Response to Winchester Star Editorial

November 22, 2010

Adrian O’Connor
The Winchester Star
2 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601

Dear Sir:

In the paper’s opinion piece of Friday, November 19, 2010, entitled “Our View: Justice Not Served”, you asked the following question: “Why should an enemy combatant possess the same rights granted to citizens of the nation whose life and property he so wantonly violated?” (emphasis yours). I would like an opportunity to answer that question.

Prior to September 11, 2001, the courts frequently aligned with both the legislature and the executive branch on matters of civil liberty relative to national security. The Supreme Court had repeatedly given more weight to national security concerns during active military campaigns, only repairing damages done to civil liberties after the cessation of hostilities (as in the 1988 apology by Congress for its prior ruling that internment of those with Japanese ancestry in Korematsu was constitutional). Chief Justice William Rehnquist directly discussed this issue in his book, All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime (1998) by citing Cicero’s idea of inter arma silent leges, “during war law is silent”, arguing that there is no reason to believe that presidents in future times of war or justices rendering judicial opinions would act any differently than their predecessors.

Initially, the Bush administration was very careful politically to limit its detention activities to non-citizens. In November, the President signed an Detention Order outlining the procedures to deal with belligerents being captured on the ground in Afghanistan, limiting its scope to non-U.S. citizens who were past or present members of al-Qaeda. However, in my view, the Order was Constitutional Law 101 turned upside down, even though it only applied to non-citizens. It cited but never defined “international terrorism”. It created guilt by association by targeting members of an anti-American organization. Association itself instead of action could lead to detention and trial for war crimes. There was no requirement to show probable cause, no right to a speedy trial, no right to confront witnesses, no right to a jury, no right to appeal to civilian courts, and acquittal did not guarantee release. Additionally, the proceedings could be “closed” to both the defendant and his counsel if it was determined to be necessary to guard the secrecy of classified information and sources, to protect identity and physical safety of tribunal participants, or other “national security interests”. The Bush administration used the assurance that this only applied to non-citizens and post-attack fear and panic to justify its Order. It cited possible sleeper cells poised for a new round of attacks, terrorists that could inhibit the criminal process by threatening prosecutors, judges, and even potential jurors, and the loss of intelligence in open courts to garner support for trial by military tribunal.

I believe the problems started with asking for an authorization of force against terrorism. Terrorism is not an ideology that can be rooted out. Terrorism is a tactic ideologists use to further their cause. As long as there are those dissatisfied with the status quo, there will be some who choose violence as their means to effect change. Therefore, terrorism cannot be eradicated. This means we are not only at war with Al Qaeda and those who harbor them, but “all” terrorists, making our mission global in reach, creating an infinite number of enemies and no discernible endpoint. Anyone of any nationality could potentially be labeled an “enemy combatant”, and a conflict without a foreseeable end makes detentions constitute life sentences. It is extremely dangerous to agree that affiliation with anti-American organizations alone should be sufficient justification for arrest and detention. This is exactly what terrorists desire: an overreaction that tears at the fabric of democracy. Who decides which groups, which members?

Second, I believe that the Constitution and the Geneva Convention already provided a perfect framework for dealing with enemy combatants. The rule of law worked in the cases of Timothy McVeigh (convicted and executed for the Oklahoma City Bombing), John Walker Lindh (the American citizen captured while fighting with the Taliban who pled guilty and was sentenced to 20 years), and Jose Padilla (after he was transferred back to the civilian courts and prosecuted criminally, he was convicted and sentenced to 17 years, 4 months). Neither Zacharias Moussaoui nor Richard Reid was a US citizen but they were charged in criminal courts and had access to attorneys. Clearly, these cases demonstrate that civilian federal courts are perfectly capable of trying alleged terrorists (i.e. enemy combatants). Had we adhered to the Geneva Convention, we could still have held the combatants indefinitely so as to prevent them from returning to the battlefield. The government erred when it panicked over security concerns of another imminent attack and worked to circumvent the law for intelligence/interrogation purposes. In my opinion, it was this focus on the intelligence effort that led the train off the tracks.

Why do I care about the rights of terrorists who have either killed or seek to kill American citizens and military personnel? I think David Cole summarized my feelings succinctly:

"What we do to foreign nationals today often paves the way for what will be done to American citizens tomorrow. The line between citizen and foreigner, so natural during wartime, is not only easy to exploit when restrictive measures are introduced, but also easy to breach when the government later finds it convenient to do so. The transition from denying the rights of enemy
aliens to infringing those of American citizens was unusually swift with [Yaser] Hamdi and [Jose] Padilla; more often, the transition takes years to complete. But history suggests that the transition is virtually inevitable, and that therefore in the long term, the rights of all of us are in the balance when the government selectively sacrifices foreign nationals’ liberties” (Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism, 2003, emphasis mine).

