Despite the fact that Senators Diane Feinstein and Senator Jim Webb want the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed moved out of New York City, the Obama administration is determined to hold the trial in that venue. Webb urged Attorney General Eric Holder to to rethink his decision in a letter was endorsed by Republican Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins and Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman. Webb said that:
The attacks of 9-11 were acts of war, and those who planned and carried out those attacks are war criminals. Today, those who subscribe to the same violent ideology … continue to plan and execute attacks against innocent civilians all over the world. It is not in our national interest to provide them further publicity or additional advantage.
In a separate move, Dianne Feinstein the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee urged the administration to reconsider its decision to try KSM in New York City. “In my view, from an intelligence perspective, I think the situation has changed with the Christmas attack,” Feinstein said on MSNBC, citing confidential intelligence briefings. Earlier Mayor Bloomberg urged the White House to reconsider its plans, citing resultant security threats to the city.
Despite the representations of two high ranking Democratic officials and the Mayor of a city with a very large liberal constituency, the White House signalled its determine to proceed as planned. Deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton signaled from Air Force One that the President has not changed his mind.
The White House has not changed its view on the decision to prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City, despite new criticism from Mayor Bloomberg and others in Manhattan.
“Let me start by saying that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is a murderous thug who has admitted to some of the most heinous crimes ever committed against our country,” Mr. Burton said. “The president is committed to seeing that he’s brought to justice. He agrees with the attorney general’s opinion in November that he and others can be litigated successfully and securing in the United States of America, just like others have – like Richard Reid. Currently our federal jails hold hundreds of convicted terrorists and the president’s opinion has not changed on that.”
As the President said, “I don’t quit.” The problem with trying KSM in civilian court, let alone New York City are well known. Former Justice Department official John Yoo says is it will provide an “intelligence bonanza” for al-Qaeda and explains why. Mayor Bloomberg is concerned the city will become a magnet for attackers seeking to send a message of support to the 9/11 mastermind. About 200 million dollars per year will be spend in security for the trial alone. Yoo makes his case in the video below.
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt
Not that it’s going to change anybody’s mind. Oops. Apparently it has partly changed President Obama’s mind. The civilian trial is going forward but at another unspecified location outside New York City.
The order to consider new venues does not change the White House’s position that Mohammed should be tried in civilian court.
“President Obama is still committed to trying Mohammed and four other terrorist detainees in federal court,” spokesman Bill Burton said Thursday.
“He agrees with the attorney general’s opinion that … he and others can be litigated successfully and securely in the United States of America, just like others have,” Burton said.
Burton referred questions about the location debate to the Justice Department.
Officials there have apparently been caught off guard by the fiery opposition in New York, an insider told the Daily News.
“They’re in a tizzy at Justice over Bloomberg,” a federal law enforcement official said. “It’s like a half-baked souffle – the plan is collapsing.”
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
Now that Obama has got KSM lawyered up and is trying him in the US, he can say the CIA violated his Constitutional right to remain silent by waterboarding him, and also his Constitutional right to be safe from cruel and unusual punishment. And since it has been more than 8 years since 9-11, he can register a complaint that his right to a speedy trial has been violated.
You know, sometimes I think Obama (BHO) is the one who should be tried publicly, as a traitor…
According to the NY Daily News, we’ve already won this one…
DRUDGE as of 6:10pm PST has a headline that Obama has flipped and WILL move the venue from NYC. I can’t paste the link with the device I’m posting on… NY Daily News.
If Bloomberg, Webb, and Feinstein say no, it won’t happen in New Yawk.
Speculating further, excellent chance the trial will never happen at all.
Obama has already declared him guilty.
Of course KSM was never mirandized.
So anything like a fair trial, will never convict him of anything, in the face of a modestly competent defense.
Holder is an authentic idiot, and even Mr. Obama may be realizing that just about now.
I wouldn’t mind a bit if they had a trial, it took 30 minutes, followed by KSM’s beheading on the courthouse steps. If Bloomberg had any balls, he’d accept the trial, then have NYPD and the city and state of NY do it just that way.
The bad press generated by the local Community Board, a bunch of usually loyal Dims, holding a public hearing on the issue probably had something to do with Obummer’s climbdown on this one.
A bunch of local businessmen and residents, largely Chinese, came to the mike and passionately objected to this insane idea, pointing out that their businesses took a huge hit from this monster on Sept. 11th already — and now we have to have the trial HERE? Months-long circus at huge expense, with cordoned off neighborhoods and barricades?
The Dims are barking mad, but the local pols, even the Nadless Bloomberg, have finally realized this is wildly unpopular in NYC. Besides which, they’re highly allergic to being criticized by minority citizens on TV. Really flips them out.
Go, Chinese!
Keep me informed on this one, please.
If you believe Drudge, Obama flipped on moving the trial. But he’s still trying him.
The charitable explanation Wretchard has is that Obama is just stupid. An affirmative action beneficiary moved far upwards of his competence, failing inevitably as he tries to be Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan, as President.
The less charitable explanation, and one IMHO that fits better with the facts (though Obama may indeed by stupid and is an AA beneficiary far beyond his competence level) is that Obama plans a self-coup like Peru’s Fujimori.
Obama and Dems plan to ram through Health Care according to Hot Air, on 51 votes and shaky reconciliation. He also plans to veto any legislation that would pay for health care for 9/11 Ground Zero volunteers who are now very sick.
Given ample polling, and the like, knowing that this will simply create a wipe-out of both the House AND the Senate, Obama is likely planning a self-coup.
Most of the military leadership will go along. Heck they are onboard with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and plan to implement ASAP. Casey said the real tragedy of the Fort Hood shootings were not the dead but loss of “diversity.”
Obama plans on releasing KSM because as noted above, he was never mirandized, he can claim torture, Obama said he was guilty, etc.
Hosea 8:1-14
Cyclones and tornadoes are kinda tricky to control. Only suicidal & delusional fanatics seed the clouds in Tornado Alley when the Canadian Maritime is contending with the stuff pushing out of the Gulf of Mexico.
I’m a believer in the “Obama is a rabid leftist anti-American” theory, but he can be that and still be dang stupid.
A perfect storm blew him into office, but the fog that surrounds him will see him on the rocks and shoals.
#8,
“Obama is likely planning a self-coup.
Most of the military leadership will go along”
Right, and when his nefarious plot is triumphant, the Joint Chiefs of Staff will whip out their ceremonial swords and behead upon the capitol steps; Bush, Chaney, Rove, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Boehner, Palin, McCain and Dobson… just to drive Obama’s ‘message’ home.
Oh! and Obama will burn the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence while the beheadings take place. Just to increase the impact of his message.
OH! AND Obama will sit upon a golden throne in royal purple robes holding his new scepter of office with Rev. Wright loudly proclaiming that our chickens have come home to roost!
After the beheadings, Obama will proclaim himself “Emperor of the Universe” and, if anyone should oppose his reign, threaten to nuke the State Capitols of every ‘red’ state, the majority of whose citizens didn’t vote for him in 2008. As they really hurt his feelings.
Have I left anything out?
I have my tinfoil cap on, so your transmission will be undetectable…I’m waiting…
It is being reported that the NYC trial of KSM has been scotched, though the trial will go on, but in another city. Which city? That’s what Obama and friends are debating as we speak.
If not New York, Obama cried
Where can we find the truth?
In New Orleans or Detroit town
Or possibly Duluth?
