« January 2009 »
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
By The People
20 January 2008
Who Are You?

Real ID is gauranteed to cause the greatest political division in America since the Civil War. The noise in the media every day is Iraq, Pedophilia, and Identity Theft. And then the coverage of the primaries is over and we turn the more of the same. What ever happened to the 4'th amendment anyway? If the the constitution (in article 1) gives the president his power to give orders and make decisions in wartime, then another another article of the very same constitution can take away or limit the power of president.

How is it no-one can see this well enough to impeach, arrest, try and imprison the man? Maybe he could spend his sentence on board a Naval installation to keep him safe... Somewhere tropical with a nice harbor and plenty of sand and blue water. An island in the Caribbean maybe?

Is anyone really in doubt about the need to secure the border? It seems unlikely that anyone who is a naturalized or native born citizen of the US especially in border states, would think that the steady stream of illegal aliens into the territorial US is a positive thing. The exception would be citizens who received their status through the unconstitutional process of Amnesty. Wasn't that another legacy of the Regan Era?

Now, a president has the authority to grant a pardon to persons convicted of a crime in federal court. But a blanket amnesty, prior to trial, and without a signed instrument naming the individual person(s) receiving the pardon has no real value. Because anyone could lie and claim that they were a member of the group legally entitled to that pardon.

For instance if a pardon was issued for illegals entering through Mexico is issued, then an agent of the North Korean army could enter through Mexico and gain a pardon for invasion of the US. (We're officially in a state of Cease Fire not peace with North Korea sense the 1950's and as a result at war 24-7 for longer than most Internet users have lived.) If you limit the pardon to Hispanics then Germanic or Jewish citizens of Southern Mexico, who cross illegally, would be discriminated against on the basis of race. The permutations are endless. And the results always ridiculous and unconstitutional.

Beyond that a the president does NOT have the authority to nationalize new citizens by edict. The naturalization process is pretty well set in stone by law and custom. And frankly, how stupid would it be to grant citizenship to every person entering illegally through Canada or Mexico, nations that both tried to expand their population by granting citizenship without any real screening process in the 1990's.

So some brain child develops the idea of ID cards. We can protect our borders with national IDs? Sounds so simple. It would even help to prevent crime. Put everyone on life lock, nationalize the database and require proof of citizenship when issuing IDs. Preston problem solved and two-birds killed with one stone. We can eliminate ID theft and secure the borders by making it impossible to buy a loaf of bread without an ID. It would starve the illegals into turning themselves in... Plus we can make the border secure the other way so no-one can leave...

Wait a sec that's how the NaZi's controlled the population, Identity and Traveling Papers. But just because a foreign dictator did something doesn't mean our domestic one can't do it too. So is it constitutional? Well let's look at the 4'th amendment. The president claims to be a strict constructionist. Great! By strict construction, where does the limitation of search and seizure in turn get limited or set aside by either War, the act of a foreign government, or of a private agency or corporation. The strict construction limits all searches by any entity whatsoever. And by extension strict construction, the 4'th amendment makes the act of collecting data on buying habits, Bank transactions, inventories, industrial secrets, and credit history (all forms of business papers); medical, dental, and social activities and records, school transcripts (person) and place of residence, private collections, books, jewels, music, etc (all forms of possession) illegal without a warrant.

Simply put credit reporting agencies are, by strict construction engaged in illegal search at best, from some angles they start to look rather like criminal conspiracy and criminal slander. A popular movie features a newspaper editor making up wild accusations without evidence or foundation. His victim complains, “that's slander!” The Editor replies, “I resent that, this is libel! Slander is spoken this is in print.” This is a common misconception, some would like to foster. In fact Libel is Civil action as in a lawsuit. Slander is the act of harming a person, directly or indirectly, socially or financially, by issuance of any untrue statement made in any media including speech.

So every error on a credit report is, at least in California, a criminal act. Criminalizing untrue statements is not violating freedom of speech, because any equally seedy, vial contemptible accusation is perfectly legal if provable. Nor does criminalizing it inhibit your ability to make untrue statements that harm others. It just makes it a violation if the harm occurs, and you then have to pay a price for the harm done, not for speaking in the first place. In the long run, even a tabloid could consider, fines, prison and probation as the cost of doing business.

