Watch "33 Minutes" online....

20100911

That morning was an emotional morning for so many and on so many levels. For it was not just one family or town impacted, it was our Nation. The United States of America was under attack.

It was at this time that we needed a strong leader, and we had one...

Where would our country go? No one could or can answer that. The only thing we can be certain to do...

God Bless America and all those who serve in her defense.

Sergeant of the Guard's last walk

Sgt. 1st Class Alfred Lanier, Sergeant of the Guard, Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, lays a rose at the Tomb in remembrance of his final walk on June 25. Sentinels lay roses signifying leaving the Tomb, and the love they have for the job and the Unknowns.

Sergeant of the Guard's last walk (DoD Slideshow)

This world (and beyond) is just no fun!

Commanders do not allow sexual intercourse on the International Space Station, it has been disclosed.

I wasted all these years trying to get in to NASA, now the only reason that I was doing it... gone! Damn. Although I do have a theory:

"We are a group of professionals," said Alan Poindexter, a NASA commander, during a visit to Tokyo, when asked about the consequences if astronauts boldly went where no others have been.

Maybe with that last name he wasn't getting any, and bitter he made up this rule. Just a thought.

Petraeus May Need a New Team in Afghanistan, Senators Say

Two influential senators suggested Sunday that President Obama clean house on the civilian side of his Afghanistan war team if Gen. David Petraeus cannot get along with the same diplomats who may have sparred with outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal. (Continue reading...)

Stay tuned...

Making a come back in the near future. Stay tuned...

9/11

That morning was an emotional morning for so many and on so many levels. For it was not just one family or town impacted, it was our Nation. The United States of America was under attack.

It was at this time that we needed a strong leader, and we had one...

Where would our country go? No one could or can answer that. The only thing we can be certain to do...

I hope you decide to listen to my 9/11 BTR show. Thank you, God Bless America and all those who serve in her defense.

White House wants to cyber stalk you.

We all know how the Obama Administration is trying to get Americans to turn on one another and snitch...directly to the White House. But I suppose they don't trust America to turn on itself because they seem to be ready to switch from passive radar to active radar:

A policy change under review by the White House would allow the federal government to begin tracking Internet traffic on its Web sites.

Since 2000, government Web sites have been banned from using cookies, which are identifying codes collected when a computer visits a Web site. When the computer returns, the Web site remembers the previous visits. The ban was enacted as a privacy protection. Since then, using cookies has become more common, and two weeks ago the White House announced plans to overturn the policy.

White House to Open Gate on Tracking Web Browsing

...all the way back in January that YouTube videos embedded on the redesigned White House Web site had been using the video-sharing site's tracking cookies.

Best Red Eye Interview!

MAF Troopathon

Please join me and donate:
TROOPATHON.ORG

I take issue.... (language warning)

GET YOUR FUCKING SHOES OFF THE TAXPAYERS DESK!

What next Hussein? You going to lay the US Flag on the ground to make sure the soles of your shoes don't get dirty?

IN-fucking-CREDIBLE.

What Scoop Jackson knew...

Missile Defense
33 Minutes

By: James Carafano
Examiner Columnist

There may never be another Scoop. Once upon a time Washington had many leaders who put national security before their politics. Henry “Scoop” Jackson stood at the top of the class.

Serving in the Senate from 1953 to his death 30 years later, no one worked harder than the Democrat from Washington State to provide for the common defense. “His core convictions about foreign policy and national security affairs derived largely from the lessons of World War II,” wrote biographer Robert G. Kaufman, “the folly of isolationism and appeasement, the importance of democracies remaining militarily strong and standing against totalitarianism, and the need for the United States to accept and sustain its pivotal role as a world power.”

These convictions often brought Jackson into conflict with other leaders of his own party. He bucked President Johnson, for example, to become one of the earliest congressional advocates of building missile defenses.

Continue reading the entire piece...

June 6th -- 1944, 1984, 2009

D-Day

Klingner on DPRK

GTMO, detainees, terrorists, and Geneva

One of the best and most comprehensive pieces I have read on GTMO and detainees. It is such a must read I had to post the entire thing here. I encourage all to read it, especially those that claim to be legal scholars that have determined America is not good enough for them. Just saying. (And I CAN say it because HERE in AMERICA we have the 1st Amendment which provides for freedom of speech.)