Or Philly just might be the place
In Independence Hall
Where certain people gathered once
Doing what I don’t recall
Then up spake gentle Robert Gibbs
A smile upon his face
Your Majesty he said and bowed
I know what’s just the place
That shining city on a hill
That city by the bay
The Golden Gate and Asiatown
A jury wise and fey
That’s it! Hussein cried, leaping up
We all know who’s the victim
Let’s put him in Pelosi town
They never will convict him
Trying KSM in a civilian court, tripling deficit spending . . . you name it, Obama is a reducio ad absurdum of leftist opinion and belief. In the past, a conservative might have to propose a thought experiment while in conversation with a leftist, e.g., “Suppose that we assumed that we need to treat a terrorist as a citizen. Wouldn’t that result in our having to read the terrorist his Miranda rights?” The leftist would sputter that the conservative was presenting a false choice between our ideals and desire for security, etc. Obama is forced into absurd legal and political positions, e.g., declaring that it’s o.k. to hold a trial in a civilian court because KSM is guilty anyway. Obama cheapens the meaning of “citizen” and the rights of citizens to due process by giving that privilege to a foreign-born terrorist.
A brief aside on “natural born citizen.” I think it’s safe to say that Obama is not a natural born citizen, in the sense that he is not the offspring of two U.S. citizens and born on American soil. He was born in Hawaii, almost certainly, and therefore is a citizen; but he is not the offspring of two citizens and therefore probably not someone the framers of the Constitution would consider “natural born.” Probably a Supreme Court case would need to define the status of someone like Obama. I would say that Bobby Jindal, whom I like a lot, is not a “natural born citizen.” McCain almost certainly is a natural born citizen(although the left initially said he was not and therefore was not an eligible candidate–or at least they said so until they nominated Obama). This question of eligibility is a Constitutional matter. Why does it matter? Try a thought experiment: If two foreign-born terrorists deliberately have a child in the U.S. for the purpose of long-range terrorist development, is that child natural-born and eligible to be president? Public opinion currently seems to say “yes”; the Founders thought “No.”
Obama and leftists believe the Constitution is a transitional document leading to universal rights under an improved, ideal “Constitution.” Obama, in his reducio ad absurdum actions, is helping Americans figure out that a leftist version of the Constitution, which means whatever leftists want it to mean, is a suicide pact.
WRT Drudge headline on today’s Congressman’s demands causing President Obama to demand Justice shift the trial:
Eric “The General” Holder made the decision to try KSM within bouncing 9/11 rubble distance of the WTC. But he came to this decision only after consulting with his wife and his retiree brother.
Contemporaneously on WaPo PostPartisan blog: “Yeah, okay. So Holder — in making a decision about a leader from an international terrorist organization currently in combat with American troops abroad — consulted with his wife and brother. And not, apparently, about the possibility of another attack on America, but about symbolism and jury selection. Do we have any reason to trust Holder’s strategic judgment on the nature of the global terrorist threat? Has he said or done anything recently to increase that trust?…Holder has made himself, and his defenders, look ludicrous. He has set into motion a process likely to result in the disclosure of sensitive information (as did the 1993 World Trade Center trial) and the elevation of the authors of Sept. 11 as terrorist folk heroes.”
Wonder why The General isn’t on TV much these days? Couldn’t have anything to do with that Myth about Dems being weak….
I don’t believe there is any legal requirement that KSM, and more importantly for intelligence purposes, the underwear bomber, need be tried in civilian court, even if they have been Mirandized and lawyered up. The briefs bomber should be handed over to the military immediately for interrogation. KSM, by now, should just be hung – he probably isn’t worth anyting.
More detail at my shamelessly linked block post here.
BO has flinched. Congress will finish him off on this one.
Geoffrey Britain — What makes you think Obama, a man who admires Chavez and Castro and Che, and has written about that many times, would not want a self-coup?
What makes you think Casey and the rest of the Pentagon Brass would not go along with him, if there was some crisis and Obama demanded it? After all, did or did not Casey say:
“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,” Casey said.
Yes, he did.
The Army report on Fort Hood whitewashed the words Islam, Muslim, and Jihad. No discussion of Nidal Hassan’s motivation was allowed. The Military at the top, with Bush 1, Clinton, and “Compassionate Conservative” Bush 2 making promotions, has had twenty years of PC Diversity. Of course the Military at the very top (the only thing that matters) would support a self-coup.
Obama may be stupid, but he’s not that stupid. He WANTS an attack, a successful one, so he can rule by decree, as his heroes Chavez, Castro, and AS HIS FATHER ADVOCATED.
If you honestly think that the JCS would ever oppose ANYTHING the First Black President(tm) ever did or wanted, please don’t click on those Nigerian emails.
I cannot speak to what the JCS or other branches of the military may or may not do. However, as I have stated before, based on conversations with Marines I know and trust, there is widespread animosity for the CinC within the Corps. I do not see the day when a U. S. Marine would attack fellow citizens and countrymen on orders from Obama.
If a trial in federal court is soooo necessary, then I kinda liked the idea of New York City suffering the consequences of their hard Left anti-American politics. In lieu of that, why not choose “Second City”? Couldn’t happen to a nicer set of first rate a-holes…
I don’t think President Present has the spine to become a dictator. He’d not refuse the post if offered on a silver platter, but I don’t think he could face the resistance he’d get if he tried to make himself a Chavez.
I think this thread is about the decision to try KSM in civilian court. That’s not working out too well even the President’s own party. The reason the KSM decision is tanking is because it is a really bad idea. And the fact the administration is relenting on it somewhat shows there are real limits to how far they will push a bad idea.
That’s good news I think and indicates that all the fears about this or that apocalyptic scenario will never come to pass for as long as the normal political rights are vigorously exercised. It is difficult to see what civilian venue would consent to having the trial relocated there. Would Chicago, for example, be happy to host the trial? Probably not.
In the end the trial will be like a pariah seeking lodgings. Ultimately the President may be forced to hold the trial on a military base, maybe even in a bunker. That would give it so much of the appearance of a military tribunal that the supposed PR benefits of insisting on a civilian trial would vanish vanish. With images of security patrols, dogs, electrified fences, etc it will be a PR disaster. And if KSM’s lawyers get him off on a technicality the debacle will be complete.
What was intended as a trial of GWB may wind up becoming a farce that will humiliate the current administration.
Community Board No. 1 suggested shifting the trial to Governors Island in NY Harbor. The NYPD put the kibosh on that idea. Personally I would love to see a military installation resurrected there and several hundreds of millions of federal dollars spent renovating the island. Eventually I’d like to see the UN moved there.
The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts put the fear of God into politicians like nothing that I have seen in years. Chuck Schumer is in a panic to be seen speaking up against the trial in NYC. Obama has no cover on this subject. Eric Holder may have been born in Brooklyn but he has proven to be incredibly tone deaf leading his boss into this trap.
The problem may arise from the fact that for so many years race hustlers like Holder and Obama following in footsteps of Jesse Jackson had such an easy time shaking down white elites that they grew contemptuous of their victims. Holder called white people “cowards” and he meant it.
Holder and Obama’s problem is that they did not see that the earlier generation would bluster and extort from people like the Daleys but they never seriously threatened the larger community. In Chicago after the assassination of Martin Luther King, the one time that a rioting crowd threatened to march a distance of only 1/2 to 3/4 mile from the since largely demolished project of Cabrini Green to the North lake Shore Drive Gold Coast, the then Hizzoner Mayor Daley issued the police order “Shoot to kill.” The rioters never crossed the few blocks.
