OT Wasted lives

Stu..if we were using arty or Spooky on "neighborhoods...there wouldnt be anyone left to be pissed off.

Gunner

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"

- James Burnham

Im sure you both would have been a ton of laughs in the opening days of the Battle for Berlin too.

Gunner

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"

- James Burnham

And a great deal of that 4 years was just getting ourselves in a position to fight.

The War with Germany was decidedly political and economic against a country and a government. The war with Japan was also mostly political and economic against a country and a government, the ideological aspect that the Japanese considered the emperor divine is what caused some of the Japanese soldiers to hide in the forests and mountains and occasionally pop up through the at least the 80's.

The "war on terror" is not against a government but an ideology (think Japanese soldiers hiding out for 40 years), so direct comparisons are not

100 % relevant, but here goes

We officially occupied West Germany until 1955, and Berlin until 1990. The Soviets occupied East Germany until 1990.

We "officially" occupied Japan until 1952, Iwo Jima until 1968 an Okinawa until 1972. We have 47,000 troops there today, which while not officially an occupying force actually were until just a few years ago when Japan was allowed to have their own military

We defeated and occupied the country and government of Iraq in weeks. Then we started fighting the ideological "war on terror"

Carl

Osama has said in at least one of his recorded messages from his hidey hole that the USA must "convert to Islam"

I don't believe it is unwinnable, but it may not be winnable in our lifetime. And I know it is not beyond the capability of our economy. And I hope it is not beyond out capability as a society.

This is my second choice.

Yes.

If you disagree with point 1 yes. If you believe the "war on terror" is an ideological clash it is a very valid analogy

However..in WW2...we mobilized the entire US. Drafted and put 5 million men under arms and turned em loose.

The current war in Iraq is simply a statistical blip on the radar.

Think if we started up the draft and went on a war footing..the Middle East would last 4 yrs..the entire Middle East?

Carpet bombings of entire cities etc...

Iraq IS a kinder and gentler war. Unfortunately.

Gunner

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"

- James Burnham

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:42:27 GMT, "Carl Boyd" wrote:

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE By Larry Abraham

It Did Not Start on 9/11

The war we are now facing did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authorities in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the ? Third Great Jihad? and are doing so within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the Seventh century and their attempts to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence.

No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy, than did Islam and the reasons for this growth are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad?s death in 632 AD. The Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire was based in Constantinople and trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were unbearable as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied from the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church. What Islam offered was the ?carrot or the sword?.

If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn?t, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (old testament). Both were called ?children of the book?, the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New testaments for Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading the ?word? Islam grew like wild fire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the ?first? great Jihad and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they had firmly established the religion on the Iberian peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

The ?second great jihad? came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam?s most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in ?the ways of the Prophet?. By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final and failed attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival know has Wahhabism which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites. What this sect calls for is the complete and total rejection of anything and everything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and it finds its most glaring practice in the policies of the Afgani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the ?third Jihad?.

Jimmy Carter sets the stage

The strategy for this ?holy war? did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the plans for toppling the Shah of Iran back in the early 1970?s and culminated with his exile in 1979. With his plans and programs to ?westernize? his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target.

Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his arm forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the ?Great Caliphate?.

The Great Caliphate

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and finally what they call the ?occupied territory? Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and what was attempted in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons.

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. 1. The U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. 2. Taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves, and 3. Using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations. Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the facts that immediately following the 9/11 attack, their first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists. The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison.

Why Iraq?

The war on Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or his willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known, were serious indications of on-going collaboration, as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait.

What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.

Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, world-wide, to ?Stop The War?. Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little know politician as the thrust point; Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the ?Dean Phenomenon?.

By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the ?Hate Bush? liberals, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e. Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel.

Should George W. Bush be defeated in November and a new administration come to power we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I believe that this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors, V.I. Lenin admonished??two steps forward, one step back?.

A couple of additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church and Carter?s CIA Director, Admiral Stansfield Turner. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. Jimmy Carter is the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the ?advice and counsel? of this despicable little hypocrite who now prances around with his Nobel Prize, while attacking President Bush with almost as much venom as his fellow Nobel Laureate, Yassir Arafat.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Amid Ben Bella, the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totally twenty percent of the population.

We are in the battle of our lives which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of ?knowing our enemy? the results will be catastrophic.

