Get Your Facts Straight...

I received this response from an individual that wanted to criticize the comment that I made that PFC Manning's release of classified documents was out of line. Here is his response and mine as well to his statements...

Keith Ktwo Muhammad August 20 at 9:02pm Report

if pfc manning perorted us soldiers killing innocent civilians whats wrong with that? if the masses of the people in the US CONDONE THE KILLING OF INNOCENT people then you they r no different from the people who orchastraighted 9/11

My dear friend, I voiced nothing untoward the data that was released. I spent two tours in Viet Nam and we had the same types of atrocious incidents there.

War is hell... for the people that fight it and for the people that are caught up in it. I did not think that the invasion of Iraq was a a good thing. I did think that the invasion of Afghanistan was a good thing because the people of Afghanistan allowed a known terrorist to plan and launch an attack against the United States from its soil.

I have issues with the number of civilians that have been killed and the manner in which they died. Those soldiers that willingly killed innocence civilians have and will be punished. Those civilians that died because they were within or close to the encampments of the enemy chose to be there and paid for their choices. Make no mistake, the Armed Services of the United States are not interested in killing the very people that they are attempting to liberate, albeit, liberation appears not to be the wishes of those same people.

If PFC Manning chose to be the whistle-blower against the atrocities in Afghanistan; and he has every right to do so, then he should have done the honorable thing by getting out of the service and then requested a hearing in front of Congress. He had no right to break military law and release military documents to the public. As a serviceman, I despise him for exposing the underbelly of the Armed Services.

I truly want nothing to do with the ME. The traditions and policies that govern everyday life simply don't fit in modern day times. Muslims willing to subjugate themselves to Sharia and/or any other forms of cruel and usual punishments deserve everything that they get. I want no parts of it, the oil, nor the traditions.

In addition, whoever, or whatever gave you the idea that Americans condone the atrocities committed there is sheer nonsense. Remember one thing, the Lockerbie bomber returned to Libya with cheers. Do you see, hear, or read of any instances where Americans cheer when word comes that civilians were killed in Afghanistan or Iraq - no! Get your facts straight and understand the full picture before you attempt to brand someone based upon the position they took.

I remain adamant - Manning should be placed under the jail in a dark spot for the rest of his natural life for releasing military documents without authorization. I could care less what information those documents held and why he did it.

Anything else...

In a democracy, silence is not golden; it is condonance in the face of injustices; it is fear, where the thought of reprisal fosters control – Rodney A. Davis

Guantanamo Bay - The Al Qaida Issue

Oh! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Who decided to take captives from a warfront and house them in another country? What was the purpose for housing those prisoners at Guantanamo? Those are the questions that were never asked of President Bush. I believe that in the hasty confusion to exact a punishment against those imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay the President, and all of his men, lost track of the big picture and were caught up in a quagmire of their own doings.

The Bush administration has maintained that these individuals are extremely dangerous and must be isolated in such a manner that they can never do us harm again. The Bush administration notes that previously released Guantanamo prisoners have gone back and joined the fight against American troops. They cite at least sixty-one incidents wherein prisoners that were released have become suicide bombers, have been recaptured, or have shown up on video tapes recruiting for the jihadist.

I believe that there is some truth to what is being reported by the troop commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan with regard to the return of released prisoners to combat, but I question if any of this would have been the case if these prisoners had been incarcerated in-country rather than at Guantanamo Bay. I wonder what would have been the outcome had we not been exposed at Al Ghraib? What if we had expeditiously carried out the military tribunals? Obviously the decisions were made by someone positioned to formulate a policy, but the policy, we are seeing now was very flawed.

Al Qaida uses Guantanamo as a badge of honor, a recruitment tool. Those having been there for any length of time are looked upon as having been in the den of the infidels and lived to tell the tale – an exaggerated tale, I am sure. But, why give the enemy additional ammunition to be used against you in the psychological warfare that is always associated with armed conflict. We have created a two-headed monster that will not die no matter what we do from this day forward.

Had the United States proceed with military tribunals against these individuals as originally stated, the matter would have been over… instead, it has drawn on with disastrous propaganda permeating everywhere. In defense of the President, I submit that he had every right to remove the prisoners from the warfront, incarcerate them at Guantanamo Bay, and send them to a military tribunal. The President’s rights can be reviewed from similar incidents, the first being the incarceration and military trial of Germans caught after they had entered the United States during WWII…

The Court first carefully traced the President's power to issue the July 2 order back to the Congressional "war powers" provided in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, and the President's executive powers under Article II. It held that the Articles of War were an appropriate constitutional exercise of power by Congress, and fully provided for the trial of enemy spies by miltary tribunal. As a final step, the Court affirmed that the July 2 order was a valid implementation of the Articles of War.