Mark,
Wearily I must once again refute the shibboleth that the status of “Natural Born Citizen” requires two American citizen parents. It does not. It is based on lex solis and that standard is met by birth on US soil. Birth of a child conceived by two US citizen parents establishes citizenship under lex sanguinus. If that birth occurs outside of US soil then the child is deemed as “naturalized at birth.” The problem with Obama is that while he almost certainly was a Natural Born Citizen at birth there is some evidence that he may have renounced that status after his 18th birthday by claiming allegiance to a foreign country. That may have been done by claiming overseas student status when applying for financial aid or it may have been done by traveling on a foreign passport. The treason case in the United Kingdom of William Joyce (Lord haw Haw) hinged on a similar issue. Doing so can establish a duty of loyalty to the nation that issued the passport and in the American case that divided loyalty may preclude the status of being naturally born. It would probably not preclude his status as a US citizen or make him ineligible for his prior position as a United States Senator.
whiskry,
You often have interesting and even perceptive contributions but you ruin your credibility by repeatedly making extreme and unproven assertions, that are frequently given as predictions that prove unfounded. For example you were equally as forceful as you are now in predicting how people in the Carolinas would vote in 2008. You have no idea how the senior military will act in such an eventuality as an attempt to subvert the Constitution and while you may speculate about their motives or how they have been selected you do your own position no favor with these inflammatory charges.
Lindsay Graham is ready to put the brakes on any federal funding of the trial in NYC (and elsewhere in the US?).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584104,00.html
I wonder how an up or down vote might play out.
“What makes you think Obama, a man who admires Chavez and Castro and Che, and has written about that many times, would not want a self-coup?
What makes you think Casey and the rest of the Pentagon Brass would not go along with him, if there was some crisis and Obama demanded it?” whiskey
Of course he wants a self-coup, every leftist progressive wants it. He simply hasn’t, nor will he ever have, the power to effect that result.
Casey and possibly some of the other Pentagon brass are, as you imply, politicians in military uniforms. That has often been true, for instance Colin Powell.
Nevertheless two factors would prevent them from backing an Obama coup; they have sworn an oath of allegiance to our Constitution: “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” as has the President. Violation of that oath in supporting a coup would make them a domestic enemy.
Any President who attempted a coup would have violated that oath and through that action, engaged in treachery and subsequently made themselves a domestic enemy, a traitor. Again, any officer supporting Obama in such a coup would have violated their own oath and rendered themselves a traitor as well.
The penalty in such a situation would be death. Politicians are all about survival. The Pentagon brass would either oppose a coup on principle or out of self-preservation, refuse to support it.
Finally, as JD states, the rank and file; Colonel and below simply wouldn’t support it, they are our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters.
This is not the first thread in which this has been explained to you whiskey.
If you cannot accept common sense assertions then, unless you can convincingly show why politicians in military uniform would suddenly violate their oath, render themselves traitors and risk it all… your paranoia and fears render discussion a waste of time.
Yes, Wretchard, it is about the decision to try KSM in civilian court. On the one hand you have reports that the Justice Dept. has been asked to look at alternative venues. On the other hand, Obama’s Press Secretary denies that the the President will move the trial and has indeed repeated that KSM will be tried in Manhattan.
As far as it not working out for his own party, both Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, the NY Senators, support trying KSM in Manhattan and said so. And what does Obama care about billionaires from NYC? He can simply shake them down in the old mode, by threatening legislation and/or regulatory action unless they come up with the cash, with a double dose of racism accusations.
Meanwhile, Obama is not backing down or doing a hard-pivot.
So he’s either dumber than a bag of rocks, the most stupid man to occupy the White House, or he has something up his sleeve. A way to “beat” any bad elections.
My profound disagreement with you is that Obama is within “normal” bounds. He is not. HE IS THE BLACK SWAN. Obama is not and never has been culturally American. He harbors ill-hidden racial hatred and rage against the White majority and has spoken/written of this at length. He harbors contempt for America, its traditions, and institutions, going so far AS PRESIDENT on Memorial Day, to refuse to put his hand on his heart or act respectful during the National Anthem.
Obama is not Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, or any other White, culturally American President.
Who will take the trial? San Francisco would love it, as would Chicago, part of Obama’s machine and responsive to his wishes. Its not as if the people of Chicago have any say in things. Lets get real, none of the Obama Machine actually cares or responds to pressure from the voters on policies voters don’t like. Did or did not Obama double down last night? Why? Fundamentally he doesn’t care that the people reject his proposals.
Obama will certainly get his trial. But you have to ask yourself, why does he want this and why is he picking THIS fight? After all, he’s thrown other people and policies under his famous bus. Senator Obama was in favor of military tribunals.
What does Obama benefit from a civilian trial? A way to put GWB on trial? Perhaps, but it surely has not escaped him that IF he ever leaves office, the same can happen to HIM. Which in turn suggests that either Obama believes some huge benefit will accrue to him that will outweigh the risks (which surely he has thought of, if he has the IQ > 75 which he has), or there is no way he will ever pay the penalty.
Obama ran a careful campaign suggesting moderation and cultural conservatism. He even put on a flag pin when it seemed he could win. Yet closed-door talks kept having things leak out “bitter clingers” etc. Which suggests both that he knows his inner workings/beliefs are unloved by the people and that he cannot keep a lid on what he really believes for long.
Obama as an ex-lawyer is not stupid, and knows that pronouncing KSM guilty, not mirandizing him, and allowing allegations of torture into a civilian trial makes it a circus that will result slam-dunk in an acquittal of an obviously guilty mastermind, and make him look terrible. Run a serious risk of impeachment and conviction, with vast popular support. Again his muzzling of his beliefs in the campaign suggests he knows his true self would be loathed and rejected by the people (whom he in turn hates so obviously).
WHY then has Obama chosen such a course? What does he gain from a circus, such huge risk, cementing forever that he is weak and an appeaser?
Answer: he must think he will GAIN far more than he will lose, and a “trial of GWB” is not it. Heck, Cheney’s blasts that Obama made us less safe (which polled well) and Scott Brown running on an explicit rejection of lawyers for terrorists … and WINNING are political signals Obama understands. Feinstein gave him an out (“circumstances have changed because of the Crotch Bomber”) and he won’t take it.
Obama could gain 5-10 points approval and the admiration of Republicans if he ordered a military tribunal for KSM right away.
THE most charitable explanation I can get is that Obama is weak, lazy, not very smart, an empty suit who does what Axelrod, Holder, his wife, and others tell him to do, and has no ambition other than to give speeches and be a celebrity. That alone among all other Presidents he has no ambition whatsoever, no drive, no desire to run things.
Fearless prediction: San Francisco, Chicago, Austin TX, Athens GA, Detroit, Oakland, and a few other places will all actually compete for the trial and the federal money and the circus. KSM and cohorts will make it a mockery, disclose all our secrets (IMHO, Obama’s real aim), and get acquitted. IMHO, this has been Obama’s aim all along (I mean, what does he gain by a “trial” of GWB? What, that the “smart set” will like Bush even less?)
I agree that President Obama may be an outlier. But strange as it may seem the way to counter an outlier is not to go off and become an outlier one’s self but to return to the center. The really hard work involved in stopping a possible extremist is to return to the context of an ordinary person, to begin from that person’s perspective and to get them to think through where they are. Once that is done the outlier more often than not destroys himself.
While political systems work it is not productive to operate outside the system. In fact you will find that extremist organizations work to destroy the center in order to have their chance. It’s quite well established now that the Communist Party, not Ferdinand Marcos, threw the hand grenades that wiped out the opposition in 1972, but Marcos probably tacitly approved. It gave him a chance to declare an emergency, which in turn gave the Communists their “revolutionary situation”.