But in the case of a Credit agency you have a concerted effort to collect and disseminate a narrow spectrum of information for the purpose of limiting a person's ability to do business, get work, acquire loans and mortgages and to open bank accounts. This is arguably conspiracy because the persons collecting the information have done so either without consent or with an extortionary condition that they will not hire, bank or do business with persons who don't give consent to have their private business papers made available electronically for the asking.

The aggregate of those consumers of Credit reports who then share credit information via reporting agencies are the parties to conspiracy, if any of the information is untrue or libel it necessarily makes that conspiracy a criminal one. Further if law enforcement or US domestic governments consume or report that information they become culpable for that conspiracy and for violation of the 4'th amendment.

By warehousing such information for the consumers of that information they become primary agents of the conspiracy. This is why government black-lists such as the no-fly list are criminal and unconstitutional. This is also why “Real ID” is criminal. “Real ID” as introduced by the US gestappo, The Department of Vaterland Security, obligates every state to in turn  require proof of citizenship in order to issue driver's licenses and state ID cards. In turn the patriot act requires that a person show a driver's license or state ID to open a bank account or use a Credit Card. It also requires a passport, driver's license or State ID in order to board a plane even on a domestic flight.

The aggregate and intention of these laws and policies is to force every traveler and every purchaser to prove citizenship in order to make a transaction or travel. This is precisely the draconian, totalitarian activity that I've warned about previously. Why is it wrong to keep illegals from buying or traveling? They will get caught and pulled into INS and it will solve the problem right? How, naïve or even patently disingenuous! Illegal entry into the US is a crime. There are federal laws governing it and were they enforceable by INS would have been perfectly suitable all this time. Enforceability is a matter of manpower and resources, nothing else. Other countries have used anti personnel minefields to draw permanent lines. Illegals are not refugees and not entitled to the same consideration as those seeking political asylum, unless we are willing to define Mexico as a civil rights oppressor and go to war with them.

But in light of the measures other countries have employed how is it we can afford to fund a war in Iraq and not fund a larger border patrol? I'm not suggesting mine fields. I'm saying why is a concrete wall and curtailment of personal privacy for lawful residents a better answer than quadrupling the size of the INS and Coast Guard? Simple answer is the goal is not to prevent illegal entry, but to use illegals as a red herring to hide the real purpose of simply curtailing personal freedom and privacy. The goal was always to make the people unable to defend themselves against the threat of domestic violence from a federal government become corrupted with power.

This is an illegal maneuver from any angle. Not only does it violate the 4'th amendment, it violates the right of the accused against self incrimination, and it violates the most foundational principle of US constitution and common law. Simply put you are innocent until proven guilty. Requirement of proof citizenship in banking and travel. Requirement of Identity in trivial transactions and travel. These violate the most fundamental premise. In essence we ALL and you the reader in particular, have been accused of being 1) a terrorist, 2) a sympathizer giving aid to the enemy and 3) an illegal alien present in the territorial US. And the burden of proof has been placed on you. Prove you are innocent.

Is this the sort of governance that generations of American Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Civil Service have fought and died to defend in two wars with England, two wars with Canada, a War with Mexico, a War with Spain, two wars in Europe, a War in defense of China, a War with Japan, a war in Bosnia and wars against communist insurgents in Korea, Viet Nam and South America? Is this really why people gave their lives? So that Bush could claim the president is entitled to whatever he wants as long as its “in the interest of national security”? Did they die as defenders of a war-like metaphor, using a probable cause like doctrine, in a freedom-lite environment without any restraints or oversight?

The last thing this country needs is a parliament where the president is eliminated and the executive powers are given over to the vice-president/prime minister. But the second amendment clearly intends that congress must be able to restrain and even remove a rogue president, and a vice president who has sought for generations to undermine the democratic nature of the republic and replace it with a neo feudalism, with himself and his corporate America peers as the new Aristocracy. Hail the new world Order and sich Heil!

? Fred Davis. fd4ds5 at 1:20 PM PST
Updated: 13 February 2009 4:10 PM PST
9 May 2007
Here We Go Again
Mood:  don't ask

Once again the House of Representatives passed an insane piece of unconstitutional legislation. The recent "Hate Crimes" bill is another mind boggling attempt by the socialist totalitarian left to distort American society to a semblance of Europe. It is always saddening to encounter those who are so out of touch or bound by propaganda that they fail to see the full impact of the cattle logic that binds their minds.