The Court stressed that the procedure being followed was a well-accepted implementation of the universally accepted laws of war:
By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between..... those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
According to the court, unlawful acts of war include "an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property". It noted that the Hague Convention, adopted by the United States in 1909, adopted the pre-existing distinction between lawful and unlawful belligerents, protecting only the former.

Notwithstanding this lawful position, the Bush administration delayed the execution of the Military Tribunals, creating a situation that is to be decided by another President who is either unaware of these statues, or simply does not want to entertain the matter further.

The other example involving the German prisoners of war is put forth in the article Ex Parte Quirin and it details how, with reason, the prisoners were denied Habeas Corpus…

The President, as President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, by Order of July 2, 1942, appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try petitioners for offenses against the law of war and the Articles of War, and prescribed regulations for the procedure on the trial and for review of the record of the trial and of any judgment or sentence of the Commission. On the same day, by Proclamation, the President declared that 'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'.

It is obvious that the United States was, and is, within its rights to expose the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to military Tribunal. There is a choice… we can free these individuals and reap the havoc as a result of their being used to recruit others to Jihad, or we can just as easily commence the Tribunals and sentence them as would be the discretion of a Military Judge. 

There is another way if we free them; we must extract a solemn oath from them to never again pursue jihad against any government again – to be sworn to in the name of with Allah. No self-respecting Muslim will commit a violation of an oath sworn to in the name of Allah.

In a democracy, silence is not golden; it is condonance in the face of injustices; it is fear, where the thought of reprisal fosters control - Rodney A. Davis

Here Is My Take

Iraq/Afghanistan

It is absolutely imperative that we divorce ourselves of the responsibility of ‘waiting’ until the Iraqis decide to unify under one flag and redistribute the profits from oil as one nation. A major problem with tribal nations is their inability to overcome the obstacles to unification that has been embedded in their minds since birth. We can’t wait; the President must declare an ultimatum and allow the chips to fall as they may. In doing so, we quickly release our armed forces from further obligations to Iraq; reduce the Defense budget outlay for the war in Iraq which in turn will give us an opportunity to address the dire situation in Afghanistan.

We must quickly ramp up our armed forces in Afghanistan; seal the border electronically between Afghanistan and Pakistan and patrol by fly-over a two mile wide zone in the mountainous border area. With the border under surveillance, we should put the backs of our troops to the mountains and move east eradicating the Taliban and Al Qaeda as we move eastward. It will take a year to eighteen months to secure the border.

We should use that downtime to rest the troops coming from Iraq. Once we have gotten the two mile zone depopulated (Afghans must move out of the de-populated zone) and fully under electronic surveillance, we should insert the troops and began the sweep to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If the same amount of troops that were used at the height of the occupation of Iraq is use, this operation could be over in less than three years after mass troop insertion.

Employment and Re-tooling of the Work-Force

The Economy of the United States is ‘trickle-up’ and the current state of affairs on Wall Street and Main Street proves it to be just that. When credit dries up, the only thing that will open the doors to credit again is cash flow. We have to get the consumer spending again and the only way to do that is make jobs available to the workforce. We need the same kind of nationwide work projects that jumpstarted the economy the way the interstate highways did back in the late fifties and sixties. The new projects should be mass transit and the modification of the types of fuels that we use to produce energy.

Mass Transit

We have to reduce our dependence on oil and the method to complete it is three-fold. We must re-invent the way we get from point A to B. Applying the same intensity to mass transit that we applied to developing the interstate would give us the relief that we need in least than three years time. We must demand that our automotive engines meet new design specifications that make it possible to triple the miles per gallon that we currently accept. All vehicles should meet these new design specifications within three years from setting the mandate – no exceptions!

We must, in addition to reducing our dependence on oil, re-invent the way we produce energy. Mass usage of wind, gas, hydro-electric, and solar energy is the answer to achieving a reduction in the use of oil and, as a by-product, the reduction of pollutants in our atmosphere. Integrating these solutions into the workforce equation will further increase the employment of our workers in jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.