The most telling blows against the current administration have been from ordinary people without a shred of clandestiness about them. Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Scott Brown. And the biggest issues have been breadbasket, heartfelt ones: jobs, health care, safety.
That’s not to say that politics happens by itself. But the dramatic grows from lots and lots of undramatic preparation. The legwork, the persuasion, the networking. This accumulates until something unusual happens. The current administration spends the whole day looking for magic bullets and neglecting the fundamentsl. It will be their undoing.
Here’s my fearless forecast, the further down the current administration plunges the more chancy its actions will be. It will be looking for magic when what it wants is hard work, common sense and strategic constancy. More and more the real problem may be creating a consensus to step into the policy vacuum if they melt down. The special people will find there’s an unexpected amount of silent competence among ordinary schlubs.
Right here at PJM, Ron Radosh holds forth on:
Historian Martin J. Sklar Makes the Case for Eric Holder’s Impeachment
Money quote:
IOW, Holder violated the Constitution he swore to uphold AND should The Zero not remove Holder, BHO also is in violation of his oath. How’s them apples?
whiskey (17): Seriously, dude, what are you on? If it really came down to a self-coup (which I don’t expect, not in a million years, not even Obama is that self-absorbed) those generals would die just as quickly and easily as the rest of the top echelon that supported it.
And that’s why there’s no chance of such a thing happening. Their only real power and protection is their own legitimacy. Even if I’m wrong and Obama himself doesn’t realize it, everyone else with the possible exception of Emanuel does. I’m actually with those who think such and attempt would end before it even started via the SS pulling the plug on it.
wretchard, love the picture of the trial as a pariah seeking refuge! Once again this place is worth way more than the price of admission.
Everything is unthinkable until it is done. It was unthinkable that a hard-left Radical like Obama would win the Democratic Nomination, much less the Presidency. Yet he won. It was unthinkable after Brown’s victory that Obama would use the “nuclear option” to push ObamaCare, yet he apparently plans to do so according to Hot Air.
I don’t think the attempt for a self-coup would be successful, long term. Yes Majors, Captains, and non-Coms would eventually kill it as would ordinary people. But Obama id not a normal President.
Jay Leno made the first anti-Obama jokes in late night. They were mild, but they were there. Mixed with anti-Bush jokes, but nevertheless a tipping point.
I agree that the normal systems of politics work in the main to constrain outliers, but that only works when the outlier is constrained by institutions that WORK and retain legitimacy. Note that the Black Swans above had no real constraints by the political and military class because of chaos. GWB has meant the loss of legitimacy by the “normal people” and those who hold traditional values of patriotism and so on. The media, politician-generals, and so on will back any extreme, hail-Mary play Obama makes. This is particularly true if there is indeed a genuine crisis (thousands/millions dead, in a 9/11-re-run). Which given AQ and Jihadis, is a certainty sooner rather than later.
I mean, who are the first and last lines of defense? Cops responding to shooters and Dutch film makers.
One can even grant whiskey that Obama is an outlier beyond anything we’ve ever seen in American politics, but it still doesn’t mean he’s transformed everyone else around him into being equally outliers. Even the rightly-reviled Gen. Casey would start rapidly backing away from his “diversity” nonsense if the wind shifted; how do you think he got to “favoring” it in the first place?
How can Obama order the Dept of Justice to move the KSM show trial out of NYC? He said it was the AG’s decision when it was first announced and he was not involved, voting “present” once again.
On board Air Force One today en route to Tampa, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton signaled the administration has no intention of changing plans. From the print pooler on board:
The White House has not changed its view on the decision to prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City, despite new criticism from Mayor Bloomberg and others in Manhattan.
“Let me start by saying that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is a murderous thug who has admitted to some of the most heinous crimes ever committed against our country,” Mr. Burton said. “The president is committed to seeing that he’s brought to justice. He agrees with the attorney general’s opinion in November that he and others can be litigated successfully and securing in the United States of America, just like others have – like Richard Reid. Currently our federal jails hold hundreds of convicted terrorists and the president’s opinion has not changed on that.”
Change of venue. Naturally KSM couldn’t get a “fair” trial in NYC, nor anywhere else in American civilian court, because the jury pool across the US is tainted – predisposed to convict; ie, everyone knows he’s guilty since he’s admitted as much.
Next stop Dearborn, MI where the defense team (Holder’s partners) can easily find a jury of KSM’s peers, and acquit.
And all under the guise of redevelopment and bringing aid to a blighted community. At least during the trial, the US public will get to know what terms like taqqia, hudna, jizza, etc. mean to Muslims, including all those living here.
On 1/19, the day of the MA spcl election, Scott Brown’s chief strategist said that national security and treatment of enemy combatants was the top issue among voters, and it outweighed health-care. The issue’s importance showed up in their internal polls. Brown focused on this during the last week of the campaign and pushed for military tribunals. This NRO post contains the quote (in the 8th paragraph.)
http://www.nationalreview.com/baystate/post/?q=MDViN2I0NzY5NTc4MzEwYjUxNTEyYzk5ZjUxMzk2NjQ
The blundering treatment of the crotch bomber has since likely added fuel to that fire, and the hopelessly PC “report” on Maj. Hasan even more. Americans now doubt that Obama can or will perform his most important duty.
LOTM@22,
Your condemnation of Whiskey would be more laudable, if this adminstration hadn’t already subverted the Constitution in inumerable ways. And seemingly gotten away with it. With more subversion to come, whenever they can, by whatever means. Promised. With Congressional and Judicial sanction, so far. And now with overt corruption accepted, collusion with every union, an army of unemployed unskilled volunteers, millions of illegals who’ll do anything to stay, plus all the money they can print. And with the Law on their side.
Intel’s co-founder Andrew Grove said (ca. 1978?) only the paranoid survive. At the time, he was partnered was Gordon Moore, who had a Law named after him, and Bob Noyce of Nobel fame. Insightful folks. Was Andy just talkin’ about biz?
While I too cringe when considering the inevitable outcomes, it’s not like most all of Whiskey’s and Habu’s predictions have not unfolded elsewhere, repeatedly, in much the same way. It’s not like “1984″ and “Atlas Shrugged” and “Road to Serfdom” haven’t proven to be historical playbooks.
The Kulaks were talked into obeying the law, thereby starving themselves to extinction. And, US is a nation of laws. I know, them Ukranians weren’t armed up; but that distinction’s what makes me cringe the most. With Federal control of the National Guards, the statists are armed up, all the way to nukes; increasingly ready to surpress those spontaneous uprisings that are sure to crop up, at first.
It can’t take too much more subversion of US civil rights, to set off some of our indiginous, patriotic rightwing nutjobs. Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge actually occured – SWAT snipers through tanks under Dem control – so doesn’t it behoove one to wonder how just how far they’re willing to go under cover of the MSM? That is, without one becoming a conspiracist, but simply looking out a few months.
Geoffrey Britain@24
You said: The penalty in such a situation would be death.. Of course it is. Don’t instigators of coups plan on this? If we don’t get unconditional surrender soon, it’s certain. So, the only relevant question is whose death.
Here my confidence in refounding the Republic gets shakier and shakier. TAXATION makes US kulaks by law. The gov’t can selectively starve US into submission using class warfare justifications. Oh wait. The Left is patient and well on its way, on our dime.
“The current administration spends the whole day looking for magic bullets and neglecting the fundamentals.”
Thanks, W!!
