Would you give the US government any advice, these days, if it asked you to?
No, really!
Considering the way that past decisions have become politicized and scrutinized in the ex-post facto way the Left adores, where everyone who isn't morally perfect by some nebulous standard they refuse to state clearly, who has made 'lesser' decisions in absolute good faith to the law previously would then be subject to CURRENT reinterpretation of their actions by those who are oh-so-morally-superior-that-we-can't-say-what-our-system-of-morals-is. You know like undermining programs to hold, interrogate and process captured terrorists, those fiends who fight under no flag, wear no uniform, kill with abandon and then claim to be 'protected' by the very laws they walked away from to kill people? When looking at the activities of those who take some position that can be stated only in terms of modern psychological outlook that attempts to make SOCIETY the great evil and individuals never, ever, not once, culpable for what they do, these swell folks who want no society then claim that they support the law!
I call them the Voluntary Fifth Column, and they even have a set of press rules that have been stated.
They want to uphold the Geneva Conventions! Really! They say so up and down the line.
And yet when CNN and NY Times post sniper videos that show US servicemen getting shot and killed WITHOUT going through proper military channels for the release of same and not even allowing (in one instance) the family of the soldier killed to be notified through regular channels, what is the response of the Left?
*YAWN*
Those are clear violations of the Geneva Conventions covering what the press is and is not allowed to do in theaters of combat. Yet the Left has no problem in having those out, but then caring ever so deeply about those who act as barbarians by never wearing a uniform, never declaring a Nation, never showing a system of laws and accountability to hold those doing the fighting to some standard, and who don't take prisoners save to behead them for propaganda purposes. 'Waterboarding' makes these people go ballistic, but having a family see their son shot on the battlefield on video before DoD could inform them of the circumstances IS a violation of what we agree to do as a SOCIETY via our government during military combat.
Somehow siding with those that want to plunge the world into barbarism is seen as ever so lofty a goal, and yet adhering to past loft goals is, well, really beneath consideration.
I find such reasoning tortured and say so, clearly.
I cite the history, cite past laws and precedent, cite how the Nation was created and what our understandings were and ARE on these things. When I say that doing these actions is a reversion to the Law of Nature and Nature's God, I am invoking CENTURIES of thinking on warfare and what is the most civilized way to wage it. That also goes for how Nations are formed and run, what their external and internal powers and responsibilities are and how Nations, by being Nations, have artifacts that then preclude certain activities to individuals. You know? History, law citation, what the basis for the law is and why?
Things invented before 1910?
Not some lovely psychological theory that may or may not have a firm foundation of our understanding of the human psyche, but going to look back at what our understanding of human nature is and was, and continues to be. In trying to absolve terrorists and those who contravene all societies, those on the Left are supporting the dissolution of society as a concept: the attempt is to liquidate social meaning, make it mean exactly what they want it to, and then change that on a near daily basis. Finding a sentence or two and taking it out of context is their game plan, to show how those that de Vattel called 'fanatics' are always right and society wrong... save that is a fanatical point of view: to liquidate society down to individuals.
Luckily I offer my opinions for free, take them as you will, and refuse to be paid for them.
Why?
No commercial transaction involved so no castigation that I'm doing this for the money, like Al Gore is seeking to be the first Carbon Credit Billionaire by positioning his companies to make a whopping profit off of cap'n'trade. Mind you, if that were Halliburton or Wal Mart doing that, the Left would be in a tizzy and immediately suspicious, but when it is one of their own foisting a huge scheme with no backing on the public... well, all to the current political good to tear down capitalism by restricting energy, donchyaknow?
That last paragraph will never get me invited to any government run symposia on Global Warming. But then I do back that position on AGW up with multiple past articles looking at the 800 million year history of carbon dioxide levels on the planet plotted against global mean temperature, I look at recurring geophysical phenomena that will have a set of consequences to the US far greater, deeper and vaster than 'global warming' at its worst could do, point out there are other actions leading to climate change and that they have low variant basis due to geomorphology and geophysics, discuss the useful concept of 'regression towards the mean' in graphing, and that some of the largest datasets used by the pro-'global warming' religion have been revised and that the data they cite has not been properly scrubbed nor analyzed.
Yes, that will never get me put into the position of being an 'expert': citing data, trends in history and then what the driving factors actually are on something like global climate just by looking at what happened when and why.
Can't have that!
Unlike Al Gore I don't tell you what to think, I ask you to examine and decide for yourself, taking in the scientific idea that if the data doesn't back up the theory it is time to scrap the theory. And I serve to make zero dollars off of it, save via having public policy not set by alarmists who DO look to make money off of it.