PART II (May 1, 2004)

Since writing the above, we have witnessed some frightening evidence in support of our hypothesis both internally and in other parts of the world.

The al Qaeda bombing in Madrid has emboldened our enemy into believing it can use terror as an instrument for democratic regime change. Based on what happened there, they may be right.

Kerry and bin Laden on the same page

John Kerry and other leaders of his party constantly refer to the United States as ?acting unilaterally.? They give no credit whatsoever to countries like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Australia or even tiny Honduras for putting their limited armed forces in harm?s way to support the U.S. led coalition in Iraq. It is little wonder that some are considering doing what Spain has done?pulling out. The leaders in these countries have spent considerable political capital in this effort, and have little to show for it as it relates to fostering good will with the American public. Couple that fact with Osama bin Ladin?s latest offer of withholding attacks on those who ?quit? the coalition and you have all the elements for a Democrat party fostered ?self-fulfilling prophecy? where the U.S. will be totally alone in the pacification of Iraq. John Kerry and the Bush critics persist in the ?lie? of the U.S. going it ?alone? in Iraq but Osama bin Laden knows differently and will use the Kerry rhetoric to help isolate the U.S. The terrorists now see themselves as political ?king-makers?. They may be right.

Another aspect of the ?anti-Bush? political axis is how both his political enemies and the main stream media take ghoulish delight in ?the body count,? just as they did in the later days of Vietnam. Oh sure, they pay incidental homage to the memory of the young Americans who gave their lives in the greatest threat this country has ever faced, but they do so with all the sincerity of Madonna making a vow of chastity. As the body bags grow in number, they believe, so grows their political prospects. They may be right.

If the Bush administration is further weakened in the months leading up to the November elections, we will witness a heightened al Qaeda offensive in all parts of the world, including our own country, and especially in Iraq and nations surrounding it ,i.e., Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Events within the past few days in Jordan not only make this argument but also point to the possibility of ?what happened to the WMDs.? Iran and Syria are daily growing more overt and bold in their support of insurgents within Iraq, believing that Bush has been so hurt by internal politics that he is powerless to act against them in any meaningful way. They may be right.

The Leftwing initiative, Political Correctness and Our Will to Win

Within our own country we are witnessing and almost insane application of ?political correctness.? As the barbarism of radical Islam grows more apparent in the streets of the Middle East from Gaza to Basra, we see a cultural suicide taking place within our own schools and communities.

Our children are being taught from the Koran, our professors are preaching intifadah in their class rooms, and Muslim ?call to prayer? loud speakers are blaring out from city halls. The more precarious our very existence becomes, the more our liberal brethren embrace their enemies. It is a Stockholm Syndrome which can only lead to the recruitment of young Muslims who will be willing to duplicate in the West what their co-religionists are doing in the streets of Israel and the market places of Baghdad. The liberal P.C. crowd say nothing about the silence of the Muslim religious leadership as it relates to the carnage of innocents but couldn?t speak out fast enough against the inspiration supplied to tens of millions of Christians by Mel Gibson?s The Passion of the Christ. They were put off by the movie?s ?violence? and its alleged ?fostering of anti-Semitism?. Movies must represent their ?reality? as the real thing moves them not at all. Among liberal Jews in America, hatred of George W. Bush is only surpassed by their contempt for Ariel Sharon?Let them explain it, I am at a total loss to do so. Maybe they just miss seeing Bill Clinton smooching Yassir Arafat in the White House Rose Garden.

The ?Reverend? Jesse Jackson is now calling the U.S. ?guilty of crimes against humanity? as he sets out to mobilize the non-Islamic Left. None of the Democrat leadership says a word in opposition to Jackson?s treason or Hillary?s attacks on the President and U.S. policy in an Arabic newspaper, while in London. You can bet that al Jezeera didn?t miss a beat in their reporting of both events.