What an excellent way to phrase it!!
This is slightly off topic but still about terrorists.
The World’s Top Terrorist blames the U.S. for Climate Change…(no not the Goreacle)
When you stop laughing, remember that almost every Muslim believes him.
Papa Ray
W #21 “In the end the trial will be like a pariah seeking lodgings. Ultimately the President may be forced to hold the trial on a military base, maybe even in a bunker. That would give it so much of the appearance of a military tribunal that the supposed PR benefits of insisting on a civilian trial would vanish vanish. With images of security patrols, dogs, electrified fences, etc it will be a PR disaster. And if KSM’s lawyers get him off on a technicality the debacle will be complete.
What was intended as a trial of GWB may wind up becoming a farce that will humiliate the current administration.”
By George I think you’ve got it.
Papa Ray
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that President Obama were looking for a pretext to establish a dictatorship. This is nothing new, for a conversion from democracy to dictatorship was accomplished by Ferdinand Marcos and Adolf Hitler, among other tyrants.
Some people would applaud such drastic measures. These would include Communists, Anarchists, Islamists and Black Panthers. Other people would overtly condemn such a decision while quietly applauding it. These would include secessionists, neo-Nazis, and Klansmen. Rival groups of totalitarians usually look at destroying the old order as a means to carve out their own dictatorships.
When free elections came to Bosnia, nationalist groups on three sides made a three party alliance to take power. They swept the elections. Then, they turned on one another. It was not uncommon for Bosnians to have voted for those who would eventually murder them. The war in Bosnia was not inevitable, but when the Communist Party lost its legitimacy, the extreme nationalists on all three sides filled the vacuum. The War of Yugoslav Succession is an obvious template for racists all over the world. They think they can use murderous frenzy to establish racist dictatorships of their own.
The most effective defense against tyranny is an informed citizenry. One of the reasons why I oppose the federal policy of racial classification in the Census is that the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia did exactly the same thing with the result of fostering greater loyalty to a “national group” than to the federation as a whole. This was a Communist version of Apartheid. There is little if any intrinsic difference between multiculturalism and apartheid. In the Census, we must exercise freedom of choice on what to call ourselves; it must be “fill in the blank”.
I am well aware of the ideological radicalism of the Obama administration; any basic understanding of art criticism will show this. I am well aware that Obama’s explicit presidential condemnation of a Supreme Court decision in a “State of the Union” address is ominous. When I say that the Obama administration must be opposed within our constitution, this comes partly because our present constitution must be defended and partly because Obama’s tacit allies among various prison gangs (including the Aryans) would seize the opportunity that chaos brings to institute their own reign of terror.
Richard Nixon resigned after congressional Republicans led by Barry Goldwater turned against him. This is an important precedent. I think there ought to be an unwritten rule that articles of impeachment should only be introduced by a member of the President’s own party. This would encourage more thoughtful discussion on whether impeachment is truly necessary. From my point of view, we needed to force President Clinton out of office, but not based upon the Lewinsky scandal. Instead, President Clinton should have been impeached and convicted for his decision to allow missile technology to be sent to China in exchange for campaign contributions from Loral. The Obama administration’s decision to drop charges against Black Panthers who disrupted a polling place in Philadelphia is an impeachable offense. However, impeachment charges against President Obama will only have moral legitimacy if a member of the Democratic Party introduces them. Can this happen? Yes. Yet, this would require statesmanship on both sides of the aisle, and such statesmanship has not often been in evidence inside the Beltway.
The greatest strength of a Republic is a loyal informed citizenry. There is a limit to the damage any of our leaders can do to our Republic when our citizens are loyal to its ideals. When citizens are ignorant, there is no limit to the damage that political leaders can do.
I tried to post the below last night, twice, separated by a period of time. Got Nada either time. I do not know if I am under some sort of interdict or if the the comments section has gone stupid again for a while. Trying again.
#11 Geoffrey Britain:
Most of the leadership</em
Actually, I think that part is true. As for ALL of the leadership, I'm pretty sure that will not happen.
The current regime [a word I use as a term of art. It comes from the concept of "regime risk" in international trade. When you are trading overseas, one of the items in your calculations is the chance that the local strongman/men will seize your assets; laws or no laws. It depends in large part on your assessment of the strength of the "Rule of Law", and that is ( or should be) based on the history of what has actually happened on the ground in living memory, not just what the lawbooks say.
When the government for all intents and purposes seized , both General Motors and Chrysler, without compensation to the real owners and creditors, in violation of generations of settled law on bankruptcies and reorganizations, when the government claimed authority over the day to day management of the companies [if the bailout law would have allowed such, it would have been legal; but there was no such statutory authority] and when they assert the right to determine compensation of executives of private companies retroactively and forever; they were/are acting as a totalitarian regime.] it acts in ways that are not congruent for the normal electoral process; when it acts in ways that openly guarantee that they will be forced out of power in any free election that occurs, then one has to conclude either that they are suicidal or that they have other plans than elections. I will leave it to others to type out a detailed list of their activities in that direction, as has been posted here before. In short, they are deliberately micturating on us and not even bothering to tell us it is raining. Instead, they are blatant about it and insisting that we do and will like it.
OK, back to the military reaction to a seizure of power by the regime. We are fortunate that our military swears its oath to the Constitution.
While the information is dated, something that happened when Clinton was at risk for impeachment may be indicative, even if not probative.
During that time, there was talk of the possibility that Clinton might use some of the emergency powers granted to the president by Congress during the Cold War to bring the process to a halt and functionally rule by decree. That talk triggered some studies.
The Naval Postgraduate School is based at Monterey, California. It is where select Naval and Marine officers go for advanced study. One of those officers, a Navy Commander if I remember correctly, did his thesis on contemporary attitudes [during the Clinton impeachment attempt] in the military compared to attitudes during the similar situation involving Nixon. His field work involved surveys of the different services on the question of what they would do in the event of such an act by Clinton. I used to have a copy of the summary of his thesis, may still have it packed away somewhere, or it may have gotten discarded.
In short, SpecOps personnel of all services, and the Navy, and the Marines in general would stand with the Constitution over the orders of the President. The Air Force would in general have stood with the President. The Army would have split. The Coast Guard was not surveyed as we were not at war and at the time they under the Department of Transportation.
The breakdown may be a bit different today, but this illustrates one aspect of what may happen. The military would not necessarily choose sides unanimously, nor would they necessarily follow the orders of the higher chain of command in either direction. Officers at O-5/O-6 level and senior NCO’s would be determinative. It would be messy, and probably bloody. In any sort of future civil conflict, it would not be field armies moving across the countryside invading hostile states as in the 1860′s.
It would be brother against brother and neighbor against neighbor, but states are not the central organizing force in our country anymore. Even so called “Blue” states are largely Blue urban areas surrounded by Red suburbs and countryside. The center of the regime’s power actually resides in a couple of dozen cities. The study of Mao and Giap may be more on point than a study of Lee or Grant. And unlike what is called either the War of the Rebellion or the War of Northern Aggression; we can be sure that this time there will be foreign attacks and interventions in the midst of it all.
Anyone with knowledge of the theory and practice of coup d’etat does not expect the public beheading scenario. That is …. tacky; and in this country would incite resistance more than terrorize the opposition. Nacht und Nebel is much more effective. Nor would there be need of any public burning of documents. A simple rendering them moot would be more in line with the situation. No need for robes and thrones, as much as ‘Teh One’ or anyone pulling his strings might want them. A modest title equivalent to “First Citizen” would suffice for now. At least until people became accustomed to being ruled.