McCain - McBush 4 more

Recenty, I listened to a speech by Senator McCain and came away thinking that the real issues that confront America were not addressed in the Senator’s speech.

He, by omission, has indicated that he intends to grant a free pass to big oil and big business with no relief for the little man. He maintains that he will keep in place the initiatives of the Bush Administration, initiatives that got us in the predicament that we currently are experiencing. If America was being interviewed by a ‘credit doctor’ to repair its credit, Senator McCain’s policies would be placed in the ‘round file’ so swiftly that they would catch on fire from the friction of air against the surface of the paper.

My Father told me that power, in the hands of an ignorant man, is the most dangerous thing in the world. This is not to say that the Senator is ignorant, but the adage does apply in this case. In applying that adage to the McCain way of thinking it simply means that we will painfully endure four more years of failed policies.

Like the man he intends to replace, he is exceedingly stubborn when forced to adjust to the changing political arena on the world playing field. We don’t want another war; we can’t afford another war. His posturing during the confrontation with Russia over Russia’s invasion of Georgia proves that he can’t present the united front that America will need in the future to prevent aggression with diplomacy first! He says that he hates war, but he has yet to demonstrate that position when it comes to interfacing with other world powers.

Senator McCain says he will fight for justice and equality for all, but is it all of big business, or will it be all of the people of America? We don't know. The McCain campaign continues to put forward lies and innuendos against their opponents instead of delivering a message that will give us some indication of the path in which his administration will take the country. When asked direct questions about his policies, he seems to wander off blabbering in a strange language things that we can't comprehend. The person that he has selected for his vice-president does the same thing... reference her responses to Katie Couric.

I wonder, personally, how long we will be reminded that the good Senator was a prisoner of war for five and a half years. Does he want us to apply to him the same advantage that is given veterans when they apply for governmental jobs? Or, does he want us to consider his military service as a pre-requisite for anyone seeking the office of President of the United States. If we are to judge McCain by the legacy of previous presidents that did not have any military service, his military service does not have validity in the selection of a president.

In the minds of those of us that are not easily fooled about the war in Iraq, the 'surge' was supposed to give the Iraqi Parliament the time to form a coalition that would support good government between the different sects. To say that the reduced violence in Iraq is a sign that the 'surge' is the reason that we are 'winning' in Iraq is pure unadulterated BS. The war is won when you can leave the occupied country (reference Japan) with a solid government in place that will endure – something the surge was suppose to facilitate. As we all know, there is no consummate government in place in Iraq that is governing for all of the people.

Inquiring minds want to know what you; Mr. McCain, will do about the economy, about getting us out of Iraq, and about health care...

Has President Bush been telling the Truth to the American People

Recently, I received a comment from one of my readers. In the comment, the reader was offended by statements that I made with regard to whether I thought that President Bush was telling the truth to the American people. Of course, it is never my desire to offend anyone during the course of relating how I feel about a given subject. For that reason, I am apologizing to 'Sandra' for having offended her, however; I feel it is imperative of me to explain why I wrote that I thought that the President of the United States is a liar.

President Bush took office in January of 2000 with a mandate of presenting an openly honest government. He promised that none of the dishonest tactics that characterized the Clinton administration would be attributed to his administration. However, over the course of his eight years in the White House, Mr. Bush has presented a much different modus operandi. He has hidden many of his actions behind the curtain of ‘executive privilege; it is a position that does not lend itself readily to the original promise to be open and honest with the American public.

While the use of ‘executive privilege’ is not, in and of itself, reason to believe that the President has lied; it does however, contradict the ‘promise’! I have decided to ‘google’ the some of the instances where what the President promised and what he actually did are in conflict with his promise to the American people to be open and honest. In doing this, I want to dispel the notion that I have a personal vendetta against the President Bush.

Let’s get started by defining the term 'executive privilege' and whether, or not it is address in the Constitution. We will then discuss how it is being applied by the Bush administration. Looking at the Congressional Library for guidance, we see that its definition is as follows: EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE - exemption from legally enforced disclosure of communications within the executive branch of government when such disclosure would adversely affect the functions and decision-making processes of the executive branch - Merriam-Webster.

That is the definition; now let's look at what, how, and under what circumstances that the President can apply 'executive privilege'.

Executive Privilege was first invoked by President George Washington. Washington's invokement of executive privilege set the precedence which modern day Presidents have continued to enjoyed, much to the chagrin of the American public. Just what are the rights involved with this privilege?