The campaign takes its toll

The campaign is seriously hurting Mr. Bush?s leadership role in the War on Terror. While ducking every new book critical of his initiative or trying to counter the partisan nitpicking of the 9/11 Commission, he has persisted in the misbegotten insistence of ?installing democracy? in Iraq. Our purpose for being in that beleaguered country should be restricted to one purpose and one purpose only, to stop the expansion of The Third Jihad and provide a base for doing same in the neighboring areas. This can be done by sealing the borders, attacking anything that moves in violation of same and by making it clear to Syria and Iran that any participation on their part will be considered an ?act of war?. Let the country be governed by the local tribes, Shiite in the south, Sunni in the central and Kurds in the north with a U.S. pro consul overseeing the military. Oil revenues could be spilt by population allocation. How about installing a Republic?it worked pretty well here with diverse populations.

The very idea that we should spend our sons and daughters blood or our tax dollars on trying to building a ?democracy? in the region which has neither a history nor a desire for such, is sheer nonsense. The very essence of Islamic teaching speaks directly against this principle. Continuing on the current path can only result in fostering greater hatred for the ?Great Satan?. Force is the only thing which is respected in that part of the world and this force need not be tied to ?reform?. I suggest Mr. Rumsfled acquaint himself with a copy of Julius Caesar?s Gallic Wars and Sun Tsu?s Art of War. All the tactics and strategies necessary to subdue the Iraqi insurgents can be found in those two military gems.

Please not the UN

Bringing the U.N. to the party will only compound the problem without adding any accountability. The U.N. has been accused of many things over the years, but being a ?democratic? institution has never been one of them. Just the latest scandal of the ?Oil for Food? program should provide any thinking person with all the evidence they need to keep the U.N. at bay. But this doesn?t seem to bother the likes of the John Kerry?s of the world who prattle on as if the scam doesn?t even exist.

Just one example will make my case; the UN mandate in Israel, which has been in place since 1948. One more salient point needs to be made on this subject. There is no such thing as ?The International Community.? There are only individual countries, each with its own agenda which is always self serving. The myth of a higher level of ?moral authority? coming out of the UN as been one of the greater lies of the past half century, but it is a lie which persists in spite of a bloody record of hypocrisy, graft, genocide and ?perpetual war for perpetual peace.? I have a suggestion for the 9/11 Commission:.Why don?t they look into what the UN was doing before the attack on the World Trade Center? If they do, they will find that exactly one week before, the UN was holding a Conference on Racism in Durbin, South Africa where the delegates voted overwhelmingly to condemn Israel, as ?racist and terrorist.? The U.S., Canadian and Israeli delegates walked out in disgust. Nary a word was uttered about Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, or the Taliban, to say nothing of what was happening in Rwanda while they crunched caviar on toast and washed it down with vintage Champaign. Genocide does not qualify as ?racism? according to the UN ?morality.? Neither we nor the world needs the UN to muck up what is already a very delicate situation. If given proper leadership every Middle Eastern country named above will throw in with the Coalition, for if they don?t they will be the next targets of the Third Great Jihad and the Great Caliphate. Pakistan is already showing the leadership which others will follow. What do you think moved Kadahaffi to cozy up to the U.S. and Great Britain? He fears the Jihadist more than he hates us.

Evil Does Exist

Our current crises, in meeting the threat of the Third Jihad, is one more example of how most Americans simply refuse to believe there is evil in this world and are willing to grant moral equivalence on any human action. Unless the crime is personalized such as in the case of Lacy Peterson, we lose interest quickly and become bored or at least not involved.

To try and understand what we are facing, look into the eyes of your son or grandson and try to fathom a mind which would take pride in strapping a bomb to his body and sending him out to kill himself and countless innocent people. Or in the case of your daughter or grand daughter, try to imagine a religion which commands you to mutilate her vagina to destroy her sex drive or demands you to stone her to death if she has sexual relations with a man other than of your choosing.

If you can comprehend these facts both intellectually and emotionally, then you will start to understand what we are facing in the months and years ahead, both at home and abroad.

The radicals of Islam will stop at nothing to destroy us and all we stand for. They see this war as their ?entry to paradise? and a release from the miserable existence they have built for themselves within the confines of an evil and perverse religion. The Jihadist are NOT like us, nor most of their fellow Muslims. But, like terrorists everywhere they have silenced any criticisms from fellow Muslims through threat and intimidation and have, with the help of the ?useful idiots? in the West, ?created the appearance of popular support?.

