Why Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods Still Matter

Ambassador Stevens will always be the face of the Benghazi scandal, which is okay so long as we never forget the lives, and brutal deaths, of Sean, Glen and Tyrone.  Sean Smith's life story is particularly poignant.  He is the only child of Pat Smith.  Ms. Smith will obviously not be getting any flowers, calls or visits for Mother's Day, and she just wants to know why her life is now and forever bereft of a son's love.

At the Airport Hanger Memorial Service for our four dead Americans, Hilliary Clinton made only one promise to Pat Smith - that the Administration would get and punish severely the Maker of the movie trailer entitled "The Innocence of Muslims."  Having swiftly fulfilled that commitment (and finding no obstacle in the First Amendment protections afforded movies) Hilliary has "moved on" as the saying goes to her new and full life - being paid a minimum honorarium of a reported $175,000.00 per speech.

Still freely speaking to anyone who will listen, knowing that her life will not move on until she obtains an answer to why her son died alone and unprotected, Pat Smith knows that she - and the American people - deserve far better than Hilliary's incredibly arrogant dismissal of how Sean's life ended: "What difference does it make now?"

Indeed, finding and bringing to Justice the Benghazi terrorists would honor Sean, Tyrone, Steve and Glen in the most meaningful fashion.  Obama's failure to do so constitutes the most egregious and unforgivable aspect of this entire debacle.  It is also totally inexplicable.  We all know that the President is rightly known as "The King of Drones".  His kill total is most probably approaching one thousand dead - both guilty and innocent combined until God sorts them out for final disposition.

So, I'm with Pat Smith.  Pat and America deserve to know why Sean was murdered by terrorists who today are alive and free to call their own Mothers with well wishes until leaving on their next mission - for sure not involving the making of any movie trailers.  

Why Christopher Stevens Still Matters

Today, Ambassador Christopher Stevens has no job. His unemployment stems exclusively from one singular circumstance - he is still dead.

Very much alive and very much still employed is Ms. Charlene Lamb, the State Department's Top Security Official responsible for stripping our Libya Embassy of all military security personnel shortly before the gruesome, murderous attacks on 9/11 last year.  In an environment of complete anarchy, in which rival militias were waring daily for control of Benghazzi (these thousands of militants and terrorists were armed to the teeth with Colonel Khadaffi's looted arsenal - larger than many European NATO countries in size and sophistication), Ms. Lamb testified to Congress that a security detail of twelve non-military individuals was adequate protection for our Libyan Diplomats. That four of these brave Americans were slaughtered did not alter Ms. Lamb's absurd conviction.

Now, there is no need to ponder why a certifiably insane person remains employed by the United States Department of State.  Another well qualified Department rep., spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, has informed us that pursuant to controlling federal law, incompetence is not deemed to constitute a breach of one's job duty - REALLY, I am not making this up! 

Few commentors have discussed Ms. Nuland's unequivocal statement that a federal government employee can abuse the public trust so egregiously that four coworkers die and suffer no career limiting consequences, let alone job dismissal.  I guess that it is taken for granted that there is no accountability for poor (to deadly awful) job performance in the federal government.  Except for those brave souls who venture into "Indian Country" where personal accountability includes termination with extreme prejudice when your cohorts safe and warm back at Headquarters deem you to be expendable.  Rest in Peace Chris, you and your brave colleagues will not be forgotten. 

 

When is an Enemy Combatant not an Enemy combatant?

With the awful horrors of the Boston Marathon attack so fresh and vivid in our minds, it compels us all as citizens to confront an Evil - so vile that our first impulse is to shrink away from this urgent task and just hug our families even tighter - immediately so that the existential threat to our civilization can be reduced.  Simply stated, our open society still is vulnerable, twelve years after Nine Eleven Two Thousand and One, and after the Federal Government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on Homeland Security.  Accordingly, the urgent question remains - just how do we protect ourselves against such an asymmetrical enemy in a war without any defined battlefields, where every street corner in America is a bombing target?

The answer most assuredly is not found in the criminal law jurisprudence.  America is at war for its very survival.  Therefore, any talk by politicians about prosecuting and jailing, or even executing Mr. Tsarnaev, upon his conviction is suicidal nonsense.  We don't need to punish him for his murders - YET.  We need to interrogate him to ascertain everything he knows about impending future terror attacks, and the whereabouts of any other terrorists he knows.

The ongoing debate between the liberals and conservatives is being framed in absolute terms - libs: he is NOW and ALWAYS WILL BE ONLY a criminal, so RIGHT NOW, he must be treated as a defendant with all the attendant due process rights that apply in federal civil court criminal proceedings.  Conservatives:  he is a terrorist and must be kept in military custody forever, or until the war ends with the signing of a peace treaty.

Both positions are too simplistic and ignore the complexities of modern terrorist warfare - in all likelihood there never will be a signed, formal peace, as we are not fighting a nation-state.  Accordingly, even as an accurately identified enemy combatant, Mr. Tsarnaev, as an American citizen should not be subject to indefinite detention without a right to a trial -EVENTUALLY.