I present excerpts from Michael Dorf's article, A BRIEF HISTORY OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON THROUGH DICK CHENEY

1. The Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. Presidents have long claimed, however, that the constitutional principle of separation of powers implies that the Executive Branch has a privilege to resist certain encroachments by Congress and the judiciary, including some requests for information.

2. Presidents often assert executive privilege even if the information or documents sought are not matters of national security. They argue that some degree of confidentiality is necessary for the Executive Branch to function effectively. Key advisers will hesitate to speak frankly if they must worry that what they say will eventually become a matter of public record.

The Supreme Court considered this argument in the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon. A grand jury convened by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski issued a subpoena to President Nixon requiring that he produce Oval Office tapes and various written records relevant to the criminal case against members of Nixon's Administration. Nixon resisted on grounds of executive privilege.

The Court recognized "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." It noted that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision-making process."

Nonetheless, the Justices concluded that the executive privilege is not absolute. Where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, the privilege must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the Court ordered President Nixon to divulge the tapes and records. Two weeks after the Court's decision, Nixon complied with the order. Four days after that, he resigned.

I am quoting Mr. Dorf, a Harvard Professor of Law, because of his distinguish credentials with regard to Constitutional Law. I also want to point out that there, technically, is no constitutional basis for any President to withhold information from the American people under any circumstances - unless - you don't want the truth to be known. Yet, the other two branches of government have relinquished their right to question the authority of the Executive branch in its assertion of executive privilege as a tool in denying everyone the access to information that was used to develop policy, or make decisions that effect us all.

President Bush has invoked 'Executive Privilege' on more occasions than any other President - four times! Obviously, he has a lot to hide.

Bush's Lies About Iraq
Lie #1--They Attacked Us: Iraq Supported Al Qaeda. Astonishingly, President Bush, in a rare moment of candor, finally admitted half a year after the invasion that there was no evidence Saddam Hussein's Iraq had any links to the 9/11 attacks, undermining eighteen months of implying the exact opposite. Yet in both of his recent big speeches--a brief and rather reserved statement after Saddam's capture and his macho 2004 State of the Union address--Bush again dished out the fundamental lie that the war and occupation of Iraq can reasonably be linked to the "war on terror," even as a new book by ex-Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill described the Bush foreign policy team's consistent obsession with Iraq from the first days of the Administration.

Lies #2 and #3--Imminent Threats: Iraq's Bio-Chem and Nuclear Weapons Programs. A year after using his 2003 State of the Union address to paint Iraq's allegedly vast arsenal of WMDs as a grave threat to the United States and the world, Bush wisely avoided mentioning anything about uranium there--though he did spend a great deal of his latest SOTU defending the war on the grounds that "had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day." Dick Cheney, in interviews with USA Today and the Los Angeles Times, echoed this fudging--last year "weapons," this year "programs"--declaring that "the jury's still out" on whether Iraq had WMDs and that "I am a long way at this stage from concluding that somehow there was some fundamental flaw in our intelligence."

Only days later, chief US weapons inspector David Kay quit and began telling the world what the Bush Administration had been denying since taking office: that Saddam Hussein's regime was but a weak shadow of the semi-fearsome military force it had been at the time of the first Gulf War thirteen years ago; that it had no significant chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs or stockpiles still in place; and that the UN inspections and allied bombing runs in the 1990s had been much more effective than their critics had believed at eroding these programs.

Lie #4--It Will Be Easy: Iraq as a "Cakewalk." "The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq," Bush admitted, putting the lie to the idiotic and arrogant statements by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others that policing Iraq would be a simple matter that could be quickly delegated to Iraqis as soon as they stopped celebrating the US military's arrival and cleaned up all those flowers they were going to throw.

Reality has continued to diverge from the White House's neat depictions of inexorable progress. In the weeks after Saddam's capture, the number of US soldiers killed actually increased, several helicopters were downed by enemy fire, and on Christmas Day alone there were eighteen attacks, including nine nearly simultaneous rocket grenade launches on embassies, apartments and the "green zone," which houses the Coalition Provisional Authority headquarters. American KIAs have passed 500, while uncounted Iraqis continue to die in undocumented skirmishes.