If we are incapable of understanding these realities and acting accordingly, within the life time of everyone who reads these words, we will see our cherished way of like cease to exist and chaos become our lot. The Clash of Civilizations is now reaching out and touching all of us. May God grant us the wisdom and the courage to meet the challenge. "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"

- James Burnham

It was said clearly some years ago "The trouble with this world is that the fools are cocksure and the intelligent people full of doubt."

i would like to hear some substantiation of that.

Close enough for me.

Accidentally, i think that Afghan war is both justified and winnable (concluded with capture of Osama and destruction of Taliban and installation of a effective and friendly regime, which would require ongoing military support).

Unfortunately, it has been put on back burner to fail, as troops and money are diverted to Iraq.

We are running very large deficits, and the war is more expensive than it appears duee to hidden costs.

if this country was invaded, I would fight also and set up roadside bombs, etc.

i

Not as scary as this:

The Pentagon?s Power to Arrest, Torture, and Execute Americans

by Jacob G. Hornberger

The president and the Pentagon now wield the omnipotent power to arrest, torture, and execute any American they label an ?enemy combatant.? It is impossible to overstate the significance of this power. It has totally upended the relationship of the military and civilian in the United States. The assumption of this particular power easily constitutes one of the most monumental revolutions of liberty and power in history. It is a revolution that every American must confront now, not later. If people wait until later to confront the expanded use of this power, it will be too late, because by that time it will be too dangerous to do so.

As long as this particular power is permitted to stand, there is no possibility for Americans to be considered a free people. A necessary prerequisite for restoring freedom to our land is the removal of this power from the arsenal of government officials.

Everyone needs to understand the nature of this power and its enormous significance. Historically, the U.S. military has lacked the power to arrest, incarcerate, or inflict harm on American civilians. If Americans committed a federal crime, they were subject to being indicted by a federal grand jury and then prosecuted in U.S. District Court. The Bill of Rights guaranteed that the accused would be accorded certain rights of due process of law, such as the right to defend himself with the assistance of an attorney, to confront the witnesses whose testimony the prosecutors were relying on, to summon witnesses in his behalf, to remain silent, and to have a trial by jury. Everyone was presumed to be innocent and the government had to prove the defendant?s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those constitutional protections and guarantees were upended on 9/11, without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. On 9/11 the president and the Pentagon assumed to themselves the power to take any American into custody and inflict violence on him, without according him any of the protections provided by the Bill of Rights. Today, the Pentagon has the authority, on orders of its commander in chief, to send American soldiers into any neighborhood in the country and take into custody any American citizen and inflict harm on him simply by labeling him an ?enemy combatant? in the ?war on terror.?

Let me emphasize something important here, especially for libertarians, who have long committed their lives to the achievement of a free society: There is no way ? none ? to reconcile the assumption of this power with a free society. In fact, it is the most powerful government power of all ? the ultimate power that can ever be wielded by a tyrannical government. No infringement on economic liberty ? hyperinflation, confiscatory taxation, oppressive regulation, or the like ? can compare in significance with the omnipotent power of a government official to arbitrarily pick up anyone he wants for any reason he wants and incarcerate him, torture him, and execute him.

Here?s how this revolution of liberty and power occurred.

After 9/11, U.S. officials declared what they called a ?war on terror.? They said that this was akin to a real war, such as World War I and World War II, despite the fact that terrorism was still listed on the federal statute books as a federal crime. The ?war on terror? was a ?global? war, they said, one in which the president, the CIA, and the Pentagon would have to fight terrorists all over the world. Since it was a real war against illegal combatants, the CIA and the Pentagon did not need to heed legal and constitutional procedures. They were ?taking off the gloves? to keep Americans safe from the terrorists.

The CIA and the Pentagon assumed the authority to kidnap, capture, arrest, torture, ?rendition,? and execute suspected terrorists all over the world. There were a few indictments, prosecutions, and convictions for terrorism in federal court, such as that of 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. But for the vast majority of foreigners U.S. officials picked up for terrorism, there was torture, indefinite incarceration, and in some cases extra-judicial executions. Sometimes the torture occurred at the hands of U.S. personnel. Other times, the torture was outsourced (?renditioned?) to police or intelligence forces of brutal, but friendly, foreign regimes.

Through it all, Americans innocently and naïvely assumed that the power now being exercised by the CIA and the Pentagon applied only to foreigners, not to Americans. Engaged in wishful thinking, they were blinding themselves to reality. As U.S. officials repeatedly emphasized after 9/11, the war on terror was global in nature, which meant that the military power to wage the war on terror included going after the terrorists right here inside the United States.

