for his men, feeling guilty that he was in the States and they were still in Nam. He wanted to be there with them to help bring them all home safely. He cried the lament of all soldiers who made bonds in battle that can never be broken.

Late that Summer Frank was medically retired from the Corps. Before I began my enlistment in the Army, he went off to Ohio University to begin the college education he had put off in 1965. He was not the same person he had been in high school. War changes men. Also, now he was a Marine, and would be one for life. He loved the Corps in the way that only one who knows its warts, inanities and idiocies can. It's a love/hate relationship that is a brotherhood for life.

As time passed, Frank began to see the war as futile and damaging to our nation. He resolved to do what he could to bring it to an end and bring his brothers home. That is why in 1971 he joined with over a thousand other Viet Nam veterans, including John Kerry, to protest the war. As part of that protest he, along with many others, threw their medals over a fence at the Capitol to demonstrate the depths of their feeling - medals they had earned with their blood, limbs and sacrifice.

This is the man that the Swifties tried to slime by saying he turned his back on his brothers. Those critics forgot, if they ever knew, that Frank and his brothers had fought on behalf of a Nation with a Constitution they had all sworn an oath to defend. A Constitution which guarantees the right of "the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." It is a right that the government cannot abridge and that no person should ever be criticized for exercising. The swiftboaters were sworn to defend that same Constitution while in uniform and, as citizens, are obligated to honor, support and preserve it in their daily lives.

These critics, these swiftboaters, are still at it today attacking the patriotism and service of veterans running for office. And they damage others in the process. They are the antithesis of the patriots they attack. The swiftboaters have lost sight of the true meaning of patriotism. It is not love of a leader, policy or Party. It is love of the Constitution and all the rights and privileges it grants to us as Americans. Our Constitution is what makes our Country great, and we all have an obligation to insure that it is not breached by the government or ignored by the people. Supporters of that war or any war have every right to express that support by whatever means they chose. But they do not have the right to defame the patriotism of those who hold a different point of view. And no true soldier would ever demean the sacrifice of another.