Is it Too Early to consider drafting Articles of Impeachment? (Not Hyperbole)

During a career in law, now spanning some four decades, I have been privileged to work with and for a number of very good, even great, leaders, one of whom will remain unidentified here, as he is still today an Elite Member. No, here I mention a leader by name, as he has left us for, hopefully, Valhalla: Chesterfield Smith.

Mr. Smith went to Washington in 1972, and became President of the American Bar Association. In this position, Chesterfield Smith called for the resignation of Watergate scandal tarred Richard Nixon from his position as President of the U.S. Nixon, two years later, did just what Chesterfield demanded, he resigned his office in disgrace.

For decades thereafter, Mr. Smith carried this pronouncement (he was the first national leader to do so) as a badge of distinction and courage, challenging as he did the most powerful man in the world, who was well known not to treat his "enemies" well, or even w/n. legal constraints.

I offer this historical anecdote only to illustrate that the unthinkable only becomes a plausible public policy option after it has been fully debated on its merits, both pro and con. So, I say let the national dialogue begin. The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C., has repeatedly pronounced he will do whatever it takes, using all of his legal powers to win the war on terror.

Nonetheless, he has refused to designate the Christmas Day bomber as an enemy combatant, so he can be interrogated freely and fully to protect the nation. Instead, the Attorney General, within the first hour of having Umar in custody and then speaking openly to his captors, was read his Miranda Rights, to which he has no legal entitlement. Instantly, upon being told that he had the right to remain silent, Umar spoke only one more sentence: "I want to talk to my lawyer and no one else."

In light of this intentional refusal to exercise his legal authority as Commander in Chief, the President has willfully denied the nation possibly critical intelligence information vital to preventing future terrorist attacks on the Homeland. So, I ask: is that act consistent with his oath of office and repeated statements to us all, or have we again been lied to alla Nixon-lite.

Call it Karma, Cosmic Justice or Divine Intervention

Last nite, with but seconds remaining in the fourth quarter, Bret Favre's head exploded. With the Vikes in easy game winning field goal range, Favre proved the existence of a Just Deity, throwing a season ending interception to of all people "Saints".

This "Miracle on Bourbon Street" was first predicted by your humble blogger last August. Here's hoping that the Crying Man will now balls his eyes out until his next bogus retirement press conference, or is traded to the Oakland Raiders to complete execution God's Will. Just saying...

Christmas Day Bomber Update - He was allowed to Lawyer up after only 50 minutes of questioning

Coming under increasingly harsh criticism from both Democrat and Republican Senators (California's Dianne Feinstein, Chair. Senate Intelligence Committee and Missouri's Kit Bond) for designating the Undie Bomber as a street criminal, so that he was thereby prevented him from being interrogated for even one minute by our Intel. officials, the Department of Justice has started to push back.

Yesterday, the Department's chief spokesman asserted that even had Umar been designated as an enemy combatant and referred for trial by a military tribunal, he would have lawyered up and stopped all questioning as to his knowledge of other impending terrorist plots against the nation.

That assertion is a blatant lie. As Umar was apprehended in the act of attacking us, no trial of any kind, civilian or military, is required by the Constitution or our international treaties. There are no facts in dispute after all. He is not an alleged bomber, despite what President Obama stated. No trial jury is going to decide that we arrested the wrong man with his pants on fire.

Prisoners of war can be held in a prisoner of war holding facilitate for continual interrogation for as long as deemed useful by the Commander in Chief to procure useful information to help defend the nation. No lawyer or trial is compelled for enemy combatant questioning.

Only after this intelligence gathering process has been completed, and then in deciding that the enemy combatant has committed a war crime, does the CinC. need to enlist a civilian court or military tribunal to legally punish this prisoner. No one should be sentenced to a fixed time of incarceration (e.g. life term in a federal prison) or executed without an impartial judge or jury hearing evidence that the enemy combatant's undisputed acts were so egregious as to warrant the punishment to be imposed. As internment for interrogation is NOT punishment, but an essential obligation of the CinC. to win a war, no lawyers are needed to advise the prisoner of his rights, as his only right is to wait for the war to end to go home. Just saying...

A Man and his Truck, Part Deux

A 30 year veteran of the United States Army Reserve said yesterday: "Let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime.