The war on terror?s iron fist unleashed itself on an American citizen named José Padilla, whom U.S. officials arrested on American soil and accused of being a terrorist. Federal officials did not indict Padilla, prosecute him, or convict him, at least not at first. Instead, U.S. military officials took control over him and denied him any right to speak to an attorney, family, or friends. The U.S. attorney general announced to the American people that Padilla was an illegal ?enemy combatant? in the ?war on terror.?

For three years, Padilla was held in military custody. In a recent hearing in U.S. District Court, two psychologists testified that, as a result of having been in isolation for an extended period of time and having been subjected to sensory deprivation, Padilla is now too mentally damaged to assist with his own case. Even though a government psychologist disputed Padilla?s claim, the case is bringing to public eye what U.S. officials would undoubtedly prefer to keep secret from the American people ? a method of ?touchless? torture that the CIA and the Pentagon have long been employing involving isolation and sensory deprivation. As Alfred McCoy described in his book A Question of Torture, this particular type of torture technique is specifically intended to cause mental damage to its victims. The CIA learned the technique from the North Korean communists, who subjected American POWs to it during the Korean War.

What is so significant about the José Padilla case?

Its significance lies not only in what U.S. officials did to Padilla but also in the fact that what they did to him, they now wield the power to do to every other American. That is the post-9/11 revolution of liberty and power that Americans must now confront if they wish to live in a free society.

The president and the Pentagon faced one big problem, however. While they correctly assumed that Congress would do nothing to stop the assumption of this omnipotent power over the American people, there was still the possibility that the federal courts would declare it to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

So it?s not surprising that they chose someone like José Padilla as their test case, rather than some middle-class high-school principal who was a member of Rotary. Federal officials knew that Americans would feel no sympathy for Padilla, especially after the U.S. attorney general went on television and announced that Padilla was planning to explode a nuclear bomb in the United States.

After keeping him three years in military custody, the Pentagon released Padilla from the South Carolina dungeon in which he had been incarcerated and transferred him to the control of the Justice Department, which proceeded to secure a grand-jury indictment against him for terrorist-related activities overseas. Significantly, the grand jury indictment didn?t charge Padilla with the nuclear-bomb scheme that the U.S. attorney general had used to scare the American people.

Why did U.S. officials agree to prosecute Padilla in federal district court instead of continuing to treat him as an ?enemy combatant? in the ?war on terror?? After all, haven?t they repeatedly told Americans that terrorism is an act of war, not a criminal act? Isn?t that why Padilla was held in isolation in a military dungeon for three years? Why would they switch gears by moving him from ?enemy-combatant? status to ?criminal-defendant? status in federal district court?

The answer lies in the legal strategy employed by U.S. officials, a strategy that ultimately fortified the federal government?s revolutionary assumption of military power over the American people.

While Padilla was still in military custody as an ?enemy combatant,? his attorneys filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a legal remedy that stretches back centuries into American and English jurisprudence. Its purpose is to negate the power of government officials to arbitrarily incarcerate and punish people without just cause. Placing ultimate power in the hands of an independent judge, the writ commands the custodian to produce the prisoner and show cause for holding him. If the judge finds that the prisoner is being held without cause, he has the power to order his release. Under the law, the custodian ? whether he?s a king, a president, or a military official ? must comply with the judge?s order.

The district court ruled in favor of Padilla, essentially holding that in the United States of America the military doesn?t rule over the citizenry. If Padilla or any other American was accused of terrorism, the executive branch had a remedy under the Constitution ? indict him and prosecute him. Essentially, the district court held: Charge Padilla with a crime or release him.

Meanwhile, attorneys for the foreigners held at Guantanamo, who also had been held for years without being charged, were litigating their own petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts, arguing that they too had the right to be either charged or released.

The government appealed the Padilla ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative circuits in the country. Reversing the judgment of the district court, the Fourth Circuit issued one of the most ominous judicial decisions in the history of our country. Upholding the government?s concept of an ?enemy combatant? in a ?war on terror,? the court upended the relationship between military and civilian ? and between liberty and power ? that historically had existed in this country.