Exclusive: On ‘Torture’ and the Geneva Conventions – A Match Made in Ignorance

Tom Ordeman, Jr.

Last week, President Obama and former Vice President Cheney found themselves in a sort of unannounced, televised pseudo-debate on the topic of Guantanamo Bay, interrogation and detention, and their combined impact on national security. This follows the Democrat-controlled Senate's rejection of (and refusal to fund) the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility – a major setback, given that the announcement of the camp's closure was President Obama's first official act upon taking office. Given that many of the major talking points on both sides of the fence revolve around the "Geneva Convention," a bit of perspective on its relationship with the Gitmo detention facility would be a welcome change.

Few are aware that there are actually four Geneva Conventions – and in fact, any referral to "Geneva Convention" in the singular form is likely to be an inadvertent admission that the speaker is not actually very familiar with the Conventions, or their history or background. The four Conventions cover the following topics: the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in the Armed Forces in the Field (Convention I); the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea (Convention II); the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Convention III); and the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Convention IV). Their combined framework provides for the lawful conduct of armed conflicts between nations and subsidiary forces, and for the treatment of casualties and prisoners of war once they are removed from combat. A derivative of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions were drafted starting in the late 19th century, and their last major revisions (save for minor amendments) were completed in 1949. Unfortunately, few who demand a rigid application of the Geneva Conventions in the modern age are familiar with their requirements. Among its numerous requirements, the Third Geneva Convention dictates:

Uniforms of enemy armed forces captured by the Detaining Power should, if suitable for the climate, be made available to clothe prisoners of war. (Article 27)

Canteens shall be installed in all camps, where prisoners of war may procure foodstuffs, soap and tobacco and ordinary articles in daily use. The tariff shall never be in excess of local market prices. The profits made by camp canteens shall be used for the benefit of the prisoners; a special fund shall be created for this purpose. The prisoners' representative shall have the right to collaborate in the management of the canteen and of this fund. (Article 28)

Prisoners of war must be provided with mail service. Upon the outbreak of hostilities, and pending an arrangement on this matter with the Protecting Power, the Detaining Power may determine the maximum amount of money in cash or in any similar form, that prisoners may have in their possession. Any amount in excess, which was properly in their possession and which has been taken or withheld from them, shall be placed to their account, together with any monies deposited by them, and shall not be converted into any other currency without their consent. (Article 58)

The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay, the amount of which shall be fixed by conversion, into the currency of the said Power[.] (Article 60)

As little consensus as there may be between Americans on these issues, it seems reasonable to assume that most Americans would agree that the most dangerous al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in American custody should not be wandering around an open detention facility, wearing their native dress, buying tobacco and other creature comforts from a DoD-provided canteen, doing so with monthly pay allowances afforded them from Federal tax income, while sending and receiving mail that could easily be used to pass or receive coded intelligence. The vernacular of the Geneva Conventions, particularly with respect to the definition of a Prisoner of War, is also important. Just as the detaining power is obligated to make such provisions as have been noted above, those detained may only enjoy "Prisoner of War" status if they have met the following conditions, among others:

They must be members of either a national army, or of a militia or volunteer corps.
They must be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
They must have a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
They must carry arms openly.
They must conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

While Taliban personnel would arguably qualify under several of these conditions, al Qaeda terrorists essentially qualify under none of these. Many who argue for a strict implementation of the Geneva Conventions are ignorant of the aforementioned requirements for the detaining authority, and of these requirements for consideration as a legitimate combatant. Being ignorant of these things, most are also ignorant of the fact that one of the key motivations for the adoption of the Geneva Conventions was to discourage the type of irregular, stateless warfare practiced by the likes of al Qaeda and the Taliban. The international community adopted and refined the Geneva Conventions during the late 19th and early- to mid-20th centuries in order to confine nations to a previously agreed-upon system of warfare. By seeking to afford the same rights to both legitimate Prisoners of War and illegitimate combatants, those who advocate such policies are essentially undermining one of the very goals that spurred the drafting of the Conventions in the first place.