Thus, to answer my question as posed in the title of this Blog Post - an enemy combatant ceases to be such when the intel folks say so; when they have completed their non-prosecutorial interrogation, and I have no difficulty in rebuilding the wall so that all information derived from the war defense interrogation are not used as evidence in any subsequent criminal trials.  When Mr. Tsarnaev can not hurt America ever again, then it is timely to turn him over to the DOJ so that we can hurt him - as the criminal defendant he then becomes - to the full extent of the Law.  Nothing unconstitutional in seeing this evil man as having performed too different roles enemy combatant and criminal murderer.  Our civilization is surely sufficiently sophisticated to see Tsarnaev as the Man in Full that he is.   

 

Don't Ask For Whom the Drone Flies

... because the Government will not tell us.  Body counts, both as to those targeted and those innocents merely dead by kill zone proximity are top secrets for the "Most Transparent Administration" in all of recorded history, or at least the most since the invention of drones.  Nonetheless, while we, the American people, can't be told who were killed from on-high, our elected reps are finally showing interest in the Constitutional dangers posed by any American President, by himself ordering the killing of other Americans with no legal or political constraints - other than the counsel of his own Executive Branch staff.

Drone Program Mastermind, John Brennen, now stands before the United States Senate awaiting confirmation to be the next CIA Director.  Only when the Intel Committee refused to vote on this nomination did the Administration provide to these Senators a small number of the Justice Department's highly classified legal opinions authorizing Presidential signing of death warrants for American citizens, while affording them no due process rights such as notice or trial, just silent death from above.  Reportedly, Mr. Brennen has refused to answer Senator Paul's straight-forward question - "does the President believe he has the authority to kill an American citizen located in the United States, and not in a war zone?"

Declaring this absolute power to "kill at will" too awesome, even for The One, some Democrats in Congress have advanced a proposal to create a Secret Drone Court.  This group of life-tenured Federal Judges would in secret review the Executive's factual basis for declaring an American to be an Enemy Combatant, and they would all together sign, or not, the death warrant.  Completely constitutionally unacceptable - first, all war powers are given to the Executive, so the Judicial Branch has no constitutional authority to manage the targeting of enemy soldiers, operatives or spies.  Secondly, nothing could more assault the Rule of Law - the entire underpinning of the Constitution - than for the Government to operate a "Star Chamber" in which secret evidence, examined in secret results in the secret murder of an American, either on foreign soil or here at home.  It is obvious that were life-tenured Judges to be told that a death was justified to protect them, their families, their friends and their country, and yet, should that claim turn out to be false, no career adverse consequences would occur, that death warrant will surely issue, okay only every 999 citizens out of a 1000 get Star Chambered.

Instead, we citizens must demand that Congress take this power of Life and Death away from politicians -  intrinsic conflict of interest in need to deter, not combatants, but political enemies, and the Judges - having no legal authority and no means of imposing accountability.  No, only career military officers have the intrinsic expertise and authority to accurately identify enemy combatants, and they are constrained by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to get it right - if negligent or intending to get it wrong ala Lieutenant Calley at Mai Lia in South Vietnam, these military commanders will be held accountable for breaches of lawful Rules of Engagement - careers ending immediately and jail for murders are standard fare for such transgressions in military service.

With Congressional focus on this grave Constitutional challenge now building, we citizens all need to demand Drone Killing transparency and accountability - on my watch, I refuse to be a Silent Bystander, as there is no innocence in acquiesing in either the Executive running "Murder Inc." or the Judiciary doing this dirty wet work in a Secret Star Chamber.  

Why we don't have a Spending Problem

To understand why our Great Nation does not have a spending problem all you have to do is the math. Add up the revenues going into the US Treasury monthly and then compare the amount of dollars flowing out of that same federal institution to calculate a governmental surplus or deficit condition.  Having done so, I have determined that the federal government currently spends several hundreds of billions of dollars a month in excess of what we taxpayers deposit with these same folks.  As this state of affairs has been the norm for most all of the existence of our Constitutional Republic - granted not on the scale of deficit spending this Administration has achieved - it appears that government spending more than its annual revenue is no big deal really.

Of course, the government's revenue shortfalls are fully compensated for by the Treasury borrowing the needed funds from persons, businesses and nations willing to lend dollars to us in return for repayment of the loan principle plus interest.  In the past, I have complained that this mortgaging of America to foreign enemies such as the Saudi's, Chi-Coms and the French gravely jeopardizes our independence.  Should any of these nations threaten to pull the plug on existing or future loans, the government would be in an untenable situation - thus, my concern has been that these creditors can extort foreign policy/national security concessions from the United States by merely starting to close their Central Bank cashier's window when Uncle Sam is standing there with his handout.  So far, however, I have not seen any examples of such extortion having taken place. Of course, such wielding of undue influence will not be trumpeted by press releases or public statements, so we really don't know for sure.