While the Court of Appeals judgment seemed to apply only to José Padilla, in actuality it applies to all Americans. On the day that judgment became final, the monumental legal revolution was complete, except for the possibility that the Supreme Court could still overrule the Fourth Circuit?s judgment.

What did the U.S. Supreme Court do? That was another part of the legal strategy that federal officials employed. Padilla?s attorneys, of course, fully intended to appeal the judgment of the Fourth Circuit to the Supreme Court, which very well might have reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. After all, by this time the Court had already ruled in favor of several of the Guantanamo detainees and against the government.

Before the Court could hear the case, however, federal officials transferred Padilla to federal-court jurisdiction to be indicted as a criminal defendant accused of having committed criminal acts of terrorism. Why had the government seemingly changed its position after years of claiming that Padilla was an ?enemy combatant? subject to military control?

The answer was easy to see: The government had the Fourth Circuit?s judgment under its belt and it did not want to jeopardize a reversal of that judgment. Federal prosecutors knew that if they could somehow prevent the Supreme Court from hearing the case ? and possibly reversing the holding ? the Fourth Circuit?s judgment in the government?s favor would be left standing.

There was one way for them to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing the case. There is a long-established legal principle that if a case or controversy becomes moot while the case is pending, a court loses jurisdiction to rule.

Federal officials figured that if they transferred Padilla out of military custody, his habeas corpus proceeding would become moot because he would no longer be in military custody. That?s why they transferred him to federal-court jurisdiction ? to render his case moot and thereby deny the Supreme Court the power to reverse the Fourth Circuit?s judgment.

The strategy succeeded. Ruling that the case was now moot, the Supreme Court declined to hear Padilla?s appeal, which left the Fourth Circuit?s judgment approving the government?s ?enemy combatant? theory intact.

?Well, how come they?re not arresting, torturing, and executing lots of Americans then?? Because every government, even totalitarian ones, must pay attention to public opinion, and federal officials know that, under current circumstances, Americans might not countenance the arbitrary arrests, torture, and executions of large numbers of Americans.

But what every federal official, especially those in the military, knows is that they now wield one of the most powerful standby military powers in history: the omnipotent power to arbitrarily arrest, torture, and execute American citizens simply by labeling them ?enemy combatants.? All that?s needed is the right ?emergency? or ?crisis? and this standby power can be unleashed on the American people ? in the course of protecting them from the terrorists, of course.

It?s true that Americans still retain habeas corpus, given that the recently enacted Military Commissions Act canceled that centuries-old remedy for foreigners only. (The D.C. federal Court of Appeals recently upheld the constitutionality of the Act.) Americans would be unwise to rely on habeas corpus, however, to provide them any safety or security with respect to being labeled an ?enemy combatant? and treated accordingly. As soon as an American ?enemy combatant? files a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the government will quickly file its response showing that the prisoner is being held as an ?enemy combatant? in time of ?war,? citing the Fourth Circuit?s decision in the Padilla case upholding the ?enemy combatant? designation as part of the ongoing ?war on terrorism.? Given the long-established tradition of federal courts not to second-guess the president?s war-making decisions, it is a virtual certainty that no federal court will second-guess the president?s and the Pentagon?s ?enemy combatant? determinations. The courts will very likely swiftly dismiss habeas corpus petitions brought by Americans who have been labeled ?enemy combatants.?

While there is still a possibility that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the reasoning and holding of the Fourth Circuit, Americans would be unwise to depend on any such hope. For one thing, it would take at least a year or two for any case to reach the Supreme Court and be decided, and lots of Americans could be arrested, incarcerated, tortured, and executed within that time, especially if the right ?emergency? or ?crisis? were to send everyone into emotional hyperdrive. Equally important, given the increasingly conservative ideology of Supreme Court justices, there is a growing likelihood that a majority of the Court will side with the government anyway.

As an integral part of the federal government?s ?war on terror,? which itself is an inexorable part of the government?s pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy, the U.S. military?s power to arrest, torture, and execute Americans is now reality. It is impossible to reconcile such power with the principles of a free society. As long as it exists, even if only as a standby power in the event of a ?crisis? or ?emergency, ? Americans cannot be considered a free people. It is the ultimate power that any government can wield over its citizens and, in fact, is a power wielded by such tyrannical regimes as those in Burma, Pakistan, China, North Korea, and Cuba. A necessary prerequisite for the restoration of a free society is its removal from the arsenal of federal powers. March 1, 2007

Jacob Hornberger [ snipped-for-privacy@REMOVEfff.org] is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He will be among the 22 speakers at FFF?s upcoming conference on June 1?4 in Reston, Virginia: ?Restoring the Constitution: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties.?