It may be that they do not intend such. Yet, before I assume so; I would like to have someone explain why they are so consistently and deliberately committing what would be in any rational world, electoral suicide by openly violating laws, the Constitution, and our culture’s political norms. In the absence of such a rational explanation [one that does not depend heavily on "They just wouldn't do that!", or that "It has never happened before." (it has, just not here yet)], judging people and parties based on their actions seems reasonable. There are obvious, and some less obvious, lines in the sand indicating hostile regime intent that may soon be crossed. Such crossing will not go un-noted, I suspect.
Subotai Bahadur
geoffgo,
My argument here is not with whiskey‘s theory or his right to promote it. My issue is that he does not offer an argument, that is a logical series of steps based on evidence that lead you to indicate your belief in a possible future event but rather he issues declarative statements of what will happen with defiant assertions that no other position is possible. That precludes reasoned debate. Your approach to the subject is one that I have no objection to. I may not agree with the conclusions that you and whiskey appear to share but the manner in which you defend that position does not preclude this forum’s functioning.
Rush is now confirming that Chuck Schumer put the nail in the NY KSM trial and it is expected to move to DC. That will be a circus but at least the animals will be in their own stable.
subotai bahadur,
IIRC back in 1973 there were reports that the JCS were concerned that the Air Force may not act responsibly and Army units were given discreet orders to move on Andrews AF Base in the event of a crisis.
Sigh. Finally got #40 posted and forgot to close the html tag at the end of:
“Most of the leadership”
and the edit function will not let me do so. Sorry about that.
Subotai Bahadur
Whiskey,
The American officer corps is the worse coup material going, whatever number of senior grade officers have gone PC. American officers are not taught anything about other officers taking part in coups.
At best, I can see a platoon sized combat unit or possibly a company sized one being properly indoctrinated *in isolation* to do something, under some pretty extraordinary circumstances, “to secure the government.”
Nothing larger than that, and they would have no support from the rest of the military.
There is roughly a Platoon equivalent of uniformed Secret Service on the White House grounds at all times and many are ex-military.
It would take a reinforced rifle company of Ranger or Delta class operators just to do the inner perimeter on a takedown of the White House grounds, with inside assistance, assuming both surprise being obtained by the coup plotters and active resistance by the uniformed Secret Service.
American officers used to be taught to be as apolitical as possible, to the point that bumper stickers touting particular candidates were once frowned upon (a trend I notice has been reversed).
Legitimate civilian control is still stressed and the constitutional oath is sometimes taught as the basis of lawful orders.
If an officer believes they have been issued an unlawful order (the example used is always with prisoners), you are first supposed to question it, (Sir, do you really want me to shoot the prisoners?) to give your commander a chance to regain his equilibrium. Then, if the officer truly believes it is an illegal order, they are required to disobey and report it to the next senior commander. As I am sure you are aware, the burden of proof is very high.
Told to burn down a village, an American soldier has a duty to obey.
Told to shoot prisoners, rape civilian women, or shoot unresisting nonviolent unarmed civilians, an American soldier has the obligation to refuse to do so.
When Nixon was in his final days, an order was passed down the chain of command from General Al Haig (Now there was a PC general for you!) for commanders to be aware of any funny orders and to report/disobey them as necessary.
Structurally, the US has one of the hardest possible coup-situations — most military bases are far from the capital, significant political and military power in the provinces, much of the fleet and ready to go active duty ground forces are overseas, dispersed media mostly located far outside the capital, lots of weapons in private hands, and a long chain of legal succession.
If you were plotting a coup and happened to be an Army general and somehow managed to get, let’s say, a whole battalion into it, aside from the very likely problem that some of your lieutenants would mutiny and rat you out, even if you got most of the line of succession in the first hour in Washington, if the Secretary of Education was visiting her mother in Kansas City, and she took the oath under the 25th Amendment of the Constitution and the governor declared for her and called out the Missouri Guard, you’d be pretty well screwed right then and there — at least some of the army and air bases would rally to the temporary president, some of Congress that wasn’t in DC would scramble to Columbia, Kansas City, or Lawrence, and very likely the overseas Navy would declare for the temporary president.
It would actually get worse for you if you shot the legal regime; then she wouldn’t be just a temporary president and you couldn’t pull the kind of routine where you say the legitimate government is “just incapacitated for the moment” and therefore the 25th doesn’t apply.
To prevent all that you’d need several high ranking officers plus henchmen at every army and air base of any size, the equivalent in every fleet, spare commando types to grab most of the communications system, quick ability to arrest all fifty governors … not what you’d call easy.
And this leaves out organizations like the Coast Guard and Immigration and Customs Enforcement that both have national wide secure communications due to their anti-drug law enforcement responsibilities.
I do not believe anyone could manage to put something of the sort together without tipping off some opposition beforehand; the rich morons who tried to plot a coup in the 1930’s using USMC General Smedley Butler as the front guy screwed up with the fifth guy they invited (Butler) and my guess is that if they’d asked MacArthur (who they considered) instead, he’d have done much the same thing as Butler; and Butler was the first serving military officer they asked.
In any normal circumstance (and quite a few abnormal ones), a military coup against the elected government in the US would just be the start of a civil war — with most of the resources in the hands of the loyalists from the git-go — if it wasn’t busted in the first few weeks of the conspiracy, which is far more likely.
That said, the primary group that would contemplate a coup against a visibly illegitimate “President-for-life” takeover would be Special Forces.
SFers tend to be libertarian to an enormous degree. They are the only group I’ve ever heard widely use the ‘Water the tree’ phrase – AKA “The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants” — and during the Clinton administration there was a group, the size of which was never quite clear, which was actively planning what to do if Clinton stepped over certain lines. (The discussion was, in part, what those lines were.)
They’re also trained in insurgency and how to do a coup.
Their primary base is the closest base to DC that has a large military contingent (Ft Bragg).
If a successful coup came from anywhere, it would come from Special Forces at Ft. Bragg (or Quantico, now that there are USMC Force Recon types in the joint special forces command) with air cover from Langley AFB (F-22).
All of the above is well known to the Secret Service.
That is why they have a very special list that includes the name of every living American SF active duty, reserve or seperated from military service.
Re: “I think it’s safe to say that Obama is not a natural born citizen, in the sense that he is not the offspring of two U.S. citizens and born on American soil.”
The original meaning of Natural Born was simply “born in the country.” There are only two categories of citizens, Natural Born Citizens and naturalized citizens. Since Obam was born in the USA and has not been naturalized, he falls into the category of Natural Born Citizen.
Black’s Law Dictionary: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Yale Law Review: “: It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.”
And such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
#11-Talk like this (and similarly Whiskey, et al) leads me to thoughts of the fate of Julius Caesar. Perhaps not quite so bloody, but just as effective.
Subotai Bahadur,
There are also racial aspects for an Obama “President-for-Life take over” that your “Navy Commander” did not survey for Clinton.
The Military Times asked 4300 of its readers whom they supported in Oct 2008.
John McCain lead Obama 68/23.
Admittedly this survey was of a very conservative universe because the American military was 63/37 white in 2008 and had 72% officers being white males, yet it would play a major factor in any “President-for-Life Soft Coup.”
See below for the demographics:
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/HR/docs/demographics/FY08%20Army%20Profile.pdf
Given that white officers tend to go the combat arms tract, there are certain implications that cannot be avoided.
Here is a question for anyone that knows:
An oft-used argument against the military tribunals is that they have yet to convict even one person.
Why is that?
Was it the delay in setting them up as Congress argued over how it would be done?