Why would a conservative strict constructionist be opposed to a hate crimes bill? After all, isn't the 14'Th amendment all about protecting people in a certain subculture from oppression? Won't this new legislation protect people and foster a more loving and tolerant society? Don't we really support intolerance toward the intolerant?

That is the old fallacy of using a double negative to make a positive. It just doesn't hold together. But putting the lack of critical reasoning aside for the moment, let's examine the constitutionality of the legislation.

The fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution guarantees equal protection as well as due process to all residents in any state of the Union. The actual text is quite direct:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A Law, even a federal law which deprives members of a non-protected status group from protection equal to the members of the protected group is in direct violation to this amendment. For instance a bill which guaranteed a particular racial group greater protection from "hate crimes" would by definition be as illegitimate as a law preventing a certain racial group from voting or working. Any law which creates a special status, whether greater in protection or greater in disenfranchisement, is equally discriminatory and essentially an illegal law.

By creating special groups of people that get extra special protection from victimization, you create second class victims and citizens out of those who don't fall in a protected status. Worse, you create a defacto oligarchy where the protected have a greater opportunity to exercise their franchise and even to be elected to public office. This is the same crime for which the state of Arkansas was invaded by National Guard troops in the 1960's.

Hate crimes legislation is discrimination. The worst most insidious form of institutionalized discrimination is the kind that results in protected classes. This was the kind of discrimination that the Equal Rights Movement was formed to combat: subcultural, chauvinistic, preference. Chauvinistic -- Gender (even women only) only, Homosexual only or Race only policies when applied to protection from violent crime, harassment, freedom of speech and pursuit of happiness -- necessarily constitute a heinous constitutional violation.

Hate crimes legislation finds a new civil right never before found in the constitution or American Ideals, unequal protection under the law. It's as un-American as red coats, and Concentration camps. It stinks to high heaven and can only lead down the same totalitarian path as Left Wing, communist totalitarianism, or Right Wing, NAtional soZIalist totalitarianism.

Sich Heil, Commissar Kennedy.


? Fred Davis. fd4ds5 at 8:32 PM PDT
Updated: 9 May 2007 8:39 PM PDT
18 September 2006
Institutional Voyeurs
Mood:  flirty
Topic: Politics

All these issues that have been raised in the current debate over Iraq are old issues. These are the issues that caused Article I and Article II as well as the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to be written. Taken as a whole there is no way a reasoning individual could possibly see these activities of the government as legal.

I say legal because the constitution is the codified or "made into law" will of the people. We can change our minds, but when the government does something that we have told them explicitly they cannot do or if they don't do something we have explicitly commanded them to do, they forfeit their legitimacy and become felons.

It's not some magic rite that makes them felons and it doesn't require a court to declare it. Courts are needed to sort out the issues and mete out the penalties, but convicted or not the objective reality of guilt remains. A person who has sworn to uphold the constitution and doesn't is forsworn, a traitor to the United States, and a felon. The fact will affect them even if they are exonerated or pardoned. Nothing can really ever rehabilitate such a person.

 But the latest bout in the dialogue has been the issue of the fourth amendment. This is a simple one and written in simple language. 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now the word warrants is capitalized so it has been seen to mean a legal document. This needn't be the case though as the word warranted means justified. The likely meaning at the time it was written was a court order, but one that simply affirmed the inherent authority in the peace officer or other persons. Why does that matter? Simply because there is no such thing as a legal but warrantless search. If the search is legal then it is warranted, if not it isn't.

What this means when reduced, is that NO search OR seizure is legal when performed by agents of any branch of the US Government at any level unless:

1) a finding of fact by a court demonstrates a crime has been committed

2) an oath has been sworn (or affirmation by those who do not take oaths on religious grounds) by the searchers certifying on penalty of perjury that there is reasonable cause to believe that the persons who control the property to be searched are probably guilty of that crime

3) that the places to be searched are limited in scope and probative locations

4) that the things or persons to be seized are explicitly named prior to the search or arrest 

The "warrantless" searches being conducted are illegal and unconstitutional by virtue of the fact the authorities engaging in the searches and directing the agents have admitted to their warrantless nature. To declare ANY search as warrantless and then conduct that search shows a guilty mind. It is a felony confession.