How can a state founded on the rule of law be allowed to classify anyone they wish an “enemy combatant” and make them virtually disappear, confined in an unknown location, indefinitely, never charged or afforded access to legal counsel and prevented from petitioning a judge concerning actual innocence? Admittedly, no where herein have I advocated just setting detainees free to reenter the battle and attack us again. This is what the Geneva Convention specifically prescribed detention for. My argument is about whether or not all individuals are still equal under the Constitution and afforded unalienable rights. If so, no person, even a non-citizen should be arbitrarily deprived of liberty unless they have due process of law. It must be remembered that the Constitution only speaks of “citizens” when discussing voting and eligibility to office; otherwise, rights of association, due process and equal protection apply to all “persons” subject to our laws. Alexander Hamilton spoke eloquently to this very issue: “The practice of arbitrary imprisonments [has] been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny (The Federalist No. 84).”

No one person acting as executive should have the ability to arbitrarily decide whether or not another has the rights afforded by the Constitution, even non-citizens. The Bush administration erred by creating a “legal classification whereby all rights granted by law—domestic and international—become simply a matter of executive grace” (Leila Nadya Sadat, “A Presumption of Guilt: The Unlawful Enemy Combatant and the U.S. War on Terror”, Denver Journal of Law and Policy, 37:4, 2009).

Therefore, in the interests of all of us, the rights of non-citizens, even our enemies, should be of concern—to all of us.

Kick in the ass

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518596,00.html

This blog is about the unfortunate disappearance of Brittanee Drexel in Myrtle Beach last week.  But I have a much different take on the situation than most bloggers.  My position is NOT sensitive OR compassionate.  I do not weep over the (most likely) death of Brittanee Drexel.  Instead I get angry.  While the perpetrator or perpetrators are the ones who killed her and should be prosecuted fully, the best advice I can offer her mother at this time is to get an agent and write a book entitled, "How My Parenting Skills Caused My Daughter's Death", by Dawn Drexel--the U.S.' second worst mother, only surpassed by Octomom!  

How could I say these things?  Because somebody NEEDS to say them!  Somebody needs to tell all these parents out there who think they can be their teenager's FRIEND what can happen.  Somebody needs to tell all the teenagers out there who think its OK to act like they're 30 and walk around half naked in the middle of the night in a strange city what can happen.

If you are starting to think it was a mistake reading this, take a moment to reminisce with me....  Back to the good ole' days when 16-year-old girls didn't decide to just "get away" to a beach resort three states away from home.  Not only would we not have even considered it an option, if--for some unexplicable reason--we lost our ever livin' minds and DID "get away", OUR mothers would have driven all night to the resort, bloodied us in front of our homies and would have need carpal tunnel surgery when she got us home from slapping us so much on the trip.  WE would not have ever ACQUIRED the notion that if we got our minds "set on something" that it was ACCEPTABLE to just do it.  OUR mothers would NOT, like Dawn Drexel, TEXT with us for the duration of our "breather" about "soccer equipment she was going to buy" us.  If your mother was like mine, you can agree any future purchases would have been permanently shelved pending trial.

I would continue on and describe how much folly it is for teenagers today to act twice their age, for girls to think it would be completely acceptable to walk 20 blocks in short shorts to visit a hotel room full of teenage boys.  But it isn't their fault.  It is the parents!  MOM bought those clothes, either directly or indirectly.  MOM raised a daughter who never learned the lesson of vulnerability because she rarely used the word "no".  MOM needs to take this ultimate lesson she is learning right now and crusade to save others.

I may not be likeable, but someone had to say it!  If we remain quiet, if we whisper--others will die.  

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-genocide25-2009apr25,0,2595139.story

President Barack Obama will not use the word "genocide" today when he issues a statement remembering the slaughter of more than a million Armenians during the last days of the Ottoman Empire.

FINALLY, something President Obama and I AGREE on! While there is no doubt that a massacre occurred, whether it was the product of genocide as it is commonly defined has yet to be proven and any use of that term prematurely could negatively impact the already tenuous reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. It would also certainly strain our relationship with Ankara--an ally who directly affects US foreign policy in many more ways than just supply lines into Iraq. Mr. President, enjoy this small moment of adulation--I doubt there will be many!