Copyright © 2007 Future of Freedom Foundation

Osama bin Laden wants the United States to convert to Islam, ditch its constitution, abolish banks, jail homosexuals and sign the Kyoto climate change treaty.

The first complete collection of the Saudi's statements published today portrays a world in which Islam's enemies will take the first steps towards salvation by embracing the "religion of all the Prophets".

And he is not alone in the muslim world

Cairo - Osama Shaltut claims to descend from the Prophet Mohammed and the centrepiece of his campaign for the Egyptian presidency is a promise to convert the entire world to Islam.

Islam has a 1400 year history of this attitude.

If this country was ruled by a dictator who tortured and killed thousands, and we were invaded by a power that quickly held free elections to elect a government of the people, you would fight them? That is nuts!

commits suicide"

I would find it hard to justify killing the 950 million peacefull muslims to get the 50 million non-peacefull one. pick your numbers:

0.1% terrorists 999 peaceful peaceful, 1 million violent 1% terrorists 990 peaceful peaceful, 10 million violent 5% terrorists 950 peaceful peaceful, 50 million violent 10% terrorists 900 million peacefull, 100 million violent 20% terrorists 800 million peacefull, 200 million violent

Based on my son's year in Baghdad I am pretty sure its within this range

Hitler and the Jewish holocost would be for gotten if we did that. I think we are fighting the war too soft, but would not propose destruction of mass civilian populations as in Dresden, Tokoyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki . Under the current rules of engagement if fired on we can only respond with proportional firepower, if fired on from a mosque we can't go in without approval of the Iraqi government. Needs to be tougher without going overboard.

Carl

First off, NO "If" we are. If you are unaware of that fact you need to tune your radio to a real information source.

Second, you assume that somehow only the actual innocent victims of an attack are going to get pissed off. Trust me, if you shell my brother's neighborhood and kill my niece and nephew, I will not be injured, but I will do everything I can to kill you afterwards. Even if I thought you were my greatest hope the day before the shelling.

Stuart

I notice you said nothing to answer my question about what 'winning' the war will look like.

Don't fret, I don't think GWB ever knew either.

Stuart

I am sure there was little laughter on the part of those people as they watched their country and city being destroyed as a consequence of their own foolhardy failure to prevent an idiot from taking power and embarking on a war he had no chance of winning.

snip-----

Heh! You know that, and I know that, ----but we're dealing with a disproportionate number of irrational people in those countries- The very idea that beheading the "enemy" shows they're leaps and bounds behind being a civilized society. They think differently than we do-----it's almost pointless to make comparisons between the two societies, and even more pointless to assume that they desire the same things we do.

We're so damned far over our heads over there that it's going to haunt us for an eternity. This thing is far worse than Viet Nam--------at least in my eyes.

The one thing for which I'm thankful is that the vets aren't being disrespected as they were for the Nam fiasco. We owe the guys in the trenches a huge debt of gratitude.

Harold

If you are referring to surgical strikes...thats hardly what you implied.

And you have no animosity towards those terrorists who were using your niece and nephew as human shields.

That does speak volumes. The first thing any normal man would do would be to kill them, so they dont endanger your family.

Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Like Saddam.

Thanks!

Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I was trying topoint out Iggy's irrationality.

It's interesting that the "cradle of civilization" is now so uncivilized.

We were fighting an ideological war with communism in Nam. The clearly stated goals of the Soviets was to spread communism through the world, ditto with the Muslims extremists. The difference is that the Muslims are much better funded because of their oil. Perhaps if we had kicked the communists butt in Nam the Berlin wall would have fallen in 1970 instead of 1990.

This is not a new situation. Muslim terror rolled out of the Arab pennisula in the 7th century and the religion has spred predominantly, but not completely, by violence ever since.

Unfortunately this is starting to happen now and I expect it will get worse. I only have a couple of 2nd hand stories on this but I believe them

Carl