In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them. ... giving new rights to terrorists is wrong for our Country."

Even more than the cram-down on nationalizing control of health care (reasonable people of good will can support different positions in this policy debate), the current Administration's future will be decided, in my judgment, by its willingness to stop treating enemy combatants as merely street criminals. Nobody, but the crack-pot, radical fringe of the nation's electorate supports spending 100 million dollars a year to try the 911 Mastermind and his four minions in civilian court in NYC. With no political upside to giving these terrorists a taxpayer funded microphone for two or three years in the world's media capital, should the Administration continue to pursue this Sally Fields sissy-ass course of action, we will know that respecting the will of the people is not important to the current short term occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Wash. D.C. Just saying ...

Why I Blog: A Man and his Truck (Well Used)

I don't want this Blog ever to be about me. Nonetheless, I have been asked why I publish, putting myself out there in the blogisphere, in front of millions, if not billions, of semi-eager listeners.

Here's why: Our Republic can not thrive w/o. full citizen involvement in its governance. The First Amendment, after all, is the first amendment for a reason. W/o. being unduly trite, too many young men and women gave their last full devotion to the Country preserving our precious freedoms (from Lexington and Concord to Pearl Harbor to Normandy to the Chosin Reservoir to Khe-san to Afghanistan) for those of us who are the beneficiaries this legacy to not be involved.

I define an involved citizen as one who always votes, but only after becoming truly informed on how to wisely exercise this franchise, paid for over and over in the blood of patriots.

I will end this ode to Special elections in the bluest of blue states by recommending a truly "terrible" book. I just finished "The Last Stand of Fox Company". It is the story of 239 young marines who held a vital mountain pass in North Korea (the only route for escape) for five days against a relentless attack by hordes of Chinese regulars. The 78 men who victoriously "walked" off on day six saved more than 8,000 other marines, breaking out of their encirclement at the Chosin Reservoir by ten Chinese Divisions. Can anyone even imagine being functionable for one day, let alone for five days of savage combat in temperatures never above 15 degrees below Zero F.? The men of Fox Company fought and died so I can write to you whenever I choose to do so, and say whatever I want to tell you. Try that on your computer in China. So, read and wipe a tear or two, as I did. Just saying...

WAR!! What's it Good For? Not for Fairness

Trial Judge, Warren Wilbert, turned away objections from prosecutors Tuesday, January 12, 2010, allowing confessed partial birth abortionist killer, Scott Roeder, the right to assert "defense of others" in his upcoming murder trial. Roeder contents that his fatal shooting of Dr. George Tiller was justifiable, as it was necessary to protect the lives of unborn children.

To be fair, Judge Wilbert ruled the Defendant must be allowed to present a credible defense, and as he had already admitted committing this pre-mediated murder, telling the jury his reason for killing Dr. Tiller was the only one relevant. To preclude Roeder from telling his side of the story would have rendered his trial nothing more than a charade, in which only the prosecutors got to offer testimony to the jurors.

Irrespective of your views on abortion, this example of judicial "fairness" is presented to illustrate why civilian trials are not compatible with war winning. The salient point here is that a Judge must be FAIR to the government and EQUALLY FAIR to the defendant, finding the right balance between these two diametrically opposed parties to achieve a truly fair trial.

Now, turning to our Sally Fields' Sissy Ass war prosecutions policy, Federal Judge, Lewis Kaplan, is being called upon to strike a similar fair balance for the gov't. and a Mr. Ghailani, who has been charged with Conspiracy to bomb two American Embassies in East Africa in 1988 which terror attack killed 224 innocent people. Having spent more than five years in Gitmo, Ghailani was the first detainee transferred by the Administration to DoJ custody for trial in a civilian court in NYC. His attorneys have moved to have all charges dismissed, claiming that Ghailani's rights to a Speedy Trial were violated by his many years of internment at Gitmo.

