Obama's Kangaroo Court

The Kangaroo Court hearing surrounding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a mockery of the US judicial system, is a mockery of our military tribunal process, and serves no purpose other than to further degrade the character of the United States. The credibility of another branch of the United States Government is being called into question.

Let us consider two topics - one regarding the justification for the claim of a Kangaroo Court, and the other regarding Obama's intent.

A kangaroo court hearing is one in which we simply go through the motions, but where no due process was actually followed, and the outcome is known in advance. What due process are we expecting the KSM trial in New York to follow? By bringing KSM into US Civil Courts Obama has to be prepared to release him onto the streets if he is found 'not guilty' or if there is a mistrial. What other problems may we run into classifying this as a Kangaroo Trial?

1. the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained - KSM was water boarded hundreds of times. Water boarding has been defined as torture. All evidence obtained as a result of water boarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques is inadmissible... if it is allowed, the Court is a Kangaroo. Consider the fact that KSM was never given his Miranda Rights - that ALONE is basis for a mistrial!

2. the right not to be tried on secret evidence - the attorneys for KSM could push for the declassification of thousands of documents, procedures, personnel, locations, etc that will pin the US government into a corner - anything they do not declassify cannot be used for trial in prosecuting KSM.

3. the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest - the very fact that the pool of jurors will be selected from citizens who live mere minutes away from Ground Zero in NYC is grounds for appeal and/or mistrial. To find an impartial NYC jury for a case regarding the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks - fat chance.

Any judge who follows the books to the letter would have to look at the case in one way - there is no possible way that KSM can receive a fair trial in the United States, let alone in New York City.

What will Obama say if a jury acquits him or hangs? What are we going to expect when the cameras and flash bulbs capture the moment when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed walks freely from the doors of the court house and into a waiting automobile, whisking him off to a destination unknown... free as OJ Simpson in 1995.

However - what if the US government refuses to release a man found innocent in the US courts? Obama and AG Holder are refusing to answer, but it appears as if an order has been given prior to the trial, that KSM will not be released... Are we to believe that the trial, then, serves no purpose? What good will come of such a trial?

Obama's motives are clear: destroy the credibility of the Justice System.

There is no faith in our economy. There is no faith in the Congress. There is no faith in the States. Soon there will be no faith in a functioning Justice system. To what end, Mr. Obama? Undoing 300 years of freedom and innovation for what?

When the courts fail, when the states fail, when the congress fails... what are we left with but a nation of slaves? Where has our liberty gone?

This trial is being paraded as Justice and proof that "America will do the right thing". It is nothing more than a Kangaroo Court aimed at damaging the credibility of the United States' Courts. This is a lose/lose situation for the US. Obama, and the US with him, is making a HUGE mistake.

The Cost of Maintaining a Union

When a Union is beneficial to all parties involved, it is applauded by members - old and new alike. When the Union becomes toxic to certain portions, is it not justifiable to cast off allegiance to that Union and develop a form of self-governing that is healthier for those individuals?

You may be thinking to yourself - is this another anti-Federal Government rant? Or perhaps that I am playing to the Civil War topics springing up due to Lincoln's 200th birthday.

In this case, I know what many of you may be saying - Lincoln did what was necessary to preserve the Union at all costs... the war was justified, as the Union is a perpetual necessity for our way of life...

What if we applied, as was my original intent, the logic to the Soviet Union - whose demise in 1990/1991 was applauded across the United States.

Specifically, let's look at Georgia and Ukraine - two areas that are under threat of "reabsorbtion" by the Russian federation. The invasion of Georgia last summer drew criticism and outrage from Americans... and the threat of Russia to reclaim Ukraine is drawing further cries of a renewed Cold War with the Imperial Bear that is Russia...

...but with what double standard do we look at Russia that we fail to see the resemblance to our own situation during the American Rebel War, the Southern War for Independence, often referred to as the Civil War.

Lincoln was given a free pass to break law after law, conduct campaigns of genocide, and plague the South with other forms of Crimes Against Humanity... all in the name of preserving the Union. Honest Abe suspended many of the rights protected by the constitution - and the average citizen forgets that those rights are NOT granted by the government, rather listed as protected FROM the government.

Applying the logic of Lincoln, we should applaud and encourage Russia in a quest to re-unify the Soviet Republics... especially the Ukraine, who was one of the founding Republics of that Union.

Lincoln's war changed the face of the nation - where it was once seen as the collective "these United States", it became the unified "The United States" under one infinitely strong central government. It replaced the humble Constitutional Republic with an Imperial Superpower, locking the future of the nation into continued foreign entanglements - something which Washington warned against in his farewell address to the nation.

Is it prudent to do whatever it takes to maintain a union?

If so, would you argue for the invasion of Ukraine and Georgia so passionately as you defend the invasion of the seceded states of the Confederation?