Another tidbit from the Third Geneva Convention that might serve to demonstrate its irrelevance to the situation at Guantanamo Bay: the aforementioned Article 60 dictates that sergeants and other non-commissioned officers in detention must receive the equivalent of 12 Swiss francs per month in pay. Given that most readers are unlikely to be immediately aware of current exchange rates, it should be noted that 12 Swiss francs currently garner a grand total of $11.06. The fact that the Geneva Conventions were even written at a time when the international currency was the Swiss franc betrays their age, and their philosophical distance from the state of modern politics and warfare.

And what of the actual conditions at the Gitmo detention facility? While few would condone any sort of irresponsible or inhumane treatment of detainees, it seems a bit ironic that Americans who, by and large, believe that American criminals are treated too well for infractions such as armed robbery, murder, and rape, would then be dissatisfied when individuals like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah – men who confess openly to planning and facilitating the murders of literally thousands of innocent American civilians – are treated like the terrorists they are. Far from being the nightmare that many human rights campaigners make it out to be, Miss Universe was recently quoted as saying that her trip to Guantanamo Bay was both "fun" and "relaxing" (BBC, Fox). Several years ago, a group even published the Gitmo Cook Book, an indication that the food served to the detainees was more than fit for human consumption. No one would argue that the detention facility is the equivalent of a resort. Unfortunately, many seem to forget that a detention facility is not supposed to be a resort. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions themselves dictate no such thing, even for legitimate combatants, which the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not according to the conditions set forth in the very Conventions in question. A detention facility is meant to be a controlled, humane holding facility for hostile agents who carried arms against the detaining power, and the facility at Gitmo succeeds in fulfilling that requirement.

While Americans almost universally disapprove of torture, the majority of the debate during the course of the last several years – to include memoranda released recently by the Obama Administration – has focused on waterboarding. One must ask oneself an honest question: can something really be considered torture if Christopher Hitchens and Playboy's Mike Guy have volunteered to undergo the procedure? Given that these two, countless military professionals who have participated in the SERE course, and the terrorists themselves appear none the worse for wear, can this technique really be considered torture? The Geneva Conventions universally outlaw torture, and one of the topics covered in leadership and ethics courses required of prospective American military officers is the topic of torture, and its near-universal ineffectiveness in interrogations. Most would agree that this prohibition is a correct policy from both moral and practical standpoints. However, given the assertions of the efficacy of many aggressive interrogation techniques, it seems fair to acknowledge that there are a number of effective interrogation procedures that, while being harsh, do not cross the line into the realm of bona fide torture.

Nearly eight years after the establishment of the Gitmo detention facility, the question now exists of what to do with the remaining terrorists held there. Thus far, the track record for released detainees – those who were considered the least dangerous - is relatively poor. Below are just a few of the stories of detainees returning to the fight:

Guantanamo inmate 'Joins Taleban' (BBC, AP)
Yemen captures al Qaeda leader once held at Gitmo
Released detainees 'go back to terrorism'
Guantanamo ex-prisoner detained

Perhaps the most prominent story in recent memory is that of a Gitmo detainee who was released, only to become a Taliban operations chief (AP, Times). So, even if it were appropriate to take all cues from the Geneva Conventions in this case, how would they direct the powers that be? One example can be found in the remaining infrastructure of the Orkney Islands, north of Scotland, where more than a thousand Italian prisoners – who, one must keep in mind, complied with the aforementioned requirements to be recognized as legitimate prisoners of war – were detained until both England and Italy agreed that hostilities were over. Having been removed from the battlefields of North Africa, the prisoners were put to work building the Churchill Barriers that serve as causeways to this day, and restricted German submarines from attacking the British naval station at Scapa Flow during the course of the Second World War. As is the case at Gitmo, the Italians' religious sensibilities were respected by their British captors, and that respect survives today in the form of the Italian Chapel on the island of Lamb Holm. Furthermore, these Italian prisoners never received trials, military tribunal or otherwise, and upon their capture starting in 1942 the ultimate length of their detention was never established. This hardly serves as an example whereby prematurely releasing detainees was encouraged by a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.