Another tack commonly taken is the "reasonableness" issue. The text says no unreasonable searches, therefore the agency insists it is reasonable to search financial transactions and simple purchases and rented properties and the list goes on interminably.

The constant wheedling away at the constitution is disastrous. But don't me duck that question. Reasonableness is vague. It was intentionally vague because the framers were afraid they might be creating a guarantee that would prevent law enforcement. They left it to the people to decide what was reasonable. Reasonableness can drift from generation to generation. And while it offends most of us to think it, it is culturally and historically bound.

This is why the oversight by a court has been mandated. Judges in most areas are elected. For this reason, they must be sensitive to the cultural and historical context that determines reasonableness. Ergo the vagaries are eliminated when the legislation by congress and the executive orders of the president are curtailed by constitutional constraints.

Much of the body of law allowing hot pursuit is illegal law, because it defies the constitutionally mandated oversight in favor of expediency. The Supreme Court has often erroneously held that unconstitutional activities are constitutional because political agendas have swayed them to interpret the constitution instead of interpreting the laws as is mandated by the constitution.

This sort of bending the constitution to fit the statute instead of bending the statute to fit the constitution is born out of the desperate expediency of trying avoid protracted exchanges where bills are passed only to be overturned by the court. This dialogue is seen as too time consuming when vital issues of crime and national security weigh in the balance. 

Expeditious and efficient governance is tyranny. We do live in a high speed society. We do have sophisticated people committing crime. But it was never the intention that the federal, state or local government have the power to prevent crime. The tools they should be limited to are catching the perpetrator AFTER the fact or in the act. Crime prevention is the sole purview of the potential victim. Security guards and defense of property against trespass, robbery, theft or vandalism are the right of the people.

The US Government has long been in the process of disarming the public in the name of public safety. In fact, a disarmed public has no security from predatory persons. But more importantly they have no security such as that named in the 4th amendment, namely security in the face of tyranny. Security from arrest, or the seizure of property or business, medical and financial records is the Security that the president is mandated to protect. Yet our current president and his token legislature are the greatest threat to this security that we have faced since the Victorian policy state invaded us and burned the white house.

 I'm not advocating a particular course of action, other than legal reform which reverts these powers to the people as they were intended and which leads to the incarceration and/or execution of those persons who have been engaged in illegally circumventing fully half the articles and amendments to the constitution.

In Denmark, every able bodied man owns an assault rifle and amazingly they don't have a lot of murder and violent crime. If the criminal has to concern himself with the fact that he may be justifiably killed by his intended victim for illegal entry, or attempted robbery, crime drops. Criminals are first and foremost, risk management specialists. If the risk is too high in relation to the potential gain they back off.

This is the reason the first amendment guarantees the inherent right to bear arms. The intention was that a rogue agency of the government or a violent criminal on the prowl would be forced to consider the possibility that any given citizen might be better armed and trained. Both types of security threat are equally deleterious to the peace and public safety and should rightly be at risk at all times from the ordinary citizen.

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good.

-George Washington 

? Fred Davis. fd4ds5 at 2:02 PM PDT
Updated: 29 October 2006 10:13 PM PDT
7 September 2006
Adolpho Bush?
Mood:  incredulous

Today President Bush went on a rampage. The old saying is, "when you are caught in a lie, lie harder." Bush told us that special or unusual punishments were being meted out in secret CIA operated prisons in other countries, and that these cruel and unusual punishments had netted information that was instrumental in foiling at least three and possibly more terrorist plots. He told us that the use of cruel and unusual punishment in interrogation was acceptable because the victims of this treatment were dangerous men and had lot's of high grade information. In effect, he made the case that:

1) the ends justify the means

2) it worked so it must have been necessary

3) cruel unusual punishment forbidden by US statute is okay if it is done by the CIA and if the stakes are really high

4) belief that an almighty God is a moral and legal authority higher than the state and that his dictates transcend the the laws of any given nation, is cause for abrogating a believer's human rights. 

Torture works sometimes? Really? Well why didn't you say so? That must make it all right then. Especially since any authentic Christian or Anonistic Jew fits the profile for "persons of interest" in CIA doublespeak.