At what point is a perpetual union of independent states overshadowed by a union of vassal states to a central government, and thus subject to the terms of Independence as outlined by our forefathers who declared a broken union between the colonies and the British Empire?

Is there ever a case to defend both sides of the argument? Dare you try?

It is going to be a Long Cold (war) Winter

During the cold war, Soviet and US planes routinely escorted one another along the outskirts of one another's airspace, with the pilot's fingers surely on the trigger. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Cold War was considered over, and the Russian planes ceased their flights around US territory.

That was 1992 - This is now.

Russian bombers began flying off the coast of Alaska last year - a direct threat to US oil supply. This was the first real show of force from Russia towards the United States in nearly two decades. It adds to the increased tensions between the two nations, and may be pushing a direct threat in the face of the Georgian conflict.

Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, warned Moscow that they are playing a dangerous game by pushing the US into Cold War relations with the country.

Russia's resurgence has been made possible by the income gained from energy resources and their respective high prices. Europe's dependence on Russia for energy has given Moscow influence over the continent that the Soviets could have only dreamed of. And now that the once broken Russian government is being strengthened with Cold Hard Cash, and they sense an air of anti-Americanism throughout the world, Russia is looking beyond the Soviet era and into the beginnings of a new Russian Empire.

As this BBC report states, Russia is clearly back after the chaos from the Soviet collapse:


With the war coming to a general close in Iraq, tensions are rising as the US and Russia assert their influence - Cold War style. China is not yet a major player, militarily, though they have been a nuisance to US naval operations - shadowing US fleets and interrupting training exercises in deep waters. The US is faced with Georgia's situation, Iran's Russian backed Nuke plan, tensions due to Polish missile defense systems, Ukrainian pleas for help after Russia's claim to their territory (similar to Georgia), Russia's announcement that it plans to use a 1960's style tactic of placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, China's relationship with Taiwan and Japan, and the list goes on.

From where I stand, the 21st century is shaping up to look a lot like the 20th century. It would appear that we may have been witness to a false spring... and the Bitterly Cold Winter of War between Russia and the US is still simmering.

Enough Benefit of the Doubt – Russia’s Intentions are Clear

Earlier this week, I posted back-to-back blogs regarding the situation in Georgia. Initially I wrote about Russia’s Soviet style authoritarian tendencies percolating back up to the surface in their handling of the Georgian conflict, but then revisited the article with an attempt to give Russia the benefit of the doubt. Based on the assumptions I made in that article, Russia may have had good intentions in protecting civilian life in South Ossetia.

Unfortunately, the time for Russian action and the tone of their leaders have shown their true colors, and my initial instincts were proven correct.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated earlier this week that Georgia had been “punished enough”, indicating that it was not their intention to cease hostilities against Russian peacekeepers, but destroy Georgia’s ability to defend herself entirely.

Now Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a bold statement clearly showing the intentions of Russia – stating that the world can forget about Georgia's territorial integrity.

"One can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity because, I
believe, it is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree with
the logic that they can be forced back into the Georgian state," Lavrov told
reporters.

If Russia intents to absorb these provinces, there may be a greater issue. If Russia intends to liberate these provinces to a free and independent state, we may be looking at a different story. Unfortunately, all signs are pointing to Russia's intention of absorbing Georgian territory, beyond the disputed regions.

It is clear that we may be fastly approaching a new war with Russia – Cold or otherwise. What would that war look like?

Russia was defeated in the Cold War by a United States who was strong, resolute, and had growing influence around the world.

Russia is now facing off against a United States whose people are pacifists, materialists, “Capitalist Pigs”… actually, scratch that. We are no more capitalist pigs than Karl Marx – especially when 45% of Americans are supporting a Socialist candidate promising to use force to take earned profit from an industry to distribute cash to the masses. The United States is going the way of weak and socialized Europe, and Russia smells the fear. Russia used the early days of the Georgia conflict to test the resolve of the United States and the European Union (as well as the United Nations). When it was clear that the EU was at the whims of Russia’s energy supply, the UN Security Council was little more than a group of spineless talking heads, it left the United States on the podium alone.

The United State’s first response was to send 2000 Georgian troops home, by way of US aircraft, to defend the Georgian capitol. Russian Prime Minister Putin showed his outrage by stating that the US was interfering with the resolution of this conflict (which to Putin means crushing Georgia and rolling it back into Russian territory).

Then the United States began delivering humanitarian aid to the Georgian capitol, ensuring that the people have the food and medical supplies to survive the invasion, while at the same time demanding that Russia adhere to the agreed upon cease fire.

Russia has broken the cease fire, and now threatens that they will stay in Georgia proper indefinately. The time to act is now. Lest we concede that the US has become worse than Europe, we need to use a show of force in Georgia.