One would expect that if an objective and neutral third party (perhaps a time-traveling Swiss non-commissioned officer carrying a total month's pay of total of 12 francs in his pocket) were to question President Obama, Osama bin Laden, and Mohammed Omar, one of the few talking points upon which the three men would agree would be that the war continues – hostilities have not ceased, bitter disagreements have not been resolved, and neither side has exhausted the other's will or ability to continue fighting. The dividend of this is that the release of at least most of those detainees who have already been set free is questionable, and the release of the remaining detainees (who can be considered, almost by default, to be the most dangerous among those detained) would be completely inappropriate under the present circumstances. Assuming widespread agreement that these remaining detainees ought to be detained for the time being, and conceding for the sake of discussion that Guantanamo Bay is not a convenient or desirable location in which to hold them, one must ask the natural question: is there any location that is better than Guantanamo Bay? Or, is it reasonable to acknowledge that, of all the possible locations for keeping the most dangerous terrorists in the world, Gitmo is probably the least bad place to keep them?

The Geneva Conventions are an admirable component of the legacy of a bygone age of warfare, during which time the face of combat was forever changed by such inventions as the Maxim Gun, mustard gas, the airplane... Indeed, the ratification of the final changes to the Geneva Conventions took place in 1949, just a few short years after the beginning of the Nuclear Age and the corresponding advent of the Cold War. These developments combined with the Geneva Conventions themselves to usher in the evolution of warfare that the world has witnessed during the course of the last century. Unfortunately, for all of the lives that the Geneva Conventions may have saved over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, it is likely that the growth of non-state and sub-state belligerents is a direction consequence of their ratification and poor implementation.

For many reasons, the United States has a vested interest in maintaining moral superiority over those enemies who throw acid in the faces of girls for going to school, flog men for trimming their beards, or behead foreign aid workers for vaccinating children. The situation at Guantanamo Bay has been controversial from its very beginning, and may very well be as precarious and detrimental as many claim. However, many of those who use the phrase "Geneva Conventions" as a talking point do the United States and the Geneva Conventions themselves a disservice by proclaiming that the Conventions should be rigidly implemented for the benefit of the very terrorists whom the Conventions were enacted to eliminate. America should not torture. America should respect international laws. America should respect human rights. Perhaps – perhaps – America should even close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. However, America should also think twice before looking to the Geneva Conventions as a model for how to treat terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tom Ordeman, Jr. is a technical writer for a major defense contractor in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.

The REAL terrorist recruitment tool, the American LEFT and PRESS!

Guantanamo and the question of terrorist recruitment
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent

In the next few days, you're going to see an increasingly intense debate on the question of whether the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is a major factor in terrorist recruitment. In that debate, you're going to hear a name you might not have heard, Matthew Alexander. And you're going to learn that what you've been told about Guantanamo and terrorist recruitment is not the whole story.

In his speech on Thursday, President Obama gave two reasons for his decision to shut down Guantanamo. The first was that it has lowered American standing in the world, and the second was that it is a recruitment tool for terrorists. "Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause," the president said. "Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained." While Obama certainly views America's standing in the world as important, it is the charge that Guantanamo is a terrorist recruitment tool that is the real foundation of the decision to shut the detention center down. Absent that allegation, it is unlikely that Guantanamo would be slated for closing.

This is the question I have been asking myself. My conclusion without any research needed is that terrorists will use anything and/or manufacture stories in order to make excuses and recruit.

OH YEAH, outside of preventing plots...since when do we trust a terrorists word?

But where does the charge come from? Much, although not all, of it comes from one person. On "Meet the Press" Sunday, when Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin was asked for evidence to support his claim that Guantanamo has been a terrorist-recruitment tool, Durbin answered: "Major Matthew Alexander, who interrogated the al-Qaeda suspects in Iraq. And it was his conclusion that half of them had been recruited and were fighting, trying to kill Americans because of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." Alexander was the only authority Durbin cited.

In the Post op-ed, Alexander wrote, "I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo…It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse."