While he admitted the interrogation uses unusual techniques, Bush insists that torture is not being used. However, the following techniques used by CIA interrogators have been catalogued:

1) slapping

2) hitting the soft tissue of the belly in order to cause great pain without internal injury

3) prolonged use of repetative noise at high volume designed to cause nerve defness and disorientation

4) sleep deprivation and enforced exhaustion designed to cause dementia and mental collapse

5) water boarding: the use of fabric and running water to incite the fear of drowning.

Sorry George, no spin can make these techniques anything other than torture. This is the reason it is critical that the Senate Armed Services committee form a bill that enforces what CAN be used as an interrogation technique and allow exceptions ONLY where an independent or judicial review, subject to public scrutiny, has been made. If the executive, or worse yet the field operative is allowed make these decisions for himself we will only see repeats of Abograve. They have proven they cannot be trusted to behave humanely and responsibly without tight regulation.

In addition the use of the belly slap is what was euphemistically referred to as the "rubber hoses" in the 1930's. This technique is precisely the method that caused the need for Miranda. If this technique is rearing it's ugly head again then it only emphasizes the need for ALL non-military prisoners of ANY agency of the federal government to be subject to miranda. The use and authorization of secret prisons must be prosecuted as the war crime it is.

One of the biggest issues in this debate is the status of CIA and other intelligence operatives. Simply put they are either agents of the justice department and as such must be bound by miranda, or they are agents of the DOD and have no authority to act in a law enforcement capacity toward nonmilitary personnel. This attempt to innovate is clearly, not only unconstitutional but is intended to agressively and with premeditation undermine the constitution and the US Service Code and their authority over the activities of ALL US persons and any person acting as an agent of a US entity or agency.

Sadly what we are seeing is the natural outcome of antireligious, anti-intellectual relativism that soldiers and politicians who have grown up in 20'th century America have inculcated. In WW II a soldier given an order to commit the sort of atrocities that we've been leaked would have politely refused and accepted a court-marshal rather than obay an unlawful and inhumane order. The caliber of the men and women serving is not the issue, it's the lack of religiously instilled inhibitions that would make such behavior unlikely. Plato is no substitute for Amos. 

? Fred Davis. fd4ds5 at 12:25 AM PDT
Updated: 19 September 2006 4:05 AM PDT
3 August 2006
Reciprocity ain't Nothing but a Hound Dog

As congress enters recess, the Bush administration is slowly proceeding with the process of drafting legislation which they will request congress to initiate when they return. This legislation is an attempt to excuse the past egregious behavior by the military and in particular the Military Police and the Military Intelligence forces deployed in iraq and in Guantanamo Bay. This legislation will center around the issue of military tribunals commissioned to try prisoners detained because they are accused of terrorism against US persons or property. Three issues stand as preeminient.

1) Use of heresay evidence.

2) Use of confidential materials.

3) Use of information derived through illegal measures such as torture.

Now torture is a sticky issue. The circumstances that Attny. Gen. Gonzales wants to protect is the situation where a person is captured and tortured by a third party and information of a probative value is uncovered, OR where intelligence operatives torture a subject to get warfare intelligence that is later proven to be factual. This information would be factual and probative in hindsight, but because it was obtained through inhumane means it is not admissable in an American court of any sort. The Attny. Gen. wishes to inovate and create a situation where this tainted information could be used in court.

Sen. Sessions has expressed the belief that if a group that is targeted by the United States doesn't respect american laws and standards of humanity, then those persons should not be given the protections which the constitution and laws of the US provide. This cannot be anything but hypocrasy. As senator Graham pointed there is the question of reciprocity. As I'm sure Sen. Sessions is aware this concept has been summed up nicely in the words of Jesus as reported by Matthew: "What ever you want men to do to to you, do precisely that to them." If he actually values the freedom mandated by the constitution (not priviledged by government fiat) then he is responsible to treat and to insure that other treat ALL persons with those standards.

With regard to confidential materials, yes as Sen. Graham has pointed out there are things too sensitive to provide to the  accused. In addition the provinence of this information may be necessary to secrete and deny to the accused. In these cases, if the prosecutions case rides on such information, that information cannot be legitmated as evidence. In order for justice to be served, a defendent must be allowed to attempted to discredit such evidence through confidential communication with his counsel. If the data introduced as evidence cannot be discussed with the accused the counselor cannot adequately defend the accused. If it's secret you can't use it. This is a reasonable expectation.