Prosecutors, while acknowledging this extreme delay, agrue that the government's interest in having had an adequate opportunity to interrogate Ghailani about impending terror attacks outweighed his rights to a fair trial. Accordingly, as we lawyers like to say, "the issue is squarely joined" w/o. nuance or wiggle room. Still, Judge Kaplan, by his Oath of Office, is obligated to be fair to every defendant, even one's charged with heineous crimes, (see, Roeder). That means to preserve the rights of defendants to a Speedy Trial, Ghailana may have to be freed by Judge Kaplan. Whatever he orders in this particular case, however, the salient point is that the President has abdicated his Oath of Office, his Executive Branch responsibility as CinC. for the proper custody of our nation's enemies. Of course, the gov't. had to interrogate Ghailani, 24/7, for as long as necessary to protect the nation - not just fair, but essential to our survival and future safety.

So, having held Ghailana for proper war fighting needs, to then turn him over to the civilian courts as a street criminal, where his future incarceration is dependent upon the government having been fair to him over the period of time where is interests as a putative defendant were wholly irrelevant, is asking the Judge to ignore his own Oath of Office to find that proper balance of fairness for both parties before the court.

Accordingly, should Judge Kaplan be true to his Oath, he will refuse to free this admitted jihadist, by ruling that as an enemy combatant, he has no right to a civilian trial, let alone a speedy one. Then, Judge Kaplan should dismiss the government's case entirely, by ruling that as an enemy combatant Ghailani has no right to a civilian trial. As a Judicial Branch official, Judge Kaplan should inform the President that only the Executive has the right to fight a war.

Now, that's one constitutional confrontation I would love to see on news at eleven. Just saying.

The Cat on a Hot Tin Roof sure is dancing as fast as he can

To quote Clark Pollitt, played by the coolest dude alive, Paul Newman, speaking directly it would seem to the dude who thinks he is the coolest now that Newman has left the arena: "No more mendacity, Big Daddy, that ain't no man-made disaster." Or is it?

Speaking for what seemed like the eleventh time on how many dots had not been connected, President Obama on Thursday told us that the most important lesson learned from the Christmas Day terrorist attack is that the nation's Intelligence Agencies most immediately investigate all leads to identify terrorists planning new attacks on America. Wow, that insight took two weeks to figure out! No one can disagree with that order from the Commander in Chief, except him, of course. Indeed, on December 25th, the CinC's minions captured the Mother of all Leads to future terror attacks - the Undie Bomber. Here are the leads not investigated so far:

Undie was recruited by still unidentified Al Qaeda recruiters;

Undie was trained by still unidentified jihadist trainers;

Undie was equipped by still unidentified ordinance officers;

Undie was financed by still unidentified money men;

Undie was housed by still unidentified billeting officers; And,

The Christmas Day Bomber was ordered by his still unidentifed

Commander in Chief to blow up as many innocents as possible.

This Gold Mine of Leads is still sitting in a civilian jail consulting daily with his taxpayer funded attorney, instead of being interrogated 24/7 by our nation's Intelligence Agencies, despite the President's promise on Thursday:

"We must follow the leads we get and we must pursue them until plots

are disrupted. We can not sit on information that could protect the

American people."

Well, Big Daddy, I guess designating the Undie Bomber as a criminal defendant rather than what he is - an enemy combatant - prevents our Intelligence Agencies from getting any leads, so they are in compliance with his Order - they have no leads now to sit on. Now, that is a man made disaster. Just saying ...

First Elite Contest of 2010 Cancelled

The raging firestorm in the body politic just scorched this Blog's initial attempt to award a Big Prize. The Administration foisted its Anti-Terrorism Czar, John Brennan, on all the Sunday Talk Shows to defend the President's Sally Fields global sissy strategy.

Well. John Brennan is no Bill Clinton - he knows what the meaning of "is" is. So, he had great difficulty, no he was completely unable to explain the inexplicable - why the Christmas Day bomber was given full and permanent immunity from interrogation, thereby preventing our Intelligence Agencies from ascertaining his knowledge of impending attacks on Americans. Here is his Sally Fields impersonation, verbatim:

"Well, we have an array of tools that we will use, and we want to make sure that we maintain flexibility... and the DOJ makes these determinations about what's the best tool to use. And in this instance, we felt ... it was the best way. There is no downside to treating the Christmas bomber as an enemy combatant." (Fox News Sunday, 9:14 a.m. eastern time).