Self-centered Stupidity

Anyone who knows me will attest that I am a vigorous advocate of free speech, even when what is said is so heinous that no rational person could agree with it. For example: I have for some time been vocal in my defense of Ward Churchill, that ignoramous professor at the University of Denver who compared the dead on 9/11 to little Eichmanns who deserved what they got. Do I agree with him? Absolutely not. Would I ever place myself in a position where I had to socialize with him? Never. Do I think he is a waste of good air? Definitely! But I defend his right to say it--even in the classroom. Academia--while it frequently, as in this case, runs amok--IS the place where these types of things need to be said. College is the time to be confronted with unpopular ideas so one can develop skills for critical thinking and debate. So, should he have been fired? NO. Now, IF, because of his comments, no one registered for his classes because they had chosen NOT to associate with him, THEN he is an ineffective teacher and should be fired. IF he was one of those professors who refused to allow debate, no matter how persuasive, then he would be fostering an indoctrination and not an academic environment and should be canned. Fired for being stupid? No.

And so, it has always been my policy to defend a person's right to speak. However, I agree with most other advocates of free speech that the exercise thereof must be balanced with restraint if, by our speech, we might bring others to harm. The old adage about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is trite, but true. Which is why, when I read the following article on FoxNews, I suffered a minor implosion of my brain. I cannot paraphrase this article and do it justice so I am afraid my readers will just have to suffer as much as I did. Here it is:


EASTON, Pa. — The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance. Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the nearby ShopRite, but also with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article about the cake. Heath Campbell, who is 35, said in an interview Tuesday that people should look forward, not back, and accept change. "They need to accept a name. A name's a name. The kid isn't going to grow up and do what [Hitler] did," he said.

After ShopRite refused the request for the cake as inappropriate, the Campbells got a cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said. About 12 people attended the birthday party on Sunday, according to Heath Campbell.

The Campbells' other two children also have unusual names: JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell turns 2 in a few months and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell will be 1 in April.
Heath Campbell said he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked the name and because "no one else in the world would have that name."

Utter, complete, absolute (get the picture) self-centered stupidity! The issue of whether or not the store has the right to refuse is such a minor, insignificant matter as to be only worthy of this one sentence. But HOW do TWO (not just ONE but TWO) ADULTS who profess to be SOBER enough to introduce three children into this world can be so ARROGANT as to ham-string their INNOCENT children whom they say they LOVE with names that can not bring any pleasure to anyone except THEMSELVES for NO other reason than they wanted to be clever? This is not the exercising of free speech! This is stupidity! This father--who, by the way, is smiling in the photo accompanying the article, says (as you read above) that he chose the name because "no one else in the world would have that name". And all God's people said--AMEN! And all rational persons would respond---there is a reason for that! I wouldn't advocate unique names like Lucifer, Beilzibub or Genghis Khan, either. There are no words for something like this.....

And it is NOT ignorance, either. Ignorance is the lack of information--these idiots PURPOSEFULLY inflicted potential harm on their children! Some might read these comments and say--what harm? WHAT HARM??? Exactly how many days into kindergarten do you think little Adolf will make it before little Yitzhak kicks his ass??? I'll open the bidding at 1 day....mostly likely before roll call is finished. Not to mention when the "girls in d'hood" get a hold of JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell on her introduction to our fine public educational system. Oy Vey!

Definition of "Bonus"

Today's blog is in response to the almost-inconceivable request by Merrill Lynch's CEO John Thain for a $10 Million bonus for 2008. Ignorance like this effectively demonstrates how far from reality these bank execs have catapulted themselves. In what way, by whose standards, where in the universe would such a request be valid? Only in John Thain's own mind. And, had he been using his mind since becoming head of ML in December of 2007, instead of playing golf for 10 hours a day, maybe I wouldn't have had to contribute to the $10 Billion bailout his company received in October. I say inconceivable because only in America and only on Wall Street would the CEO of a company who had to borrow from people like me (because normal lending institutions laughed in his face) consider himself worthy of a bonus in the same year his company went bankrupt. Only the sheep, I mean the American people, would be stupid enough to loan money to an entity even the Chinese wouldn't touch. I don't know, it might just be because I'm not an expert economist, but I'd think that if he hadn't pocketed the $15 million sign-on bonus he received last year, he might not have needed the money out of my Christmas club this year to keep his ship afloat. I'd think $15 million would have kept ML out of trusteeship for at least a week. And what brilliant examples of the American educational system hired this man and gave him a sign-on bonus? I want their personal assets as collateral for this loan I extended. I've always wanted a home in the Hamptons--mostly because I would like to get a government grant to study how long it takes to make the president of a home owners' association consider suicide, probably right after he/she realizes that the Clampetts aren't a figment of Hollywood's imagination and they had moved east.

Webster's defines a "bonus" as "money paid in addition to stated compensation, usually from accumulated profits". Hello, Mr. Thain--or can I call you John since I'm a stockholder now--no profits, no bonus--capiche? When might I expect the first payment on your note. $10 million ought to be a great start. And being the Christian that I am, I can't close this letter unless I convey my wishes for a very merry Christmas to you and yours, you thieving bastard!