The United States has over 100,000 troops, who are battle hardened, in the region. An immediate troop movement of 5,000 US servicemen from Iraq to T’bilisi, with anti-tank helicopter support, Air-force fighter jet sorties over the country to ensure air superiority, and a definitive line in the sand needs to be enacted. The United States needs to show the Russians that we are willing to defend our allies. We may not need to fire on the Russians, just assert ourselves by way of our presence - then let Russia decide which path we go down.

It is not just a show of force to the Russians, but to our allies in other countries who are under increasing pressure from Moscow (such as the Ukraine). We need to become the America of the 80’s… not the Post Cold-War wienies we have become. The United States fought back authoritarian Russia once before… We can do it again.

I have seen Rocky IV – I know how it ends… Let’s just hope the Millennials (Generation Y) paid attention in their history class and understand the reason behind the cold war. The situation may slightly different, but the foe is the same.

Cold War Bias Towards Russia?

After writing my previous blog, I began reading more about the conflict in Georgia. I refreshed my history of the region, the Soviet rule of the area, the wars in the region after the Soviet collapse, and the rise of the current government.

Armed with this knowledge of the area, I forced myself to look at the cold hard facts surrounding the conflict, applying the same logic I have for other conflicts or struggles for independence, and take into account my hesitation towards anything Russian due to growing up in the Cold-War / anti-Soviet 80's. In the spirit of fair journalism, I am going to address some questions regarding the situation.

1. Is Russia's response adequate?

2. Is Georgia the actual aggressor?

3. What claim to autonomy do these geographical regions actually have?

Let me start by answering the the questions in reverse order.

3. The country of Georgia houses a couple of autonomous regions, existing in de facto independence from the Georgian government since the civil war of 1992-1993. During this war, the worst fighting took place in the Abkhazia region (in the Northwest region of the country). During this conflict, upwards of 200,000 ethnic Georgians were victims of genocide at the hands of the Abkhaz peoples and the Russian military forces remaining in the area. The Ossetian peoples of Central Georgia also declared de facto independence from the central government, intending to join with North Ossetia (which is part of Russia proper). The territories have acted autonomously, with numerous attempts by Georgian officials to extend autonomy under Georgian unity (such as statehood / confederation). The autonomous regions have refused, demanding their own independence.

By natural law, one would conclude that the cessation of violence after the civil war indicated a region of territorial delineation. That is, the de facto autonomy was recognized by both sides - both of which should be party to continued peaceful existence as sovereign territories as decided by the civil war. This is the very basis for the Declaration of Independence - casting off one form of government to create one better suited to the people, as they so desire. The territory lines of Georgia are little more than old Soviet map lines, but did nothing regarding the actual make-up of the region. Therefore, both regions have a legitimate claim to call for independence from Georgia - just as do the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to autonomy, as do the Kosovians, as do the Sioux. What is expected is fair and legal recognition of their claim.

Is it dangerous to draw map lines based on ethnicity? Indeed. But if it is necessary to establish areas of greater autonomy with a loose confederation in order to maintain peace throughout the world, then by all means, so be it.

2. The current conflict is a case of he-said / she-said. Who fired the first shot? Who started the war? If separatist forces in the autonomous regions had been committing acts of aggression towards civilians or government forces of Georgia, then Georgian forces are well within their means to bring peace and order to a region recognized as their own territory. However, reports would indicate a widely unreported series of events in which Georgian forces pushed their forces towards the South Ossetian capitol of Tskhinvali where they then began a bombardment of the civilian population. If this is, in fact, the case, I firmly believe that the Georgian government was out of line. It is one thing to send troops into the city and maintain martial law under constitutional powers, ensuring peace and rule of law. However, attacking civilian populations of another ethnicity is a crime.

3. If Georgia is, in fact, the aggressor against the Ossetian people, then Russia is absolved of my previous harsh criticism. Russia is performing the task of ensuring freedom, and ensuring that genocide is no longer a tool of war.

It is the policy of the US to ensure that the enemy is incapacitated when we enter a conflict. We ensure a swift victory and unconditional cessation of attacks against our forces and civilians. This is the tactic the Russians are employing, saving the US the trouble of having to intervene.

However, it was not long ago that Soviet forces used this same tactic to erect the iron curtain around these very same people... so it is with a cautious hand that I endorse such actions by the Russians.

Is there a cold war bias? Indeed. I feel it, as does the rest of the world. It comes in a time when Russia is still defiant, and interested in asserting their strength on Europe in the form of Energy, and the West in the form of alliances (with Iran, Syria, etc). As much as the United States is the sleeping giant, the USSR Russians are the the sleeping bear. Intervention in these conflicts could, as I hinted in the last post, lead to another conflict between the two world super powers.

It is this fact that is causing the world community to call for Russia to act with reserve.