Should Mr. Brennan have spoken truthfully (and he gave us no reason to suspect dissembling) and President Obama has made A.G. Holder the Administration's decision maker on whether an apprehended terrorist is designated a criminal defendant or an enemy combatant, the President has abdicated his Constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief. Makes him more like a friendly community organizer than a war time leader determined to kill, defeat and rid the civilized world of our enemies, the Islamic fascists.

Inasmuch as John Brennan provided nothing defensible about why this Administration refuses to win the war, the Elite Contest must be cancelled, as we can have no winner here, only loyal, but rightfully terrified, listeners. `Just screaming ...

First Elite Contest of 2010

With a fire storm raging in the body politic over the Obama Administration's Sally Fields handling of the Christmas Day Panty Bomber, best articulated by Charles "Dr. Strangelove" Krauthammer:

"More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a 'suspect' who 'allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device.' You can hear the echo of FDR: 'Yesterday, 12/7/41, will live in infamy - Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor.' "

The President, by telling the nation that this murderous terrorist was suspected of having committed a crime for which he had been charged in civilian court, sounds like a complete moron, a village idiot, if you will.

No President can get re-elected when perceived to be a moron, complete or otherwise. Therefore, Obama's handlers will of necessity have to explain why the Christmas bomber

is not being interrogated 24/7 to protect the nation from future attacks. Here are the four possible Administration policy justifications for going all Sally Fields on this terrorist enemy:

(1) We want the Arabs to learn the value of the Rule of Law.

(2) We want the Democrat base to be impressed by this repudiation

of Bush successes against terrorists.

(3) We want Public Defender's to be fully empowered to endanger

our national security while making minimum wages for attorneys.

(4) We want the Christmas bomber to know we respect him - hey, it takes

big balls to roast your own nuts, so to "Diss" someone like that would

just not be the Chicago Way.

All accurate answers will be recognized by a Blog entry honorarium.

Why Holder should be Fired (really) and/or Waterboarded (hyperbole)

Our nation's criminal jurisprudence is informed and given moral authority by the principle of mens rea, latin, I suspect, meaning guilty mind, knowledge of the wrongness of the act. This precept is central to our justice system, in that we do not prosecute, convict and punish acts, but instead we designate as criminals, persons acting with full awareness of the wrongfulness of their evil acts.

An example of the crucial difference is the actor's mind set - a police officer shoots and kills a kidnapper about to fatally harm his victim (legal: carrying out of the officer's sworn duty) versus the kidnapper who kills his victim to avoid subsequent identification (Illegal:pre-meditated murder). That the police officer's motive is to save innocent life making his actions laudable and not evil, is obvious to everyone, but not to our esteemed Attorney General, Eric Holder it seems.

One more example should demonstrate this obtuseness in the nation's top prosecutor. Recently, in testifying before Congress, Mr. Holder was asked whether the U.S. military officers who had waterboarded Navy SEALS as combat training should be prosecuted as torturers. He emphatically stated: "NO", because these officers in carrying out their sworn duties had no evil intent to harm the trainees they waterboarded. These government employees were motivated, he testified, solely by their patriotism, seeking to help defend our country by improving the future wartime performance and resilience of the SEALS - no evil mens rea here.

Next, Holder was asked whether the CIA officers who had waterboarded the al Queda mastermind of 911 should be prosecuted as torturers, despite these government employees, in carrying out their sworn duty, had as their only intent to help defend our country in wartime by eliciting information vital save save thousands of innocent American lives - no evil mens rea here.

Well guess what loyal listeners - Holder refused to answer this straight forward question, instead he held forth for about fourteen minutes (hyperbole again) rambling on about the verities of the Spanish Inquisition, wherein Priests, seeking to restore Jews and others to inclusion in the one true faith, had used physically coercive means, torture even, to help make these miscreants again eligible for entry into heaven with god's blessing.

Mr. Holder is himself surely not a good candidate to be prosecuted, convicted or punished, as he has no evident intent to harm our national security or to disable the brave defenders of our nation.

Nonetheless, that absence of malice makes him no less dangerous to our safety and survival. So, either Holder must go, or our nation's informed citizenry must rise up and demand that this Administration let these fine CIA officers go free, to return to their sworn duty of defending us. Just saying ...