Lie #5--The Moral Justification: Iraq as a Democratic Model. As the other lies upon which this war were based have been crumbling, this one has moved to the forefront. For war apologists such as the New York Times's Thomas Friedman, if we can "bring democracy to Iraq," all those immoral means will justify this noble end. Here, too, we find grave problems continuing to frustrate the fantasies of neocons and neoliberals alike: The Kurds want to retain the large de facto autonomy they've achieved in the north; the Sunni areas continue to be extremely hostile to the occupation; and the long-oppressed majority Shiites are protesting in the streets in the tens of thousands, demanding one-man, one-vote elections. The CIA now considers civil war in Iraq a serious possibility.

Just as it didn't solve the stunning array of problems facing Iraq, the capture of Saddam did nothing to heal the rifts in our own country, where the lies of this Administration have so polarized the populace that this election year promises to be extremely nasty. We Americans now have but three options: We can deny that the Administration lied and continues to lie about Saddam's ties to terror and the threat he allegedly posed to the United States; we can be aware of the lies, but cling to a faith that good things will come from them, that the ends justify the means; or we can get angry about the lies and how truth has become a casualty of 9/11.

The lies of this Administration concerning Iraq rise to the level of the greatest scandals in American history. Now it is time to clean up the mess and reinvigorate our democracy.

In an article dated September 25, 2003 and entitled The Other Lies of George Bush, David Corn writes "Does Bush believe his own untruths? Did he truly consider a WMD-loaded Saddam Hussein an imminent threat to the United States? Or was he knowingly employing dramatic license because he wanted war for other reasons? Did he really think the average middle-class taxpayer would receive $1,083 from his second tax-cut plan? Or did he realize this was a fuzzy number cooked up to make the package seem a better deal than it was for middle- and low-income workers? Did he believe there were enough stem-cell lines to support robust research? Or did he know he had exaggerated the number of lines in order to avoid a politically tough decision? It's hard to tell.

Bush's public statements do suggest he is a binary thinker who views the world in black-and-white terms. You're either for freedom or against it. With the United States or not. Tax cuts are good--always. The more tax cuts the better--always. He's impatient with nuances. Asked in 1999 to name something he wasn't good at, Bush replied, "Sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something." Bush likes life to be clear-cut. And perhaps that causes him to either bend the truth or see (and promote) a bent version of reality. Observers can debate whether Bush considers his embellishments and misrepresentations to be the honest-to-God truth or whether he cynically hurls falsehoods to con the public. But believer or deceiver--the result is the same.

With his misrepresentations and false assertions, Bush has dramatically changed the nation and the world. Relying on deceptions, he turned the United States into an occupying power. Using lies, he pushed through tax cuts that will profoundly reshape the US budget for years to come, most likely insuring a long stretch of deficits that will make it difficult, perhaps impossible, for the federal government to fund existing programs or contemplate new ones.

Does Bush lie more than his predecessors, more than his political opponents? That's irrelevant. He's guiding the nation during difficult and perhaps perilous times, in which a credible President is much in need. Prosperity or economic decline? War or peace? Security or fear? This country has a lot to deal with. Lies from the White House poison the debates that must occur if Americans are going to confront and overcome the challenges of this century at home and abroad.

Presidential lying, in fact, threatens the country. To render informed and wise choices about the crucial and complicated controversies of the day, people need truthful information. The President is generally in a position to define and dominate a debate more than other political players. And a lie from the White House--or a fib or a misrepresentation or a fudged number--can go a long way toward distorting the national discussion.

Bush campaigned for the presidency as the fellow who would bring honesty back to the White House. During his first full day on the job, while swearing in his White House staff, he reminded his cadre, "On a mantelpiece in this great house is inscribed the prayer of John Adams, that only the wise and honest may rule under this roof." But Adams's prayer would once more go unanswered. There has been no restoration of integrity. Bush's promise was a lie. The future of the United States remains in the hands of a dishonest man."

Most notable in David Corn's article is his prediction that the financial situation of the United States would be in a terrible deficit - how true that we have come to realize this predicament about the economical practices of George W. Bush – 43.

To summarize Bush's prevalence to lie, I submit the following: He fired Doanld Rumsfeld after saying that he was going to fire him, Osama Bin Laden is still at large, there never were any WMDs, the Iraqis did not dance in the streets when our troops liberated them - so to speak, he reneged on his promise to hold an honest and open government, and he still has not fully funded No Child Let Behind.

Those are just the ones that I can remember at this moment!