So let me get this right we have got the Executive and Senators getting their intel from anonymous op-ed pieces? What the fuck is going on? Who next? Can I expect to see Speaker Pelosi on Meet the Press this weekend citing Seymour Hersh as clear evidence to make drastic changes to our National Security policy?

Alexander told me that when he interrogated foreigners who came to Iraq to fight Americans, the reason they most often gave for joining the battle was their outrage over abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Tales, and in the case of Abu Ghraib, photos from the two prisons deeply affected the fighters, Alexander explained. "Very high-ranking members of al Qaeda told me they didn't really believe in suicide bombing, but we left them with no choice," he said.

UMMM. "We left them no choice." WTF? That is about the most clear cut case of "blame America first" I have ever seen.

Of course, the most spectacular allegation of abuse of the Koran was a May 2005 story in Newsweek, which alleged that U.S. operatives had flushed a Koran down a toilet in Guantanamo as part of an effort to intimidate prisoners. The report was based on a single anonymous source, and Newsweek later retracted it and apologized. But the report was absolutely explosive, sparking riots around the world. It would be hard to deny that the Newsweek report had a more detrimental effect on Muslim opinion about Guantanamo than any inspector general's report.

So if Guantanamo must be closed because it is a symbol of America's abuse of Muslim detainees, and if the example of abuse in Guantanamo that most outraged Muslims worldwide was a story of alleged mistreatment of the Koran, and if that story was later retracted, then are we going through the enormous effort to close Guantanamo because of a bad story in Newsweek? The situation is more complicated than that, but the fact is, that's part of it.

While I did quote much of the article here, I did not quote all of it so please follow the link at the top to read the entire piece. In addition, a follow up piece by York:
The anonymous accuser of Guantanamo

MEMORIAL DAY Evening Post

MEMORIAL DAY

This is by far one of the best pieces I have ever seen. I remember it to this day and was glad I was able to find it. This should remind all this day is not about "not going to work and just grilling some hamburgers."

Today we all have a job. We are not off! Today we must honor all those who died fighting on behalf of an ever grateful nation and her people. Today is the day to remind yourself that someones child, spouse, parent, friend, neighbor, AMERICAN gave all that a mortal can... but most important, the reason this day is so important is because they did not give all for themselves or for selfish reasons.

These heroes gave their lives for others and their country. It is our duty to remember them every day, but especially today. God bless and thank you to all those who gave their lives in defense of the United States of America.

President Barack Hussein Obama politicizes Memorial Day.

He simply cannot help himself, shoving his policy matters in to every drop of refuse that spills form his moronic mouth. It makes me sick.

This Memorial Day weekend, Americans will gather on lawns and porches, fire up the grill, and enjoy the company of family, friends, and neighbors. But this is not only a time for celebration, it is also a time to reflect on what this holiday is all about; to pay tribute to our fallen heroes; and to remember the servicemen and women who cannot be with us this year because they are standing post far from home – in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.

Well he tried. Memorial Day is about honoring those who “died in defense of their country.” EVERY day should be a day where we honor those serving currently, or who have served honorably. Memorial Day is a time to specifically honor those made the ultimate sacrifice.

Want to know what it is not a time for?

That is why we are building a 21st century Department of Veterans Affairs with the largest single-year funding increase in three decades. It’s a commitment that will help us provide our veterans with the support and benefits they have earned, and expand quality health care to a half million more veterans.

Can anyone out there explain to me how health care is going to help those currently at rest in Arlington and other cemeteries across the nation?

That can mean sending a letter or a care package to our troops overseas. It can mean volunteering at a clinic where a wounded warrior is being treated or bringing supplies to a homeless veterans center. Or it can mean something as simple as saying "thank you" to a veteran you pass on the street.

That is what Memorial Day is all about. It is about doing all we can to repay the debt we owe to those men and women who have answered our nation’s call by fighting under its flag.

NO IT IS NOT. IT IS ABOUT HONORING THOSE WHO DIED FIGHTING FOR THE COUNTRY. There is a reason there is Veterans Day and Memorial day. Thank you for f’ing up the meaning of the day. And thank you for placing political policy in your address that has nothing to do with the issue.

President Obama, you are a grade A asshole.