The concern over heresay is the intention to allow the opinions of intelligence operatives and soldiers to be admitted into evidence without the presence of the accusing witness(es). This heresay evidence provision is clearly unconstitutional and will allow evidence to be presented that is uncorroborated and cannot be directly challenged by the accused. If that is allowed to stand there can be no claim that any verdict is just. Further there is a simple solution.

Currently every court in the land allows sworn affidavit on the part of the witness to staqnd for the witness. The only objection to using affidavitt must be that the administration wants to use unsworn testimony, made in the absence of the accused. An intelligence operative or even a foreign national, could be sworn in in the presence of a cleared JAG officer and the identity of the witness would thus be protected for national security purposes. Even a line soldier could be called to a rearward position for this process without disrupting his unit undully.

These issues are not as cloudy as the administration wants to make it. The "grey" of the grey areas is introduced by the administration for the purpose of misdirection. The disire is to use military assets as police against citizens. This is not only illegal it's immoral. If police powers are desired, put federal martials in their fancy black uniforms displaying their shiny gold shields and send them forward to question and incarcerate detainees. Surly OKC, Fort Gibson and Chicago would be happy to let them go for a bit. ;)

Sen Graham disappointed me on one point. Fortunantly he isn't my representative, but I was disappointed by his statement that he believes that persons captured during this "war on terror" should not be reported to the international community. There he drifts from the very sound line of thinking he's been following through this mess. Reporting is a critical issue. Reporting dissuades people from open ended incarceration such as that suffered by Nelson Mandella and the huge numbers of US soldiers held in Viet Nam after 1972.

It is critical that the administration be transparent as the the identities of ALL persons captured and held. Habeous corpus is not a suggestion and it is critical to just and humane treatment of prisoners. If anything the revelation of such information only increases the effectivness of the war. The propaganda and moral value of such reports is astounding. Ideological groups like Al Qaeda are often more motivated by personalities than by a heartfelt attachment to principles. In these cases the capture of an important leader only served to demoralize the enemy. There is no valid reason not to make the reports mandated by the geneva convention, further there are overridding reasons to make these reports.

 One of the arguements that is being presented is that "this war on terror" is so different that the previous law was not framed to envision it. In fact Sen. Warner confirmed that he as a marine in 1949 was never faced with these issues. This arguement is of course untrue. As part of a rebellious uprising against the lawful authority of parliment and of the Crown, George Washington lead an unlawful combat that was quite successful in the end. Adjunct to this John Adams and his terrorist organization "The sons of Liberty" or "The Sons of Thunder" were engaged in public beatings, bombings, arson and theft of goods and funds against British subjects and American colonists who were loyal to Great Britain.

The "Minute Men" were irregular ununiformed unlawful combatants who formed improptu militae to fight for the American independence. We rightly, and dutifully revere these Terrorists, and elected several to presidency. Great men were every one of them.

When france was annexed by Germany in WWII, Germany engaged in Nation Building identical to what we have done in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The lawful French Government was Nazi and they were allied with Germany. An unlawful combatant force was encouraged and supported by the US Government. The Frech troups in North Africa began to illegally fight against France and private citizens were equiped to commit terrorism against German military personnel, their families and their French supporters including the Lawful government of France. We unashamedly celebrate these people as patriots and heros. God bless them.

When the USSR invaded Afghanistan and tried to engage in nation building we equipped the Taliban with Stinger missiles and CIA military training and advisors. This is in fact who trained Osama Bin Ladin. We built the terroist force in Afghanistan with the intention of driving the Russians out. 

When a small underequipped and disenfranchised people are oppressed by a greater and more powerful force it is the standard prosecution of War to used "commando" tatics and unlawful combatants. This has ALWAYS been american legal and military doctrine. Changing that now, for simple expediency is dangerous to the Union and the Constition, is hypocritical and will result in the torture, execution and imprisonment of Americans in the future. Reciprocity is a hard pill to swallow. I don't want to see us take that medicine.

? Fred Davis. fd4ds5 at 7:09 AM PDT
Updated: 6 September 2006 11:43 PM PDT

Newer | Latest | Older