Depending on the outcome of Russia's actions, we may see a Russia with greater influence in the region as a partner with the US in peacekeeping throughout the world... or we may see a new foe to the United States in a struggle to maintain superiority in influence around the globe.

So I ask now, what is the role of the US in defending an ally? What is the role of any super power in defending against genocide? And is there room for two super powers doing good on the world stage?

Old Habits Die Hard – Russian Empire in Georgia

Michael Phelps wins his second gold medal, the US and China continue to lead the medal count… and in page A14 news Russia invades some country.

In fact, that “some country” is Georgia.

Now before you Southerners lock and load your rifles in defense of your Southern Brothers, rest assured the Ruskies are not in the Peach Orchard…

Georgia is a country south of the Russian Chechnya region which is an ex-Soviet Republic. Georgia is also the United States’ biggest ally in the war in Iraq, second only to Great Britain.

Georgia is also a NATO Promissory – recently promised membership into the military defense treaty of NATO. Such promise of defense should guarantee instant reaction from the President of the United States:

Even after this attention, the Russians continue to attack regions of the Sovereign Georgia territory, in defiance of the United States’ call for cessation of violence.

Unfortunately for Georgia, this is not the limit of Russian involvement. In many regions of Georgia since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has been aiding the separatist movement in Georgia, including an ethnic cleansing campaign in the early 1990’s in certain regions of the country. Georgia’s increasing reliance on Washington is cause for great concern from Moscow, who has made attempts in recent months to show greater influence in the ex-Soviet region – especially after missile defense platforms have been agreed upon for regions of Eastern Europe.

What should Washington’s response be when one of her most trusted and most reliable allies is invaded and pummeled by Russian bombs?

If we do nothing, our allies in the fledgling democracies will be increasingly hesitant to rely on the US for security in their separation from the Soviet Union (Now the Russian Federation… but led by the same groups of folks). If we do nothing, violence and murder will befall our most trusted friend in Iraq.

If we act, it may lead to war with Russia… the doomsday clock moves closer to midnight. The US has mended relations with Russia, but an act of aggression in defense of an ally could lead to a resurgence of the Cold War – this time, however, the Russians have the backing of a huge anti-US sentiment worldwide… something that was absent for so many years after the US helped lead the world to victory in WWII.

The ultimate question is this: does a country have the right to enforce rule of law within their own borders, assuming rule of law includes retention of sovereign lands from secessionist forces backed by a foreign country?

If this is the definition of a Civil War, then what role should the US take in defending an ally in their civil war if Russia becomes involved on the side of the antagonist separatists? What is the price of freedom and sovereignty?

=====Update=====
The United States has begun assisting Georgian Soldiers back to their country from Iraq, to the cry of "foul" from Russia's Putin, who said that the US presence would hamper efforts for Russia to resolve the conflict. The resolution Russia is looking for is victory, and the claiming of the territory for their own. The presence of the US means that this outcome will likely not be the case... Yes... hampering their outcome.

The Implications of a Communist Moon Landing

It is a feat that only the United States has been able to accomplish: Landing a Man on the Moon.

Communist Russia failed, and since the great space race no one else has even tried.

In fact, the United States has been sitting in the Ivory Tower of space travel so long, that many fail to see the problem with China stepping ever so close to landing a communist on the moon.

When the US beat the Soviets to the moon, there was a lasting impression that only in a free society was man capable of achieving the impossible. Russia gave up their lunar ambitions, and within 20 years they ceased to exist as a communist led society.

Fast forward to the 21st century, where China is making all the appropriate advancements in their plan to permanently inhabit the moon. Today they will launch a lunar orbiter, proving that they have the capability to at least get to and orbit the moon. And with their space program cloaked in secrecy, they could be just a few years away from planting a flag of an oppressed people on the surface of the moon.

Remember, the US left a plaque on the moon which stated that our journey was for all men... the significance of this plaque was that it represented the heights to which free men could travel... and now that we are sitting idly by and watching, let alone providing help (Thanks Bill Clinton - Ass), and who knows what this could mean.

In fact, working on the current US moon program myself, I take issue that we are slipping schedule and focusing so much time and energy on the ISS. We are unloading a significant amount of time and energy on a way station that serves little to open the expanses of space to the next generation of explorers. I compare it to Columbus rowing a dingy around the harbor instead of sailing across the Atlantic.

When the US fails to dream big, we fail... period.

This is a case where the ambition of an oppressive entity is greater than the drive for being the best from a free society.

So perhaps this means that the America that existed just 50 years ago no longer exists. Are we no longer up to the challenge of proving the superiority of a Free Society? Are we even still a free society, or are we bogged down with suspicion and corruption... the legacy of freedom?

Think long and hard about what we are giving up in allowing China to have dominance in the new Moon Race... leave a comment... and perhaps, if you think the implications are as I have stated, give your government representatives a call and tell them to Make Space a Priority!