What we do know for sure is that this Administration, clearly cognizant of the danger of having our Great Nation "owned" by foreign enemies, has moved swiftly to rescue deficit borrowing from these unfriendlies. Today, the US Treasury just goes over to the US Federal Reserve to borrow most of the funds needed to cover the government's deficit spending.  Because the Federal Reserve has unlimited money - it actually does go into the basement and print US dollars - the spending "problem" of the US government is neatly solved by this unlimited expansion of the money supply in circulation both domestically and in world markets.  So, who says that there is no such thing as a magic bullet - the Federal Reserve is us; its Board of Governors will never threaten to withhold more credit or pull its existing loans, as all these guys/gals are American Patriots.  So, you ask what could go wrong with this monetization of the government's deficits - only one thing: the Federal Reserve adds absolutely no value to the US economy by expanding the money supply; indeed the only asset owned by the FED is a single printing press that makes dollar bills, out of non-recycled paper I might add.  Accordingly, when an nation's economy is literally flooded with massive amounts of non-assets - new dollars, indeed trillions of dollars annually - that explosion of currency makes each dollar worth less and less in buying power daily, as the same amount of good and services exist in the economy but there exists trillions of additional dollars available for their purchase.

Now, we are not speculating here.  In 1924, the Weimar Republic of Germany sought to print its way to a painless way of paying off the country's WWI reparations/debt.  Soon a loaf of bread at a Berlin grocery store cost more than two millions German marks.  My reminders of this reality, of course, are the photos of the German moms and grandmothers going shopping with wheelbarrows of almost worthless cash, as the nation's economy has devolved into a barter system where bread was the real currency.  So, I say buy wheelbarrows or bread now, as we have no spending problem, just a printing problem.    

Torture is as Torture Does. Not.

Due to a necessary, possibly life saving, medical procedure two weeks ago, I now have first hand knowledge of pain so intense, so unbearable, so persistently those two stated impacts, that but for the immediate "crash team" intervention, I would have gone catatonic.  The human body does seek surcease from torture by retreating to a state aptly called going into shock.

Not to be needlessly graphic, but when you have three muscular urologists, in turn, using all their arm strength to insert an over-sized plastic tube down/up your penis all the way to the bladder, a rational person passes quickly from "denial" to "bargaining".   My first literal shout-out to my abusers was to disclose the nuclear launch codes for the President's "football". Then, I gave up the full names and social security numbers for the Dallas Grassy knoll shooters, followed by a full listing of all White House interns who had not had sex with Bill Clinton.  Finally, offered my attending physicians a thirty minute interview with the military doctors who had conducted the alien autoptyies at Area 51.

OK, you get my point - a human being tortured will say anything to try to stop the unbearable pain, even the truthful answers to an interrogator's questions, should the abusesee believe that falsehoods will be seen as such by his abuser.

Now, I have not been water boarded since Frat Pledge Hell Week, but can say with confidence that the insertion of a too large object into a too small human cavity is much worse - at least underwater they can't hear you scream.

So, what is my larger point here - no pun intended?  Obama/Holder have argued that the CIA operatives who subjected Islamist terrorists to water boarding committed crimes - due to the severity of the "harm/pain" inflicted upon their Gitmo prisoners.  Patently, were the degree of physical pain be the  determining factor of criminality, I would now be the Star Witness against three Philadelphia doctors.  Of course, the physician's intent - to save my life - vitiates any criminal mens rea, making the President's assertion of criminality ludicrous on its face.

Identically, the CIA operatives' intent - to save the lives of innocent Americans - vitiates any criminal mens rea, also making the President's assertion of criminality ludicrous on its face.  Now , one or two of the Elite Membership may conclude that I had consented to my mistreatment, thereby making a salient difference in these two transactions as to prosecution exposure.  Well, guys and gals, as soon as I realized that the selected catheter tube was so mis-sized, I withdrew my prior implied consent at the top of my lungs, but to no avail as this procedure continued unabated for another forty-five minutes of pure agony.  So, my real point here is my shout-out to this President: "Stop the Mendacity."        

Guns and Roses

This is difficult, as it should be I know.  The Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre constitutes evil of unfathomable depth - a place so dark, I don't want to fathom its reality.  Particularly, I have no interest in examining the life of this crazed murderer so that we all can be made to feel guilty because society treated him poorly such that his self esteem was undermined.  Instead, my focus is and will remain fixed on how we prevent these obvious Nut Jobs from getting their hands on firearms.

Now, please understand me, so my self esteem is not diminished.  While I have never owned a gun myself, I do support the Second Amendment because individual freedom dictates that we the people have the right to effective self-defense against criminals who will always have easy access to illegal weapons.  What our nation needs to address is not criminal violence, but this spreading terror of the lone wolf madman blazing his way into eternity.

One sensible societal response to this growing menace is to require a rigorous firearms training program for first time gun permit applicants which will include a psych evaluation for any single white male under the age of 30.  Call it racist, call it racial profiling, I just don't care, and refuse to ignore the obvious pattern here.  When Columbine, Aurora and now Newtown all involve young disaffected white males, I see a rational need for extra scrutiny for that category of individual who has engaged in the rage of mass murder.  Just as the airport screeners for political correctness hassle everyone, including granny and little children, so the true terrorists are able to get on planes with explosive underpants, gun sales to young white Americans need not be banned, but for the children's sake ought to be limited to those individuals who are rational and not dead men walking.