And I'm not going to get called on for any abortion debates either. Yup, started looking at that issue some time ago, ask when do your rights actually start? which is something it appears is not done by either 'side' in the 'debate', and then ask a really quite nasty question as it hits all sides below the waterline: when do you become a citizen? I even get a bit intemperate over stem cells, not due to stem cells, but to others trying to rope me in as an individual in a class of people and put me in a 'victim' category when I want none of it. Yes, hitting religious social conservatives with a traditionalist, common law practices view that pre-dates Christianity but is a part of our view on the law is hard, but if I am to uphold Westphalia, then I do have an obligation to separate out these two things, recognize the influence of both and then ensure that both are respected. We do respect the trade law of pagan Rome in how it helped create our Admiralty laws, no? And sources of wisdom cannot be limited to just one period of history, one people or one religion as that was the basis of our Founding which attracted people of all religions to the Nation. We do uphold Westphalia and common wisdom, often guided by sacred views, must come into accord with the common society.
That isn't going to put me on any favorites list for 'abortion debates' as I don't recognize the basis for their formulation of the debate and find it de-based.
With all of that said, why would anyone, in their right mind, with the ways that political winds change at a moment and people who have had to make extremely difficult positions are then hounded for their LEGAL and often HISTORICAL analysis and reviews, want to actually GIVE an opinion to the government?
This administration doesn't hold to the practice of protecting those that have HELPED the Nation to survive, even if you disagree with their practices. I can see why some do want to pull folks over, and I, truthfully, seeing what was done in Iran/Contra have zero love and respect for those involved as they did nothing to enhance our security and gave entree to one of the most hideous terrorist groups that had killed American servicemen to South and Central America by linking up highly placed international criminals in support of Syria and Iran into the position of having US backing for their work. But you can't know that if you don't bother to examine the record and piece it together: no one will say that right out loud. That hasn't helped things one little bit save at the cost of untold billions spent, lives lost, and terrorism given a firm backing.
Yeah, protecting those who helped predatory warfare outfits to prosper and succeed: THAT gets protected by the US government, too. By at least two administrations after the one that it happened in.
Andy McCarthy and National Review Online has many, many views on these things that I respect, although I don't agree with him on some jury-rigged military/civilian court system when those making actions clearly marking themselves outside of all law should have that sole determination be their destination point with ANY law. But the Obama Administration has sought him out to hold forth in part of a conference on 04 MAY 2009 on the President's Task Force on Detention. Mr. McCarthy, realizing that holding ANY view that could then serve as fodder for any current or future political advocates to seek to put him into jail for what he THINKS has wisely said: NO.
If you read through the politeness it is actually: HELL NO.
And he gives his reasoning in a few places:
The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.
Yes the 'highest form of patriotism', so said the Left up to 20 JAN 2009. Then he cites the problems that we have seen with people giving their professional OPINION being attacked on purely partisan basis:
Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.
No, I would take that one step further: no one with ANY common sense would give advice to the government at this point in time. Hey! I don't like the way North & Co. got shielded for helping Monzer al-Kassar and Hezbollah get roots into South America, so you can't say that I have good feelings about that... but supporting organizations and backers who ACTIVELY KILLED American soldiers is just something I can't stand. I know many on the Right who lionize North & Co. and I cannot get that in any way, shape or form. Somehow I see that ACTION as unpardonable but giving an OPINION as something that can and should be protected. Hey, if Ollie North had just written memos on his 'great idea' I would want him protected, too. Doing something on them is a different matter.
When going after those who follow no law save their own and seek to destroy all Nations, just how am I supposed to feel anything bad about them?
I am more and deeply worried about the effects of our interrogators, both military and civilian, than I have for terrorists. These are volunteer positions and highly trained ones, and I want our personnel to have the fullest, deepest and constant backing to show that we support THEM in protecting our Nation. That goes for the advisors, too.
Humans who revert to savagery and throw off civilization are a threat to all of us: these people willingly shuck off the shell of civilization to let their animal nature rule them.
The reason I want the bright dividing line between civilian and military courts, is that the judgment is based on action, and to protect the Nation these that revert to human as animal are seeking to infect us all with that disease. It is not a physical disease, but a moral one: in which the common bonds we respect within society are transgressed by those wishing to rule over society.
Dear me!
I'm making terrorists sound like the modern Left, aren't I? In that seeking to rule over culture by force, bit, I mean. The terrorists using force of arms and the Left wanting force of government, but both seeking common ends via different means.
Most unfortunate confluence of actions on the part of the Left to wind up there, helping barbarians and castigating society seeking to liquidate our common bonds of culture.
In any event, I'll stick by Abe Lincoln's view on what to do with such individuals who take up war with no banner, no society, no uniform and fight now and again... too bad that is citing history and precedent, no?
Which is why you'll never catch me on such wonderful symposia and such.... I want you to decide on the rightness of things. That builds society and culture.
And it is free.
You couldn't pay me to do this.
I am not a 'professional'... and seeing how much the 'professionals' are screwing up the banking system,the economy, health care... I can't say that being a 'professional' in any way makes you 'smart'. Perhaps its time to get rid of some of the 'professionals' and let amateurs and the common man figure it out for themselves. Like it was given to us in Amendment IX and X, and get the government out of thinking that 'professionals' are the answer to everything, save employing more 'professionals'. They are very good at that.. results, however, tell a different story.
Supporting Friends and Allies
No comments:
Post a Comment