Is it because they have had to contend with endless motions and injunctions and amicus briefs?
Anyone know?
If the Democrats and the ACLU have been trying their level best to prevent military tribunals then their success in doing that is hardly a reasonable measure of the tribunal process itself. That’s like a cop stopping you in the street for an hour and then giving you a parking ticket for blocking the road for that time period. However, I would not put them past that taking that approach and then using that argument.
#43 Mil-tech Bard:
You quite accurately and correctly lay out some of the aspects of the difficulties of of the mechanics involved in any coup attempt. I would just quibble with a couple of points to point out that it would be somewhat messier.
1) There is a science to a coup d’ etat. A large part of it involves using the normal chain of command to give what appear to be legitimate orders to units that could be part of the resistance to an overthrow to put them out of position to react, confuse them as to what is going on, or to have loyalist units oppose each other. In the specific case under consideration, the seizure of power by incumbents, the opportunity to exercise that option would be maximized. It is more likely that any forces entering the White House grounds would be doing so under the mistaken impression that they were defending against a coup by the forces that were in reality defending the Constitution. Maskirova, Dezhinformatziya, and control of information for the first 24-72 hours will be key to the plotters.
Traditionally in a coup, the national media is placed under the control of the plotters; usually in small countries this involves the national TV and radio broadcast facilities. To be honest, with the exception of FOX and a very few broadcasters and news sources; the national media can be assumed by their ideology to be willing and eager to support such a coup. We have the last few years as data points to that effect. They have no respect for the law or the Constitution if they interfere with their preferred political desires. They have made enough of a choice as to make it wise to assume that they stand with the regime.
Similarly, in any coup; control of means of private communications for the critical period is vital for the plotters. Expect cell phone, landlines, and the internet to go down under one pretext or another. This will hamper the development of any resistance, but to a prepared population the loss of access to non-government controlled news and communications will signal the crisis. Those would be some of those lines in the sand I mentioned above. I will leave to others to make their own lists of lines.
2) While the military, outside the upper levels who are politicized, will largely stand with the Constitution; the same cannot be said for the mechanisms of civilian government. I admit to being a cynical bugger. However, your positing a low level cabinet member standing up for the Constitution over the seizure of power does not ring true to me. The entire political side of this administration, and most of the bureaucracy, have demonstrated that the Oath means less than nothing to them. I would assume that they and their political machinery would at the very least be eager and willing <ex post facto collaborators. I think that the political resistance to a seizure of power will be based at the state level, and it will be a messy and possibly unsuccessful effort to get organized.
It will not happen, if only because most governors would by their nature be collaborators; but I would like to have conservative governors meeting privately for discussions of what to do in case of national emergencies. Purely theoretical, of course.
You mention the Coast Guard and ICE. While I have no information on the Coast Guard in this respect; I have heard some disturbing rumors about ICE which I have not been able to confirm or deny. Due to lack of ability to do so, I will not repeat them; but I would not make any automatic assumptions either way as to which side they would take. Similarly for BATF and the US Marshal’s Service. The existence of 50 pre-positioned strike forces available to plotters cannot be dismissed as a possibility; nor can the possibility of having collaborators already in place in state capitols which will reduce the number of pre-positioned units required. Those pre-positioned units may not know the real reason that they are acting, just that they have orders. Once they are carried out, any qualms they might have would be irrelevant because they will already have fulfilled their part of the plotters plan.
I would also note that the register of SF types is not only Army Special Forces. It includes Special Operations personnel from all services. If they start going dark in person or in communications [voluntarily or otherwise], it would indicate lines are being crossed somewhere.
I would offer as further data as to the mechanisms of a coup the book
Coup d’Etat: A Practical Handbook
by Edward N. Luttwak
* ISBN-13: 9780674175471
* ISBN: 0674175476
I have no financial interest in this. Dr. Luttwak is a political scientist and historian of international note, and this was the first political science study of the process since the early 1800′s.
We agree as to the institutional difficulties for a seizure of power by the regime. However the data for the last year would indicate that either they are far more tone deaf and reality deprived than could be expected for someone smart enough to note the institutional difficulties of such an attempt; or they are far more Machiavellian and possibly believe that they can overcome those difficulties.
I agree that an attempt will likely lead to Civil War, and the attendant horrors [which most people refuse to conceive]. It is not something I welcome, but it is preferable to tame submission to the loss of the Constitution.
Further, that our internal struggles, with or without an attempt at a seizure of power by the incumbents; will be punctuated by external attacks on our country and on its foreign interests.
I am probably more pessimistic and cynical than you. I see an almost certain resistance, with a likelihood of eventual success; but I see more difficulties in getting through the process and I don’t believe that the end product is guaranteed to be the return to a Constitutional status quo ante bellum. That tree may be overtaken by weeds.
Subotai Bahadur
Subotai Bahadur:
The ideological split within the United States within the last ten years tends to mirror the split within Spain during the 1930’s. The rural areas generally supported the Right, while the urban areas generally supported the Left. Political ideology usually split along professional lines. For example, miners tended to be Anarcho-Syndicalist while taxi drivers tended to be National Syndicalist.
I think one of the reasons why the United States has replicated the ideological splits of Spain in the 1930’s (and Europe generally) is because academics such as Noam Chomsky have attempted to import the Spanish Civil War into the United States. They have unfortunately become far too successful.
This is sad, not only for my country, but also ideologically for me. There are actually aspects of syndicalism I like, yet I think that neither war nor revolution can be the best means to achieve any syndicalist dream. Perhaps ironically, I regard a free market society as the best place for cooperatives to flourish. I think socialists have squandered far too much energy upon seeking to overthrow governments, control governments, or destroy governments when they should have been ignoring governments altogether.
I don’t think it is a mere coincidence that the Mondragon cooperative system emerged in the Spain of Franco. (This is a rare circumstance of clerical syndicalism.) Wherever the Left got into power and promoted ostensible worker ownership of industry, it has turned into a joke. Algeria and Yugoslavia are excellent examples of how ruling political party controlled these industries. Moreover, the traditional socialist emphasis on class struggle led to labor racketeering, whether by the Communists, the Nazis, or the Mafia.
I haven’t changed from being a leftist, although most people from the modern Left would regard me as a neo-conservative. I differ from much of the modern Left because
1. A system of worker owned cooperatives can only develop in a free society.
2. The state is necessary to protect a free society from tyranny.
3. A network of cooperatives cannot develop with any help from the state. Otherwise, the cooperatives merely become puppets of the state.
4. Islamists, as true feudalists who seek to enforce a regime of oriental despotism onto humanity, are a true danger to any hope for democratic ownership of industry
These views paint me in modern times as a “conservative” because I would favor a strong defense, laissez faire economics, and keeping the size of government in check.
#47:
First of all, what is the value of “convict”, that you are using?
During a war, enemy combatants are detained to keep them from continuing to commit acts of war against you. When the war’s over, you work out the details to ship them home, or where ever.
Under the Geneva Conventions, lawful combatants are not to be tried, period, during hostilities. Afterwords, war crimes trials may be held of those charged with war crimes. Unlawful combatants get no protections whatsoever.
The only legitimate function of military tribunals right now is to determine which ones of our detainees are lawful combatants and which ones are unlawful combatants. And which ones got sucked up by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
“Convict” in the legal sense, doesn’t even apply.
Wasn’t it some President on Mount Rushmore that suspended major parts of the Constitution including Habeaus Corpus, the First Amendment, elections (in some parts) and a few other things? What was his name?
Oh yeah. Lincoln. He even threw a few duly elected Congressmen in jail.
Wilson also suspended before WWI, free speech (anti-War protestors were jailed) and association (the Palmer raids jailing any “subversives”).
So, in fact, it ALREADY HAS HAPPENED HERE.
In times of crisis the nation tends to give Presidents broad lee-way, and recall that Lincoln faced at home, terrible abuse, including the sort of monkey-imagery that GWB faced. Wilson too faced huge opposition to many of his policies. FDR threatened to pack the US Supreme court, and got them to back down.
Obama is not acting within norms of 20th Century Presidents who when faced by large opposition to core policies, horse-trade on peripheral objectives/policies, and use the Executive to “make things happen” i.e. drive events in their favor by using treaty-making, or summitry, or military victories, or executive orders to break strikes or nationalize key industries in times of crisis.
Obama is not acting like: FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, at similar low points in their presidencies: horse trading, and executive action to make events break in their favor. By my count that is seventy plus years of Presidential action.
Obama is strangely passive — he just sort of sits there, lets others direct action, and then has bursts of energy, but all directed at talking and speeches not the massive powers of the Presidential authority.
He’s either manic-depressive, and incapable of really being more than Warren G. Harding without the Airedale, or an empty suit, or has some belief that events or “plan” will have things break his way: some treaty, some foreign event, some secret improvement in the economy, some secret electoral fraud (Nixon), or what have you.
Here is KSM’s trial. It is clearly subordinate to Obama’s main objective which is redistribution of wealth from Middle Class Whites to Blacks and Hispanics. Why is Obama simply not “let’s make a deal” with Republicans to get cover for ObamaCare? Why in fact did he not simply toss aside non-core policies relating to National Security and defense? “I’ll give you F-22 raptors for ObamaCare?” Instead he CUT the F-22′s.
My larger fear relates to the one institution that is respected in the US (mostly, outside the Gentry Liberals), which is the US Military, because it works. IF Obama plans the auto-coup, it would of course collapse within itself, but it would wreck the military and the regard America has for it.
Currently, the following institutions have collapsed in Legitimacy: The Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Media, Gentry Liberals (Tom Friedman, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, etc.), the legal profession, lawyers, and judges. The process of elections, which are now routinely fought in court with blatant vote-rigging (Gregoire vs. Whitman in WA for example, Al Franken, etc.)
It would not take much to wreck the military.
I’ll note in passing that Obama launched his career at the home of Bill Ayers, who wanted internment camps for the middle class. So this sort of talk is nothing new to him. The “good luck” of the United States has mostly rested on the deep ties and constraints that led even the most powerful to draw lines. Even Lincoln and Wilson, who took on near-dictator powers: suspension of the First and Fifth Amendments, habeus corpus (i.e. indefinite detention on no charge in particular), right to free assembly and association, and suspended elections.
This is because both Lincoln and Wilson did not view themselves as gods among men, post-Christian redeemers there to redeem America from its original sin, on a mission by providence, to punish the Majority population for its many sins not the least of which is “White Man’s greed creates a world in need.” They took the power up, and put it down again. Willingly. Because despite their flaws they saw themselves as American patriots rather than foreign rulers.
I just don’t think anyone here understands how foreign (and therefore how dangerous) Obama is. Because he draws no lines, seeing himself as the reverse “Dances With Wolves” figure.
#49 Alexis:
I admit that you have me at a disadvantage. I am woefully uninformed on the internal details of the Spanish Civil War; but I find the concept of our fault lines matching theirs to be interesting. Now I have to take a look at that. Thank you.
As far as you being a Leftist, you have me at a disadvantage again. I had thought from what I had read that you were somewhere in the middle of the spectrum politically. We seem to want similar things albeit perhaps we have different ends in mind. It is interesting to know that someone can be of the Left and not a mortal enemy 8), and even be an ally.
Subotai Bahadur
oops–wrong thread
LarryD #50
I was only quoting those who think that the military tribunals are improper. That is their criticism, or measure of success, not mine. I have no idea what convicting someone caught in a war means, unless it is for specific war crimes.
It is true that the military has reviewed many if not the majority of people sent to Gitmo and in many cases concluded they had captured the Fuller Brush Man making his rounds or something of that sort and not an real combatant and let them go. In a fairly high percentage of cases that proved to be a mistake. But I am not sure you need a formal tribunal to do even that much.
And if the legal versus illegal combatant status of the people in Gitmo were the issue we would not have Gitmo. They are either the innocent Fuller Brush Man scooped up in a military dragnet or are illegal combatants, period. The issue is what to do with those that are not innocent.
In my opinion the NYC trials were meant for the legal industry to assert, publicly and with great publicity, that its approach to fighting the war was superior to that of the knuckle dragging military. 9/11/01 was a horrible shock to those who had come to believe that the nasty dirty business of fighting and killing and rescuing and digging bodies out of rubble was in the past and all could be handled by proper courtroom procedure and nobody’s hair had to get mussed. People started looking up to those who got their hands dirty. And the Legal Industry wanted that implicit belittlement of their profession stopped.
Anyway, I resubmit my question to anyone who can actually answer it. Have the military tribunals failed to do their job and if so why?
By the way, according to Fox News, as the plan for the trials in NYC falls apart, the possibility of going back to military tribunals is back on the table.
Whiskey: The process of elections, which are now routinely fought in court with blatant vote-rigging (Gregoire vs. Whitman in WA for example, Al Franken, etc.)
For the sake of accuracy, it was Gregoire vs. Rossi in 2004 and 2008. And if we can get Rossi to throw his hat in the ring, he’s already polling ahead of Patty Murray. It’s the Scott Brown effect.
PoBama and gang of pirates leading the legislature are busy hacking at the trunk of the tree before it can be watered.
Well, eventually, trees can grow back from a stump, if the roots haven’t been poisoned.
I agree that Obama’s moves are conundrums. The risk/reward ratio is so obvious that it invites wild (?) speculation. But arrogance can stifle prudence; maybe it’s no more complicated than that. I puzzle over it daily.
LOTM, if I may: “lex solis” means “law of the sun.” The phase you want is “lex soli,” “law of the soil.”
KareninPA,
True I think, more cold finger typo than cold brain. Thank you.
Although under reflection I thought the point was they were born under the sun of the native land, more poetic than just on her soil. The alternative being the law of blood. So I correct my correction and suspect that I meant as I said but either way we all understand the subject under discussion.
@57 KareninPA
“…Obama’s moves are conundrums. The risk/reward ratio is so obvious that it invites wild (?) speculation. But arrogance can stifle prudence; maybe it’s no more complicated than that. I puzzle over it daily.”
Amen to that. Most often I think he is simply drunk on expedience, reacting to what’s in front of him without regard to consequences, either long or short term. We analyze his every move in terms that I suspect never occur to him. That’s the best I can make out. The only thing I’m certain of is his desire for acclaim.
Subotai, Alexis-
I have always thought of myself as a leftist of the anarcho-syndicalist variety, even though in recent years that has often seemed an intellectual conceit with no relation to contemporary reality. Certainly I’ve no sense of camaraderie with the goose-stepping legions of anti-globalists that call themselves anarchists today. But I’ve always been drawn to the idea of cooperative enterprise and despite its modern corruptions anarchism has always seemed to me the most idealistic political movement and the one most dedicated to individual liberty – of course I recognize the paradox that such a state of affairs is impossible without the security of a stable nation state and I believe the USA has come closest to achieving that ideal. Anyway thank you Alexis, as always, for providing the historical dimension